Aashto Roadside Design Guide

December 2004
Dear Customer:
Recently, we were made aware of some technical revisions that need to be applied to the
Roadside Design Guide, 31d Edition.
Please replace the existing text with the following pages to ensure that your edition is both
accurate and current.
Technical Corrections, August 2001-February 2003

Table 3.1 [U.S. Customary Units]: For Foreslopes 1V:6H or Flatter and Design Speeds
of 45-50 mph, change the clear-zone distances under the Design ADT of 750-1500
from 12-14 to 14-16 and under an ADT over 6000 from 18-20 to 20-22.
Chapter 5, Figure 5.24: Move the dimension arrows for Y, the vertical dimension from
the End of Barrier Need to the Edge of Pavement, directly below the right-hand
dimension line for X, the End of Barrier.
Appendix B, Figure B.la: Change the soil plate dimension lines for 600 mm in SGROla
to be identical to those in SGROlb.
Appendix C, Figure C. la: Change the top cable height from 970 mm to 770 mm and the
depth below ground from 840 mm to 910 mm.
Appendix C, Figure C.lb: Change the top cable height from O inches to 30 inches and
the depth below ground from 33% inches to 36% inches.
Appendix D: In the first full paragraph of the right-hand column on page D-2, change
the sentence to read ?Where a mailbox is located at a driveway entrance, it shall be
placed on the far side of the driveway in the carrier?s direction of travel.?
.
Revisions, March 2004
Chapter 5, Figure 5.32: Change the figure caption to read ?Example of Barrier Design
. for Fixed Object on Horizontal Curve.?

Chapter 8, Table 8.4: Extend the dimension arrows for F, the minimum width for the
end of rail or equivalent fixed object, in the accompanying illustration to the lines
parallel to the rail end.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 10/12/2005 12:15:02 MDT
Revision, December 2004
Chapter 8, Figure 8.1: Change the dimension lines to illustrate the lateral offset from the
back of the terminal to the grading PI and from the back of the guardrail posts to the
grading PI.
AASHTO staff sincerely apologizes for any inconvenience.

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Roadside Desian Guide
TABLE 3.1 (Contd)
TuS. Customary Units]

IRESLOPE
DESIGN DESIGN
1V:6H 1V:5H TO 1V:3H 1V:3H 1V:5H TO 1V:6H
SPEED ADT
or flatter 1V:4H 1V:4H or flatter
40 mph **
+
UNDER 750 7- 10 7- 10 7- 10 7- 10 7- 10
or 750 1500
- 10- 12 12 - 14 ** 10 - 12 10- 12 10 - 12
less 1500 6000
- 12 - 14 14- 16 ** 12 - 14 12- 14 12 - 14
OVER 6000 14 - 16 16 - 18 ** 14- 16 14- 16 14- 16
45-50 UNDER750 10- 12 12 - 14 ** 8- 10 8-10 10 - 12
mPh 750 1500
- 14- 16 16 - 20 ** 10 - 12 12- 14 14- 16
1500 6000
- 16 - 18 20 - 26 ** 12 - 14 14- 16 16 - 18
OVER 6000 20 - 22 24 - 28 ** 14- 16 18 20
- 20 - 22
55 mph UNDER 750 12- 14 14- 18 ** 10 - 12 10 - 12
750 1500
- 16- 18 20 24-
** 10 12- 14- 16 16 - 18
1500 6000
- 20 - 22 24 30-
** 14- 16 16- 18 20 - 22
OVER 6000 22 - 24 26-32* ** 16 18- 20 - 22 22 - 24
60 mph UNDER 750 16- 18 20 24-
** 10 - 12 12- 14 14- 16
750 1500
- 20 24
- 26-32* ** 12 - 14 16- 18 20 - 22
1500 6000
- 26 30
- 32-40* ** 14- 18 18 - 22 24 - 26
OVER 6000 30-32* 36-44* ** 20 - 22 24 - 26 26 - 28
65-70 20 26-
** 10 - 12 14- 16 14- 16
mPh 28-36* ** 12 - 16 18 - 20 20 - 22
34-42* ** 16 - 20 22 - 24 26 - 28
**
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
38-46* 22 - 24 26 - 30 28 - 30
* Where a site specific investigation indicates a high probability of continuing crashes, or such occurrences are indicated by crash
history, the designer may provide clear-zone distances greater than the clear-zone shown in Table 3 1 Clear zones may be limited to
30 ft for practicality and to provide a consistent roadway template if previous experience with similar projects or designs indicates
satisfactory performance
** Since recovery is less likely on the unshielded, traversable 1V 3H slopes, fxed objects should not be present in the vicinity of the toe
of these slopes Recovery of high-speed vehicles that encroach beyond the edge of the shoulder may be expected to occur beyond the
toe of slope Determination of the width of the recovery area at the toe of slope should take into consideration right-of-way
availability, environmental concerns, econonnc factors, safety needs, and crash histories Also, the distance between the edge of the
through traveled lane and the beginning of the 1V 3H slope should influence the recovery area provided at the toe of slope While the
application may be limited by several factors, the foreslope parameters which may enter into deternnmng a maximum desirable
recovery area are illustrated in Figure 3 2
3-6
TABLE 5-7 Suggested fiare rates for barrier design
Design Speed Flare Rate for Barrier inside Flare Rate for Barrier beyond
Shy Line Shy Line
km/h bPh1 * **
110 i701 30:l 20:l 15:l
1O0 i601 26:l 18:l 14:l
90 i551 24: 1 16:l 12:l
80 i501 21:l 14:l 11:l
70 i451 18:l 12:l 1O:l
60 i401 16:l 1O:l 8:l
50 i301 13:l 8: 1 7:l
*Suggested maximum flare rate for rigid barrier system
**Suggested maximum flare rate for semi-rigid barrier system
a ilst approach to the hmier &onithe &raveledway. This is tent of the Area of Concern, LA'and the Lateral Extent of
often the case on existirig facilitics having relatively steep the Wuiaout T,ciagtIi. LF Roth of these factors nirast bc
eilnbsdaent slopes. It sho~ildalso be noted that a flatter clearly understood by the desigper to be used properly in
Bare rate i s suggested when abarrier iwustix located aIitlUn the dcsign process.
the shy line offset distance. The Lateral Extent of the Area of Concern, L,, is the
distance from the edge ofthc traveled way to the far side
of the f-xed object or to the outside edge of the clear zone,
LC,of aia enibmknicnt or a &ed object that extends be-
yond h e clesr zone. Selection of an appropriste L,dis-
Figure 5.24 illustrates the variables that must l x consid- tance is a critical pait of thc design process and i s illia+
ered in designing a; rozadside barrier to shield m ohsimc- txated in the exzaniples at the end ofthis section.
tion effectively. The primary variahles are the X,ateral Ex-
CLEAR DISTANCE LINE 7
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-32
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Note: All dimensians shown are in rniliimeiers unless oihenkise noted
Remarks: Fw sballorv mgle impacts, barrier damage i, usually limited to several PCPSEB,-ct,hichnaintbe rcplaccd. Cable
dbmageis Taxe e~ceptin severe crashes. A crashworthy end terminal is critical in each ofthe cable systems, both
to pr~videadequate anch~rageto develop fall tcnsilc ~trciagthin the cabk and to miiairnize vehicle dccelera-
Pions for impacts on either end ofan insPall3Pion.

i- 90-
t
770 mm
+
120 mm
120 mm
I
1770 mm
I
600 mm
910 mm I
t
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Remarks: Because of the high d y ~ a m i ccieflection for cable systems, they are not recornended for use zn niedians
narrower than approximately 7 m. The extciasivc damage dorie dtaring naoderate to severe insparts leaves a
significani length of b m k r inoperative until repairs csn be made. Cable medim bamer systems are recom-
nieiided for use on irregalar terrain and on wider mediaias where the meed is oialy to prevent iiafrequcnt,
potentially catastrophic cross-median crashes. 1or proper perfomances it is essential h a t this system be
installed md iwaintaiiied at the cor~ectmounting height. This system i s sinsilar to the 3-strand cable roadsidc
barrier. except that one of the cables is mounted on the opposite side ofthe post from the other tsvo. See Pigrire
R.I for additional K C ~ & G .

<
I t
4%'
30" I
70"
I
24"
36%"
I
Remarks: Because of the high dynamic deflection for cahle systems, they are not recomiended for tise in niedians
itarrcwer ihm approximaiely23 feet, tior in niedians wbich coaitaiti rigid objeclr, The extensive clmage done
during moderate to severe hipacts leaves a significant len$h o f b a n k inoperative mtil repairs can be made.
Cable median baaner spieans are recornrneticled for use oti irreguiar ierraixt arid ou wider niedians tvliere the
weed is only to prevent inii-squent, potentially catastrophic cross-niedian craslres. Por proper performances it
ir esseai ia1 i l i d t h i s sysieni. be iristallecl arid niaiittaiaied al the correct rnoariting lieiglit. T'riis system is similar
to the 3-strand cable roadside barrier, except that one ofthe cables is mounted on the opposite side ofthe post
from the other t \ ; ~ oSee , Figure B, 'I for additicmal remarks.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I .O SCOPE the Agency deems it in the public interest to permit lesser

clearances or to require greater clearances. On curbed
No mailbox or newspaper delivery box, hereinafter referred streets, the roadside face of the mailbox shall be set back
to as mailbox, will be allowed to exist on the Agencys from the face of the curb a distance between 150 mm and
rights-of-way if it interferes with the safety of the travel- 300 mm [6 in. and 12 in.]. On residential streets without
ing public or the function, maintenance, or operation of curbs or all-weather shoulders that carry low traffic vol-
the highway system. A mailbox installation not conform- umes operating at low speeds, the roadside face of the
ing to the provisions of this regulation is an unauthorized mailbox shall be offset between 200 mm and 300 mm [8 in.
encroachment under State Code Section and 12 in.] behind the edge of the pavement. On very low-
The location and construction of mailboxes shall con- volume rural roads with low operating speeds, the Agency
form to the rules and regulations of the U. S. Postal Service may find it acceptable to offset mailboxes a minimum of
as well as to standards established by the Agency. Agency 2 m [6 ft] from the traveled way and under some low-vol-
standards for the location and construction of mailboxes Ume, low-speed conditions may accept clearances as low
are available from: as 800 mm [32 in.].
Where a mailbox is located at a driveway entrance, it
Highway Agency shall be placed on the far side of the driveway in the
Street Address or P.O. Box carriers direction of travel.
City, State Zip Code Where a mailbox is located at an intersecting road, it
Telephone number shall be located a minimum of 30 m [lo0 ft] beyond the
center of the intersection road in the carriers direction of
A mailbox installation that conforms to the following travel. This distance shall be increased to 60 m [200 ft]
criteria will be considered acceptable unless, in the judg- when the average daily traffic on the intersection road
ment of the Chief Engineer of the Agency, the installation exceeds 400 vehicles per day.
interferes with the safety of the traveling public or the Where a mailbox is installed in the vicinity of an exist-
function, maintenance, or operation of the highway sys- ing guardrail, it should, wherever practical, be placed be-
tem. hind the guardrail.
2.0 LOCATION 3.0 STRUCTURE
No mailbox will be permitted where access is obtained Mailboxes shall be of light sheet metal or plastic construc-
from a freeway or where access is otherwise prohibited by tion conforming to the requirements of the U.S. Postal
law or regulation. Service. Newspaper delivery boxes shall be of light metal
Mailboxes shall be located on the right-hand side of or plastic construction of minimum dimensions suitable
the roadway in the carriers directionof travel route except for holding a newspaper.
on one-way streets where they may be placed on the left- No more than two mailboxes may be mounted on a
hand side. The bottom of the box shall be set at an eleva- support structure unless crash tests have shown the sup-
tion established by the U.S. Postal Service, usually be- port structure and mailbox arrangement to be safe. How-
tween l .O m [39 in.] and l .2 m [48 in.] above the roadway ever, lightweight newspaper boxes may be mounted be-
surface. The roadside face of the box shall be offset from low the mailbox on the side of the mailbox support.
the edge of the traveled way a distance no less than the Mailbox supports shall not be set in concrete unless
greater of the following: crash tests have shown the support design to be safe.
A single 100 mmx 100 mm [4 in. x 4 in.] square or 100
2.4 m [8 ft] (where no paved shoulder exists and mm [4 in.] diameter wooden post; or metal post, Schedule
shoulder cross slope is 13 percent or flatter), or 40,50 mm [2 in.] (nominal size PS)(externaldiameter 60 mm
[2 3/8 in.]) (wall thickness4 mm [O. 154 in.] or smaller), em-
the width of the all-weathershoulder present plus bedded no more than 600 mm [24 in.] into the ground, shall
200 mm to 300 mm [8 in. to 12 in.], or be acceptable as amailbox support. A metal post shall not
be fitted with an anchor plate, but it may have an anti-twist
the width of an all-weather turnout specified by device that extends no more than 250 mm [ 10 in.] below
the Agency plus 200 mm to 300 mm [8 in. to the ground surface.
12 in.]. The post-to-box attachment details should be of suffi-
cient strength to prevent the box from separating from the
Exceptions to the placement criteria above will exist on post top if the installation is struck by a vehicle. The exact
residential streets and certain designated rural roads where support hardware dimensions and design may vary, such
D-2
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not to Scale
Select: C:iearZ,onel&.= 5.0---5.5III [16---18fi] ('lableS.1)

( 5 3 19 Cl8 ti] chitsenby designer)
Adj iistment Fxtor for cunature = 1.4 (Table 3 2)
A-jastedclearzoiie=(B.Jj (1,4)=7.7m or(i8) (1~4]=2Bfi
cabie {see discussion below)
Flare rate: not appiicahle
Discaissirrnai Tlie lerig!h of need fo~hmilafor a traffic bxrier is applicable to stmight highway aligrmierrt orriy. A vehicle
leaving the road on the ourside of a carve will geiieially follow a rangenrial ixiiiout pat19 ifthe area ourside rhe roaclway is
i k t and traversable. Ti~is,mtlrer thai usiiig the theoretical I,,? distance to determine a barrier lengtli of need, a lirie from the
ourside edge ofthe obstacle (or f i s n i the outside edge of the clear zone if a continiious mon-traversable terrain featiire,
sucli as the stream bed sliov;ri iri Fig~ue5.32, is beiiig shielded) to apoint tangent to the curve should be used to deterniirie
the appropriate leiigtii ofbarrier iieeclecl. iftlsis clistaisce, nieasurecl along the roadway?is shorter than I,,, it shonld be used
to detennine tlie appropriate length of barrier to ins~afi. r\ is shorter?as niiglit be the case oii a flu cume, tire
should be used to cleterinine the approp . The barrier length t19ei9 becoines a fimctjon of tii
b&,d
is io... .a from the edge o f the hiving lane and cui ed grapliicaily by scaling. A fhre m e is not
.~:eiserally
. used along a horizontal curve.

TABLE 8,4 Reserve areas for gores
Crash Cushion reserve area'
1I r
... ..r. I ........
Traffic - W
* No curbs, raised pavement, or

prows to be built or to remain
in the area surrounding or
occupied by be crash cushion
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Dimensions for Crash Cushion, Reserve Area (meters)

Design Speed Minimum
on Main line Preferred
(km/h) Restricted Conditions Unrestricted Conditions
N L F N L F N L F
50 2 2.5 0.5 2.5 3.5 1 3.5 5 1.5
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
110 2 8.5 0.5 2.5 13.5 1 3.5 17 1.5

130 2 11 0.5 2.5 17 1 3.5 21 1.5
Dimensions for Crash Cushion, Reserve Area [feet]

Design Speed Minimum
on Main line Preferred
Restricted Conditions Unrestricted Conditions
bPh1
N I L I F N L F N I L I F
I I
30 6 8 2 8 11 3 12 17 4
50 6 17 2 8 25 3 12 33 4
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
80 6 35 2 8 55 3 12 70 4
iii maiiy cases, play ai importait role in &e seleaion pro- shoiiid ducLunent this irrfoiinatioii so it is availabie to the
Pert iiieiit ni aime ii an ce ch ararreiist ics of each crash desigmer.
on are siinmraiized in 'I'abie 8.5. This information is Maiiitenamx characteristics can conveniently he cat-
based primarily on siib.jerritie evaluations. Where avail- lar (or routine) nsainteisaisce, crash inain-
able, iiidividual ageiicy maintenamx records sho~tldbe terial storage requireinents. Each of tirese
iised to establish c o m acsocjared wXI the types of crash categories is discussed i n the foiiowiiig paragraphs.
cushions iii acuai use. Although tlie inibmration in 'Table is described irr this chapter require rela-
lar or roiitine niaimrenance. However, it is
nance ciiaracteristics of candidate systems, there is iio important tirat periodc mairitenance checks are perfomied
siibcrimte for k.nowiiig the actiial inaiiitenance require- aiid recorded to ensure that each installed unit reinaiiis
inents uid costs for in-seiyice installations. Each agency . If a crash cushion is iocated in ai1 area

8-35
EDGE OF TRAVELED WAY
TRAFFIC - I
FlGURE &"IGrading for flared guardrail end treatment
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not 13 Scslr
F E U R E 8.2 Grading for non-fiar& guardraii end fraatmanf

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 624-5800 (tel)
(202) 624-5806 (fax)
www.transportation.org
Copyright O 2002 by the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials. All Rights Reserved.
Printed in the United States ot America. This book, or parts
thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written
permission of the publishers.
ISBN: 1-56051-132-X
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Executive Committee 2001-2002
VOTINGMEMBERS
President: Brad Mallory, Pennsylvania
Vice President: James Codell, Kentucky
Secretary-Treasurer: Lamy King, Pennsylvania
REGION I Joseph Boardman, New York, One-YearTerm

James Weinstein, New Jersey, Two-Year Term
REGION II: Bruce Saltsman,Tennessee, One-Year Term

Fred Van Kirk, West Virginia, Two-Year Term
REGION Ili: Kirk Brown, Illinois, One-Year Term

Henry Hungerbeeler, Missouri, Two-Year Term
REGION IV Joseph Perkins, Alaska, One-YearTerm

Tom Stephens,Nevada, Two-Year Term
NON-VCYI'INGMEMBERS
Immediate Past President: E. Dean Carlson, Kansas
Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
i
Highway Subcommittee on Design 2001
Chairman: Kam K.Movassaghi, Ph.D., Louisiana

Vice C h a i m n : Susan Martinovich, Nevada
Secretary: Dwight A. Horne, FHWA
AASHTO StaffLiaison: Jim McDonnell
Alabama, Iowa,
Don T. Arkle Mitch Dillavou, P. E.
Steven E. Walker, P. E. David L. Little
Alaska, Will Stein
Gary Hogins, P. E. Kansas,
Arizona, Richard G. Adams
John L. Louis LaMonte Armstrong
Arkansas, James O. Brewer
Dale E Loe Kentucky,
Phillip L. McConnell David Kratt, P. E.,
California, Gary W. Sharpe
Karla Sutliff Kenneth Sperry, P. E.
Colorado, Louisiana,
Dean Van DeWege N. Kent Israel
Connecticut, Nicholas Kalivado III
Carl E Bard Lloyd E. Porta
James E Bymes, Jr. Maine,
Bradley J. Smith Jerome A. Casey, P. E.
Delaware, Maryland,
Michael A. Angelo Robert D. Douglass
Kevin Canning Kirk G. McClelland
Michael H. Simmons Massachusetts,
District of Columbia, John Blundo,
Harbhajan S . Sandhu Stanley Wood, Jr.
Florida, Michigan,
Brian A. Blanchard, P. E. Paul E Miller
Billy L. Hattaway, P. E. Minnesota,
Jim Mills Richard Elasky
Georgia, Delbert Gerdes
James B. Buchan, P. E. Mississippi,
James Kennerly John B. Pickering, P. E.
Joseph Palladi Wendel T. Ruff, F? E.
Hawaii, Missouri,
Casey Abe Diane Heckemeyer
Julius Fonda David B. Nichols
Idaho, Montana,
Steven C. Hutchinson Carl S . Peil
Loren D. Thomas Ronald E. Williams
Illinois, Nebraska,
Michael Hine Dawn Allyn
Indiana, Eldon D. Poppe
Phelps H. Klika Don Turek
II --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Nevada, South Dakota,
Wayne Kinder Timothy Bjomeberg
New Hampshire, Joe J. Feller
Craig A. Green Tennessee,
New Jersey, Jeff C.Jones
Richard W. Dunne James Zeigler
Arthur J. Eisdorfer Texas,
Charles Miller Mark A. Marek
New Mexico, Robert Wilson
Roy Maestas U.S. DOT,
CharlieV. Trujillo Dwight A. Home (FHWA)
New York, John L. Rice (FAA)
Peter J. Bellair Utah,
Philip J. Clark P.K. Mohanty
Daniel D?Angelo, P. E. Vermont,
North Carolina, Donald H. Lathrop
John E. Alford, P. E. Robert E Shattuck
Deborah M. Barbour Virginia,
Len Hill, ?? E. Mohammed Mirshahi
North Dakota, Washington,
Kenneth E. Birst Richard Albin
Ohio, Clifford E. Mansfield
Cash Mise1 West Virginia,
Larry F. Sutherland David E. Clevenger
Oklahoma. Randolph Epperly, Jr.
Christine M. Senkowski Norman H. Roush
Bruce E. Taylor Wisconsin,
Oregon, John E. Haverberg
Dave Greenberg Robert F. Pfeiffer
Catherine Nelson Wyoming,
Paul Bercich
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Pennsylvania,
Dean A. Schreiber
Puerto Rico, Affiliate Members
Javier E. Ramos Hernandez British Columbia,Richard Voyer
Rhode Island, Ontario, Joseph A. Bucik
J. Michael Bennett, P. E.
South Carolina, Associate Member-Federal
Rocque L. Kneece, P. E. Federal Aviation Administration
Robert i.Pratt John Rice
John V. Walsh, P. E.
AASHTO Staff Liaison
Jim McDonnell

Task Force for Roadside Safety-2002
Current Members
Richard B. Albin Washington 1998 -Present

Mark C. Ayton Ontario 1999-Present
Ben Buchan Georgia 1999-Present
Joe Bucik Ontario 1997- Present
Mack Christensen Utah 1998 -Present
Keith A. Cota (Vice Chair) New Hampshire 1992-Present
F. Daniel Davis Arizona 1996-Present
Monique R. Evans Ohio 2001 -Present
Gregg C. Fredrick Wyoming 2001 - Present
Earle S. Freedman Maryland 1998 -Present
Charles A. Goessel New Jersey 1986-Present
N. Kent Israel Louisiana 1998 -Present
Harry Lee James Mississippi 2001 -Present
Rodney D. Lacy Kansas 2001 -Present
David L. Little (Chair) Iowa 1992-Present
Mark A. Marek Texas 1986-Present
Douglas E. McClure South Carolina 1992-Present
Patrick L. McDaniel Missouri 1997- Present
Aurora Meza Texas 2001 -Present
Richard D. Powers (Secretary) FHWA 1986-Present
George J. S t e l z d e r North Dakota 1994-Present
James P. Tenaglia Pennsylvania 2001 -Present
Steven Walker Alabama 1997 -Present
Richard D. Wilder New York 2001 -Present
Contributing Former Members
Randy Cannon South Carolina 1998- 200 1

B. Patrick Collins Wyoming 1996-2001
Billy Hattaway Fiorida 1999- 2001
Kenneth E Hurst Kansas 1992- 200 1
Arthur D. Perkins New York 1986-2001
Ronald J. Seitz Kansas 1991-2001
Advisors
Nick Artimovich FHWA 1998-Present

Ken E Kobetsky AASHTO 1997- Present
Charles E McDevitt FHWA 1986-Present
James T. McDonnell AASHTO 2000 -Present
Charles W. Niessner TRB/NCHRP 2000 -Present
Harry Taylor FHWA 1986-Present
iv --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

PREFACE
This Roadside Design Guide was developed by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Design, Task Force for
Roadside Safety under the chairmanship of David L. Little, P.E. This document presents a synthesis of current
information and operating practices related to roadside safety and is written in dual units-metric and U.S.
Customary units. This publication supersedes the 1996 AASHTO publication of the same name.
The roadside is defined as that area beyond the traveled way (driving lanes) and the shoulder (if any) of the
roadway itself. Consequently,roadside delineation, shoulder surface treatments, and similar on-roadway safety
features are not extensively discussed. While it is a readily accepted fact that safety can best be served by
keeping motorists on the road, the focus of this guide is on safety treatments that minimize the likelihood of
serious injuries when a driver does run off the road.
A second noteworthy point is that this document is a guide. It is not a standard, nor is it a design policy. It is
intended for use as a resource document from which individual highway agencies can develop standards and
policies. While much of the material in the guide can be considered universal in its application, there are several
recommendations that are subjective in nature and may need modification to fit local conditions. However, it is
important that significant deviations from the guide be based on operationalexperience and objective analysis.
To be consistent with AASHTOs A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, design speed
has been selected as the basic speed parameter to be used in this guide. However, since the design speed is
often selected based on the most restrictive physical features found on a specific project, there may be a
significant percentage of a project length where that s p d will be exceeded by a reasonable and prudent
driver. There will be other instances where roadway conditions will prevent most motorists from driving as fast
as the design speed. Because roadside safety design is intended to minimize the consequences of a motorist
leaving the roadway inadvertently, the designer should consider the speed at which encroachments are most
likely to occur when selecting an appropriate roadside design standard or feature.
This 2001 edition of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide has been updated to include hardware that has
met the evaluation criteria contained in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 350, Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. For
the most part, roadside hardware tested and accepted under guidelines that are no longer applicable has not
been included in this edition. Another significant change from the earlier editions of the Guide is the replace-
ment of the benefit-cost analysis program ROADSIDE with the more user-friendly program called the Road-
side Safety Analysis Program (RSAP). Detailed information on RSAP is included in Appendix A, but the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
program itself, including a detailed users guide, will be distributed separately.
Design values are presented in this document in both metric and U.S. Customary units. The relationship
between the metric and U.S. Customary values is neither an exact (soft) conversion nor a completely rational-
ized (hard) conversion. The metric values are those that would have been used had the guide been presented
exclusively in metric units; the U.S. Customary values are those that would have been used if the guide had
been presented exclusively in U.S. Customary units. Therefore, the user is advised to work entirely in one
system and not to attempt to convert directly between the two.
The reader is cautioned that roadside safety policy, criteria, and technology is a rapidly changing field of
study. Changes in the roadside safety field are certain to occur after this document is published. Efforts should
be made to incorporate the appropriate current design elements into the project development. Comments from
users of this guide on suggested changes or modifications resulting from further developmental work or hands-
on experience will be appreciated. All such comments should be addressed to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Engineering Program, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 249,
Washington, DC 2000 1.
V
Table of Contents
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................... xv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... xx
CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTIONTO ROADSIDE SAFETY

1.o HISTORY OF ROADSIDE SAFETY ................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 THE BENEFITS OF ROADSIDE SAFETY ...................................................................... 1-1
1.2 THE FORGIVING ROADSIDECONCEF'T ...................................................................... 1-2
1.3 THE CONTENT AND FORMAT ..................................................................................... 1-3
1A CRASH TESTD\IG ROADSIDE SAFETYFEATURES AND APPURTENANCES ........ 1-3
1.5 THE APPLICATION OF THIS GUIDE ............................................................................ 1-4
CHAPTER2: ROADSIDE SAFETY AND ECONOMICS

2.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 BENEFITICOSTANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Encroachments ................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.2 Roadside Geometry .......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3 Crash Costs ...................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2 BENEFITICOSTANALYSISPROGRAMS ..................................................................... 2-2
C"TER3: ROADSIDE TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGEFEA-

3.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 THE CLEAR ROADSIDE CONCEIT .............................................................................. 3-1
3.2 ROADSIDE GEOMETRY ................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.1 Foreslopes ........................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.2 Backslopes ....................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.3 Transverse Slopes ........................................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.4 Draiagc Channels ........................................................................................................ 3-10
3.3 APPLICATIONOF THE CLEAR-ZONE CONCEPT .................................................... 3-11
3.3.1 Recoverable Foreslopes ................................................................................................ 3-13
3.3.2 Non-Recoverable Foreslopes ....................................................................................... 3-13
3.3.3 Critical Foreslopes ......................................................................................................... 3-13
3.3.4 Examples of Clear-Zone Application on Variable Sdpes ............................................ 3-13
3.3.5 Clear-Zone Applications for Drainage Channels and Backslopes ............................. 3-13
3.4 DRAINAGEFJ3ATRES ................................................................................................ 3-14
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

3.4.1 Curbs .............................................................................................................................. 3-14
3.4.2 Cross-Drainage Structures ............................................................................................ 3-15
3.4.2.1 Traversable Designs ..................................................................................................... 3-15
3.4.2.2 Extension of Structure ................................................................................................... 3-17
3.4.2.3 Shielding ........................................................................................................................ 3-17
3.4.3 Parallel Drainage Features ............................................................................................ 3-17
3.4.3.1 Eliminate the Structure .................................................................................................. 3-17
3.4.3.2 Traversable Designs ..................................................................................................... 3-18
3.4.3.3 Relocate the Structure ................................................................................................... 3-19
3.4.3.4 Shielding ........................................................................................................................ 3-19
3.4.4 Drop Inlets ..................................................................................................................... 3-19
CHAPTER 4: SIGN. SIGNAL. AND LUMINAIRESUPPORTS. UTILITY POLES. TREES. AND SIMILAR
ROADSIDE FEATURES
4.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 ACCEPTANCECRITERIAFOR BREAKAWAY SUPPORTS ........................................ 4-2
4.2 DESIGN AND LOCATIONCRITERIA FOR BREAKAWAY AND
NON-BREAKAWAY SUPPORTS .................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 SIGN SUPPORTS ............................................................................................................. 4-3
4.3.1 Overhead Signs ................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3.2 Large Roadside Signs ...................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.3 Small Roadside Signs ...................................................................................................... 4-8
4.4 MULTIPLEPOST SUPPORTS FOR SIGNS .................................................................. 4-10
4.5 BREAKAWAY LUMINAIRE SUPPORTS .................................................................... 4-10
4.6 SUPPORTSFOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND MISCELLANEOUSTRAFFIC
SERVCE DEVICES ........................................................................................................ 4-13
4.6.1 Traffic Signals ................................................................................................................ 4-13
4.6.2 Motorist-Aid Callboxes ................................................................................................. 4-13
4.6.3 Railroad Crossing Warning Devices ............................................................................ 4-13
4.6.4 Fire Hydrants ................................................................................................................. 4-14
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4.6.5 Mailbox Supports .......................................................................................................... 4-14
4.7 UTILITY POLES ............................................................................................................. 4-14
4.8 TREES ............................................................................................................................. 4-15
CHAPTERS: ROADSIDE BARRIERS

5.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 PERFORMANCEREQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Current Crash Test Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Barrier Classifications ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 WARRANTS .................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Embankments ................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Roadside Obstacles ......................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.3 Bystanders, Pedestrians. and Bicyclists ........................................................................ 5-3
5.2.4 Motorcycles and Barrier Design ..................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 PERFORMANCELEVEL SELECTIONFACTORS ......................................................... 5-8
viii
5.4 S'T'RULCTUFW- AND SAFETY CHARACTERISTICS OFROADSIDE BARRIERS .... 5-8
5.4.1 Standard Sections of Roadside Barriers ........................................................................ 5-9
5.4.1.1 Three-Strand Cable .......................................................................................................... 5-9
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5.4.1.2 W-Beam (Weak Post) ...................................................................................................... 5-9

5.4.1.3 Ironwood Aesthetic Guardrail ...................................................................................... 5-12
5.4.1.4 Box Beam (Weak Post) .................................................................................................. 5-12
5.4.1.5 Blocked-Out W-Beam (Strong Post) ............................................................................ 5-12
5.4.1.6 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beams ............................................................................................. 5-15
5.4.1.6.1 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Wood Strong Post) ............................................................ 5-15
5.4.1.6.2 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Steel Strong Post) .............................................................. 5-16
5.4.1.6.3 Modified Thrie-Beam ..................................................................................................... 5-16
5.4.1.7 Merritt Parkway Aesthetic Guardrail ............................................................................ 5-17
5.4.1.8 Steel-Backed Timber Guardrail ...................................................................................... 5-18
5.4.1.9 Concrete Barriers ........................................................................................................... 5-18
5.4.1.10 Stone Masonry Wall/Precast Masonry Wall ............................................................... 5-21
5.4.2 Long.Span. Double-Nested Guardrail Systems ........................................................... 5-23
5.4.3 Transition Designs ........................................................................................................ 5-23
5.5 SELECTIONGUIDELINES ............................................................................................ 5-23
5.5.1 Barrier Performance Capability ..................................................................................... 5-23
5.5.2 Barrier Deflection Characteristics ................................................................................ 5-24
5.5.3 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................. 5-26
5.5.4 Compatibility .................................................................................................................. 5-26
5.5.5 Life-Cycle Costs ............................................................................................................ 5-26
5.5.6 Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 5-26
5.5.6.1 Routine Maintenance .................................................................................................... 5-26
5.5.6.2 Crash Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 5-26
5.5.6.3 Material and Storage Requirements ............................................................................. 5-26
5.5.6.4 Simplicity of Barrier Design .......................................................................................... 5-26
5.5.7 Aesthetic and Environmental Considerations ............................................................. 5-27
5.5.8 Field Experience ............................................................................................................. 5-27
5.6 PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 5-27
5.6.1 Lateral Offset ................................................................................................................. 5-27
5.6.2 Terrain Effects ................................................................................................................ 5-29
5.6.2.1 Curbs .............................................................................................................................. 5-29
5.6.2.2 Slopes ............................................................................................................................. 5-30
5.6.3 Flare Rate ....................................................................................................................... 5-31
5.6.4 Length of Need .............................................................................................................. 5-32
5.7 UPGRADING SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 5-37
5..l Structurai iaadeqacies ................................................................................................ 5-37
5.7.2 DesignPlacement Inadequacies ................................................................................... 5-37
5.7.3 Establishing Priorities of Upgrading Needs ................................................................ 5-38
CHAPTER6 MEDIANBARRIERS
6.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 6-1
6.2 GUIDELINES FOR MEDIAN BARRIER APPLICATION .............................................. 6-1
ix
6.3 PERFORMANCELEVEL SELECTIONPROCEDURES .................................................. 6-2
6.4 STRUCTURALAND SAFETY CHARACTERISTICS OF MEDIAN BARRIERS ........ 6 3
6.4.1 Crashworthy Median Barrier Systems ........................................................................... 6-3
6.4.1.1 Weak-Post, W-Beam ........................................................................................................ 6-3
6.4.1.2 Three-Strand Cable .......................................................................................................... 6-3
6.4.1.3 Box-Beam Median Bamer ................................................................................................ 6-4
6.4.1.4 Blocked-Out W-Beam (Strong Post) .............................................................................. 6-4
6.4.1.5 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Strong Post) ......................................................................... 6-6
6.4.1.6 Modified Thrie-Beam Median Barrier ............................................................................ 6-6
6.4.1.7 Concrete Barrier ............................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.1.8 Quickchange Moveable Barrier System ......................................................................... 6-8
6.4.2 End Treatments .............................................................................................................. 6-10
6.4.3 Transitions ..................................................................................................................... 6-11
6.5.1 Barrier Performance Capability ..................................................................................... 6-12
6.5.2 Barrier Deflection Characteristics ................................................................................ 6-12
6.5.3 Compatibility .................................................................................................................. 6-12
6.5.4 costs ............................................................................................................................... 6-12
6.5.5 Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 6-12
6.5.6 Aesthetic and Environmental Considerations ............................................................. 6-13
6.5.7 Field Experience ............................................................................................................. 6-13
6.6 PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 6-13
6.6.1 Terrain Effects ................................................................................................................ 6-13
6.6.1.1 Curbs .............................................................................................................................. 6-13
6.6.1.2 Sloped Medians ............................................................................................................. 6-14
6.6.2 Flare Rate ....................................................................................................................... 6-14
6.7 UPGRADING SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 6-17
CHAPTER 7: BRIDGE RAILINGS AND TRANSITIONS

7.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 WARRANTS .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 TESTLEVEL SELECTIONPROCEDURES ..................................................................... 7-2
7.4 CRASH-TESTEDRAILINGS ........................................................................................... 7-2
7.4.1 Test Level i Bridge Railings ........................................................................................... 7-2
7.4.2 Test Level 2 Bridge Railings ........................................................................................... 7-2
7.4.4.1 Solid Concrete Bridge Railings ....................................................................................... 7-3
7.4.4.2 Massachusetts S3 Steel Bridge Railing ......................................................................... 74
7.4.4.3 Wyoming Two-Tube Bridge Railing ............................................................................... 7-4
7.4.4.4 BR27C ............................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.5 SELECTION GUIDELINES .............................................................................................. 7-6
7.5.1 Railing Performance ......................................................................................................... 7-7
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
X
7.5.2 Compatibility .................................................................................................................... 7-7
7.5.3 costs ................................................................................................................................. 7-7
7.5.4 Field Experience ............................................................................................................... 7-8
7.5.5 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 7-8
7.6 PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 7-8
7.7 UPGRADING OF BRIDGE RAILINGS ............................................................................ 7-8
7.7.1 Identification of Potentially Deficient Systems ............................................................. 7-8
7.7.2 Upgrading Systems ....................................................................................................... 7-10
7.7.2.1 Concrete Retrofit (Safety Shape or Vertical) ................................................................ 7-12
7.7.2.2 W - B e d h r i e - B e a m Retrofits ...................................................................................... 7-13
7.7.2.3 Metal Post and Beam Retrofits ..................................................................................... 7-14
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7.8 TRANSITIONS .............................................................................................................. 7-14
CHAPTER 8: BARRIER END TREATMENTSAND CRASH CUSHIONS

8.0 OVWVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 END TREATMENTS ........................................................................................................ 8-1
8.2.1 Three-Strand Cable Terminal ........................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.2 Wyoming Box Beam End Terminal (WYBET-350) .......................................................... 8-2
8.2.3 Barrier Anchored in Backslope ....................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.4 Eccentric Loader Terminal (ELT) ..................................................................................... 8-7
8.2.5 Slotted Rail Terminai (SRT-350) ...................................................................................... 8-7
8.2.6 REGENT Terminal .......................................................................................................... 8-10
8.2.7 Vermont Low.Speed. W-Beam Guardrail End Terminal ............................................... 8-10
8.2.8 Flared Energy-Absorbing Terminal (FLEAT) .............................................................. 8-11
8.2.9 Beam-Eating Steel Terminal (BEST) .............................................................................. 8-11
8.2.10 Extruder Terminal (ET-2000) .......................................................................................... 8-13
8.2.11 Sequential Kinking Terminal (SKT-350) ....................................................................... 8-14
8.2.12 QuadTrend-350 .............................................................................................................. 8-14
8.2.13 Narrow Energy-Absorbing Terminal (NEAT) .............................................................. 8-15
8.2.14 Sloped Concrete End Treatment ................................................................................... 8-15
8.3 CRASH CUSHIONS ....................................................................................................... 8-15
8.3.1 Concepts ........................................................................................................................ 8-18
8.3.1.1 Kinetic Energy Principle ................................................................................................ 8-18
8.3.1.2 Conservation of Momentum Principle ......................................................................... 8-19
8.3.2 Characteristics of Operational Attenuation Systems ................................................. 8-19
8.3.2.1 Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension Module (ADIEM 11) ....................................... 8-19
8.3.2.2 Brakemaster 350 ............................................................................................................. 8-19
8.3.2.3 ZrdSh Cshioi Aileiaiig TtXiilid (CAT) ............................................................... 8-19
8.3.2.4 Bullnose Guardraii System ............................................................................................ 8-22
8.3.2.5 ABSORB 350 .................................................................................................................. 8-22
8.3.2.6 QuadGuard Family ......................................................................................................... 8-22
8.3.2.7 Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion (TRACC) ............................................................. 8-25
8.3.2.8 Reusable Energy-Absorbing Crash Terminal (REACT 350) ....................................... 8-25
8.3.2.9 Narrow Connecticut Impact Attenuation System (NCIAS) ........................................ 8-25
8.3.2. i0 Sand-Filled Plastic Barrels ............................................................................................ 8-25
xi
8.3.2.1 1 Gravel-Bed Attenuator .................................................................................................. 8-32
8.3.2.12 Dragnet ........................................................................................................................... 8-33
8.3.2.13 Water Twister Vehicle Arresting System (VAS) ........................................................... 8-33
8.4.1 Site Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 8-34
8.4.2 Structural and Safety Characteristics .......................................................................... 8-34
8.4.3 Costs ............................................................................................................................... 8-34
8.4.4 Maintenance Characteristics ........................................................................................ 8-34
8.5 PLACEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 8-37
8.6 DELINEATION ............................................................................................................... 8-37
C"ER9: TRAFFICBARRIERS.TRAFF'ICCONTROLDEVICES. ANDOTHERSAFETYFEA-FOR

WORKZONES
9.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 THE CLEAR-ZONECONCEFT IN WORK ZONES ........................................................ 9-1
9.1.1 Application of the Clear-Zone Concept in Work Zones ............................................... 9-1
9.2 TRAFFIC BARRIERS ...................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1 Temporary Longitudinal Barriers .................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1.1 Portable Concrete Safety-Shape Barriers ....................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1.1.1 Flare Rates ........................................................................................................................ 9-3
9.2.1.1.2 Offset ................................................................................................................................ 9-3
9.2.1.1.3 Types of Portable Concrete Barrier (PCB) Systems ...................................................... 9-4
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9.2.1.1.3.1 NCHRP Report 350 Tested PCB Systems ....................................................................... 9-4
9.2.1.1.3.2 Tested and Operational Connections .......................................................................... 9-10
9.2.1.1.3.3 Securing PCBs to the Traveled Way ............................................................................ 9-13
9.2.1.1.3.4 Special Cases ................................................................................................................. 9-13
9.2.1.2 Other Concrete Barriers ................................................................................................. 9-13
9.2.1.3 OtherBarriers ................................................................................................................. 9-15
9.2.1.3.1 Water-Filled Plastic Shell with Steel Barriers .............................................................. 9-15
9.2.1.3.1.1 TritonBanier .................................................................................................................................. 9-15
9.2.1.3.1.2 GUARDIAN Safety Barrier ............................................................................................ 9-15
9.2.1.3.2 Timber Barrier Curb/Rail ................................................................................................ 9-18
9.2.2 End Treatments .............................................................................................................. 9-18
9.2.3 Transitions ..................................................................................................................... 9-20
9.2.3.1 PCB Steel Plate Transition ............................................................................................ 9-20
9.2.4 Applications ..........i ....................................................................................................... 9-20
9.3 CRASH CUSHIONS ....................................................................................................... 9-20
9.3.1 Stationary Crash Cushions ........................................................................................... 9-20
9.3.1.1 Sand-Filled Plastic Barrels ............................................................................................ 9-21
9.3.1.2 QUADGUARD CZ SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 9-21
9.3.1.3 TRACC ........................................................................................................................... 9-21
9.3.1.4 REACT 350 CZ ............................................................................................................... 9-21
9.3.1.5 Connecticut Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) ........................................................ 9-21
9.3.1.6 ABSORB 350 .................................................................................................................. 9-24
9.3.1.7 Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension Modules (ADIEM II) ..................................... 9-24
9.3.1.8 DRAGNET ...................................................................................................................... 9-24

9.3.2 Truck-Mounted Attenuators (TMAs) ......................................................................... 9-24
9.3.2.1 Test-Level Selection for Truck Mounted Attenuators ............................................... 9-24
9.3.2.2 Placement ....................................................................................................................... 9-26
9.3.2.2.1 Buffer Distance .............................................................................................................. 9-26
9.3.2.2.2 Mass of a Shadow Vehicle ............................................................................................ 9-26
9.3.2.2.3 Delineation ..................................................................................................................... 9-26
9.3.2.3 TMAs Meeting NCHRP Report 350 Criteria ................................................................ 9-26
9.3.2.3.1 RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA .......................................................................................... 9-26
9.3.2.3.2 Connecticut TMA ......................................................................................................... 9-27
9.3.2.3.3 ALPHA 70K TMA ......................................................................................................... 9-28
9.3.2.3.4 ALPHA 100K TMA ....................................................................................................... 9-28
9.3.2.3.5 Mobile Protection System 350 ...................................................................................... 9-28
9.3.2.3.6 Vanderbilt TMA ............................................................................................................. 9-29
9.3.2.3.7 Safe-Stop TMA .............................................................................................................. 9-29
9.3.2.3.8 U-MAD 100KTMA ....................................................................................................... 9-31
9.3.2.3.9 Scorpion A 10,O00 and Scorpion C 10,O00 TMAs ....................................................... 9-31
9.3.2.3.10 RENCORAM 100KTMA ............................................................................................. 9-31
9.4 TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES .................................................................................... 9-31
9.4.1 Channelizing Devices .................................................................................................... 9-32
9.4.1.1 Performance Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................... 9-32
9.4.1.2 Cones and Tubular Markers ......................................................................................... 9-32
9.4.1.3 Vertical Panels ................................................................................................................ 9-32
9.4.1.4 Drums ............................................................................................................................. 9-33
9.4.1.5 Barricades ....................................................................................................................... 9-33
9.4.1.6 Longitudinal Channelizing Barricades ......................................................................... 9-35
9.4.2 Signs and Supports ....................................................................................................... 9-35
9.4.2.1 LongAntermediate-Term Work-Zone Sign Supports .................................................. 9-35
9.4.2.2 Wheeled Portable Sign Supports ................................................................................. 9-35
9.4.2.3 Short-Term Work-Zone Sign Supports ........................................................................ 9-38
9.4.2.4 Trailer-Mounted Devices .............................................................................................. 9-39
9.4.2.5 Warning Lights .............................................................................................................. 9-41
9.5 OTHER WORK-ZONEF E A m S ............................................................................... 9-41
9.5.1 Glare Screens ................................................................................................................. 9-41
9.5.2 Pavement Edge Drop-offs ............................................................................................ 942
CHAPTER 10: ROADSIDE SAFETYIN URBANOR RESTRICTED ENVIRONMENTS

10.0 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDY OF SITES ............................................................... 10-2
i.2 DESIGX SPEED .............................................................................................................. 10-2
10.3 ROADSIDE BARRIERS IN URBAN AND RESTRICTED AREAS ............................. 10-3
10.3.1 Barrier Warrants ............................................................................................................. 10-4
10.3.2 Barriers to Protect Adjacent Land Use ........................................................................ 10-4
10.3.3 Guidelines for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Barriers ......................................................... 10-4
10.3.4 Pedestrian Restraint Systems ....................................................................................... 10-4
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
xiii
10.4 MEDIAN BARRIERS IN URBAN AREAS ................................................................... 10-5
10.5 BRIDGERAILINGS........................................................................................................ 10-5
10.5.1 Protective Screening at Overpasses ............................................................................ 10-6
10.6 IMPACT ATTENUATORS............................................................................................ 10-7
10.7 CURBS ............................................................................................................................ 10-7
10.8 DRAINAGE ................................................................................ :................................... 10-7
10.9 LANDSCAPING ............................................................................................................. 10-8
10.10 WORKZONES ............................................................................................................... 10-8
CHAPTER 11: ERECTINGMAILBOXES ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS

11.0 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 MAILBOXES ................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 11-3
11.2.1 Regulations .................................................................................................................... 11-3
11.2.2 Mail Stop and Mailbox Location .................................................................................. 11-3
11.2.3 Mailbox Turnout Design ............................................................................................... 114
11.2.4 Mailbox Support and Attachment Design ................................................................... 11-7
11.3 MODEL MAILBOX REGULAmON ............................................................................ 11-14
APPENDMA A Cost-Effectiveness Selection Procedure .......................................................... ;......................... A-1
APPENDMB Selected Roadside Barrier Design Details ....................................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C Selected Median Barrier Design Details ......................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIXD Model Regulation for the Accommodation of Mailboxes and Newspaper
Delivery Boxes on Public Highway Rights-of-way .......................................................................
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
D-1
APPENDIXE Postal Operations and Manual Delivery Services ........................................................................... El
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................... G-1
INDEX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
xiv
List of Figures
Figure Title
1.1 Traffic fatality rate per billion vehicle kilometers [miles] by year ........................................................ 1-2
3.la Clear-zone distance curves (metric units) ........................................................................................... 3-3
3.lb Clear-zone distance curves [U.S. customary units] ............................................................................. 3-4
3.2 Example of a parallel foreslope design ................................................................................................. 3-8
3.3 Preferred cross slope design ............................................................................................................... 3-9
3.4 Median transverse slope design ......................................................................................................... 3-9
3.5 Examples of alternate median drainage ............................................................................................... 3-10
3.6 Preferred cross sections for channels with abrupt slope changes ..................................................... 3-11
3.7 Preferred cross sections for channels with gradual slope changes ................................................... 3-12
3.8 Design criteria for safety treatment of pipes and culverts.................................................................. 3-16
3.9 Safety treatment for cross-drainage culvert ....................................................................................... 3-16
3.10 Inledoutlet design example for parallel drainage ................................................................................ 3-18
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3.11 Alternate location for a parallel drainage culvert ............................................................................... 3-19

3.12 Safety treatment for parallel drainage pipe ......................................................................................... 3-20
4.2 Wind and impact loads on roadside signs .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Impact performance of a multiple-post sign support ........................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Multidirectionalcoupler ...................................................................................................................... 4-5
45 Typical uni-directional slip base .......................................................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Slotted fuse plate design ..................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.7 Perforated fuse plate design ................................................................................................................ 4-7
4.8 Uni-directional slip base for small signs .............................................................................................. 4-9
4.9 Multidirectional slip base for small signs ............................................................................................ 4-9
4.10 Oregon 3-bolt slip base ..................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.11 Example of a cast aluminum transformer base ................................................................................... 4-11
4.12 Example of a luminaire slip base design ............................................................................................ 4-11
4.13 Example of a frangible coupling design ............................................................................................. 4-12
4.14 Prototype breakaway design for utility poles ................................................................................... 4-15
5.la Comparativerisk warrants for embankments(metric units) ................................................................. 5-3
5.lb Comparativerisk warrants for embankments [ U S customary units] .................................................. 54
5.2a Example design chart for embankmentwarrants based on fill height. slope,
and traffic volume (metric units) .......................................................................................................... 5-6
5.2b Example design chart for embankment warrants based on fill height, slope,
and traffic volume [U.S. customary units] ........................................................................................... 56
5.3a Example design chart for cost-effective embankment warrants based on traffic speeds
and volumes, slope geometry and length of slope (metric units) ........................................................ 5-7
5.3b Example design chart for cost-effective embankmentwarrants based on traffk
speeds and volumes, slope geometry and length of slope [U.S. customary units] ............................. 5-7
5.4 Definition of roadside barriers ............................................................................................................. 5-8
xv
Figure Title
5.5 Three-strand cable barrier .................................................................................................................. 5-11
5.6 Weak post W-beam barrier ................................................................................................................. 5-11
5.7 Ironwood aesthetic guardrail ............................................................................................................. 5-12
5.8 Weak post box beam barrier ............................................................................................................... 5-13
5.9 Steel post W-beam with wood block-outs ......................................................................................... 5-14
5.10 Wood post W-beam with wood block-outs ....................................................................................... 5-14
5.11 Wood post thne-beam barrier ............................................................................................................ 5-15
5.12 Modified thrie-beam guardrail ............................................................................................................ 5-16
5.13 Merritt Parkway aesthetic guardrail ................................................................................................... 5-17
5.14 Steel-backed timber guardrail ............................................................................................................. 5-18
5.15 New Jersey safety-shape barrier ........................................................................................................ 5-19
5.16 Ontario tall wall median barrier ........................................................................................................... 5-20
5.17 2290 mm [90 in.] New Jersey barrier .................................................................................................... 5-20
5.18 Stone masonry wall ............................................................................................................................ 5-21
5.19 Precast masonry wall .......................................................................................................................... 5-22
5.20 Long-span, double-nested W-beam guardrail.................................................................................... 5-22
5.21 Recommended barrier placement for optimum performance ............................................................... 5-28
5.22 Design parameters for vehicle encroachmentson embankments ....................................................... 5-29
5.23 Recommendedbarrier location on 1V6H ............................................................................................ 5-31
5.24 Approach barrier layout variables ...................................................................................................... 5-32
5.25a Example design chart for a flared roadside barrier installation (metric units) ..................................... 5-35
5.25b Example design chart for a flared roadside barrier installation [U.S. customary units] ....................... 5-35
5.26a Example design chart for a parallel roadside barrier installation (metric units) ................................... 5-36
5.26b Example design chart for a parallel roadside barrier installation [U.S. customary units] .................... 5-36
5.27 Approach barrier layout for opposing traffic ..................................................................................... 5-37
5.28 Suggested roadside slopes for approach barriers .............................................................................. 5-38
5.29 Example of barrier design for bridge approach ................................................................................... 5-39
5.30 Example of barrier design for bridge piers .......................................................................................... 5 4
5.3 1 Example of barrier design for non-traversable embankments ............................................................. 541
5.32 Example design chart for embankmentwarrants based on fill height, slope, and ............................... 542
traffic volume [US. customary units] ................................................................................................. 542
6.1 Suggested guidelines for median barriers on high-speed roadways ................................................... 6-2
6.2 Weak-post, W-beam median barrier .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.3 Three-strand cable median barrier ....................................................................................................... 6-5
6.4 Box-beam median barrier ..................................................................................................................... 65
6.5 Strong post W-beam median barrier .................................................................................................... 6-6
6.6 Modified thrie-beam median barrier .................................................................................................... 6-7
6.7 Concrete safety-shape median barrier ................................................................................................. 69
6.8 Single-slopeconcrete median barrier .................................................................................................. 69
6.9 QuickchangeB moveable barrier system ............................................................................................ 610
6.10 BarrieGate@....................................................................................................................................... 611
6.11 Recommended barrier placement in non-level medians ...................................................................... 615
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
xvi
Figure Title
6.12 Example of a split median barrier layout ............................................................................................. 616
6.13 Suggested layout for shielding a rigid object in a median .................................................................. 616
7.1 Side-mounted, thrie-beam bridge railing .............................................................................................. 7-3
7.2 Wyoming two-tube bridge railing ....................................................................................................... 74
7.3 Massachusetts S3 steel bridge railing ................................................................................................. 7-5
7.4 BR27C on sidewalk .............................................................................................................................. 7-5
7.5 Tall concrete safety-shape railing ....................................................................................................... 7-6
7.6 Texas Type TT (Tank Truck) railing .................................................................................................... 7-7
7.7 End treatment for traffic railing on a bridge in low-speed situations................................................... 7-9
7.8 Terminating traffic barrier on bridge with end terminal ........................................................................ 7-9
7.9 Inadequate railing strength ................................................................................................................ 7-10
7.10 Lack of continuity in railing ............................................................................................................... 7-11
7.11 Snagging potential ............................................................................................................................. 7-11
7.12 Presence of brush curb ...................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.13 Iowa concrete block retrofit bridge railing .......................................................................................... 7-13
Thrie-beam retrofit (New York) ...........................................................................................................
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7.14 7-14
7.15 Metal post and beam retrofit .............................................................................................................. 7-15
7.16 Possible solution to intersection side road near bridge ..................................................................... 7-16
7.17 W-beam transition to vertical concrete rail ........................................................................................ 7-17
7.18 W-beam transition to modified concrete safety shape ....................................................................... 7-17
7.19 Thrie-beam transition to modified concrete safety shape .................................................................. 7-18
7.20a Thrie-beam transition to curb-mounted steel post and beam bridge railing ....................................... 7-18
7.20b Thrie-beam transition to curb-mounted steel post and beam bridge railng ........................................ 7-19
8.1 Grading for flared guardrail end treatment ........................................................................................... 8-3
8.2 Grading for non-flared guardrail end treatment ................................................................................... 8-3
8.3 Three-strand cable terminal ................................................................................................................. 8-5
8.4 Wyoming box beam end terminal ........................................................................................................ 8-5
8.5 Barrier anchored in backslope ............................................................................................................. 8-6
8.6 W-beam guardrail anchored in backslope ........................................................................................... 8-6
8.7 Eccentric loader terminal ..................................................................................................................... 8-7
8.8 Plan layout for eccentric loader terminal ............................................................................................. 8-8
8.9 Slotted rail terminai (SRT-350) with 1.2 m [4 ft] flare ............................................................................ 8-9
8.10 Slotted rail terminai (SRT-350)with 0.9 m [3 ftl flare ............................................................................ 8-9
8.11 REGENT ............................................................................................................................................. 8-10
8.12 Vermont low-speed, W-beam guardrail end terminal .......................................................................... 8-11
8.13 Flared Energy-Absorbing Terminal (FLEAT) ..................................................................................... 8-12
8.14 Bcm-&.hg %e! Teminal (BEST) .................................................................................................... 8-12
8.15 Extruder Temiirid(ET-2OOO) ............................................................................................................... 8-13
8.16 Sequential Kinking Terminai (SKT-350) ............................................................................................. 8-14
8.17 QuadTrend-350 .................................................................................................................................. 8-15
8.18 Narrow Energy-Absorbing Terminal (NEAT) ..................................................................................... 8-16
8.19 Sloped concrete end treatment ........................................................................................................... 8-16
xvii
Figure Title
8.20 Crash cushion applications ................................................................................................................ 8-17
8.21 Kinetic energy principal ..................................................................................................................... 8-18
8.22 Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension Module (ADIEM 11) ............................................................... 8-21
8.23 Brakemaster 350 ................................................................................................................................. 8-21
8.24 Crash Cushion Attenuating Terminal (CAT) ...................................................................................... 8-22
8.25 Bullnose guardrail system .................................................................................................................. 8-23
8.26 ABSORB 350 crash cushion ............................................................................................................... 8-23
8.27 QuadGuard ......................................................................................................................................... 8-24
8.28 QUNdGUud LMC ............................................................................................................................... 8-25
8.29 QuadGuard Elite ................................................................................................................................. 8-26
8.30 Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion (TRACC) .................................................................................... 8-26
8.31 Reusable Energy-Absorbing Crash Terminal (REACT 350) ............................................................... 8-27
8.32 Narrow ConnecticutImpact Attenuation System (NCAIS) ................................................................ 8-27
8.33 Conservationof momentum principal ................................................................................................ 8-28
8.34 The Fitch System ............................................................................................................................... 8-29
8.35 The Energite System .......................................................................................................................... 8-30
8.36 The TrafFix System ............................................................................................................................ 8-30
8.37 Suggested layout for the last three exterior modules in an inertial barrier .......................................... 8-32
8.38 Dragnet .............................................................................................................................................. 8-33
9.1 Iowa Temporary ConcreteBarrier ........................................................................................................ 94
9.2 Rockingham Precast Concrete Barrier ................................................................................................. %
9.3 J-J Hooks Portable ConcreteBarrier .................................................................................................... 9-7
9.4 Modified Virginia DOT Portable Concrete Barrier ............................................................................... 9-7
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9.5 GPLINKB Precast Temporq Concrete Barrier .................................................................................. 98
9.6 Georgia Temporary Concrete Barrier ................................................................................................... 9-9
9.7 Idaho 20-ft New Jersey Portable Barrier .............................................................................................. 9-9
9.8 CaliforniaK-Rail (PCB) for semi-permanentinstallations ................................................................... 910
9.9 Pin and Loop Joint ............................................................................................................................. 9-11
9.10 Channel Splice Joint ........................................................................................................................... 9-12
9.11 Vertical I-Beam Joint ........................................................................................................................... 9-12
9.12 Lapped Joint ....................................................................................................................................... 9-14
9.13 J-Hook Joint ....................................................................................................................................... 9-14
9.14 QuickchangeB Barrier System .......................................................................................................... 9-16
9.15 Low-ProfileBarrier System ................................................................................................................. 9-16
9.16 Triton@ Barrier .................................................................................................................................. 9-17
9.17 GUARDIANTM SafetyBarrier System ................................................................................................ 9-17
9.18 Timber Barrier CurbRail System ........................................................................................................ 9-18
9.19 Low-ProfileBarrier Sloped End .......................................................................................................... 919
9.20 PCB Steel Plate Transition .................................................................................................................. 9-19
9.21 QuadGuardTMCZ ................................................................................................................................ 922
9.22 TRACC ............................................................................................................................................... 9-22
9.23 REACT 350 CZ ................................................................................................................................... 9-23
xviii
Figure Title
9.24 Connecticut Impact Attenuation System ........................................................................................... 9 - ~
9.25 Example-energy-absorbing cartridge mounted in a frame (Ren-Gard 815) ....................................... 9-3
9.24 Example-Energy-absorbing cartridge mounted in a frame (ALPHA 1OOK) ...................................... 9-29
9.27 Example-Telescoping steel frame with a cutter assembly (MPS-350) ............................................... 9-30
9.28 Example-Steel or polyethylene cylinder assembly (VanderbiltTMA) ............................................. 9-30
9.29 Cones and Tubular Markers ............................................................................................................... 9-33
9.30 Portable Vertical Panel ........................................................................................................................ 9-34
9.31 m ................................................................................................................................................... 9-34
9.32 Type II Plywood and Metal Panel Barricade (bent) ............................................................................ 9-36
9.33 Q p e III Wood and Steel Barricade .................................................................................................... 9-36
9.34 Type III (Skid-Type) Barricade with perforated square tubing support ............................................. 9-37
9.35 Longitudinal Channelizing Barricades ................................................................................................ 9-37
9.36 Wood, H-Leg Design Sign Support ................................................................................................... 9-38
9.37 Minnesota?sPerforated Steel Square Tube (PSST) Type III Barricade Sign
Support with aluminum panels ........................................................................................................... 9-39
Montana Sign Support....................................................................................................................... 9-39
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9.38
9.39 X-Base Sign Support.......................................................................................................................... 9~
11.1 Typical single mailbox installations .................................................................................................... 11-1
Ji2 Examples of hazardous single mailbox installations ........................................................................... 11-2
11.3 Examples ofhazardous multiple mailbox installations ........................................................................ 11-3
11.4 Suggested minimum clearance distance to nearest mailbox in mailstops at intersections .................. 11-5
11.5 Mailbox turnout ................................................................................................................................. 11-8
11.6 Mailbox support hardware, Series A .................................................................................................. 11-9
11.7 Single and double mailbox assemblies, Series A .............................................................................. 11-10
11.8 Mailbox support hardware, Series B ................................................................................................. 11-11
11.9 Single and double mailbox assemblies, Series B ............................................................................... 11-12
11.10 Single and double mailbox assemblies, Series C ............................................................................... 11-13
11.11 Collection unit on auxillary lane (top) and neighborhood delivery and collection box units ........... 11-14
11.12 Cantilever mailbox supports ............................................................................................................. 11-15
11.13 Breakaway cantilever mailbox supports ........................................................................................... 11-16
11.14 Minnesota swing-away mailbox ....................................................................................................... 11-17
xix
List of Tables
ble Title
1.1 First harmful event fixed-object fatalitiesby object type .................................................................... 1-5
Clear-zone distances in meters [feet] from edge of through traveled way ........................................... 3-5
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3.1
3.2 Horizontal Curve Adjustments ............................................................................................................ 3-7
5.1 Barrier warrants for non-transferrableterrain and roadside obstacles ................................................ 5-5
5.2 Roadside barriers and approved test levels ....................................................................................... 5-10
5.3 Selection criteria for roadside barriers ................................................................................................ 5-24
5.4 Summary of maximumdeflections ...................................................................................................... 5-25
5.5 Suggested shy line offset (L. ) values ................................................................................................ 5-28
5.6a Example bumper trajectory data (metricunits) .................................................................................... 5-30
5.6b Example bumper trajectory data [U.S. customary units] ..................................................................... 5-30
5.7 Suggested flare rates for barrier design ............................................................................................. 5-32
5.8 Suggested runout lengths for barrier design ..................................................................................... 5-33
5.9 Roadside barrier inspection checklist ................................................................................................ 543
8.1 Crashworthy end treatments ............................................................................................................... 84
8.2 Crashworthy crash cushions ............................................................................................................. 8-20
8.3 Sample design calculation for a sand-filled barrel system .................................................................. 8-31
8.4 Reserve areas for gores ...................................................................................................................... &35
8.5 Comparativemaintenancerequirements ............................................................................................. 8-36
9.1 Example of clear-zone widths for work zones ...................................................................................... 9-2
9.2 Temporary longitudinalbarriers .......................................................................................................... 9-3
9.3 Suggested priorities for application of protective vehicles and truck mounted attenuators..............9-25
9.4 Example of guidelines for spacing of Shadow Vehicles ...................................................................... 9-27
10.1 Percentage of single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes by severity and time
period for urban principal and minor arterials in Illinois ..................................................................... 1(r3
11.1 Suggested guidelines for lateral placement of mailboxes ................................................................... 116
xx
An Introduction to Roadside Safety
1.0 HISTORY OF ROADSIDE SAFETY monly asked revolves around whether spending resources
off the pavement is really beneficial given the limited na-
Roadside safety design, as one component of total high- ture of infrastructure funds. Perhaps, some statistics bring
way design, is a relatively recent concept. Most of the the potential of crash reduction and roadside safety into
highway design components were established in the late focus.
1940s and the 1950s. These components included hori- The United States suffers approximately40,000 traffic
zontal alignment. vertical alignmeiit,hydraulic design, and fatalities each year. The actual number has fluctuated
sight distance to name some of the most common high- around this level since the mid-1960s. At the same time,
way design elements. These elements have been revised the number of vehicle kilometers [miles]traveled each year
and refined over the years through experience and re- has increased approximately two and one-half times since
search. However, the highway design components them- the mid-1960s. Therefore, the traffic fatality rate per one
selves have remained about the same for several decades. billion vehicle kilometers [miles] given in Figure 1.1 has
Roadside safety design did not become a much dis- fallen by more than half since the mid-1960s.
cussed aspect of highway design until the late 1960s, and This significant reduction is due to several factors.
it was the decade of the 1970s before this type of design Motor vehicles are much safer than they were in the past.
was regularly incorporated into highway projects. Because Protected passenger compartments, padded interiors, and
most highways are designed for twenty- to thirty-year occupant restraints are some features that have added to
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
projected traffic volumes, many roadway projects placed passenger safety during impact situations. Roadways
in service before the 1970sare only now becoming candi- have been made safer through design improvements such
dates for major reconstruction. This reconstruction offers as increased superelevation, intersection geometry, and
an opportunity to incorporate cost-effective roadside the addition of grade separations. Drivers are more edu-
safety concepts and design features. The purpose of this cated about safe vehicle operation as evidenced by the
Guide is to present the concepts of roadside safety to the increased use of occupant restraints and a decrease in
designer in such a way that the most practical, appropri- driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. All these
ate, and beneficial roadside design can be accomplished contributing factors have reduced the motor vehicle fatal-
for each project. ity rate.
How significant is the involvement of the roadside en-
vironment in highway crashes? Unfortunately, roadside
1.1 THE BENEFITS OF ROADSIDE SAFETY crashes account for far too great a portion of the total fatal
highway crashes. About thirty percent, or almost one in
Roadside design might be defined as the design of the every three fatalities, are the result of a single vehicle
area between the outside shoulder edge and the run-off-the-road crash. These figures mean that the road-
right-of-way limits. Some have referred to this aspect of side environment comes into play in a very significant
highway design as off-pavement design. A question com- percentage of fatal and serious-injury crashes.
1-1
120 111
1 i1791
99 98
[I591 i1581
70
i1131
33 34
30
[531 i551 22
i481 21
16
i341 i351 13
[261
i211
11 t i401
roi
Ye ar
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 1.I Traffic fatality rate per billion vehicle kilometers[miles] by year
I.2 THE FORGIVING ROADSIDE CONCEPT Through decades of experience and research, the ap-
plication of the forgiving roadside concept has been re-
There are many reasons why a vehicle will leave the pave- fined to the point where roadside design is an integral part
ment and encroach on the roadside, including: of transportation design criteria. Design options for re-
ducing roadside obstacles, in order of preference, are as
8 driver fatigue or inattention follows:
excessive speed 1. Remove the obstacle.

2 Redesign the obstacle so it can be safely tra-
driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol versed.
3. Relocate the obstacle to a point where it is less
8 crash avoidance
likely to be struck.
a roadway conditions such as ice, snow, or rain 4. Reduce impact severity by using an appropriate
breakaway device.
8 vehicle component failure 5. Shield the obstacle with a longitudinal traffic bar-
rier designed for redirection or use a crash cush-
8 poor visibility ion.
6. Delineate the obstacle if the above alternatives
are not appropriate.
Regardless of the reason for a vehicle leaving the road-
way, a roadside environment free of fixed objects with One on-roadway safety feature that is becoming more
stable, flattened slopes enhances the opportunity for re- prevalent nationwide on facilities experiencing a signifi-
ducing crash severity. The forgiving roadside concept al- cant number of run-off-the-road crashes is the use of trans-
lows for errant vehicles leaving the roadway and sup- verse milled shoulder rumble strips to supplement pave-
ports a roadside design where the serious consequences ment edge lines. These indentations in the roadway shoul-
of such an incident are reduced. ders alert motorists through noise and vibration that their
1-2
vehicles have crossed the edge line and afford many mo- Chapter 10 discusses the application of roadside safety
torists an opportunity to remain on or return to the trav- in the urban environment. While much of the information
eled way safely. Several transportation agencies have represented in this publication applies to rural high-speed
ported significant reductions in single-vehicle crashes conditions, this chapter offers information on urban road-
after installing shoulder rumble strips. side practices.
Chapter 11 with Appendices D and E provides informa-
tion on mailboxes and mailbox turnout design.
1.3 THE CONTENT AND FORMAT
This Guide replaces the 2dEdition of the AASHTO Road- 1.4 CRASH TESTING ROADSIDE SAFETY
side Design Guide (1996). This publication can be consid- FEATURESAND APPURTENANCES
ered a companion document for such current publications
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
as A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets This publication has several references to crash-testing
and Standard Specifications for Structural Supports f o r criteria and crash-tested hardware. The intended implica-
Highway Signs, Luminaires and Trafic Signals. There tion of referring to a device as crash tested is that the
are also several research publications and additional ref- roadside hardware was tested to the applicable criteria in
erence literature given at the end of each chapter. existence at the time when full-scale crash testing was
Chapter 2 discusses methods for selecting appropriate done. While full-scale crash-testingcriteria subjects road-
alternative roadside safety enhancements. The discussion side devices to severe vehicle impact conditions, the test-
involves benefitkost analysis to determine a ranking of ing can not duplicate every roadside condition or vehicle
alternatives in the absence of better local information. impact situation. The testing provides for an acceptable
Appendix A offers an example of one methodology for level of performance under normalized conditions. How-
accomplishing a benefitkost analysis of various alterna- ever, every roadside device or installation has limitations
tives. dictated by physical laws, the crashworthinessof vehicles,
Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the clear roadside and the limitation of resources. Some in-service impact
concept.It gives some relativeclear zone values from which situations may have more severe consequences if they
design guidance may be derived. Examples of the applica- occur beyond the design limits, which the testing was
tion of the clear-zone values are also given. The chapter intended to replicate.
also includes a discussion of the treatment of drainage National Cooperative Highway Research Program
features. (NCHRP) Report 350, Recommended Procedures for the
Chapter 4 provides information on the use of sign and Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features (i),
luminaire supports within the roadside environment. Both contains the current recommendations for testing and
small and large signs are included and criteria for evaluatingthe performance of longitudinal barriers, termi-
breakaway and non-breakaway supports are presented. nals, crash cushions, breakaway or yielding supports for
The chapter concludes with discussions of miscellaneous signs and luminaries, breakaway utility poles, truck-
roadside features such as mailbox supports, utility poles, mounted attenuators, and work zone traffic control de-
and trees. vices. NCHRP Report 350 establishesuniform procedures
Chapters 5,6,7, and 8 provide information concerning for the testing and in-service evaluation of permanent and
roadside barriers and crash cushions. Chapter 5 discusses temporary safety features and supersedes previous rec-
roadside bamers. Appendix B gives selected details for ommendations provided in NCHRP Report 230 (2). Major
these roadside barriers. Chapter 6 provides equivalent in- revisions from NCHRP Report 230 included test vehicle
formation for median barriers and Appendix C gives se- changes, number of impact conditions, adoption of the
lected median barrier details. Chapter 7 includes informa- Test Level concept, widened ranges of devices, and
tion on appropriate bridge railings. Chapter 8 offers the metrication. The uniform testing and evaluation proce-
latest state-of-the-practiceinformation on barrier end treat- dures set forth in NCHRP Report 350 provide the follow-
ments and crash cushions. ing benefits:
Chapter 9 discusses the application of the roadside
safety concept for the temporary conditions ouna in con- e a basis for comparison of impact performance
struction or maintenarice work zones. Fur exaniple, the merits of candidate safety features;
chapter contains informationon clear zones in a work zone,
temporary barriers, truck-mounted attenuators, and tem- a guidance for safety feature manufacturers; and
porary traffic control devices.
e a basis for the formulation of safety feature per-
formance specifications.
13
Roadside Design Guide
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
NCHRP Report 350 presents specific impact conditions conditions. This information was obtained through the
for conducting vehicle crash tests. The conditions include National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations
vehicle mass [weight], speed, approach angle, and point (NHTSA)Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and
on the safety feature to be hit. Standard test vehicle types identifies the first harmful event in a series of events re-
are defined for small passenger cars, standard %ton pickup sulting in a fatal crash. In some cases, the first harmful
trucks, single-unit van trucks, tractorhan-type trailer event is also identified as the most harmful event. For
units, and tractorhanker trailer units. The impact speeds example, if a motorist strikes a tree, the impact with the tree
range from 35 to 100 km/h [approximately 20 to 60 mph] is likely to be classified as both the first and most harmful
and approach angles vary from O to 25 degrees. The spe- event. On the other hand, if the first harmful event is strik-
cific NCHRP Report 350 test conditions and evaluation ing an embankment, the most harmful event is often a
criteria for each type of roadside device are summarized in rollover. FARS data for each State can be accessed di-
the chapters that address that type of device. The report rectly at http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov.
itself is out-of-print but can be viewed and downloaded The amount of monetary resources availablefor all road-
from the following web site: http:// side safety enhancements is limited. The objective of de-
www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/ signers has to be to maximize roadside safety on a
NCHRP+projects. From this site, NCHRP Report 350 can system-wide basis with the given funds. Accomplishing
be found by clicking on Area 22, then on Project 22-7. The this objective means addressing those specific roadside
file is very large and is primarily intended for research features that can contribute the most to the safety en-
personnel who conduct the actual crash testing. hancement of that individual highway project. If the inclu-
sion of the highest level of roadside design criteria is rou-
tinely required in each highway design project, regardless
1.5 THE APPLICATION OF THIS GUIDE of cost or safety effectiveness, it is likely that system-wide
safety may stay static or may be degraded. This potential
This publication is intended to present information on the will certainly exist if other roadside needs are not improved
latest state-of-the-practice in roadside safety. The con- because funds were not judiciously applied to the most
cepts, designs, and philosophies presented in the follow- viable safety enhancement need.
ing chapters can not, and should not, be included in their Given the fact that objects and slope changes must be
totality on every single project. Each project is unique introduced at varying points off the pavement edge, the
and offers an individual opportunity to enhance that par- enhancement of roadside safety involves selecting the
ticular roadside environment from a safety perspective. best choice among several acceptable design alterna-
The guidelines presented in this publication are most tives. The experience gained from decades of selecting
applicable to new construction or major reconstruction design alternatives, the research done on vehicle dynam-
projects. These projects, which often include significant ics, and the technological advances in materials offers the
changes in horizontal or vertical alignment,offer the great- potential for maintaining and enhancing one of the safest
est opportunity for implementing many of the roadside national transportation systems in existence.
safety enhancements presented in this document. For re- This document is intended to represent the spectrum
surfacing, rehabilitation, or restoration (3R) projects, the of commonly available roadside design alternatives. In
primary emphasis is generally placed on the roadway it- most cases, these alternatives have shown significant
self to maintain the structural integrity of the pavement. It benefits under appropriately selected field conditions.
will generally be necessary to selectively incorporate road- Many of these roadside enhancements have, over time,
side safety guidelines on 3R projects only at locations demonstrated their ability in the field to improve roadside
where the greatest safety benefit can be realized. Because safety conditions. In many areas, this publication strives
of the scope of 3R projects and the limited nature of most to give the advantages and disadvantages of roadside
rehabilitation programs, the identification of areas that technology. With this information, designers can make
offer the greatest safety enhancement potential is critical. more knowledgeabledecisions about the best applications
Accident reports, site investigations, and maintenance for individual projects. It should be noted that no attempt
records offer starting points for identifying these loca- is made, or implied,to offer every singleroadside enhance-
tions. ment design technique or technology.
The importance of designing the roadside to be as clear Finally, this publication is not intended to be used as a
as practical can be seen by noting which objects and slope standard or a policy statement. This document is made
conditions are most frequently associated with fatal run- available to be a resource for current information in the
off-the-road crashes. Table 1.1 shows the numbers of fa- area of roadside design. Agencies may choose to use this
talities in the United States from 1993 to 1999 resulting informationas one reference upon which to build the road-
from collisions with specific roadside objects or slope side design criteria best suited to their particular location

TABLE 1.I First harmful event fixed-object fatalities by object type
Attenuator 23 28 35 26 19 19 24
Sign or Light
support 47 1 453 580 634 5 14 504 546
Tree/Shrub 3,035 3,014 3,198 3,128 3,220 3,226 3,348
Utility Pole 1,274 1,096 1,135 1,096 1,111 1,092 1,070

Other Fixed
Objects 575 587 564 569 534 508 508
Other Pole/
support 301 350 359 404 359 3 12 352
Total
Fatalities 11,292 11,237 12,015 11,906 11,695 11,731 11,908
and projects. Knowledgeable design, practically applied 2. Michie, J. D. National Cooperative Highway
at the local level, offers the greatest potential for a con- Research Program Report 230: Recommended
tinually improved transportation system. Procedures f o r the Safety Performance Evalua-
tion of Highway Appurtenance. Transportation
Research Board. Washington, DC, 1981.
REFERENCES
1. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, tuidR. A. Zimmer.

National Cooperative Highway Research
Report 350: Recommended Procedures f o r the
Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Fea-
tures. Transportation Research Board, Washing-
ton, DC, 1993.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1-5
Ch c
Roadside Safety and Economics
2.0 OVERVIEW The primary benefit obtained from selecting one de-
sign over another, relative to safety, is the expected reduc-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The consistent application of geometric design standards tion in the future costs of crashes. These costs typically
for roads and streets provides motorists with a high de- include property damage costs and personal injury costs.
gree of safety. Design features, such as horizontal and To estimate these costs, the expected number and sever-
vertical curvature, lane and shoulder width, signing, shoul- ity of crashes that may occur for each roadside treatment
der rumble strips, and pavement markings, play an impor- must be estimated. In some cases, the total number of
tant role in keeping motorists on the traveled way. Road- crashes may be reduced by a given treatment, such as
side safety features, such as breakaway supports, barri- providing a significantlywider roadside recovery area than
ers, and crash cushions provide an extra margin of safety previously existed. Tn other instances, the safety treat-
to motorists who inadvertently leave the roadway. Most ment may not reduce the total number of crashes but may
of these appurtenances are routinely installed based on a reduce their severity. The installation of a median or road-
subjective analysis of their benefits to the motorist; how- side traffic barrier may have this effect.
ever, in some instances it may not be immediately obvious The costs used in a benefitlcost analysis are generally
that the benefits to be gained from a specific safety de- the direct construction and maintenance costs incurred
sign or treatment equal or exceed the additional costs. by the highway agency. They can usually be estimated
Thus, a designer must decide how and where limited funds with a high degree of accuracy.
should be spent to achieve the greatest overall benefit. A benefitlcost analysis must also consider the period
One method that can be used to make this determination of time (project life) over which each alternativetreatment
is a benefitkost analysis. provides a benefit. Because different treatments can have
different project lives, both benefits and costs must be
annualized so direct comparisons between alternative de-
2.1 BENEFITICOSTANALYSIS sign treatments can be made. To reduce total (life-cycle)
costs to annualized costs, discount rates must be consid-
A benefitkost analysis is a method by which the esti- ered. An annualized benefitlcost ratio thus compares the
mated benefits to be derived from a specific course of expected savings (benefits) to society, through reduced
action are compared to the costs of implementing that costs from crashes, to the costs (construction and main-
action. If the estimated benefits of a specific design ex- tenance) incurred by the highway agency to provide a
ceed the cost of constructing and maintaining that design specific treatment.
over a period of time, the safer design may be implemented; The following subsections identify the type of data
however, simply having a benefitkost ratio greater than that are needed to conduct a benefitkost analysis and the
one is not amp!^, jnstification for the construction of a general availability of this information. The major factors
'2
roadside safety treatment. Each project must compete with include:

others for limited safety funds. The designer must attempt
to build those projects that best meet the public's need
for safety and mobility.
. encroachments,
roadside geometry, and
crash costs.
2-1
2.1 .IEncroachments 2.1.3 Crash Costs
The benefits derived from a roadside safety treatment can Once an estimate has been made of the number of crashes
be calculated by first estimating the number of vehicles that can be expected at a given location, this information
that are likely to run off the road at a particular location. must be translated into a cost that is directly related to
By definition, an encroachment occurs when a motorist crash severity. One method of accomplishing this is by
strays from the traveled way. The primary factors that af- assigning a Severity Index (SI) to individual crashes. This
fect the number of encroachments are traffic volume, road- SI will vary with the type of vehicle involved, its speed
way alignment, and lane widths. The number of estimated and impact angle, and the type of obstacle struck. A crash
encroachments is determinedby multiplying an encroach- may range in severity from minor to fatal. If an SI system is
ment rate by the number of vehicles using the facility, used, a crash involving no personal injuries and negli-
resulting in a figure representing the number of encroach- gible property damage might be assigned an SI of zero,
ments per kilometer [mile] per year. Current encroachment while a crash with a 100percent chance of a fatality might
rates are derived from a limited number of studies con- be assigned an SI of 10.Between these extremes, crashes
ducted over the past 30 years (1,2). These rates should be typically involve varying degrees of property damage
adjusted when actual data at a specific location are avail- coupled with slight, moderate, or severe personal injuries.
able. They may also be modified based on engineering Converting severity indices to crash cost is a relatively
judgment for non-typical conditions. easy process, but it does require that a dollar cost be
It should be further noted that not all encroachments assigned to each type of crash. This step involves con-
result in crashes. For example, for small-angle encroach- siderable judgment because it requires that a value be
ments, even a narrow recovery area may provide enough assigned to each crash classification, including fatal
space for a driver to regain control and return safely to the crashes. Primary sources of crash cost data include the
roadway. To estimate the number of crashes that may re- National Safety Council, the National Highway Traffic
sult from encroachments,the angles of departure from the Safety Administration, and the Federal Highway Admin-
roadway and the speeds and types of vehicles involved istration.
must be considered.
2.2 BENEFITICOST ANALYSIS PROGRAMS

2.1.2 Roadside Geometry
Several highway agencies have used the ROADSIDE
Once a vehicle has left the roadway, a crash may or may analysis program presented in the two earlier editions of
not occur. The end result of an encroachment depends the Roadside Design Guide to both analyze site-specific
upon the physical characteristics of the roadside environ- alternative safety treatments and to develop design charts
ment. As noted earlier, the highway designer has a signifi- and tables using local data. Information on an updated
cant degree of control over roadside geometry and appur- and significantly revised version of ROADSIDE, called
tenances. Flat, traversable, stable slopes will minimize the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP), is included
overturning crashes, which are usually severe. Elimina- in Appendix A.
tion of roadside hardware, its relocation to less vulnerable
areas, or the use of breakaway-type devices remain the
options of choice in the development of safer roadsides. REFERENCES
Obstructions that cannot otherwise be treated should be
shielded by properly designed and installed traffic barri- 1. Hutchinson, J. W., and T. W. Kennedy. Medians
ers or crash cushions if it is cost-effective to do so. Fi- of Divided Highways-Frequency and Nature
nally, if a fixed object or other roadside obstacle cannot be of Vehicle Encroachments. Bulletin 487. Univer-
eliminated, relocated, modified, or shielded for whatever sity of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
reason, consideration should be given to delineating the 1966.
feature so it is readily visible to a motorist.
2. Cooper, P. Analysis of Roadside Encroach-
ments-Single Vehicle Run-off-Road Accident
Data Analysis for Five Provinces, B.C. Research.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, March
1980.
2-2 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Roadside Topography and Drainage Features
3.0 OVERVIEW 3.1 THE CLEAR ROADSIDECONCEPT
This chapter includes a discussion on the development Beginning in the early 1960s, as more Interstate highways
and evaluation of the clear roadside concept and its appli- and other freeways were opened to traffic, the nature and
cation to roadside design. It also discusses embankment characteristicsof the typical rural highway crash began to
slopes and ditches and how these features influence road- change. Instead of head-on crashes with other vehicles or
side features such as curbs, culverts, and drop inlets, crashes involving trees immediately adjacent to the road-
whose purpose is to provide adequate roadway drainage. way, many drivers were running off the new freeways and
The designer is presented with several options that en- colliding with man-made objects such as bridge piers, sign
hance safety without affecting the capabilities of these supports, culverts, ditches, and other design features of
elements to drain the highway. the roadway. In 1967, the AASHO Traffk Safety Commit-
Most of the clear roadside design guidelines discussed tee (currently the AASHTO Standing Committee on High-
in this chapter have been practiced to varying degrees for way Traffic Safety) issued a report entitled Highway De-
several years. This chapter attempts to reemphasize and sign and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety
collect the currently accepted design principles to pro- (1). This document became known as the Yellow Book
vide guidance in the area of roadside clearances. How- and its principles were widely applied to highway con-
ever, to include every recommendation or design value in struction projects, particularly high-speed controlled ac-
this chapter on every future highway project is neither cess facilities. A second edition of the Yellow Book, pub-
feasible nor possible. Engineering judgment will have to lished by AASHTO in 1974, stated that for adequate
play a part in determining the extent to which improve- safety, it is desirable to provide an unencumbered road-
ments can reasonably be made with the limited resources side recovery area that is as wide as practical on a specific
available. highway section. Studies have indicated that on high-
As the designer studies the options available, some speed highways, a width of 9 meters [30 feet] or more from
consideration should be given to the future maintenance the edge of the through traveled way permits about 80
of drainage facilities and roadside topography. Ongoing percent of the vehicles leaving a roadway out of control
repair and upkeep will be necessary to ensure the contin- to recover.
ued function and safety of various roadside drainage fea- Subsequently, most highway agencies began to try to
tures. Personnel, materials, equipment, and cost are some provide a traversable and unobstructed roadside area
of the considerations in every maintenance program. The (clear zone) extending approximately 9 m [30 ft] beyond
designer should take into account the exposure of crews the edge of the through traveled way, particularly on high-
to traffic conditionswhile completing repairs. Also, main- volume, high-speed roadways. Many obstacles located
tenance activities can cause various levels of disruption within this clear-zone distance were removed, relocated,
in the traffic flow, which may increase the potential for redesigned, or shielded by traffic barriers or crash cush-
crashes. ions. It soon became apparent, however, that in some lim-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
31
ited situationswhere the embankment sloped significantly 3.2 ROADSIDE GEOMETRY

downward, a vehicle could encroach farther from the
through traveled way; thus, a 9 m [30 ft] recovery area If a roadside is not flat, a motonst leaving the roadway will
might not be adequate. Conversely, on most low-volume encounter a foreslope, a backslope, a transverse slope, or
or low-speed facilities, a 9 m [30 ft] clear-zone distance a drainage channel (change in sideslope from a foreslope
was considered excessive and could seldom be justified to a backslope). Each of these features has an effect on a
for engineering, environmental, or economic reasons. vehicles lateral encroachment and trajectory as discussed
The 1977 AASHTO Guidefor Selecting, Locating and in the following sections.
Designing Trafic Barriers ( 2 ) modified the earlier clear-
zone concept by introducing variable clear-zone distances
based on traffic volumes, speeds and roadside geometry. 3.2.1 Foreslopes
Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1 can be used to determine the sug-
gested clear-zone distance for selected traffic volumes Foreslopes parallel to the fiow of traffic may be identified
and speeds. However, Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 only pro- as recoverable, non-recoverable, or critical. Recoverable
vide a general approximationof the needed clear-zonedis- foreslopes are 1V4H or flatter. If such slopes are relatively
tance. The curves are based on limited empirical data that smooth and traversable, the suggested clear-zone distance
was extrapolated to provide information for a wide range may be taken directly from Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1. Motor-
of conditions. The designer must keep in mind site-spe- ists who encroach on recoverable foreslopes can gener-
cific conditions, design speeds, rural versus urban loca- ally stop their vehicles or slow them enough to return to
tions, and practicality. The distances obtained from Fig- the roadway safely. Fixed obstacles such as culvert
ure 3.1 and Table 3.1 should suggest only the approximate headwalls will normally not extend above the foreslope
center of a range to be considered and not a precise dis- within the clear-zonedistance. Examples of suggested road-
tance to be held as absolute. side design practices for recoverable foreslopes and the
The designer may choose to modify the clear-zone dis- application of,the clear-zone concept are in Section 3.3.1.
tance for horizontal curvature obtained from either Figure A non-recoverable foreslope is defined as one that is
3.1 or Table 3.1 by using Table 3.2. These modifications traversable, but from which most vehicles will be unable
are normally considered only when crash histories indi- to stop or to return to the roadway easily. Vehicles on
cate a need, or a specific site investigation shows a defini- such slopes typically can be expected to reach the bot-
tive crash potential that could be significantly lessened tom. Foreslopes between 1V3H and 1V4H generally fall
by increasing the clear-zone width, and when such in- into this category. Since a high percentage of encroach-
creases are cost effective. Horizontal curves, particularly ing vehicles will reach the toe of these slopes, the clear-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
for high-speed facilities, are usually superelevated to in- zone distance cannot logically end on the slope. Fixed
crease safety and provide a more comfortable ride. In- obstacles will normally not be constructed along such
creased banking on curves where the superelevation is slopes and a clear runout area at the base is desirable.
inadequate is an alternate method of increasing roadway Section 3.3.2 discusses non-recoverable foreslopes. Ex-
safety within a horizontal curve, except where snow and ample C provides an example for a clear-zone computa-
ice conditions limit the use of increased superelevation. tion.
For relatively flat and level roadsides, the clear-zone A critical foreslope is one on which a vehicle is likely to
concept is simple to apply. However, it is less clear when overturn. Foreslopes steeper than 1V3H generally fall into
the roadway is in a fill or cut section where roadside slopes this category. If a foreslope steeper than 1V3H begins
may be either positive, negative, or variable, or where a closer to the through traveled way than the suggested
drainage channel exists near the through traveled way. clear-zone distance for that specific roadway, a barrier
Consequently, these features must be discussed before a might be warranted if the slope cannot readily be flat-
full understanding of the clear-zone concept is possible. tened. Barrier warrants for critical foreslopes are discussed
The AASHTO publicationA Policy on Geometric Design in Chapter 5 .
of Highways and Streets (3) may be referenced for addi-
tional clear-zone discussion.
3-2
1V:3H
1V:4H
EXAMPLE #1 ", E 1V:5H

1V:6H FORESLOPE
EE
(FILL SLOPE)
1O0 krnh
5000 vpd
0
99
w",
1V:6H
[r -I 1V:EH
04
-' 71
LL%
ANSWER:
CLEAR ZONE 1V:lOH
WIDTH = 3 m 1; mRWGH TPAVELED WAY
li
1V:20H FILL SLOPES
FLAT
t
1V:20H
EXAMPLE #2
1V:6H BACKSLOPE 1V:lOH
(CUT SLOPE) ", E 1V:8H I
1O0 krnh
750 vpd
E:
0 O 1V:6H
d l
l i
ANSWER:
Y",
2 5 1V:5H
CLEAR ZONE m 2
WIDTH = 6 rn
1V:4H
FOR DISCUSSION ON VARIABLE

SLOPE DETERMINATION.
1V:3H
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I I
I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I
1500 - 6000 DESIGN A.D.T.
) O 3 6 I 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
750 - 1500 DESIGN A.D.T.
O 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
UNDER 750 DESIGN A.D.T.
O 3 6 9 12 15
CLEAR-ZONE DISTANCE (m)
FiGURE X i a Ciear-zone distance curves [metric units]
3-3
3H:lV
OBSTACLE
4H:lV
EXAMPLE #1 5H:lV THROUGH TWAVELED WAY

6H:lV FORESLOPE W<"
%
(FILL SLOPE)
60 mph
5000 vpd
99
3[r m
6H:lV
8H:lV
-1
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
QE
ANSWER:
CLEAR ZONE 10H:lV
WIDTH = 30 ft
li
20H:lV FILL SLOPES
FLAT
t
20H:lV CUT SLOPES
EXAMPLE #2
6H:lV BACKSLOPE 10H:lV 8 p . H
(CUT SLOPE) 8H:lV THROUGHTFtAVELEDWAV
60 mph
750 vpd
3g
@-a
9 9 6H:lV
li
!2m
ANSWER:
CLEAR ZONE
25 5H:lV
m 2
WIDTH = 20 fi
/I i
4H:lV
3H:lV
'
I I
I
'SEESECTION3.3.4.
FOR DISCUSSION ON VARIABLE
SLOPE DETERMINATION.
I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I
UNDER 750 DESIGN ADT
0 10 20 30 40 50'
CLEAR ZONE DISTANCE [ft]
FIGURE 3.1 b Clear-zone distance curves [US. customary units]
3-4
TABLE 3.1 Clear-zone distances in meters [feet] from edge of through traveled way
Metric Units ~
I I 'ORESLOPES BACKSLOPE ;
DESIGN
I DESIGN
i-
1V:5H TO 1V:3H 1V:3H 1V:5H TO 1V:6H
SPEED
ADT or flatter 1V:4H 1V:4H or flatter
60 km/h UNDER750 2.0- 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 ** 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0
or 750 - 1500 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.5 ** 3.0 - 3.5 3.0 - 3.5 3.0 - 3.5
less 1500 - 6000 3.5 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 ** 3.5 - 4.5 3.5 - 4.5 3.5 - 4.5
OVER 6000 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 ** 4.5 - 5.0 4.5- 5.0 4.5 - 5.0
70-80 UNDER 750 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.5 ** 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5
km/h 750 - 1500 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 6.0 ** 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0
1500 - 6000 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 8.0 ** 3.5 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5
OVER 6000 6.0 - 6.5 7.5 - 8.5 ** 4.5 - 5.0 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.5
90 UNDER 750 3.5 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.5 ** 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.0 - 3.5
kmh 750 - 1500 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 7.5 ** 3.0 - 3.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5
1500 - 6000 6.0 - 6.5 1.5 - 9.0 ** 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 6.5
OVER 6000 6.5 - 7.5 8.0 - 10.0* ** 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.5
1O0 UNDER 750 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 7.5 ** 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0
km/h 750 - 1500 6.0 - 7.5 8.0 - 10.0* ** 3.5 - 4.5 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 6.5
1500 - 6000 8.0 - 9.0 10.0 - 12.0* ** 4.5 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.5 7.5 - 8.0
I OVER6000 I 9.0- 10.0* 11.0- 13.5* ** 6.0 - 6.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.5
110 I UNDER750 I 5.5-6.0 6.0 - 8.0 ** 3.0 - 3.5 4.5 - 5.0 4.5 - 5.0
8.5 - 11.0* ** 3.5 - 5.0 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.5
10.5 - 13.Q* ** 5.0 - 6.0 6.5 - 7.5 8.0 - 8.5
1 11.5 - 14.0' *.,
*.&
6.5 - 7.5 8.0 - 9.0 8.5 - 9.0
history, the designer may provide clear-zone distances greater than the clear-zone shown in Table 3.1. Clear zones may be limited to
9 m for practicality and to provide a consistent roadway template if previous experience with similar projects or designs indicates
satisfactory performance.
** Since recovery is less likely on the unshielded, traversable 1V:3H slopes, fixed objects should not be present in the vicinity of the toe
of these slopes. Recovery of high-speed vehicles that encroach beyond the edge of the shoulder may be expected to occur beyond the
toe of slope. Determination of the width of the recovery area at the toe of slope should take into consideration right-of-way
availability, environmental concerns, economic factors, safety needs, and crash histories. Also, the distance between the edge of the
through traveled lane and the beginning of the 1V:3H slope should influence the recovery area provided at the toe of slope. While the
application may be limited by several factors, the foreslope parameters which may enter into determining a maximum desirable
recovery area are illustrated in Figure 3.2.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
35
TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)

[U.S. Customary Units]
!
~~
FORESLOPES BACKSLOPE
DESIGN DESIGN
1V:6H iV:5H TO 1V:3H 1V:3H iV:5H TO 1V:6H
SPEED ADT
of flatter 1V:4H 1V:4H or Flatter
40 mph UNDER 750 7-10 7-10 ** 7-10 7-10 7-10
or 750 - 1500 10- 12 12- 14 ** 10- 12 10- 12 10- 12
less 1500 - 6000 12- 14 14- 16 ** 12- 14 12 - 14 12 - 14
OVER 6000 14- 16 16- 18 ** 14-16 14- 16 14- 16
45-50 UNDER 750 10- 12 12- 14 ** 8- 10 8-10 10- 12
mPh 750 - 1500 12- 14 16 - 20 ** 10- 12 12- 14 14- IC
1500 - 6000 16- 18 20 - 26 ** 12- 14 14- i 6 16- 18
' OVER 6000 18 - 20 24 - 28 ** 14- 16 18-20 20 - 22
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
55 mph UNDER 750 12- 14 14- 18 ** 8-10 10-12 10 - 12
750 - 1500 16- 18 20 - 24 ** 10-12 14- 16 16- 18
1500 - 6000 20 - 22 24 - 30 ** 14- 16 16-18 20 - 22
OVER 6000 22 - 24 26-32* ** 16- 18 20 - 22 22 - 24
60mph UNDER750 16- 18 20 - 24 ** 10- 12 12- 14 14- 16
750 - 1500 20 - 24 26-32* ** 12- 14 16- 18 20 - 22
1500 - 6000 26 - 30 32-40* ** 14- 18 18-22 24 - 26
OVER 6000 30-32* 36-44* ** 20 - 22 24 - 26 26 - 28
65-70 UNDER750 i 8 - 20 20 - 26 ** 10- 12 14-16 14- 16
mph 750-1500 24 - 26 28-36* ** 12- 16 18 - 20 20 - 22
1500 - 6000 28-32* 34-42* ** 16 - 20 22 - 24 26 - 28
OVER 6000 30-34* 38-46* ** 22 - 24 26 - 30 28 - 30
history, the designer may provide clear-zone distances greater than the clear-zone shown in Table 3.1. Clear zones may be limited to
30 ft for practicality and to provide a consistent roadway template if previous experience with similar projects or designs indicates
satisfactory performance.
** Since recovery is less likely on the unshielded, traversable 1V:3H slopes, fixed objects should not be present in the vicinity of the toe
of these slopes. Recovery of high-speed vehicles that encroach beyond the edge of the shoulder may be expected to occur beyond the
toe of slope. Determination of the width of the recovery area at the toe of slope should take into consideration right-of-way
availability, environmental concerns, economic factors, safety needs, and crash histories. Also, the distance between the edge of the
through traveled lane and the beginning of the 1V:3H slope should influence the recovery area provided at the toe of slope. While the
application may be limited by several factors, the foreslope parameters which may enter into determining a maximum desirable
recovery area are illustrated in Figure 3.2.
36
TABLE 3.2 HorizontalCurve Adjustments
Lv(Curve Correction Factor) (Metric Units)
KZ(Curve CorrectionFactor) [U.S. Customary Units]

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Note: The clear-zone correction

factor is applied to the
outside of curves only.
Curves flatter than 900 m
[2S60 fi] d not requirs an
adjusted clear zone.
3-7
- Required Clear-Zone Distance

(based on recoverable slope)
-
Non-recoverable Clear Runout
Area
# c
1V:4H or Flatter Slope 1V:6H or Flatter
(1 V:6H or Flatter Desirable) Slope Desirable
FIGURE 3.2 Example of a parallel foreslope design
Many State highway agencies typically construct bani vehicle snagging rather than provide relatively smooth
roof sections, providing a relatively flat recovery area redirection. Warrants for the use of a roadside barrier in
adjacent to the roadway for some distance, followed by a conjunction with backslopes are included in Chapter 5.
steeper foreslope. Such a cross section is more economi-
cal than providing a continuous flat foreslope from the
edge of the through traveled way to the original ground 3.2.3 Transverse Slopes
line and is generally perceived as safer than constructing
a continuous steeper foreslope from the edge of the shoul- Common obstacles on roadsides are transverse slopes
der. Figure 3.2 depicts the clear-zone distance reaching a created by median crossovers, berms, driveways, or inter-
non-recoverable parallel foreslope and the subsequent secting side roads. These are generally more critical to
clear runout area that may be provided at the toe of the errant motorists than foreslopes or backslopes because
non-recoverable slope to provide a maximum desirable they are typically struck head on by run-off-the-road ve-
adjusted clear-zone distance. Example clear-zone calcula- hicles. Transverse slopes of 1V6H or flatter are suggested
tions for this type of cross section are also included in for high-speed roadways, particularly for that section of
Section 3.3.4. the transverse slope that is located immediately adjacent
to traffic. This slope can then be transitioned to a steeper
slope as the distance from the through traveled way in-
3.2.2 Backslopes creases.
Transverse slopes of 1V: 10H are desirable; however,
When a highway is located in a cut section, the backslope their practicality may be limited by width restrictions and
may be traversable depending upon its relative smooth- the maintenance problems associated with the long ta-
ness and the presence of fixed obstacles. If the foreslope pered ends of pipes or culverts. Transverse slopes steeper
between the roadway and the base of the backslope is than 1V:6H may be considered for urban areas or for low-
traversable (1V3H or flatter) and the backslope is obstacle- speed facilities. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show suggested de-
free, it may not be a significant obstacle, regardless of its signs for these slopes. Safety treatments for parallel drain-
distance from the roadway. On the other hand, a steep, age structures are discussed in Section 3.4.3.
rough-sided rock cut should normally begin outside the Some alternative designs for drains at median open-
clear zone or be shielded. A rock cut is normally consid- ings are shown in Figure 3.5. The water flows into a grated
ered to be rough-sided when the face will cause excessive drop inlet in the median to a cross-drainage structure or
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

FIGURE 3.3 Preferred cross slope design
(1) Slope 1V:IOH or flatter desirable.

A A 1V:6H maximum on high-speed,
I l , I high-volume facilities.
-
1 -
\ (2) End Treatment as required to meet
proposed slope.
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ - - -
Traffic ----I;- -
U-TURN MEDIAN OPENING
Section A - A
"Use of the flattest possible median cross slopes on high-speed highways,

particularlywithin the appropriate clear-zone area, can provide an improved roadside.
Safety treatment of culverts as discussed in Section 3.4.3 may further enhance the improvement.
FIGURE 3.4 Median transverse slope design
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
39
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I
,
'
Traffic -
I I
TRAFFIC I I
TRAFFIC -
*These alternatives could be considered in lieu of a pipe underneath the median crossover.
FIGURE 3.5 Examples of alternate median drainage
directly underneath the travel lanes to an outside chan- basic ditch configurations. Cross sections shown in the
nel. This eliminates the two pipe ends that would be ex- shaded region of each of the figures are considered to
posed to traffic in the median. The transverse slopes of have traversable cross sections. Channel sections that
the median opening would then be desirably sloped at fall outside the shaded region are considered less desir-
1V:1OHor flatter. able and their use should be limited where high-angle en-
croachments can be expected, such as the outside of rela-
tively sharp curves. Channel sections outside the shaded
3.2.4 Drainage Channels region may be acceptable for projects having one or more
of the following characteristics: restrictive right-of-way;
A drainage channel is defined as an open channel usually rugged terrain; resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation
paralleling the highway embankmentand within the limits (3R) construction projects; or on low-volume or low-speed
of the highway right-of-way. The primary function of drain- roads and streets, particularly if the channel bottom and
age channels is to collect surface runoff from the highway backslopes are free of any fixed objects.
and areas that drain to the right-of-way and convey the If practical, drainage channels with cross sections out-
accumulated runoff to acceptable outlet points. Channels side the shaded regions and located in vulnerable areas
must be designed to carry the design runoff and to ac- may be reshaped and converted to a closed system (cul-
commodate excessive storm water with minimal highway vert or pipe) or, in some cases, shieldedby a traffic barrier.
flooding or damage. However, channels should also be Warrants for the use of roadside barrier to shield non-
designed, built, and maintained with consideration given traversable channels within the clear zone are included in
to their effect on the roadside environment. Figures 3.6 Chapter 5 .
and 3.7 present preferred foreslopes and backslopes for
3-1O
THROUGH TRAVELED WAY
FORESLOPE
BACKSLOPE
/--
SHOULDER HP
FORESLOPE = V,:H,
1:lO 1:8 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3 1:2
0.5
0.4
(u
3F 1:3 .."
I
>" 0.3 >"
II If
w
a 1:4
9
3 0.2
i:5
1:6
2m
1:8
0.1 1:lO
O
(FLAT) O o. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
FORESLOPE = V,/H,
'This chart is applicable to all Vee ditches, rounded channels with a bottom width less than 2.4 rn [8 it]
and trapezoidal channels with bottom widths less than 1.2 rn [4 it].
FIGURE 3.6 Preferred cross sections for channels with abrupt slope changes
3.3 APPLICATION OF THE CLEAR-ZONE tained from these curves represent a reasonable measure
CONCEPT of the degree of safety suggested for a particular road-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
side, but they are neitner absoiute nor precise. In some

A basic understanding of the clear-zone concept is criti- cases, it i b reasonable tu leave a fixed object within the
cal to its proper application. The numbers obtained from clear zone; in other instances, an object beyond the clear-
Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1 imply a degree of accuracy that zone distance may require removal or shielding.Use of an
does not exist. Again, the curves are based on limited appropriateclear-zone distance amounts to a compromise
empirical data that was then extrapolated to provide data between maximizing safety and minimizing construction
for a wide range of conditions. Thus, the numbers ob- costs. Appropriate application of the clear-zone concept
3-11
[THROUGH TRAVELED WAY
/
1111111111111 C ' " ' 1 i I I I
f
FORESLOPE
BACKSLOPE
/
SHOULDER 2 1.2 rn [4 il]
0.5
0.4
Ia 1:3
%a
W
0.3
a
9
(B
1:4
Y 1:5
o 0.2
m 1:6
1:8
o. 1 1:lO
O
(FLAT) O o. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FORESLOPE=V,/H,
*This chart is applicable to rounded channels with bottom widths of 2.4 m [8ft] or more and to trapezoidal
channels with bottom widths equal to or greater than 1.2 m [4 ft].
FIGURE 3.7 Preferred cross sections for channels with gradual slope changes
will often result in more than one possible solution. The performance of an existing facility may be measurable
following sections are intended to illustrate a process that through an evaluation of crash records and on-site in-
may be used to determine if a fixed object or non-travers- spections as part of the design effort or in response to
able terrain feature warrants relocation, modification, re- complaints by citizens or officials. Consequently, it may
moval, shielding, or no treatment. not be cost-effective or practical because of environmen-
The guidelines in this chapter may be most applicable tal impacts or limited right-of-way to bring a 3R project
to new construction or major reconstruction. On resurfac- into full compliance with all of the clear-zone recommen-
ing, rehabilitation, or restoration (3R) projects, the pri- dations provided in this guide. Because of the scope of
mary emphasis is placed on the roadway itself. The actual such projects and the limited funding available, emphasis
3-12
should be placed on correcting or protecting areas within lowed by a non-recoverable foreslope.Example C demon-
the project that have identifiable safety problems related strates the method for calculating the desirable runout
to clear-zone widths. Bodies of water and escarpments are area.
the types of areas that may be considered for special em-
phasis.
3.3.3 Critical Foreslopes
3.3.1 Recoverable Foreslopes Critical foreslopes are those steeper than 1V3H. They will
cause most vehicles to overturn and should be treated if
The clear-zone distance for recoverable foreslopes of they begin within the clear-zone distance of a particular
1V4H or flatter may be obtained directly from Figure 3.1 or highway and meet the warrants for shielding contained in
Table 3.1. On new construction or major reconstruction, Chapter 5 . Examples C , D, and E illustrate the application
smooth slopes with no significant discontinuitiesand with of the clear-zone concept to critical foreslopes.
no protruding fixed objects are desirable from a safety
standpoint. It is desirable to have the top of the slope
rounded so an encroaching vehicle remains in contact 3.3.4 Examples of Clear-Zone Application
with the ground. It is also desirable for the toe of the slope on Variable Slopes
to be rounded to make it essentially traversable by an
errant vehicle. Designing smooth cross slopes is normally A variable foreslope is often specified on new construc-
accomplishedby using standard or typical cross sections. tion to provide a relatively flat recovery area immediately
The flatter the selected slope, the easier it is to mow or adjacent to the roadway followed by a steeper foreslope.
otherwise maintain and the safer it becomes to negotiate. This design requires less right-of-way and embankment
The examples at the end of this chapter illustrate the appli- material than a continuous, relatively flat foreslope and is
cation of the clear-zone concept to recoverableforeslopes. commonly called a barn-roof section. If an adequate
recovery area (as determined from Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1)
exists on the flatter foreslope, the steeper slope may be
3.3.2 Non-Recoverable Foreslopes critical or non-traversable. Clear-zone distances for em-
bankments with variable foreslopes ranging from essen-
Foreslopes from 1V.3H up to 1V4H are considered tra- tially flat to 1V4H may be averaged to produce a compos-
versable if they are smooth and free of fixed objects. How- ite clear-zone distance. Slopes that change from a foreslope
ever, because many vehicles on slopes this steep will con- to a backslope cannot be averaged and should be treated
tinue on to the bottom, a clear runout area beyond the toe as drainage channel sections and analyzed for
of the non-recoverable foreslope is desirable. The extent traversability using Figure 3.6 or 3.7.
of this clear runout area could be determined by first find- Although a weighted average of the foreslopes may
ing the available distance between the edge of the through be used, a simple average of the clear-zone distances for
traveled way and the breakpoint of the recoverable each foreslope is accurate enough if the variable slopes
foreslope to the non-recoverable foreslope. (See Figure are approximately the same width. If one foreslope is sig-
3.2.) This distance is then subtracted from the recom- nificantly wider, the clear-zone computation based on that
mended clear-zone distance based on the steepest recov- slope alone may be used.
erable foreslope before or after the non-recoverable
foreslope. The result is the desirable clear runout area that
should be provided beyond the non-recoverableforeslope 3.3.5 Clear-Zone Applications for
if practical. The clear runout area may be reduced in width Drainage Channels and Backslopes
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
based on existing conditions or site investigation. Such a

variable sloped typical section is often used as a compro- Drainage channel cross sections that are considered pref-
mise between roadside safety and economics. By provid- erable in Figures 3.6 or 3.7 are not obstacles and need not
ing a relatively flat recovery area immediately adjacent to be constructed at or beyond the clear-zone distance for a
the roadway, most errant motorists can recover before specific roadway. It is important that roadside hardware
reaching the steeper foreslope beyond. The foreslopebreak not be located in or near ditch bottoms or on the backslope
may be liberally rounded so that an encroaching vehicle near the drainage channel. Any vehicle leaving the road-
does not become airborne. It is suggested that the steeper way may be funneled along the drainage channel bottom
slope be made as smooth as practical and rounded at the or encroach to some extent on the backslope, thus making
bottom. Figure 3.2 illustrates a recoverable foreslope fol- an impact more likely. Breakaway hardware may not func-
3-13
tion as designed if the vehicle is airborne or sliding side- leaving the roadway. Sloping curbs are defined as those
ways when contact is made. Non-yielding fixed objects having a slopingtraffic face 150mm [6 in.] or less in height.
should be located beyond the clear-zone distance for these These can be readily traversed by a motorist when neces-
cross sections as determined from Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1. sary, but a designer may prefer a height for sloping curbs
of no greater than 100 mm [4 in.] because higher curbs
may drag the underside of some vehicles.
3.4 DRAINAGE FEATURES In general, curbs are not desirable along high-speed
roadways. If a vehicle is spinning or slipping sideways as
Effective drainage is one of the most critical elements in it leaves the roadway, wheel contact with a curb could
the design of a highway or street. However, drainage fea- cause it to trip and overturn. Under other impact condi-
tures should be designed and built with consideration tions, a vehicle may become airborne, which may result in
given to their consequences on the roadside environment. loss of control by the motorist. The distance over which a
In addition to drainage channels, which were addressed vehicle may be airborne and the height above (or below)
in Section 3.2.4, curbs, parallel and transverse pipes and normal bumper height attained after striking a curb may
culverts, and drop inlets are common drainage system el- become critical if secondary crashes occur with traffic
ements that should be designed, constructed, and main- barriers or other roadside appurtenances.
tained with both hydraulic efficiency and roadside safety If a curb is used in conjunction with a metal beam traf-
in mind. fic barrier, it should ideally be located flush with the face
In general, the following options, listed in order of pref- of the railing or behind it. Where the curb height is 150mm
erence, are applicable to all drainage features: [6 in.] or higher, the barrier should be stiffened to reduce
its deflection to avoid the potential of a vehicle vaulting
eliminate non-essential drainage structures; the rail. Curbs should not be used in front of sloping faced
design or modify drainage structures so they are concrete barriers because such placement may result in
traversable or present a minimal obstruction to unsatisfactory barrier performance. Curbharrier combi-
an errant vehicle; nations, particularly for bridge railings, should be crash
tested if extensive use of the combination exists or is
if a major drainage feature cannot effectively be
planned and a similar combination has not been previ-
redesigned or relocated, shield it using a suitable ously tested. Refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.6.2, Terrain
traffic barrier if it is in a vulnerable location. Effects for additional guidelines about curb usage with
traffic barriers. Also see Chapter 4 ofA Policy on Geomet-
The remaining sections of this chapter identify the ric Design ofHighwuys und Streets (2) for more informa-
safety problems associated with curbs, pipes and culverts, tion on curb configuration and placement. A National
and drop inlets, and offer recommendations concerning Cooperative Highway Research Program project, sched-
the location and design of these features to improve their uled for completion in March 2003, is under way to de-
safety characteristics without adversely affecting their velop design guidelines for the use of curbs and curb-
hydraulic capabilities. The information presented applies barrier combinations.
to all roadway types and projects. However, as with many When obstructions exist behind curbs, a minimum hori-
engineering applications, the specific actions taken at a
zontal clearance of 0.5 m [1.5 ft] should be provided be-
given location often rely heavily on the exercise of good
yond the face of curbs to the obstructions. This offset
engineering judgment and on a case-by-case assessment
may be consideredthe minimum allowablehorizontalclear-
of the costs and benefits associated with alternative de-
ance (or operational offset), but it should not be con-
signs.
strued as an acceptable clear zone distance. Since curbs
do not have a significant redirectional capability, obstruc-
tions behind a curb should be located at or beyond the
3.4.1 Curbs
minimum clear-zonedistances shown in Table 3.1. In many
instances, it will not be feasible to obtain the recommended
Curbs are commonly used for drainage control, pavement
clear zone distances on existing facilities. On new con-
edge support and delineation,right-of-wayreduction, aes-
struction where minimum recommended clear zones can-
thetics, sidewalk separation, and reduction of maintenance
not be provided, fixed objects should be located as far
operations. Curb designs are classified as vertical or slop-
from traffic as practical on a project-by-project basis, but
ing. Vertical curbs are defined as those having a vertical or
in no case closer than 0.5 m [ 1.5 ft] from the face of the
nearly vertical traffic face 150mm [6 in.] or higher. These
curb.
are intended to discourage motorists from deliberately
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-14
3.4.2 Cross-Drainage Structures each with a 750 mm [30 in.] or less diameter. Extending
culverts to locate the inlets/outlets a fixed distance from
Cross-drainage structures are designed to carry water the through traveled way is not recommended if such treat-
underneath the roadway embankment and vary in size from ment introduces discontinuities in an otherwise travers-
460 mm [18 in.J for concrete or corrugated metal pipes to able slope. Extending the pipe results in warping the
3 m [1O ft] or more for multibarreled concrete box culverts foreslopes in or out to match the opening, which pro-
or structural plate pipes. Typically, their inlets and outlets duces a significantly longer area that affects the driver
consist of concrete headwalls and wingwalls for the larger who has run off the road. Matching the inlet to the
structures and beveled-end sections for the smaller pipes. foreslope is desirable because it results in an extremely
While these types of designs are hydraulically efficient small target to hit, reduces erosion problems, and sim-
and minimize erosion problems, they may represent an plifies mowing operations.
obstacle to motorists who run off the road. This type of Single structures and end treatments wider than 1 m
design may result in either a fixed object protruding above [ 3 ft] can be made traversable for passenger size vehicles
an otherwise traversable embankment or an opening into by using bar grates or pipes to reduce the clear opening
which a vehicle can drop, causing an abrupt stop. The width. Modifications to the culvert ends to make them
options availableto a designer to minimize these obstacles traversable should not significantly decrease the hydrau-
are: lic capacity of the culvert. Safety treatments must be hy-
draulically efficient. In order to maintain hydraulic effi-
O
use a traversable design; ciency, it may be necessary to apply bar grates to flared
extend the structure so that it is less likely to be wingwalls, flared end sections, or to culvert extensions
that are larger in size than the main barrel. The designer
hit;
should consider shielding the structure if significant hy-
shield the structure;
draulic capacity or clogging problems could result.
delineate the structure if the above alternatives Full-scale crash tests have shown that automobiles can
are not appropriate. CFOSS gFated-CUlYert end sections on slopes as steep as
lV3H at speeds as low as 30 km/h [20 mph] and as high as
Each of these options is discussed in the following 100 km/h [60 mph], when steel pipes spaced on 750 mm
subsections. [30 in.] centers are used for these cross-drainage struc-
tures. This spacing does not significantly change the flow
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
capacity of a pipe unless debris accumulates and causes

3.4.2.1 Traversable Designs partial clogging of the inlet. This underscores the impor-
tance of accurately assessing the clogging potential of a
A roadside designed with optimal safety features could structure during design and the importance of keeping
be defined as one that is almost flat, is completely travers- the inlets free of debris. Figure 3.8 shows recommended
able from the edge of the through traveled way to the sizes to support a full-sized automobile, and is based on a
right-of-way line, and would include sufficient area for all 750 mm [30 in.] bar spacing. It is important to note that the
desirable clear-zone distance requirements. Such a facility toe of the foreslope and the ditch or stream bed area imme-
would resemble a landing strip or runway at an airport. diately adjacent to the culvert must be more or less tra-
Thus, it is readily apparent from the start that roadside versable if the use of a grate is to have any significant
design must be a series of compromises between abso- safety benefit. Normally, grading within the right-of-way
lute safety and engineering, environmental, and economic limits can produce a satisfactory runout path.
constraints. The designer should strive for embankments For median drainage where flood debris is not a con-
as smooth or traversable as practical for a given facility. cern and where mowing operations are frequently required,
As indicated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, traversable, non- much smaller openings between bars may be tolerated
recoverable foreslopes may be rounded at top and bottom and grates similar to those commonly used for drop inlets
and may provide a relatively flat runout area at the bot- may be appropriate. It should also be noted that both the
tom. hydraulic efficiency and the roadside environment may
If a foresiope is traversabie, tine preferred treatment for be improved by making the culverts continuous and add-
any cross-drainage structure is to extend (or shorten) it to ing a median drainage inlet. This alternative eliminates
intercept the roadway embankment and to match the inlet two end treatments and is usually a practical design when
or outlet slope to the foreslope. For small culverts, no neither median width nor height of fill are excessive. Fig-
other treatment is required. For cross-drainage structures, ure 3.9 shows a traversable pipe grate on a concrete box
a small pipe culvert is defined as a single round pipe with culvert constructed to match the 1V6H side slope.
a 900 mm [36 in.] or less diameter or multiple round pipes
3-15
SPAN LENGTH INSIDE DIAMETER

up to 3.65 rn [ i 2 ft] 75 rnm [3 in.]
3.654.90 m [ i 2-1 6 ft] 87 rnm [3.5 in.]
4.90-6.10 m [16-20 fi] 100 mm [4 in.]
6.10 m [20 ft] or less with center support 75 rnrn [3 in.]
Each 750 mm
[30 in.] Maximum
I
-
*The chart above shows recommended safety pipe runner sizes for various span lengths for cross-drainage
Box I Pipe
Safety Pipe Runners
structures. The safety pipe runners are Schedule 40 pipes spaced on centers of 750 mm [30 in.] or less.
FIGURE 3.8 Design criteria for safety treatment of pipes and culverts
FIGURE 3.9 Safety treatment for cross-drainage culvert
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-16
- ~
3.4.2.2 Extension of Structure head-on by impacting vehicles. As with cross-drainage

structures, the designers primary concern should be to
For intermediate sized pipes and culverts whose inlets design generally traversable slopes and to match the cul-
and outlets cannot readily be made traversable, an option vert openings with adjacent slopes. Section 3.2.3 recom-
often exercised by the designer is to extend the structure mends that transverse slopes that can be struck at 90 de-
so the obstacle is located at or just beyond the appropri- grees by run-off-the-road vehicles be constructed as flat
ate clear zone. While this practice reduces the likelihood as practical, with 1V6H or flatter suggested for locations
of the pipe end being hit, it does not completely eliminate susceptible to high-speed impacts. On low-volumeor low-
the possibility. As noted in Section 3.1, the clear-zone speed roads, where crash history does not indicate a high
distance should not be viewed as a discrete, exact dis- number of run-off-the-road occurrences, steeper trans-
tance but as the center of a zone, which should then be verse slopes may be considered as a cost-effective ap-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
analyzed on a site-specific basis. proach. Using these guidelines, safety treatment options
If the extended culvert headwall remains the only sig- are similar to those for cross-drainage structures, in order
nificanr man-made fixed ohject immediately at the edge of of preference:
the clear zone along the section of roadway under design,
and the roadside is generally traversable to the right-of- eliminate the structure
way line elsewhere, simply extending the culvert to the use a traversable design
edge of the clear zone may not be the best alternative,
0 move the structure laterally to a less vulnerable
particularly on freeways and other high-speed, access-
controlledfacilities. On the other hand, if the roadway has location
numerous fixed objects, both natural and man-made, at shield the structure
the edge of the clear zone, extending individual structures 0 delineate the structure if the above alternatives
to the same minimum distance from traffic may be appro- are not appropriate
priate. However, redesigning the inledoutlet so it is no
longer an obstacle is usually the preferred safety treat-
ment. 3.4.3.1 Eliminate the Structure
Unlike cross-drainage pipes and culverts which are es-

3.4.2.3 Shielding sential for proper drainage and operation of a road or street,
parallel pipes can sometimes be eliminated by construct-
For major drainage structures that are costly to extend ing an overflow section on the field entrance, driveway, or
and whose end sections cannot be made traversable, intersecting side road. To ensure proper performance, care
shielding with an appropriate traffic barrier is often the should be taken when allowing drainage to flow over high-
most effective safety treatment. Although the traffic bar- way access points, particularly if several access points
rier is longer and closer to the roadway than the structure are closely spaced or the water is subject to freezing. This
opening and is likely to be hit more often than an treatment will usually be appropriate only at low-volume
unshielded culvert located farther from the through trav- locations where this design does not decrease the sight
eled way, a properly designed, installed, and maintained distance available to drivers entering the main road. Care
barrier system may provide an increased level of safety must also be exercised to avoid erosion of the entrance
for the errant motorist. and the area downstream of the crossing. This can usu-
ally be accomplished by paving the overflow section (as-
suming the rest of the facility is not paved) and by adding
3.4.3 Parallel Drainage Features an upstream and downstream apron at locations where
water velocities and soil conditions make erosion likely.
Parallel drainage culverts are those that are oriented paral- Closely spaced driveways with culverts in drainage
lel to the main flow of traffic. They are typically used at channels are relatively common as development occurs
transverse slopes under driveways, field entrances, ac- along highways approaching urban areas. Since traffic
cess ramps, intersecting side roads, and median cross- speeds and roadway design eiements are usually charac-
overs. Most such culverts are designed to carry relatively teristic of rural highways, these culverts may constitute a
small flows until the water can be discharged into outfall significant roadside obstacle. In some locations, such as
channels or other drainage facilities and carried away from along the outside of curves or where records indicate con-
the roadbed. However, these drainage features can present centrations of run-off-the-road crashes, it may be desir-
a significant roadside obstacle because they can be struck able to convert the open channel into a storm drain and
3-17
A A
Bars
600 mm [24 in.]

Max.
u The 100- to 200-mm [4- to 8-in.] range applies to both inlet and outlet
on two-way roads and only to the side facing traffic on divided highways.
Section 14-14
FIGURE 3.10 Inlet/outletdesign example for parallel drainage
backfill the areas between adjacent driveways. This treat- made to the Texas TransportationInstitute Research Study
ment will eliminate the ditch section as well as the trans- 2-8-79-280,Safe End Treatmentfor Roadside Culverts (4),
verse slopes with pipe inlets and outlets. in which researchers concluded that a passenger vehicle
should be able to traverse a pipe/slope combination at
speedsup to 80 km/h [50 mph] without rollover. To achieve
3.4.3.2 Traversable Designs this result, both the roadway (or ditch) foreslope and the
driveway foreslope should be 1V6H or flatter and have a
As emphasized earlier in this chapter, transverse slopes smoothtransitionbetween them. Ideally, the culvert should
should be designed with consideration given to their ef- be cut to match the driveway slope and fitted with cross
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
fect on the roadside environment. The designer should members perpendicular to the direction of traffic flow as
try to provide the flattest transverse slopes practical in described above. This study suggests that it could be
each situation, particularly in areas where the slope has cost-effective to flatten the approach slopes to 1V6H and
shown a high probability of being struck head-on by a match the pipe openings to these slopes for all sizes of
vehicle. Once this has been done, parallel drainage struc- pipes up to 900 mm [36 in.] in diameter for traffic volumes
tures should match the selected transverse slopes and above 100 vehicles per day. The addition of grated inlets
should be safety treated if possible when they are located to these pipes was considered cost-effective for pipes 900
in a vulnerable position relative to main road traffic. While mm [36 in.] or greater for ADTs over 500, and for pipes
many of these structures are small and present a minimal over 600 mm [24 in.] in diameter for traffic volumes over
target, the addition of pipes and bars perpendicular to 13,000vehiclesper day. Because these numbers were based
traffic can reduce wheel snagging in the culvert opening. in part on assumptions by the researchers, they should be
Research has shown that, for parallel drainage structures, interpreted as approximations and not as absolute num-
a grate consisting of pipes set on 600 mm [24 in.] centers bers. Figure 3.10 illustrates a possible design for the inlet
will significantlyreduce wheel snagging.It is recommended and outlet end of a parallel culvert. When channel grades
that the center of the bottom bar or pipe be set at 100 to permit, the inlet end may use a drop-inlet type design to
200 mm [4 to 8 in.] above the culvert invert. reduce the length of grate required.
Generally, single pipes with diameters of 600 mm [24 The recommended grate design may affect culvert ca-
in.] or less will not require a grate. However, when a mul- pacity if significant blockage by debris is likely; however,
tiple pipe installation is involved, consideration of a grate because capacity is not normally the governing design
for smaller pipes may be appropriate. Reference may be criteria for parallel structures, hydraulic efficiency may
3-18
Transition to 1V:6H
or flatter
1
Flow in Drainage
Channel
of culvert
Alternate location-use
grates if warranted by
ramp traffic
FIGURE 3.11 Alternate location for a parallel drainage culvert
not be an overriding concern. A report issued by the Uni- 3.4.3.4 Shielding

versity of Kansas suggested that a 25 percent debris block-
age factor should be sufficiently conservative for use as a In cases where the transverse slope cannot be made tra-
basis for culvert design in these cases (5). This report also versable, the structure is too large to be safety treated
suggests that under some flow conditions, the capacity effectively, and relocation is not feasible, it may be neces-
of a grated culvert may be equal to that of a standard sary to shield the obstacle with a traffic barrier. Specific
headwall design as a result of decreased entrance turbu- information on the selection, location, and design of an
lence. In those locations where headwater depth is criti- appropriate barrier system is contained in Chapter 5.
cal, a larger pipe should be used or the parallel drainage
structure may be positioned outside the clear zone as dis-
cussed in the following section. 3.4.4 Drop Inlets
Drop inlets can be classified as on-roadway or off-road-

3.4.3.3 Relocate the Structure way structures. On-roadway inlets are usually located on
or alongside the shoulder of a street or highway and are
Some parallel drainage structures can be moved laterally designed to intercept runoff from the road surface. These
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
farther from the through traveled way. This treatment of- include curb opening inlets, grated inlets, slotted drain
ten affords the designer the opportunity to flatten the inlets, or combinations of these three basic designs. Since
transverse slope within the selected clear-zone distance they are installed flush with the pavement surface, they
of the roadway under design. If the embankment at the do not constitute a significant safety problem to errant
new cuivert iocaiions is r'aveisalc and likely io be e=- iriiisis. Hwew, :hcj nust be selected and sized to
croached upon by either main road or side road traffic, accommodatedesign water runoff. In addition, they must
safety treatment should be considered. It is suggested be capable of supporting vehicle wheel loads and present
that the inlet or outlet match the transverse slope regard- no obstacle to pedestrians or bicyclists.
less of whether or not additional safety treatment is deemed Off-roadway drop inlets are used in medians of divided
necessary. A suggested design treatment is shown in Fig- roadways and sometimes in roadside ditches. While their
ure 3.11. Figure 3.12 shows a recommended safety treat- purpose is to collect runoff, they should be designed and
ment for parallel drainage pipes. located to present a minimal obstacle to errant motorists.
3-19
FIGURE 3.12 Safety treatment for parallel drainage pipe
This can be accomplishedby building these features flush 2 AASHTO. Guide f o r Selecting, Locating and
with the channel bottom or slope on which they are lo- Designing Trafic Barriers. American Associa-
cated. No portion of the drop inlet should project more tion of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
than 100 mm [4 in.] above the ground line. The opening cials, Washington, DC, 1977.
should be treated to prevent a vehicle wheel from drop-
ping into it; but unless pedestrians are a consideration, 3. AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of
grates with openings as small as those used for pavement Highways and Streets. American Association of
drainage are not necessary. Neither is it necessary to de- State Highway and Transportation Officials,
sign for a smooth ride over the inlet. It is sufficient to Washington, DC, 2001.
prevent wheel snagging and the resultant sudden decel-
eration or loss of control associated with it. 4. Texas Transportation Institute. Research Study
2-8-79-280: Safe End Treatments f o r Roadside
Culverts.
REFERENCES
5. University of Kansas. Development of Hydrau-
1. AASHO. Highway Design and Operational Prac- lic Design Charts f o r Type IV End Sections for
tices Related to Highway Design. American As- Pipe Culverts. KU-93-5.1993.
sociation of State Highway Officials, Washing-
ton, DC, 1967.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-20
EXAMPLE A
Design ADT: 4000
Design Speed: 100 km/h [60 mph]
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1 V 5 H foreslope: 10 m to 12 m [32 ft to 40 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Culvert Headwall
Discussion: The available recovery area of 8.4 m [28 ft] is less than the recommended 10 m to 12 m [32 ft to 3 ftl.
If the culvert headwall is greater than 100 mm [4 in.] in height and is the only obstruction on an otherwise traversable
foreslope, it should be removed and the inlet modified to match the 1V5H foreslope. If the foreslope contains rough
outcroppings or boulders and the headwall does not significantly increase the obstruction to a motorist, the decision to
do nothing may be appropriate. A review of the highways crash history, if available, may be made to determine the
nature and extent of vehicle encroachments and to identify any specific locations that may require special treatment.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-21
EXAMPLE B
Design ADT: 300
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Design Speed: 60 km/h [40 mphl

Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:lOH slope: 2 m to 3 m [7 ft to 10 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Through
Traveled Way
10
Discussion: The available clear-zone distance is 1.8 m [6 ft], 0.2 m to 1.2 m [i ft to 4 ft] less than the recommended
recovery area. When an area has a significant number of run-off-the-road crashes, it may be appropriate to consider
shielding or removing the entire row of trees within the crash area. If this section of road has no significant history of
crashes and is heavily forested with most of the other trees only slightly farther from the road, this tree would
probably not require treatment. If, however, none of the other trees are closer to the roadway than, for example, 4.5 m
[15 ft], this individual tree represents a more significant obstruction and should be considered for removal. If a tree
were 4.5 m [15 ft] from the edge of through traveled way, and all or most of the other trees were 7.5 m [25 ft] or
more, its removal may still be appropriate. This example emphasizes that the clear-zone distance is an approximate
number at best and that individual objects should be analyzed in relation to other nearby obstacles.
3-22
EXAMPLE C
Design ADT 7000
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:lOH foreslope: 9 to 10 m [30 to 32 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:SH foresiope: 9 to 10 m [30 to 32 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Available recovery distance before breakpoint of non-recoverable foreslope: 5 m [ 17 fi]
Clear runout area at toe of foreslope: 9 to 10 m [30 to 32 ft] minus 5 m [ 17 ft] or 4 to 5 m [ 13 to 17 ft'
4mto5m
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Discussion: Since the non-recoverable foreslope is within the required clear-zone distance of the 1V:10H foreslope,
a runout area beyond the toe of the non-recoverable foreslope is desirable. Using the steepest recoverable foreslope
before or after the non-recoverable foreslope, a clear-zone distance is selected from Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1. In this
example, the 1V:H foreslope beyond the base of the fill dictates a 9 to 10 m 130 to 32 fr] clear-zone distance. Since
5 m 117 fi] are available at the top, an additional 4 to 5 m E13 to 17 t] could be provided at the bottom. Ail foreslope
breaks may be rounded and no fixed objects would normally be built within the upper or lower portions of the clear-
zone or on the intervening foreslope.
It may be practical to provide less than the entire 4 to 5 m [13 to 17 ft] at the toe of the non-recoverable foreslope. A
smaller recovery area could be applicable based on the rounded foreslope breaks, the flatter 1V:10H foreslope at the
top, or past crash histories. A specific site investigation may be appropriate in determining an approximate runout
area beyond the toe of the non-recoverable foreslope.
3-23
EXAMPLE D
Design ADT: 12,000
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:6H foreslope: 9 to 10.5 m [30 to 34 ft] (from Table 3.1)
1
Discussion: Since the critical foreslope is only 7 m [23 ft] from the through traveled way, instead of the suggested 9
to 10.5 m [30 to 34 ft], it should be flattened if practical or. considered for Shielding. However, if this is an isolated
obstacle and the roadway has no significant crash history, it may be appropriate to do little more than delineate the
drop off in lieu of foreslope flattening or shielding.
Although a "weighted" average of the foreslopes may be used, a simple average of the clear-zone distances for each
foreslope is accurate enough if the variable foreslopes are approximately the same width. If one foreslope is
significantly wider, the clear-zone computation based on that foreslope alone may be used.
EXAMPLE E
Design ADT: 350
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:5H foreslope: 2 m to 3 m [7 ft to 10 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Through
Traveled Way
Discussion: The available 1.5 m [4.5 fi] is 0.5 m to 1.5 m [2.5 ft to 5.5 ft] less than the recommended recovery area.
If much of this roadway has a similar cross section and no significant run-off-the-road crash history, neither foreslope
flattening nor a traffic barrier would be recommended. On the other hand, even if the 1V5H foreslope were 3 m
[lo ft] wide and the clear-zone requirement were met, a traffic barrier might be appropriate if this location has
noticeably less recovery area than the rest of the roadway and the embankment was unusually high.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-24
EXAMPLE F
Design ADT: 5000
Design Speed: 100 krnh [60 mph]
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:SH foreslope: 8 m to 9 m [26 ft to 30 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Recommended clear-zonedistance for 1V:5H foreslope: 10 m to 12 m [32 ft to 40 ft] (from Table 3.1)
7
Through 5 m [17 ft]
Traveled Way
; 1
8
Discussion: The 1V:8H foreslope and the 1V:5H foreslope may be averaged taking into account the distance
available on each foreslope. The distance (6 m [20 ft]) along the 1V:8H slope is multiplied by the slope of 118 (V/H).
The distance (5 m [17 ft]) along the 1V:5H foreslope is multiplied by the slope of 1/5. The resulting distances are
added together and divided into the sum of the two distances (6 m [20 ft] plus 5 m [17 ft]) available. The result is an
average foreslope which may be used in Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1. For sections flatter than or equal to lV:lOH, a
slope of 1V:lOH is used. Decimal results of 0.5 or greater may be rounded up to the next even numbered slope while
decimal results less than 0.5 may be rounded down to the next even numbered slope. The calculations are given
below:
1. 6 m [20 ft] x (1/8) + 5 m [17 ft] x (1/5) = 1.75 m [5.9 ft]

2. 6 m [20 ft] + 5 m [17 ft] = 11 m [37 ft]
3. 11 m [37 ftlA.75 m [5.9 ft] = 6.3 rounded to 6
4. Enter Table 3.1 for the 1V:6H or flatter slopes
5 . The clear-zone distance from Table 3.1 is 8 m to 9 m [26 ft to 30 fi] for the given speed and traffic
volume. Since the example has 1 1 m [37 ft] available on the two foreslopes, it is acceptable without
further treatment.
In this example, it would be desirable to have no fixed objects constructed on any part ofthe 1V:5H foreslope.
Natural obstacles such as trees or boulders at the toe of the slope would not be shielded or removed. However, if the
final foreslope were steeper than 1V:4H, a clear runout area should be considered at the toe of the foreslope. The
designer may choose to limit the clear-zone distance to 9 m [30 ft] if that distance is consistent with the rest of the
roadway template, a crash analysis or site investigation does not indicate a potential run-off-the-road problem in this
area, and the distance selected does not end at the toe of the non-recoverable foreslope.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-25
EXAMPLE G
Design ADT: 1400
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:6H foreslope (fill): 6 to 7.5 m [20 to 24 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:4H backslope (cut): 5 to 5.5 m [ 16 to 18 ft] (from Table 3.1)
0.5 m
A
6
Discussion: For channels within the preferred cross-section area of Figures 3.6 or 3.7, the clear zone may be
determined from Figure 3.1 or Table 3.1. However, when the recommended clear zone exceeds the available clear
zone for the foreslope, an adjusted clear zone may be determined as follows:
1. Calculate the percentage of the recommended clear-zone range available from the edge of through traveled way
to the PVI of the foreslope (4.5 m 16 x 100 = 75% and 4.5 m / 7.5 x 100 = 60% [14.5 ft / 20 ft x 100 = 73% and
14.5 ft / 24 ft x 100 = 60 %I).
2. Subtract these percentages from 100% and multiply results by the recommended range of clear zones for the
backslope (100% - 75%) x 5 m = 1.25 m , and (100% - 60%) x 5.5 m = 2.2 m [(loo% - 73%) x 16 ft = 4.3 ft and
(100% - 60%) x 18 ft = 7.2 ft]. The range of required clear zone on the backslope is 1.25 m to 2.2 m [4.3 to 7.2
ft].
3. Add the available clear zone on the foreslope to the range of values determined in Step 2 (4.5 m + 1.25 m = 5.75
m and 4.5 m + 2.2 m = 6.7 m [14.5 ft + 4.3 ft = 18.8 ft and 14.5 ft + 7.2 ft = 21.7 ft]). The adjusted clear-zone
range is 5.75 to 6.7 meters [18.8 to 21.7 ft].
Because the tree is located beyond the adjusted clear zone, removal is not required. Removal should be considered if
this one obstacle is the only fixed object this close to the through traveled way along a significant length.
To determine the recommended clear zone for the foreslope in the trapezoidal channel, an average foreslope must be
calculated. See Example F for the method of foreslope averaging.
Drainage channels not having the preferred cross section (see Figure 3.6 or 3.7) should be located at or beyond the
clear zone. However, backslopes steeper than 1V:3H are typically located closer to the roadway. If these slopes are
relatively smooth and unobstructed, they present little safety problem to an errant motorist. If the backslope consists
of a rough rock cut or outcropping, shielding may be warranted as discussed in Chapter 5.
3-26 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Roaiside Topography and Drainage Features
EXAMPLE H
Design ADT: 800
Recommended clear-zone distance for 1V:4H foreslope: 5 m to 6 m [16 ft to 20 ft] (from Table 3.1)
Through
Traveled Way
Discussion: The ditch is not within the preferred cross section area of Figure 3.6 and is 0.6 m to 1.8 m [2 ft to 6 ft]
less than the recommended clear-zone distance. However, if the ditch bottom and backslope are free of obstacles, no
additional improvement is suggested. A similar cross section on the outside of a curve where encroachments are
more likely and the angle of impact is sharper would probably be flattened if practical.
EXAMPLE I
Design ADT: 3000
Recommended clear-zonedistance for 1V:6H foreslope: 8.0 to 9.0 m [26 to 30 ft] (from Table 3.1)
2.4 m [8 ft] 3.6 m [12 ft]
6
Discussion: The rock cut is within the given clear-zone distance but would probably not warrant removal or
shielding unless the potential for snagging, pocketing, or overturning a vehicle is high. Steep backslopes are clearly
visible to motorists during the day, thus lessening the risk of encroachments. Roadside delineation of sharper than
average curves through cut sections can be an effective countermeasure at locations having a significant crash history
or potential.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3-27
Sign, Signal, and Luminaire Supports,
Utility Poles, Trees, and Similar Roadside Features
4.0 OVERVIEW
1. Remove the obstacle.
Although a traversable and unobstructed roadside is
highly desirable from a safety standpoint, some appurte- 2 Redesign the obstacle so it can be traversed
nances simply must be placed near the traveled way. Man- safely.
made fixed objects that frequently occupy highway rights-
of-way include highway signs, roadway lighting, traffic 3. Relocate the obstacle to a point where it is less
signals, railroad warning devices, motorist-aid callboxes, likely to be struck.
mailboxes, and utility poles. Approximately 15 percent of
4. Reduce impact severity by using an appropriate
all fixed-object fatalities each year involve crashes with
breakaway device.
sign and lighting supports and utility poles. Although of
a lesser order of magnitude, collisions with other roadside 5. Shield the obstacle with a longitudinal traffic bar-
hardware are frequently severe as well. Finally, it must be rier or crash cushion or both if it cannot be elimi-
recognized that approximately 3,000 motorists a year are nated, relocated, or redesigned.
killed as a result of crashes with trees and other vegeta-
tion. 6. Delineate the obstacle if the above alternatives
This chapter is not intended to provide technical de- are not appropriate.
sign details. Virtually all highway agencies use standard
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
drawings for their roadside device installations and it is While options 1 and 2 above are the preferred choices,
assumed that these drawings will comply with the these solutions are not always practical, especially for
AASHTO Standard Specifications f o r Structural Sup- highway signing and lighting which must remain near the
ports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Trafic Signals roadway to serve their intended functions. This chapter
(1). Similarly,informationon existing operationalhardware deals primarily with option 4, the use of breakaway hard-
is included only to the extent necessary to familiarize the ware, which has become a cornerstone of the forgiving
designer with the types of breakaway devices available roadside concept since its inception in the mid- 1960s.
and how each is intended to function. Emphasis is placed on the selection of the most appropri-
The highway designer is charged with providing the ate device to use in a given location and on installing the
safest facility practicable within given constraints. As support to ensure acceptable performance when it is hit.
noted in Chapter 1, there are 6 options from which to The final section of this chapter addresses the problems
choose a safe design. In order of preference, these are: associated with trees and shrubs and provides the de-
signer with some guidelines to follow on this frequently
sensitive topic.
4-1
4.1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR 35 km/h [20 mph] impacts. Pendulum test results for im-
BREAKAWAYSUPPORTS pacts at 35 km/h [20 mph] may be extrapolated to predict
i00 km/h [60 mph] impact behavior providing the support
The term breakaway support refers to all types of sign, breaks free with little or no bending in the support. This
luminaire, and traffic signal supports that are designed to extrapolation method should not be used with base-bend-
yield when impacted by a vehicle. The release mechanism ing or yielding supports.
may be a slip plane, plastic hinge, fracture element, or a
combination of these. The criteria used to determine if a
support is consideredbreakaway are found in Reference 1 4.2 DESIGN AND LOCATION CRITERIA FOR
and NCHRP Report 350, Recommended Procedures for BREAKAWAYAND NON-BREAKAWAY
the Safety Pedormance Evaluation of Highway Features SUPPORTS
(2). Breakaway support hardware previously found ac-
ceptable under the requirements of either the 1985or 1994 Sign, luminaire, and similar supports must first be struc-
editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for turally adequate to support the device mounted on them
Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and and to resist ice and wind loads as specified in the
Traffic Signals (1) are acceptable under NCHRP Report AASHTO Standard Specifications f o r Structural Sup-
350 guidelines.The Federal Highway Administrationmain- ports f o r Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals
tains lists of acceptable, crashworthy supports. (1). Other concerns are that they be properly designed
These criteria require that a breakaway support fail in a and carefully located to ensure that the breakaway de-
predictable manner when struck head-on by an 820 kg vices perform properly and to minimize the likelihood of
[1,800 lb] vehicle, or its equivalent, at speeds of 35 kmh impacts by errant vehicles. For example, supports should
[20 mph] and 100km/h [60 mph]. It is desirable to limit the not be placed in drainage ditches where erosion and freez-
longitudinal component of the occupant impact velocity ing might affect the proper operation of the breakaway
to 3.0 m / s [lo fVs]; but values as high as 5.0 m / s [16 fVs] mechanism. It is also possible that a vehicle entering the
are considered acceptable. These specifications also es- ditch might be inadvertently guided into the support. Signs
tablish a maximum stub height of 100 mm [4 in.] to lessen and supports that are not needed should be removed. If a
the possibility of snagging the undercarriage of a vehicle sign is needed, then it should be located where it is least
after a support has broken away from its base. likely to be hit. Whenever possible, signs should be placed
In addition to the change in velocity criterion, satisfac- behind existing roadside barriers (beyond the design de-
tory breakaway supportperformance depends on the crash flection distance), on existing structures,or in similar non-
vehicle remaining upright during and after the impact with accessible areas. Ifthis cannot be achieved,then breakaway
no significant deformation or intrusion of the passenger supports should be used. Only when the use of breakaway
compartment. The appropriate procedures for acceptance supports is not practicable should a traffic barrier or crash
testing of breakaway supports are described in NCHRP cushion be used exclusively to shield sign supports.
Report 350. As a general rule, breakaway supports should be used
Full-scale crash tests, bogie tests, and pendulum tests unless an engineering study indicates otherwise. How-
are used in the acceptance testing of breakaway devices. ever, concern for pedestrian involvement has led to the
In full-scale testing, an actual vehicle is accelerated to the use of fixed supports in some urban areas. Examples of
test speed and impacted into the device being tested. The sites where breakaway supports may be imprudent are
point of initiai impact is the front of the vehicle, either adjacent to bus shelters or in areas of extensive pedes-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
centered or at the quarter point of the bumper. Full-scale trian concentrations.

tests produce the most accurate results; however, their Supports placed on roadside slopes must not allow
main disadvantage is cost. Bogie vehicles are also used to impacting vehicles to snag on either the foundation or
test breakaway hardware. A bogie is a reusable, adjust- any substantial remains of the support. Surrounding ter-
able surrogate vehicle used to model actual vehicles. A rain must be graded to permit vehicles to pass over any
nose, similar to a pendulum nose, is used to duplicate the non-breakaway portion of the installation that remains in
crush characteristics of the vehicle being modeled. Bogie the ground or rigidly attached to the foundation. Figure
vehicles are designed to be used in the speed range of 35 4.1, adopted from the AASHTO Standard Specifications
to i00 k m h [20 to 60 mph]. f o r Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires
To reduce testing costs, pendulum tests are also used and Trafic Signals (i), illustratesthe method used to mea-
to evaluate breakaway hardware. Pendulum nose sections sure the required i00 mm [4 in.] maximum stub height.
have been developed that model the fronts of vehicles. Breakaway support mechanisms are designed to func-
Pendulum tests have typically been used to test luminaire tion properly when loaded primarily in shear. Most mecha-
support hardware. However, due to the physical limita- nisms are designed to be impacted at bumper height, typi-
tions of pendulums, pendulum testing is limited to cally about 500 mm [20 in.] above the ground. If impacted
4-2
Sign, Signal, and Luminaire Suppo ITS, Utility Poles, Trees, and Similar Roadside Features
Stub of Breakaway Support
100 mm [4 in.] Max.
~
- - L -
Ground Line
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 4.1 Breakaway support stub height measurements
at a significantly higher point, the bending moment in the tain soil with similar properties, and if there is
breakaway base may be sufficient to bind the mechanism, a reasonable uncertainty regarding the per-
resulting in non-activation of the breakaway device. For formance of the feature in weak soil. Tests
this reason, it is critical that breakaway supports not be have shown that some base-bending or yield-
located near ditches, on steep slopes, or at similar loca- ing small sign supports readily pull out of the
tions where a vehicle is likcly to be partially airbonic at the weak soil upon impact. For features of this
time of impact. type, the strong soil is generally more critical
The type of soil may also affect the activation mecha- and tests in the weak soil may not be neces-
nisms of some breakaway supports. Fracture-type sup- sary.
ports (Le., high-carbon, U-channel posts, telescoping
tubes, wood supports, etc.) could push through loose or Special anchor plates or design details may also be
saturated soils, absorbing energy and possibly adversely used to accommodate expected wind loads. Since these
affecting a supports fracture mechanism. Usually this is design details could affect proper performance, it is rec-
not a problem for a fracture-type support embedded less ommended that these designs also be tested in both soils.
than 1 m [3 ft] because the support will likely pull out of To affect a m l y cost-effectiveprogram of breakaway sup-
the soil, unless it has a special anchor plate designed to ports, there are other items that need to be considered.
ensure that it does not. However, for fracture-type sup- Availability of a particular support will affect installation
ports with pull-out-resisting anchors, supports embed- costs and replacement costs. Durability of the support
ded more than 1 m [3 ft], or any other support that might will affect the expected life of a non-struck support. Also,
be sensitive to foundation movement, consideration there may be some supports that can be reused after be-
should be given to qualifying them through crash testing ing impacted by a vehicle, which may be more cost-effec-
in the weak soil described in the NCHRP Report 350 tive even though the initial costs are high. Thus, the ex-
testing guidelines in addition to qualifying them through pected impact frequency and simplicity of maintenance
the standard soil crash tests called for in NCHRP Re- may influence an agencys selection.
port 350. As explained in the Commentary on Chapter 2 in
the NCHRP Report 350 (2):
4.3 SIGN SUPPORTS
ThP
L,,b xAb& soi! sheik! be Used, in ad0itim t G
the standard soil, for any feature whose im- Roadway signs can be divided into three main categories:
pact performance is sensitive to overhead signs, large roadside signs, and small roadside
soil-foundationor soil-structure interaction if signs. The hardware and corresponding safety treatment
identifiable areas of the state or local jurisdic- of sign supports varies with the sign category.
tion in which the feature will be installed con-
4-3
Resistance provided by
torsional rigidity of 7
--
sign background Sign Background
c
and Windbeams
Connection must be
strong enough to
- One flange and web cut through
Wind Force
c -
i-
develop the strength

of the sign background -
Fuse Plate permits
hinge to activate
- Hinge Joint
Fuse Plate
prohibits hinge
- Hinge Joint
when support is from activating

struck by a vehicle under wind loads
Shear reaction must
-
resist wind force;
moment reaction must
resist overturning moment
caused by wind force
Vehicle force One flange and web cut through
Breakaway Base - Breakaway Base

Shear resistance is over-
come by vehicle force
- Shear - Shear
Moment reaction is small

u Moment
W
Moment
COLLISION CONDITION WIND LOAD CONDITION
FIGURE 4.2 Wind and impact loads on roadside signs
4.3.1 Overhead Signs per section of the support is likely to penetrate

the windshield of an impacting vehicle.
Where possible, overhead signs should be installed on or
relocated to nearby overpasses or other existing struc- A single post, if 2.1 m [7 ft] or more from another
tures. Overhead signs, including cantilevered signs, gen- post, should have a mass [weight] less than 67
erally require massive support systems that cannot be kg/m [45 lb/ft]. The total mass [weight]below the
made breakaway. All overhead sign supports located within hinge, but above the shear plate of the breakaway
the clear zone should be shielded with a crashworthy bar- base, should not exceed 270 kg [600lb]. For two
rier. posts spaced less than 2.1 m [7 ft] apart, each
post should have a mass [weight] less than 27
kg/m [ 18 lb/ft].
4.3.2 Large Roadside Signs
No supplementary signs should be attached be-
Large roadside signs may be defined as those greater than low the hinges if such placement is likely to inter-
5 mz [50 ft2] in area. They typically have two or more fere with the breakaway action of the support
breakaway support posts. The basic concept of the
post or if the supplemental sign is likely to strike
breakaway sign support is to provide a structure that will
the windshield of an impacting vehicle.
resist wind and ice loads, yet fail in a safe and predictable
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
manner when struck by a vehicle. The loading conditions

The breakaway mechanisms of large roadside sign sup-
for which the support must be designed are shown in
ports are either a fracture or a slip-base type. Fracture
Figure 4.2. The desired impact performance is depicted in
mechanisms consist of either couplers or wood posts with
Figure 4.3. To achieve satisfactorybreakaway performance,
reduced cross sections. Most couplers are considered to
the following criteria should be met:
be multidirectional, i.e., they are expected to work satis-
factorily when struck from any direction.Figure 4.4 shows
The hinge should be at least 2.1 m [7 ft] above one type of multidirectional coupler in common use.
the ground so that no portion of the sign or up-
4-4
~ ~~~ ~
Sign, Signal, and Luminaire Supports, Utility Poles, Trees, and Similar Roadside Features
Base releases Vehicle passes

and hinge activates underneath sign
Vehicle force
-
FIGURE 4.3 Impact performance of a multiple-post sign support
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 4.4 Multidirectionalcoupler
4-5
~~
FIGURE 4.5 Typical uni-directionalslip base
Slip-base type mechanisms activate when two parallel steel post. Since this design does not require its connec-
plates slide apart as the bolts are pushed out under im- tions to be torqued to a specific value, it is relatively fail-
pact. The designs may be either uni-directionalor multidi- safe and recommended for use in lieu of slotted fuse plates.
rectional. Horizontal slip bases using the four-bolt pattern The perforated design is shown in Figure 4.7.
shown in Figure 4.5 are uni-directional. In some low-speed tests, the fuse plates on large road-
The upper hinge design for uni-directionalimpacts con- side sign supports have failed to activate and the support
sists of a slotted fuse plate on the expected impact side has pulled away from the sign panel. The change in ve-
and a saw cut through the web of the post to the rear hicle speed has still been acceptable. However, fuse and
flange. The rear flange then acts as a hinge when the post hinge plates should not be eliminated based on these low-
rotates upward. This commonly used design is shown in speed tests. While they are more likely to activate in a
Figure 4.6. Slotted plates may be used on both sides of the high-speed impact, they act as a back-up safety feature in
post if impacts are expected from either direction. low-speed impacts.
Proper functioning of the slip base and fuse plate de- Although the Manual on Uniform Trafic Control De-
signs requires proper torque of the bolts. If the bolted vices (MUTCD) (3) specifies the general location of large
connection is too tight, friction forces between the plates roadside signs, the highway designer has a significant
may prevent activation of the breakaway base under in- degree of latitude in the exact placement of any given
tended loading conditions. If the bolts are under-torqued, sign. Crash test results show that breakaway supports
the posts may "walk" off the base under wind and other installed on level terrain will perform as intended when
vibration loads. The use of keeper plates is recommended struck head-on by a vehicle. However, if these supports
to retain the clamping bolts in place even if the bolted are installed on a slope or the possibility exists that a
connection relaxes over time. vehicle may be spinning or sliding on impact, the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Designing for wind load is necessary for large signs. A breakaway feature may not function as well as when it is
check of wind load designs on the fuse plates should also installed on level terrain. Even if a sign is erected on
be made. A perforated steel fuse plate meeting the re- breakaway supports, it can cause significant damage to
quirements of ASTM A 36lA 36M has been shown to an impacting vehicle and injuries to the vehicle occupants.
perform satisfactorily when used as the fuse plate on a Once hit, the sign becomes a maintenanceproblem. These
4-6
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 4.6 Slotted fuse plate design
FIGURE 4.7 Perforatedfuse plate design
4-7
are obvious reasons for locating all signs where they are lence of small cars. Recent computer simulation of 100
least likely to be hit and, when feasible, outside the clear km/h [60 mph] sign impacts with mid-size automobilesand
zone, even if they are breakaway. light trucks show that the 2.7 m [9 ft] height results in the
same undesirable location of impact that the lower signs
had on the small cars. Therefore, there is no net crashwor-
4.3.3 Small Roadside Signs thiness benefit to requiring signs to be mounted higher.
Agencies concerned with this undesirable behavior may
Small roadside signs may be defined as those supported wish to consider a small sign support system that incor-
on one or more posts and having a sign panel area not porates a slip base or breakaway coupling mechanism for
greater than 5 m2 [50 ft2].Although not usually perceived use on high-speed streets and highways.
as an obstruction, small signs can cause substantial dam- Fracturing sign supports are either wood posts, steel
age to impacting automobiles.Small sign supports are typi- posts/pipes, or aluminum supports connected at ground
cally either driven directly into the soil, set in drilled holes, level to a separate anchor. Wood posts are typically set in
or mounted on a separately installed base. The breakaway drilled holes and backfilled, while anchors for steel pipe
mechanisms for small sign supports consist of either a and steel post systems are normally driven into the ground.
base-bending, a fracture, or a slip base design. The most Slip base designs for small sign supports may be broadly
commonly used small sign supporthardware and the char- classified as uni-directional or multidirectional. The most
acteristics of each are described below. basic types of uni-directional breakaway sign supports
Base-bending or yielding sign supports typically con- are the horizontal and inclined slip bases. The design
sist of U-channel steel posts, perforated square steel tubes, shown in Figure 4.8 is typical. The inclined design shown
thin-walled aluminumtubes, or thin-walled fiberglasstubes. uses a 4-bolt slip base inclined in the direction of traffic at
A steel plate measuring approximately 100mm x 300 mm x 10 to 20 degrees from horizontal. This angle ensures that
6 mm [4 in. x 12 in. x 1/4 in.] may be welded or bolted to the the sign will move upward to allow the impacting vehicle
pipe support to prevent the sign from twisting from wind to pass under the sign without its hitting the windshield
loads. Performance of these base-bending supports is or top of the car. When this type of slip base is used for
much more difficult to predict than other support types. small signs, hinges in the posts are not needed. The major
Variations in the depth of embedment, the soil resistance, limitation of this slip base design is its directional prop-
stiffness of the sign support, mounting height of the sign, erty. The inclined slip base can only be struck from one
and many other factors influence their dynamic behavior. direction to yield satisfactorily.Neither the horizontal nor
Splicing of steel U-channel posts is not recommended the inclined slip-base designs should be used in medians,
unless tested because the impact performance of a spliced traffic islands, or other locations where impacts from more
post cannot be accurately predicted. Unless crash tested than one direction are possible.
with bracing in place, diagonal bracing of a sign support Multidirectional slip bases are typically triangular and
should be avoided because such bracing could signifi- are designed to release when struck from any direction. A
cantly affect the crash performance of an otherwise ac- typical design is shown in Figure 4.9. These types of
ceptable design. This is particularly true for base-bending breakaway supports are ideally suited for use on medians,
or yielding supports. When it is absolutely necessary to channelizing islands, T-intersections,ramp terminals, and
increase the strength of a post support system, larger other locations where a sign may be impacted from sev-
breakaway or multiple breakaway posts should be con- eral directions.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
sidered. Slip base breakaway sign supports are subject to in-
For single sign posts with bending or yielding charac- stallation and maintenance problems that do not exist for
teristics, the sign panels should be adequately bolted to rigid supports. Wind and other vibration loads may cause
the post with oversized washers to prevent the panel from the bolts in the slip base to loosen. A keeper plate is
separating on impact and penetrating a windshield. At recommended to prevent the clamping bolts, which have
higher speeds, base-bending or yielding sign supports low torque requirements,from walkingor migrating from
bend around the bumper causing the top of the support to the slots under wind loads.
impact the windshield or roof. Early research indicated A more common problem is the failure of a slip base to
that the shorter mounted signs would destroy the wind- release properly due to over-torquingof the clamping bolts
shield and penetrate the occupant compartment. A mini- in the slip base and in the hinge of small sign supports.
mum height of 2.7 m [9 ft] to the top of the sign panel was Because the slip base operates on the weakened shear
recommended to alleviate the situation because it was ex- plane concept, over-torquing creates high friction between
pected that the top of the sign would then impact the roof the slip base elements and may prevent the post from
rather than the windshield. This suggestion was valid at releasing properly when hit. For this reason, breakaway
the time the research was conducted because of the preva- designs not dependent upon specific torque requirements
4-8
~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 4.8 Uni-directional slip base for small signs
FIGURE 4.9 Multidirectionalslip base for small signs
4-9
FIGURE 4.10 Oregon 3-bolt slip base
In other cases, a vehicle could be yawing in the roadside
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
are highly desirable. The Oregon 3-bolt slip base, shown
in Figure 4.10, has 90-degree notch openings and thick to such an extent that two posts within a 2.1 m [7 ft] spac-
washers. This design has very good breakaway perfor- ing would be struck. In many instances, the greatest
mance and is much less sensitive to over-torquing. Prob- change in vehicle velocity occurs when impacting
lems with thread fabrication on clamping bolt nuts, im- breakaway hardware at slower speeds because less en-
proper assembly of slip base parts, and anchor bolts pro- ergy is available to activate the breakaway mechanism.
jecting into the slip base are other common deficiencies Since vehicles leaving the roadway at very high angles or
that should be avoided. in a yawing mode would likely be traveling at slower
In areas where critical wind velocities are prevalent, speeds, the 2.1 m [7 ft] criterion is a reasonable safety
sign flutter can be a problem that should be considered. factor that should be used in roadside design of breakaway
This phenomenon, where rapid rotation and twisting of hardware.
the posts occur, can cause failure of the posts by fatigue.
4.5 BREAKAWAY LUMINAIRE SUPPORTS

4.4 MULTIPLE POST SUPPORTS FOR
SIGNS Breakaway luminaire supports are typically classified as
frangible bases (cast aluminum transformer bases), slip
All breakaway supports within a 2.1 m [7 ft] spacing are bases, or frangible couplings (couplers).Examples of each
considered to act together. This criterion is based on a type in common use are shown in Figures 4.11 to 4.13.
need to minimize the potential for unacceptable perfor- Breakaway luminaire supportscan be similar to breakaway
mance of breakaway hardware. In some cases, a vehicle sign hardware. The breakaway mechanism properly acti-
could leave the roadway at a sufficiently high angle such vates if loaded in shear rather than bending and is de-
that two posts within a 2.1 m [7 ft] spacing would be struck. signed to release when impacted at typical bumper height
4-10
FIGURE 4.11 Example of a cast aluminum transformer base
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 4.12 Example of a luminaireclip base design
4-1 1
FIGURE 4.1 3 Exampleof a frangible coupling design
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
of about 500 mm [20 in.]. The devices may not perform practices when foundations are set at about roadway
properly when the supports are located along the road- grade. To prevent a situation with potentially serious con-
side where impacts would result in bending rather than sequences should a pole fall on a vehicle, the mass
shear. Superelevation, slope rounding and offset, and ve- [weight] of a breakaway luminaire support should not ex-
hicle departure angle and speed will influence the striking ceed 450 kg [1000 lb].
height of a typical bumper. If the foreslopes are limited to The type of soil surrounding a luminaire foundation
1V6H or flatter between the roadway and the luminaire may affect the performance of the breakaway mechanism.
support, vehicles should strike the support at an accept- Experience shows that if foundations are allowed to push
able height. through the soil, the luminaire support will be placed in
As a general rule, a luminaire support will fall near the bending rather than shear, resulting in non-activation of
line of the path of an impacting vehicle. The mast arm the breakaway mechanism. Foundations should be prop-
usually rotates so it is pointing away from the roadway erly designed to prevent their movement or rotation or
when resting on the ground. This action generally pre- both in surrounding soils.
vents the pole from going into other traffic lanes. How- Non-direct-burialluminaire supports generally require
ever, the designer must remain aware that these falling a substantial foundation. It is important that any such
poles may endanger bystanders such as pedestrians, bi- foundation is essentially flush with the ground because
cyclists, and motorists. the 100 mm [4 in.] stub height criterion in the AASHTO
At the present time, the height of poles with breakaway breakaway specifications includes all non-breakaway ele-
features should not exceed 18.5 m [60 ft]. This maximum ments above the ground line.
height is recommendedbecause it is the approximate maxi- In all breakaway supports housing electrical compo-
mum height of currently accepted hardware and is also nents, efforts should be made to effectively reduce fire
the height that can accommodate modern lighting design and electrical hazards should an errant vehicle impact a

structure. Upon knockdown, the electricity in the sup- an obstruction. However, the potential risks associated
port/structure should disconnect as close to the founda- with the temporary loss of full signalization at the inter-
tion as possible. section should be considered.
When luminaire supports are located near a traffic bar- When traffic signals are installed on high-speed facili-
rier, breakaway bases may or may not be applicable, de- ties (generally defined as those having speed limits of
pending upon the type and characteristics of the barrier. 80 k m h [50 mph] or greater), the signal supports, and the
Luminaire supports should not be placed within the de- signal support box if not mounted on one of the signal
flection distance of a barrier. For the most part, the impact support poles, should be placed as far away from the road-
performance of barriers interacting with a luminaire sup- way as practicable. Shielding these supports can be con-
port breakaway device during a crash has not been deter- sidered if they are within the clear zone for that particular
mined. This situation should be avoided unless crash test- roadway. Consideration should be given to using
ing of a particular combination of devices indicates that breakaway supports for post-mounted signals installed in
the performance is acceptable. If the support must be within wide medians.
the design deflection distance of the barrier. it should be a
breakaway design or the railing should be stiffened lo-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
cally to minimize the resultant deflection.Details on traffic 4.6.2 Motorist-Aid Callboxes

barrier types and characteristics can be found in Chapters
5and6. Motorist-aid callboxes should be treated as roadside ob-
Several state agencies mount luminaires on top of con- stacles. Their proximity to the traveled way warrants the
crete median barriers, a practice that often requires modi- use of crashworthy breakaway supports. Because of their
fication to the luminaire support or median barrier or both. size and weight, they can usually be designed to meet
This type of installation generally does not use breakaway vehicle change-in-velocity requirements. A callbox must
supports because of the risk a downed pole might present be securely attached to its support to prevent its separat-
to opposing traffic. A consideration in this design is the ing and penetrating the windshield.
likelihood of truck impacts with the barrier. since a truck To the extent possible. callboxes should be located
bed will typically overhang short barriers during an im- behind traffic barriers warranted for other reasons. Not
pact and could snag on the support that is located there. only does this make them less likely to be hit, but it also
The resultant vehicle deceleration may be unacceptable. reduces the risk of a motorist using a callbox being struck
A final consideration on roadway lighting is a reduc- by a vehicle. Callboxes must be accessible to wheelchair
tion in the total number of luminaires used along a section users.
of highway. Higher mounting heights may significantly
reduce the total number of supports needed. The ultimate
design in this respect is the use of tower or high-mast 4.6.3 Railroad Crossing Warning Devices
lighting that requires far fewer supports located much far-
ther from the roadway. From a roadside safety perspec- Highway and railroad officials must cooperatively decide
tive, this is a preferred method for lighting major inter- on the type of warning device needed at a particular cross-
changes. ing, e.g., crossbucks, flashing light signals, or gates. As a
minimum, crossbucks are required and should be installed
on an acceptable sign support. Other warning device sup-
4.6 SUPPORTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS ports, such as signals or gates, can cause an increase in
AND MISCELLANEOUSTRAFFIC the severity of injuries to vehicle occupants if struck at
SERVICE DEVICES high speeds. In these cases, if the support is located in
the clear zone, consideration should be given to shielding
Other relatively narrow objects that are usually located the support with a crash cushion. Longitudinal barrier is
adjacent to the roadway include traffic signals, motorist- not often used because there is seldom sufficient space
aid callboxes, railroad warning devices, fire hydrants, and for a proper downstream end treatment, a longer obstacle
mailboxes. These are discussed in the following sections. is created by installing a guardrail, and a vehicle striking a
iongitudinai barrier when a train is occupying the cross-
ing may be redirected into the train. The designer must
4.6.1 Traffic Signals also be aware of the immediate risk to other motorists just
after the devices are knocked down by impacting vehicles.
Traffic signal posts present a special situation where a
breakaway support may not be practical or desirable. As
with luminaire supports, a fallen signal post may become
4-13
4.6.4 Fire Hydrants detailed study of crash records may identify high-fre-
quency crash locations and point out improvements that
Fire hydrants are another type of roadside feature that will reduce the number and severity of future crashes.
may be an obstacle. While most fire hydrants are made of Road users (the public and utility firms) can also provide
cast iron and could be expected to fracture upon impact, input into the nature and causes of highwayhtility crashes.
crash testing meeting current testing procedures has not The steps that are normally included in a comprehensive
been done to verify that designs meet breakaway criteria. crash-reduction program are:
However, at least one fire hydrant stem and coupling de-
sign is available which provides for immediate water s setting up a traffic records system,
shutoff if struck by a vehicle. identifying high-frequency crash locations,
Whenever possible, fire hydrants should be located
analyzing high-frequency crash locations,
sufficiently far away from the roadway so that they do not
s correcting the high-frequency crash locations,
become obstructions for the motorist, yet are still readily
accessible to and usable by emergency personnel. Any and
portion of the hydrant not designed to break away should s reviewing the results of the program.
be within 100 mm [4 in.] of the ground.
The size of the agency conducting the program may
affect the degree of sophisticationand complexity needed.
4.6.5 Mailbox Supports Small highway agencies or utility firms may find it suffi-
cient to place pins on a city map to identify high-crash
Mailbox supports are addressed in Chapter 11. locations, and then to review copies of police crash re-
ports in order to select the best safety treatment. Large
utility firms, units of local government, and state highway
4.7 UTILITY POLES agencies may resort to computers to handle enormous
volumes of data. Safety programs of the latter type fre-
Motor vehicle crashes with utility poles account for ap- quently use sophisticated statistical software to select
proximately 10 percent of all fixed-objectfatal crashes an- the best sites for treatment and to identify the most appro-
nually. This degree of involvement is related to the num- priate countermeasures.A manual procedure and a micro-
ber of poles in use, their proximity to the traveled way, and computer program have been developed that enable the
their unyielding nature. designer to determine which countermeasures could ef-
As with sign and luminaire supports, the most desir- fectively reduce the frequency or severity of accidents at
able solution is to locate utility poles where they are least a given site. Details of this model are contained in Trans-
likely to be struck. One alternative unique to power and portation Research Record (TRR) 970 (6).The following
telephone lines is to bury them, thereby eliminating the specific countermeasures were included in the analysis:
obstacles. For poles that cannot be eliminated or relo-
cated, breakaway designs have been developed and suc- placing utility lines underground,
cessfully crash tested. This alternative is briefly discussed increasing lateral pole offset,
below. Since utility poles are generally privately owned
increasing pole spacing,
and installed devices permitted on publicly owned rights-
of-way, they are not under the direct control of a highway s multiple pole use (joint usage), and
agency. This dual responsibility sometimes complicates breakaway design.
the implementation of effective countermeasures.
For new construction or major reconstruction, every Unlike the first three countermeasures, the use of a
effort should be made to install or relocate utility poles as breakaway design is intended to reduce the severity of an
far from the traveled way as practical. Two AASHTO pub- accident rather than its frequency. The design shown in
lications provide more detailed information on locating Figure 4.14, consisting of ground level slip base and up-
utility facilities within highway rights-of-way (4,5). per hinge assembly, has been successfully crash tested.
For existing utility pole installations, a concentration This design may be considered for poles in vulnerable
of crashes at a site or a certain type of crash that seems to locations that cannot economically be removed or relo-
occur frequently in a given jurisdiction may indicate that cated, such as gore areas, the outside of sharp curves,
the highwayhtility system is contributing to the crash and opposite the intersecting roadway at T-intersections.
potential. Utility pole crashes are subject to the same pat- Several variations of the breakaway utility pole are avail-
terns as other types of roadway crashes; thus, they are able and have demonstrated satisfactory in-service per-
subject to traditional highway crash study procedures. A formance in the limited field trials to date.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4-14
Sinn. Sianal. and Luminaii*eSupports, Utility Poles, Trees, and Similar Roadside Features
FIGURE 4.1 4 Prototype breakaiway design for utility poles
Another countermeasure that can be considered is ad- over which highway designers have direct control. With
equate shielding of selected poles, particularly the mas- the exception of landscaping projects where the types
sive supports used for major electrical transmission lines and locations of trees and other vegetation can be care-
within the clear zone or in other vulnerable locations. An fully chosen, the problem most often faced by designers
increasingly common practice is the delineation of poles is the treatment of existing trees that are likely to be im-
that are not otherwise treated, particularly along streets pacted by an errant vehicle. To promote consistency within
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
and highways where nighttime run-off-the-road crashes a State, each highway agency should develop a formal
are prevalent. policy to provide guidance to design, landscape, construc-
tion, and maintenance personnel for this situation. This
section is intended to provide general guidelines from
4.8 TREES which a specific policy on trees may he developed.
Trees are potential obstructions by virtue of their size
Single vehicle crashes with trees account for nearly 25 and their location in relation to vehiculartraffk. Generally,
percent of all fixed-object fatal crashes annually and re- an existing tree with an expected mature size greater than
sult in the deaths of approximately 3,000 persons each 100mm [4 in.] is considered a fixed object. When trees or
year. Unlike the roadside hardware previously addressed shrubs with multiple trunks or groups of small trees are
in this chapter, trees are not generally a design element close together, they may be considered as having the ef-
4-15 -
fect of a single tree with their combined cross-sectional The installation of advance warning signs and road-
area. Maintenance forces can minimize future problems way delineators can also be used to notify motorists of
by mowing clear zones to prevent seedlings from becom- sections of roadway where extra caution is advised. Typi-
ing established. The location factor is more difficult to cally, these will be used in advance of curves that are
address than tree size. Typically, large trees should be noticeably sharper than those immediately preceding it.
removed from within the selected clear zone for new con- Roadway improvements such as curve reconstruction
struction and for reconstruction. As noted in Chapter 3, to provide increased superelevation, shoulder widening,
the extent of the clear zone is dependent upon several and paving are relatively expensive countermeasures that
variables, including highway speeds, traffic volumes, and may not be cost-effective in all cases.
roadside slopes. Segments of a highway can be analyzed Off-roadway treatments consist primarily of two op-
to identify individual trees or groups of trees that are can- tions
didates for corrective measures. County and township
roads, which generally have restrictive geometric designs tree removal, and
and narrow, off-road recovery areas, account for a large shielding.
percentage of the annual tree-related fatal crashes, fol-
lowed by State and U.S. numbered highways on curved The removal of individual trees should be considered
alignment. Fatal crashes involving trees along Interstate when those trees are determined both to be obstructions
highways are relatively rare in most states. and to be in a location where they are likely to be hit. Such
Following several years of research by the Michigan trees can often be identified by past crash histories at
Department of Transportation, a Guide to Management of similar sites, by scars indicating previous crashes, or by
Roadside Trees (7) was distributed nationally by the Fed- field reviews. Removal of individual trees will not reduce
eral Highway Administration as Report No. FHwA-IP-86- the probability that a vehicle will leave the roadway at that
17. This document contains detailed information on iden- point, but should reduce the severity of any resulting crash.
tifying and evaluating higher risk roadside environments Because tree removal can be expensive and often has ad-
and provides guidance for implementing roadside tree reverse environmental impacts, it is important that this coun-
moval. It also addresses environmental issues, alternative termeasure be used only when it is an effective solution.
treatments, mitigation efforts, and maintenance practices. For example, lV3H and flatter slopes may be traversable,
The remainder of this section is basically a summary of but a vehicle on a 1V3H slope will usually reach the bot-
the information and recommendations included in that re- tom. If there are numerous trees at the toe of the slope,
port. removal of isolated trees on the slope will not significantly
Essentially, there are two methods for addressing the reduce the risk of a crash. Similarly, if the recommended
issue of roadside trees. The first is to keep the motorist clear zone for a particular roadway is 7 m [23 ft], including
on the road whenever possible, and the second is to miti- the shoulder, removal of trees 6 m to 7 m [20 ft to 23 ft]
gate the danger inherent in leaving a roadway with trees from the road will not materially change the risk to motor-
along it. ists if an unbroken tree line remains at 8 m [26 ft] and
On-roadway treatments include
beyond. However, isolated trees noticeably closer to the
roadway may be candidates for removal. If a tree or group
pavement marking, of trees is in a vulnerable location but cannot be removed,
rumble strips, a properly designed and installed traffic barrier can be
signs, used to shield them. Roadside barriers should only be
delineators, and used when the severity of striking the tree is greater than
striking the barrier. Specific information on the selection,
roadways improvements.
location, and design of roadside barriers is contained in --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Chapter 5.
Pavement markings are one of the most effective and
least costly improvements that can be made to a roadway.
Centerline and edge line markings are particularly effec-
REFERENCES
tive for roads with heavy nighttime traffic, frequent fog,
and narrow lanes. Shoulder rumble strips can also be used
1. AASHTO. Standard Specifications f o r Struc-
to warn motorists that their vehicles have crossed the
tural Supports f o r Highway Signs, Luminaires
edgeline and may run off the road.
and Traffic Signals. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, 2001.
4-16
2. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, andR. A. Zimmer. 5. AASHTO. A Guide f o r Accommodating Utili-
National Cooperative Highway Research Pro- ties within Highway Right-of Way. American As-
gram Report 350: Recommended Procedures for sociation of State Highway and Transportation
the Safety Evaluation of Highway Features. Officials, Washington, DC, 1994.
Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 1993. 6. Transportation Research Board. Safety Appurte-
nances and Utility Accomodation. Transporta-
3. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on tion Research Record 970. Transportation Re-
Uniform Trafic Control Devices. FHWA, Wash- search Board, Washington, DC, 1984.
ington, DC, 2000.
7. Federal Highway Administration.Guide to Man-
4. AASHTO. A Policy on the Accommodation of agement of Roadside Trees. Report NO. FHWA-
Utilities within Freeway Right-of- Way. Ameri- IP-86-17. FHWA, Washington, DC, December
can Association of State Highway and Trans- 1986.
portation Officials, Washington, DC, 1989.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4-17
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Roadside Barriers
5.0 OVERVIEW Evaluation of Highway Features (NCHRP Report 350)

(1).This report establishes six test levels (TLs) for longi-
A roadside barrier is a longitudinal barrier used to shield tudinal barriers to evaluate occupant risk, structural in-
motorists from natural or man-made obstacles located tegrity of the barrier, and post-impact behavior of the ve-
along either side of a traveled way. It also may be used to hicle for a variety of vehicle masses at varying speeds and
protect bystanders, pedestrians, and cyclists from vehicu- angles of impact.
lar trafi'c under special conditions. TL-I, TL-2, and TL-3 require successfultests of an 820
This chapter summarizes performance requirements and kg [1,800 lb] car impacting a barrier at an angle of 20 de-
warrants for roadside barriers and contains guidelines for grees and a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacting a
selectingand designing an appropriatebarrier system. The barrier at an angle of 25 degrees, at speeds of 50 km/h,70
structural and safety characteristics of selected roadside km/h, and 100km/h [30 mph, 45 mph, and 60 mph], respec-
barriers and transition sections are presented here. For tively. TL-4 adds an 8000 kg [ 17,600lb] single-unit truck at
similar information on end treatments, see Chapter 8. Fi- an impact angle of 15 degrees and 80 km/h [50 mph] to the
nally, placement guidelines are included, and a methodol- TL-3 matrix. TL-5 substitutes a 36000 kg [80,000lb] trac-
ogy is presented for identifying and upgrading existing tor-trailer (van) for the single-unit truck and TL-6 substi-
substandard installations. tutes a 36000 kg [80,000lb] tractor-trailer(tanker).
For barrier approvals and performance acceptance, the
designer is encouraged to contact the Federal Highway
5.1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Administration's (FHWA) Office of Highway Safety and
to access FHWA's web site at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
The primary purpose of all roadside barriers is to prevent fourthlevevhardwarelongbarriers.htm to view the accep-
a vehicle from leavingthe traveled way and striking a fixed tance letters for longitudinal barriers under NCHRP Re-
object or terrain feature that is less forgiving than striking port 350.
the barrier itself. Containing and redirectingthe impacting
vehicle using a barrier system accomplishes this. Because
the dynamics of a crash are complex, the most effective 5.1 -2 Barrier Classifications
means of assessing barrier performance is through full-
scale crash tests. By standardizing such tests, designers NCHRP Report 350 describes both experimental and op-
cin CGEFZTO the safety perfnm~nceof altem-ative designs. erational acceptance phases for roadside barriers. In the
experimental phase, a barrier that has acceptably passed
crash testing is subjected to in-service evaluation. In the
5.1.I Current Crash Test Criteria operational phase, a barrier that has been found accept-
able through an in-service evaluation is classified as op-
A series of standard crash tests are presented in National erational and it is recommended that its performance con-
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 350, tinues to be monitored. In practice, the determination of
Recommended Procedures for the Safe9 Perj5ormance whether a barrier must undergo an experimental in-service
5-1
evaluation is at the discretion of the user agency. Addi- the probability of crashes is low. Appendix A presents an
tionally, a barrier may be considered operational if it has analysis procedure that can be used to compare several
been used for an extended period and has demonstrated alternative safety treatments and provide guidance to the
satisfactory field performance in terms of construction, designer in selecting an appropriate design.
maintenance, and crash experience. All the barriers cited Highway conditions that warrant shielding by a road-
in this chapter have been found acceptable through crash side barrier can be placed into one of two basic catego-
testing and may be considered operational, although this ries: embankments or roadside obstacles. Pedestrians or
would not preclude a user agency from treating any of the other bystanders may also warrant protection from ve-
barriers as experimentalto determine if they meet its needs. hicular traffic. Specific highway featurescontained in each
No matter what status, experimental or operational,that of these categories are discussed in the following sec-
an agency ascribes to a barrier, it is strongly recommended tions.
that the barriers performance be monitored for any prob-
lems in construction, maintenance, or crashworthiness.
See NCHRP Report 350 for guidance on conducting in- 5.2.1 Embankments
service evaluations.
Omission of a barrier system does not necessarily im- Embankment height and side slope are the basic factors
ply that it is not acceptable for use. There are barriers in considered in determining barrier need as shown in Figure
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
use today that have not been subjected to full-scale crash 5.1. These criteria are based on studies of the relative
tests but have performed satisfactorily over time. severity of encroachments on embankments versus im-
pacts with roadside barriers. Embankments with slope and
height combinations on or below the curve do not warrant
5.2 WARRANTS shielding unless they contain obstacles within the clear
zone. Figure 5.1, however, does not take into account ei-
Barrier warrants are based on the premise that a traffic ther the probability of an encroachment occurring or the
barrier should be installed only if it reduces the severity of relative cost of installing a traffic barrier versus leaving
potential crashes. It is important to note that the probabil- the slopeunshielded.Figure 5.2 is a modified warrant chart
ity or frequency of run-off-the-road crashes is not directly developed by a state that addresses the decreased prob-
related to the severity of potential crashes. The mere in- ability of encroachments on lower volume roads. Figure
stallation of barriers could lead to higher incident rates 5.3 is another example of a modified warrant chart, one
due to the proximity of the barriers to the traveled way. which considers the cost-effectiveness of barrier installa-
Typically, guardrail warrants have been based on a sub- tion for the site-specific conditions noted on the chart.
jective analysis of certain roadside elements or conditions. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 are presented as examples only and are
If the consequences of a vehicle striking a fixed object or not intended for direct application. Highway agencies are
running off the road are believed to be more serious than encouraged to develop similar warranting criteria based
hitting a traffic barrier, then the barrier is considered war- upon their own cost-effectiveness evaluations.
ranted. While this approach can be used, often there are A rounded slope reduces the chances of an errant ve-
instances where it is not immediately obvious whether the hicle becoming airborne and affords the driver more con-
barrier or the unshielded condition presents the greater trol over the vehicle. Optimum rounding is arbitrarily de-
risk. Furthermore, the subjective method does not directly fined as the minimum radius a standard-sized automobile
consider either the probability of a crash occurring or the can negotiate without losing tire contact. It is dependent
costs associated with shielded and unshielded conditions. on the encroachment angle and speed as well as the char-
Warrants may also be established by using a benefit- acteristics of individual vehicles.
to-cost analysis whereby factors such as design speed
and traffic volume can be evaluated in relation to barrier
need. Costs associated with the barrier (installation costs, 5.2.2 Roadside Obstacles
maintenance costs, and crash costs) are compared to simi-
lar costs associated without barriers. This procedure is Roadside obstacles include both non-traversable terrain
typically used to evaluate three options: (1) remove or and fixed objects, and may be either man-made (such as
reduce the area of concern so that it no longer requires culvert inlets) or natural (such as trees). Together, these
shielding, (2) install an appropriatebarrier, or (3) leave the highway conditions account for over thirty percent of all
area of concern unshielded. The third option would nor- highway fatalities each year. Barrier warrants for roadside
mally be cost-effectiveonly on facilities with low volume, obstacles are a function of the obstacle itself and the like-
low speed, or both, or where engineering studies show lihood that it will be hit. However, a barrier should be
52
Roadside Barriers
TRAVELED WAY
FILL SECTION EMBANKMENT
n r 8 a . . . . . , , ,
HEIGHT
1:1.5
0.6
0.5 1:2
I
2
w
a
3 I
v)
z 0.4 1:2.5 $
wF
a
9
v)
(I>
-I
z
2 1:3
U
U w
0)
0.3 -
-I
I
o -
U
a
1:4
U
0.2 1:5
BARRIER NOT WARRANTED FOR EMBANKMENT.
HOWEVER, CHECK BARRIER NEED FOR OTHER 1:6
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ROADSIDE OBSTACLES.
0.1
0.0
O 3 6 9 12 15 18
FILL SECTION HEIGHT (m)
FIGURE 5.la Comparative risk warrants for embankments (metric units)
installed only if it is clear that the result of a vehicle strik- cant enough to warrant action. Most man-made objects
ing the barrier will be less severe than the crash resulting incorporated into a highway project can be designed to
from hitting the unshielded object. minimize or eliminatethe danger they present to a motorist
Non-traversable terrain and roadside obstacles that and thus make shielding unnecessary. This is particularly
normally warant shielding are listed in Table 5.1. While true of drainage features such as small culvertsand ditches.
roadside obstacles immediately adjacent to the traveled
way are usually removed, relocated,modified, or shielded,
the optimal solution becomes less evident as the distance 5.2.3 Bystanders, Pedestrians, and
between the obstruction and the traveled way increases. Bicyclists
Table 3.1, Clear-Zone Distances, is intended as a guide to
aid the designer in determining whether the obstruction An area of concern to highway officials is what has been
constitutes a threat to an errant motorist that is signifi- termed the innocent bystander problem. In most such
5-3
~ -~
FILL SECTION EMBANKMENT
HEIGHT
0.6
0.5
I
2
a
W
s
o)
z 0.4
2
o)
J
4
LL
84 0.3
o
a
0
E
0.2
I BARRIER NOT WARRANTED FOR EMBANKMENT.

HOWEVER, CHECK BARRIER NEED FOR OTHER
ROADSIDEOBSTACLES. I 1 6:l
0.1
0.0
O 10 20 30 40 50 60
FILL SECTION HEIGHT [it]
FIGURE 5.1b Comparative risk warrants for embankments [US. customary units]
cases, the conventional criteria presented in the previous Pedestrians and cyclists are another category of con-
sections cannot be used to establish barrier needs. For cern that should be given design consideration. The most
example, a major street, highway, or freeway may adjoin a desirable solution is to separate them from vehicular traf-
schoolyard, but the boundaries are beyond the clear dis- fic. Since this solution is not always practical, alternate
tance. There are no criteria that would require that a bar- means of protecting them are sometimes necessary. As in
rier be installed. If, however, a barrier is installed, it could the case of bystander warrants, there are no objective
be placed near the school boundary to minimize the po- criteria to draw on for pedestrian and cyclist barrier war-
tential for vehicle contact. Reference should be made to rants. On low-speed streets, a vertical faced curb will usu-
Section 5.6.1 for lateral placement criteria. Consideration ally suffice to separate pedestrians and cyclists from ve-
might also be given to installing a barrier to shield busi- hicular traffic. However, at speeds over 40 krrih [25 mph],
nesses and residences that are near the right-of-way, par- a vehicle may mount the curb for relatively flat approach
ticularly at locations having a history of run-off-the-road angles. Hence, when sidewalks or bicycle paths are adja-
crashes.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-4
Roadside Barriers
TABLE 5.1 Barrier warrants for non-transferrableterrain and roadside obstacles'-*
Obstacle ~~ ~
Warrants~
Bridge piers, abutments, and railing ends Shielding generally required

Boulders Judgment decision based on nature of fixed object and
likelihood of impact
Culverts, pipes, headwalls Judgment decision based on size, shape, and location of
obstacle
Cut & fill slopes (smooth) Shielding not generally required
Cut & fill slopes (rough) Judgment decision based on likelihood of impact
Ditches (parallel) Refer to Figures 3.6 and 3.7
Ditches (t,ransverse) Shielding generally required if likelihood of head-on impact is
high
Embankment Judgment decision based on fill height and slope (see Figure
5.1)
Retaining walls Judgment decision based on relative smoothness of wall and
anticipated maximum angle of impact
Signuminaire supports3 Shielding generally required for non-breakaway supports
Traffic signal supports4 Isolated traffic signals within clear zone on high-speed rural
facilities may warrant shielding
Trees Judgment decision based on site-specific circumstances
Utility poles Shielding may be warranted on a case-by-case basis
Permanent bodies of water Judgment decision based on location and depth of water and
~ __ ~~~~
likelihood of encroachment
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
Notes:
' Shielding non-traversable terrain or a roadside obstacle is usually warranted only when it is within the clear zone and cannot
practically or econnmically he remnved, relocated, or made hreakaway, and it is determined that the barrier provides a
safety improvement over the unshielded condition.
* Marginal situations, with respect to placement or omission of a barrier, will usually be decided by crash experience, either at
the site or at a comparable site.
Where feasible, ail sign and luminaire supports should be a breakaway design regardless of their distance from the roadway
if there is reasonable likelihood of their being hit by an errant motorist. The placement and locations for breakaway
supports should also consider the safety of pedestrians from potential debris resulting from impacted systems.
in practice, relatively few traffic signal supports, including flashing light signals and gates used at railroad crossings, are
shielded. i f shielding is deemed necessary, however, crash cushions are sometimes used in lieu of a longitudinal barrier
instailation.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
cent to the traveled way of high-speed facilities, some tops of these posts where they project above the rail ele-
provision might be made for the safety of pedestrians and ment. Some European countries have attempted to ad-
cyclists. dress this concern at locations having both high motor-
cycle use and a high number of crashes by adding a lower
rubrail to the design or by padding the posts with ex-
5.2.4 Motorcycles and Barrier Design panded foam. However, no systematic approach toward
this issue has been developed because of the random
There have been numerous instances nationwide where nature of motorcycle crashes and the questionable effec-
roadside barriers have contributed to the severity of tiveness of modifications to existing barriers. Based on
crashes involving motorcycles. Most commonly, motor- the experience of other countries and the lack of any cost-
cyclists have been seriously injured or killed after impact- effective countermeasures or barrier designs, there ap-
ing some types of open-faced traffic barriers, particularly pears to be little basis for developing guardrails designed
after contacting the edges of steel guardrail posts or the for motorcyclists. There is some suggestion that a smooth,
5-5
1:l.S
1:2
z
>
v
1:2.5
W
Q
9
o 1:3
1:3.5
1:4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
H = EMBANKMENT HEIGHT (m)
FIGURE 5.2a Example design chart for embankment warrants based on fill height, slope, and
traffic volume (metric units)
1.5:l
2:l
h 2.57
?
I
v
W
a
9
o 3:l
3.5:l
4:l
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
H = EMBANKMENT HEIGHT [ft]
FIGURE 5.2b Example design chart for embankment warrants based on fill height, slope, and
traffic volume [U.S. customary units]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-6
Roadside Barriers
3500
Z-LANE ROADWAY
1V 2 5H SLOPE
-
x-
V = 90 k d h BARRIER WARRANTED
n 3000
0
U
W
a 2500 \,
z
(3
v)
W
n
U
W
8I-
n
a
u1
(3
dW
>
a
12.8rn FILL HEIGHT WARRANT LENGTH (m)
FIGURE 5% Example design chart for cost-effective embankment warrants based on traffic speeds and
volumes, slope geometry and length of slope (metric units)
3500
n 3000
0
[I:
W
a 2500
z
0
v)
W
n 2000
U
W
8I- 1500
n
a
W
2
LT
1O00
W
>
a 500
42'FILL HEIGHT WARRANT LENGTH [Hundreds of Feet]
FIGURE 5.3b Example design chart for cost-effective embankment warrants based on traffic speeds and
volumes, slope geometry and length of slope [U.S. customary units]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
57
solid-faced barrier such as a concrete safety shape is least * severe consequences associated with penetra-
likely to cause traumatic injuries to cyclists upon contact. tion of a barrier by a large vehicle.
These same factors apply on reconstruction or reha-

5.3 PERFORMANCE LEVEL SELECTION bilitation projects but, in these cases, the designer will
FACTORS usually have the added benefit of past crash history, the
past performance of the system, and maintenance costs
Most roadside barriers were developed, tested, and in- associated with the existing barrier. In addition, a higher
stalled with the intention of containing and redirecting performance barrier is likely to lessen the severity of fu-
passenger vehicles with masses up to 2000 kg [4,400 Ib]. ture crashes or reduce maintenance costs significantly.
Properly designed and installed barrier systems have Section 5.4 includes information on the size of vehicle for
proven to be very effective in reducing the amount of which each system has been successfully crash tested.
damage and lessening the severity of personal injuries
when struck by automobiles and similar-sized vehicles at
relatively shallow angles (less than 25 degrees) and at 5.4 STRUCTURAL AND SAFETY
reasonable impact speeds (less than 110km/h [65 mph]). CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADSIDE
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
However, it has long been understood that barriers de- BARRIERS
signed for cars should not be expected to perform equally
well for larger vehicles, such as buses and trucks. Recog- This section includes information on the most commonly
nizing this fact, several highway agencies have developed used operational roadside barriers as well as data on se-
and used barrier systems capable of redirecting vehicles lected experimentalsystems. Separate subsections address
as heavy as 36,000-kg [SO,OOO-lb] tractor-trailercombina- standard sections of roadside barriers and transition sec-
tion trucks. Although objective warrants for the use of tions. Figure 5.4 graphically depicts each of these ele-
higher performance traffic barriers do not presently exist, ments for typical installations. Information on the struc-
subjective factors most often considered for new con- tural and safety characteristics of each system is presented
struction or safety upgrading include: in a narrative format, and includes the following informa-
tion:
I high percentage of heavy vehicles in traffic
stream, * a photograph or sketch of the barrier.
0 adverse geometria, such as sharp curvature, * a barrier description showing the main elements
which are often combined with poor sight dis- of the barrier and post spacing. Prior to selection
tance, and of a specific barrier system, the designer should
LENGTH OF NEED BRIDGE RAIL LENGTH OF NEED
DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM
TERMINAL TERMINAL
OR END OR END
TREATMENT TREATMENT
EDGE OF THROUGH
TRAVELED WAY
--/ - DIRECTION OF
TRAVEL (ADJACENTTRAFFIC)
DIRECTION OF
TRAVEL (OPPOSING TRAFFIC)
FIGURE 5.4 Definition of roadside barriers

Roadside Barriers
obtain full details of the system from standard [4,500 lb] passenger sedan resulted in a lateral deflection
drawings or a similar source. of 3.5 m [i 1.5 ft]. This system will generally redirect ve-
hicles in the 820-2000 kg [1,800-4,400 lb] ranges, but
a brief description of the impact performance of some discussion is needed to distinguish between design
each system. This will describe the range of ve- variations of this system. The steel S75 x 8.5 [S3 x 5.71 post
hicles for which the system has been success- design with 700 mm r28 in.] top rail height has been tested
fully crash tested. For standard sections, the the most extensively of all past designs. In addition to the
dynamic deflection observed during the NCHRP vehicle range described above, this design has success-
Report 350 standard strength test for the 2000 kg fully contained and redirected a low front profile car and
[4,400 lb] pickup truck impacting a barrier at an an 1800kg [4,100 lb] van.
angle of 25 degrees and at a velocity of 100 km/h The cable barrier redirects impacting vehicles after suf-
[60 mph] is used. ficient tension is developed in the cable, with the posts in
the impact area offering only slight resistance. However,
field performance data for experimental barriers testing on the S75 x 8.5 [ S 3 x 5.71 post design has shown
are included when available. This provides the that closer post spacing can reduce lateral deflection to
designer with in-service evaluation information some extent. (Prior testing with a 1600kg [3,500 lb] car at
and is intended to encourage the use and evalu- 100 km/h [60 mph] on this design produced deflections of
ation of additional pilot installations at appropri- 2.1 m [7 ft] to 3.3 m [li ft] for associated post spacing of
ate locations. 1.2-4.9 m [4-16 ft]). Several states with extensive experi-
ence using cable rail allow a down slope as steep as 1V2H
Additional information on individual barrier systems, behind the rail.
including design details and barrier damage resulting from Cable barriers placed on the inside of curves require
tests, is presented in Appendix B. additional deflection before tension develops in the cable.
Among agencies using this barrier, guidelines vary re-
garding maximum curvature allowed. The State of New
5.4.1 Standard Sections of Roadside York installs the 575 x 8.5 [S3 x 5.71 post design on curves
Barriers with radii up to 220 m [721.5 ft] with standard 4.9 m [16 ft]
spacing and with radii up to 135 m [442.5ft] with 3.8 m [12
Roadside barriers are usually categorized as flexible, semi- foot] post spacing.
rigid, or rigid, depending on their deflection characteris- Primary advantages of cable guardrail include low ini-
tics on impact. Flexible systems are generally more forgiv- tial cost, effective vehicle containmentand redirection over
ing than the other categories since much of the impact a wide range of vehicle sizes and installation conditions,
energy is dissipated by the deflection of the barrier and and low deceleration forces upon the vehicle occupants.
lower impact forces are imposed upon the vehicle. It is also advantageous in snow or sand areas because its
This section is not intended to be all-inclusive, but to open design prevents drifting on or alongside the road-
cover the most widely used roadside barriers. The barriers way. Major drawbacks to the use of cable guardrail in-
and approved test levels included in the following sub- clude the comparatively long lengths of barrier which are
sections are listed in Table 5.2. non-functional and in need of repair following an impact,
the clear area needed behind the barrier to accommodate
the design deflection distance, its reduced effectiveness
5.4.1.1 Three-Strand Cable on the inside of curves, and its sensitivity to correct height
installation and maintenance.
The barrier system shown in Figure 5.5 consists of steel --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
cables mounted on weak posts. Several variations of this

design (SGROla and SGROlb) have been successfully 5.4.1.2 W-Beam (Weak Post)
crash tested. (See Appendix B for individual designs.)
Impact performance: This system, with a top cable The barrier system shown in Figure 5.6 behaves very much
height of 76 mm [3 in.j, has been successfuiiy tested to like a cable guardrail, i.e., the posts serve primarily to hold
NCHRP Report 350, TL-3, The dynamic lateral deiection the rail at the proper elevation and they separate readily
observed during strength testing with a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] when struck. The W-beam rail then redirects impacting
pickup truck at 95.1 k m h [59.1mph] and at an angle of 26.7 vehicles as it is placed in tension. Post size is identical to
degrees was 2.4 m 17.8 ft]. Earlier testing with a 2040 kg the cable system (S75 x 8.5 [S3 x 5.71) design, but posts are
59
TABLE 5.2 Roadside barriers and approved test levels
BARRIER SYSTEM (with AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA designation) TEST LEVEL
FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS
0 3-Strand Cable (Weak Post) (SGROla & b) TL-3
0 W-Beam (Weak Post) (SGR02) TL-2
0 Modified W-Beam (Weak Post) (SGR02) TL-3
0 Ironwood Aesthetic Barrier TL-3
SEMI-RIGID SYSTEMS
0 Box Beam (Weak Post) (SGR03) TL-3
0 Blocked-out W-Beam (Strong Post)
-Steel or Wood Post with Wood or Plastic Block (SGR04a & b) TL-3
-Steel Post with Steel Block (SGR04a) TL-2
0 Blocked-out Thrie-Beam (Strong Post)
-Wood or Steel Post with Wood or Plastic Block (SGR09a & c) TL-3
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0 Modified Thrie-Beam (Strong Post) (SGR09b) TL-4

0 Merritt Parkway Aesthetic Guardrail TL-3
0 Steel-Backed Timber Guardrail TL-3
RIGID SYSTEMS (CONCRETE & MASONRY):
0 New Jersey Concrete Safety Shape
-810 mm [32 in.] tall (SGMlla) TL-4

-1070 mm [42 in.] tall (SGMllb) TL-5
0 F-Shape Barrier
-810 mm [32 in.] (SGMlOa) TL-4
-1070 mm [42 in.] (SGMlOb) TL-5
0 Vertical Concrete Barrier
-810 mm [32 in.] TL-4

-1070 mm [42 in.] TL-5
0 Single Slope Barrier
-810 mm [32 in.] TL-4

-1070 mm [42 in.] TL-5
0 Ontario Tall Wall Median Barrier (SGM12) TL-5
Stone Masonry WalWrecast Masonry Wall TL-3
installed at 3.8 m [12ft] centers to match the W-beam hole duced to some extent by closer post spacing. This sys-
pattern. The suggested distance from the ground to the tem, as with all barriers having a relatively narrow restrain-
centerline of the rail is 550 mm [22 in.]. ing width, is somewhat vulnerable to vaulting or vehicle
Impact performance: The W-beam weak-post system underride caused by incorrect mounting height or irregu-
has been successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-2 larities in the approach terrain.
with a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck. The dynamic lateral A modification to the standard weak post design was
deflection in the 2000 kg [4,400 lb] test (26.1-degree impact developed and successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350,
angle, 71 km/h [45 mph]) was 1.4 m [4.6 ft]. This barrier TL-3. The modifications included raising the mounting
failed a 99.8 km/h [62 mph], 24.4-degree impact angle crash height to 820 mm [32.3 in.] and adding W-beam back-up
test; thus, it is not classified as a TL-3 barrier. However, plates at each post. All rail splices were centered mid-
the barrier is approved for a TL-2 barrier system with the span between posts rather than at a post location. The
mounting height of 550 mm [22 in.] to the center of the rail. dynamic deflection was measured at 2.12 m [6 ft 11.5 in.]
This system may retain some degree of effectiveness when the barrier was hit by a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup
after minor hits due to the rigidity of the W-beam rail ele- truck at 102.4 k m h [63.6 mph] and a 26.5-degree impact
ment and thus has some advantage over a cable system. angle.
As with the cable system, lateral deflection can be re-
5-1O
- Roadside Barriers
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 5.5 Three-strand cable barrier
FIGURE 5.6 Weak post W-beam barrier
5-11
FIGURE 5.7 Ironwood aesthetic guardrail
5.4.1.3 Ironwood Aesthetic Guardrail 5.4.1.4 Box Beam (Weak Post)
The barrier shown in Figure 5.7 is a weak-post system Figure 5.8 shows a typical installation of a box beam rail
consisting of S75 x 8.5 [S3 x 5.71 steel posts on 2000 mm (SGR03 system). Resistance in this system is achieved
[6.5 ft] centers supporting a composite rail element. This through the combined flexure and tensile stiffness of the
composite rail consists of 203 mm [8 in.] diameter routed rail. Posts near the point of impact are designed to break
round-wood posts with a 6 mm [0.25 in.] thick steel chan- or tear away, thereby distributing the impact force to adja-
nel embedded on the back side to provide the needed cent posts.
tensile strength of the system. The top height of the rail is Impact performance: This system was successfully
660 mm [26 in.]. The steel support posts are faced with 171 crash tested to NHCRP 350, TL-3. Dynamic lateral deflec-
mm [6 .75 in.] diameter timber posts above the ground line tion in the 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck test (25.5-degree
to present an all-timber appearancefrom the roadway. The impactangle,95.2km/h[59mph]) was 1.15m[45in.].
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Ironwood guardrail, which is a proprietary design, was This system shares the same sensitivities to mounting
successfully tested to NCHW Report 350, TL-3. Maxi- height and irregularities in terrain as the weak-post W-
mum dynamic deflection resulting from the 100 km/h [60 beam systems. The suggested distance from the ground
mph] impact with the 2000 kg [4,400lb] pickup truck at an to centerlineof rail is 610 mm [24 in.].
angle of 25 degrees was 1640 mm [5ft 4.5 in.].
There are currently no crashworthy terminal designs
for the Ironwood guardrail or any of the other aesthetic 5.4.1 .5 Blocked-Out W-Beam (Strong Post)
barriers described in this Chapter. Acceptable end treat-
ments include anchoring any of these barriers in a Strong-post W-beam is the most common barrier system
backslope (see Section 8.2.3) or flaring the barrier to the in use today. It consists of steel posts (SGR04a) as shown
edge of the clear zone established for a particular project. in Figure 5.9 or wood posts (SGR04b) as shown in Figure
5.10 that support a W-beam rail element that is blocked
5-12
Roadside Barriers
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 5.8 Weak post box beam barrier
out from the posts with routed timber, steel, or recycled with some reduction in performance. Individual designs
plastic spacer blocks. These blocks minimize vehicle snag- for these and other strong-post W-beam variations are
ging on the posts and reduce the likelihood of a vehicle shown in Appendix B.
vaulting over the barrier by maintaining rail height during The standard length for timber posts has been in-
the initial stages of post deflection. Resistance in this and creased to 1830 mm [6 feet] to match the length of steel
all strong post systems results from a combination of ten- posts, however, the recent Report 350 tests used the origi-
sile and flexural stiffness of the rail and the bending or nal 1625 mm [5 ft 4 in.] posts and either length remains
shearing resistance of the posts. acceptable. The original height to the top of the rail for
Several acceptable strong post W-beam designs are in strong post W-beam was 685 mm [27 in.]. This was slightly
use. The spacer blocks are typically timber or recycled modified when the height measurement was changed from
plastic with a 150 inm [6 in.] width to match each posts the top of the rail to Lhe cenler of the rail with the adoption
dimensions. One of the most commonly used designs, the of metric units. A 550 mm [21.5 in.] height to the center of
steel post guardrail system with steel blocks, failed to the rail translated to a 706 mm [28 in.] top height. Either top
meet the NCHRP Report 350 evaluation criteria at TL-3 rail height is considered acceptable. A design improve-
when the pickup truck snagged on a post and subse- ment suggested for new installations of this and other
quently overturned.However, this system remains accept- strong-post guardrail systems is deletion of the rectangu-
abie as a TL-2 barrier. in order to provide a TL-3 barrier iar post boit washers. These washers are not necessary
with steel posts, 150inin x 200 imu [6 in. x 8 in.] routed fool system strength over the normal range of expected
1
wood or plastic blocks of similar dimensions should be impacts. Furthermore, during severe impacts producing
used as a substitute for the steel blocks. Steel post W- large post deflections, it is desirable that the rail element
beam using 150 mm x 150mm [6 in. x 6 in.] routed wood or separates from the posts as they rotate back and down-
plastic blocks also met Report 350 evaluation criteria but ward. This keeps the railing height relatively constant and
5-13
Roadside D e s i m Guide
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 5.9 Steel post W-beam with wood block-outs
FIGURE 5.10 Wood post W-beam with wood block-outs
5-14
Roadside Barriers
FIGURE 5.11 Wood post thrie-beam barrier
reduces the likelihood that an impacting vehicle will vault 5.4.1.6 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beams
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the barrier. Use of these washers in strong post transition

sections is optional. There are three types of thrie-beam barriers that have been
Impact performance: Based primarily on testing of the tested under NCHRP Report 350. These barriers are dis-
two common designs noted above, this system is effec- cussed in the following subsections.
tive at redirecting vehicles in the 820-2000 kg [ 1,800-4,400
lb] range. The wood post (SGR04b) system with wood
blocks passed the NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 test with a 5.4.1.6.1 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Wood
2000 kg [4,400 Ib] pickup truck (24.3-degreeimpact angle, Strong Post)
100.8kmh [62.5 mph]). The maximum lateral deflection
was 0.8 m [31.5 in.]. A steel post system with a 150 mm x The SGR09c thrie-beam system, shown in Figure 5.11 and
200 mm [6 in. x 8 in.] routed wood block also passed the in Appendix B, is a stronger version of the blocked-out
NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 test with the 2000 kg [4,400 lb] W-beam rail. The additional corrugation in the thrie-beam
pickup truck (25.5-degree impact angle, 101.5 k d h 163 rail element stiffens the system, making it less prone to
mph]). The maximum lateral deflection of this system was damage during low- and moderate-speed vehicle impacts.
1.0m[3.3ft]. It also allows higher mounting of the rail, which increases
Strong post barrier systems usually remain functional its ability to contain vehicles larger than standard passen-
after moderate to low speed impacts, thereby minimizing ger cars under some impact conditions. The SGR09c sys-
the need for immediate repair. tem, with wood posts and blockouts, has been success-
5-15
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 5.12 Modified thrie-beam guardrail
fully crash tested with a top railing height of 810 mm deflection observed during strength testing with a
[32 in.]. 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacting at 98.2 km/h
Impact performance: The SGR09c thrie-beam system [61.0 mph] and at an impact angle of 24.4 degrees was
with wood posts and wood blocks was successfully crash 0.58 m [23 in.]. In an earlier test to establish an upper
tested to NHCRP 350, TL-3. The dynamic lateral deflec- performance limit, the original barrier (with steel offset
tion observed during strength testing with a 2000 kg blocks) contained and redirected a 9100 kg [20,000 lb]
[4,400 lb] pickup truck impacting at 99.6 k m h [61.9 mph] school bus, although it failed to keep the school bus up-
and at an angle of 23.6 degrees was 0.68 m [26.75 in.]. right during the test.
5.4.1.6.2 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Steel 5.4.1.6.3 Modified Thrie-Beam

Strong Post)
To improve the performance of thrie-beam guardrail for
The original SGR09a system, which used a steel blockout, heavy vehicles, a steel block-out was developed. This
failed to pass NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. The original steel 355 mm [14 in.] deep steel block-out has a triangular notch
spacer blocks have been replaced with routed timber or cut from its web (see SGR09b in Figure 5.12). This block-
routed, recycled plastic with a 150 mm [6 in.] width to out design allows the lower portion of the thrie-beam and
match the post dimensions. This barrier, as with the thrie- the flange of the steel block-out to bend inward during a
beam wood-post system, has been successfully crash crash, keeping the rail face nearly vertical in the impact
tested with a top railing height of 810 mm [32 in.]. zone as the posts are pushed backwards. This raises the
Impact Performance: The SGR09a thrie-beam system height of the rail and further minimizes the likelihood of a
with steel posts and wood blocks was successfully crash vehicle rolling over the barrier. Other modificationsto the
tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. The dynamic lateral standard thrie-beam design that have been incorporated
5-16
~~ ~ ~-
Roadside Barriers
FIGURE 5.13 Merritt Parkway aesthetk guardrail
into this barrier include omitting rectangular post bolt 5.4.1.7 Merritt Parkway Aesthetic Guardrail
washers and increasing the top of rail height to 860 mm
[34 in.]. The Connecticut Department of Transportation developed
Impact performance: This system has been success- and tested an aesthetic steel-backed timber rail supported
fully crash tested to NHCRP 350, TL-4 with a 2000 kg by W150 x 22.5 [W6 x 151steel posts on 2896 mm [9.5 ft]
[4,400 lb] pickup truck (100 kmh [60 mph], 25-degree im- centers. The rail element consists of 152mm x 305 mm [6 in.
pact angle) and an 8000 kg [ 18,000 lb] single unit truck. x 12 in.] timber beams backed with 152 mm wide x 9.5 mm
Earlier tests with a 9100 kg [20,000lb] school bus (90 km/h thick [6 in. x 3/s in.] steel plates and splices to provide
[56 mph], 15-degree impact angle), and a 14,500 kg tensile continuity. Height to the top of the rail is 762 mm
[32,000lb] intercity bus (97 k m h [60 mph], 14-degreeim- [30 in.]. A wood block measuring 100 mm deep x 200 mm
pact angle) were also successful. Dynamic lateral deflec- wide x 280 mm high [4 in. deep x 8 in. wide x 11 in. high]
tion in the 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck and the school separates the rail element from the posts to minimize snag-
bus test were 0.6 m [2 ft] and 0.9 m [3 ft], respectively. ging. This barrier, shown in Figure 5.13, was tested to
Repair costs for all of the thrie-beam systems may be NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. Design deflection with the
considerably less than other metal beam guardrail sys- 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck was 1150mm [46 in.] when
tems because the thrie-beam is not significantly damaged the system was tested without a curb and 1020 mm [40 in.]
in shallow-angle impacts. Even for moderate to severe when tested behind a 100 mm [4 in.] curb. Either option is
crashes, the barrier may remain partially functional and acceptable for use.
does not usually require immediate repair. Also, thrie-beam
is generally easier to install and maintain than a W-beard
rubrail system, where a higher effective barrier height is
the design goal.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-17
FIGURE 5.14 Steel-backed timber guardrail
5.4.1.8 Steel-Backed Timber Guardrail degree impact angle. More recently, this design was tested
to NCHRP Report 350 at TL-3 with a 2000 kg [4,400 lb]
The semi-rigid barrier shown in Figure 5.14 was devel- pickup truck impacting at 98.7 km/h [61.3 mph] at an im-
oped as an aesthetic alternative to conventional guardrail pact angle of 24.5 degrees. The dynamic deflection of the
systems. The system consists of a 150 mm x 250 mm [6 in. barrier was reported to be 580 mm [23 in.]. Detailed design
x 10 in.] wood rail backed with a 10 mm [/, in.] thick steel information on this barrier and on the rough masonry and
plate and supportedby 250 mm x 300 mm x 2100 mm [ 10 in. precast concrete guardwalls can be found on the FHWAs
x 12 in. x 7 ft] timber posts. The rail is offset from the posts Eastern Federal Lands web site at http://
by 100mmx 225 mm x 300 mm [4 in. x9 in. x 12in.] wooden www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/d.
spacer blocks. The steel plate provides needed tensile
strength to the system. The wood members provide a more
rustic appearance than the steel and concrete normally 5.4.1.9 Concrete Barriers
used in barriers. Thus, this railing is often specified for
use along roads under the jurisdiction of the National Park A number of rigid concrete systems have been developed
Service and similar agencies. that have varying shapes and heights of 810 mm [32 in.]
Impact performance: This railing was originally crash and 1070 mm [42 in.]. The concrete barriers with a height
tested under NCHRP Report 230 with an 820 kg [ 1,800lb] of 810 mm [32 in.] passed NCHRP Report 350, TL-4, while
vehicle at 81 lun/h [50 mph], 20-degree impact angle, and taller barriers of similar shape with a height of 1070 mm
with a 2040 kg [4,500 lb] vehicle at 81 k m h [50 mph], 25- [42 in.] passed NCHRP Report 350, TL-5.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-18
- ___
Roadside Barriers
FIGURE 5.15 New Jersey safety-shape barrier
The New Jersey concrete safety shape roadside barrier Impact performance: Several of the semi-rigidconcrete
is a rigid system having a sloped front face and a vertical barriers such as the New Jersey concrete safety shape, F-
back face. Except for the back face, the design details and shape. and constant slope face barriers with 810 mm
performance of this barrier are identical to the concrete [32 in.] height have been successfully tested to NHCRP
median barrier (CMB) and the reader is referred to Section 350, TL-4. The New Jersey safety shape has been the most
6.4.1.7 for a more complete discussion of this design. The commonly tested concrete barrier design in past years,
New Jersey safety shape barrier (SGM1 l a and b) shown and it has generally been tested in the median barrier con-
in Figure 5.15 and the F-shape (SGMlOa and b) are both figuration. A 1070 mm [42 in.] height modified New Jersey
acceptable barrier profiles. Figure C.6 in Appendix C shows safety shape barrier, F-shape barrier, vertical concrete bar-
the differences between these similarly shaped barriers. rier, and the constant slope barrier have been success-
The F-shape exhibited better performance in crash tests fully tested to NHCRP 350, TL-5. For example, the 1070mm
with 820 kg [ 1,800 lb] cars and 8000 kg [ 18,000 lb] single [42 in.] New Jersey safety shape barrier redirected a
unit trucks. Constant slope concrete barriers (shown in 36,300 kg [80,000 pound] tractor-trailer impacting at an
Figure 6.8 as a median barrier), developed by the State of angle of 15 degrees and a speed of 84 km/h [52 mph].
Texas and the State of California, have also been tested Another median type barrier that has been effectivelyused
with pickup trucks and single unit trucks and found to as a longitudinal system is the Ontario Tall Wall Median
perform satisfactorily. The reduced cross-section of this Barrier (SGM12) as shown in Figure 5.16. This 1070 mm
roadside barrier (as compared to the CMB) makes it more [42 in.] New Jersey shape non-reinforced wall system is
vulnerable to overturn; therefore, the roadside version classified as a high-performance barrier and has TL-5 ap-
usuaiiy conrains more reinforcing sreei anciior a more provai unaer VEiCRP Report 350.
elaborate footing design unless earth support is available To counteract the overturning moment of trucks with
on the back side of the barrier. higher centers of gravity or unrestrained loads, walls even
Top of barrier height for the basic design is 810 mm higher than 1070mm 142in.] can be effective. Some signifi-
[32 in.], but higher designs have been tested and built to cantly higher barriers have been constructed for special
obtain redirection of vehicles heavier than passenger cars. situations with satisfactory results in field application.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-19
. . . _ I . . " . .. .. . . I_ .______ll"
I
FIGURE 5.1 6 Ontario tall wall median barrier
FIGURE 5.17 2290 mm [90 in.] New Jersey barrier
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-20
FIGURE 5.18 Stone masonry wa
One highway agency constructed a 2290 mm [90 in.] high, 5.4.1 .I O Stone Masonry WalllPrecast Masonry
reinforced safety shape on the outside of a loop ramp that Wail
had been the scene of numerous truck crashes. This in-
stallation has contained impacting tractor-semi-trailers but A stone masonry wall barrier, shown in Figure 5.18, con-
has not eliminated the problem of rebounding trucks some- sisting of a reinforced concrete core (precast or cast in
times rolling over onto the roadway. This installation is place) that is faced and capped with natural stone and
shown in Figure 5.17. Another state highway agency de- mortar gives the appearance of a vertical-faced, stone
veloped and installed a 2290 m [90 in.] tall barrier for use masonry wall. This wall has been developed as an aes-
as a railing on an elevated freeway ramp. It was tested thetic barrier for use by the National Park Service on roads
successfully at NCHRP Report 350, TL-6, and has also under its jurisdiction.
been used in other states as a median or roadside barrier. A second aesthetic rigid barrier developed and tested
Figure 7.6 shows the crash test installation for this barrier. for the National Park Service is the precast masonry wall.
A third truck barrier consists of a 1630mm [64in.] high The design, as shown in Figure 5.19, is formed from solid,
concrete safety shape buttressed by an earth berm and precast segments placed together to form what appears to
topped with a metal W-beam guardrail, raising its total be a continuous vertical masonry wall. The barrier was
heightto2310mm[91 in.]. Thebaseofthewallis 1070mm originally tested under NCHRP Report 230. A crash test
[42 in.] and its top width is 710 mm [28 in.]. The back face with a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck at a speed of
of the wall is vcrtical. Sincc its installation, the truck bar- 99.1 kmh [61.4 mph] and an impact angle of 24.9 degrees
rier u1as hit hy i? !arge vehic!~that proceeded to leave the has qualified the rough stone masonry wall described
site. The guardrail along the top of the wall was pushed above as an NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 barrier. For further
back slightly and the concrete was scraped, but no repairs information and an update on the TL-3 performance of
were necessary. The use of the earth berm eliminated the aesthetic barrier systems, the designer is encouraged to
need for an extensive footing and for excessive reinforc- contact the FHWA's Office of Highway Safety.
ing in the wall itself. The semi-rigid metal beam guardrail Impact performance: A smooth-faced design was suc-
on top appears to limit vehicle roll and minimize rebound cessfully crash tested with an 820 kg [1,800 lb] car impact-
in heavy vehicle impacts. ing at 97 km/h 160 mph] and approximately a 15-degree
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 5-21
FIGURE 5.19 Precast masonry wall
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 5.20 Long-span,double-nested W-beam guardrail
5-22
~ ~ ~- ~~
Roadside Barriers
angle, and with a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] car impacting at 97 5.4.3 Transition Designs
kmh [60 mphl and a 25-degree impact angle. The aes-
thetic barrier was also crash tested with a 2000 kg [4,400 Transition sections are necessary to provide continuity
lb] pickup truck at 99.1 km/h [62 mph] and an impact angle of protection when two different roadside barriers arejoined
of 24.9 degrees. together. Transition sections with gradually increasing
A 690 mm [27 in.] high barrier consisting of rough stone lateral stiffness are necessary when a roadside barrierjoins
masonry covering a 5 10 mm [20 in.] high reinforced con- another barrier system such as a bridge rail, or when a
crete core has also been successfully tested at 97 roadside barrier is attached to a rigid object such as a
km/h [60mph] with 820 kg [1,800lb] and 2000 kg 14,400lb] bridge pier. Since the most common use of a transition
cars. The 50 mm [2 in.] deep raked mortarjoints add to the section occurs between approach roadside barriers and
rustic architectural appearance of this barrier. bridge rail ends, the reader should refer to Section 7.8 for a
full discussion on transition sections that are considered
operational.
5.4.2 Long-Span, Double-Nested Guardrail
Systems
5.5 SELECTION GUIDELINES
Guardrails are often placed over box culverts to prevent
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
motorists from crossing open waterways and large ditches. Once it has been decided that a roadside barrier is war-
The performanceof guardrails is diminished when the span ranted, a specific barrier type must be selected. Although
of the culvert is long and does not allow for sufficient a number of variables and the lack of objective criteria
post embedment. When full embedment of the guardrail complicate this selection process, there are some general
post is not possible, the guardrail could easily be pulled guidelines that may be followed. The most desirable sys-
out of the ground and result in vehicle snagging or vault- tem is usually one that offers the required degree of shield-
ing. ing at the lowest cost for the specific application.Table 5.3
A design that alleviates the diminished performance of summarizes the factors that should be considered before
the guardrail with shallow embedded posts has been de- making a final selection. Each of these factors is described
veloped and crash tested to NCHRP Report 350 standards. in more detail in the following subsections.
A 7.62 m [25 ft] unsupportedlength of guardrail was tested
for application over low-fill culverts. The long span de-
sign was constructed with two 2.66 mm [12 gage] thick 5.5.1 Barrier Performance Capability
nested W-beam rails totaling 30.48 m [ 100ft] in length. A
combination of steel and wood strong posts supported The first decision to be made when selecting an appropri-
the nested W-beam. The wood strong posts in advance of ate traffic barrier concerns the level of performance re-
the unsupported nested guardrail also included two wood quired. Barriers passing NCHRP Report 350, TL-2 have
block-outs attached to them. Each post measured 1830 been developed primarily for passenger cars and light
mm [6.0 ft] and was spaced 1905 mm [6 ft 3 in.] on center trucks in low-severityimpacts. TL-2 barriers offer marginal
except for the 7.62 m [25 ft] spacing between the strong and/or limited protection when struck by heavier vehicles
wood posts surrounding the unsupported span (see Fig- such as trucks and buses at high speeds and large angles
ure 5.20). of impact. If passenger vehicles are the main concern, a
The long-span, double-nested, guardrail system has standard railing that satisfies other criteria (as listed in
been successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 with subsequent sections) will normally be selected. Locations
a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck. The dynamic lateral de- with poor geometrics, high traffic volumes or speeds, or
flection from the impact of the 2000 kg pickup truck im- both, and a significant volume of heavy truck traffic, may
pacting the unsupported section at a speed of 102.9 km/h warrant a higher performance level or stronger railing sys-
[63.93mph] and at an angle of 24.7 degrees was 1450mm tem (i.e,, NCHRP Report 350, TL-4 or greater).This is espe-
[4ft 8 in.]. cially true if barrier penetration by a vehicle is likely to
While the field tests were performed on a test installa- have serious consequences to other than the motorist.
tion without the actual fieid placement of a box cuivert, Simiiariy,for low-voiume, iow-speed roadways, a standard
headwall, and wingwall, the designer should position the barrier passing NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 may not be cost-
back face of the nested guardrail a minimum of 1.5 m [5ft] effective. At locations like these, a less expensive system
away from the front face of the headwall. This position may adequately contain the likely range of expected ve-
will prevent wheel contact on the culvert headwall or post hicle impacts.
debris wedged between the headwall and rail.
5-23
TABLE 5.3 Selection criteria for roadside barriers
Criteria Comments
1. Performance Barrier must be structurally able to contain and redirect design vehicle.
Capability
2. Deflection Expected deflection of barrier should not exceed available deflection distance.
3. Site conditions Slope approaching the bamer and distance from traveled way may preclude use of
some barrier types.
4. Compatibility Barrier must be compatible with planned end anchor and capable of transitioning to
other barrier systems (such as bridge railing).
5. cost Standard barrier systems are relatively consistent in cost, but high-performance
railings can cost significantly more.
6. Maintenance
A. Routine Few systems require a significant amount of routine maintenance.
B. Collision Generally, flexible or semi-rigid systems require significantly more maintenance
after a collision than rigid or high-performancerailings.
C. Material The fewer different systems used, the fewer inventory itemsktorage space required.
storage
D. Simplicity Simpler designs, besides costing less, are more likely to be reconstructed properly by
field personnel.
7. Aesthetics Occasionally, barrier aesthetics are an important consideration in selection.
8. Field Experience The performance and maintenance requirements of existing systems should be
monitored to identify problems that could be lessened or eliminated by using a
different bamer type.
The roadside barriers identified in Section 5.4 are listed semi-rigid systems can be strengthened locally by adding
in general order of increasing capabilities to contain and additional posts or by reinforcing the rail element (i.e.,
redirect large vehicles. Information on the specific types nested rail) to shield isolated fixed objects located near
and weights of vehicles that were successfully contained the rail. Table 5.4 summarizes the results of a computer
and redirected by each barrier is included so the designer simulation using the Numerical Analysis of Roadside De-
can select a barrier system that is capable of restraining a sign (NARD) Program to determine maximum deflections
design vehicle larger than a standard-sized automobile. for Standard SGR04a and SGR09 systems by varying post
spacing and using single or double rails. Table 5.4 also
provides the results of field testing completed by the Kan-
5.5.2 Barrier Deflection Characteristics sas Department of Transportation (KDOT) on single and
double-nested W-beam systems for post spacings of
Once the desired performance level or barrier capability 1905 mm [75 in.] and 952 mm [38 in.] being hit with a
has been determined,the available deflection distance may 2000 kg [4,400 lb] sedan at an impact angle of 25 degrees
dictate the type of barrier to install. If the distance be- and at 97 km/h [60 mph]. The computer-simulateddeflec-
tween the barrier and the shielded object or terrain feature tions correlate with most of the actual field-tested mea-
is relatively large, a barrier that deflects upon impact, surements. The KDOT test on the double-nested rail W-
thereby imposing lower impact forces on the vehicle and beam with 1905mm [75 in.] post spacing yielded a deflec-
its occupants, may be the best choice. If the obstacle is tion greater than the similar test with single W-beam.
immediately adjacent to the barrier, a semi-rigid or rigid Analysis of this test indicated that the soil moisture due
railing system may be the only choice available. Most to rainfall resulted in greater deflection in the nested sys-
5-24 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Roadside Barriers
TABLE 5.4 Summary of maximum deflections
Run Impact Maximum

Number Post Spacing Beam Description Angle Deflection'
Simulation Field Test2
m [in.] mm [in.] mm [in.]
1905 [75] Sgl W-Beam 15" 589 [23.2] NA [NA]
1905 [75] Sgl W-Beam 25O 907 [35.7] 754 [29.7]
952 [381 Sgl W-Beam 15" 389 [15.3] NA [NA]
952 i381 Sgl W-Beam 25O 541 [21.3] 597 L23.51
* Dbl W-Beam 25" NA [NA] 902' [35.5]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
952 ~381 Dbl W-Beam 15"

952 [381 Dbl W-Beam 25
476 i191 Dbl W-Beam 15"
476 [i91 Dbl W-Beam 25O
9 1905 [75] Sgl Thrie-Beam 15"
10 1905 [75] Sgl Thrie Beam 25O 716
11 952 [381 Sgl Thrie-Beam 15"
12 952 1383 S g l Thrie-Beam 25" 480
13
14
15
952
952
476
~381
m i
i191
Dbl Thrie-Beam
Dbl Thrie Beam
Sgl Thrie-Beam
25
15"O I 333
414
[13.1]
r16.31
NA
NA
[NA]
[NA]
16 476 [i91 Sgl Thrie-Beam

17 476 [i91 Dbl Thrie-Beam
18 476 u91 Dbl Thrie-Beam 25O
' Simulation of 2000 kg [4,400 lb] sedan at 97 km/h [60 mph]
'Kansas Department of Transportation field test results with 2000 kg [4,400 Ib] sedan at 97 kmm [60 rnph]
Test conducted during wet soil conditions
NA = Not Available
* = Field test only
tem. The results of the computer simulation are reason- aware that a truck or similar high-center-of-gravityvehicle
ably accurate but may not be as precise as indicated in the would likely lean over the rail upon impact, thus requiring
table. This table should be used to indicate a recommended an increasing offset to prevent contact with a shielded
safe range and not an exact placement guide for fixed ob- object. Should the designer need to consider the place-
jects beyond the barrier. It should be noted that the table ment of a barrier with less deflection than available by a
assumes adequate anchorage and soii strength. Sompac- semi-rigidbarrier system, then a more rigid system should
tion o the soil is of primary importance because any ben- be investigated. In addition, the designer may need to
efit realized by either strengtheningtechnique (Le., double- consider the placement of a taller barrier where the lean of
nested rail or reducing post spacing or both) can be re- the vehicle over the rail is a concern for larger trucks and
duced or eliminated if the soil cannot provide the required buses.
resistance to lateral load. The designer should also be
5-25
5.5.3 Site Conditions eliminated the need for this activity. Some systems may
interfere more with right-of-way mowing and vegetation
The choice of barrier type will often be influenced by con- control, but no one system appears to create significantly
ditions at the site. If the barrier is to be placed on a slope more problems in this area than any of the others.
steeper than approximately 1V 10H, a flexible or semi-rigid
type should be used. However, no barrier should be placed
on any slope steeper than 1V6H. Narrow grade widths, 5.5.6.2 Crash Maintenance
with corresponding narrow shoulders, may result in re-
duced post restraint and the need for deeper embedment, Crash maintenance includes all repairs or adjustments to
closer post spacing, or soil plates. barriers that are necessitated by vehicle impacts. These
costs should play an important role in the selection of a
barrier system since the majority of maintenance costs are
5.5.4 Compatibility usually due to crash repairs.
The number of impacts that will occur along a particu-
As a general practice, most highway agencies use only a lar installation depends upon a number of factors includ-
few different roadside barrier systems on new construc- ing traffic speed and volume, roadway alignment, and the
tion and on reconstruction. The advantages of this are distance between the edge of the traveled way and the
relatively obvious: the systems in use have been proven barrier itself. The extent of barrier damage for any specific
effective over the years; construction and maintenance impact depends upon the strength of the railing system.
personnel are familiar with the systems; parts and inven- Crash maintenance costs may become an overriding con-
tory requirements are simplified when only a few different sideration in areas where traffic volumes are extremely
types of barrier are routinely used; and end treatments/ high and crashes with the barrier are frequent. This is
transition sections for normal installations can also be usually the case along urban freeways, where rail repair is
standardized. The only time a non-standard or special difficult for a repair crew to accomplish without interfering
barrier design need be considered is when site character- with the motorists use of the roadway. For this reason, a
istics or performancerequirements cannot be satisfied with rigid traffic barrier such as the concrete safety shape is
a standard railing. often the barrier of choice at such locations.
A consideration in crash maintenance for post and rail
systems is the ability of the rail element and possibly the
5.5.5 Life-Cycle Costs posts to be re-used after a hit. Savings may be realized if
the rail can be straightened. In some cases, of course, the
Initial costs and future maintenance costs of alternate rail will be damaged beyond repair, in which case salvage
barrier systems may weigh heavily in the final selection value may be a consideration.
process. Normally, the initial cost of a system increases as
its strength increases, but maintenance costs decrease.
Conversely, a system having a relatively low installation 5.5.6.3 Material and Storage Requirements
cost usually requires significantly more maintenance ef-
fort following impacts. Before selecting a barrier system, an effort should be made
to determine the future availability of the materials needed
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
for repairs and their storage requirements. The need for
5.5.6 Maintenance stocking spare parts increases as the number of required
parts increases. Thus, there are obvious advantages to
Maintenance factors can be grouped into one of three using only a few barrier systems whose component parts
categories: routine maintenance, crash maintenance, and are standardized, easy to stockpile, and readily available.
material and storage requirements.
5.5.6.4 Simplicity of Barrier Design

5.5.6.1 Routine Maintenance
The simpler the barrier system is, the easier it is to repair
Routine maintenance costs are usually not appreciably properly. Thus, the degree of expertise or the level of work-
different for any of the operational roadside barrier sys- ing knowledge of the system by the repair crew should be
tems. Although some cleaning and painting are occasion- considered when selecting a barrier. An operational sys-
ally done, use of preservative-treated wood posts and tem that is improperly installed or maintained is only par-
galvanized steel posts and rail components have nearly tially effective at best.
5-26
Roadside Barriers
5.5.7 Aesthetic and Environmental

Considerations lateral offset from the edge-of-traveled way
While aesthetics are a concern, they are not normally con- terrain effects
trolling factors in the selection of a roadside barrier except
in environmentally sensitivelocations such as recreational flarerate
areas or parks. In these instances, a natural-looking bar-
rier that blends with its surroundings is often selected. In length of need
such cases, it is important that the systems used be crash-
worthy as well as visually acceptable to the highway Most of these factors are interrelated to the extent that
agency. the final design may be a compromise selected by the
Environmentalfactors may be important to consider in designer. More detailed guidelines on each of these fac-
the selection process. For example, barriers with consider- tors are included in the next subsections.
able frontage area may contribute to drifting of sand or
snow in some areas. Snowplow operators should be cau-
tioned against running the blade next to the face of road- 5.6.1 Lateral Offset
side barriers. Experience has shown that this practice will
flatten the metal rail, loosen mounting hardware and posts, As a general rule, a roadside barrier should be placed as
and occasionally tear the rail. Certain types of railing may far from the traveled way as possible, while maintaining
deteriorate rapidly in highly corrosive urbadindustrial the proper operation and performance of the system. Such
environments. In some cases, solid barriers may restrict placement gives an errant motorist the best chance of re-
sight distances of motorists entering the highway from a gaining control of the vehicle without crashing into the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
side road or intersection or may block a motorists view of barrier. It also provides better sight distance, particularly
a particularly scenic panorama. at nearby intersections.
It is generally desirable that there be uniform clearance
between traftic and roadside features such as bridge rail-
5.5.8 Field Experience ings, parapets, retaining walls, and roadside barriers, par-
ticularly in urban areas where there is a preponderance of
There is no substitute for documented proof of a barriers these elements. Uniform alignment enhances highway
field performance. If a particular barrier system is working safety by providing the driver with a certain level of ex-
satisfactorily and does not require an extraordinq amount pectation, thus reducing driver concern for and reaction
of maintenance, there is little reason to select and install to those objects. The distance from the edge of the trav-
another barrier for which these characteristicsare not con- eled way, beyond which a roadside object will not be per-
clusively known. If site conditions warrant a non-stan- ceived as an obstacle and result in a motorists reducing
dard installation, the highway agency that developed a n d speed or changing vehicle position on the roadway, is
or used the new system should be contacted for specific called the shy line offset. This distance varies for different
information on the system and on its performance. design speeds as indicated in Table 5.5. If possible, a road-
It is particularly important that impact performance and side barrier should be placed beyond the shy line offset,
repair cost data be maintained by appropriate highway particularly for relatively short, isolated installations. For
agency personnel and that the information be made avail- long, continuous runs of railing, this offset distance is not
able to design and construction engineers charged with so critical, especially if the barrier is first introduced be-
selecting and installing traffic barriers. yond the shy line and gradually transitioned nearer the
roadway. Shyline offset distance is seldom a controlling
criterion for barrier placement. As long as the barrier is
5.6 PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS located beyond the perceived shoulder of a roadway, it
will have minimum impact on driver speed or lane posi-
Having decided that a roadside barrier is warranted at a tion.
__ -.
given iocation and having seiected the type of barrier to Where a roadside b h e r is needed to shield an iso-
be used, the designer must specify the exact layout related condition, adherence to the uniform clearance crite-
quired. The major factors that must be considered include ria is not critical.It is more important in such cases that the
the following: barrier be located as far from the traveled way as condi-
tions permit.
5-27
TABLE 5.5 Suggested shy line offset (L,) values
Design Speed Shy Line Offset, Ls

kmlh [mphl m iftl
130 i801 3.7 [12.1]
120 i751 3.2 [I031
110 i701 2.8 19.21
1O 0 i601 2.4 i7 9 1
90 i551 2.2 i7.21
80 t501 2 .o i6.61
70 r451 1.7 iS.61
60 i401 1.4 i4.61
so i301 1.1 i3.61
The distance a barrier will deflect upon impact is a criti- The barrier-to-obstruction distance for rigid objects
cal factor in its selection as well as in its placement, espe- should not be less than the dynamic deflection of the
cially if the obstruction being shielded is a rigid object. barrier for impact by a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck at an
Figure 5.21 illustrates the two basic situations where de- impact angle of approximately 25 degrees and a speed of
flection distance must be considered. If the obstruction 100km/h [60 mph]. (Some reduction in deflection distance
being shielded is a rigid object, the barrier-to-object dis- may be justified if the operating speed is less than 100
tance should be sufficient to avoid snagging by the ve- km/h [60 mph]). In some cases, the available space be-
hicle on the rigid object. If a vehicle with a relatively high tween the barrier and the object may not be adequate. In
center of gravity hits the rail, the vehicle may roll or tip far such cases, the barrier should be stiffened in advance of
enough to allow the vehicle to strike the shielded object and alongside the fixed object. Commonly used methods
even if the design deflection distance exists. This factor to reduce deflection in a semi-rigid or flexible barrier sys-
should be considered if the vehicle of concern is signifi- tem include reduced post spacing, increased post size,
cantly larger than a passenger vehicle, pickup truck, use of soil plates, intermediate anchorages, and stiffened
or van. rail elements. The effects on deflection of reduced post
0.6 m [2it] Minimum Desirabl
-h
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Barrier-to-Obstacle Distance
FIGURE 5.21 Recommended barrier placement for optimum performance
5-28
Roadside Barriers
EDGE OF
- - ACTUAL PATH OF
f
TRAVELED BUMPER HEIGHT
WAY
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
OF ERRANT VEHICLE
NORMAL PATH OF
V///////////////////////, BUMPER HEIGHT
1V:20H SHOULDER SLOPE
L = Lateral distance where bumper height

returns to normal height
L M = Lateral distance when maximum bumper
height occurs
AH, = Height of bumper above normal height
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
at outer edge of shoulder
AH - Maximum height of bumper above
- normal height
AH, = Height of bumper above normal height
at 0.6 m (2 ft] from outer edge of shoulder
FIGURE 5.22 Design parameters for vehicle encroachments on embankments
spacing are shown in Table 5.4 with the individual barrier Curbs and roadside slopes are two particular features
descriptions. In some cases, a more rigid bamer type may that deserve special attention. A vehicle which traverses
be needed. one of these features prior to impact may override the
If an embankment requires shielding, the barrier-to- barrier if the vehicle is partially airborne at the moment of
embankment distance should be sufficient to provide ad- impact or may submarine under the rail elements and
equate support for the posts to ensure proper operational snag on the support posts if it strikes the barrier too low.
characteristics of the barrier. However, limited test results Limited research studies and computer simulations have
indicate that the offset distance for embankments is not provided some information on the dynamic behavior and
as critical as it is for rigid objects. A 0.6 m [ 2ft] distance, as trajectories of vehicles traversing curbs or slopes. The
shown in Figure 5.21, is desirable for adequate post sup- impact position of a car relative to a roadside barrier at a
port but may vary depending on the slope of the embank- given lateral distance from a curb or slope is known for a
ment, soil type, expected impact conditions, and post cross variety of impact conditions (vehicle mass [weight], speed,
section and embedment. Increasing the embedment length and angle). These data are presented in the following two
of guardrail posts by 0.3 m [ 1 ft] or more can compensate subsections.
for the reduced soil foundation support near the slope
break point. Deflection characteristics of selected road-
side barriers are given in Section 5.4. 5.6.2.1 Curbs
Section 3.4.1 addresses the use of curbs primarily as drain-

5.6.2 Terrain Effects age control features and presents only very general guide-
lines concerning their use in conjunction with traffic bar-
Regardless of the type of roadside barrier being used or riers. When a vehicle strikes a curb, the trajectory of that
the size and type of vehicle that strikes it, the best results vehicle depends upon several variables: the size and sus-
will usually occur if, at the moment of impact, all of the pension characteristics of the vehicle, its impact speed
vehicles wheels are on the ground and its suspension and angle, and the height and shape of the curb itself.
system is neither compressed nor extended. Thus, terrain Crash tests have shown that use of any guardrailkurb
conditions between the traveled way and the barrier can combination where high-speed, high-angle impacts are
have significant effects on the barriers impact performance. likely should be discouraged. Where there are no feasible
5-29
TABLE 5.6a Example bumper trajectory data [metric units]
1
I
Encroachment
Angle
(degrees)
25
I I
Rounding
2R(m)
I 2.9 I
Embankment
S1opea:b
1V:6H
I (k I (2)I s)I I I
I 9.1 I 102 I 122 I
AHM
(mm)
175 I
($1
6.1 I
25 4.9 1V:4H 10.7 102 122 200 7 .O
25 6.8 1V:3H 12.2 102 122 200 7.0
25 10.5 1V:2H 12.2 102 122 200 7.0
I 15 I 1.4 I 1V:6H I 7.0 I 48 I 71 I 114 1 4.9 I
15 2.4 1V:4H 7.9 48 71 175 5.5
15 3.4 1V:3H 9.5 48 71 210 6.1
15 5.2 1V:2H 10.1 48 71 224 7.6
TABLE 5.6b Example bumper trajectory data [U.S. customary units]
Encroachment
15 11.2 3H:lV 31 1.9 2.8 8.3 20

15 17.2 2H: 1V 33 1.9 2.8 8.8 25
alternatives, the designer should consider using a curb 5.6.2.2 Slopes

no higher than 100 mm [4 in.] and consider stiffening the
guardrail to reduce potential deflection. Other measures Most roadside barriers are designed for and tested on
that usually prove satisfactory are bolting a W-beam to level terrain. When a barrier is placed on slopes steeper
the back of the posts, reducing post spacing, double nest- than li?10H, studieshave shown that for certain encroach-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ing the rail, or adding a rubrail. On lower speed facilities, a ment angles and speeds an errant vehicle may go over
vaulting potential still exists, but since the risk of such an many standard roadside barriers or impact them too low.
occurrence is lessened, a design change may not be cost- As a car leaves the traveled way and crosses the shoul-
effective. A case-by-case analysis of each situation con- der and the embankment, the bumper path deviates from
sidering anticipated speeds and consequences of vehicu- the normal bumper height as shown in Figure 5.22. The
lar penetration should be used. primary area of concern is the zone of higher than normal
Curbharrier combinations can be crash tested to quan- bumper height. A barrier placed in this zone can be ex-
tify expected railing performance under typical impact con- pected to be hit at a higher than normal bumper position,
ditions if extensive use of a specific combinationis planned. and unless it has been designed for such impacts, its per-
formance may be inadequate.
5-30
~ ~~ ~
Roadside Barriers
BARRIER NOT
RECOMMENDED
I I
/- IN THIS AREA
I -4
FIGURE 5.23 Recommendedbarrier location on 1V:6H

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Five parameters have been selected to describe the way at which a barrier can be installed and expected to
embankment data. With reference to Figure 5.22, these are perform adequately will vary, but in general, the place-
AH,, AH,, AH,, L, and L.Vdues AHs and AH2 are impor- ment recommendations shown in Figure 5.23 should be
tant because most roadside barriers are placed between followed.
the edge of the shoulder and 600 mm [ 2 ft] off the shoul-
der. Table 5.6 contains trajectory data for rounded em-
bankments for 100km/h [60 mph] encroachmentsat angles 5.6.3 Flare Rate
of 25 and 15 degrees. These numbers were obtained pri-
marily from computcr simulations and are included mainly A roadside barrier is considered flared when it is not par-
to illustrate the problem rather than to provide design allel to the edge of the traveled way. Flare is normally used
guidelines. to locate the barrier terminal farther from the roadway; to
The type of barrier also comes into play. Strong post minimize a drivers reaction to an obstacle near the road
W-beam and thne-beam installations were tested on 1V:6H by gradually introducing a parallel barrier installation; to
slopes and found to be only marginally satisfactory, due transition a roadside barrier to an obstacle nearer the road-
to the tendency of the rail element to bend backward and way such as a bridge parapet or railing; or to reduce the
ramp the vehicle. These installations were successful in total length of rail needed.
redirecting vehicles impacting at the more common angle One disadvantage to flaring a section of roadside bar-
of 15 degrees but ramped vehicles in the more severe 25- rier is that the greater the flare rate, the higher the angle at
degree tests. Based on these results, existing installations which the barrier can be hit. As the angle of impact in-
of these barrier systems may be retained (within the place- creases, the severity of the crashes increases, particularly
ment guidelines of Figure 5.23), but new installations on for rigid and semi-rigid barrier systems. A second disad-
1V:6Hslopes are not generally recommended. In this same vantage to flaring a barrier installation is the increased
series of tests, cable guardrail on 1V6H slopes performed likelihood that a vehicle will be redirected back into or
very well for both angles of impact. across the roadway following an impact. This situation
In summary,roadside barriers perform most effectively is especially undesirable on two-way roadways where
when they are installed on slopes of 1VlOH or flatter. the impacting vehicle could be redirected into oncoming
Caution should be taken when considering installations traffic.
on slopes as steep as 1V:6H and any such installation As shown in Table 5.7, the maximumrecommendedflare
should be offset so that an errant vehicle is in its normal rates are a function of highway design speed and barrier
attitude at the moment of impact. Depending on actual type. Flatter flare rates may be used and often are, particu-
encroachment conditions, the distance from the traveled larly where extensive grading would be required to ensure
5-31
TABLE 5.7 Suggested flare rates for barrier design
Design Speed Flare Rate for Barrier inside Flare Rate for Barrier beyond
Shy Line Shy Line
km/h [mphl * **
110 1701 30: 1 20: 1 15:l
1 O0 [601 26: 1 18:l 14:l
90 i551 24: 1 16:l 12:l
80 i501 21:l 14:l 11:l
70 i451 18:l 12:l 10:1
60 i401 16:1 1O:l 8:1
50 1301 13:l 8: 1 7 :1
*Suggested maximum flare rate for rigid barrier system
** Suggested maximum flare rate for semi-rigid barrier system
a flat approach to the barrier from the traveled way. This is tent of the Area of Concern, LA,and the Lateral Extent of
often the case on existing facilities having relatively steep the Runout Length, L,. Both of these factors must be
embankment slopes. It should also be noted that a flatter clearly understood by the designer to be used properly in
flare rate is suggested when a barrier must be located within the design process.
the shy line offset distance. The Lateral Extent of the Area of Concern, LA,is the
distance from the edge of the traveled way to the far side
of the fixed object or to the outside edge of the clear zone,
5.6.4 Length of Need L,, of an embankment or a fixed object that extends be-
yond the clear zone. Selection of an appropriate LA dis-
Figure 5.24 illustrates the variables that must be consid- tance is a critical part of the design process and is illus-
ered in designing a roadside barrier to shield an obstruc- trated in the examples at the end of this section.
tion effectively.The primary variables are the Lateral Ex-
CLEAR DISTANCE LINE
t AREA OF
- - - - _ _ - _ _1
__ _ _ _ _ _ _
EDGE OFTHROUGH TRAVELED WAY TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5.24 Approach barrier layout variables
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-32
Roadside Barriers
TABLE 5.8 Suggested runout lengths for barrier design
Traffic Volume (ADT)

Over 6000 vpd 2000-6000vpd 800 - 2000 vpd Under 800 vpd
Design Speed Runout Length Runout Length Runout Length Runout Length
LR LR LR LR
[mphl m [ftl m [fil m [ftl m [ftl
110 [70] 145 i4751 135 i4451 120 i3951 110 [360]
100 [60] 130 W51 120 [4001 105 i3451 100 [330]
90 [55] 110 i3601 105 i3451 95 i3151 85 [280]
80 [50] 100 i3301 90 [3001 80 P601 75 [245]
70 [45] 80 [2601 75 i2451 65 i2151 60 12001
60 [40] 70 ~301 60 [2001 55 1801 50 [165]
50 [30] 50 i1651 50 i1651 45 [ 1501 40 [130]
The Lateral Extent of the Runout Length, L,, is the ing a motorist with the maximum amount of traversable,
theoreticai distance neede for a vehicle that has left the unobstructed recovery area. It is critical that a vehicle
roadway to come to a stop. It is measured from the up- contact most types of barriers with its center of gravity at
stream extent of the obstruction along the roadway to the or near its normal position. This reduces the tendency for
point at which a vehicle is assumed to leave the roadway. a vehicle to wedge under or go over the barrier. Thus, the
These distances are variable, based on operating speeds slopes between a barrier installation and the roadway
and the available friction between the vehicle tires and the should be 1V:lOH or flatter, or the barrier should be far
ground. The figures shown in Table 5.8 are based in part enough from the road that a vehicle is on the ground with
on an adjustment of the findings of Hutchinson and its suspension system neither compressed nor extended
Kennedy (3) from their study of freeway median encroach- at the time of contact. Figure 5.23 approximates the ac-
ments and in part on driver reaction times and vehicle ceptable location of a traffic barrier for approach slopes as
stopping characteristics for low-speed encroachments. steep as 1V6H.
They have been further modified to lessen the lengths of A second reason for installing a barrier as far as practi-
barriers recommended on low-volume roads and streets. cal from the roadway is to keep the barrier from causing
Some highway agencies consider these values to be ex- drivers to slow down, change lanes, or shift positions
cessive and have developed different methods to deter- within their own traffic lanes. As noted in Section 5.6.1,
mine the length of need based on available data. One al- the distance beyond which a driver will not react to an
ternate method is to determine a specific encroachment object near the roadway is called the shy line offset. This
angle through cost-effective analysis and install a length distance varies by design speed as shown in Table 5.5
of barrier that will intercept a vehicles runout path. and by type and location of objects. An object outside a
Once L, and LAhave been selected, the length of bar- paved or graveled shoulder generally has no measurable
rier required at a specific location depends upon the tan- effect on a motorists behavior. Problems arise when the
gent lcngth of barrier upstream from the Area of Concern, roadway appears narrower, or is narrowed, such as at a
L,, its lateral distance from the edge of the traveled way. bridge that is narrower than the approach roadway. On
L,, and the flare rate (a:b) specified for the installation. facilities with no shoulders, barriers or other fixed objects
There are several factors that must be considered in the 1.8 m [6 ft] or more from the edge of the traveled way may
selection of these three variables. not create driver reactions. It is also worth noting that
As previously noted, a traffic barrier should be set as median barriers can be set closer to the edge of the driving
far as practical from the traveled way. This practice mini- lane without affecting vehicle placement. When the bar-
mizes the likelihood that the barrier will be hit by provid- rier is to the left, the driver can clearly see how close the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-33
barrier is; however, for a right shoulder installation, depth tured lengths of beam guardrail are in two nominal dimen-
perception becomes more of a problem for many drivers sions of 3.8 m [12.5 ft] or 7.6 m [25 ft]. Most W-beam
and they tend to position their vehicles farther from the guardrail terminals are designed to contain and redirect
barrier than is necessary. vehicles striking at or beyond the third post from the end
The tangent length of bamier immediately upstream from of the terminal unit, but vehicles striking within the first
the area of concern, L,, is a variable length selected by the 3.8 m [12.5 ft] of the terminal unit may not be redirected
designer. If a semi-rigid railing is connected to a rigid bar- and could penetrate the rail system and be exposed to the
rier, the tangent length should be at least as long as the shielded feature. The designer should extend the barrier
transition section to reduce the possibility of pocketing at so the length of need is at least at the point on the se-
the transition and to increase the likelihood of smooth lected terminal where redirection can be expected. In some
redirection if the guardrail is stnick immediately adjacent cases the rounding of the calculated length of need to the
to the rigid barrier. If a barrier is installed with no flare, L, nearest industry dimension of the manufacturedbeam rail
becomes zero. systems will accomplish this. If the barrier ends near a cut
The final variable to be selected by the designer to section, it may be advantageous for the designer to con-
calculate the required length of guardrail at a specific lo- sider anchoring the barrier in the backslope, thus eliminat-
cation is the flare rate, a factor that was introduced in ing the possibility of an end-on hit into the terminal unit
Section 5.6.3. The steeper this rate, the farther from the and possible penetration behind the rail system.
roadway the barrier begins and the shorter the required Some highway agencies use a parabolic layout for a
length. However, a relatively steep flare results in in- flared section, which is acceptable provided the maximum
creased impact angles and increases the need for slope slope of the curve does not exceed the suggested flare
flattening in the area between the roadway and the barrier. rates in Table 5.7. However, these rates should be exceeded
Recommended maximum flare rates for semi-rigidand rigid in the end treatments if greater flare rates are essential for
barriers are shown in Table 5.7. Note that the recommended proper impact performance. As an alternative to comput-
flare rate for barriers within the shy line is approximately ing a length of need, X, design charts have been devel-
twice that for barriers located outside the shy distance. oped by some states to enable a length of barrier to be
Once the appropriate variables have been selected, the selected directly, based on standard conditions. Examples
required length of need, X, in advance of the area of con- of such charts are shown in Figures 5.25 and 5.26 for flared
cem, for straight or nearly straight sections of roadway, and parallel installations respectively.
can be calculated with the following equation: Figure 5.27 illustrates the layout variables of an ap-
proach barrier for opposing traffic. The length of need, X,
is determined in the same manner as previously described,
but all lateral dimensions are measured from the left edge
of the traveled way of the opposing traffic, i.e., from the
centerline for a two-lane roadway. If there is a two-way
Note that for a parallel installation,i.e.,no flare rate, the divided roadway, the edge of the traveled way for the
first equation reduces to: opposing traffic would be the edge of the driving lane on
the median side.
There are three ranges of clear zone width, L,, that
deserve special attention for an approach barrier for op-
posing traffic (Refer to Figure 5.27.):
The lateral offset, Y, from the edge of the traveled way 1. If the barrier is beyond the appropriate clear zone,
to the beginning of the length of need can be calculated no additional barrier and no crashworthy end
using the following equation: treatment is required.
2 If the barrier is within the appropriate clear zone

Y =LA--(X)
LA but the area of concern is beyond it, no addi-
LR tional barrier is required, but a crashworthy end
treatment should be used.
The above formulas are intended to provide the de-
3. If the area of concern extends well beyond the
signer with an approximation for the approach barrier
appropriateclear zone (e.g., ariver), the designer
length of need. The calculated length of need must be
may choose to shield only that portion which
adjusted upward to account for the industrys manufac-
lies within the clear zone by setting LA equal
tured lengths of metal guardrail sections. The manufac-
to L,.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-34
Roadside Barriers
FLARE RATE
20:l
12
10
DESIGN SPEED (kmih)
50 65 60 1 O0 110
9
4 ' l l i r i l l l l l l l l l l l l l i 1
O 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 62
X (m) ASSUMED: LI = 7.6 m. L2 = 2.4 m
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 5.25a Example design chart for a flared roadside barrier installation (metric units)
FLARE RATE
20:1
30
28
26
24
22
20
16
lb
14
O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 160 200
X [fl] ASSUMED: L, = 25', 4 = 8'
FIGURE 5.25b Example design chart for a flared roadside barrier installation [U.S. customary units]
5-35
FLARE RATE
NO FLARE
12
11
10
DESIGN SPEED (i<&)
50 65 BO 100 110
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I I I I I l I
O 30 60 90 120
X (m) ASSUMED: LI = 7.6 m, 4= 2.4 m
FIGURE 5.26a Example design chart for a parallel roadside barrier installation [metric units]
FLARE RATE
NO FLARE
40
38
36
34
t
32
30
24
22
20
18
/ / / / /
16
/ / /
14 I I I I I I I
O 1O0 200 300 400
X [ft]ASSUMED: LI = 25',4= 8'
FIGURE 5.26b Example design chart for a parallel roadside barrier installation [U.S. customary units]
5-36
Roadside Barriers
CLEAR DISTANCE LINE FOR OPPOSING TRAFFIC
-r
2
AREA OF
CONCERN
(OBSTACLE)
CRASHWORTHY
ADJACENT TRAFFIC
OPPOSING TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5.27 Approach barrier layout for opposing traffic
The lateral placemen1 of lhe approach rail should sat- that many older installations do not always meet currently
isfy the criteria for embankmentslopes. If the existing slope recommendedperformance levels. Older installationsusu-
is steeper than lVlOH, it is suggested that the slope be ally fall into one of two categories, those that do not meet
flattened as illustrated in Figure 5.28. In lieu of flattening current structural guidelines and those that do not meet
the slope, the designer may decrease the flare rate of the current design and location guidelines. Although barrier
barrier so the embankment criterion is not violated. installations can be deficient in both categories, each will
In many cases, particularly on projects which do not be discussed separately below. A suggested barrier in-
include a significant amount of earthwork, no flare is used spection checklist is shown in Table 5.9.
and the barrier is installed parallel to the roadway. This
requires a longer installation, the cost of which must be
weighed against the cost of additional slope flattening. 5.7.1 Structural Inadequacies
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Perhaps the most straightforward method to determine
length of need is to scale the barrier layout directly on the Structural inadequacies can be defined as characteristics
highway plan sheets. By selecting an appropriate runout that would result in reduced performance if the rail were
length and the lateral distance to be shielded, the designer struck by passenger cars at design speeds and impact
can specify a guardrail installation (i.e., lateral offset and angles. The most obvious include: substandard or obso-
flare) that satisfies all placement criteria. This method is lete roadside barrier; inadequate post spacing; no block-
most appropriate for determining the length of barrier out or rubrail for a strong post system; inadequate, non-
needed to shield embankments or fixed objects on nonconforming, or non-existent end treatment; or inadequate
tangent sections of roadway. Figures 5.29 through 5.32 transition section.
provide examples of this technique for typical situations.
5.7.2 Design/PlacementInadequacies
5.7 UPGRADINGSYSTEMS
Design or placement inadequacies are those which in-
It has been noted that the number of fixed-object fatal crease the likelihood of reduced performancefrom an oth-
crashes involving traffic barriers is exceeded only by fatal erwise acceptable barrier system. Four of the most com-
crashes with utility poles and trees. One possible explana- mon deficiencies in this category are:
tion for the number of barrier-related fatalities is the fact
5-37
EDGE OF THROUGH rmvELm WAY

Not io Scale
TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5.28 Suggested roadside slopes for approach barriers
@ barriers that are too short to completely shield an cost-effectiveness of recommended improve-
obstacle or non-traversable terrain feature; ment.
barriers with deflection distances that exceed the These factors are interrelated and the designer must
distance between the rail and the shielded fixed rely on experience and judgment to reach an optimal solu-
object; tion. The first step should be an analysis of the continued
need for an existing barrier. If it is cost-effective to elimi-
0 barriers that are constructed too high or too low; nate the shielded object by removal, relocation, or rede-
and sign, this is the option of choice. If the feature requiring
shielding cannot be eliminated, the designer must assess
0 barriers that are improperly placed on slopes or the adequacy of the barrier installation. If the barrier is
behind curbs. essentially non-functional (i.e., it cannot reasonably be
expected to function satisfactorily under most expected
impacts),it should be upgraded to current standards.Com-
mon deficiencies in this case include non-standardbarrier
5.7.3 Establishing Priorities of Upgrading types; transition sections and end treatments; barriers
Needs improperly installed on slopes or behind curbs; and in-
stallations that are too short, too low, or too high to be
Deficient roadside barriers are generally upgraded through effective. In some cases, these deficiencies will be so ob-
spot or system-wide safety improvement projects, or in vious that the best course of action is readily apparent;
conjunction with other roadway work, most commonly but many times the deficiencies may be marginal and a
resurfacing, rehabilitation, or restoration projects. In each decision will be based on engineeringjudgment. Then the
case, the designer must determine the scope and extent of past crash history at a specific site (or area-wide crash
the barrier upgrading to be accomplished. The major fac- experience with a specific feature) and the cost of upgrad-
tors that should be considered are: ing the barrier must be considered. If traffic speeds and
volumes are relatively low and the non-standard barrier is
nature and extent of barrier deficiency; not in a location where impacts are likely, delineation of
the untreated condition may be adequate until such time
past crash history; and as full upgrading is deemed necessary.
5-38 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Roadside Barriers
~~ ~~ ~ ~
LA = Lc = 9.0 m [30] Flared Installation
7.
.
Parallel Installation
----
I
L, = 145 m [475] -
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I Not to Scale
FIGURE 5.29 Example of barrier design for bridge approach
Given: ADT = 6200 vpd

Speed = 110W h [7 mph]
Embankment slopes = 1V6H (right); 1 V 10H (median)
Select: Clear Zone, L, = 9-10.5 m [30-34 ft] (for 1V6H slope from Table 3.1)
Clear Zone, = 9-10.5 m [30-34 ft] (for 1V:1OH median slope from Table 3.1)
Lateral extent of area of concern, LA=9.0 m [30 ft]
Runout length, LR= 145 m [475 ft] (Table 5.8)
Transition, L, = 7.6 m [25 ft]
Barrier offset, L, = 3.6 m [ 12 ft] (right); 2.4 m [8 ft] (median)
Flare rate = 15:1 (Table 5.7)
Discussion: For the right shoulder installation, the designer can scale 145 m [475 ft] back from the bridge rail end and 9.0
m [30 ft] laterally from the same point. The hypotenuse of this triangle approximates a vehicles runout path. To shield the
bridge end and the river to the edge of the clear zone, the barrier installation must intersect this line. Based on the variables
selected, a barrier length of 45.8 m [ 150ft] is required. If this were an existing bridge and the approach embankmentslopes
were 1V2H, the barrier would have to be installed parallel to the shoulder to minimize earthwork and approximately 100 m
[328 ft] would be needed to shield the same area. Calculations for the flared installation are as follows:
9.0+(1/15)(7.6)-3.6 - 5.91
X= - 45.8 m
(1/15)+(9.0/145) 0.129
Note that on the median side, the designer may shield the entire opening even though this distance slightly exceeds the
recommended clear zone for the 1V:10H slope. This emphasizes that the clear zone distance is not a precise number and
that engineering judgment must be used in its application.
5-39
Ln = 3.6 m [ i 2 1
-1
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
-
L,= 7.6 m [ZS]
Not to Scale
FIGURE 5.30 Example of barrier design for bridge piers

Speed = 80 km/h [50 mph]
Embankment slope = 1V:10H
Select: Clear Zone, L,, = 3.54.5 m [15-16 ft] (Table 3.1)

(4.5 m 115 ft] chosen by designer)
Lateral extent of area of concern, LA= 3.6 m [12 ft]
Runout length, L, = 80 m [260 ft] (Table 5.8)
Transition, LI = 7.6 m [25 ft]
Barrier offset,L,= 2.5 m [8.2 ft]
Flarerate= 11:l (Table5.7)
Discussion: If the bridge piers are the only fixed objects within the clear zone, the barrier needed is a function of LA,LI,L,,
and the selected flare rate. However, if the bridge abutment also lies within the clear zone, the designer may elect to shield
it as well, in which case an LAgreater than 3.6 m [ i 1.75 ft] would be used to determine the length of barrier needed in
advance of the piers. The calculations for shielding only the piers are as follows:
3.6 + (1/11)(7.6) - 2.5 --1.79

X= - = 13.2 m
( l / l i)+(3.6/80) O. 136
12+ (1111)(25) -8.2 - 6.07

X= - -= 44.3ft
(i/ 11)+ (12/ 260) 0.137
A semi-rigidrail system must be far enough in front of the piers to permit deflection of the rail without vehicle snagging
on the piers; otherwise, a stiffened transition section must be used as in this example. Even if a fixed object is beyond the
design deflection distance of a semi-rigid barrier, a vehicle with a high center of gravity may roll far enough to snag on the
shielded object. If this is a major concern, a stiffer or higher barrier or one both stiffer and higher should be considered.
5-40
Roadside Barriers
Not lo Scale
FIGURE 5.31 Example of barrier design for non-traversableembankments

Speed = 110kmAi (70 niph]
Embankment slope at beginning of LR = 1V:6H
Slope at L, is critical, Le., steeper than 1 V 3H
Select: Clear Zone, L, = 8.5-10 m [28-32 ft] (Table 3.1)

L*= L,
Runout length, LR= 135ni [445ft]) (Table 5.8)
Barrier offset,L,= 2 m [6.6ft]
Discussion: The area of concern begins at the top of the critical slope. Since the purpose of a barrier installation is to
prevent a vehicle from reaching a non-traversable terrain feature or fixed object, the designer may elect to shield more of
the slope by selecting a larger clear zone distance. It is often advantageous to review planned barrier lengths on-site just
before installation to ensure that the barrier shields the area of concern to the extent desired.
The barrier may be introduced by anchoring it in a backslope, thus placing an end treatment that is not vulnerable to
impact. This treatment effectively blocks off the entire embankment area. However, a freestanding end treatment remains
appropriate if no backslope exists or if it would require a significantly longer barrier installation to reach it without
exceeding the recommended flare rate.
X=- 8.5-2 - 6.5 -103

8.51135 0.063
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-41
\
o n "'0, n
\
-'
FIGURE 5.32 Example design chart for embankment warrants based on fill height, slope, and
traffic volume [U.S. customary units]

Speed = 1O0 km/h [60 mph]
Embankment slope = 1V:6H
Horizontalcurvature = 450 m [1,475ft] radius
Select: Clear Zone, L, = 5.0-5.5 m [ i 6 1 8 ft] (Table 3.1)

(5.5 m [18 ft] chosen by designer)
Adjustment factor for curvature = 1.4 (Table 3.2)
Adjusted clear zone = (5.5) (1.4) = 7.7 m or (18) (1.4) = 25 ft
Runout length, L, = not applicable (see discussion below)
Barrier offset, L, = 1.2 m [4 ft]
Flare rate: not applicable
Discussion: The length of need formula for a traffic barrier is applicable to straight highway alignment only. A vehicle
leaving the road on the outside of a curve will generally follow a tangential runout path if the area outside the roadway is
flat and traversable.Thus, rather than using the theoreticalLRdistance to determine a barrier length of need, a line from the
outside edge of the obstacle (or from the outside edge of the clear zone if a continuous non-traversable terrain feature,
such as the stream bed shown in Figure 5.32, is being shielded) to a point tangent to the curve should be used to determine
the appropriate length of barrier needed. If this distance, measured along the roadway, is shorter than L,, it should be used
to determine the appropriate length of barrier to install. If L, is shorter, as might be the case on a flat curve, the L, distance
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
should be used to determine the appropriate barrier length. The barrier length then becomes a function of the distance it
is located from the edge of the driving lane and can most readily be obtained graphically by scaling. A flare rate is not
generally used along a horizontal curve.
5-42
Roadside Barriers
TABLE 5.9 Roadside barrier inspection checklist
I. Structural Adequacy'
A. Longitudinal Section
1. Standard barrier design2
2. Adequate post spacing
3. Rail elements blocked out on strong post system
4. Adequate splices in rail element
B. Terminal
1. Standard terminal design
2. Adequate anchorage strength
C . Transition Section
1. Standard transition design
2. Adequate anchorage strength
3. Adequate stiffening in advance of rigid system
4. Adequate blockout andor rubrail
II. Functional Adequacy3
A. Longitudinal Section
1. Adequate length to shield area of concern
2. Proper height of rail4
3. Proper .flare rate
4. Barrier-to-object distance exceeds barrier deflection distance
5. Placement behind curb consistent with vehicle trajectory data
6. Placement on flat slopes (1V:lOH) or on slopes up to 1V:6H consistent with vehicle trajectory
data (Figure 5.22 and Table 5.6)
7. Beam back-up plates present on steel strong-post system that has steel block-outs
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
B. Terminal
1. Adequate clear recovery area behind yielding terminal
2. Adequate offset of terminal end
Notes:
' Stnictural adequacy is inherent in the barrier itself, rather than resulting from design, placement, or maintenance.
* Standard systems or elements are those that are currently an approved agency standard or have been successfully crash tested.
Certain barriers that fall outside these categories may be left in place depending on the characteristics of the barrier and the results
of an engineering analysis of the site.
Functional adequacy results from barrier design or placement and is essential for barrier effectiveness.
Generally, a 75 mm [3 in.] variation from the nominal height is acceptable.
5-43
REFERENCES
1. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, and R.A. Zimmer.

National Cooperative Highway Research Re-
port 350: Recommended Procedures for the
Safety Perj5ormance Evaluation of Highway Fea-
tures. Transportation Research Board, Washing-
ton, DC, 1993.
2. AASHTO. A Guide to Standardized Highway

Barrier Hardware. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials,
3. Hutchinson, J. W. and T. W. Kennedy. Medians

of Divided Highways-Frequency and Nature
of Vehicle Encroachments.Bulletin 487. Univer-
sity of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
1966.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5-44
Median Barriers
6.0 OVERVIEW isted. Figure 6.1 provides suggested guidelines for me-
dian barriers on high-speed, controlled-access roadways
Median barriers are longitudinal barriers that are most that have relatively flat, traversable medians. These crite-
commonly used to separate opposing traffic on a divided ria, based on a limited analysis of median crossover crashes
highway. They may also be used along heavily traveled (2) and research studies (3), are suggested for use in the
roadways to separate through traffic from local traffic or absence of more current (or site-specific) data. Barriers
to separate high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes from gen- are typically considered for combinations of average daily
eral purposelanes. While most median barriers are similar traffic (ADT) and median widths that fall within the indi-
to roadside barrier designs described in Chapter 5, this cated area. At low ADTs, the frequency of median en-
chapter will address only those that are designed to redi- croachments is relatively low. Thus, for ADTs less than
rect vehicles striking either side of the barrier. 20,000 vehicles per day and median widths within the op-
This chapter references the performance requirements tional areas of Figure 6.1, a barrier is recommended only if
for median barriers and contains guidelines for selecting there has been a history of cross-median crashes. Like-
and installing an appropriate barrier system. The struc- wise, for relatively wide medians the probability of a ve-
tural and safety characteristics of selected median barri- hicle crossing the median is also low.
ers, including end treatments and transition sections, are It is important to note that a more definitive study is
presented. Finally, selection and placement guidelines are currently underway, through NCHRP, to more clearly de-
included for new construction, and methods are presented fine warrants for median barriers. Completion of this study
for identifying and upgrading existing systems that do is not expected until sometime after publication of this
not comply with current guidelines. guide.
Traditionally, barriers have not been used in medians
that were 10 m [30 ft] or more in width. This width was
6.1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS based on the premise that 80 percent of errant vehicles
could recover within this distance. However, in the case
The performance requirements for median barriers are iden- of median encroachments, those drivers exceeding this
tical to those for roadside barriers as stated in Section 5.1. lateral distance could become involved in head-on crashes
NCHRP Report 350 (1) contains detailed information on involving innocent motorists in the opposing lanes of traf-
the required series of standard crash tests needed to evalu- fic. As a result of increased traffic volumes, higher free-
ate the performance of longitudinal barriers. way speeds, and greater numbers of cross-median crashes,
severa! state transportation agencies have modified pre-
vious guidelines for installing median barriers. For example,
6.2 GUIDELINES FOR MEDIAN BARRIER Florida considers median widths under 19.5 m [64 ft] as
APPLICATION candidates for a median barrier, and California completed
a detailed study in 1997 that suggested medians as wide
As with all types of traffic barriers, a median barrier should as 23 m [75 ft] with traffic volumes up to 60,000 vehicles
be installed only if the consequences of striking the bar- per day would be candidates for a median barrier study
rier are expected to be less severe than if no barrier ex- (4). California also uses a crash study warrant to identify
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
61
SHOULDER
/+ - *
MEDIAN WIDTH
1 w
RO
80
70
60
Q
u.
4 50
E
>z
$ 2 40
0:
[r 30
w
2
20
10
O
O 10 20 30 40 50 60
O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MEDIAN WIDTH [fi]
MEDIAN WIDTH (m)
'Based on a 5-year projection
FIGURE 6.1 Suggested guidelines for median barriers on high-speedroadways
sections of freeways that may require the installation of a criteria given in Chapter 3 should be used as a guideline
median barrier. This warrant requires a minimum of 0.31 for establishing barrier need. Section 6.6.1.2 addresses
cross-median crashes per kilometer [ O S O cross-median the placement of barrier on sloped medians.
crashes per mile] of any severity per year, or 0.075 fatal
crashes per kilometer [O. 12 fatal crashes per mile] per year.
The rate calculation requires a minimum of three crashes 6.3 PERFORMANCE LEVEL SELECTION
occurring within a five-year period. It should be noted PROCEDURES
that after a median barrier is installed, crash severity may
decrease, but crash frequency may increase since the ASwith roadside barriers, most median barriers have been
space available for return-to-the-road maneuvers is re- developed, tested, and installed with the intention of con-
duced. taining and redirecting passenger vehicles and pickup
Median bamers are sometimes used on high-volume, trucks. Some highway agencies have identified locations
non-access-controlledfacilities.However, safely terminat- where heavy vehicle containment was considered neces-
ing such barriers can be difficult and sight distance may sary and have designed and installed high-performance
be a significant problem at intersections. median barriers having significantly greater capabilities
Special consideration should be given to barrier needs than commonly used designs. Factors most often consid-
for medians separating roadways at different elevations. ered in reaching a decision on such barrier use include:
The ability of an errant driver leaving the higher roadway
to return to the road or to stop diminishes as the differ- s high percentage or large average daily number of
ence in elevation increases. Thus, the potential for cross- heavy vehicles
over crashes increases. For such sections, the clear zone
6-2 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

adverse geometrics (horizontal curvature) New Jersey Shape
810mm[32in.]tall TL4
severe consequences of vehicular (or cargo) pen- 1070mm[42in.JtalI TL5
etration into opposing traffic lanes Single Slope
810 mm [32 in.] tall TL4
Section 6.4 includes information on the maximum size 1070mm[42in.]tall TL5
of vehicle that has been successfully crash tested for each F-Shape
median barrier system described in that section. 810mm [32in.] tall TL4
1070mm [42 in.] tall TL5
Quickchange@Moveable Barrier
6.4 STRUCTURAL AND SAFETY (including SRTS and CRTS) TL3
CHARACTERISTICSOF MEDIAN
BARRIERS Each of these systems is described in the following
subsections. The mounting heights included in these de-
This section identifies selected median barrier systems scriptions are measured from the ground to the top of the
and summarizes the structural and safety characteristics rail, cable, or barrier. The generally accepted variations
of each. It is subdivided into length of need sections, from nominal heights are 75 mm [3 in.] for the rigid and
transitions, and end treatments. Characteristics unique to semi-rigid systems and 50 mm [2 in.] for the flexible sys-
each system are emphasized. tems. Additional information on individual median barrier
systems, including design details and tolerances, is in-
cluded in Appendix C.
6.4.1 Crashworthy Median Barrier
Systems
6.4.1 .IWeak-Post, W-Beam
As with roadside barriers, median barriers can be catego-
rized as flexible, semi-rigid, or rigid. This section includes The weak-post, W-beam system. shown in Figure 6.2, is
descriptions and performance capabilities of crashwor- similar to the roadside weak-post system described in ,
thy median barrier systems that have met the criteria of Chapter 5 except for the recommended mounting height of
NCHRP Report 350 (l), beginning with flexible median 840 mm [33 in.] and a 2.1 m [7 ft] design deflection dis-
barriers and ending with rigid systems. Also included is a tance. The weak-post system is sensitive to height varia-
discussion of a moveable barrier system that can be used tions and should not be used as a median barrier where
for special traffic situations, such as reversible traffic lanes, terrain irregularities exist. Because the W-beam does not
where periodic relocation of the barrier is required. Some interlock with a vehicle's sheet metal, the likelihood of
barriers that are designed to restrain and redirect large going over or under the rail is increased if the impact is in
vehicles are also identified and included in this section. a range that is higher or lower than normal. Consequently,
The barriers to be addressed and their corresponding test this system is recommended only in relatively flat, tra-
levels are: versable medians without curbs or ditches that could af-
fect vehicle trajectory. It should not be used where frost
Weak-Post, W-Beam Guardrail TL2 heave or erosion is likely to alter the beam mounting height
3-Strand Cable, Weak Post TL3 relative to the shoulder beyond 50 mm 12 in.]. A proper
Box-BeamBarrier TL3 anchorage at each end is critical.
Blocked-Out W-Beam (Strong Post)
Steel or Wood Post with
Wood or Plastic Block m3 6.4.1.2 Three-Strand Cable
Steel Post with Steel Block L2
Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Strong Post) This flexible barrier is similar to the roadside cable barrier
Wood or Steel Post with described in Chapter5 except, when used in a median, the
Wood or Piastic Hock TL3 midd!e c&!e is i~?stzl!eICI!the npposite side of each post
Modifid Tlirie-Bea~~ TL-4 from the other two and the spacing between the cables is
Concrete Barrier different.
Vertical Wall ' A cable barrier should be used only if adequate deflec-
810mm[32in.] tall TL-4 tion distance exists to accommodate approximately 3.5 m
1070mm [42 in.] tall L5 [12 ftl of movement; Le., the median width should be at
least 7 m [24 ftl if the barrier is centered. Shortening the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
6-3
FIGURE 6.2 Weak-post, W-beam median barrier
post spacing as discussed in Chapter 5 can reduce deflec- 6.4.1.3 Box-Beam Median Barrier
tion distances. The cable barrier remains effective when
mounted on a moderate slope (up to 1V6H). Cable sys- The box-beam median barrier shown in Figure 6.4 is con-
tems must be installed and maintained as close to the de- sidered a semi-rigid barrier and is similar to the roadside
sign height as feasible in order to function properly. The box beam described in Chapter 5. Its design deflection
approach should be flat, without a curb or a ditch. Proper distance is approximately 1.7 m [5.5 ft].
anchorage at the ends is critical. To accommodate both As with the weak-post W-beam, this system is most
larger and smaller vehicles, the lower cable on the NCHRP suitable for use in traversable medians having no signifi-
Report 350 design is 530 mm [21 in.] and the top cable 770 cant terrain irregularities. The weak posts have to be re-
mm [30 in.] above the ground. The center cable is 650 mm paired after most hits in order to maintain the correct beam
[26 in.] above the ground. There are several different de- height. Temporary supports may be used. Consequently,
signs of the three-strand cable median barrier in use the box beam should not be used in areas where it is likely
throughout the country. When selecting one of these sys- to be hit frequently.
tems, the designer is encouraged to review and consider
the compliance testing and/or in-service performance his-
tory. 6.4.1.4 Blocked-Out W-Beam (Strong Post)
Although the cable barrier is relatively inexpensive to
install and performs well when hit, it must be repaired after Blocked-out W-beam median barrier may be installed us-
each hit to maintain its effectiveness. Consequently, its ing either wood or steel posts. When constructed with
use in areas where it is likely to be hit frequently, such as blocks made of either wood or one of several recycled
on the outside of sharp curves, is not recommended. A plastics, either post design qualifies as meeting NCHRP
typical installation is shown in Figure 6.3. Report 350, TL-3. A steel post design using steel blocks
6-4 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Median Barriers
FIGURE 6.3 Three-strand cable median barrier
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 6.4 Box-beam median barrier
6-5
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 6.5 Strong post W-beam median barrier
has been accepted as a TL-2 barrier. The strong-post, W- 6.4.1.5 Blocked-Out Thrie-Beam (Strong Post)
beam system, shown in Figure 6.5, has been extensively
used to prevent crossover crashes in relatively narrow This NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 system is similar in most
medians. respects to the blocked-out W-beam median barrier but is
Since these systems are semi-rigid, meaning their de- capable of accommodating a larger range of vehicle sizes
sign deflection distances are in the 0.6 to 1.2 m [2 to 4 ft] due to its increased beam depth. Posts may be either wood
range, they have typically been used in medians approxi- or steel with blocks of either wood or one of several ap-
mately 3 m [10ft] or more in width. Recognizing the inher- proved recycled plastics. The use of thrie-beam also elimi-
ent danger in crossover crashes, designers have often nates the need for a separate rubrail. Design deflection for
specified 760 mm [30 in.] mounting heights, higher than this barrier is in the range of 0.3 to 0.9 m [i to 3 ft], and its
their roadside barrier counterparts. This taller design has typical mounting height is 810 mm [32 in.].
not been tested, but it falls within the generally accepted
tolerance of 75 mm [3 in.] from nominal height for a W-
beam, strong-post guardrail. To minimize post-snagging 6.4.1.6 Modified Thrie-Beam Median Barrier
problems with the higher mounting heights, a separate
rubrail has sometimes been added to the design. A rubrail Using the spacer biocks developed in conjunction with
has also been added when the W-beam is placed behind a the modified thrie-beamroadside barrier describedin Chap-
curb, typically on structure approaches. Most state agen- ter 5 can significantly enhance performance of the thrie-
cies have used a structural steel channel or tube for the beam median barrier. This barrier successfully contained
rubrail, but occasionally a separate W-beam centered and redirected an 8000 kg [ 18,000lb] single-unittruck im-
250 mm [lo in.] above grade is specified. Strong-post,W- pacting at a nominal speed of 80 km/h [50 mph] and an
beam median barriers generally cause higher forces on impact angle of 15 degrees. The roadside version of this
impacting vehicles and their occupants than do flexible barrier also contained and redirected an 18000kg [40,000
systems, but they do not usually require immediate repair lb] intercity bus under the same conditions. Thus, both
to remain functional except after very severe impacts. the single-faced roadside design and the double-faced
6-6
Median Barriers
FIGURE 6.6 Modifiedthrie-beam median barrier
median barrier design are consideredto be TL-4 longitudi- The New Jersey shape and F-shape barriers are com-
nal barriers. The modified thrie-beam median barrier is monly referred to as safety shapes. Figure C.6, Appen-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
shown in Figure 6.6. dix C, compares dimensions of these two barriers. The
critical variable is the height above the road surface of the
break between the upper and lower slope. If this break is
6.4.1.7 Concrete Barrier higher than 330 mm [13 in.], the chances of a vehicle
overturning are increased, particularly for compact and
Concrete barrier is the most common rigid median barrier subcompact automobiles. Although both shapes are ef-
in use today. Its popularity is based on its relatively low fective in safely redirecting impacting vehicles, research
life-cycle cost, generally effective performance, and its indicates that the F-shape, which has the slope break at
maintenance-free characteristics.Concrete barrier designs 250 mm [10in.], may perform better for small vehicles with
vary in shape, construction type, and reinforcement. respect to vehicle roll than the New Jersey shape.
Research has shown that variations in the face of the The basic New Jersey and F-shape have an overall
concrete barrier can have a significant effect on barrier height of 810 mm [32 in.]; this includes provision for a
performance (5). Concrete barrier shapes that meet the 75 mm [3 in.] future pavement overlay, reducing the height
NCHRP Report 350 criteria are the New Jersey and F- to 735 mm [29 in.] minimum. When total overlay depths are
shapes, the single slope barrier (two variations in slope), expectedto exceed 75 mm [3 in.] or when an 810 mm [32in.]
and the vertical wall. These shapes when adequately de- height is considered inadequate, the total height of the
signed and reinforced may all be considered TL-4 designs concrete must be adjusted. This adjustment must be made
at the standard height of 810 mm [32 in.] and TL-5 designs above the slope breakpoint. The height extension may
at heights of 1070 mm [42 in.] and higher. follow the slope of the upper face if the barrier is thick
6-7
enough or adequately reinforced at the top, or the exten- California Department of Transportation has shown that a
sion may be vertical. A height extension may also be con- concrete footing is not necessary; the concrete can be
sidered for use as a screen to block headlight glare from cast directly on asphaltic concrete, Portland cement con-
opposing traffic lanes. crete, or a well-compacted aggregate base (8). This re-
There are two important factors related to safety- search also revealed no adverse effects to barrier perfor-
shaped concrete median barriers that are important to note. mance when contraction joints were left to form uncon-
For high-angle, high-speed impacts, passenger size ve- trolled in lightly reinforced concrete. Longitudinal rein-
hicles may become partially airborne and in some cases forcement in the upper portion of the barrier stem serves
may reach the top of the barrier. Fixed objects, e.g., to control the size and scatter of concrete fragments that
luminaire supports, on top of the wall may cause snag- may occur as a result of severe barrier impacts. Several
ging or separate from the barrier and fly into opposing states use non-reinforced concrete barrier. Shrinkage
traffic lanes. New York State has designed and tested a cracks of up to 20 mm [3/4 in.] have not affected the opera-
box-beam retrofit that is installed near the top of the upper tional strength of concrete barriers, and no breakouts have
face of the barrier to limit vehicle climb and to improve been experienced where the top width is at least 300 mm
performance under these conditions. [12 in.]. In general, if the in-serviceperformanceof a States
The second factor to consider is that, even for shallow concrete barrier design reflects desired results, that de-
angle impacts, the roll angle toward the barrier imparted to sign may be considered acceptable.
high-center-of-gravity vehicles may be enough to permit Concrete median barrier may be slip-formed, precast,
contact by the top portion of the cargo box with fixed or cast-in-place. Slip-formed barriers are cost-effective
objects on top of or immediately behind the wall. Bridge where long lengths of barrier can be placed without inter-
piers are one of the common obstacles typically shielded ruption. Equipment is available to slip-form barriers to a
by a concrete safety shape. Unless the barrier is signifi- variable height where necessary to fit a stepped-median
cantly higher than 810 mm [32 in.] or modified as noted cross section and where the elevations of adjacent road-
above, a bus or tractor trailer is likely to lean enough to ways do not vary by more than 0.9 m [3 ft]. Precast con-
strike the pier even though it does not penetrate the bar- struction is sometimes used as an alternate to slip-formed
rier. Even the 1070 mm [42 in.] high concrete safety shapes barrier and is frequently used where split median barriers
shown in Figures C.7 and C.8, Appendix C, produced sig- are needed to shield objects such as bridge piers or over-
nificant roll when struck by a 36000 kg [80,000 lb] combi- head sign supports. Precast concrete barrier sections can
nation truck at an impact angle of 15 degrees and 80 kmih be embedded in or anchored to the pavement to form a
[50 mph]. This so-called Tall Wall barrier is classified as rigid barrier. However, several states use an unanchored
a high-performance barrier. It has been successfully used precast concrete barrier for permanent installations. The
for many years by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority in unanchored barrier deflects when impacted, reducing the
its reinforced version and in Ontario without reinforce- force of impact as compared to a rigid barrier. The de-
ment (6). flected barrier requires repositioning, but the effort is less
Single slope concrete barriers have been developed than the repair of any other semi-rigid barrier system. Cast-
and tested (7). Slopes of 9.1 degrees and 10.8 degrees in-place construction is the most versatile method because
have been used successfully on these barriers. The pri- forming can be varied to fit non-typical situations.
mary advantage of this barrier shape is that the pavement Examples of concrete median barriers are shown in Fig-
adjacent to it can be overlaid several times without affect- ures 6.7 and 6.8.
ing the performance of the barrier. The original height of
1070 111111 [42 in.] may thus be reduced to 760 mm [30 in.].
Vertical concrete barrier wall can be an effective alter- 6.4.1.8 Quickchange Moveable Barrier
native to the wider safety-shape barriers and can preserve System
available median shoulder width at narrow locations such
as in front of bridge piers. Vehicle damage in crashes with This proprietary portable barrier system, shown in Figure
a vertical wall is greater than with safety-shaped barriers, 6.9, is composed of a chain of modified F-shape concrete
but injuries are comparable and the preservation of shoul- barrier segments 940 mm [37 in.] in length that can be
der width is a safety benefit. readily shifted laterally. Steel rods run the length of each
Many variations exist between highway agencies re- segment, and specially designed hinges are attached to
garding reinforcing and footing details for concrete me- each end, which are then joined by pins. The top of each
dian barriers; however, there have been few reported prob- segment is T-shaped to allow pick up by a special vehicle
lems with any particular design and a need (or desirabil- and lateral movement from 1.2 to 5.5 m [4 to 18 ft]. The
ity) for a standard detail is not apparent. Research by the T slot is engaged by the vehicle conveyor system and the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
6-8
Median Barriers
FIGURE 6.7 Concrete safety-shape median barrier
FIGURE 6.8 Single-slope concrete median barrier
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
6-9
FIGURE 6.9 Quickchange@
moveable barrier system
segment is lifted from the road. Continuous lengths of the The Quickchange@Moveable Barriers may be used in
barrier are transported on conveyor wheels through an construction zones on high-volume freeways where, due
elongated S curve, moved across the roadway, and set to construction operations and a desire to maintain traffic
down to form a new parallel lane. Transfer speeds of 8 to capacity, traffic lanes are opened and closed frequently.
16 km/h [5 to 10 mph] are obtained depending on the lat- The system requires energy, time, and resources to set up
eral distance of movement. The design has met the crash the barriers initially; however, it allows a work zone to be
test criteria of NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. quickly created and protected during periods of low traf-
Several variations of the moveable barrier design have fic flow, and can be changed back to full lane utilization
also been tested and approved as meeting NCHRP Report during the busy daytime period.
350, TL-3. The Narrow Quickchange@Moveable Barrier is The system may also be used to advantage on road-
similar to the standard Quickchange@Moveable Barrier ways with unbalanced directional traffic, such as com-
except its width is 305 mm [ 12 in.] as compared to a width muter or tourist routes. Once set up, the barrier can be
of 457 mm [ 18 in.] for the standard Quickchange@Move- moved rapidly to provide additional capacity in the direc-
able Barrier. Two other systems, known as the Steel Reac- tion of heavy traffic flow.
tive Tension System (SRTS) and the Concrete Reactive
Tension System (CRTS) are similar to the narrow and stan-
dard Quickchange@Moveable Barriers, respectively, ex- 6.4.2 End Treatments
cept that an improved connection is used between mod-
ules. This connection contains spring-loaded hinges that Similar to roadside barriers, median barriers must also be
keep the individual segments in tension and reduce the introduced and terminated safely. Therefore, all median
dynamic deflection of the system. barrier end treatments installed in locations where impacts
6-1O --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Median Barriers
FIGURE6.10 BarrierGaW
are likely must be crashworthy. In addition, they generally ciently wide, flared or offset such that the upstream bar-
must safely redirect vehicles impacting from the rear of rier effectively shields the end of the downstream section
the terminal or crash cushion where opposite direction of barrier. The latter condition can be satisfied if the mini-
hits are likely. mum angle (measured parallel to the roadway) from the
The type of end treatment selected is a function of the upstream end to the offset downstream end is 25 degrees.
type of median barrier used as well as designer prefer- If an emergency opening is required, for example, to
ence. The most appropriateterminals for W-beam median route traffic around a crash that requires the roadway to
barrier would probably be the CAT or Brakemaster since be temporarily closed, then a proprietary device called the
both of these designs use typical W-beam panels. These BarrieGate@', developed and tested to NC" Report 350,
terminals could also be used to shield concrete median TL-3, can be used to provide a temporary opening. As can
barriers, but would require an additional transition sec- be seen in Figure 6.10, the BarrierGate" is designed to be
tion to stiffen the terminal as it connects to the rigid con- used in conjunction with a concrete safety-shape median
crete barrier. The most appropriateend treatments for con- barrier to provide a temporary opening through the barrier
crete barrier would probably be the ADIEM, the TFUCC, when needed by emergency vehicles or to temporarily
the QuadGuardTM, and the REACT-350". Sand barrels can reroute traffic. The system consists of two half-gates made
also be used to shield median barrier ends, but this treat- from thrie-beam rail elements that slide along a steel track
ment is generally appropriate for use only in wide medi- system. The BarrierGate" is opened and closed by an elec-
ans where the likelihood of reverse direction impacts is tronic control mechanism that can be manually overrid-
low. All of these end treatments are described in some den in the event of a power failure.
detail in Chapter 8.
Because of the more severe crashes that normally re-
sult from impacts with terminals and the cost of terminals 6.4.3 Transitions
when compared to the barrier itself, openings or breaks in
median barriers should be kept to a minimum. Where per- Transition sections are needed between adjoining median
manent openings are required, the barrier ends should be barriers having significantly different deflection charac-
shielded as described previously or, if the median is suffi- teristics, e g , between a semi-rigid median barrier and a
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
6-11
rigid median barrier, or when a median barrier must be stiff- provided behind a barrier and beyond its dynamic deflec-
ened to shield fixed objects in the median. tion distance to account for this behavior is called work-
Impact performancerequirementsfor median barrier tran- ing width. The designer should consider the working
sitions are essentially the same as those for the standard width when locating a median barrier to shield a rigid ob-
median barrier section. Special emphasis must be placed ject, such as a bridge pier or sign support.
on the avoidance of designs that may cause vehicle snag-
ging or excessive deflection of the transition section. De-
tailed discussion of barrier transitions is included in Chap- 6.5.3 Compatibility
ter 7, Bridge Railings and Transitions.
The specific type of median barrier selected will also de-
pend to some extent upon its compatibility wit!i other
6.5 SELECTION GUIDELINES median features, such as luminaire and overhead sign sup-
ports and bridge piers. If a non-rigid barrier is used in
Once it has been determined that a median barrier is war- such cases, crashworthy transition sections must be avail-
ranted, a specific barrier type must be selected. In general, able to stiffen the barrier locally if the fixed object is within
the most desirable system is one that satisfies performance the design deflection distance of the barrier. In addition to
requirements at the least total life-cycle cost. Table 5.3 acceptable transition designs, a crashworthy end treat-
summarizes the major factors that should be considered ment is also necessary if the barrier begins or terminates
before making a final selection. Each of these factors is in a location where it is likely to be struck by an errant
described in the following sections. motorist. Detailed information on transition sections and
end treatments is included in Chapters 7 and 8, respec-
tively.
6.5.1 Barrier Performance Capability
The first decision to be made when selecting an appropri- 6.5.4 Costs

ate median barrier concerns the level of performance re-
quired. In most cases, a standard barrier capable of redi- Initial costs, repair costs, and future maintenance costs of
recting passenger cars and light vans and trucks will be each candidate median barrier should be carefully evalu-
adequate (NCHRP Report 350, TL-3). However, at loca- ated. As a rule, the initial cost of a system increases as
tions with poor geometrics, high traffic volumes and rigidity and strength increase, but repair and maintenance
speeds, and a significant volume of heavy truck traffic, costs usually decrease with increased strength. Consid-
higher performance level median barriers may be consideration should also be given to the costs incurred by the
ered, particularly if the result of a heavy vehicle penetrat- motorist as a result of a crash with the barrier. These costs
ing the barrier is likely to be catastrophic. The median include personal injuries to the driver and occupants as
barriers identifiedin Section6.4.1 (exceptthe Quickchange@ well as property damage to the impacting vehicle. If a bar-
Moveable Barrier) are listed in order of increasing capa- rier can be located in the center of a median where it is less
bilities to contain and redirect large vehicles. likely to be hit, and repairs do not necessitate closing a
lane of traffic, flexible or semi-rigidmedian barrier may be
the best choice. However, if a barrier must be located im-
6.5.2 Barrier Deflection Characteristics mediately adjacent to a high-speed, high-volume traffic
lane, a rigid barrier requiring no significantmaintenance is
Once the desired performance level has been determined, recommended.
site characteristics often dictate the type of median barrier
to install. Relatively wide, flat medians are suited for flex-
ible or semi-rigid barriers, provided the design deflection 6.5.5 Maintenance
distance is less than one-half the median width. Narrow
medians within heavily traveled roadways usually require Although the same general maintenance considerations
a rigid barrier having little or no deflection when hit. De- for the selection of a roadside barrier also apply to median
flection distances for each type of operational median barriers, crash maintenance is usually a more important
barrier are discussed in Section 6.4.1. factor. Because mediag barriers are typically installedcloser
Crash testing and field experience have shown that, to the traveled way, one or more high-speed lanes usually
during impact, a large truck or similar high-center-of-grav- have to be closed to repair or replace damaged barriers.
ity vehicle will typically lean over and extend for some This creates a safety concern for both the repair crew and
distance behind the barrier. The clear area that should be for motorists using the road. Consequently,a rigid barrier
6-12 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Median Barriers
system (usually concrete) is the barrier of choice in many 6.6.1 Terrain Effects
locations, particularly for high-volumeurban freeways and
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
expressways. Terrain conditions between the traveled way and the bar-
rier can have a significant effect on the barriers impact
performance. Curbs and sloped medians (including
6.5.6 Aesthetic and Environmental superelevated sections) are two prominent features that
Considerations deserve attention. Additionally, drainage swales can im-
part a roll moment on a traversing vehicle. A vehicle that
As with the roadside barriers, aesthetic concerns are sel- traverses one of these features prior to impact may go
dom an overriding consideration in the selection of an over or under the barrier or snag on its support posts.
appropriate median barrier. In those instances where a
natural barrier is required, care must be exercised to
ensure that structural and performance requirements re- 6.6.1.1 Curbs
main adequate.
Environmental factors that warrant consideration are Curbs offer no safety benefits on high-speed roadways
similar to those summarized in Chapter 5 for roadside bar- from the standpointof vehicle behavior prior to or follow-
riers. ing impact. Their effectiveness in redirecting low-speed
traffic impacts is also questionable. It is therefore sug-
gested that a curb, either when used alone or when placed
6.5.7 Field Experience in front of a median barrier, not be considered capable of
redirecting errant vehicles. Although curbs may improve
To make effective decisions regarding the type of barrier delineation and drainage, other methods should be used
to install on new construction, each highway agency to achieve these functions whenever it is practical to do so.
should have a process to monitor and evaluate the perfor- If special conditions require the use of a curb and if a
mance and maintenance characteristics of its existing in- median barrier is to be placed behind a curb no higher
stallations. If a specific type of barrier is performing satis- than 100 mm [4 in.], a vehicle traveling at approximately
factorily when hit and does not require excessive mainte- 100 k m h [60 mph] will not likely vault the barrier if the
nance, there is no need to use a different type on new barrier face is within approximately 225 mm [9 in.] of the
construction. In any event, it is essential that maintenance curbs face. However, if the top of the rail is approximately
personnel communicate all concerns to designers so that 685 mm [27 in.] or higher above the top of the curb, im-
a cost-effective system can be selected. pacts with the rail can be expected to occur at lower than
normal impact heights. This will occur since the vehicle
will not undergo appreciable lifting before contact with
6.6 PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS the barrier occurs. In effect, the height of the rail exceeds
its normal mounting height by the height of the curb. It is
All of the barriers included in Section 6.4.1 are capable of a common practice in such cases to add a rubrail to the
containing and redirecting their respective design vehicles barrier system to minimize any snagging potential. An al-
if they are properly installed in the field. Without excep- ternative treatment is to align the face of the rail with the
tion, all traffic barriers perform best when an impacting face of the curb and measure the mounting height from
vehicle has all of its wheels on the ground at the time of the surface at the bottom of the curb. This treatment may
impact, and its suspension system is neither compressed require the use of a stiffened rail to minimize barrier deflec-
nor extended. Thus, a major faclor to consider in the lat- tion and subsequent wheel contact with the curb in high-
eral placement of a median barrier is the effect of the ter- speed, high-angle impacts. A strong wood post, W-beam
rain between the edge of the traveled way and the barrier guardrail with a 100 mm [4 in.] high asphalt curb, backfilled
on the vehicles trajectory. Two other significant factors with crushed stone, has met NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. E a
affecting barrier performance are the flare rate of the bar- specific curblmedian barrier combination is to be used
rier, especially at transition sections, and the treatment of extensively in new installations, crash testing is recom-
rigid objects in tine median. discussion of each of these mended to ensure efiective performance within the antici-
tliree facturs f 0 l l O W b . pated range of impact angles and speeds.
6-13
6.6.1.2 Sloped Medians Section III-Placement criteria for median barriers on
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
this cross section (Illustration 7) are not clearly defined.

The most desirable median is one that is relatively flat Research has shown that such a cross section, if high
(slopes of 1V 10H or less) and free of rigid objects. If war- enough and wide enough, can redirect vehicles impacting
ranted, the barrier can then be placed at the center of the at relatively shallow angles.
median. When these conditions cannot be met, placement As a general rule, if the cross section itself is inad-
guidelines are necessary. equate for redirecting errant vehicles @e., the slopes are
Figure 6.11 shows three basic median sections for relatively flat) a semi-rigid median barrier should be placed
which placement guidelines are presented. In each sec- at the apex of the cross section.
tion, it is assumed that a median barrier meets guidelines If slopes are not traversable (rough rock cut, etc.), a
for installation. Section I applies to depressed medians or roadside barrier should be placed at b and d. If retain-
medians with a ditch section. Section II applies to stepped ing walls are used at b and d, it is recommended that
medians or medians that separate travel ways with signifi- the base of the wall be contoured to the exterior shape of
cant differences in elevation. Section III applies to raised a standard concrete barrier.
medians, or median berms. When the guidelines suggest installing a median bar-
Section I-The slopes and the ditch section should rier, it is desirable that the same barrier be used through-
first be checked by the criteria in Chapter 3 to determine if out the length of need, and that the barrier be placed in the
the guidelines suggest the installation of a roadside bar- middle of a flat median. However, it may be necessary to
rier. If both slopes require shielding (Illustration l), a road- deviate from this policy in some cases. For example, the
side barrier should be placed near the shoulder on each median in SectionI of Figure 6.1 1 may require a barrier on
side of the median (Wand 8). If only one slope re- both sides of the median. If a median barrier is warranted
quires shielding,e.g., S3,a median barrier should be placed upstream and downstream from the section, it is suggested
at d. In this situation, a rigid or semi-rigidbarrier is sug- that the median barrier be split as illustrated in Figure
gested, and a rubrail should be installed on the ditch side 6.12. Most of the operational median barriers can be split
of the barrier to prevent vehicles that have crossed the this way, especially box beams, W-beam types, and the
ditch from snagging on a post and beam railing system. shaped concrete barrier.
If neither slope requires shielding but either one or
both are steeper than 1VlOH (Illustration 2), a median
barrier should be placed on the side with the steeper slope 6.6.2 Flare R a t e
when warranted. For example, if
It may be necessary to flare a median barrier, such as at a
rigid object in a median. The flare rates shown in Table 5.7
for roadside barriers apply to median barriers also.
the barrier would be placed at b. A rigid or semi-rigid Another special layout problem concerns medians
system is suggested in this situation. If both slopes are whose widths are such that a median barrier is not war-
relatively flat (Iilustration 3), a median barrier may be placed ranted but which have a rigid object that warrants shield-
at or near the center of the median (at c) if vehicle over- ing. Typical examples are bridge piers and overhead sign
ride is not likely. Any type of median barrier having an support structures. If shielding is necessary for one direc-
appropriate test level for the application can be used pro- tion of travel only, or if the object is in a depressed median
vided its dynamic deflection is not greater than one-half and shielding from either or both directions of travel is
the median width. necessary, the criteria of Chapter 5 should be used. If
Section II-If the embankment slope is steeper than shielding for both directions of travel is necessary and if
approximately 1 V 10H (Illustration 4), a median barrier the median is flat (side slopes less than approximately
should be placed at b. If the slope is not traversable lVlOH), two means of protection are suggested. In the
(rough rock cut, etc.), a roadside barrier should be first case, the designer should investigate the possible
placed at both b and d (Illustration 5). It is not un- use of a crash cushion to shield the object. A second
usual for this section to have a retaining wall at d. If so, suggestion is to employ either semi-rigid or rigid barriers
it is suggested that the base of the wall be contoured to with crash cushions or end treatments to shield the barrier
the exterior shape of a concrete median barrier. If the cross ends as illustrated in Figure 6.13. If semi-rigid systems are
slope is flatter than approximately lVlOH, a barrier used, the distance from the barrier to the obstruction
could be placed at or near the center of the median (Illus- should be greater than the dynamic deflection of the bar-
tration 6). rier. If a concrete barrier is used, the barrier can be placed
6-14
Median Barriers
c SECTION I
ILLUSTRATION 1
L - 4 -I
ILLUSTRATION 2
I I
I I
I 10
ILLUSTRATION 3 I
I 10 10
I I I
I I
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I I SECTION II
ILLUSTRATION 4
ILLUSTRATION 5
I I I
ILLUSTRATION 6
I I
I
I
I SECTION III
1 I
FIGURE 6.11 Recommended barrier placement in non-level medians
6-15
TRAFFIC
<Median Barrier
Boundaries of
-
Flat Median
Edge of traveled way
* Flare rate should not exceed suggested limits (Refer to Table 5.7)
FIGURE 6.12 Example of a split median barrier layout
.
~ TRAFFIC
Edge of traveled way \

Crashworthy median barrier terminal
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Edge of traveled way /r

,
TRAFFIC
NOTE: Designer may also consider the use of crash cushions to shield median hazards.
FIGURE 6.13 Suggested layout for shielding a rigid object in a median
6-16
~~
Median Barriers
adjacent to the obstruction unless there is a concern for a REFERENCES

high-center-of-gravity vehicle striking the obstruction
when contact with the barrier causes the top of the ve- 1. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, and R. A. Zimmer.
hicle to lean over the railing. National Cooperative Highway Research Re-
port 350: Recommended Procedures f o r the
6.7 UPGRADING SYSTEMS tures. Transportation Research Board, 1993.
Some existing median barriers are not necessary, while 2 Graf, V. D. and N. C. Winegerd. Median Barrier
others will not meet suggested performance levels. Older Warrants.Traffic Department of the State of Cali-
barriers usually fall into one of two categories, namely, fornia, 1968.
those that have structural inadequacies and those that
are functionally inadequate. 3. Ross, H. E., Jr. Impact Pe$omance and Selec-
Table 5.9 provides a checklist for evaluating the struction Criterion f o r the Texas Median Barriers.
tural adequacy of roadside barriers. The same factors can Research Report 140-8,Texas Transportation In-
be applied to median barriers. Persons inspecting existing stitute, Texas A & M University, 1974.
installations should stay abreast of current traffic barrier
4. Borden, J. B. Median Barrier Study Warrant Re-
designs and guidelines as well as promising new research
view. California Department of Transportation,
findings. Of course, there is no substitute for field data or
December 1997.
crash records to evaluate the performance of a system.
If a barrier system does not meet current guidelines, it 5. Bronstad, M. E., L. R. Calcote and C. E. Kimball,
is suggested that the barrier be considered for modifica- Jr. Concrete Median Barrier Research. FHWA
tion to conform to an operational system or replacement Report No. FHWA-RD-73-3,June 1976.
by an operational system. It is recognized that this action
is not always cost-effective, therefore decisions regard- 6. Mak, K. K. Test and Evaluation of Ontario Tall
ing treatment of existing systems must be based on a case- Uall Barrier with an 80,000lb. Ti-actor-Trailer.
by-case analysis considering upgrade costs, repair and Ministry of Transportation, Ontario.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
maintenance costs, and potential crash frequency and
severity. Table 5.9 may also be used to evaluate the func- 7. TransportationResearch Board. Roadside Safety
tional adequacy of existing barriers. If the barrier is placed Features, Transportation Research Record No.
in a depressed median or a median with surface irregulari- 1302. Transportation Research Board, 1991.
ties, it may not function properly. If improperly located,
corrective measures should be considered. If necessary, 8. California Department of Transportation, Divi-
the barrier can be moved near the shoulders edge or re- sion of Structures and Engineering Services. Ve-
turned to a position in which the approach terrain to the hicular Crash Test of a Continuous Concrete
barrier is no steeper than the criteria suggest. Another Median Barrier Without a Footing. Final Report,
possible solution would be to extend the shoulder to the FHWA-CA-TL-6883-77-22,August 1977.
lateral distance desired and place the barrier on the shoul-
der. Steep flare rates for approach and transition sections
should be flattened to conform to the criteria recommended
in Table 5.7.
6-17
Bridge Railings and Transitions
7.0 OVERVIEW component members. These specifications do not pres-

ently mandate that a bridge railing designed to AASHTO
A bridge railing is a longitudinal barrier intended to pre- standards be crash tested prior to its use. However, the
vent a vehicle from running off the edge of a bridge or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires all
culvert. Normally they are constructed of a metal or con- bridge railings used on the National Highway System to
crete post and railing system, a concrete safety shape, or be a crash-tested design.
a combination of metal and concrete. Most bridge railings The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specijcations pro-
differ from roadside barriers in that bridge railings are an vide the most current guidance regarding performance
integral part of the structure (physically connected) and requirements for railings for new bridges and for rehabili-
are usually designed to have virtually no deflection when tated bridges to the extent that railing replacement is de-
struck by an errant vehicle. termined to be appropriate. NCHW Report 350 crash test
This chapter summarizes the performance and struc- criteria were used to develop the design criteria contained
tural requirements for bridge railings and presents ex- in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
amples of each of the six test levels defined in NCHRP Existing bridge railings designed to criteria contained
Report 350 (1) for longitudinal barriers. It also addresses in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
selection and placement guidelines for new construction Bridges and that may have been crash tested under previ-
and includes examples of some typical retrofit designs for ous guidelines may be acceptable for use on new or re-
older bridges having substandard railings. Finally, it ad- construction projects through evaluation of their in-ser-
dresses bridge railings and roadside barriers as a com- vice performance.For existing bridge rails, individual states
plete system and provides general information on appro- should develop a guideline for retention, upgrading, or
priate transition sections between the two barrier types. both retention and upgrading of the in-place rails based
The information presented here is intended only to on a safe, cost-effective approach. See Section 7.7, Up-
summarize selected sections of the current AASHTO Stan- grading of Bridge Railings, for additional guidance.
dard Specifications for Highway Bridges ( 2 ) and the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specijications (3).Detailed
information on analytic design procedures, design load- 7.2 WARRANTS
ings, and materials specifications can be found in those
documents. Virtually all structures require some type of railing; how-
ever, on many small structures on low-speed, low-volume
roadways, a railing designed to full AASHTO standards
7.1 PEKFBRMANCE REQUIREMENTS may be neither necessary nor desirable. A rigid railing
requires approach guardrail and a transition section be-
The AASHTO Standard Specifications f o r Highway tween barrier types. This full treatment may not be cost-
Bridges requires that bridge railings meet specific geo- effective on bridge-length culverts, and alternate treat-
metric criteria and be capable of resisting applied static ments should be considered. Such treatments could in-
loads without exceeding allowable stresses in any of their clude extending the structure and leaving the edges
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7-1
unshielded or using a less expensive, semi-rigid type high-speed, high-volume facilities. Section 5.3 lists the
railing. subjective factors most often considered in the selection
The owner should develop the warrants for the bridge of an appropriate test level for traffic barriers, including
site. A bridge railing should be chosen to satisfy the con- bridge railings, at a specific location.
cerns of the warrants as completely as possible and prac-
tical. Refer to Section 13 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specijcations for guidance in the development of 7.4 CRASH-TESTED RAILINGS
warrants.
When a bridge also serves pedestrians, cyclists, or In the past, crash test matrices for bridge railings have
both, a barrier to shield them from vehicular traffic may be differed from those used for other longitudinal barriers.
warranted. The need for a pedestrian or cyclist railing All new tests for bridge railings should be in accordance
should be based on the volume and speed of roadway with the guidelines in NCHRP Report 350. The FHWA
traffic, the number of pedestrians or cyclists using the maintains a listing of designs that have recently been
bridge, and conditions on either end of the structure. tested to one of the test levels defined in NCHRP Report
350 and of designs previously tested under earlier guide-
lines that have been assigned an NCHRP Report 350
7.3 TEST LEVEL SELECTION PROCEDURES equivalent test level.
For illustrative purposes, this section contains photo-
As with other traffic barriers, the current design criteria graphs and brief descriptions of some of the bridge rail-
for bridge railings relate primarily to standard size auto- ings that have been successfully crash tested to one of
mobiles and pickup trucks and result in the selection of a the six test levels defined in NCHRP Report 350. A com-
design meeting NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. Test require- plete list of crash-tested bridge railings may be obtained
ments are the same for a bridge rail as those for a longitu- from the FHWA's Office of Highway Safety through
dinal barrier as described in Chapter 5. its web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/
Several state highway agencies and the FHWA have roadside-hardware.htm.
recognized that it may be desirable in certain situations to
design and install railings which can contain and redirect
heavy vehicles such as buses and trucks. Although pen- 7.4.1 Test Level 1 Bridge Railings
etration of any railing by a vehicle is potentially hazard-
ous to its occupants, locations where vehicular penetra- Since TL-1 designs are tested at impact speeds of only
tion of a railing system could be particularly hazardous to 50 km/h [30 mph], TL-1 bridge railings are not very practi-
others as well should be given careful evaluation before cal because operating speeds nearly always exceed that
deciding on the type of railing to install. level. As a result, there have been almost no bridge rail-
A second concern that must be considered in selecting ings designed and tested to TL-1. The U.S. Forest Service
a high-performancerailing is its effective height. A railing has done some testing on timber railings for low-speed
may have adequate strength to prevent physical penetra- situations, but most of that effort has been directed to-
tion, but unless it also has adequate height, an impacting wards TL-2 or higher designs.
vehicle or its cargo may roll over the railing or may roll
onto its side away from the railing after redirection.
In addition, the shape of the face of the railing will have 7.4.2 Test Level 2 Bridge Railings
a significant effect on its performance. Various safety
shapes have been successfully tested according to The side-mounted, thrie-beambridge railing shown in Fig-
NCHRF' Report 350 criteria. However, a safety-shapecon- ure 7.1 is unique because it is presently the only non-rigid
crete railing can cause a large vehicle to roll up to 24 de- bridge railing that has been successfully crash tested to
grees before it contacts the upper edge of the railing. Thus, meet the lower service level performance criteria included
a vertical face may be more desirable whenever heavy in NCHRP Report 230 (4). Intended primarily for use on
vehicle rollover is a primary concern. lower volume secondary roads, the thrie-beam system
At the other extreme, some bridges carry only low traf- consists of a thrie-beam rail element, the center of which is
fic volumes at greatly reduced speeds. Bridge railings for mounted 550 mm [22 in.] above the deck on wood or steel
these and similar structures may not need to be designed posts. Since the thrie-beam railing is designed to deflect
to the same performance level as railings to be used on on impact, an approach rail transition is not needed be-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7-2
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 7.1 Sideniounted, thrie-beam bridge railing
cause there is not a hard point in the system. Tests with 405 mm [16 in.]. The faces of the rail elements are flush
compact and full-sized automobiles at impact speeds of with the 150 mm [6 in.] concrete curb on which the posts
100 kmh [60 mph] and impact angles of 15 degrees re- are mounted. This design was tested to NCHRP Report
sulted in smooth redirection and no evidence of snag- 350, TL-3. A similar design using larger steel tube rail ele-
ging. A 9000 kg [20,000 Ib] school bus impacting at 70 ments and support posts was successfully tested to TL-4.
km/h [45 mph] and at a 7-degree angle resulted in similar Transition designs from a standard box beam approach
performance. rail to both of these bridge rail designs have been tested
Although not tested to NCHRP Report 350 criteria, the to TL-3.
side-mounted, thrie-beam bridge railing is considered
equivalent to a TL-2 design. Primary advantages to using
this system include its relative simplicity and low cost. 7.4.4 Test Level 4 Bridge Railings
The post attachment detail is designed to yield on impact
rather than cause damage to the bridge deck. Thus, the There are several bridge railings that have been tested
thrie-beam railing is significantly more forgiving than a successfully with a single-unit truck impacting at 80 km/h
rigid design and is likely to be easier to repair after a hit. [50 mph] and at 15-degreeangle. Four representativeTL-4
designs are described in the next subsections.
7.4.3 Test Level 3 Bridge Railings

7.4.4.1 Solid Concrete Bridge Railings
The Wyoming Two-Tube Bridge Railing, shown in Figure
7.2, consists of two horizontal rail elements of TS 152 mm All of the current solid concrete barriers (New Jersey shape
x 51 mm x 6.4 mm [6 in. x 2 in. x 'I4 in.] structural steel and F-shape, single slope and vertical wall) are consid-
supported by fabricated steel plate posts on 3 m [lo ft] ered to be TL-4 bridge railings when adequatelyreinforced
centers. The height to the top of the upper rail is 740 mm and built to a minimum height of 810 mm [32 in.].
[29 in.] and the height to the bottom of the lower rail is
7-3
FIGURE 7.2 Wyoming two-tube bridge railing
7.4.4.2 Massachusetts S3 Steel Bridge Railing tested to TL-4 criteria. This design consists of two hori-
zontal rail elements supported by fabricated steel plate
The S3 Steel Bridge Railing, shown in Figure 7.3, is a beam posts on 3 m [lo ft] centers. The top rail element is a TS
and post system consisting of three tubular steel rail ele- 152mm x 102mm x 6.4 mm [6in. x 4 in. x in.] structural
ments on W150 x 37 [w6 x 251 posts mounted flush on the steel tube. The bottom rail element is a TS 152mm x 76 mm
outside edge of a sidewalk, as shown, or directly on a 200 x 6.4 mm [6 in. x 3 in. x in.] structural steel tube. The
mm [8 in.] curb when no sidewalk is present. The top rail height to the top of the upper rail is 830 mm [33 in.] and
element is a TS 127 mm x 102 mm x 6.4 mm [5 in. x 4 in. the height to the bottom of the lower rail is 480 mm [19 in.].
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
x in.] steel tube, the top of which is 1082 mm [42I/,in.] The face of the rail elements are flush with the 150 mm
above the deck. The lower two railings are TS 127 mm x [6 in.] high concrete curb on which the posts are mounted.
127 mm x 6.4 mm [5 in. x 5 in. x in.] steel tubes centered
380 mm [15 in.] and 710 mm [28 in.] above the deck, respec-
tively. The S3 Railing also includes 38 mm x 38 mm x 1.6mm 7.4.4.4 BR27C
[11/, in. x 1/, in. x in.] pickets bolted to the back of
the rail elements on 150 mm [6 in.] centers. These steel The BR27C, shown in Figure 7.4, is designed to be either
tubes satisfy AASHTO pedestrian rail geometrics and sidewalk mounted on a 1.5 m [5 ft] sidewalkwith a 200 mm
provide an aesthetic look to the bridge rail. [8 in.] curb or flush mounted on a bridge deck. The total
rail height is 1067 mm [42 in.]. The lower portion of the
railing consists of a 610 mm [24 in.] high concreteparapet
7.4.4.3 Wyoming Two-Tube Bridge Railing that is a constant 250 mm [ 10 in.] thick. The upper portion
of the railing consists of TS 102 mm x 102 mm x 4.8 mm
A version of the Wyoming Two-Tube Bridge Railing as [4 in. x 4 in. x 3/,,in.] A500 grade B structural tubing used
described in Section 7.4.3 and shown in Figure 7.2 was as vertical posts spaced at 2 m [6.5 ft] centers. One TS
7-4
FIGURE 7.3 Massachusetts C3 steel bridge railing
,-TS 4" x 3" x ' / y A500 GR. B

GRADE 60 REINFORCING STEEL 3/4" DIA x 8'/2" LONG ROUND
3600 PSI CONCRETE HEAD A307 BOLTS
TS 4" x 4" x 3/1< A500
GR. B Q 6'-8" C C
LONG A325 BOLTS OR

"
DED ROD EMBEDDED

1 0 IN CONCRETE PARAPET
81/2" x g1/2'1x 3/4" A36 PLATE
2 2" x x '1; A36 FLAT BARS
6 NO. 4 LONGITUDINAL BARS

LON
LONGITUDINAL BAR
3 NO. 5 LONG1
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Conversion Factors
1 TEST INSTALLATION
OVERHANG = 39"
1 in. = 25.4 mm
1 fi = 0.305 m
FIGURE 7.4 BR27C on sidewalk
7-5
Roadside Desim Guide
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 7.5 Tall concrete safety-shape railing
102mm x 76 mm x 6.4mm [4in.x 3 in. x '/,in.] structuraltube 7.4.6 Test Level 6 Bridge Railings
is used as a horizontal rail element mounted to each post
with splices at low moment areas. The Texas Type 'IT (Tank Truck) shown in Figure 7.6 is an
extremely strong barrier railing that successfully contained
and redirected a 36000 kg [80,000 lb] tractor-tank trailer
7.4.5 Test Level 5 Bridge Railings impacting the barrier at 80 km/h [50mph] at an angle of 15
degrees. This railing is warranted for use in only the most
All of the current solid concrete barriers (New Jersey and rare situations. The railing as tested consists of a very
F-shapes, single-slope, and vertical wall) are considered heavily reinforced and widened concrete safety shape with
to be TL-5 bridge railings when adequately reinforced and a massively reinforced continuous concrete member and
built to a minimum height of 1070mm [42 in.]. The concrete post. Total railing height is 2290 mm [90 in.]. Although
safety shape shown in Figure 7.5 is one of the most com- designed and tested as a bridge railing, this cross-section
mon bridge railings used on new construction. Identical has also been used as a longitudinal barrier in some loca-
to concrete median barrier in the shape of its front face, tions.
the architectural treatment of the outside face may vary
considerably,depending upon its location. Reinforcing of
the shape when it is used as a bridge railing is significant. 7.5 SELECTION GUIDELINES
The concrete barrier requires virtually no maintenance for
most hits. There are five factors that should be considered in select-
ing a bridge railing: performance, compatibility,cost, field
experience, and aesthetics.Despite the relative importance
placed on these factors, the capability of a railing to con-
tain and redirect the design vehicle should never be com-
promised.
7-6
FIGURE 7.6 Texas Type TT (Tank Truck) railing
7.5.1 Railing Performance urbadsuburban roadways with speeds of 70 km/h [45 mph]
or less and with continuous raised sidewalks on and off
Generally, all bridge railings designed in accordance with the bridge, bridge rail end treatments and stiffened transi-
AASHTO specifications since 1964 have adequate tions may not be warranted.
strength to prevent penetration by passenger cars. Many
of these railings also provide smooth redirection, although
full-scale crash testing has revealed poor performance in 7.5.3 costs
some railing designs. Post-crash evaluation of some of
the failed systems revealed a lack of design capacity in a Costs generally fall into one of three categories: initial
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
detail (such as base plate thickness or a post-to-base plate construction costs, long-term maintenance costs, and
connection) that adversely affected the capacity o the costs resulting from vehicle impacts with the railing. As a
railing. Bridge railings designed to the current AASHTO general rule, the initial cost of a system increases as its
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and crash tested to rigidity and strength increases, but it seldom becomes a
NCHRP Report 350 will provide the best performance. significant portion of the total bridge construction cost
except in the case of extremely long bridges or when a
high-performance railing is used. In this case, the railing-
7.5.2 Compatibility to-bridge-deck anchorage requirements may significantly
increase tiit: total cost u?the structure. This would be
When the approach roadside barrier significantly differs particularly true for a high-performance concrete railing
in strength, height, and deflection characteristics from a that adds considerable dead load to the bridge.
bridge railing, a crashworthy transition section, as de- Maintenance costs generally decrease significantly as
fined in Section 7.8, is required. It is important to consider the strength of railing increases. Some high-performance
the selected bridge railing as a part of the total roadside railings can be essentially maintenance-free unless they
barrier system that must function effectively as a unit. For are struck by heavy vehicles. Railing designs that are sus-
L-3
7-7
ceptible to impact damage should be standardized to the Terminating the bridge railing requires special treat-
extent possible so that the availability of replacement parts ment considerations. Wherever possible, a crash tested
does not become a major problem. Railings that eliminate transition from the approach guardrail should be attached
or minimize bridge deck damage are very desirable from a to the end of the bridge rail. In some restricted, low-speed
maintenance viewpoint. situations, a tapered end section parallel to the roadway
Crash costs include both damages to vehicles and in- may be used. The taper should be of sufficient length off
jury costs to motorists. Generally, more damage is inflicted the end of the bridge so that an impacting vehicle is ramped
upon the impacting vehicle and its occupants when the on and over the sloped end treatment before reaching the
railing is hit if the vehicle is not redirected. outside edge of the structure, yet not extend so far as to
intnide on the sight distance of intersecting streets just
off the end of the bridge. This method of terminating a
7.5.4 Field Experience railing in low-speed situations is shown in Figure 7.7.
Terminating a bridge railing in rural and high-speed
It is important that the in-service performance of any bridge urban areas also requires special treatment considerations.
railing that is widely used be evaluated to see if it is work- Flaring the end section and the sidewalk away from the
ing as intended. By reviewing crashes involving bridge roadway is sometimes possible. In instances where this is
railings where available and by documenting damage and not practical, a crash cushion or a section of approach
repair costs, highway agency personnel can readily deter- guardrail parallel to the roadway with a suitable end tenni-
mine if a specific design is performing well or if changes na1 may be used. The presence of a curb may adversely
could be made to improve railing performance or signifi- affect the performance of this type of end treatment. Ter-
cantly decrease repair costs. mination using parallel approach rail with a suitable end
terminal is shown in Figure 7.8.
7.5.5 Aesthetics
7.7 UPGRADING OF BRIDGE RAILINGS
While there is no question that an aesthetic bridge railing
may be particularly important in scenic areas or along park This section provides general guidelines for highway
roads, the safety performance of a railing must not be agency personnel responsible for identifying and correct-
sacrificed. Some rustic appearing railings have been ing potentially deficient bridge railings.
developed and crash tested to be both effective and ac-
ceptable in appearance. Any non-standard bridge railing
designed primarily for appearance should be crash tested 7.7.1 Identification of Potentially
before being used. Deficient Systems
Since the primary purpose of a bridge railing is to prevent

7.6 PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS penetration, it must be strong enough to redirect an im-
pacting vehicle. Bridge railings designed to AASHTO
A desirable feature of a bridge structure is a full, continu- specifications prior to 1964 may not meet current specifi-
ous shoulder so that the uniform clearance to roadside cations. Most railings properly designed after 1964, if
elements is maintained. However, there are many existing tested, will contain and redirect a 2040 kg [4,500 lb] pas-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
bridges that are narrower than the approach roadway and senger car impacting at 100km/h [60 mph] at an angle of 25
shoulder. When the bridge railing is located within the degrees. If the capacity of a railing appears questionable,
recommended shy distance (see Table 5 3 , the approach further evaluation should be made to verify critical design
railing should have the appropriate flare rate shown in details (such as base plate connections, anchor bolts,
Table 5.7. material brittleness, welding details, and reinforcement
Curbs higher than 200 mm [8 in.] in front of bridge rail- development) to ensure that the design meets the intent
ings are to be avoided. In low-speed situations with the of the current specifications.
bridge railing at the outer edge of the sidewalk, a raised
sidewalk may provide some protection for pedestrians;
however, a bridge railing between traffic and the sidewalk
affords maximum pedestrian protection. A pedestrian
railing would then be needed at the outer edge of the
sidewalk.
7-8
Bridge Ruilinas und Trailsitions
FIGURE 7.7 Emd treatment for traffic railing on a bridge in low-speed situations
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 7.8 Terminating traffic barrier on bridge with end terminal
7-9
FIGURE 7.9 Inadequate railing strength
Occupant protection is also of considerable importance 7.7.2 Upgrading Systems

in a crash. Open-faced railings in particular may cause
snagging, which produces high deceleration forces lead- This section discusses only retrofit designs, i.e., changes,
ing to occupant injuries. This type of deficiency can usu- modifications, and additions to existing substandard rail-
ally be detected best through full-scale crash testing or, in ings that bring these railings up to acceptable performance
the case of an existing railing, through an analysis of avail- levels. These retrofit designs may increase the strength of
able crash reports. the railing, provide longitudinal continuity to the system,
A third deficiency in many older railing systems is the reduce or eliminate undesirable effects of curbs or narrow
presence of a curb or walkway between the driving lane walkways in front of the bridge rail, and eliminate snag-
and the bridge railing. The curb or the walkway may cause ging potential. A retrofit design should also include an
an impacting vehicle to go over the railing or at least strike acceptable transition from the approach rail to the bridge
it from an unstable position and subsequently roll over. rail itself.
Finally, an adequate approach-rail to bridge-rail transi- One of the most common retrofit improvements con-
tion is essential as discussed in detail in Section 7.8. Fig- sists of rebuilding the approach roadside barrier to cur-
ures 7.9 through 7.12 illustrate some of the more common rent standards, including a transition section, and con-
deficiencies found in bridge railings designed before 1964. tinuing the metal beam rail element across the structure to
The next section identifies corrective measures that can provide railing continuity.If the existing bridge has a safety
be taken to improve the performance of these and simi- curb, the retrofit railing can be blocked out to minimize the
larly deficient systems. possibility of a vehicle ramping over the bridge railing.
However, for most high-speed, high-volume roads, retro-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7-10
FIGURE 7.10 Lack of continuity in railing
FIGURE 7.11 Snagging potential
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7-11
FIGURE 7.12 Presence of brush curb
fit designs should be crash tested before they are used. I Concrete retrofit (safety shape or vertical)
The next sections of this chapter provide information on
tested designs that can be used once a determination is W-beadthrie-beam retrofits
made that retrofitting a substandard bridge railing is a
cost-effective alternative to leaving an existing railing as Metal post and beam retrofits
is or constructing a new crash-tested railing.
Existing railings that do not meet current standards These retrofits are illustrated in Figure 7.13 through
may sometimes be left in place until the section of high- Figure 7.15 .
way that includes the bridge is brought to full standards.
Until a complete upgrading is done, each existing railing
should be evaluated to determine the safest and most cost- 7.7.2.1 Concree Retrofit (Safety S h a p e or
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
effective treatment: retention of the rail, retrofit, or replace- Vertical)
ment. In general, existing concrete post and open railing
systems that predate 1964 must be replaced or retrofitted. The concrete safety shape that is commonly used for new
However, many existing safety curb and parapet railings construction can often be added to an existing substan-
are still performing well. Even though they do not meet dard bridge railing as an economical retrofit design if the
current full railing strength, they remain functional be- structure can carry the added dead load and if the existing
cause they can contain and redirect out-of-control ve- curb and railing configuration can meet the anchorage
hicles in all but the most severe impacts. and impact forces needed for the retrofit barrier. This de-
Some specific retrofit concepts that can be adapted to sign is most cost-effective when the existing railing can
numerous types of deficient designs are: remain in place and does not require extensive modifica-
7-12
-
Bridge Railings und Transitions
115 mm [4 Min
150 mm [S"]Max
- /
-- = 50 mm [2"]
Min
90 mm [3'i2"]
Max
t fl
t
130 mm
Existing Rail - 0 ,
L 2. [5"1
D o Not Disturb
8, I
I L _ _ _
t
230 mm
Existing
Note: On each side of bridge, dimansion "X" can be a minimum of 1" 2nd a maximum of 3 ,
but must be constant for full length of bridge. However, approximately 10 linear feet at
either end of rail length shall be transitioned to match existing beam guardrail attachment.
FIGURE 7.13 Iowa concrete block retrofit bridge railing
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tions. Although a vertically faced retrofit can cause rela- formance of a substandard railing. This treatment can be
tively high deceleration forces for sharp angle impacts, its particularly cost-effective on low-volume roadways with
addition to the top of an existing safety curb, as shown in structures having timber railings. Testing done in con-
Figure 7.13, creates an effective barrier. Care must be taken junction with the development of the side-mounted thrie-
to avoid a protruding curb that can cause considerable beam bridge railing (see Section 7.4.2) has shown that a
wheel and suspension system damage and may contrib- bridge railing can be effective even if it deflects several
ute to vehicular vaulting in shallow angle impacts. feet upon impact. Continuous metal beam rail across a
structure also eliminates one of the major problems of a
bridge-rdapproach-rail transition, i.e., adequate anchor-
7.7.2.2 W-BeamlThrie-Beam Retrofits age to prevent the approach rail from pulling out on im-
pact. By carrying the approach rail across the bridge, the
An inexpensive, short-term solution to the inadequacies only transition design elements that remain critical are
of bridge railings designed before 1964 is to carry an ap- gradual stiffening and elimination of a snagging potential.
proach roadside barrier (W-beam or thrie-beam) across These concerns, too, become less critical if the bridge
the structure. While this treatment may not bring an exist- railing is not totally rigid, as is the case on some timber
ing bridge railing into full compliance with AASHTO de- bridges.
sign criteria, it can significantly improve the impact per-
7-13
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 7.14 Thrie-beam retrofit (New York)
Both Washington and New York States have success- 7.8 TRANSITIONS
fully crash tested thrie-beam retrofits of existing sub-
standard railings. The New York design is shown in A transition section is needed where a semi-rigid approach
Figure 7.14. barrier joins a rigid bridge railing. Transitions may not be
necessaq when bridge railings with some flexibility (such
as the TL-2 bridge rail described in Section 7.4.2) are used.
7.7.2.3 Metal Post and Beam Retrofits The transition design should produce a graduai stiffening
of the overall approach protection system so vehicular
A metal post and beam retrofit railing mounted at the curb pocketing, snagging, or penetration can be reduced or
edge, such as that shown in Figure 7.15, may be appropri- avoided at any position along the transition. Details of
ate for use on an existing structure that has a relatively special importance for transitions are as follows:
wide raised walkway. This design functions well as a traf-
fic barrier separating motor vehicles from pedestrians us- The approach-railhridge-rail splice or connec-
ing a sidewalk across a bridge. In many cases, the existing tion must be as strong as the approach rail itself
bridge railing can be used as, or converted to, a pedes- so it will not fail on impact by pulling out and
trian railing. allowing a vehicle to strike the end of the bridge
The post attachment to the curb or bridge deck can be railing. The use of a cast-in-place anchor or
designed to withstand the design loads contained in the through-bolt connection is recommended. The
current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications or transition must also be designed to minimize the
can be a yielding design that eliminates bridge deck dam- likelihood of snagging an errant vehicle, as well
age in high-angle, high-speed impacts. The metal rail ele- as one from the opposing lane on a two-way fa-
ments should be in Line with the face of the curb and spaced cility.
to minimize the likelihood of vehicle intrusion and subse-
quent snagging on the posts. Strong post systems (usually blocked out) or
combination normal post and strong beam sys-
tems can be used on transitions to rigid bridge
7-14
m
I=-
u I II
II

I
-Fl--r
Not to Scale
FIGURE 7.15 Metal post and beam retrofit
railings or other rigid objects. These systems cur within a short distance. Generally, the transi-
should usually be blocked out from their posts tion length should be 10 to 12 times the differ-
unless the railing member is of sufficient width to ence in the lateral deflection of the two systems
prevent or reduce snagging to an acceptable level. in question.
However, block-outs or railing offsets alone may
not be sufficient to prevent potential snagging 0 The stiffness of the transition should increase
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
at the immediate upstream end of the rigid bridge smoothly and continuously from the less rigid to
railing. A rubrail may be desirable in some de- the more rigid system. This is usually accom-
signs using flexible W-beam or box-beam transi- plished by decreasing the post spacing, increas-
tion members. Tapering of the rigid bridge railing ing the post size, or doing both, and by strength-
end behind the transition nienibers at their con- ening the rail element. W-beam or thrie-beam rail
nectien peint riiuy alse he drsiruh!e, esprciu!!y rlrriients UTI typicully strengthened by nesting
when the approach transition is recessed into two rails together.
the concrete end of the bridge railing or other
rigid object. a Drainage features such as curbs, raised inlets,
curb inlets, ditches, or drainage swales, when
0 The transition section should be long enough so constructed in front of barriers, especially in the
that significant changes in deflection do not oc- transition area, may initiate vehicle instability that
7-15
Curved Roadside Barrier
~ ;ri.nrd Roadside
(or Impact Attenuator)
- - - - - - l i -
I
I I I
Note: The standard barrier installation should be introduced as far from the structure as it would be if the
intersection roadway were not present. The section of barrier upstream from the intersection roadway
significantly reduces the risk to a motorist by narrowing the angle at which the CUNed barrier or crash
cushion can be hit.
FIGURE 7.16 Possible solution to intersectionside road near bridge
can, in some instances,adversely affect the crashing vehicle by the W-beam rail element. This curved guard-
worthiness of the transition. However, some tran- rail design has been tested with 820 kg [1,800lb] and 2040
sition designs incorporate a curb to reduce the kg [4,500 lb] passenger cars at 80 kirih [50 mph]. There is
probability of a vehicle snagging on the end of a no curved guardrail design currently available that has
rigid bridge railing. The slope between the edge met all NCHRP Report 350 evaluation criteria.
of the driving lane and the barrier should be no NCHRP Report 350 recommends that transitions be
steeper than 1 V 10H. designed and crash tested to the test level appropriate for
the intended application. Although the use of W-beam
When a minor road or driveway intersects a main road approach rail with neither an adequate blockout connec-
close to a bridge, it is often difficult to shield the bridge tion to the bridge rail nor a rubrail is relatively common,
railing end adequately. The preferred solution is to close recent crash testing has shown that poor results are pro-
or relocate the intersecting road and install an approach duced by allowing an impacting vehicle to snag on the
railing with a standard transition section. If this solution end of the rigid bridge railing or concrete safety shape or
cannot be done, curved guardrails that were crash tested parapet. These tests have also demonstrated that a more
to NCHRP Report 230 (4) can be used. An attempt should rigid guardrail transition to the bridge railing is necessary.
be made to ensure that errant vehicles do not go behind, This can be accomplished through: reduced post spac-
through, or over the barrier. Some sacrifice in the crashing; larger, longer, or both larger and longer posts; stron-
worthiness of the barrier may be unavoidable in such cir- ger rail elements (nested rail); and other special features.
cumstances, but the installation should be made as for- Several new transition designs have been tested and
giving as possible. The use of appropriate crash cushions proven satisfactory in accordance with NCHRP Report
or other commercially available appurtenances may pro- 350. Four of these designs are shown in Figures 7.17
vide cost-effective solutions in some cases. Figure 7.16 through 7.20. The first two show transition details for a
depicts another possible solution using standard W-beam W-beam approach rail to a straight, vertical, concrete rail
barrier that minimizes the risk to a motorist by shielding or end post and to a concrete safety-shape bridge rail,
most of the object using a separate guardrail run. Because respectively. The third shows a thrie-beam transition to a
a motorist may hit the curved section of the rail at a very modified safety-shape bridge railing. The fourth shows a
high angle, some states use weakened wood posts with- thrie-beam transition to a curb-mounted steel post and
out offset blocks to support the curved section of rail. beam bridge railing. Key design features of all these de-
This design results in the posts breaking without signifi- signs include:
cant leaning in the soil and permits capture of the impact-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7-16
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 7.17 W-beam transition to vertical concrete raii
FIGURE 7.18 W-beam transition to modified concrete safety shape
7-17
~ ~_______
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 7.1 9 Thrie-beam transition to modified concrete safety shape
FIGURE 7.20a Thrie-beam transition to curb-mounted steel post and beam bridge railing
7-18
Bridge Railinns and Transitions
FIGURE 7.20b Thrie-beam transition to curb-mounted steel post and beam bridge railng
larger, longer posts than were used in compa- Safety Pegormance Evaluation of Highway Fea-
rable NCHRP Report 230 (4) designs immediately tures. Transportation Research Board, Washing-
adjacent to the parapet; tonDC, 1993.
0 nested W-beam or thrie-beam sections (one beam 2. AASHTO. Standard Specifications for Highway
nested inside the other); and Bridges. American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials, Washington,
0 rubraii or taperedflared concreteparapet (to mini- DC, 1996.
mize snagging at the bridge end). 3. AASHTO.AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
fications. American Association of State High-
Because relatively few transition designs have been
way and Transportation Officials, Washington,
tested to NCHRP Report 350, FHWA has agreed to the
DC, 1998.
continued use of any transition design that was accept-
able under NCHRP Report 230 (4) guidelinesuntil October 4. Michie, J. D. National Cooperative Highway Re-
2002 on the National Highway System. By then, it is an- search Program Report 230: Recommended Pro-
ticipated that several NCHRP Report 350 designs will be cedures for the Safety Pe$ormance Evaluation
uvuil&le fer use. of Highway Appurtenances. Transportation Ke-
search Board, Washington, DC, 1981.
REFERENCES
1. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, andR. A. Zimmer.

National Cooperative Highway Research Re-
port 350: Recommended Procedures f o r the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 7-19
Barrier End Treatments and Crash Cushions
8.0 OVERVIEW projects, these devices must meet the evaluation criteria
described in the report.
A crash involving a vehicle impacting an untreated end of The criteria require that the impacting vehicle be gradu-
a roadside barrier or a fixed object often results in serious ally stopped or redirected by the crash cushion or end
consequences because vehicles are usually stopped treatment when impacted end-on. In addition to end-on
abruptly. In addition, an impact with the untreated end of impacts, barrier end treatments and crash cushions must
a iongiiudinal barrier can result in bamer elements pen- be capable of safely redirecting a vehicle that impacts the
etrating the passenger compartment or causing vehicle side of the device, both at mid-length and near the nose.
instability and resulting in a roll over, thereby increasing Other criteria for these devices are outlined in the report.
the risk to the occupants. Barrier end treatments and crash NCHRP Report 350 establishes three test levels (TLs) for
cushions are frequently used to prevent impacts of this barrier end treatments and crash cushions. All levels re-
type by gradually decelerating an impacting vehicle to a quire impacts at specified locations and angles with both
stop or by redirecting it around the object of concern. an 820 kg [ 1,800 lb] car and a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup
In very general terms, a barrier end treatment or termi- truck at impact speeds of 50,70, and 100 km/h [30,45, and
nal is normally used at the end of a roadside barrier where 60 mph] for TL-l,2, and 3, respectively. Although some
traffic passes on one side of the barrier and in one direc- devices can be modified to function acceptably under cer-
tion only. A crash cushion is normally used to shield the tain impact conditions at speeds higher than 100 km/h [60
end of a median barrier or a fixed object located in a gore mph], the additional physical space required and the in-
area. A crash cushion may also be used to shield a fixed creased costs associated with special designs have lim-
object on either side of a roadway if a designer decides ited their use in the field.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
that a crash cushion is more cost-effective than a traffic All of the crashworthy end treatments and crash cush-
barrier. ions discussed in this chapter have been successfully
This chapter will explain the warrants for installation tested to NCHRP Report 350 TL- 2 or 3. Systems not shown
as well as the structural and performance requirements of to be crashworthy by either NCHRP Report 350 compli-
barrier end treatments and crash cushions. Descriptions, ance testing or an in-service performance evaluation
selection guidelines, and placement recommendations for should be upgraded when extensive damage occurs or
systems that have been successfully crash tested under when major rehabilitation is conducted on the adjacent
current performance criteria are provided, except as noted. roadway pavement.
8.1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 8.2 END TREATMENTS
NCHRP Report 350 (1) contains the current recommenda- A crashworthy end treatment is considered essential if a
tions for testing and evaluating the performance of crash barrier terminates within the clear zone or is located in an
cushions and barrier end treatments. To be considered area where it is likely to be struck by an errant motorist. To
acceptable for installation on new or reconstruction be crashworthy, the end treatment should not spear, vault,
&1
or roll a vehicle for head-on or angled impacts. For im- clamps shown in Drawing SECO1 are not used. This termi-
pacts within the length of need, the end treatment should nal is shown in Figure 8.3.
have the same redirectional characteristics as the stan-
dard roadside barrier, which means that the end must be
properly anchored. The end treatment for longitudinal 8.2.2 Wyoming Box Beam End Terminal
barriers that rely on tensile strength for redirective capac- (WYBET-350)
ity must be capable of developing the full tensile strength
of the standard rail element whether a crashworthy end The Wyoming Box BeamEnd Terminal (WYBET-350)con-
treatment is warranted or not. sists of a nosepiece welded to a short section of 150 mm x
End treatments can be classified as either gating or 150mm [6 in. x 6 in.] box beam inserted into a 175 m x 175
non-gating, depending on their behavior when impacted mm [63/4in. x 6/, in.] tube and held in place by a wood
on the face near the end. A gating end treatment allows a post. Inside the larger tube is a two-stage fiberglass com-
vehicle impacting the nose or the side of the unit at an posite tube. When impacted, the nosepiece telescopes
angle near the nose to pass through the device. Non- into the larger tube. Crushing of the composite tube dissi-
gating end treatments are capable of redirecting a vehicle pates kinetic energy. This terminal, shown in Figure 8.4, is
impacting the nose or the side of the unit along the units used with the box beam barrier discussed in Chapter 5.
entire length. For gating end treatments, the length of The WYBET-350 has been successfully tested to NCHRP
need usually starts at 3.81 m [12 ft 6 in.] from the impact Report 350, TL-3.
head of the unit, but this can vary depending on the spe- The terminal may be installed parallel to the roadway or
cific terminal used. Virtually all barrier terminals should be flared out at a maximum rate of 1:10. Redirection of face
considered gating, Le., a vehicle impacting at the end at an impacts is considered to begin at the third post from the
angle will proceed through and beyond the terminal. For end of the terminal, allowing 10 m [32 ft] of the terminal to
this reason, the area behind and beyond all barrier termi- be included in the length of need.
nals should be relatively traversable and free of signifi-
cant fixed objects. The minimum recommended distance is
a rectangular area approximately 23 m [75 ft] beyond the 8.2.3 Barrier Anchored in Backslope
terminal parallel to the rail and 6 m [20 ft] behind and per-
pendicular to the rail. However, a runout area of that size In areas of roadway cut section, or where the road is
cannot be expected to accommodate all impacts that might transitioning from cut to fill, it is sometimes possible to
occur. terminate a traffic barrier in the backslope, as shown in
The grading between the traveled way and the terminal Figure 8.5. A W-beam guardrail anchored in the backslope,
and the approach in front of any terminal should be es- shown in Figure 8.6, has been successfully crash tested
sentially flat (slope no greater than 1 V 10H in any direc- to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. When properly designed and
tion) so that impacting vehicles will be relatively stable at located, this type of anchor provides full shielding for the
the moment of contact. Typical grading layouts are shown identified hazard, eliminates the possibility of an end-on
in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 for a flared guardrail end terminal impact with the barrier terminal, and minimizes the likeli-
and a non-flared guardrail end terminal, respectively. hood of the vehicle passing behind the rail. It is consid-
Table 8.1 summarizes the crashworthy end treatments ered a non-gating terminal.
discussed in the following subsections. Key design considerations include (1) maintaining a
uniform rail height relative to the roadway grade until the
barrier crosses the ditch flow line, (2) using a flare rate
8.2.1 Three-Strand Cable Terminal within the clear zone that is appropriate for the design
speed, (3) adding a rubrail for W-beam guardrail installa-
Several agencies that use the three-strand cable barrier tions, and (4) using an anchor that is capable of develop-
have developed a terminal specific to their barrier design. ing the full tensile strength of the W-beam rail. Also, the
The New York State Department of Transportation ran foreslopes on the approach should be no greater than
several tests on the design shown in the AASHTO-AGC- 1V.4H. If a barrier cannot be terminated in a backslope
ARTBA Joint Committee Task Force 13 Report, A Guide without violating any of these principles, a different type
to Standardized Highway Barrier Hardware, as Drawing of end treatment may be more appropriate.
SECO1 (2). One additional test was run by the FHWA to These design considerations also apply to terminating
certify that this design has been successfully tested to any of the aesthetic barriers identified in Chapter 5 in a
NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. In the latest modificationto this backslope, including the Ironwood and Merritt Parkway
design, the cable barrier is flared back 1.2 m [4 ft] from the guardrails, the steel-backed wood rail, and the stone ma-
tangent barrier line to a concrete anchor, and the cable sonry and precast masonry walls.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

~ ~ ~~~~ ~

TRAFFIC I
Not to Scale LIMITS
FIGURE 8.1 Grading for flared guardrail end treatment

TRAFFIC -
END TERMINAL GUARDRAIL
I
CVUC ur 3"UULYC" I I
T-
1530mm IS-0'1 Min.
I
LlVlOH 7 6 1 0 rnm [2-O]Min.
GRADING LIMITS
PREFERRED GRADING
TRAFFIC -
610 mrn 12'-O]Min.

'-O]Min.
GRADING LIMITS
3.0 m [io-"]
ALTERNATIVE GRADING
'The preferred grading layout should be used wherever practical. However, because of site limitations,when upgrading an
existing terminal with a crashworthy terminal meeting NCHRP Report 350 criteria, the alternative grading layout may be used.
Not to Scale
FIGURE 8.2 Grading for non-flared guardrail end treatment
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
E3
TABLE 8.1 Crashworthy end treatments
NCHRP Report
350
System Test Level System Width System Length
Threeziand Cable TL-3 1.2 m [4.0 ft] Flare NIA
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Terminal
Wyoming Box Beam TL-3 0.6 m [2 ft] 15.2 m [50 ft]
End Terminal
(WYBET-350)
~~
Barrier Anchored in TL-3 NIA NIA

Backslope
Eccentric Loader TL-3 0.5 m [ 1.6 ft] plus 11.4 m [37.5 ft]
Terminal (ELT) 1.2 m [4 ft] Flare
Slotted Rail Terminal TL-3 0.5 m [ 1.6 ft] plus 11.4 m [37.5 ft]
(SRT-350) 1.2 m [4 ft] Flare
or
0.5 m [ 1.6 ft] plus
0.9 m [3 ft] Flare
REGENT TL-3 0.5 m [1.6 ft] plus 11.4 m [37.5 ft]
1.3 m [4.3 ft] Flare
Vermont Low-Speed, TL-2 1.5 m [4.9 ft] 3.4 m [11.15 ft]

W-Beam Guardrail
End Terminal
Flared Energy- TL-2 0.5 m [I .6 ft] plus 7.62 m [25 ft]
Absorbing Terminal 0.51 m - 0.81 m [1.7 ft - 2.7 ft] Flare
(FLEAT)
TL-3 0.5 m [1.6 ft] plus 11.4 m [37.5 ft]
0.76 m - 1.2 m [2.5 ft - 4 ft] Hare
Beam-Eating Steel TL-3 0.5 m [1.6 ft] 11.4 m [37.5 ft]
Terminal (BEST) or 15.2 m [SO ftl
~
Extruder Terminal TL-3 0.5 m [1.6 ft] 11.4 m [37.5 ft]

(ET-2000) or 15.2 m [50 ft]
Sequential Kinking TL-3 0.5 m [ 1.6 ft] 15.2 m [50 ft]
Terminal (SKT-350)
~~
QuadTrend-350 TL-3 0.46 m [1.5 ft] 6.1 m [20 ft]

NEAT TL-2 0.57 m r1.9 ftl 2.957 m r9.7 ftl
Sloped Concrete End NIA 0.6 m [ 2 ft] 6 m t o 12m
Treatment 120 ft to 40 ft]

FIGURE 8.3 Three-strand cable terminal
FIGURE 8.4 Wyoming box beam end terminal
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8-5
FIGURE 8.5 Barrier anchored in backslope
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE8.6 W-beam guardrail anchored in backslope
8-6
FIGURE 8.7 Eccentric loader terminal
8.2.4 Eccentric Loader Terminal (ELT) The curved flare is critical for proper impact perfor-
mance. Redirectionbegins 3.8 1 m [ 12 fi 6 in.] from the end
Efforts to improve the performance of the Breakaway Cable of the terminal at the third post.
Terminal (BCT) resulted in the developmentof the Eccen-
tric Loader Terminal.This terminal is shown in Figures 8.7
and 8.8. On this terminal, the metal end of the standard 8.2.5 Slotted Rail Terminal (SRT-350)
BCT was replaced with a fabricated steel lever nose inside
a section of corrugated steel pipe. The bolts were removed The SRT-350 is a proprietary flared non-energy-absorb-
from all the posts in the terminal except the post where the ing terminal. There are two versions of the SRT-350, one
curved flare and the tangent rail join as well as the adja- with an offset of 1.2 m [4 ft] and another with an offset of
cent post in the flared section. A strut between the steel 0.9 m [3 ft]. See Figures 8.9 and 8.10. These systems are
tube foundations for the two end posts enables these designed to break away when impacted end-on. Both have
posts to act together to resist cable loads resulting from been successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3.
downstream impacts. The next four posts are drilled with The two SRT-350 designs consist of a curved W-beam
two holes, one at ground line and one below ground, to rail element in which longitudinal slots have been cut at
make them breakaway. A blockout is added to the second specific locations to reduce its dynamic buckling strength
pos: :o increase :he cUrra:Ure near :he end of :he rai! IcIvcIl c .
to an acccpta~l-10.701 .cInd-ox
, impacts and control the
reducing the column strength of the rail and reducing the location of the buckling. As a result, the yaw of an impact-
likelihood of the rail penetrating an impacting vehicle. ing vehicle and the potential for secondary impacts with
This end treatment is designed with a 1.2 m [4 ft] offset the bent rail are minimized. For downstream impacts, rail
to the end post. The rail element should be field bent, and tension is developed through a cable anchor system.
all posts must be wood. The ELT has been tested suc- Length of need on this system begins 3.81 m [12 ft 6 in.]
cessfully to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. from the end (at the third post).
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 8-7

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I
-m
.-C
E
c
8
U
-
Q
O
.-cO
L
C
Q)
O
O
Q)
8
u-
c
3
-%
Q
-nm
C
E
E'-=
zw
K
2- 3
I 2
U
m

FIGURE 8.9 Slotted rail terminal (SRT-358) with 1.2 rn 14 ft] flare
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.10 Slotted rail terminal (CRT-350) with 0.9 m [3 ft] flare

E9
FIGURE 8.11 REGENT
It is critical that a traversable area, free of fixed objects, rection begins 3.8 1 m [ 12 ft 6 in.] from the end of the termi-
be provided behind the terminal since it is designed to nal (at the third post).
break away when impacted, allowing the vehicle to travel As with all gating terminals, it is critical that a travers-
behind the guardrail. The grading layout for the SRT-350 able area, free of fixed objects, be provided behind the
should be as shown in Figure 8.1. REGENT since it is designedto break away when impacted,
allowing the vehicle to travel behind the guardrail. The
grading layout for the REGENT should be as shown in
8.2.6 REGENT Terminal Figure 8.1.
The REGENT, a proprietary energy-absorbing end treat-

ment, is a flared W-beam terminal that consists of a slider 8.2.7 Vermont Low-Speed, W-Beam
head assembly, a cable anchorlstrut and yoke assembly, Guardrail End Terminal
modified W-beam rail panels, and special weakened wood
posts at posts 1 and 2, and at posts 3 through 8. This The Vermont Low-Speed,W-Beam GuardrailEnd Terminal
terminal is shown in Figure 8.11. It meets the evaluation is a non-proprietary end treatment that is appropriate for
criteriaof NCHRP Report 350 at TL-3. use on roadways where anticipated impact speeds do not
The post offsets correspond to those of the BCT, ex- exceed 70 km/h [45 mph]. It has been successfully tested
cept that the REGENT uses more posts to minimize deflec- to NCHRP Report 350, TL-2. This terminal consists of a
tion and the posts are unique in design. The modified rail 3.8 m [12 ft 6 in.] W-beam rail section that is shop-bent to
elements are partially crushed at two locations to produce a 4.9 m [ 16 ft] radius mounted on W 150 x 14 [W6 x 91 steel
upsets designed to induce predictable kinks in the rail posts with steel blocks. An anchor consisting of a steel
in end-on hits while maintaining most of the rails bending rod and buried concrete block is attached to the rail at the
strength to minimize deflection from side impacts. Redi- third post from the end. See Figure 8.12.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
8-1O
- Barrier End Treatments and Crash Cushions
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.12 Vermont low-speed, W-beam guardrail end terminal
8.2.8 Flared Energy-AbsorbingTerminal impacts on the face of the rail, tension in the rail is devel-
(FLEAT) oped through the cable anchor system. Redirection be-
gins 3.8 l m [12 ft 6 in.] from the end of the terminal (at the
The FLEAT is a proprietary energy-absorbing end treat- third post).
ment that consists of an impact head installed at the end It is critical that a traversable area, free of fixed objects,
of a modified W-beam rail element. The terminal is shown be provided behind the terminal because it is designed to
in Figure 8.13. The FLEAT has been tested successfully break away when impacted, allowing the vehicle to travel
to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 with a total length of 11.4 m behind the guardrail. The grading layout for the FLEAT
[37 ft 6 in.] and to TL-2 with a total length of 7.62 m [25 ft]. should be as shown in Figure 8.1.
The TL-3 terminal is designed to be installed with a linear
offset that can range from 0.76 m to 1.2 rn [2 Ft 6 in.to 4 ft].
The TL-2 design has an offset that can vary between 0.5 1 8.2.9 Beam-EatingSteel Terminal (BEST)
m and 0.8 1 m [ 1.7 ft and 2.7 ft].
The main components of the %EAT are the impact The BEST is a proprietary energy-absorbing end treat-
head and guide tube assembly, a modified W-beam rail, a ment that consists of an impact head mounted on the end
breakaway cable anchor assembly, and seven weakened of a wood post W-beam guardrail system (Figure 8.14).
i--&- fc:-,- c-- th- T T
I.'U"LS \ i i V G I V 1 UlL I L -9 A-m;mm
b utAigii,.
ThpQo n n a t c r n i w he wood
yvu'"
IIIVU" "'U, The kinetic energy of a crash is absorbed by the head,
or a welded breakaway design that may be used as an which contains three cutter teeth that slide along the rail
alternative to wood. The kinetic energy of a crash is ab- element and cut it into four relatively flat plates that are
sorbed by the head sliding along the rail element while subsequently bent out of the path of the impacting ve-
bending it in a manner similar to the SKT-350, discussed hicle. A quick release cable attachment is used which al-
in Section 8.2.11. The flattened rail exits the head on the lows the W-beam to feed into the impact head during end-
traffic side and coils into a tight loop. For downstream on impacts. This cable provides anchorage for downstream

FIGURE 8.13 Flared Energy-AbsorbingTerminal (FLEAT)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
. .
FIGURE 8.14 Beam Eating Steel Terminal (BEST)
8-12
Burrier End Treatments und Crash Cushions
FIGURE 8.15 Extruder Terminal (ET-2000)
impacts. Redirection begins 3.81 m [ 12 ft 6 in.] from the W-beam is fed through the squeezing section, which re-
end of the terminal (at the third post). No flare is required shapes the rail into a flat plate; then the bending section
for this end treatment. However, to position the impact bends the rail around a small radius and directs it out to
head entirely outside the shoulder, a 150 flare may be the side, away from the vehicle. A quick release cable
desirable. The BEST has been successfully tested to attachment is used, which allows the W-beam to feed into
NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. the extruder during end-on impacts. This cable provides
Typical layouts for grading around the BEST are shown anchorage for downstream impacts. Redirection begins
in Figure 8.2. 3.81 m [12 ft 6 in.] from the end of the terminal (at the third
post).
No flare is required for this end treatment. However, to
8.2.1 O Extruder Terminal (ET-2000) position the impact head entirely outside the shoulder, a
150 flare may be desirable. The ET-2000 has been suc-
The ET-2000 is a proprietary energy-absorbing end treat- cessfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. Originally
ment, which consists of an extruder head installed over designed with breakaway timber posts, the ET-2000 has
the end of a standard W-beam guardrail element. The ki- also been accepted for use with hinged breakaway steel
netic energy of a crash is absorbed by the head sliding posts. An alternate extruder head design, which weighs
a!ong the rai! element whik f~tterringit 5mb hendinoD it -- sihstantially less than the standard head and has been
away from the traffic. The extruder head is made up of two successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3, is also
sections, a squeezing section and a bending section. available and is shown in Figure 8.15. Typical layouts for
When the terminal is impacted end-on, the crash energy is grading around the ET-2000 are shown in Figure 8.2.
dissipated as the extruder head travels along the rail. The
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
8-13
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.16 Sequential Kinking Terminal (SKT-350)
8.2.1 I Sequential Kinking Terminal been accepted for use with breakaway steel posts as an
(SKT-350) alternative to timber posts.
Typical layouts for grading around the SKT-350 are
The SKT-350 is a proprietary energy-absorbingend treat- shown in Figure 8.2.
ment that consists of an impact head mounted over the
end of a W-beam guardrail element that has been modi-
fied by punching three slots in the valley of the rail at 8.2.1 2 QuadTrend-350
specific locations. The impact head being forced rearward,
bending the W-beam rail element against the deflector The QuadTrend-350 is a proprietary, unidirectional, gat-
plate, absorbs the kinetic energy of a crash, which, in ing barrier end treatment designed and tested for direct
conjunction with a kinker beam in the head, causes short attachment to a vertical concrete barrier or to a vertical
segments of the rail to kink sequentially and bend away concrete bridge parapet without additional transition
from the impacting vehicle. A cable anchorage system is guardrail sections. It has been successfully tested to
provided to develop the tensile strength of the rail for NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. A concrete pad is required. The
downstream impacts. Redirection begins 3.81 m [12 ft 6 sand-filled, energy-absorbing containers in this system
in.] from the end of the terminal (at the third post). are sacrificialand must be replaced following impact. Many
No flare is required for this end treatment, but some of the other parts of the system can be reused. The
offset is recommended to locate the edge of the impact QuadTrend-350 is shown in Figure 8.17. Grading around
head farther from the traveled way. This terminal is shown the QuadTrend-350 should conform to the recommended
in Figure 8.16. The SKT-350 has been successfully tested grading for non-flared gating terminals as shown in Fig-
to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. Like the ET-2000, it also has ure 8.2.
8-14
FIGURE 8.17 QuadTrend-350
8.2.1 3 Narrow Energy-Absorbing Terminal roadside features that preclude the use of one of the tested
(NEAT) end treatments. Other applications include locations where
the barrier is flared out beyond the clear zone or where
The NEAT is a proprietary, narrow, non-redirective, en- end-on impacts are not likely to occur. Recommended
ergy-absorbing terminal that has met the crash test crite- length of the taper is 6 m [20 ft] with 9 m to 12 m 130 ft to
ria of NCHRP Report 350, TL-2. It is intended to shield the 40 ft] desirable. The height of the end of the taper should
approach end of portable concrete safety-shaped barrier be no greater than 100 mm [4 in.]. Figure 8.19 shows a
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
or the Quickchange@Moveable Barrier System. The NEAT typical tapered end treatment on a concrete barrier.
has a mass of 130 kg [286 lbs] and consists of a 570 mm
[22in.] wide by 810mm [32 in.] high by 2957 mm [9 ft 8 in.]
long aluminum cartridge. Back-up attachments have been 8.3 CRASH CUSHIONS
designed to attach the NEAT to the concrete safety shape
or to the Quickchange System@.The NEAT is shown in Crash cushions or impact attenuators are protective de-
Figure8.18. vices that prevent errant vehicles from impacting fixed
objects. This function is accomplished by gradually de-
celerating a vehicle to a safe stop for head-on impacts or,
8.2.1 4 Sloped Concrete End Treatment in most insiances, by redirectiiig a vehicle away from the
object for side impacts. Crash cushions are ideally suited
It is often appropriate to terminate a concrete barrier by for use at locations where fixed objects cannot be removed,
tapering the end, although this end treatment has not met relocated, or made breakaway, and cannot be adequately
the crash testing criteria of NCHRP Report 350. This treat- sheIded by a IongitudinaI barrier.
ment should only be used in locations where the traffic Fixed objects that generally require shielding when lo-
speeds are low, 60 kmh [40 mph] or less, and space is cated within the designated clear zone for a specific high-
limited by right-of-way constraints or presence of other way are listed in Table 5.1 in Chapter 5. Some of these
8-15
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.18 Narrow Energy-Absorbing Terminal (NEAT)
FIGURE 8.19 Sloped concrete end treatment
8-16
FIGURE 8.20 Crash cushion applications
objects can be shielded only with a crash cushion, but Another speciaI condition for which crash cushions
most can also be shielded with a properly designed longi- are applicable is the protection of construction and main-
tudinal barrier with crashworthy end terminals. A com- tenance personnel as well as motorists in work zones.
mon application of a crash cushion is in an exit ramp gore Portable and temporary crash cushions have been devel-
on an elevated or depressed structure where a bridge rail oped for use in such situations. In addition, several truck
end or a pier requires shielding. Crash cushions are also mounted attenuators (TMAs) are available for use in
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
frequently used to shield the ends of median barriers. Typi- construction and maintenance zones. These types of crash
cal applications are shown in Figure 8.20. cushions are discussed in detail in Chapter 9, Traffic Bar-
Long, steep downgrades on routes having high truck riers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Features for Work
traffic present a unique type of problem with regard to Zones.
highway safety. Loss of brakes on a vehicle on such a Crash cushions have proven to be an effective and
grade increases the potential for the vehicle to leave the safe means of shielding particular types of roadside ob-
roadway or impact other vehicles. Where such problems stacles that cannot be shielded by other methods. Their
occur, special consideration should be given to the instal- prudent use has saved numerous lives by reducing sever-
lation of a roadside deceleration device. One device that ity of crashes. Their relatively low cost and potentially
is commonly used is the gravel-bed attenuator. Some high safety payoff make them ideally suited for use at
states have iristalied s i d z systems w i h gmd :esu!ts, se!ected !ncatinns. Like other safety hardware, crash cush-
primarily to decelerate large vehicles safely. It should be ions primarily serve to lessen the severity of crashes rather
noted that NCHRP Report 350 does not include specific than to prevent them from occumng.
test criteria for large-vehicle attenuation devices, but be- This section briefly explains how crash cushions work
cause they all are designed to stop vehicles impacting and where their use may be warranted. Descriptions, de-
head on, a discussion of the gravel-bed attenuator and sign procedures, selection guidelines, and placement rec-
similar decelerationdevices is included in Sections 8.3.2.11 ommendations for systems that have been successfully
through 8.3.2.13. crash tested are also provided. Most operational crash
8-17
Y = speed
U
BACK-UP
rn =vehicle mass
STRUCTURE
KINETIC ENERGY =
OF VEHICLE
DEFORMATION
BEFORE IMPACT
v=o
ENERGY ABSORBED
BY CRASH CUSHION = FD
___o
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AFTER IMPACT
FIGURE 8.21 Kineticenergy principal
cushions are patented and have been carefully designed 8.3.1 .IKinetic Energy Principle
and tested by their manufacturers. Acceptable units can
be selected directly from the manufacturer?sdesign charts, The first concept of crash cushion design involves ab-
thus eliminating in most instances the need for case-by- sorption of the kinetic energy of a moving vehicle by
case design. ?crushable? or ?plastically deformable? materials or by
the use of hydraulic energy absorbers placed in front of
an obstacle. The crushing of the front end of the impact-
ing vehicle also dissipates some of the energy. This type
8.3.1 Concepts of system is generally referred to as a compression crash
cushion. Crash cushions of this type need a rigid back-up
A crash cushion?s major contribution to highway safety or support to resist the vehicle impact force that deforms
is its ability to absorb energy at a controlled rate, stop- the energy-absorbing material. Figure 8.21 illustrates this
ping an impacting vehicle in a relatively short distance principle applied to a compression-type crash cushion.
and in such a way that the potential for serious injury to There are currently no widely accepted methods to deter-
its occupants is reduced. Commonly used crash cushions mine the performance of this type of design without full-
generally employ one of two concepts to accomplish scale crash tests, although computer simulation is fre-
this task-absorption of kinetic energy or transfer of quently used to analyze new or modified designs prior to
momentum. crash testing.
8-18
8.3.1.2 Conservation of Momentum Principle 8.3.2.2 Brakemaster 350
The second concept of crash cushion design involves The Brakemaster 350, shown in Figure 8.23, is a propri-
the transfer of the momentum of a moving vehicle to an etary system design used primarily as a terminal for W-
expendable mass of material located in the vehicles path. beam median barrier or as a crash cushion to shield nar-
The expendable mass usually consists of containers filled row obstacles. It has successfully been tested to NCHRP
with sand. Devices of this type need no rigid back-up or Report 350, TL-3. If used to terminate a concrete median
support to resist the vehicle impact force since the kinetic barrier, an adequate transition design is needed between
energy of the vehicle is not absorbed, but transferred to the Brakemaster and the rigid concrete. It may also be
the other masses. This type of crash cushion is generally used to shield the end of a roadside barrier, but this appli-
referred to as an inertial barrier and is the only type of cation may not be as cost-effective as the use of a barrier
crash cushion whose design can be analytically deter- terminal. The manufacturer recommends its use in low-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
mined. The procedure for so doing is illustrated in Section frequency impact areas.
8.3.2.10 on Sand Barrels. The design of this terminal consists of an anchor as-
sembly, a cablebrake assembly, and W-beam panels sup-
ported by steel diaphragms that slide backward in end-on
8.3.2 Characteristics of Operational hits. Only the anchor posts are embedded in the ground.
Attenuation Systems When impacted end-on, the W-beam panels telescopeback
with the cablebrake assembly absorbing most of the en-
Table 8.2 summarizes the crash cushions that have been ergy through frictional resistance. The anchor assembly
successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-2 or TL-3, provides sufficient anchorage to redirect side-impacting
and are discussed in the following subsections. It should vehicles. The terminal provides bi-directional protection
be noted that some of these devices can be and have and does not need to be installed on a paved pad. Redi-
been used as roadside barrier terminals, but such use is rection for a side hit begins at the fourth post from the
generally not considered cost-effective. approach end.
8.3.2.1 Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension 8.3.2.3 Crash Cushion Attenuating Terminal
Module (ADIEM Il) (CAT)
The ADIEM II is a proprietary terminal that is designed The CAT, shown in Figure 8.24, is a proprietary, non-flared,
specifically to shield the end of a concrete safety-shape energy-absorbingattenuator commonly used to terminate
barrier. It has been successfully tested to NCHRP Report W-beam median barrier systems and as a crash cushion to
350, TL-3.The ADIEM II is shown in Figure 8.22. shield narrow fixed objects if an appropriate transition
The terminal consists of a 9.1 m [30 ft] long carrier beam design is used. Like the Brakemaster, it is sometimes used
or base structure constructed of standard concrete onto to shield a W-beam roadside barrier, but such usage re-
which are mounted ten interlocking perlite concrete quires a cable anchor at the downstream end so the CAT
crushable modules. The vehicle crushing the modules as will perForm as desired in an end-on impact. The CAT func-
it impacts the terminal dissipates energy. Perlite is an ex- tions as either a unidirectional or bi-directional device;
panded inert mineral soil filler normally used for soil aera- i.e., it can redirect vehicles striking its face from one side
tion. When perlite is substituted for the coarse aggregate or both sides. Redirection for a side hit begins at the fourth
in a concrete mix, the resulting material is extremely light- post from the approach end.
weight and crushable. Strength levels in the perlite con- The CAT is a three-stage system utilizing energy-ab-
crete are closely controlled to ensure that it falls within sorbing beam elements, breakaway wood posts, and a cable
acceptable levels to stop the vehicle within tolerable de- anchorage system. The beam element is a slotted W-beam
celeration limits. Some states have expressed concern that that telescopes backward during impact. The shearing of
when the protective coating on the modules is damaged, the steel rail between the slots as the sections are moved
&e perlite cuicetc cari be significant!y wedceaec! if it h x k dissipater the kinetic energy of a crash.
becomes wet. The manufacturer has since successfully
tested the ADIEM with a plastic cover intended to keep
the modules dry.
8-19
TABLE 8.2 Crashworthy crash cushions
NCHRP Report 350

System System Width System Length
Test Level
Advanced Dynamic impact Extension TL-3 0.7 m [2.3 ft] 9.1 m [30 ft]
Module (ADIEM II)
Brakemaster 350 TL-3 0.64 m [2.1 ft] 9.6 m [31.5 ft]
Crash Cushion Attenuating Terminal TL-3 0.7 m [2.3 ft] 9.5 m [31 ft]
[CAT)
~,
Bullnose Guardrail System TL-3 4.5 m t14.8 ft] 20 m [65 ft]

TL-2 0.6 m [2 ft] ' , 5.2 m [17 ft]
ABSORB 350 TL-3 0.6 m [2 ft] 9.7 m [32 ftl
TL-3 0.6 m [2 ft] 8.3 m [27 ft]
QuadGuard Family
-QuadGuard
3-bay unit TL-2 0.6 m [2 ft] 4.0 m [13 ft]
6-bay unit TL-3 0.76 m [2.5 ft] 6.74 m [22 ft]
- QuadGuard Wide
3-bay unit TL-2 up to 2.29 m [7.5 ft] 4.0 m [13 ft]
6-bay unit TL-3 up to 2.29 m [7.5 ftl 6.74 m [22 ft]
-QuadGuard LMC
i 1-bay unit TL-3 1.2 m [4 ft], 1.75 m [5.7 fi], or 10.16 m [33.33 ft]
-QuadGuard Elite 2.29 m [7.5 ft]
7-bay unit TL-2 0.6 m to 2.29 m [2 ft to 7.5 ft] 7.26 m [23.8 ft]
9-bay unit TL-3 0.6 m to 2.29 m [2 ft to 7.5 ft] 10.82 m [35.5 ft]
Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion 6.4 m [21 ft] plus

TL-3 0.8 m [2.6 ft]
(TRACC) 0.6 m [2 ft] back-up
Reusable Energy-Absorbing Crash
Terminal (REACT 350)
4-cylinder array TL-2 0.9 m [3 ft] 4.0 m [13.1 ft]
9-cylinder array TL-3 0.9 m [3 ft] 9.35 m [30.7 ft]
Narrow Connecticut impact
TL-3 0.9 m [3 ft] 7.3 m [24 ft]
Attenuation System (NCiAS)
Sand-Filled Barrels
(2-Column Array)
-Fitch TL-3 2.0 m [6.6 ft] Varies
- Energite TL-3 2.0 m [6.6 ft] Varies
-TraWix TL-3 2.0 m [6.6 ft] Varies
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Gravei Bed Attenuator NIA NIA NIA

Dragnet NIA NIA NIA
Water Twister Vehicle Arresting
System (VAS) NIA NIA NIA
8-20
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE8.22 Advanced Dynamic Impact ExtensionModuie (ADIEM ii)
FIGURE 8.23 Brakemaster 350
8-21
FIGURE 8.24 Crash Cushion AttenuatingTerminal (CAT)
8.3.2.4 Bullnose Guardrail System 8.3.2.5 ABSORB 350
One method for shielding objects in the median of a di- The ABSORB 350 is a proprietary,non-redirective, gating,
vided highway is to construct a guardrail envelope around crash cushion primarily designed to shield the ends of the
the object. This treatment is commonly referred to as a Quickchange@median barrier. This 0.6 m [2 ft] wide cush-
bullnose. There have been several designs constructed ion may also be used to shield the ends of temporary and
by highway agencies in the past that used W-beam guard- permanent concrete barriers in general or to shield narrow
rail. However, none of these systems has met the criteria fixed objects. The system is comprised of multiple water-
of NCHRP Report 350 and are no longer considered ac- filled, energy-absorbing elements, a nosepiece assembly,
ceptable for use on new and reconstruction projects. One and a transitionlattachment assembly. Three configura-
design that has met the requirements of TL-3 consists of tions are available: a nine-element system, 9.7 m [32 ft]
slotted thrie-beam panels mounted on breakaway posts long, has been approved to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 for
near the nose, followed by standard thrie-beam posts and shielding concrete barriers and fixed objects; an eight-
blocks toward the back of the system. Total length of the element system, 8.3 m [27 ft] long, for shielding the
system is about 20 m [65 ft]. Based on the distance the Quickchange@median barrier has been approved to
2000 kg [4,400 Ib] pickup truck intruded into the system in NCHRP Report 350, TL-3; and a five-element system,
the 100km/h [60 mph] end-on test, the leading edge of the 5.2 m [17 ft] long, has been approved to NCHRP Report
bullnose attenuator should be located a minimum distance 350, TL-2. The ABSORB 350 is shown in Figure 8.26.
of 19 m [62 ft] in advance of the shielded object. A set of
steel retention cables is mounted on the back of the thrie-
beam at the nose in order to contain vehicles in the event 8.3.2.6 QuadGuard Family
of rail fracture. Rail tension for length-of-need or down-
stream impacts is developed through cable anchors and The name QuadGuard refers to a family of proprietary,
struts. This system is non-proprietary. The bullnose guard- energy-absorbing, non-gating barrier end treatments and
rail system is shown in Figure 8.25. crash cushions that have similar design and performance
characteristics. The design consists of several types of
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
8-22
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE8.25 Bullnose guardrail system
FIGURE 8.26 ABSORB 350 crash cushion
8-23
h
-loadside Design Guide
FIGURE 8.27 QuadGuard
energy-absorbing cartridges supported by a framework tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. It can be used to shield
of steel diaphragms and Quad Beam corrugated steel fender rigid barriers or fixed objects 1.2 m [4 ft], 1.75 m [5.7 ft]. or
panels. All members of the family function by dissipating 2.29 m [7.5 ft] wide. A concrete pad and rigid back-up are
the kinetic energy of a crash by telescoping rearward and required. The energy absorbing components of this sys-
crushing the cartridges. Many parts of the various system are elastomeric cylinders that are reusable after most
tems are interchangeable. Following are brief descriptions design impacts. Refurbishment after an impact typically
of the individual systems that are included in this family. takes a two-man crew and minimum time to repair. The
The standard QuadGuard is designed to be used as an QuadGuard LMC is shown in Figure 8.28.
end treatment for a concrete barrier or relatively narrow The QuadGuard Elite is a self-restoring, bi-directional
fixed objects (760 mm [2 ft 6 in.]). It is bi-directional and end treatment designed for use at locations where a high
has been tested successfully to NCHRP Report 350, TL-2 frequency of impact is anticipated. It can be used to shield
(3-bay unit) and TL-3 (6-bay unit). A concrete pad and rigid barriers or fixed objects from 0.6 m [2 ft] to 2.29 m
rigid back-up are required. The cartridges on this system [7.5 ft] wide. A concrete pad and rigid back-up are re-
are sacrificial, i.e., they are destroyed and must be replaced quired. The energy absorbing components of this system
after an impact. The standard QuadGuard is shown in Fig- are high-density polyethylene cylinders that are reusable
ure 8.27. The QuadGuard-Wide is similar in design but can after most design impacts. The effort that is required from
be used to shield objects up to 2.29 m [7.5 ft] wide. maintenance crews to refurbish the system after an impact
The QuadGuard LMC (Low-Maintenance Cartridge) is is similar to that required for the QuadGuard LMC system
a self-restoring, bi-directional end treatment designed for discussed previously. The QuadGuard Elite is shown in
use at locations where a moderately high frequency of Figure 8.29. The 11-bay unit has been successfully tested
impacts is anticipated. An 11-bay unit was successfully to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 and the 7-bay unit to TL-2.
8-24 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

-~
Barrier End Treutments and Crash Cusliioizs
8.3.2.8 Reusable Energy-AbsorbingCrash

Terminal (REACT 350)
The REACT 350, shown in Figure 8.31, is a proprietary,

energy-absorbing end treatment that consists of a single
row of 0.9 m [3 ft] diameter, high-density, polyethylene
cylinders atop steel skid rails; a restraining cable system
consisting of two heavy steel wire rope assemblies along
each side; a front and rear anchorage system; transition
hardware; and a back-up assembly. A nine-cylinder array
has been successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3
and a four-cylinder design to TL-2. The system may be
used on either a concrete or an asphalt surface if anchored
in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations.
The polyethylene cylinders absorb the kinetic energy of
frontal impacts as they slide rearward on the steel railing
(they are self-restoring in many cases), while the steel
cables redirect vehicles in side impacts.
A wide REACT was also tested successfully to NCHRP
Report 350, TL-3. This design consists of two parallel col-
umns of 0.6 m [2 ft] diameter cylinders attached to steel
diaphragms mounted on an anchored monorail, which pro-
vides redirection for side impacts. It can be used to shield
fixed objects up to 1.5m [5 ft].
8.4.2.9 Narrow Connecticut Impact

Attenuation System (NCIAS)
The NCIAS, shown in Figure 8.32, is a non-proprietary, bi-

directional, energy-absorbing crash cushion that consists
FIGURE 8.28 QuardGuard LMC of eight steel cylinders in a single row with two anchored
wire tension cables along each side. The cylinders are
0.9 m [3 ft] in diameter and 1.2 m [4 ft] high. The crushing
of the cylinders absorbs the kinetic energy of an end-on
crash. The tension cables keep the cylinders in place and
8.3.2.7 Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion provide redirection to vehicles impacting the sides of the
(TRACC) system. The last four cylinders are reinforced with pipe
stiffeners and retainers to help redirect vehicles hitting
The TRACC is a proprietary, energy-absorbing end treat- close to the rear of the unit. The NCIAS has been suc-
ment that consists of a pair of guidance tracks, an impact cessfully tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. It is recom-
sled, intermediate steel frames, and W-beam fender pan- mended for use at locations where shielding of narrow
els. A concrete pad and rigid back-up are required. The objects is needed and reverse direction impacts are un-
sled, or impact face, contains a hardened steel blade that iikely.
absorbs the kinetic energy of an end-on impact by cutting
the metal plates on the sides of the guidance tracks as it is
forced backwards. The intermediate frames support the 8.3.2.10 Sand-Filled Plastic Barrels
W-beam fender panel and are free to slide backwards on
an end impact, but on a side impact they lock onto the Sand-filled piastic barreis, sometimes called inertid crash
guidance tracks to redirect the impacting vehicle. The cushions or inertial barriers, are often used in both tempo-
TRACC is shown in Figure 8.30. It has been successfully rary and permanent installations to shield the ends of lon-
tested to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. gitudinal barriers or other fixed objects.
8-25
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

FIGURE 8.29 QuadGuard Elite
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.30 Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion (TRACC)
8-26
FIGURE 8.31 Reusable Energy-AbsorbingCrash Terminal (REACT 350)

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.32 Narrow Connecticut Impact Attenuation System (NCAIS)

8-27
VO= INITIAL SPEED

4
OBSTACLE
o VEHICLE
MOMENTUM OF VEHICLE
AND 1st MASS IMPACTED = MV
,o
BEFORE IMPACT
Ml ASSUMES VEHICLE SPEED V
o
OBSTACLE
/ ?
MOMENTUM OF VEHICLE
AND 1st MASS IMPACTED = (Mv+Ml)V,
AFTER IMPACT
MOMENTUM BEFORE IMPACT = MOMENTUM AFTER IMPACT
M,Vo = (M, + M,)Vl

Vi = M,Vol(M + Mi)
FIGURE 8.33 Conservation of momentum principal
Inertial systems are designed on the principle of con- Where:

servation of momentum, as noted in Section 8.3.1.2. Spe-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
cifically, sand-filled plastic barrels dissipate the kinetic M, = Mass of vehicle (kilograms or pounds)
energy of an impacting vehicle by transferring the vehicle's v, = Original Impact Velocity (meterdsecond or
momentum to the variable masses of sand in the barrels feetlsecond)
that are hit. Standard module masses are 90 kg [200lb], 180 Mi = Mass of sand (kilograms or pounds) in first
kg [400 lb], 320 kg [700 lb], 640 kg [1,400 lb], and 960 kg barrel(s)
[2,100 lb]. No back-up structure or wall is required for v, = Velocity (meters/second or feedsecond)
these bamers since the force that a vehicle exerts on the after first impact
individual modules is not transmitted through the cush-
ion.
Figure 8.33 illustrates the conservation of momentum Applying the conservation of momentum concept, the
principle applied to a vehicle impacting a series of five vehicle speed after its first impact is:
masses or containers filled with sand. The combined mo-
mentum of the vehicle and the sand after impact must be V1= M,V, / (M,+ MI)
equal to the momentum of the vehicle just prior to impact.
Momentum is equal to the mass of a body multiplied by its This speed is then used as the initial speed as the ve-
velocity so: hicle strikes the second row of sand barrels. The final
speed after the nth impact (Vn)will be:
V, = M,V,.I / (M, + M,)
8-28
Barrier End Treatments und Crush Cushions
FIGURE 8.34 The Fitch System
Where: and have generally performed successfully for many years.

The standard module masses provide adequate flexibility
M, = The mass of sand in the nth container(s) in the shape, depth, and width of a crash cushion array so
that virtually any type or shape of fixed object can be
Theoretically,the vehicle cannot be stopped completely shielded. Trial layouts are checked to ensure acceptable
by this principle. Practically, it is usually adequate to de- or tolerable deceleration limits for both 820 kg [1,800 lb]
sign this type of crash cushion to reduce the vehicle ve- and 2000 kg 14,500 lb] test vehicles. Example design proce-
locity to about 15 km/h [IO mph] after the last module has dures and calculations are shown in Table 8.3.
been impacted. The remaining energy is imparted to the None of the systems is designed to redirect vehicles
sand as the vehicle bulldozes through the modules. for side impacts; consequently, modules near the rear of
Although not required, some manufacturers recommend the array must be carefully placed to minimize the ikeli-
the placement of one additional row of heavy modules hood of a motorist striking the comer of the obstacle be-
beyond the point where the vehicle velocity is reduced ing shielded. Figure 8.37 shows a suggested layout for
below 15 km/h [lOinph]. the last three exterior modules in an inertial barrier. While
There are presently three types of these inertial crash this arrangement will not accommodate all side impacts at
cushion systems as shown in Figures 8.34,8.35 and 8.36. recommended decelerationlevels, it may be an acceptable
These systems, the Fitch, the Energite, and the TrafFix, compromise at sites where rear corner impacts are likely to
are patented. Although there are differences in the parts be rare.
that comprise the individual modules of each system, the Although the design procedure for inertial barriers is
overall size and mass of the modules of these systems are relatively straightforward,the manufacturers of currently
so similar that the modules can be intermixed in the same operational systems have developed design charts that
array without affecting the performance of the crash cush- can be used to select a layout or to check a design for
ion. All of the inertial systems have been extensively tested adequacy.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
8-29
Roads
-,ide Design Guide
FIGURE 8.35 The Energite System
FIGURE 8.36 The TrafFix System
8-30 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

TABLE 8.3 Sample design calculation for a sand-filled barrel system
Direction
v
of Travei
Mass of Barrel #1 = 90 kg [200 Ib]

Mass of Barrel #2 = 180 kg [400Ib]
1O00 mm
Mass of Barrel #3 = 320 kg [700Ib] [3'-O"]
Mass of Barrel #4 = 640 kg [1400 Ib]
Design Velocity = 1O0 km/h (27.8m/s) [60mph (88.0ftls)]
r 820 kg Vehicle
~
2000 kg Vehicle
~
I
Mv = mass of vehicle
V, = original velocity
26.6 I 25.4 I 3.03 I 0.038 I MI = mass of container
25.4 23.3 5.22 0.041 VI = velocity of vehicle
23.3 20.1 7.13 0.046 after impacting one
20.1 I 15.2 I 8.79 I 0.057 I row of containers
a=-
v,' - v;
2D
3.5" 1.03 0.219
D = deceleration distance
a = deceleration rate
I 1,800 Ib Vehicle I 4,400 lb Vehicle I
Mi [lbl Vo [ftk] Vi [WS] G t [SI Vo [ ~ V S ]Vi [WS] G t [SI G=!
g
200 88.0 79.2 7.62 0.036 88.0 84.3 3.34 0.035
g = acceleration of gravity
200 79.2 71.3 6.17 0.040 84.3 25.5 3.06 0.036 G = deceleration force
400 71.3 58.3 8.69 0.046 80.7 74.1 5.27 0.039
700 58.3 42.0 8.48 0.060 74.1 64.1 7.13 0.043 t =-VO -Y
. 14W 42.0 23.6 6.24 0.091 64.1 48.9 8.90 0.053 a
23.6 9.2 2.45 0,183 48.9 30.1 7.67 0.076 t = timeof event (seconds)
2800
2800 30.1 18.6 2.92 0.123
2800 I I 18.6 I 11.5" I 1.11 I 0.200 1
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8-31
Direction of Traffic
+
FIGURE 8.37 Suggested layout for the last three exterior modules in an inertial barrier
The manufacturers have also developed standard ar- the sand may freeze. Testing has shown that frozen sand
rays that can be used for specific types of fixed objects as reduces the safety performance of inertial barriers to some
well as design charts that may be used to analyze a par- degree and produces large blocks of frozen sand that can
ticular layout. More detailed information can be obtained be thrown up to 20 m [65 ft] during an impact. Mixing a
directly from the manufacturers. Sand barrel modules percentage (by volume) of rock salt with the sand will
should be set as far from the traveled way as possible to prevent wet sand from freezing under most conditions.
minimize the number of brush or nuisance hits. However, This percentage may range from 5 to 25 percent depend-
the width of the last row of modules should always be ing on the climate. Each highway agency should deter-
greater than the width of the shielded object as suggested mine through experience the portions that produce satis-
in Figure 8.37. This configuration will soften the impact of factory results. The use of pea gravel may also be consid-
those vehicles striking the rear portion of the crash cush- ered since this material will drain well and is less likely to
ion at an angle and provide some deceleration prior to the freeze than wet sand.
vehicle reaching the fixed object. In the past, some agencies have filled the sand barrels
There is some risk inherent in using the 960 kg with sacked sand to facilitate cleanup after an impact.
[2,100lb] module at the rear of the array if this module will However, crash tests demonstrated acceptable perfor-
be the first (or only) one struck in a comer impact, particu- mance with a 2000 kg [4,500 lb] passenger car, but higher
larly by a low-mass vehicle. If space permits, extra rows of than desirable occupant deceleration levels with an
lighter modules may be placed alongside the array to make 820 kg [ 1,800lb] passenger car, plus some passenger com-
it softer for rear-comer, angle impacts. Also, space should partment intrusion. Thus, the use of sacked sand is no
be left behind the last row of modules so sand and debris longer considered acceptable.
will not be confined to produce a ramping effect on a ve-
hicle. Approximately 0.5 m [ 18 in.] is the recommended
minimum space requirement. 8.3.2.1 IGravel-Bed Attenuator
The sand barrels have been sized to hold a standard
mass [weight] based on a sand density of 1600 kg/m3 All of the previously identified crash cushions are de-
[lo0 lb/ft31.Moisture content of the loose sand should be signed for use in safely stopping and/or redirecting pas-
three percent or less and clean sand should be used to senger cars and pickup trucks. They are not applicable to
minimize caking. A significant variation in the density of large vehicles. Although an impact attenuator capable of
the sand could have some effect on the performance of safely decelerating trucks or buses may be desirable, the
the crash cushion. The designer using the design proce- space required to dissipate the kinetic energy and gradu-
dures already described can readily check this effect. ally decelerate large vehicles is excessive for most high-
If the sand contains a high enough moisture content way applications. However, one velocity-attenuating de-
and temperatures remain below freezing for several days, sign suitable for trucks is a gravel-bed attenuator. This
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
8-32
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 8.38 Dragnet
design feature is most typically used on truck escape ramps with a longitudinal barrier to shield the opening between
along descending highway grades where runaway vehicles twin bridges. The Dragnet has also been used in series to
have been or are likely to be a problem. stop large vehicles where space limitations do not permit
Detailed design guidelines for this type of vehicle at- the use of a gravel arrester bed. Such a system safely
tenuating feature are contained in the AASHTO publica- stopped a 22700 kg [50,000lb] tractor-trailer impacting at
tion, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 90 degrees and 80 km/h [50 mph]. Since the Dragnet is
Streets (3). designed to deflect significantly, it can be used effectively
only at locations where a clear area exists behind it. Be-
cause the Dragnet produces low deceleration rates, very
8.3.2.12 Dragnet little damage is done to impacting vehicles and serious
injuries to vehicle occupants are unlikely.
The Dragnet or chain link fence vehicle attenuator is a
proprietary device. Designed to stop a 2000 kg [4,500 lb]
passenger car impacting head-on at 100 km/h [60 mph], 8.3.2.1 3 Water Twister Vehicle Arresting
the Dragnet consists of anchor posts, energy-absorbing System (VAS)
reels of steel tape, and a net assembly. The Dragnet is
shown in Figure 8.38. When impacted, the chain-link fence The Water Twister Vehicle Arresting System (VAS) con-
wraps around Lhe Iron1 of lhe impacting vehicle and the sists of a chain-link restraining net connected to two en-
kinetic energy ~f the cur is ubsmbec! us the meta! tape is ergy-ahrorhing hase units by nylon s t r a p As an impact-
pulled through a series of rollers in its casing. The. system ing vehicle displaces the net. the nylon straps turn shafts
is repaired by replacing the steel tape in the casings and connected to turbine rotors inside the base units, forcing
resetting the chain-link fence and cable. the blades through a watedethylene glycol solution. The
This type of attenuator may be considered at locations kinetic energy of the crash is dissipated by the turbine/
where impacts are expected to be head-on and the results fluid interaction.
of vehicle penetration are severe. Typical locations might Special consideration should be given to the base units
be for temporary road and ramp closures or in conjunction because they are substantial structures, being comprised
8-33
of a steel base unit bolted to a concrete foundation. It may look at the various available systems that will adequately
be necessary to shield these base units in order to pre- shield the obstacle and determine the space requirements
vent errant motorists from striking them. from the manufacturers specifications.
The designer should be aware that site conditions
might dictate the type of attenuator needed. For example,
8.4 SELECTION GUIDELINES fixed objects such as barrier ends, which are less than 1 m
[3 ft] wide should be shielded by a narrow crash cushion.
The number and complexity of factors that enter the selec- Similarly, wide obstacles, such as those greater than 5 m
tion process for crash cushions preclude the develop- [ 16 ft], can be effectively shielded by sand barrel arrays.
ment of a simple selection procedure. Each operational
system has its own unique physical and functional char-
acteristics. In some cases, one crash cushion will stand 8.4.2 Structural and Safety
out as the most appropriate, but in most instances two or Characteristics
more types of impact attenuators will provide satisfactory
protection to an errant motorist, and the designer must When more than one system is under consideration, the
choose between them. Once a decision has been made designer should carefully evaluate the structural and
that a roadside feature warrants shielding and that a crash safety characteristics of each candidate system. These
cushion is the best way to shield it, the designer should include such factors as impact decelerations, redirection
consider the following factors before making a final selec- capabilities, anchorage and back-up structure require-
tion: ments, and debris produced by impact.
All of the systems described in this chapter as meeting
site characteristics, NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 evaluation criteria have the ca-
pability to stop compact cars and pickup trucks impacting
8 structural and safety characteristics of candidate head-on at 100 km/h [60 mph] within tolerable decelera-
systems, tion levels, and to redirect or contain those vehicles im-
pacting on the sides of the units.
cost, and Most systems described in Section 8.3.2 may also be
designed to accommodate lesser impact speeds where site
maintenance characteristics. and operational conditions permit. It should also be noted
that additionallower mass sand barrel modules could some-
Each of these factors is discussed in the following sub- times be added to an array to reduce the expected decel-
sections. eration forces to lower levels. This is especially true when
the shielded object is well off the roadway and the addi-
tional modules do not significantly reduce a motorists
8.4.1 Site Characteristics ability to avoid a crash.
During the preliminary design stages for new construc-

tion and for rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing 8.4.3 Costs
highways, the need for and space requirements of crash
cushions to shield non-removable fixed objects should be Cost considerations should include initial material costs,
considered. This will ensure compatibility between the site preparation costs, installation costs, maintenance
final design and the crash cushion that is to be installed. costs, and repair or replacement costs. Site preparation
Table 8.4 suggests the area that should be made available costs can be significant to accommodate certain systems.
for crash cushion installation. Although it depicts a gore At locations where frequent hits are expected, life-cycle
location, the same recommendations will generally apply costs for repairing or replacing an attenuator system may
to other types of fixed objects that require shielding. The also become a significant factor in the selection process.
unrestricted conditions represent the minimum dimensions
for all locations except for those sites where it can be
demonstrated that the increased costs for obtaining these 8.4.4 Maintenance Characteristics
dimensions (as opposed to those for restricted conditions)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
will be unreasonable. The preferred condition dimensions Frequently, the most appropriate attenuator will still not
should be considered optimum. The information provided be evident after analyzing site requirements, operational
in this table is generic and may not be adequate for some characteristics, and the initial costs of candidate systems.
systems. Therefore, it is recommended that the designer The maintenance characteristics of each attenuator will,
a-34
TABLE 8.4 Reserve areas for gores
Crash Cushion reserde area.
Traffic -
1 Face of rail or parapet
F 12 (min.)
shoulder 1 7
End of rail or eauivalent fixed obiect
12 (min.)
* No curbs, raised pavement, or

prows to be built or to remain
in the area surrounding or
occupied by lhe crash cushion
130 11 1 1.5 1
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
in many cases, play an important role in the selection pro- should document this information so it is available to the
cess. Pertinent maintenance characteristics of each crash deisigner.
cushion are summarized in Tablc 8.5. This information is Maintenance characteristics can conveniently be cat-
h2red pBmai!y ^fi SGhjPCtiVP Pval?aTlnns. Where avail- egnrized as regular (or mutine) maintenance, crash main-
able, individual agency maintenance records should be tenance, and material storage requirements. Each of these
used to establish costs associated with the types of crash categories is discussed in the following paragraphs.
cushions in actual use. Although the information in Table Most systems described in this chapter require rela-
8.5 will permit a designer to compare the relative mainte- tively little regular or routine maintenance. However, it is
nance characteristics of candidate systems, there is no important that periodic maintenance checks are performed
substitute for knowing the actual maintenance require- and recorded to ensure that each installed unit remains
ments and costs for in-service installations. Each agency fully functional. If a crash cushion is located in an area
8-35
TABLE 8.5 Comparative maintenance requirements
System Regular Maintenance Crash Repair Material Storage

ADIEM Ii Can be inspected on a drive-by. Damaged concrete modules must be Replacement concrete modules,
replaced. Damaged covers should covers, and other parts per the
also be replaced. Most other parts manufacturer'srecommendation.
are normally reusable.
Brakemaster Can be inspected on a drive-by. Most above-ground components Braking mechanisms, fender panels,
Should be inspected on-site can be damaged and need diaphragms, etc., per manufacturer's
periodically. replacement. recommendations.
CAT Can be inspected on a drive-by, Nose, rail elements, and wood posts Rail elements and wood posts.
except for cable tension which must be replaced. Foundation tubes
should be checked periodically. are normally reusable.
Bullnose Guardrail Can be inspected on a drive-by. Rail elements and posts must be Slotted thrie-beam rail elements and
System Cable tension should be checked replaced. Cables and foundation wood posts.
periodically. tubes are normally reusable.
ABSORB 350 Can normally be inspected on a Nose-piece and damaged energy- Replacement nosepiece, energy-
drive-by. Periodic on-site absorbing elements must be absorbing elements, and fluid
inspections should be performed to replaced. supply. Other parts per
be certain that all parts are properly manufacturer'srecommendation.
connected.
QuadGuard Can normally be inspected on a Nose, expended cartridges, and Spare cartridges, nose units, fender
drive-by; missing or displaced damaged fender panels must be panels, and other parts per
cartridges can be readily noted. replaced. Unit must be repositioned. manufacturer's recommendation.
Should be periodically inspected
on-site to be certain that ali parts
are properly connected.
QuadGuard LMC Can normally be inspected on a Most of unit is reusable after a Fender panels and other
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
and Elite drive-by. Periodic on-site crash. Unit must be repositioned. replacement parts per
inspections should be performed to manufacturer's recommendation.
be certain that all parts are properly
connected.
TRACC Can normally be inspected on a The rip plates require replacement. Replacement rip plates, nose
drive-by. Periodic on-site Since these elements are located at sections, fender panels, and other
inspections should be performed to the base of the unit, extensive replacement parts per
be certain that all parts are properly disassembly is required. The nose manufacturer's recommedation.
connected. and fender panels may also need
replacement.
REACT 350 Can be inspected on a drive-by. The system is considered fully Spare parts per manufacturer's
reusable. Repositioning is normally recommendation.
ali that is required after an impact.
NCiAS Can be inspected on a drive-by. Crushed units must be removed Spare cylinders to replace badly
from site; minor damage can be damaged units.
repaired on-site by jacking.
Sand-Filled Barrels Can be inspected on a'dnve-by for Individual sand barrels must be Spare barreis, sand support inserts,
external damage. if lids are not replaced after a crash; units and lids; supply of sand.
riveted on, sand content should be damaged by nuisance hits must also
checked periodically. be replaced. Debris must be
removed from the site.
8-36
that is accessibleto pedestrians, vandalism may be a prob- if the presence of a curb or a slope is likely to affect the
lem. Some cracking problems have occurred in the past performance of the unit, and if so, appropriate modifica-
with the plastic containers used in the inertial systems. tions should be made when major roadway rehabilitation
These problems have been attributed in part to vibration occurs. In general, a curb no higher than 100 mm [4 in.]
(when the sand barrels were located on structures), to may be considered acceptable on existing construction
calcium chloride (when mixed with sand to prevent freez- and left in place unless it has contributed to poor attenu-
ing), and to design problems with the seams of some first- ator performance in the past.
generation modules. It appears that these problems have The surface on which a crash cushion is installed
been solved through improved designs. should be smooth, flat, and compacted. All of the energy-
Crash maintenance characteristicsdemand special con- absorbing attenuators must be placed on a hard, smooth
sideration since they may require the most effort and ex- pad or surface (usually concrete) to enable the unit to
penditure over the life of an installation. If a particular site compress uniformly during an impact. In the case of iner-
has a relatively high frequency of crashes, the use of a tial crash cushions, a paved surface, although not required,
crash cushion having some degree of reusability is rec- provides uniform support for the sand barrels and, per-
ommended. Similarly, if nuisance hits are relatively com- haps more importantly, provides a surface on which the
mon, an attenuator with redirection capability should re- pattern of the array and the required masses of the mod-
duce or eliminate the maintenance effort required for mi- ules can be marked. This information must be readily avail-
nor repairs or partial replacement of a system. able to maintenance personnel if a damaged or destroyed
The availability of the replacement parts needed to re- array is to be restored to its original capacity.
store a damaged crash cushion to its original capacity is If a crash cushion is installed on a structure, the loca-
closely associated with repair time and cost. Thus, the tion of expansionjoints may dictate the type of attenuator
type and amount of spare parts that must be on hand or to use or require some modifications to the standard de-
quickly obtainable to repair each type of crash cushion in sign. Non-anchored units such as sand barrels may be
use by an agency may play an important role in the final susceptible to vibration-induced movement.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
selection process. The fewer different types of attenua- Climatic conditions in a particular area should also be
tors used by an agency, the easier it becomes to establish considered because some impact attenuators are affected
and maintain an adequate inventory of replacement parts. by above or below average temperatures and may also be
Ideally, permanent repairs should be made very quickly. If more susceptible to inadvertent damage caused by snow
this cannot be done, appropriate temporary measures removal operations. Characteristics of specific impact at-
should be taken to afford a reasonable level of protection tenuation systems are addressed under the sections on
or delineation until the original crash cushion can be re- each system.
stored.
8.6 DELINEATION
Crash cushions and barrier end treatments are not intended

Most crash cushions and end treatments were designed to reduce the frequency of crashes but to lessen their
and tested on flat, level terrain. Consequently, a system severity. Nevertheless, if a particular installation is struck
that is installed on or behind certain terrain conditions frequently, it is important to determine why the crashes
may perform unpredictably at best and ineffectively at are occurring. Frequently, improved signing, pavement
worse. It is highly desirable that crash cushions and end markings, or delineation may result in fewer crashes. In
treatments be placed on a relatively flat surface and that this regard, conspicuous, well-delineated crash cushions
the path between the roadway and the attenuator be clear and end terminals are significantly less likely to be hit
of any obstructions or irregularities. For optimal perfor- than those that blend into the background, especially at
mance of any system, an impacting vehicle should strike night or during inclement weather. If a system is not re-
the unit at normal height, with the vehicles suspension flective, standard object markers make it more conspicu-
system neither compressed nor extended. ous at night and under conditions of reduced visibility.
Two prominent features with which the designer must
often contend are roadside curbs and slopes. As noted in
Chapter 3, both of these features can cause an impacting REFERENCES
vehicle to become airborne and reach undesirable roll and
pitch angles. For new construction, curbs should not be 1. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, and R. A. Zimmer.
built where crash cushions are to be installed. Existing National Cooperative Highway Research Re-
crash cushion locations should be reviewed to determine port 350: Recommended Procedures for the
a-37

tures. Transportation ResearchBoard, Washing-
ton,DC, 1993.
AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA.A Guide to Stundard-

ized Highway Barrier Hardware. Washington,
DC, 1995.
AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of

Highways ana' Streets. Washington, DC, 2001.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
8-38
Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and
Other Safety Features for Work Zones
9.0 OVERVIEW 25 mph] faster on freeways when temporary 60 kmfh [40

mph] zones are established.
This chapter describes the safety, functional, and struc-
tural aspects of traffic barriers; traffic control devices;
and safety features used in work zones; and provides 9.1 THE CLEAR-ZONE CONCEPT IN WORK
guidance on their application. ZONES
The AASHTO Summar)]Report on Wrk Zone Acci-
dents (1) contains several conclusions: (i) crashes that The forgiving roadside concept as promoted in earlier
occur in work zones are generally more severe, producing chapters should also be applied to all work zones as ap-
more injuries and fatalities than the national average for propriate for the type of work being done and to the extent
all crashes; ( 2 ) fixed-object crashes in both rural and ur- existing roadside conditions allow. This includes provid-
ban areas more frequently result in injuries and fatalities ing a clear recovery area for longer term projects and us-
than vehicle-to-vehicle crashes; and (3 j about half of all ing traffic control devices and safety appurtenances that
work-zone, fixed-object crashes occur in darkness. Trac- are crashworthy or shielded.
tor-trailer injury and fatality crashes in work zones are Additionally, work zones should be developed to pro-
considerably higher than the national average for other vide a safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
types of crashes involving these vehicles. highway workers. This could mean providing safe path-
Previous chapters in this Guide provide safety perfor- ways where pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed to
mance criteria for all types of safety features. Where war- traverse the work zone by shielding adjacent excavations
ranted, this chapter adapts those criteria as necessary for or other unsafe areas.
application to work zones.
This chapter is not a stand-alone document on work-
zone safety, but must be used in conjunction with traffic 9.1.1 Application of the Clear-Zone
control guidance. The Munual on Uniform Truffic Con- Concept in Work Zones
trol Devices (MUTCD) (2), Part VI, establishes the prin-
ciples to be observed in the design, installation, and main- The work-zone clear zone is the unobstructed relatively
tenance of traffic control devices in work zones and pre- flat area impacted by construction that extends outward
scribes standards where possible. These principles and from the edge of the traveled way. Because of the limited
standards are aimed at the safe and efficient movement of horizontal clearance available and the heightened aware-
traffic through work zones and the safety of the workers. ness of motorists through work zones, the clear-zone re-
The design and selection of work-zone safety features quirements are less than the before-construction condi-
should be based on expected operating speeds and prox- tion. The amount of available clear zone in a work zone
imity of vehicles to workers and pedestrians. Actual oper- affects the decision to delineate or shield exposed haz-
ating speeds may be considerably higher than posted ards such as Portable Concrete Barrier (PCB) ends, fixed
speed limits and as much as 30 km/h to 40 km/h [20 mph to objects, steep slopes, or drop-offs.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
41
TABLE 9.1 Example of clear-zone widths for work zones
Speed (km/h) Widths (m) Speed [mph] Widths [fi]

100 - 110 9 [60 - 701 ~301
90 7 i551 ~ 3 1
70 - 80 5 [45 - 501 U61
50 - 60 4 [30 - 401 1131
Engineering judgment must be used in applying the zones. However, improper use of temporary trafic barriers
clear zone to work zones. Depending on site restric- can provide a false sense of security for both the motorist
tions, it may only be feasible to provide an operational and the worker. Therefore, care must be taken in their de-
clearance. Some designers determine the width of a work- sign, installation, and maintenance. The PCB is the option
zone clear zone on a project-by-projectbasis, considering preferred by most state transportation agencies. Several
trafic speeds, volumes, roadway geornetrics, available other temporary traffic barrier designs are also available
right-of-waywidth, and duration of work. Others, for ease that may be appropriate for work-zone applications. Al-
of application, use a specified width. though no consensus on specific warrants exists, barriers
Where roadside space is available, the width of com- are usuallyjustified for bridge widening; shielding of road-
monly used work-zone clear zones ranges from 4 m to 6 m side structures; roadway widening (especially with edge
[ 12 f to 18 ft]. The location of collateral hazards such as drop-off); and for separating two-lane, two-way traffic
equipment and material storage can be controlled and on one roadway of a normally divided facility (3). (See
should be subject to greater clear-zone widths such as Table 9.2.)
10m [30 fi].
Generally, for ease of application of the clear zone in
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
work zones, there is no adjustment made for horizontal 9.2.1.1 Portable Concrete Safety-Shape
curves. Barriers
Table 9.1 lists one States clear-zone width guidance
based on speed. Portable concrete safety-shape barriers, also known as
PCBs, are widely used in work zones to shield motorists
as well as workers.
9.2 TRAFFIC BARRIERS PCBs are free-standing, precast, concrete segments,
2.4 m to 9 m [8 f to 30 It] in length, with built-in connecting
Work-zone trafic barriers are designed either as perma- devices. Barrier weight varies from 600 kg/m to 750 kgm
nent barriers, as previously described in this Guide, or as [400 lb/ft to 500 lb/ft] depending on exact cross-section,
temporary barriers that can be easily relocated. These bar- geometry, and amount of reinforcement. The mass of indi-
riers have several functions: (1) to protect traffic from en- vidual segmentscan vary from 2000 kg to 7500 kg [4,500lb
tering work areas such as excavations or material storage to 16,500Ib], thus requiring heavy equipment for instaila-
sites; (2) to provide positive protection for workers; (3) to tion and removal. Adequate longitudinal reinforcement
separate two-way traffic; (4)to protect construction such and positive connections ensure that the individual seg-
as falsework for bridges and other exposed objects; and ments act as a smooth, continuous unit.
( 5 ) to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. The impact performance of PCBs depends, among other
factors, on segment length and mass, the manner in which
segments are joined, the joint rotation, and the manner in
9.2.1 Temporary Longitudinal Barriers which segments are anchored.
The acceptable cross sections are the same as those
Use of temporary longitudinal traffic barriers should be described in Chapter 6. Bottom comers of barrier segments
based on an engineering analysis. There are a number of may be beveled to minimize snagging of snow plows and
factors such as traffic volume, traffic operating speed, to allow placement of the barrier segments in curves. A
offset, and duration that affect barrier need within work disadvantage is that, with the removal of the corners, re-
sisting moment to lateral displacement is reduced.

Trafic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor Work Zones
TABLE 9.2 Temporary longitudinal barriers
Plastic
PCB Quickchange@ Low Profile
ShelVSteel
Structural Varies depending on
TL-3 * TL-2* TL-2 & TL-3*
Adequacy the type of joint
3.8 & 3.9 - 6.9
Deflection O - 1.5 m [O - 5 ft] 1.5 m [5 ft] 0.125 m [5 in]
m [22.6 RI
Uses Two-lane, two-way Shielding for Work sites in urban Shielding
operation changeable lanes and suburban areas where high
where sight distance portability is
Shielding obstacles is a problem desired; i.e.,
and falscwork rapidly
changing and
Shielding pavement emergency
edge drop-offs traffic control
measures
Protection in
congested
urban work
sites
* NCHRP Report 350 Test Level
When impacted, the mass of the PCB and friction be- 9.2.1.1.1 Flare Rates
tween the PCB and the underlying surface tend to limit
movement and overturning. Each section should be prop- Flare rates for temporary barriers should be selected to
erly connected to the adjacent section to provide barrier provide the most cost-beneficial safety treatments pos-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
continuity to resist movement, snagging, and the insta- sible. Low flare rates lead to longer flared sections and
bility of impacting vehicles. When lateral displacement of increase the number of impacts with the temporary barrier.
the barrier cannot be tolerated, it may be necessary to Higher flare rates lead to shorter flared sections and fewer
anchor the PCB to the underlying surface to prevent lat- impacts but, for those impacts, increase the severity of
eral movement. This can be done with drift pins or anchor redirection crashes and the number of barrier penetration
bolts attached to the pavement or bridge deck. The pins crashes. Benefit/cost analyses of temporary concrete bar-
or bolts should not protrude beyond the face of the PCB. riers indicate that total accident costs appear to be mini-
(See Section 9.2.1.1.3.3.)A mechanism to limit sliding is to mized for flare rates ranging from 4:1 to 8: 1. A flare rate of
provide a mechanical interlock between the barrier and 5: 1 or 6: 1 may be slightly more favorable for urban streets
the pavement surface. Placing the PCB on a grout bed can with high traffic volumes where speeds are lower and im-
provide this mechanical interlock. Through a research pact angles are higher (4).
study underway at the time of the development of this
edition f the Guide, researchers ire develping rilethuds
to reduce lateral deflection by stiffening PCB joints. As 9.2.1 .I.2 Offset
the results of this research become available, they will be
posted on the FHWA safety hardware website. A minimum offset of 0.6 m [2 ft] from the traveled lane to
The designer should allow for adequate drainage the PCB is desirable.
through the PCB to prevent ponding.

ELEVATION VIEW
203 mm [VI
127 mm L5J
'
I I . I I.
102 mm [4L'] Dia. 102 mm 14.1 Dia.
813 mm 132'1
-
152 mm [6']
ROD 32 mm [I 'i.1 Dia. 1

(ASTM A 36)
END VIEW
DETAILS OF BARRIER SECTION CONNECTION
All reinlomement is Grade 60.ASTM A 615. excepl vie laop wnneclion bars The loop conneciion
Not to Scale reinforcingDam Shall be ASTM A 709, HPS 70W. S&. Zone 2 or approved eqbivamt
FIGURE 9.1 Iowa Temporary Concrete Barrier
9.2.1 .I.3 Types of Portable Concrete Barrier to meet the same performance level required of a perma-
(PCB) Systems nently installed barrier system at the same site. Some ex-
isting joint connectors have provided adequate service
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
To perform properly and redirect vehicles, the PCB sys- when used at sites where the intent was to contain shal-
tem should be capable of withstanding severe impacts. A low impacts of passenger cars.
PCB system's weakest point is its joint, which includes Satisfactory performance at the various test levels de-
the physical connection and mating faces of adjoining pends upon limiting the rotation of the individual seg-
segments. The methods for connecting PCB segments ments by assuring that the connection is installed and
vary widely. maintained exactly as tested. (See Section 9.2.1.1.)
Many types of PCB connections have been crash tested
and evaluated. (Refer to Chapter 5 for evaluation criteria.)
Currently,the performance standards for temporary bam- 9.2.1 .I.3.1 NCHRP Report 350 Tested PCB
ers are contained in NCHRP Report 350.Some versions of Systems
PCB connectors have been successfully crash tested with
a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impactingat 100km/h [60 The July 1,1998,AASHTO-FHWAAgreement on NCHRP
mph] and at a 25-degree angle. Other connectors provide 350 Implementation allowed continued use of any exist-
lower levels of performance (5). Depending on site condi- ing PCB until October 2000, but after that date requires the
tions, a temporary installation may not necessarily need use of a design that transfers both moment and tension
94
.
~~
Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor WorkZones
between segments and has been tested under NCHRP J-J Hooks Portable Concrete Barrier-This propri-
Report 230 guidelines. After October 2002, new barriers etary barrier consists of 813 mm [32 in.] New Jersey shaped
used on constructionmust meet NCHRP Report 350 guide- concrete segments 3658 mm [12 fi] long. Reinforcementin
lines, but previously existing barriers that met the earlier the barrier consists of welded wire fabric throughout its
testing requirements can continue in use as long as they length. (See Figure 9.3.)
remain serviceable. Some state transportation agencies Adjacent segments are connected together by steel
have established phase-out dates for non-Report 350 J-J hooks cast into each segment. These hooks are
designs. formed fi-om 10 mm [3/8 in.] thick steel plates that are con-
The systems listed below meet the TL-3 evaluation cri- nected through the barrier by three No. 16 Grade 420
teria. The maximum deflection listed below is for the Test [No. 5 Grade 601 ASTM A 706/A 706M reinforcing bars.
3-1 1, which is a pickup truck impacting at 100 km/h [60 This banier meets the requirements for TL-3 when used
mph] and at a 25-degree angle (6). Assuming that the bar- with a 3658 mm [12 ft] long portable New Jersey shape
rier is not anchored at the ends, a similar impact nearer to concrete barrier or with an F-shape concrete barrier hav-
either end than the impact location in the test condition ing the same base width (600 mm [2 fi]) as the tested New
would likely result in larger lateral deflections. Jersey shaped design.
Iowa Temporary Concrete Barrier-This barrier con- The free-standing installation comprised of 16 con-
sists ofF-shaped concrete barrier segments 3.8 m [12.5 ft] nected segments totaling 58.56 m [192 ft] in length. The
long. Each barrier segment is 8 10 mm [32 in.] high with a impact point was approximately 2 1.2 m [70 ft] from the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
top width of 200 mm [8 in.] and a base width of 570 mm upstream end or 1.2m [3 ft 11 in.] upstream from the joint
[22/, in.]. The design is reinforced with five No. 16 [No.51 between segment 7 and segment 8. The maximum deflec-
longitudinal bars and fourteen No. 13 [No.41 shear stirrup tion under this test set-up was reported as 1.3 m [4 fi 4 in.].
loops. (See Figure 9.1.) Modified Virginia DOT Portable Concrete Barrier-
Adjacent segments are connected by a pin and loop This barrier consists of 810 mm [32 in.] tall, F-shaped,
connection with a 32 mm [11/4in.] diameter ASTM A 36 concrete barrier segments 6100 mm [20 fi] long. Each seg-
steel pin. A top and bottom plate are used on the pin with ment contains three longitudinal No. 19 [No. 61 bars and
a 13 mm[:,in.] boltwithnutthroughahole38mm[l/,in.] one longitudinal No. 13 wo. 41 bar. (See Figure 9.4.)
from the bottom of the pin. Adjacent segments are connected by 25 mm [ 1 in.] di-
Each steel loop is manufactured from one No. 18 ameter ASTM A 36 steel pins 6 1 O mm [24 in.] long, which
[No.61 diameter grade 414 MPa [60 ksi] rebar. pass through loops fabricated with 20 mm [3/4 in.] diameter
The test installation was 81.5 m [267 Et] long with the steel bars. ASTM F 488 steel washers are used under the
impact point at approximately 45.5 m [ 150 A] from the up- pinhead and above the 25 mm [ 1 in.] hex nut used to retain
stream end. The maximum permanent deflection at TL-3 the pin at the bottom.
was 1140mm [45 in.]. The test installation included five 61O0 mm [20 ft] seg-
Rockingham Precast Concrete Barrier-This propri- ments with two 3 1 O0 mm [ 1O ft] long segments added at
etary barrier consists of 810 mm [32 in.] tall, F-shaped, each end of the installation, making a total length of ap-
concrete segments 3658 mm [12 ft] long. Each segment proximately43.3 m [142 fi]. The impactpoint was 1.3 m [4 fi
contains three No. 16 [No. 51 steel bars running the length 4 in.] upstream from the joint between segments 2 and 3,
of each segment and lapped with No. 18 [No. 61 steel bars or approximately 17 m [56 fi] from the upstream end ofthe
at each end. (See Figure 9.2.) test installation.The maximum barrier deflectionwas 1830
Adjacent segments are connected with slotted tube/T- mm [6 fi].
bar connections. One end of each unit has an integral T GPLINK@Pre-cast Temporary Concrete Barrier-
shape plate cast into the concrete and the opposite end This barrier consists of 870 mm [34 in.] tall concrete seg-
has a slotted steel tube. Two units are connected by lift- ments 6 m [20 ft] long. The width at the base supports is
ing one unit and lowering it so that the T in the end of 440 mm [ 17 5!i6 in.] and the barrier itself is 240 mm [9/, in.]
one unit slides into the slot in the tube in the end of the thick with vertical sides. Steel reinforcing consists prima-
other unit. rilyoften 16mm[5/8in.]diametersteelbars.(SeeFigure9.5.)
The test installation was 47.55 m [156 ft] long with the Adjacent segments were connected with 680 mm
impact point 17.26m 157 fi] from the upstream end, which [N/, in.j iong, 22 mm [:i8in.] ciiameter steel rods inserted
resulted in a maximum barrier deflection of i150 mm through holes in steel plates, two of which are cast into
[45 in.]. each barrier segment.
The Test 3-11 installation was 96 m [315 ft] long con-
sisting of 16 concrete segments of 6 m [20 ft]. It was im-
pacted 35 m [ 1 15 ft] from the start of the barrier, resulting
in a deflection by the pickup truck of 1760 mm [69 in.].

152 mm'[6']
IJ'.
P I!
f 76 mm [?I
L 6 #I9A 706 x 609 mm 17-07REBAR
STRUCTURAL TUBE
13 mm ?[I; x 102 mm [4'] x 102 mm 14') x 813 mm [2'-8'1
PLAN VIEW AT TOP
230 mm [9']
SECTION
END VIEW
PLAN
3658 rnm [12'a]
1 I
ELEVATION
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 9.2 Rockingham Precast Concrete Barrier

Trafic Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor Work Zones
600 mm [2']
*
3 No. 16 [No. 5) A 706 GRADE

420 [GRADE 601 BARS 51 x51 x b m m
CONNECTOR PLATE
I
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.3 J-J Hooks Portable Concrete Barrier
H E A W HEX NUT
STEEL BAR (ASTM A 36)
35 rnm X 64 rnm
TO No. 19 [No. 61 BAR CONNECTOR PIN

ASSEMBLY
51 rnrn
[TI
PLAN OF CONNECTION
ELEVATIONOF CONNECTION
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.4 ModifiedVirginia DOT Portable Concrete Barrier
9-7
JOINT
JOINT DETAIL
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.5 GPLINK@Precast Temporary Concrete Barrier
Georgia Temporary Concrete Barrier-This barrier 610 mm [24 in.] and the top width is 150 mm [6 in.]. Each
consists of 810 mm [32 in.] tall New Jersey-shaped con- segment weighs approximately 3630 kg [8,000 pounds].
crete segments3 m [lo ft] long. Base width is 760 mm [2 ft (See Figure 9.7.)
6 in.] and the barrier tapers to a 300 mm [ 12 in.] top width. Adjacent segments are connected using 3 1.8 mm
Reinforcing consists primarily of six longitudinal No. 13 [ 1 in.] diameter steel pins passed through four loops
[No. 41 bars with three bars located on each face of the made from 19 mm [3/4 in.] diameter steel bars. Longitudinal
barrier. Eleven V-shaped No. 13 [No. 41 steel bars (four at reinforcement consists primarily of six No. 16 [No. 51 bars
each end on 200 mm [8 in.] centers and three evenly spaced per segment. Two different connectiondesigns were tested.
between the ends) are used in each segment. (Figure 9.6,) The first consists of galvanized 32 mm diameter x 638 mm
Adjacent segments are connected by a 638 mm [25 in.] long [ 11/4 in. x 25 in.] A 307 hex bolts secured by 32 mm
long, 32 mm [11/4in.] diameter A 307 steel double hex bolt [1'/4in.] A 536 heavy hex nuts. Two ASTM F 844, Type A,
inserted through four loops (two at each end of each bar- wide washers were used, one under the bolt head and one
rier segment) made fromNo. 16 mo. 51 steel bars and re- above the nut. The connection in the second test was a
tained with a hex nut at its lower end. The use of larger 32 mm [l1I4 in.] diameter A 36 steel pin that was 660 mm
washers than used in the crash tested design are sug- [26 in.] long. No locking nut or other pin retention device
gested to strengthen the pin assembly. was used in this design. The steel loops were identical in
The TL-3 test installation included eighteen barrier seg- both tests.
ments for a total installationlength of 55.3 m [ 181 ft] (1 1). The test installation was 73.2 m [240 ft] long and the
The impact point was 1.2 m [3 ft 11 in.] upstream from the pickup truck impacted the barrier 1.2m [4 fi] from the mid-
connection between segments 7 and 8, or approximately point. The maximum permanent deflection was 1 m [3 ft]
20 m [66 ft] from the upstream end of the test installation. with the bolted connection and 1.1 m [3 ft 7 in.] with the
The dynamic and permanent deflection of the barrier was pinned connection.
reported to be 1930mm [6 ft 4 in.] and 1880 mm [6 ft 2 in.] California K-Rail Portable Concrete Barrier for Semi-
respectively. Permanent Installations-A New Jersey shaped PCB
Idaho 20-ft New Jersey Portable Barrier-This bar- pinned-with-stakesdesign that is compliant with the TL-3
rier consists of 810 mm [32 in.] tall New Jersey shaped criteria was developed by the California Department of
concrete segments 6095 mm [20 ft] long. The base width is Transportation.The PCB segmentwas 810 mm [32 in.] tall
and 6.1 m [20 ft] long. The base width is 610 mm [24 in.].
Each segment weighs approximately 3630 kg [&O00

Trafic Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor WorkZones
1301 mm
\
-i80 mm
[7 'I
480 m m
W I
255 R
(OPTIONAL)
i
I
4 25.5 mm
810 mm
~327
Nol lo Scala
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 9.6 Georgia Temporary Concrete Barrier
10
, mm [%;I CHAMFER
19 mm [3/4"] STEEL BARS
E
E-
io r
S
E
E 5
io-
S
CONNECTION PIN: VIEW D - D
VIEW D-D 32 m m x 660 mm [i 1/2mx 26'1 8
ASTM F 844 Type A WASHER
D 9.5 m m x 75 mm [318" x Y]
ELEVATION
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.7 Idaho 204%New Jersey Portable Barrier
9-9
130 mm 1:
32 mm dia x 1O00 mm 32 mm x 152 mm

[1V4?x 3?-4?]long [li/? x 61
galvanized steel pin \
Slotted hole
Not to Scale ?
FIGURE 9.8 California K-Rail (PCB) for semi-permanent installations
pounds]. Adjacent segments are connected using 3 1.8 9.2.1 .I 3 . 2 Tested and Operational
mm [1 in.] diameter steel pins passed through four loops Connections
made from 19 mm [3/4 in.] diameter steel bars. Longitudinal
reinforcement consistsprimarily of six No. 16 WO. 51 bars Listed below are connections that have been crash tested
per segment. Additionally, each segment is staked to an under procedures in existence before NCHRP Report 350
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
asphalt concrete pavement with four 25 mm [1 in.] diam- (7). These connections are considered operational.
eter by 610 mm [24 in.] long steel stakes driven through The AASHTO-FHWA Agreement on the NCHRP Re-
holes cast in the lower sloped section of the PCB near port 350 Implementation states that a PCB will be consid-
each comer. The head of each stake is driven below the ered crashworthy for use on the National Highway Sys-
traffic face of the barrier to prevent snagging. A stake tem if (a) it has been crash tested and met the acceptance
length of 1 m [3 ft 4 in.] and installation on an asphalt requirements proposed in either NCHRP Reports 230 or
concrete pad having a minimum thickness of 50 mm [2 in.] 350 (8 and 7, respectively);(b) it is a barrier with one of the
and a minimum width of 1.2m [4 ft] is recommended.As an fivejoints listed as ?Tested and Operational Connections?
alternative to an asphalt pad, the PCB may be installed on in the 1996 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide;or (c) if an
a compacted base material having a minimum thickness of engineeringstudy of in-service performance demonstrates
150 mm [6 in.] and a width of at least 1.2 m [4 ft]. (See that the barrier will provide the performance requirements
Figure 9.8.) The test installation was 48.77 m [160 ft] long of the site where it is to be used. A discussion of the five
and consisted of eight segments. ?tested and operational? joints follows.
The Test 3- 11 of a pickup truck impacting at I O0 km/h Pin and Loop Joint-This joint is constructed by cast-
[60 mph] at a 25-degree angle resulted in a maximum per- ing steel loops into each end of the barrier segments. The
manent deflection of 70 mm [23/4in.]. Maximum dynamic loops are then positioned so that they overlap and a steel
deflection at the top of the PCB was reported to be 260 mm pin is inserted through the loops. (See Figure 9.9.) There
[ 10in.]. are several varieties of pin and loop connectors. They
4 1o
57 mm [2 'I,'] 203 mm [E']
127 mm [Y]
152 mm 16'1
Iy 152 mm 16'1
572 m m [ l ' - I O 'i2']

I I I
II
I
u
ROD 32 m m [I 1~,'] Dia.
ASTM A 36)
Y' 0 I I I
il
END VIEW DETAILS OF BARRIER SECTION CONNECTION
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.9 Pin and Loop Joint
differ accordingto gap width, pin diameter,manner in which and washers at the top and bottom on the pin), by increas-
the pin is secured, loop embedment length, and material ing the size of the pin, and by making the pin from a higher
used to form the loops. Such materials include steel eye- strength steel.
bolts, smooth or deformed bars, and cable or wire rope. Problems encountered in using these connectors in-
The wire rope may extend partially into the barrier or con- clude: the vertical steel pin for pin-and-loop connections
tinue through the entire length of the segment. A trend is may not remain installed since this pin is prone to removal
to use plain steel bars for loops, instead of wire rope and by vandals; the loops may not be structurally adequate
rebar loops, to obtain more consistent fracture toughness. because of design deficiencies or previous damage; pin
A successfully crash-tested version of this joint used and loop connectors that are too close-fitting may restrict
reinforcing steel bar to form four loops (two loops in each pin installation on curves or at angles. As a result of these
barrier end). However, this joint design may allow signifi- problems, smaller pins may be used or pins may be left
cant lateral deflectionbefore developing moment between out, thus weakening the connection.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
two barrier segments. Therefore, this barrier design may Channel Splice Joint-This joint is cast with two bolt
allow large deflections under severe impact conditions, holes at each end passing through the base of the barrier.
especially if short segments of barrier (less than 3 m [ 10 Channel splice plates are then bolted to the sides of each
ft]) are used. It should be noted that such deflections adjoining segment. (See Figure 9.10.) Important factors
could be reduced by measures such as placing a board on for this connector are the type of channel, channel length,
edge below the lower loops with the intent of removing number of bolts, bolt diameter, bolt hole diameter, spacing
the slack from the joint. The board should rest on the between bolt holes, and segment length. This joint design
pavement surface with the ends of the board formed to can generate moderately high tensile, moment, and shear
follow the PCB profile 55-degreeangle slope. Other mecha- strength and does not allow significant joint deflection
nisms that can reduce deflection are referred to in Section before the moment resistance is generated. This barrier
9.2.1.1. system has been successfully crash tested with a full-
Pins should be secured at both ends of the barrier seg- sized passenger car impacting at 100km/h [60 mph] and at
ment. Serurhg I pin hy drilling a hole and inserting a a 25-degree angle.
cotter pin just below the upper loops or slotting the end This design has numerous parts and limited tolerances,
will retard the pin from jumping out on impact. A nut and thus requiring relatively accurate alignment during place-
washer will prevent a pin from being dislodged from the ment and limited flexibility in accommodatingchanges in
loops, although they may be difficult to install when the alignment, such as curves or flares.
segments are in place and salt corrosion can make them Vertical I-Beam Joint-This joint is constructed with
difficult to remove. Capacity ofthe joint could be improved a slotted steel tube cast into each end of the barrier. The
over the pin and loop joint that was satisfactorily crash segmentsare then linked by inserting a steel I-beam through
tested by making a more positive pin connection (nuts the slotted tubes. (Figure 9.11.) This joint can develop
9-11
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Typical Panel Plan with a View of ConneclionDetail
1-
Typical Panel Elevation with a View of Connection Detail
Typical End View
Not io Scale
FIGURE 9.10 Channel Splice Joint
L U
Typical Panel Plan with a View ofConnection Detail Connection Key
4 mT
1 A
Connection Detail
L x View X-X
Typical Panel Elevation with a View of Connection Detail
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.11 Vertical I-Beam Joint
412
very high tensile, moment, shear, and torsional strengths. Restricted Sites-Because of restricted geometry, some
It has been successfullycrash tested with a 1980kg [4,365 sites may require the use of barriers where expected im-
lb] passenger sedan impacting at 97 k m h [60 mph] at a 25- pacts could be at substantially greater than a 25-degree
degree angle. The vertical I-beam joint also allows signifi- angle. One condition is where there are intersecting road-
cant barrier movement before developing a restraining mo- ways that must be kept open, near, or within the work
ment. Thus, to obtain optimal barrier performance, activity area. Detailed guidance to address this condition
stepsshould be taken to reduce the amount of movement, is found in the NCHRP Report 358, Trafic Barriers and
such as removing slack from joints or using long barrier Control Treatments for Restricted Work Zones (4). An-
segments. other condition is where work within an intersection may
Lapped Joint-This joint is fabricated such that each need PCB to protect workers from an errant vehicle or to
segment overlaps the next in a vertical plane. The joint is protect the public from an obstruction such as a deep
secured with a single steel bolt that passes through the excavation. If traffic must be maintained around the work
overlapping segments. This joint provides moderate mo- site and the space is insufficient for a recommended PCB
ment and tensile capacity with relatively low shear and layout including end treatment, flare rates sharper than
torsional strengths. (Figure 9.12.) previously recommended for the layout may be justified
J-Hook Joint-This joint is a proprietary connection at the work site.
fabricated of two 254 mm [ 10 in.] high steel plates bent at The following criteria should be considered when re-
the end in a J-hook. A version ofthisjoint meets the NCHRP quired to deploy the PCB at restricted sites:
Report 230 criteria. (Figure 9.13.).
PCBs should be used only at low speeds such as
60 km/h [40 mph] or less.
9.2.1 .I3.3 Securing PCBs to the Traveled
Way All sections are to be adequately connected to
adjacent sections.
Bolting to Bridge Deck or Pavement-So ensure mini-
mum or RO deflection, PCBs are often bolted to a bridge The end section must be anchored to prevent
deck or pavement during construction. While these in-
overturning and excessive sliding.
stallations are in common use, there has been only limited
crash testing of these to date. Assuming that field perfor-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Adequate clearance should be provided between

mance of a design in use has been acceptable, it should
the barrier and the work area to allow for sliding
be continued in use until such time as it (or a comparable
of the barrier. If adequate clearance is not avail-
design) has been successfully crash tested.
able, the PCB should be anchored.
Using Staking-A maximum permanent deflection of
70 mm [23/4in.] at TL-3 test conditions has been achieved
Precautions must be taken to prevent the PCB
by a New Jersey shaped PCB pinned-with-stakes design
from caving into an excavation. When placing a
that has been developed by the California Department of
PCB around an excavation, the capability of the
Transportation.Please see California K-Rail Portable Con-
soil to withstand the load created by the PCB
crete Barrier for Semi-permanent Installations (Section
and any other objects near the cut face must be
9.2.1.1.3.1 andFigure 9.8) for adescriptionofthe barrier.
considered.
9.2.f .i3.4 Specal Cases

9.2.1.2 Other Concrete Barriers
Strengthened Barriers (5)-Most catastrophic crashes
with PCBs involve heavy trucks or vehicles at high speeds Quickchange" Barrier System-This proprietary PCB
and at high angles. High-angle secondary impacts may system is composed of a chain of modified Flshaped con-
occur when barriers are located on both sides of the road crete segments 1 m [3 ft] long which can be readily shifted
or on curves. For these conditions or where minimal de- laterally. Steel rods run the length of each segment and
flection distances are available, strengthened, stiffened, specially designed hinges are attached to each end, which
or anchored barriers and connectors may be used. Candi- are then joined by pins. The top of each system is T-
date sites include bridges, bridge approaches,excavations, shaped to allow the segment to be picked up by a special
lateral shifts or crossovers, or any roadway where there vehicle and moved laterally up to 5.5 m [ 18 ft]. (See Figure
are two or three parallel runs of barriers. 9.14.) (See Chapter 6 for more detail.)
9-13
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Bolt Connector
Typical Panel With a View of

Connection Detail
rX
A.... . ...,.
I . .
1 *
*.
Typical Panel Elevation With a View View X-X

of Connection Detail
FIGURE 9.12 Lapped Joint
-, 2 - No. 5 Bars
Positive Connector
Not to Suile
FIGURE 9.13 J-Hook Joint
9-14
~
Tra& Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safety Features for Work Zones
Low-Profde Barrier System ( 9 b T h i s proprietarypor- The test installation was composed of 45 segments
table precast concrete system is composed of 5 10 mm [20 that totaled 92 m [292 ft 6 in.] in length. The pickup truck
in.] high barrier segments.Each segment is 660 mm [26 in.] impacted the test installation at mid-point. A total of 19
wide at the base, with a reverse batter of the barrier face at sections were deflected laterally ahead, 6 upstream and 13
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
a 20V: 1H slope. The purpose of the barrier is to shield the downstream from the point of impact. The maximum lateral
work zone while improving the sight distance for drivers barrierdeflectionwas 3.86m [12 ft8 in.] atapoint 13.87m
attempting to enter or exit the work zones from side roads [45 fi 6 in.] downstream from the point of attack.
or driveways. (See Figure 9.15.) A minimum of 15barrier sections, totaling 29.7 m [97 ft
This barrier was satisfactorilycrash tested to the NCHRP 5 in.] in length, is needed for an installation when the
Report 350, TL-2 conditionswith a 2040 kg [4,500lb] pickup barrier sections are used as the end treatment. Because of
truck impacting at 70 km/h [45 mph] and at a 25-degree the characteristics of the barrier system, the length of need
angle, and an 800 kg [ 1,800 lb] passenger car impacting at starts at the beginning of the fifth section although a total
70 km/h [45 mph] at a 20-degree angle. The result was a of ten sections is needed (with the first section empty) for
maximum deflection of 127mm [5 in.]. It is being installed the end treatment. A test under the conditions of NCHRP
with a sloped end as the terminal. Report 350 (TL 2-1 1 used 15 sections pinned and free-
standing with the endmost sections empty of water) re-
sulted in a'deflection of 5.5 m [ 18 ft].
9.2.1.3 Other Barriers The same Triton Barrier as that discussed above was
modified with interior U-bolts at the ends of each module
9.2.1.3.1 Water-Filled Plastic Shell with Steel that were double nutted to the interior steel framework. In
Barriers addition, each module set was strapped to two 178 m m
[7 in.] high plastic pedestals to raise the module height.
These are longitudinal barriers of segmented, polyethyl- These modifications, accomplished with the use of a Tri-
ene, plastic shells with a steel framework, designed for ton TL-3 Kit, were tested with a length of 30 modules that
use with ballast, that have been successfully crash tested resulted in a maximum deflection of 6.9 m [22 ft 7 in.]. Ten
to NCHRP Report 3S requirements. water-filled modules should be used in advance of the
While there are a number of longitudinal plastic de- barrier length-of-need for expected TL-3 impact conditions.
vices that have been used in work zones as channelizing The Triton TL-3 meets NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 for longi-
devices, only those devices that have been successfully tudinal barriers.
crash tested to the longitudinal barrier requirements of
NCHRP Report 350 should be used as barriers.
9.2.1.3.1.2 GUARDIANTM
Safety Barrier
9.2.1.3.1 .ITriton' Barrier This is a proprietary, polyethylene plastic, longitudinal

segmentedbarrier. Each segment is a plastic shell strength-
This proprietary barrier is composed of segments of light- ened with internal baffles and gussets. Each is 1829 mm
weight polyethyleneplastic shells 2 134mm long x 943 mm [72 in.] long, 1067mm [42 in.] high, weighs 61.1 kg [134.7
high x 533 mm wide [84 in. x 37l/, in. x 21 in.]. They are Ib] empty and nearly 770 kg [ 1,700 lb] when filled with
designed for use with water as ballast. The plastic barrier water. The steel external frame weighs an additional 65 kg
shell is supplemented by an internal steel framework to [143lb].(SeeFigure9.17.)
provide additional rigidity during handling and impacts. To meet the requirements ofNCHRP Report 350, TL-3,
There is also a cable along the top connecting the joints the system uses a fabricated steel assembly mounted to
between banier segments. This cable provides the barrier's the GUARDIAN" Safety Barrier and linking the segments
tensile capacity during impacts. Vertically aligned, inter- to each other. This assembly consists of two inverted U-
locking knuckles at the end allow the sections to be joined saddles that are placed over the top of each barrier. The
with a pin. The pin connection allows the Triton@Barrier saddles create an offset mounting point for the side pan-
section to swivel and be positioned with an inside radius els, such that the upper longitudinalpipe is 127mm [5 in.]
assmallas 11.3m[37 ft]. (SeeFi-me9.16.) fm the uctica! face ofthe barrier. The pipe assemblies
The Triton Barrier has been satisfactorily crash tested consist of two formed flat bars with two steel pipes welded
to the NCHRP Report 350, TL-2 conditions of a 2000 kg across at specific elevations. The pipe assemblies are then
[4,400 lb] pickup truck traveling at 70 km/h [45 mph] and secured onto the saddles and secured to the barrier with
impacting at a 25-degree angle, and an 820 kg [ 1,800lb] car steel cables that pass under the barrier. The cables pre-
traveling at 70 km/h [45 mph] and impacting at a 20-degree vent the system from lifting upon impact from a vehicle.
angle. The barrier is connected to the next in line by means of an
external steel pipe sleeve splice element.
9-15
Roadside DesiZn Guide
[32"]
I- 1 O00 m m 139 3/8"] =I

Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.14 QuickChangernBarrier System
710 m m
/ \
\
/ I"\ N.J. SHAPE \
\
&v PROFILE \
660 mm
Not to Scale
FIGURE9.15 Low-ProfileBarrier System
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9-16
Trafic Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safe@ Featuresfor Work Zones
1
i
i
i
i
i
Detail
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.16 Triton" Barrier
-t
1
18f9ym -4 I
152 mm [6]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
\FILLING HOLE
/ BARRIER
I IDE PANNELS
1067 mm
[42")
I
I
ANCHOR CABLE
DRAINAGE PLUG
L 6 1 0m m A
[24']
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.17 GUARDIANTMSafety Barrier System
9-17
mm
I I
75 mm x 75 rnm x 16 mm)
[Y x 3"x 5i8"] Splice
Nol to Scale
FIGURE 9.18 Timber Barrier CurblRaii System
The minimum length of need for NCHRP Report 350, 9.2.2 End Treatments
TL-3 compliance is 33 interconnected barriers or 60.4 m
[198 ft 6 in.] when each segment is ballasted to capacity The desirable treatments for exposed ends of barriers
with a minimum total weight of 8 18 kg [1,800 lb]. Under are:
these conditions, the system deflected 3.4 m [ 1 1 ft 2 in.].
The GUARDIAN Safety Bamer needs to be shielded a connecting to an existing barrier (Chapter 5), or
with a conventional work-zone crash cushion or flared an attaching a crashworthy end treatment such as a
appropriate distance fkom the approaching traffic. crash cushion (Section 9.3), or
a flaring away to the edge of the clear zone appro-

9.2.1.3.2 limber Barrier CurblRail priate for construction traffic conditions as de-
termined by the transportation agency (Section
A300mmx400mm[12in.x 16in.l timbercurbwithaw- 9.1.1), or
beam rail mounted on the 400 mm [16 in.] vertical face of
the timber was tested (10). The curb redirected full-sized 0 burying the end in the backslope.
passenger cars that impacted at about 60 km/h [37 mph]
and at a 15-degreeangle, displaced less than 300 mm [ 12 For the PCB, either the buried-in-the-backslopeor the
in.]. It may be used where speeds are 60 km/h [37 mph] or sloped-end treatment may be used for lower speeds as
less. follows:
A stacked timber barrier for use on a bridge deck, con-
sisting of two 300 mm x 300 mm [12 in. x 12in.] timbers,has the buried-in-the-backslope treatment (Chapter
redirected a 2000 kg [4,400 ib] passenger car that impacted
5) is recommended for 30 km/h [20 mphlor less
at 83 km/h [52 mph] and at a 13-degree angle. It may be
with a 1.8m to 3 m [6 ft to 10 ft] end taper, in case
used where speeds are 80 km/h [50 mph] or less and the
of soil settlement:
expected impact angle will be shallow.(See Figure 9.18.)
No other timber barrier curbrail should be used unless a the sloped-end treatment is recommended when
satisfactorily crash tested (1 1).
other treatments are unfeasible. A sloped end
may be used for speeds 45 km/h [30 mph] or less
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9-18
Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Sajety Featuresfor Work Zones
r
Jg L
"1 NOM. DIA. STEEL LIFTING PIPES FOR

VING BARRER (Located against 3rd
Pipe. approx. 1629 Mm I6 ftl from end)
PLAN VIEW
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ELEVATION
NOTE: ANCHORING PIPES NOT SHOWN

IN ELEVATION.
Not to Scale
FIGURE9.19 Low-ProfileBarrier Sloped End
qTYPE 50 CONCRETE BARRIER

_____________b I
I I
-
TRAFFIC
CO~CRETE
CONNECTOR
PLAN
FIGURE 9.20 PCB Steel Plate Transition
9-19
for conditions corresponding to TL-1 inNCHRF vide adequate redirective capability.For a short section of
Report 350 (9). Generally, as the slope steepness barrier (under 30 m [100 ft]), a trade-off must be made as to
increases, impact severity of this treatment will which risk is greater-the risk that the obstacle or barrier
increase; but the probability of an impact in the presents to the motorist, or the risk of leaving an innocent
sloped section will decrease as the slope in- bystander, such as a maintenance worker, unprotected.
creases. Barriers may be used to channelize traffic, but should
not be used as the primary tapering device except in low-
For the Triton Barrier, the first 10 sections with an empty speed urban conditions or otherwise constrictedrestricted
section on the beginning of a length of TL-2 Triton Barrier work or temporary traffic-control zones. (See reference 5
run has been found satisfactory for use as an end treat- or the MUTCD for examples.) Lane tapers should be made
ment by crash testing. of more forgiving channelizing devices such as barricades,
For the low-profile, portable, concrete barrier, a TL-2 barrels, or cones. Once the lane is closed, the barrier may
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
sloped-end treatment consists of a 6.1 m [20 fi] precast be introduced. Barriers perform best when placed parallel
concrete unit with a constant slope of the impact face to trafic flow.
(1V20H) from the full barrier height of 508 mm [20 in.] to an When temporary barriers are installed on both sides of
end height of 102 mm [4 in.]. Lateral deflections are con- traffic, the beginnings of the barriers should be staggered
trolled by anchoring the end treatment to the pavement to minimize the tendency of drivers to shy away from sud-
with steel pins inserted through precast holes at 610 mm denly introduced objects near the traveled way.
[24 in.] centers. (See Figure 9.19.) Openings in barriers should be avoided if possible.
Where necessary, the barrier ends should have an accept-
able end treatment (Section 9.2.2) or offset.
9.2.3 Transitions For better night visibility, retroreflective devices or
steady-burn warning lights may be mounted along the
As with permanent barriers, adequate transitions should barrier. (See the MUTCD (2) for guidance.) Under some
be made between temporarybarriers of differing flexibility conditions when horizontal curves are present, the lights
or between temporary and permanent barriers. may appear as a solid line of lights across the roadway.
Under these conditions, it may be better to put lights only
on the barrier located on the outside of the curve or com-
9.2.3.1 PCB Steel Plate Transition bine lights with chevrons or do both. To locate these con-
ditions, a site-specific review may be necessary to deter-
Often on a freeway, a shielded work zone includes a PCB mine the optimum lighting setup. Also, a solid edgeline
butted up against an existing permanent concrete median may be placed on the pavement adjacent to the barrier to
barrier and flared out to the required width of the work provide delineation.
zone. This leaves the blunt-end of the PCB rail section
exposed unless shielded. A solution is to shield the blunt-
end with a crash cushion or a transition consisting of a 9.3 CRASH CUSHIONS
steel plate and a special precast concrete barrier transi-
tion section that connects to the permanent concrete me- Crash cushions are protective systems that prevent errant
dian barrier. Versions of this transition are used in at least vehicles from impacting obstaclesby either smoothly de-
two states. Both state highway agencies report good ex- celerating the vehicle to a stop when hit head-on or by
perience with the transition. redirecting it away from the obstacle for glancing impacts.
The steel plate is 760 mm [30 in.] high, 13 mm [1/2 in.] Two types of crash cushions used in work zones are sta-
thick and from 1.5 m to 2.0 m [5 fi to 6 ft 7 in.] long, con- tionary and mobile (commonly called truck-mounted at-
forms to the PCB barrier shape, and connects to a PCB tenuators).
transition section that, in turn, connects to a standard
PCB segment. (See Figure 9.20.)
9.3.1 Stationary Crash Cushions
9.2.4 Applications Crash cushions in work zones may be used in the same
manner as at permanent highway installations,i.e., to pro-
The length of a barrier affects its redirective capability. tect the motorists from the exposed ends of barriers, fixed
Shorter lengths may not effectively decrease the risk of objects, or other obstacles. A number of stationary crash
injury because they introduce a barrier end that can be cushions are commonly used. Refer to Chapter 8 for de-
hazardous and they may not prevent penetration or pro- tailed descriptions, installation requirements, and limita-
9-20
tions. Delineation should be used on stationary crash design guides, and installation procedures are available
cushions to make them conspicuous at night. from the manufacturer.
9.3.1 .ISand-Filled Plastic Barrels 9.3.1.3 TRACC
One type of stationary crash cushion is the sand-filled Another type of stationary crash cushion is the TRACC.
plastic barrel system. Configurations of sand barrels de- (See Figure 9.22.) It is a redirective crash cushion that is
signed for permanent installationsshould be used, if space identical to the product used in the permanent installation
is available. Because of restricted work-zone site condi- except that it rests on 200 mm [8 in.] of asphalt (or 150 mm
tions and the lack of a feasible alternative in some in- [6 in.] of asphalt over 150 mm [6 in.] of compacted sub-
stances, safety may still be improved by using sand bar- base). It is anchored with twenty-seven 460 mm [18 in.]
rels in configurations that are not recommended for per- long Grade 5 threaded studs set in drilled holes using a
manent installations. Because the sand barrel system has polyester resin meeting ACI 349 requirements. It meets
virtually no redirective capability, this system should be NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 criteria for crash cushions. (See
750 mm [30 in.] wider than the fixed object. Where there is Chapter 8.)
inadequate clearance between the crash cushion and work-
zone traffic, the following measures should be taken:
9.3.1.4 REACV 350 CZ
1. The barrier layout should be designed so that
the approach ends of the temporary traffic barri- Another type of stationary crash cushion is the REACT@
ers are offset to the edge of the clear zone that is 350 CZ. (See Figure 9.23.) It is a redirective crash cushion
appropriate for construction traffic conditions as which is essentially identical to that used in a permanent
determined by the transportation agency, or installation mentioned in Chapter 8 except for its anchor-
shielded according to the recommendations in ing system. The anchorage used is identical to that for a
Section 9.2.2. permanent installation except for the replacement of con-
crete expansion bolts with 19.1mm x 203 mm [3/4 in. x 8 in.]
2. The lateral offset between the back edge of a American Railroad Engineering Association (AREA)
sand barrel crash cushion and the edge of the Washer-Head Timber Drive spikes and the addition of
obstaclemay be reduced to a minimum of 375 mm twelve steel C channel anchors, 75 mm x 7.4 kg/m x 915 mm
[ 15 in.] where a greater offset would cause unac- [3 in. x 5 lb/ft x 36 in.], driven adjacent to the front cable
ceptable interferencewith traffic. anchor plates. For the test, the REACT 350 unit was set on
a 50 mm [2 in.] thick asphalt surface over a 254 mm [ 1O in.]
3. For ease of moving, barrels may be installed on thick base course. It met NCHRP Report 350, TL-3 criteria
pallets or a skid 100 mm [4 in.] or less in height. when anchored as tested. Standard installation details,
Barrels should be regularly inspected since they detailed design guides, and installation procedures are
are susceptible to nuisance hits and provide little available from the manufacturer.
or no safety reserve after being hit.
9.3.1.5 Connecticut Impact Attenuation

System (CIAS)
9.3.1.2 QUADGUARDTM CZ SYSTEM
The Connecticut Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) has
Another type of stationary crash cushion is the been modified for use in construction zones as a tempo-
QuadGuardTM CZ. (See Figure 9.21.) It is a redirective crash rary installation by the Ontario Ministry of Transporta-
cushion that is essentially identical to that used in a per- tion. (See Figure 9.24.) The modification is in the attach-
manent installation mentioned in Chapter 8 except for its ment to a freestanding, movable, reinforced concrete an-
anchoring system. The QuadGuard CZ meets NCHRP Re- eho bio& instead of the traditionai cast-in-place con-
port 350: TL-3 criteria when anchored as tested. The spe- crete pad joined with the back wall. An advantage of this
cific anchoring system tested used a two-part polyester system when it is used in construction zones is that it can
grout to anchor 20 mm diameter x 460 mm long [3/4 in. x 18 be separated easily into two or three component parts and
in.] threaded rods to a foundation of 150 mm [6 in.] deep relocated. It can also accommodate nuisance hits with-
asphalt over a 150 mm [6 in.] deep compacted subbase. out requiring replacement. The system should be installed,
The rods were embedded to a minimum depth of 410 mm however, on a rigid surface; when used as a temporary
[ 16 in.] in 22 mm [7/8 in.] diameterdnlled holes. A total of 50 system, such as in construction zones, an asphalt surface
anchors are used. Standard installation details, detailed is suitable.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 9-21
QuadguardTMCZ System
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3/4 in. Dia x 18 in. MP-3Threaded Rod System

/ Final Torque to be less than 14 Nm [loWlb]
sphalt
einforced P.C. Concrete
or
E-CompactedSubbase
l I Soil
-I Min.483 mm [19.00in.] Typ.
FIGURE 9.21 QuadGuardTMCZ
Not to Scale TRACC ANCHORING OPTIONS
ASPHALT CONCRETE SUBBASE DEPTH LENGTH

(COMPACTED)
REINFOACED
7.5
O' UNREINFORCED
3' 16.5 18"

8" o" 16.5' 18'
6" o" 6" 16.5" 18"
FIGURE 9.22 TRACC
9-22
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not to Scale
FIGURE9.23 REACT 350 CZ
Galvanized
- /- Steel cylinders
25 mm [ i " ]
chamfer
Dowel m
Connection
L
Clip as
required- LConcrete
Slab
PLAN TS-120 (Design Speed 120 k m h [75 mph])
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.24 Connecticut impact Attenuation System
9-23
It is critical that the cylinders are able to slide freely on Crash cushions called TMAs can be attached to the
the steel rails; therefore, the installation surface must be rear of these protective vehicles to reduce the severity of
smooth and the cylinders must not come in contact with rear-end crashes. They may be used for moving opera-
adjacent surfaces. tions such as pavement marking, roadway sweeping, and
The CIAS may be installed on a 10 percent slope or maintenance activities in high-volume, high-speed areas
less. To enable the system to perform as designed, the or at long-term, stationary construction sites. Suggested
path from the traveled way to the system must be stable, priorities for consideration for use are shown in Table
relatively flat, and free of obstacles and irregularities. If 9.3 (12).
curb in front of the system is required, only a mountable TMAs are used on three classes of protective vehicles
type should be used. To prevent ice and snow buildup in work zones:
inside the cylinders, which will prevent free movement on
the rails, cylinder covers should be installed. Shadow Vehicle-a moving truck spaced a short
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
distance from a moving operation, giving physi-
cal protection to workers from traffic approach-
9.3.1.6 ABSORB 350 ing from the rear
The ABSORB 350 is a non-redirective crash cushion.When Barrier Vehicle-a truck parked upstream from a
composed of eight water-filled, linear, low-density poly- stationary operation and usually unoccupied
ethylene and steel elements, it meets the criteria forNCHRP
Report 350, TL-3. With four elements, it meets the criteria Advance Warning Truck-a truck parked a con-
for NCHRP Report 350, TL-2. (See Chapter 8.) siderable distance upstream of a moving or sta-
tionary operation displaying an arrow panel and
other signs as appropriate
9.3.1.7 Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension
Modules (ADIEM Il) Shadow trucks and barrier vehicles may be equipped
with a TMA. Advance sign trucks may use TMAs if they
The Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension Modules encroach on the traveled way. Protective vehicles are usu-
(ADIEM II) is a proprietary terminal, successfully tested ally equipped with arrow panels, changeable message
to NCHRP Report 350, TL-3. It is designed specially to signs, or flashing amber lights. To increase the protection
shield the end of a concrete safety-shape barrier. (See for the truck drivers, the trucks should have lapshoulder
Chapter 8.) restraints and headrests. Existing TMAs are generally not
suitable for specialized vehicles such a5 motor graders,
mowers, and tow trucks; however, there are crash-tested
9.3.1.8 DRAGNET
interfaces for use between TMAs and some types of salt
spreaders or street sweepers.
The DRAGNET is used to provide closure of roads and
ramps for construction and maintenance activities. It is
useful for long-term construction sites where the same 9.3.2.1 Test-Level Selection for Truck
closure is required repeatedly. An advantage is that, after MountedAttenuators
the initial installation,the net can be installed and removed
repeatedly. Also, when impacted, it can be repaired in a The performance characteristics of a TMA should be de-
short time. (See Chapter 8.) termined by the highway agency based on anticipated
operating and impact conditions. NCHRF' Report 350 es-
tablishes TL-2 as the basic level for testing. TL-3 require-
9.3.2 Truck-Mounted Attenuators (TMAs) ments are more demanding, and can accommodatehigher
impact speeds, but often result in more complex units.
In many short-term, mobile, and moving work zones, NCHRP Report 350 requires two head-on crash tests and
trucks can be used as blocking vehicles to protect work- recommendstwo optional crash tests: off-center and angle
ers. Large trucks are effective in preventing vehicle en- hits. These latter impacts may be more representative of
croachment into the work site; however, serious injury to actual field impacts.
occupants of the impacting vehicle and the truck can re-
sult.
9-24
TABLE 9.3 Suggested prioritiesfor application of protectivevehicles and truck mounted attenuators
Ranking*
Non-Freeway
Examples of
Typical Construction 8Okmh 70km/h 60kmh
ClosureExposure Condition Maintenance Activities Freeway [50 mph] [45 mph] [40 mph]
Mobile Activities:
No Formal Lane Closure
Shadow vehicle for Crack pouring, patching, A- 1 A-2 A-3 A-4
operation involving exposed utility work, striping, coning
personnel
Shadow vehicle for Sweeping, chemical E- 1 E-2 E-3 E-4
operation not involving spraying
exposed personnel
No Formal Shoulder Closure
Shadow vehicle for Pavement repair, pavement B-2 B-3 c-3 c-3
operation involving exposed marking, delineator repair
personnel
Barrier vehicle for operation Open excavation, E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5
not involving exposed temporarily exposed bridge
personnel pier
Stationary Activities:
Formal Lane Closure
Barrier vehicle for operation Pavement repair, pavement B-2 B-3 c-4 D-5
involving exposed personnel marking
Barrier vehicle for condition Open excavation E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5
involving significant
obstruction
Formal Shoulder Closure
Barrier vehicle for operation Pavement repair, pavement c-3 c-4 D-5 D-5
involving exposed personnel marking, guardrail repair
Barrier vehicle for condition Open excavation E-3 E-4 E-5 E-5
involving significant
obstruction
~~ ~~ ~
* The alphabetic ranking indicates the priority assigned to the use of a protective vehicle. The use of protective vehicles:
A -is very highly recommended E -may be justified on the basis of special conditions encountered
B -is highly recommended on an individual project when an evaluation of the circumstances
indicates that an impact with a protective vehicle is likely to
C -is recommended result in less serious damage and injury than would impact with a
D -is desirable working vehicle or the obstruction
* The numerical rank indicates the level of priority assigned to the use of a Th4A on an assigned protective vehicle. The use of a
Th4A under the defined conditions:
i -is very highly recommene 4 -is desirabie
2 -is highly recommended 5 -may be justified on the basis of special conditions encountered
3 -is recommended on an individual project
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9-25
For example, one state highway agency has used TMAs When tested with a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] passenger car at
extensively during the last eight years. Every year these 70 kmh [45 mph], a truck with a TMA moved forward less
TMAs experience numerous hits, many of them serious. than 10m [33 fi]. Therefore, a minimum distance of 9 m [30
The TMAs in use were of the NCHRP Report 230 or NCHRP fi] between the truck and work zone is recommended.Based
Report 350, TL-2, 72.4 kmh [45 mph], variety. Many of on the manufacturersrecommendation,if approach speeds
these hits occurred on freeways with speed limits ranging are higher than 70 kmh [45 mph], a longer distance should
from 90 k m h to 11O k m h [55 mph to 70 mph]. These TL-2 be used. The trucks parking brake should be set, the trans-
attenuators save lives even when used beyond recom- mission placed in gear, and, when possible, the front
mendations. It should also be noted that they are com- wheels turned away from the work area. These recommen-
monly used on vehicles traveling at speeds of approxi- dations are for trucks weighing 4500 kg [9,900 Ib] or more.
mately 15 km/h [ 1O mph]. At theses low speeds, the TL-2
attenuators offer several advantages:
9.3.2.2.2 Mass of a Shadow Vehicle
a at 15 km/h [ 10 mph] the effective difference in
speed during a 100 k m h [60 mph] hit is much The mass of the shadow vehicle should be similar to the
closer to the test speed in the NCHRP Report mass of the vehicle with which the TMA was crash tested,
350, TL-2 test criteria generally 9000 kg [ 19,800lb] plus or minus 450 kg [990 Ib].
If a significantly lighter or heavier vehicle is used, the
a because a traveling TMA vehicle is in drive gear, manufacturers recommendations should be followed.
it will absorb more impact
a lower speed units mount easily on any single- 9.3.2.2.3 Delineation

axle dump truck and can be removed just as eas-
Delineation should be used on TMAs to make them con-
ily. This allows a great deal of flexibility between
spicuous at night.
patching and plowing operations.
9.3.2.3 TMAs meeting NCHRP Report 350

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The same state highway agencys maintenance forces

Criteria
resist the use of the more complex TMAs because of their
longer length. They believe that thesc units, even during
Several types of TMAs have met the requirements of
lane changing, could swing into adjacent lanes and possi-
NCHRP Report 350. They can be categorized as follows:
bly cause more damage than they were designed to pre-
vent.
energy-absorbing cartridge mounted in a frame
(See Figures 9.25 and 9.26.)
9.3.2.2 Placement
a telescoping steel frame with a cutter assembly
9.3.2.2.1 Buffer Distance (See Figure 9.27.)
The buffer distance is the space between the protective 8 steel or polyethylene cylinder assembly (See
vehicle and the work activity. It provides for a roll-ahead, Figure 9.28.)
post-collision movement of the protective vehicle. This
distance is typically a compromise between anticipated Discussed below are TMAs that have met the require-
roll-ahead movement and excessive space that would per- ments of NCHRP Report 350 as of the date of this Guide.
mit traffic to move into the buffer zone. Some state high-
way agencies report buffer distances ranging from 15 to
60 m [50 ft to 200 ft]. Buffer distances should be based on 9.3.2.3.1 RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA
horizontal and vertical geometrics, available sight distance,
average speed of traffic, and type of operation. An ex- The Ren-Gard 815 TMA is essentially the same device
ample of guidelines for spacing shadow vehicles is shown tested earlier under NCHRP Report 230 guidelines. It con-
in Table 9.4. sists of a 2095 mm long by 2300 mm wide by 580 mm high
9-26
TABLE 9.4 Example of guidelinesfor spacing of Shadow Vehicles

(for Shadow Vehicles weighing 10000 kg [22,000 Ib] or more)
For Shadow Vehicles Weighing 10000 kg [22,000 lb] or More

~~
Recommended Spacingb
Operating Speedspeed Limita Stationary Operation Moving Operation'
km/h [mphl m [fil m [fil
Greater than 90 [Greater than 551 45 [ 1501 52.5 r1721
70 - 90 [45 - 551 30 [1001 45 [i501
Less than 70 [Less than 451 22.5 F I 30 1001
For Shadow Vehicles Weighing Less than 10000 kg [22,000 lb] but Greater than 4500 kg [9,900 lb]
Recommended Spacingb
Operating SpeedSpeed Limita Stationary Operation Moving Operation'
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
km/h [mphl m [fit] m [fil
Greater than 90 [Greater than 551 52.5 [i 721 67.5 P221
70 - 90 [45 - 551 37.5 ~ 3 1 52.5 [i721
Less than 70 [Less than 451 30 [loo1 30 1001
a
Should use operating speed if higher than posted speed limit.
Recommended spacing is distance between front of shadow vehicle and beginning of work area, that is the first
worker/operation'veehicle to be protected.
Distances are appropriate for shadow vehicle speeds up to 25 km/h [15.5 mph].
Shadow vehicles shall weigh 8000 kg to 9000 kg [17,600 Ib to 19,800 lb] on all Department construction projects.
Notes:
o The heaviest shadow vehicle should be used to optimize protection of maintenance or construction workers. Because roll-
ahead is minimized with heavier shadow vehicles, they can be placed closer to the work space to minimize the risk of
vehicles cutting in ahead of the shadow vehicles.
o The spacing distance is good with or without a TMA. A vehicle equipped with a TMA may move less than a truck not
equipped with a TMA. However, the recommended spacing is conservative enough to allow the same spacing for a TMA
versus a vehicle without a TMA.
Distances are intended as guidelines. However, engineeringjudgment should be used to alter distance to take into account
traffic conditions, vehicle mix, sight distance, and other site conditions.
[6 ft 10 in. x 7 ft 6 in. x 23 in.] crash pad containing honey- 9.3.2.3.2 Connecticut TMA
comb cardboard sections inside an aluminum shell. This
pad is connected to a support frame that is, in turn, The Connecticut TMA (CTMA) consists of four 6 10 mm
mounted to the frame of the support vehicle. The total [24 in.] diameter steel cylinders supportedbetween a steel
weight of the unit is 463 kg [IO21 ib]. When in use, the guide frame that attaches to a support truck, and an alumi-
R-en-Gard unit is positioned 330 m m [13 in.! ahove the num impact plate assembly with aluminum channels that
roadway surface. slide into steel tubes in the guide frame during impact.
In Test 2-5 1, a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacted The CTMA is not a proprietary product.
head-on at 70 km/h [45 mph] into a support vehicle weigh- In Test 2-5 1, a 2000 kg [4,400lb] pickup truck impacted
ing 8649 kg [ 19,068 lb]. The vehicle rolled ahead 2.26 m head-on at 70 km/h [45 mph] into a support vehicle weigh-
[7 ft 5 in.]. The Ren-Gard 815 TMA meets the NCHRP ing 8990 kg [ 19,800 lb]. The support vehicle rolled ahead
Report 350, TL-2 criteria.(See Figure 9.25.) 1.5 m [4 ft 1 1 in.]. As a result of this test, the CTMA meets
the TL-2 criteria.
9-27
FIGURE 9.25 Example-energy-absorbing cartridge mounted in a frame (Ren-Gard 815)
9.3.2.3.3 ALPHA 70K TMA speed impacts. In addition, there are an auxiliary energy-
absorbing cartridge and four cartridges in a collapsible
The ALPHA 70K TMA consists of three basic compo- support frame located between the support vehicle and
nents: an aluminum cartridge with a separate nose assem- the cartridge. Total weight of the TMA was reported as
bly, a back-up assembly, and a back-up support structure. approximately750 kg [1,650lb].
Total weight of the system is approximately 550 kg [ 1,215 In Test 3-51, a 2000 kg [4,400 Ib] pickup truck impacted
Ib]. It is intended for use on trucks with gross vehicle head-on at 96.6 km/h 160mph] into a support vehicle weigh-
weights between 5000 kg [i 1,023lb] and 12000kg [26,460 ing 8550 kg [ 18,850 lb]. The support vehicle rolled ahead
Ib]. The support vehicle weighed 8858 kg [19,529 lb]. In 4 m [13 fi]. The ALPHA 100Kmeetsthe TL-3 criteria. (See
Test 2-5 1, a 2000 kg [4,400 Ib] pickup truck impacted head- Figure 9.26.)
on at 70 km/h [45 mph] into a support vehicle. The vehicle
rolled ahead 2.75 m [9 fi]. The ALPHA 70K TMA meets
the TL-2 criteria. 9.3.2.3.5 Mobile Protection System 350
The Mobile Protection System (MPS) 350 consists of a

9.3.2.3.4 ALPHA I O O K TMA bracket that is attached to the rear of a support vehicle, a
frame that consists of two beams connected by an im-
The ALPHA 1OOK TMA is attached to under-ride brack- pact face, and a series of steel cross-braces. Each beam
ets connected to the frame of a support vehicle. The AL- in the frame is made from two horizontal channels (top
and bottom) connected by a series of steel plates which
PHA 100K TMA incorporates a cartridge containing en- bridge the 25 mm [ 1 in.] gap between the opposing flanges
ergy-absorbing cellsmade from lightweightaluminum sheet of the channels, thus creating a box section. On impact,
metal. This cartridge has a molded plastic nose that is the rear portion of the frame slides into a cutter assembly,
designedto minimize damage to the main cartridge in low- which makes up the lower portion of the bracket. As the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9-28
T r a f c Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safey Features for Work Zones
FIGURE 9.26 Example-Energy-absorbing cartridge mounted in a frame (ALPHA 100K)

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
frame slides forward, the metal plates on the sides of each In Test 3-5 1, a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacted
beam are torn apart by the cutter assembly, thereby dissi- head-on at 100 km/h [60 mph] into a supportvehicle weigh-
pating th energy of the impacting vehicle to slow and ing 8880 kg [19,580 lb]. The support vehicle rolled ahead
stop it safely. The MPS 350 is 3350 mm [ 11 ft] long and 5.4 m [17 ft 8 in.]. The VTMA meets the TL-3 criteria. (See
1220 mm [4 ft] wide at the impact face. Its total weight is Figure 9.28.)
approximately530kg [l,1701b].
In Test 3-5 1, a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacted
head-on at 100 km/h [60 mph] into a supportvehicle weigh- 9.3.2.3.7 Safe-Stop TMA
ing 9000 kg [ 19,800 lb]. The support vehicle rolled ahead
4 m [13 ft]. The MPA 350 meets the TL-3 criteria. (See The Safe-Stop TMA consists of a bi-folding articulating
Figure 9.27.) frame assembly that contains a Safe-StopType I Cartridge
immediately behind the impact face and a Safe-Stop Type
II Cartridge near the support vehicle. The Safe-Stop is
9.3.2.3.6 Vanderbilt TMA 3940 mm [ 13 ft] long, 2360 mm [7 fi 9 in.] wide at the impact
face, and weighs approximately815 kg [1,800lb]. The Safe-
The Vanderbilt Truck-MountedAttenuator (VTMA) con- Stop TMA was subjected to all four tests recommended in
sists of four 9 1O mm [3 ft] high polyethylene cylinders of NCHRP Report 350. In addition to required,Tests3-50 and
varying diameters and wall thicknesses bolted to each 3-51?Optional Test 3-52,2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck
other and to a back-up structure connected to a support offset of 640 mm [25.2in.], and Test 3-53,2000 kg [4,400lb]
vehicle. The cantilevered end of the VTMA is supported pickup truck offset at 10 degrees, were also successfully
by a cable connected to a steel boom mounted in the bed completed.
n--
T.. onnn I . . r~
3-5i, a LUUU ~g ~+,4Ibj pickup truck impacted
CI
f the supprt vehicle and elitended t uve the VTMA III i&
at a 45-degree angle. An 890 mm [35 in.] square vehicle head-on at 99 l d h i61.5 mph] into a support vehicle weigh-
grabber assembly is bolted to the impact face of the ing 8550 kg [ 18,850 lb]. The support vehicle rolled ahead
VTMA. The VTMA is 3780 mm [12ft 5 in.] long and weighs 4.5 m [I4 fi 10 in.]. Based on the results of this test, the
1158kg [2,550 lb]. Safe-Stop TMA meets the criteria for TL-3.
9-29
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 9.27 Example-Telescoping steel frame with a cutter assembly (MPS-350)
FIGURE 9.28 Example-Steel or polyethylenecylinder assembly (Vanderbilt TMA)
9-30
Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor Work Zones
9.3.2.3.8 U-MAD 100K TMA The support vehicle for the Scorpion C was a 9000 kg
[ 19,842lb] dump truck. Maximum reported roll-ahead of
The U-MAD 100K TMA consists of an aluminum box this support vehicle was 5.56 m [ 18 ft 2 in.] in Test 3-5 1.
containingeight separate internal compartments filled with
variable density energy-dissipating material. The unit is
3277 mm [129 in.] long, 2286 mm [90 in.] wide and weighs 9.3.2.3.10 RENCO RAM 100K TMA
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
approximately413 kg [910 lb], excludingthe weight ofthe

mounting bracket and lift mechanism, which is 157 kg The RENCO RAM 100K TMA is 3350 mm [ 132 in.] long,
[346 lb]. 2130 mm [84 in.] wide, 570 mm [2z3/,in.] deep, and has a
In Test 3-5 1, a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacted ground clearance of about 330 mm [ 13 in.] when lowered
head-on at 1O0 km/h [60 mph] into a support vehicle weigh- into its operating position. The energy-absorbing proper-
ing 86 13 kg [ 18,988 lb]. The support vehicle rolled ahead ties of the RENCO TMA consist of cardboard honeycomb
6.17 m [20 ft 3 in.]. Based on the results of Test 3-5 1,the U- sections housed in a rectangular aluminum box. The RAM
MAD 1OOK meets the criteria for TL-?. 100K model itselfweighs 427 kg [940 Ib] and the mounting
hardware adds another 72 kg [ 160 lb] to its total weight.
In Test 3-51, a 2000 kg [4,400 lb] pickup truck impacted
9.3.2.3.9 Scorpion A 10,000 and Scorpion C a RENCO RAM 100K (RAM) head-on at 100 km/h [60
10,000 TMAs mph]. The RAM was mounted on a support vehicle weigh-
ing 8845 kg [19,500 lb]. The impact caused the support
There are two versions of the Scorpion TMA: the first vehicle to roll ahead 4.3 m [ 14 ft]. The results of this test
consists of basic design (cartridge section) and the sec- indicate that the RENCO RAM 1OOK meets the criteria for
ond is an extended design (strut and cartridge sections). TL-3.
The TL-2 basic design, called the Scorpion A 10,000,
consists of 64 kg [141 lb] mounting hardware, a 310 kg
[683 lb] steel back-up structure and a 255 kg I562 lb] car- 9.4 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
tridge section consisting of aluminum honeycomb inside
three separate aluminum boxes. These three energy-ab- Traffic control devices include signs, channelizingdevices,
sorbing units are supported by and within a 114 mm [4'/, lighting units, and signals that are used to warn, guide, or
in.] diameter tubular aluminum frame. This design is 2060 regulate traffic. They should be designed and installed to
mm [81 in.] long and its total weight, including the mount- minimize the impact severity. This section discusses ele-
ing hardware, is 629 kg [i386 Ib]. ments of design and installation for various devices used.
The extendeddesign, called the Scorpion C 10,000,adds Work-zone traffic control devices can be grouped on
a 1500 mm [59 in.] long crushable aluminum strut section the basis of crashworthiness into four categories. These
between a back-up structure and the cartridge assembly categories reflect the relative safety of work-zone devices
used in the TL-2 design. The strut weighs 249 kg [549 lb]. when struck by an errant vehicle. They also indicate the
The total length of the TL-3 design is 3560 mm [140 in.] level of effort needed to show that the devices are crash-
and it weighs 632 kg [ 1393 lb], including mounting hard- worthy for use on the National Highway System. The four
ware weighing 64 kg [ 141 lb] and a back-up plate that also categories are:
weighs 64 kg [ 141 lb]. The back-up plate used in the TL-3
tests was different from the one used in the TL-2 test Low-mass,single piece traffic cones, tubular mark-
series. ers, single piece drums, and delineators. These
Both units are 2440 mm [96 in.] wide, 635 mm [25 in.] devices are, by FHWA definition, considered
deep, and have a ground clearance of approximately crashworthy devices meeting Test 3-7 1 criteria.
305 mm [ 12 in.] when lowered to their operating positions. A self-certification of crashworthiness by the
Either back-up design may be used with either the TL-2 vendor is sufficient to permit their use.
or the TL-3 TMAs. If the heavier back-up is used with
the TL-3 model, the total weight of the TMA, including Low-mass traffic control devices other than those
its mounting hardware, wouid be approximateiy 88 icg
..listed in Category i tinat quaiify for the reduced
[19361b]. level o testing and'or reporting according to
The Scorpion A 10,000 TMA (cartridge alone) meets Section3.2.3.2 ofNCHRP Report 350. Individual
TL-2 evaluation criteria; and when the Scorpion C 10,000 testing and FHWA acceptance are needed. Bar-
TMA cartridge is used in combination with the strut, it ricades, portable sign stands, vertical panels, and
satisfies TL-3 evaluation criteria. any Category 1 device with added lights, sign
panels, or similar additions are Category 2 de-
vices.
9-31
3. All other traffic control devices and highway design orientation, as well as testing multiples of the de-
safety hardware used in work zones. They are to vices as they are often deployed.
be tested to the full requirements of NCHRP Re- Most of the devices have been tested to TL-3, although
port 350. This category includes temporary or TL-2 may be satisfactory for many roadways.
permanent bamers, crash cushions (including The uses and crashworthiness of each channelizing
TMAs), large barricades, and sign supports. device are discussed below. These devices are shown in
Figures 9.29 through 9.35.
4. Large, typically trailer-mounted devices, such as
arrow panels, variable message signs, temporary
traffic signals, and similar devices. Crashworthi- 9.4.1.2 Cones and Tubular Markers
ness criteria have not been established for de-
vices in this category. However, it is important to A traffic cone is conical with a broadened base, from 450
follow guidelines for their use and placement. mm to 1200 mm [ 18 in. to 48 in.] high. Tubular markers
(tubes) are cylindrical with a broad base. They can be
There are a number of crashworthy traffic control de- fastened to the pavement and can be made to be self-
vices for work zone use. An approved listing of these is restoring when hit. Cones and tubes present minor im-
found on the web sites of governmental agencies such as pediments to trafic flow and generally will not damage a
the Federal Highway Administrationor the Texas Depart- vehicle when hit. Cones are easily blown over or displaced
ment of Transportation. unless their bases are ballasted or enlarged to increase
stability. The ballast should not present an obstruction if
the cone is struck. Suggested ballasting includes dou-
9.4.1 Channelizing Devices bling the cones, using heavier weighted cones, using
special weighted bases, or using masses such as sand-
Traffic control devices used for channelization should bag rings or ballast made of recycled tire material. (See
provide a smooth and gradual transition for moving traffic Figure 9.29.)
from one lane to another, into a detour, or in reducing the
width of the traveled way. Channelizingdevices may also
be used to separate traffic from the work area, pavement 9.4.1.3 Vertical Panels
drop-offs, or storage areas. Where possible, they should
be s e 0.3 m to 0.6 m [1 ft to 2 fi] back from the edge of the A vertical panel consists of a post-mounted or free-stand-
traffic lane (13). ing sign, 200 mm to 300mm [8 in. to 12 in.] wide and 600 mm
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Common channelizing devices are cones and tubular [24 in.] high minimum, striped downward in the direction
markers, vertical panels, drums, barricades, and tempo- of trafic flow.
rary raised islands. These devices should adhere to the A vertical panel design has been satisfactorily crash
size and shape requirements of the latest edition of the tested. It had a300mm to 450mmx 90mm [ i 1 in. to 18 in.
MTCD(2). x 3 in.] plain concrete base, but the panel was 450 mm [18
in.] wide, which exceeds MUTCD requirements.It is prob-
able that vertical panels meeting the MTCD requirements
9.4.1 .IPerformance Evaluation Criteria with similar concretebases may also be crashworthy.Other
types of vertical panel bases such as hard rubber bases,
The performance of channelizing devices should be evalu- square steel plates, and heavy steel rings are reportedly
ated by crash tests using procedures found in NCHRP being used satisfactorily by some highway agencies. The
Report 350 (7). FHWA provided important supplemental use of vehicle wheels as bases is not recommended.
guidance in a memorandum dated July 25, 1997, entitled Vertical panels may be classified by their supports as
Zdentzfiing Acceptable Highway Safety Features (14). This fixed, rigid, portable, or self-righting.A fixed vertical panel
memorandum requires that work-zone traffic control de- is usually made with a rigid panel mounted on a light-
vices used on the National Highway System ("S) be weight, crashworthy, frangible or base-bending support.
tested in tandem with one device oriented as typically A portable vertical panel is usually made with a rigid
found adjacent to traffic. A second device was to be placed plastic panel mounted on a plastic upright with a base.
6 m [20 ft] downstream and oriented perpendicular to the (See Figure 9.30.)
first. This method of testing satisfies the NCHRP Report A self-righting vertical panel is designed to stand back
350 requirement for testing services in other than their up after an impact.
9-32
Traflc Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor Work Zones
Retroreflective
Band
to 6'1
Retroreflective
Band
Night andor Freeway Day and Low-Speed

Night andor Freeway Day and Low-Speed
Roadway (> 65 kmih [40 mph]) High-speed Roadway Roadway (> 65 kmih [40 rnph])
High-Speed Roadway
(> 70 kmih 145 rnph])
(> 70 kmih [45rnph])
CONES TUBULAR MARKERS
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.29 Cones and Tubular Markers
9.4.1.4 Drums on warning lights is provided in Section 9.4.2.5. Other

attachments for drums, such as signs and flags, should be
Drums are used for traftc warning or channelization, are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
constructed of lightweight,flexible, and deformablemate- Drums should not be weighted with sand, water, or any
rials, and are a minimum of 900 mm [35 in.] in height. They material to an extent that would make them hazardous to
have at least a 450 mm [ 173/4in.] minimum width, regard- motorists, pedestrians, or workers. Single-piece plastic
less of orientation, and are generally cylindrical in drums should be ballasted to the manufacturer's recom-
shape (1 1). mendation but should not exceed 25 kg [55 lb] of loose
Drums are roadway objects and may, in rare instances, sand placed at the bottom. Recycled rubber tire sidewalls
be unsafe. Also, when located near the traffic lane, they may be used. Two-piece drums with a base less than 100
may reduce capacity. Care should be used in placing the mm [4 in.] high may be ballastedup to 34 kg [75 lb] (16).
drums to reduce the likelihood of their being impacted. Drums should not be ballasted with rocks, chunks of con-
Drums are commonly made of plastic. Many of the com- crete, or similar objects. Ballast should not be placed at
mercially available plastic drums have one or more flat the top of the drums.
sides to limit rolling and have recesses for warning lights.
(See Figure 9.3 1.)
Crash tests of drums have shown that they must be 9.4.1.5 Barricades
designed and manufactured of the proper material to be
crashworthy. Based on early crash test results, steel 2 10 L A barricade is a portable or fixed device having from one
[55 gal] drums are not recommended for use (15). The plas- to three rails with appropriate markings. It is used to con-
tic drums without warning lights performed well in crash trol traffic by closing, restricting, or delineating all or a
tests by wrapping around the bumper of the vehicle or by portion of the right-of-way. For daytime use, a barricade
being harmlessly knocked aside. Some plastic drums with may be used where a collision with an object would be
attachments such as warning lights performed well; how- more severe than a collision with the barricade. Other-
ever, warning lights installed on the some other piastic wise, curies o otle t j p s of channelization should be
rums had a tendency to separate from the drum and seri- used. Barricades should be constructed of lightweight
ously damage the windshield. Therefore, it is recommended materials and have no rigid sway bracing for A-frame de-
that plastic drums be reinforced around the mounting hole signs unless proven crashworthy by crash testing. Barri-
or that similar precautions be taken to prevent warning cades should not be ballasted by rocks or chunks of con-
lights from separating upon impact. Additional guidance crete. Sandbags or flat slabs of recycled rubber tire
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9-33
f 1257 mm
[4'-11/2'']
(w/l ight)
-457 mm [2'-6"] (base)
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.30 Portable Vertical Panel
457 mm [18"]
1308 mm
1115 mm
[4'-3 '/*11]
(overaiI) u
c
[3'-8"]
(drum)
(base)
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.31 Drum
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9-34
sidewalls are to be used as ballast. The bags should be As of the date of this report, two of these devices have
placed on the bottom of the barricade. met TL-3 crash test requirements for traffic control de-
According to the MUTCD, the three types of barri- vices.
cades are Type I, Type II, and Type III (2).
Type I or Type II barricades are used where traffic is
maintained through the work area. They may be used alone 9.4.2 Signs and Supports
or in groups to mark specific obstacles. Also, they may be
used in a series for channelizing traffic. Type I barricades Guidance for design and placement of work-zone signs is
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
are normally used on urban or low-speed roads or streets given in the MUTCD (2) and in Chapter 4 of this Guide.
or as a sign support on all types of roadways. Type II Sign supports placed in the clear zone should yield or
barricades are often used for expressways, freeways, and break away upon impact to minimize obstructions to mo-
other high-speed roadways. torists and not present an undue risk to workers. Depend-
Examples of crashworthy generic Types II and III barri- ing upon the crash tested design, slight variations to the
cades are shown in Figures 9.32 through 9.34. There are support may not be considered crashworthy.
also preassembled proprietary barricades. While most of the sign supports have been developed
A Type II barricade using steel single legs and ply- to meet crashworthy criteria ofNCHRP Report 350, TL-3,
wood panels has been successfully tested with a warning sign supports that meet TL-2 may also be appropriate de-
light attached. The design is available for public use. pending on the expected impact speeds.
Type III barricades have three horizontal rails which Work-zone signs may be mounted on fixed, temporary,
are aminimumof 1.2m [4 fi] long and a minimurnof 1.5m [5 or portable supports. Fixed supports are preferable for
ft] to the top of the highest rail. They may be used to block long-term projects. These supports should meet the
a road at the point of closure. Due to a potential for hori- breakaway requirements for permanent installations dis-
zontal rails of barricades to penetrate a windshield, barri- cussed in Chapter 4. Generally, sign supports that are ap-
cades should not be placed parallel to traffic within the proved for longer terms may be substituted for shorter-
clcar zone unless that particular model has been success- term signs.
fully crash tested in that orientation.
9.4.2.1 Longllntermediate-TermWork-Zone
9.4.1.6 Longitudinal Channelizing Barricades Sign Supports
Longitudinal channelizing barricades are lightweight, de- These work-zone sign supports are used for signs that are
formable channelizing devices that can be used singly as in place at night or for less than two weeks. Both generic
Type I, II, or III barricades, or connected so they are highly and proprietary designs are available. An example of a
visible and have good target value. (See Figure 9.35.) They generic long- or intermediate-termwork-zone sign is shown
can be hollow and use water as ballast. They are also in Figure 9.36. Another example is the barricade sign sup-
portable enough to be shifted from place to place within a port developed by Minnesota. This Type III barricade is a
site in order to accommodate changing conditions. perforated steel square tube (PSST) barricade. (See Figure
The interlocking units are used to delineate or 9.37.)Itis 1829mmwidex 1528mmdeepx 1592mmtall[72
channelizetraffic flow including pedestrian traffic control. in. wide x 60 in. deep x 6211/,,in. tall] with an aluminum sign
The interlocking barricade wall does not have gaps panel 1219mm wide x 762 mmtall[48 in. wide x 30 in, tall]
through which pedestrians, bicyclists, or motor vehicles mounted at a height of 1410mm [56 in.] from the ground to
can filter. the bottom of the sign panel. The PSST met the TL-3 crite-
Longitudinal channelizing barricades may be used in ria after being impacted head-on and end-on.
lieu of a line of cones, drums, or barricades.They are often
located adjacent to traffic and therefore are subject to
impact by errant vehicles. Because of their vulnerable 9.4.2.2 Wheeled Portable Sign Supports
position, they should be constructed of lightweight mate-
rials and be crashworthy. A portable wo&-zone sign trailer is currently used by the
Though they give the appearance of being formidable Montana Deparment of Transportation. (See Figure 9.38.)
obstacles, longitudinal channelizing barricades have not The wheeled sign supports can be hitched together to
met the crashworthy requirements (NCHRP Report 350) form a train that can be towed to the job site. The total
for temporary traffic barriers; therefore, they should not weight of the trailer is 113 kg [249 lb]. The portable sign
be used to shield pedestrians, including workers, from trailer was tested both head-on and at a 90-degree angle at
vehicle impacts or shield vehicles from obstacles. They a targeted speed of 100 km/h [60 mph] with an 820C ve-
may be suitable, however, as pedestrian barriers. hicle (a small passenger car ranging from 750 kg to 845 kg
9-35
12 gage galv. steel leg (typ)

13 mm [li2" ] thick plywood panel (typ)
210 mm
[84/.,"]
203mm
i87 'L 965rnrn
[3-'/6"]
J I 914mm
[3'1
(overall)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.32 Type II Plywood and Metal Panel Barricade (bent)
2438 mm
[96]
Not io Scale
FIGURE 9.33 Type 111 Wood and Steel Barricade
9-36
Traffic Barriers, Traffic Conhol Devices, and Other Safety Featuresfor Work Zones
25 rnrn x 203 rnrn x 2435 rnrn [I' x 'x 96'1

HOLLOW CORE PLASTIC RAILS
WOOD PANELS AlTACHED

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TO SUPPORTS USING
10 DIA. X 76 rnrn Pi8' X 3'1
LONG BOLTS (2 PER SUPPORT)
OUTER STIFFENER
25 rnrn x 203 rnrn x 2435 rnrn
x 8'x 96'1 WOOD PANELS
[i'
44 rnrn [l'!21 SQUARE

PERFORATEDTUBING
44rnmx102mrn[13~,'x4']
O2 rnrn [47
Not to Scale FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 9.34 Type 111 (Skid-Type) Barricadewith perforatedsquare tubing support
152 mm
[6"1
I I
1016 mm
[3'-4"] 598 mm
[2'1
Not to Scale
FIGURE 9.35 LongitudinalChannelizing Barricades
9-37
136 in. x 36 in. x in.]
1O2 rnrn x 102 rnm x 3048 rnrn

7[4 in. x 4 in. x 120 in.]
LONG WOOD SUPPORT
\
1 13048 rnm [120 in.]
I 1I
2134 rnm [84 in.]
51 rnrn x 102 rnrn [2 in. x 4 in.]
BRACE APPROX.
f 885 mm [35 in.] LONG
-102 mrn x 102 rnm x 140 rnm
1
610 mrn [24 in.]
C
524 mrn [60 in.]
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Not io Scale NOTE: WOOD DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL UNLESS NOTED
FIGURE 9.36 Wood, H-Leg Design Sign Support
[1,650 lb to 1,860 lb]. In the tests, the trailer moved 75 m the date of this guide, certain X-base sign supports have
[246 fi] in the head-on crash test and 49 m [161 ft] in the 90- been successfully crash tested. Most have been tested
degree crash test from the point of impact. Based on the with roll-up signs having crashworthy fiberglass spread-
results of the impact tests, the trailer meets the require- ers. The roll-up signs are considered interchangeable on
ments ofNCHRP Report 350, TL-3. crash-tested supports if the horizontal spreaders are no
greater than 4.76 mm [3/i6 in.] thick, although a few have
successfullyused 6.35 mm in.] thick horizontal ribs. A
9.4.2.3 Short-Term Work-Zone Sign Supports small number of X-base signs have also been success-
fully tested with lightweightrigid signs, These lightweight
Signs mounted on portable low-level supports are suit- rigid signs were fabricated using substrates of corrugated
able for conditions such as short-term operations (one plastic (16 mm [ 5 / 8 in.] thick Lexan or 10 mm [3/8 in.] thick
work shift or less) or changing activities. These supports polyethylene) or an aluminum-plastic sandwich 2.5 mm
should be designed to be safe when impacted. Crash-tested in.] thick. Lightweight rigid sign substrates should
designs have been mounted on skids or on metal legs only be used on X-base sign stands with which they have
(often called the X-base design). (See Figure 9.39.) As of been successfully tested.
9-38
Trafic Barriers, Trafic Control Devices, and Other Safety Features for WorkZones
When crash tested at approximately 100 k m h [60 mph],

fiberglasschevron signs (450 mm x 600 mm [18in. x 24 in.],
weighing 1 kg [2.2 lb] and bolted to the top of plastic
drums) performed well (16). Plywood chevron signs tested
under the same conditions did not perform acceptably.
9.4.2.4 Trailer-Mounted Devices
Trailer-mounted devices such as arrow panels, change-

able message signs, and portable traffic signals are often
used in work zones. Since they are often located in the
roadway, they should be crashworthy. A good design
would be lightweightwith the center of gravity of the unit,
such as a unit with a self-contained power source, near or
below the center of gravity of impacting vehicles. As a
result of an impact, detached elements, fragments, or other
debris from the device should not penetrate or show po-
tential for penetrating the passenger compartment nor FIGURE 9.38 Montana Sign Support
present undue risk to the public. When located in a work
zone but not in operation, an effort should be made to

store these devices outside the clear zoiies and delineate
1 them with traffic control devices to reduce the probability
of impact by errant vehicles. If placed behind a barrier,
these devices should be placed downstream of the begin-
ning of the length of need of the barrier and outside the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
expected deflection of the barrier. To reduce the likelihood

that they will be struck by errant vehicles, installation of
trailer-mounted devices should be carefully thought out.
The MUTCD addresses the installation of portable
changeable message signs (CMS) and arrow panels in
Sections 6F.52 and 6F.53 (2):
Section 6F.52 Portable Changeable Message Signs
Guidance:
Portable Changeable Message signs should

be placed on the shoulder of the roadway or,
if practical,farther from the traveled lane. They
should be delineated with retroreflectivetem-
porary traffic control devices or when within
the clear zone, shielded with a barrier or crash
cushion. When Portable Changeable Message
signs are not being used, they should be re-
moved; if not removed, they should be
shielded; or if the previous two options are
FIGURE 9.37 Minnesotas PerforatedSteel not feasible, they should be delineated with
Square Tube (PSST) Type 111 Barricade Sign retroreflective temporary traffic control de-
Support with aluminum panels vices.
9-39
Where possible, CMS should be placed be-

hind existingrigid or semi-rigidprotection (bar-
rier or guardrail). This will help to avoid po-
tential injury to errant motorists, while simul-
taneously aiding in the protection of this vaiu-
able equipment. When CMS are required for
long terms in locations where no protection
exists, temporary guardrail or barrier should
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
be considered.
Where positive protection is not feasible, CMS

should be delineated with drums. If a CMS is
placed on a 10?[3 m] shoulder, a shoulder clo-
sure should be installed. If a CMS is placed
adjacent to a 4? [1.2 m] shoulder, it should be
delineated with a minimum of three drums. If
possible, CMS should not be placed closer
FIGURE 9.39 X-Base Sign Support than 6?[2 m] or farther than 20?[6 m] from the
edge of the travelway. A sign placed closer
than 6?[2 m] from the edge of the travelway
becomes an obstruction which causes a re-
Section 6F.53 Arrow Panels duction in traffic flow. A sign placed farther
than 20?[6 m] from the edge of the travelway
Guidance: becomes unreadable for many motorists.
An arrow panel should be used in combina- The MUTCD, Part VI, shows various layouts of traffic
tion with appropriate signs, channelizing de- control devices including arrow panels (2). Figure TA-33
vices, or other temporary traffic control de- shows channelizing devices deployed on the shoulder to
vices. further separate approaching traffic from the risk of hit-
ting the arrow panel itself. This shoulder taper is an op-
tional traffic control treatment in every scenario where an
An arrow panel should be placed on the shoul- arrow panel is shown on the shoulder in the MUTCD.
der of the roadway or, if practical, further from From a roadside safety viewpoint, it is an option that is
the traveled lane. It should be delineated with strongly recommended.
retroreflective temporary traffic control de-
vices, or when within the clear zone, shielded Nighttime Delineation:
with a barrier or crash cushion. When an ar-
row panel is not being used, it should be re- Both arrow panels and CMS are highly visible
moved; if not removed, it should be shielded; when in use, but have little or no target value
or if the previous two options are not feasible, when turned off at night. Undoubtedly, some
it should be delineated with retroreflective drivers are not in control of their vehicles or
temporary traffic control devices. are confused to the extent that they do not
recognize the device as a risk and may crash
Listed below is one state?spolicy on portable chainge- into the trailer. Nevertheless, retroreflective
able message signs (17): delineationwill allow many drivers to see the
darkened device and perhaps have an oppor-
3. SIGN PLACEMENT AND INSTALLA- tunity to avoid the obstruction. Trailers
TION should be delineated on a temporary basis by
placing a perimeter of channelizing devices,
and on a permanent basis by affixing retrore-
3.3 DELINEATION AND POSITIVE flective material, known as ?conspicuity? ma-
PROTECTION terial, in a continuous line on the face of the
trailer to be seen by oncoming traffic.
9-40
9.4.2.5 Warning Lights The standard warning light powered by two lan-
tem batteries is not considered lightweight.These
Work-zone warning lights are portable, lens-directed, en- standard units have a mass of approximately 2.0
closed lights commonly mounted on barricades, drums, kg [4.4lb] and may not be interchangedwith light-
vertical panels, or advanced warning signs. The MUTCD weight warning lights. However, they are accept-
requires that they be installed at a minimum mounting able when securely attached to plastic drums as
height of 900 mm [35 in.] above the traveled way (wind- discussed in Section 9.4.1.4and where they have
shield height) (2). If the warning lights separate from the been specifically included in a successful crash
device upon impact, injury to vehicle occupants or work- test and found acceptable for use.
ers may result. Tests have shown that a version of the
Type A and Type C warning lights can crack a windshield 8 All warning lights should be securely attached
when impacted at 50 km/h [30mph] and penetratethe wind- to the channelizing device using standard van-
shield at 1 O0 kmh [60 mph] (18). To prevent the lighting dal-resistanthardware.
device from separating and penetrating the vehicle com-
partment, it should be securely fastened to the traffic con-
trol device. Larger batteries that are typically used for
high-intensity flashing warning lights should have sepa- 9.5 OTHER WORK-ZONE FEATURES
rate battery cases that are mounted near the ground to
prevent impacting the windshield. 9.5.1 Glare Screens
A number of other channelizing devices (various verti-
cal panels and barricades) have been successfully crash Glare screens on barriers may be used in work zones to
tested using lightweight warning lights. These are reduce glare and to block the drivers view of work-zone
MUTCD Types A or C (flashing or steady-bum, respec- activities that may distract from driving tasks (19). Cross-
tively) lights which have a mass of 1.5 kg [3.3 lb] or less overs, horizontal curves, restrictive lanes, and tapers ad-
(including batteries. if the lens is mounted on top of the jacent to work areas such as a bridge deck repair site may
battcry case) (2). In general, they either have a separate warrant their use.
battery pack located at the base of the device and only the Installation of glare screens in work zones depends on
lens assembly is attached to the top of the barricade, or many factors such as accident experience, high nighttime
the lens assembly is attached to a small battery pack and traffic volumes, complaints from the public, or highway
the unit, including batteries, is less than 1.5 kg [3.3 lb]. geometry. Additional factors include distance between
The circular plastic lens is approximately 180 mm to 200 opposing trafic, lane-widthrestrictions, delineationwash-
mm [7 in. to 8 in.] in diameter. Most lightweight warning out, work area distractions, and worker proximity. Design
lights use light-emittingdiode (LED) technology. parameters for glare screens include distance between
Other facts about warning lights include the following: opposing traffic, barrier type, vertical curvature, and hori-
zontal curvature.
Lightweight warning lights may be considered Desirable characteristics of a work-zone glare screen
interchangeable. That is, any channelizing de- include the following:
vice successfullycrash tested with a lightweight
warning light will be considered crashworthy 4 will not penetrate the passenger compartment or
when used with any other lightweight warning present an undue risk to workers and other traf-
light. fic when hit,
Channelizing devices successfully crash tested 4 performs in a predictable manner when hit,
with any warning light will be considered crash-
worthy when used with a lightweight warning effectively reduces glare,
light.
8 is resistant to vandalism and vehicle damage, and
Lightweight warning lights that generally con-
form to this description but are powered by bat- is easy to repair.
teries recharged by integral solar cells are also
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
considered crashworthy. These solar-powered

warning lights are limited to a mass of 1.0 kg
[2.2lb].
9-41
9.5.2 Pavement Edge Drop-offs Installing portable concrete barriers or other ac-
ceptable positive barriers with a buffer between
Pavement edge drop-offs may occur during highway work the barrier face and the traveled way. An accept-
such as pavement repairs, resurfacing, or shoulder work able crashworthyterminal or flared barriers should
(20). When not properly addressed, drop-offs may lead to be installed at the upstream end of the section.
an errant vehicle losing control with a high potential for a For nighttime use, standard delineation devices
serious accident. must supplement the barriers.
Desirably, no vertical drop-off greater than 50 mm [2
in.] should occur between adjacent lanes. However, when Where a trench exists adjacent and parallel to the
a vertical drop-off does occur, mitigating measures should pavement edge, place steel plates to cover an
be taken. The extent of the measures depends upon: excavation or trench, if feasible. A wedge of ma-
terial around the cover may be required to ensure
shape of the vertical drop-off, a smooth transition between the pavement and
the plate. Steel plates should be held in place
longitudinal length of the drop-off, with pins adjacent to the paving material to pre-
vent lateral movement. Warning signs should be
location of the drop-off (centerline, lane line, and used to alert motorists of the presence of steel
or edge-of-traveled way), plates and that the plates may be slippery, par-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ticularly when the plates are on the travel lanes.

duration,
These recommendations may be modified by the re-
traffic volume and speed, sults of other statistically significant and valid studies.
geornetrics, and
REFERENCES
relative location of on-comingtraffic.
1. AASHTO Task Force on Work Site Accident Data.
Research has found that the loss of vehicle control can SummaryReport on WorkZoneAccidents. Wash-
develop at speeds greater than 50 kmih [30 mph] under ington, DC, July 1987.
certain circumstances, where inattentive or inexperienced
drivers return to the traffic lane by oversteering to over- 2. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on
come the resistance from a continuous pavement edge Uniform Traf@ Contro1,Devices. FHWA, U.S.
and tire-scrubbing condition (20). Pavement edge drop- DOT, Washington, DC, 2000.
Offs greater than 75 mm [3 in.] immediately adjacent to
3. Sicking, D. L. Guidelines for Positive Barrier Use
traffic should not be left overnight. If they are higher than
in Construction Zones. TransportationResearch
75 mm [3 in.] and left overnight, mitigatingmeasures should
Record 1035. Transportation Research Board,
be considered. Some mitigating measures include:
Washington,DC, 1986.
s Placing a temporary wedge of material along the 4. Ross, et al. National Cooperative Highway Re-
face of the drop-off. The wedge should consist search Report 358: Recommended Practices for
of stable material placed at a 45-degree angle or Use of Trafic Barriers and Control Treatments
flatter slope. Warning signs should be placed in for Restricted Work Zones. Transportation Re-
advance of and throughout the treatment. Pave- search Board, Washington, DC, February 1994.
ment markings are useful in delineating the edge
of the travel lane. 5. Graham, J. L., J. R. Loumiet, and J. Migletz. Por-
table Concrete Barrier Connectors (Final Re-
s Placing channelizingdevices along the traffic side port). Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
of the drop-off and maintaining, if practical, a 1 m DOT, August Washington,DC, 1987.
[3 ft] wide buffer between the edge of the travel
lane and the drop-off. Warning signs should be 6. Bryden, James E. Crash Tests of Work Zone Traf-
placed in advance of and throughout the treat- fic Control Devices. Transportation Research
ment. Record 1254. Transportation Research Board,
9-42
TrufficBarriers, TrafficControl Devices, and Other Safes Features for Work Zones
7. Ross, H. E., Jr., D. L. Sicking, and R. A. Zimmer. DC, August 28, 1998. (Also available by down-
National Cooperative Highway Research Re- loading the 10 megabyte file: http://
port 350: Recommended Procedures f o r the safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pdf/crash.pdf)
tures. Transportation Research Board, Washing- 14.Federal Highway Administration.Zdentfying Ac-
ton, DC, 1993. ceptable Highway Safety Features. Memoran-
dum from Director, Office of Engineering, Wash-
8. Michie, J. D. National Cooperative Highway Re- ington, DC, July 25, 1997.
search Report 230: Recommended Procedures
for the Safety Performance Evaluation of High- 15.Mak, King K. and W. L. Campise. Test and Evalu-
way Appurtances. Transportation Research ation of Work Zone Traffic Control Devices. TTI
Board, Washington, DC, 1981. Project No. 19170. Texas Transportation Institute,
August 1990.
9. Guidry, Todd R. and W. Lynn Beason. Develop-
ment of a Low-Profile Portable Concrete Barrier, 16.Mak, King K. and U '
. L. Campise. Testing and
Transportation Research Record 1367:Trans- Evaluation of Work Zone Traffic Control Devices
portation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1992. for Use in Work Zones. TTI Project No. 9850B.
Texas Transportation Institute, January 1990.
10.Hahn, K. C. and J. E. Bryden. Crash Tests of Con-
struction Zone Traffic Barriers. Paper presented 17.North Carolina Department of Transportation,
at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Transporta- Policy for Use of Changeable Message Signs,
tion Research Board, Washington, DC, January July 15, i 999. http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/pre-
21-25,1980. construct/traffic/congestion/docs/cmsopera.pdf
11.Bronstad, M. E. and C. E. Kimball, Jr. Temporary 18.Carlson,L. E. and A. G. Hoffman. Safety Assess-
Burriers Used ia CoilstruetionZones. Report No. ment of Several Traffic Channelizing Devices,
FHWA-RD-80-095.Federal Highway Administra- Fblume II, Research Results. Report No. FHWA-
tion, U.S. DOT, Washington, DC, December 1980. RD-83-024.Federal Highway Administration,U.S.
DOT, Washington, DC, March 1983.
12.Humphreys,Jack B. and T. Darcy Sullivan. Guide-
lines for the Use of Truck-Mounted Attenuators 19.Transportation Research Board. Glare Screen
(TMAs) in !York Zones. Transportation Center, Guidelines. Synthesis of Highway Practice No.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 1990. 66. TRB, Washington, DC, 1979.
13.Federal Highway Administration. Crash Tested 20. Transportation Research Board. The Influence
Work Zone Traffic Devices. Memorandum from of Roadway Surface Discontinuities on Safety.
the Director, Ofice of Engineering, Washington, In State-of-the-Art Report. TRB, Washington,
DC, 1984.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Roadside Safety in Urban or
Restricted Environments
10.0 OVERVIEW levels of service decrease. As one leaves an urban area,

the process reverses. In major metropolitan centers, the
Generally, the principles and guidelines for roadside de- area classified as suburban can radiate outward from the
sign presented in the previous chapters of this Guide dis- urban center for tens of kilometers [miles].
cuss roadside safety considerations for rural highways, There may also be whole communities that are sepa-
Interstates, and freeways where speeds are generally rated from the metropolitan center by rural-like conditions
higher: approaching or exceeding &O knuh {SO mph], and but function like a suburban area. Often these bedroom
vehicles are operating under free-flow conditions. This communitiesdo not display many of the characteristics
chapter presents the designer with considerations to en- of a true urban area. The designer must be careful to de-
hance safety on uncontrolled access highways in urban sign operational and safety treatments for highways in
or restricted environments. The following conditions are these communities and suburban areas based on their
typical for these types of roads or streets: lower or lower- operating characteristics rather than blindly force-fitting
ing speeds, dense abutting development, limited rights- safety and operational treatments used in urban areas.
of-way, closely spaced intersections and accesses to prop- Unlike rural areas, suburban areas may have more than
erties, higher traffic volumes, and the presence of special occasional pedestrian and bicycle activity. Consequently,
users including mass transit vehicles, delivery trucks, bi- roadside safety for both motorists and non-motorists be-
cycles, and pedestrians including the disabled. These and comes more of a consideration.
other conditions influence the design and operation of In high-speed areas or on controlled-access facilities,
highways in these areas. protection for pedestrians from possible errant vehicles
Restricted environments are segments of roads and may be prudent as well as the placing of fencing or barrier
streets where conditions are different from adjacent sec- to discourage pedestrians or bicyclists from entering the
tions of the road or street. These areas are not limited to roadway.
urban environments, as they may also be found in rural or Section 2.1.2 mentions that the highway designer has a
rural-urban transition areas. Examples include areas of re- significant degree of control over roadside geometry and
stricted right of way, spot development, parks, play- appurtenances.This statement is more applicablefor rural
grounds, or other facilities that increase or otherwise af- conditions and especially so for new rural highways. In
fect the vehicular or non-vehicular activity in the area. urban or restricted conditions, however, the roadside en-
Often there is no clear demarcation between rural and vironment (houses, businesses, trees, utility poles, sig-
urban conditions. The rural-urban transition area where nals, walkways, etc.) is already established and less flex-
traffic is leaving a rural type setting and entering an urban ible. Consequently, the designer has the challenge of pro-
type setting is commonly referred to as suburban. Op- viding roadside safety given the many pre-existing con-
erating speeds reduce, but in many cases speeds tend to straints at hand.
remain high, especially in off-peak hours. The number of Existing road and street traffic volumes usually increase
abutting property access points and intersectionsbecomes over the passage of time resulting in the need to make
more frequent. Bicycle and pedestrian activity is also likely decisions regarding additional capacity. Designers must
to increase. Generally, traffic volumes increase and the be cognizant that roadway widening may result in more
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
10-1
potential conflicts for pedestrians and bicyclists that use Remove the fixed object.
the space both within and immediately adjacent to the
facility. Appropriate measures should be considered to 8 Redesign the fixed object so it can be safely tra-
provide an adequate level of safety. A safe, efficient, and versed.
economical design is the goal.
The various appurtenances such as benches, trash Relocate the fixed object to a point where it is
barrels, and bike racks that accommodate pedestrians and less likely to be struck.
bicyclists may be undesirable from the errant motorists
point of view. Ideally, appurtenances should be located a Reduce impact severity by using an appropriate
where they are not likely to be hit by an errant vehicle. In breakaway device or impact attenuator.
situations where appurtenances are likely to be hit, they
should be of a yielding nature, where practical, to mini- a Redirect a vehicle by shielding the obstacle with
mize damage to the striking vehicle and its occupants. a longitudinal traffic barrier.
Breakaway supports for signs should be used unless an
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
engineering study indicates otherwise. However, concern a Delineate the fixed object if the above alterna-
for pedestrians has led to the use of fixed supports in tives are not appropriate.
some urban areas. Examples of sites where breakaway sup-
ports may be imprudent are adjacent to bus shelters or in
areas of extensive pedestrian concentrations. Many situ-
ations may need case-specific analysis. Consideration 10.2 DESIGN SPEED
should be given to using breakaway supports for post-
mounted signals installed in wide medians. Urban and suburban operating speeds vary by time of
day more than rural operating speeds do. During free-flow
conditions, and especially during late night, speeds are
10.1 NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDY much higher; often well beyond the speed limit. Higher
OF SITES speeds result in the potential for more severe accidents,
as indicated by the data shown in Table 10.1, which shows
While the clear roadside concept is still the goal of the the percentage of single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes
designer, there are likely to be many compromises in the that occurred from 7:OO p.m. to 7:OO a.m. and from 7:OO a.m.
urban or suburban area. One misconception is that a curb to 7:OO p.m. on urban principal and minor arterials in one
with a 0.5 m C1.5 ft] offset behind it satisfies the clear state. During the lower volume and higher speed period of
roadside concept. Realistically, curbs have limited 7:OO p.m. to 7:OO a.m., a greater percentage of injury and
redirectional capabilities and only at low speeds, approxi- fatal crashes occur than during the other half of the day.
mately 40 km/h [25 mph] or lower. Consequently,regard- While other factors such as alcohol, fatigue, and limited
less of curbing, the designer must strive for a wider clear night-sight distance may contribute to this higher per-
zone that is more reflective of the off-peak operating speed centage, higher speeds and greater speed variance under
(85th percentile) or design speed, whichever is greater. At free-flow conditions are likely to be significant contribut-
the higher speed end of the suburban area or on medium ing factors.
to high-speed urban facilities, serious consideration Consequently, roadside features need to be designed
should be given to providing a full width paved shoulder for the higher operating speeds that occur during free-
and offsetting any curbing to the back of the paved shoul- flow conditions. This may mean that the estimated en-
der. These shoulders can often be used to accommodate croachment speed used to design for roadside features
bicyclists and even the occasional pedestrian when side- may be higher than the design speed for the roadway as a
walks are not provided. The shoulder can be eliminated, if whole, especially if the off-peak operating speed (85th
necessary, further into the suburban area where off-peak percentile) was not used to determine the project design
speeds are lower. speed. Also, as stated in the Preface, since the design
As always, for reconstruction or resurfacing projects, speed is often determined by the most restrictive physical
the crash history should be considered in determining the features found on a specific project, there may be a sig-
specific clear roadside treatment for each portion of a nificant percentage of a project length where that speed
project. will be exceeded by a reasonable and prudent driver.
The standard hierarchy of design options for the treat- Therefore, the designer should consider the speed at
ment of fixed objects should be considered for each loca- which encroachments are most likely to occur when se-
tion. They are, in order of preference: lecting an appropriate roadside design standard or fea-
ture.
10-2
Roadside Safety in Urban or Restricted Environments
TABLE 10.1 Percentage of single vehicle run-off-the-roadcrashes by severity and time

period for urban principal and minor arterials in Illinois
Possible Injury and

Property Damage Non-Incapacitating Incapacitating Injury
Time Period Only Crashes Injury Crashes and Fatal Crashes Total
7 p.m.-7 a.m. 34.6% 13.6% 6.8% 55.0%
7 a.m.-7 p.m. 32.3% 8.8% 3.9% 45.0%
100.0%
10.3 ROADSIDE BARRIERS IN URBAN used be crashworthy as well as visually acceptable to the
AND RESTRICTED AREAS highway agency.
Having decided that a roadside barrier is warranted at a
A roadside barrier is a longitudinal barrier used to shield given location and having selected the type of barrier to
motorists from natural or synthetic obstacles located along be used, the designer must specify the exact layout re-
either side of a roadway. The primary purpose of roadside quired. The major factors that must be considered include
barriers is to prevent a vehicle from striking a fixed object the following:
or roadside feature that is less forgiving than the barrier
itsel.This is accomplished by containing and redirecting e lateral offset from the edge of pavement
the impacting vehicle. Barriers are also used to separate
pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic when a deflection distance of the barrier
appropriate. Refer to Chapter 5 for a discussion of perfor-
mance, structural, and safety characteristics of crashwor- terrain effects
thy roadside barriers.
An untreated end of a roadside barrier is not desirable flarerate
since it may penetrate the passenger compartment or stop
the vehicle too abruptly when hit. A crashworthy end length of need
treatment is therefore considered essential if the barrier
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
terminates within the clear zone or in an area where the comer sight distance
barrier is likely to be hit head-on by an errant vehicle. The
selection of the proper treatment should be in accordance a pedestrian activity including the needs of the
with the proposed test levels, warrants, and availability of disabled
maintenance.To be crashworthy,the end treatment should
not spear, vault, or roll a vehicle for head-on or angled bicycle activity
impacts.
Intersections and driveways complicate the selection Generally, a roadside barrier should be placed as far
and use of end treatments. A major factor in selecting and from the traveled way as conditionspermit while ensuring
locating end treatments is obtaining the necessary comer that the system performs properly. Such placement gives
sight distance at these locations. Refer to Chapter 8 for an errant motorist the best chance of regaining control of
further guidance on this subject. the vehicle without striking the barrier. It also provides
Aesthetic concerns can be a significant factor in the better sight distance. particularly at nearby intersections.
selection of a roadside barrier in environmentally sensi- It is desirable that a uniform clearance be provided be-
tive locations such as recreational areas, parks, or many tween traffic and roadside features such as bridge rail-
urban or suburban environments. In these instances, a ings, retaining walls, roadside barriers, utility poles, and
natural-looking barrier that blends in with its surround- trees, particularly in urban areas where there is a prepon-
ings is often selected. It is important that the systems derance of these elements. The placement of roadside
barriers is covered in Chapter 5 .
10-3
10.3.1 Barrier Warrants Barriers intended to protect adjacent land use must
prevent an errant vehicle from entering a specific area. A
Barrier warrants are based on the premise that a traffic barrier that is not structurally adequate may be less desir-
barrier should be installed only if it reduces the severity of able for the area it was intended to protect than having no
potential crashes. It is important to note that the probabil- barrier at all. Flying debris resulting from the impact of a
ity or frequency of run-off-the-road crashes is not directly vehicle into a deficient barrier can injure people in the
related to the seventy of potential accidents. area.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Typically, barrier warrants have been based on a sub- Consideration should also be given to installing a bar-
jective analysis of certain roadside elements or conditions. rier to shield businesses and residences that are near the
If the consequences of a vehicle striking a fixed object or right-of-way, particularly at locations having a history of
running off the road are believed to be more serious than run-off-the-road accidents.
hitting a traffic barrier, then the barrier is considered war-
ranted. While this approach can be used often, there are
instances where it is not immediately obvious whether the 10.3.3 Guidelines for Pedestrian and
barrier or the unshielded condition presents the greater Bicyclist Barriers
risk. Appendix A presents an analysis procedure that can
be used to compare several alternative safety treatments Pedestrians and bicyclists are another category of con-
and provides guidance to the designer. cern to highway designers. The most desirable solution
A barrier may be warranted if to this problem is to separate them from vehicular traffic.
Since this solution is not always practical, an alternative
1. there is a reasonable probability of a vehicle leav- means of protecting them is sometimes necessary. Pres-
ing the road in that location, and ently there are no objective criteria to draw on for installa-
tion of pedestrian or bicyclist barriers. On low-speed
2 the cumulative consequencesof those departures streets, a curb will usually suffice to delineateheparate
significantly outweigh the cumulative conse- pedestrians and cyclists from vehicular traffic. However,
quences of impacts with the barrier. at speeds over 40 km/h [25 mph], a vehicle can mount the
curb at relatively flat impact angles. Consequently, when
Note that there will generally be many more impacts sidewalks or bicycle paths are adjacent to the traveled
with a shielding barrier than there would otherwise be way of high-speed facilities, some provision other than
with the unshielded object. curbing may need to be made for the safety of pedestrians
Highway conditions that warrant shielding by a road- and bicyclists. For additional information concerning bi-
side barrier can be placed in one of two basic categories: cycle facilities, the reader is referred to AASHTOs Guide
embankments or roadside obstacles. Warrants for the first for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1).
category are found in previous chapters. Low-profile bar-
riers 600 mm 124in] high for speeds of 70 km/h [45 mph] or
less have been developed. They shield without obstruct- 10.3.4 Pedestrian Restraint Systems
ing visibility. The presence of pedestrians or other by-
standers may justify protection from errant vehicular traf- Accidents involving pedestrians account for almost one
fic. out of every five traffic fatalities. Pedestrian accidents in
some cities have accounted for as many as one-half of the
traffic fatalities.
10.3.2 Barriers to Protect Adjacent Land A large percentage (almost 40 percent) of pedestrian
Use deaths occur while crossing streets between intersections;
the injury rate shows the same trend. A pedestrian barrier
In urban and suburban areas, more consideration should prevents these accidents. Fences or similar devices that
be given to protecting pedestrians who are using adjoin- separate pedesuian and vehicular traffic have been used
ing properties from risks posed by errant vehicles. Schools, successfully to channel pedestrians to safe crossing loca-
playgrounds, and parks located on the outside of sharp tions. It is critical when considering a pedestrian barrier
curves or across T-intersections are examples of where that crossings be located within a reasonable walking dis-
bamer systems may be appropriate. At these locations, tance. The feasibility of restricting pedestrian crossings
the probability of a vehicle leaving the roadway and strik- should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
ing a person or persons in these areas is greater than on Sidewalk pedestrian barriers are located along or near
tangent stretches of roadway. Because there arent any the edge of a sidewalk to channel pedestrians to a cross-
specific warrants or guidelines for these situations, de- walk or grade-separated facility, or to impede their cross-
sign judgment should be used.
10-4
ing at undesirable locations. Barriers may also be used 10.5 BRIDGE RAILINGS
outside school entrances and playgrounds. Often it is
advisable to contain pedestrians at public transportation The local variables regarding the placement of urban
stops to prevent pedestrians from encroaching onto the guardrail, bridge railing, and other barriers become more
roadway. challenging. The primary reasons are the need to design
Common construction materials for pedestrian barriers these features around intersecting ramps and streets, to
include chain-link fencing, pipe and chaidcable, planters provide access to properties, and to maintain access for
or other sidewalk furniture, and hedges. Planters are not pedestrians, including persons with disabilities.
recommended if they would be an additional fixed object As detailed in Chapter 7, appropriate bridge railings
in an otherwise clear zone. Planters are not recommended need to be selected by considering roadway design, traf-
on narrow sidewalks where they may impede pedestrian fic volumes, percent of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream,
circulation. and the volume of pedestrian traffic. The performance re-
Median pedestrian barriers can significantlyreduce the quirements of bridge railings for urban areas are no differ-
number of midblock crossings. Median barriers are fre- ent from any other highway system. However, bridges
quently chain-link fences located along a median, which carrying low traffic volumes at greatly reduced speeds
prevent pedestrians from crossing at non-intersection lo- may not need bridge railings designed to the same stan-
cations. They can be installed exclusively as pedestrian dard as railings used on high-speed, high-volume facili-
barriers or be incorporated with vehicle-separating me- ties. The railing should have adequate strength to pre-
dian barriers. Intersection sight distance should be con- vent penetration by passenger vehicles, while the transi-
sidered when designing a barrier. tion rail section approaching the bridge should be consid-
Roadside pedestrian barriers are generally high chain- ered with the same selection considerations discussed in
link fences located along a highway or freeway to prevent previous sections. Transitions that meet Test Levels 1
pedestrians from crossing the road. Pedestrian barriers and 2 in accordance with NCHRF' Report 350 are generally
should be crashworthy designs. For example, top longitu- acceptablefor cases with low roadway speeds. The bridge
dinal pipe cross bracing should not be used on chain-link rail and transition section, nevertheless, must function
fence. effectively or the location and conditions selected. Stan-
Useful guidance may be found in the latest version of dardization of urban bridge rail systems improves avail-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards ( 2 ) .Addi- ability of replacementparts for maintenancedepartments.
tional guidance may also be found in the British Stan- The FHWA requires a minimum TL-3 bridge railing on
dard Specijication f o r Pedestrian Restraint Systems (3). NHS projects unless supported by another rational selec-
tion procedure.
Highway structures, regardless of location and traffic
10.4 MEDIAN BARRIERS IN URBAN AREAS volume, normally warrant rigid railing. A rigid bridge rail-
ing may require an approach guardrail and transition sec-
A median barrier is a longitudinal barrier most commonly tion. When a bridge also serves pedestrians, a barrier to
used to separate opposing traffic on a divided highway. It shieldthem from vehicular traffic may be warranted. Place-
is also used along heavily traveled roadways to separate ment of the bridge railing between traffic and the sidewalk
through traffic from local traffic or to separate special use affords maximum pedestrian protection. A pedestrian rail-
lanes from other highway users. By definition, any longi- ing would then be needed at the outer edge of the bridge
tudinal barrier placed on the left side of a divided roadway structure. The need for a bridge railing adjacent to the
may be considered a median barrier. For median barriers pedestrian walkway should be based upon the volume
on high-speed, controlled-accessroadways that have rela- and speed of the roadway traffic, lane width, curb offset,
tively flat and traversable medians, refer to Chapter 6. and alignment. Other considerations include the number
The use of standard highway median barriers on urban of pedestrians crossing the bridge. the crash statistics (if
facilities with a design speed of 70 km/h [45 mph] or less available), and the conditions on either end of the struc-
with street intersections, regardless of access control, ture. The use of a bridge railing may create a problem
generally is not warranted. Alternate methods of separat- unless the railing is terminated in an acceptable manner.
ing opposing iraffic are encouraged, such as the use or' Fiaring Uit: erd seciioii away froin the roadway is often
niedians (in some cases raised medians). Flush medians not practical because it would encroach upon the side-
are preferred over raised medians on highways with de- walk, requiring the walkway to meander around the transi-
sign speeds greater than 70 km/h [45 mph], since raised tion section and terminal unit.
medians can cause errant vehicles to vault. Intersection In some instances, a crash cushion or metal beam bar-
sight distance should be considered when designing a rier terminal can be used to shield the end of a barrier at
raised median with plantings or barrier. the edge of a curve. However, the presence of a raised
10-5
curb may adversely affect the performance of this type of At present, it is not possible to establish absolute war-
end treatment. In low-speed situations, a concrete tapered rants as to when, where, or what type of barriers or screens
end section parallel to the roadway may be the best com- should be installed. The general need for economy of de-
promise. Concrete bridge railing should be extended a sign and desire to preserve the clean lines of the struc-
sufficient length beyond the end of the bridge to protect tures, unencumbered by screens, must be carefully bal-
drop-offs, yet not extend so far as to intrude on the sight anced against the requirement that the highway traveler,
distance of adjacent street intersections. Recommended overpass pedestrian, and property be provided maximum
taper lengths are 6 m [20 ft] minimum, with 10to 13m [30to protection.
45 ft] desirable. Various types and configurations of screens, usually
Retrofitting existing bridge railings is a challenge.Typi- of a chain-link fence type, have been installed on over-
cally, bridges designed to AASHTO specifications prior passes throughout the country in areas where it has been
to 1964 may have deficient railings (based on current cri- determined that the problem of throwing or dropping ob-
teria). If the adequacy of a railing appears questionable, jects exists.
further evaluation should be made to ensure that the de- The simplest design for use on pedestrian overpasses
sign meets the current specifications. In many older rail- is a vertical fence erected on the bridge railing of the stnic-
ing systems, the presence of curbs defines the walkway ture. While this type of design has been effective in keep-
between the driving lane and the bridge railing. This curb ing children from playing on the railing, the design has
may cause an impacting vehicle to go over the railing or to proven somewhat ineffective in combating the problem of
strike it from an unstable position contributing to the pos- objects being thrown from the structure. Objects large
sibility of roll over. Several concrete railings installed on enough to cause serious damage to passing vehicles can
raised sidewalks have been successfully crash tested. still be thrown over a vertical structure with some degree
While some retrofit designs for a bridge railing not of accuracy. On pedestrian bridges, a semicircular enclo-
meeting current guidelines may not bring the railing to full sure has been placed on top of the two vertical walls to
AASHTO specifications, significant improvements can discourage this type of vandalism. This design has fur-
nevertheless be obtained. Chapter 7 outlines a number of ther evolved into a design with a partially enclosed curved
retrofit concepts that can be adapted to different types of top, which is used in some areas. Objects generally can-
deficient railings. The metal post and beam retrofit func- not be thrown over the top of a partially enclosed screen
tions well as a traffic barrier separating vehicles from pe- with any degree of accuracy.
destrians that are using an adjacent sidewalk on a bridge Care should be taken in the design of chain-link type
(Figure 7.16). In most cases, the metal post and beam sys- screens to ensure that the opening at the bottom of the
tem allows the existing bridge railing on a wide raised side screens, through which objects can be pushed or
walkway to be used or converted to a pedestrian rail, Other dropped, is eliminated or kept to a minimum. Where aes-
retrofit means are also available and should be reviewed thetics are important, decorative type screening has been
to determine their appropriateness for the conditions that used.
exist. Installation of protective screening should be analyzed
on a case-by-case basis at the following locations:
10.5.1 Protective Screening at on existing structures where there have been in-
Overpasses cidents of objects being dropped or thrown from
the overpass and where increased surveillance,
An object or debris that is thrown, dropped, or discharged warning signs, or apprehension of a few indi-
from an overpass structure can cause significant damage viduals has not effectively alleviated the prob-
and injuries. Protective screening might reduce the num- lem;
ber of these incidents; however, it should be noted that
screening will not stop a determined individual. In many on an overpass near a school, playground, or
cases, increased enforcement may provide a more effec- other locations where it would be expected that
tive deterrent. the overpass would be frequently used by chil-
While the most common protective screening in use is dren not accompanied by adults;
for pedestrian type overpasses, other types of screening
are used, such as glare screens, to protect oncoming traf- on all overpasses in urban areas used exclusively
fic on overpasses. Splash or debris screens are used to by pedestrians and not easily kept under sur-
protect commercial or residential properties that are be- veillance by law enforcement personnel;
neath or adjacent to the structure.
10-6 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8 on overpasses with walkways where experience ter on the roadway, and vaulting or destabilization of ve-
on similar structures indicates a need for such hicles.
screens; and When a vehicle strikes a curb, the trajectory of that
vehicle depends upon several variables: the size and sus-
on overpasses where private property that is sub- pension characteristics of the vehicle, its impact speed
ject to damage, such as buildings or power sta- and angle, and the height and shape of the curb itself.
tions. is located beneath the structure. Crash tests have shown that the use of guardrail with 150
mm [6 in.] curb should not be considered where high-
In most cases, the erection of a protective screen on a speed, high-angle impacts are likely to occur. Where curb
new structure can be postponed until such time as there is needed for drainage, the use of a curb no higher than
are indications of need. 100 mm [4 in.] is satisfactory. On low-speed facilities, a
vaulting potential still exists; however, since the risk of
such an occurrence is lessened, the use of 150 mm [6 in.]
10.6 IMPACT ATTENUATOR curb in combination with guardrail can be tolerated. Each
situation should be considered individually, taking into
Impact attenuators are ideally suited for use at urban lo- account anticipated speeds and consequences of vehicu-
cations when fixed objects cannot be removed, relocated, lar penetration of the barrier. Section 3.4.1 provides addi-
or made breakaway, and cannot be adequately shielded tional guidance for the use of curbs.
by a longitudinal barrier. In urban situations, the increase The common practice in urban settings is to use curbs
in roadway maintenance mileage, the tight right-of-way adjacent to the highway shoulders to provide separation
constraints, and the varying traffic flow conditions create of pedestrians from the traffic flow. Realistically, curbs
situations that limit available options for removing or re- have limited redirectional capabilities and only at low
locating fixed objects. The use of impact attenuators, as speeds of approximately 40 km/h [25 mph] or lower. Curbs
opposed to longitudinal barriers, becomes more appropri- alone may not be adequate protection for pedestrians on
ate to shield fixed objects such as those at exit ramp gores, adjacent sidewalks or for shielding utility poles. In some
ends of median barriers, and bridge piers and abuhiients, cases. other measures may need to be considered.
to name only a few. In urban conditions, from an operational standpoint, a
The width available for the placement of impact attenu- minimum horizontal clearance of 0.5 m [ 1.5 ft] should be
ators can be restricted in urban areas. However, a number provided beyond the face of curbs to any obstructions.
of impact attenuators are available for narrow width con- Designers should strive for horizontal clearances more
ditions. The systems outlined in Chapter 8 should be re- appropriate for the off-peak operating speeds. At the
viewed to determine the appropriateness of the system higher speed end of the suburban or urban facilities, con-
for the proposed site location. sideration should be given to providing a shoulder and
A curbs tendency to cause vaulting can reduce the offsetting any curbing to the back of the shoulder. The
effectiveness of an impact attenuator. Therefore, impact shoulders may be used to accommodate bicyclists and
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
attenuators should not normally be installed behind curbs. pedestrians where sidewalks are not provided.
Where necessary for drainage, an existing curb no higher
than 100 mm [4 in.] can be left in place, unless it has con-
tributed to poor performance in the past. 10.8 DRAINAGE
Impact attenuators are not intended to reduce acci-
dents, but to lessen the severity of the impact. If a particu- On those urban or suburban roadways where operating
lar crash cushion is struck frequently, it is important to speeds are generally lower, ditches are less of a safety
determine why the collisions are occurring. Improved use problem to the errant motorist. Where practical, a closed
of signs, pavement markings. delineation. reflectors, and drainage system should be considered. Curbs and drop
luminaires may help to reduce the number of occurrences. inlets are common drainage elements in these cases.
Drainage inlets, grates, and similar devices should be
placed flush with thc ground surface and must be capable
10.7 CURB of supprticg vehkk whee! !cads. In addition, slots should
be spaced and oriented so they will not be an obstacle to
Curbed sections are generally restricted to design speeds pedestrians or bicyclists.
of 70 km/h [45 mph] or less on roadways in urban or highly Even though drainage ditches may be located outside
developed areas. Items that need to be considered are: the nominal clear zones in suburban areas, there may be a
delineation of the pavement edge, delineation of pedes- likelihood that errant vehicles that reach the ditch could
trian walkways, control of access points, retention of wa- be led down the ditch and could strike parallel culvert
10-7
ends at driveways or intersecting roads. Traversable de- of the design options stated in Section 10.1 (in
signs should be considered at these locations. Section the order listed) should be considered to improve
3.4.3.2 provides information on traversable designs. safety.
With respect to pedestrians, it is desirable to have a

10.9 LANDSCAPING grass strip separating the sidewalk from the curb, thus
further separating the pedestrian from vehicular traffic.
Along most urban streets, some type of landscaping ex- The strip also provides room for snow storage and trash
ists. Trees, shrubs, lawns, decorative rock, and other ma- collection.
terials are used to provide a pleasing setting for drivers,
pedestrians, bicyclists, and abutting land owners.
The designer should always be consulted in the deci- 10.10 WORKZONES
sions regarding landscaping, particularly as they relate to
sight distance and possible future lane needs. Consider- Construction work zones in urban areas have varying de-
ations in the design of landscaping include: grees of traffic control and work-zone protection needs.
Conditions can vary from low-speed, low-volume urban
the mature size of trees and shrubs, and how this streets to highway construction zones in high-volume ar-
will affect safety, visibility, and maintenance cost. terial and interstate locations. The type of traffic control
under consideration needs to be reviewed for the site con-
8 sufficient border area to accommodate the type ditions, operating speeds, and traffic flows within the con-
struction zone. The Manual on Uniform Trafic Control
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
of landscaping planned. If parking is allowed
Devices (4) establishes the principles to be observed in
along the curb, will the landscaping allow curb-
side access to parked vehicles? traffic control, design, installation, and maintenance of
traffic control devices in work zones.
0 potential future changes in roadway cross sec- Chapter 9 details a number of available traffic barriers
and traffic control devices for work zones. Effective use
tion. For example, the addition of a second left-
and implementation of these barriers and devices in urban
turn lane at major intersections by taking approxi-
mately 3 m [lo ft] of additional space from the conditionsremains extremely important and must be given
full consideration on an individual project basis, includ-
median island is becoming a common practice.
ing provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Landscaping in the affected area should be mini-
mal or should not be included in the plan.
Visibility restrictions resulting from landscaping are of REFERENCES

principle concern to the designer. Points that must be con-
sidered include the following: 1. AASHTO. A Guide f o r the Development
of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of
border area landscaping should allow full visibil- State Highway and Transportation Officials,
ity at driveways for drivers and pedestrians.
2 General Services Administration,the Department
a clear vision space from 1 m to 3 m [3 ft to 10 ft]
of Housing and Urban Development,the Depart-
above grade is desirable along all streets and at ment of Defense, and the United States Postal
all intersections. This allows drivers in cars, Service. Uniform Federal Accessibility Stan-
trucks, and buses to have good sight distance. dards. Washington, DC [cited March 1, 20011.
Many cities have ordinances regarding sight re- Available at http://www.access-board.gov/in-
strictions at corners which incorporate this clear dexespubsindex.htm.
space idea.
3. British Standards Institute. British Standard
landscaping very small islands should be avoided Specification f o r Pedestrian Restraint Systems.
to reduce maintenance needs. 2 Park Street, London WlA2BS, United King-
dom, 1995.
large trees or rocks should not be used at deci-
sion points (e.g., gore areas, island noses) to pro- 4. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on
tect poles and other appurtenances.Rather, each Uniform Trafic Control Devices. Washington,
DC, 2001.
10-8
Erecting Mailboxes on Streets and Highways
I1.O OVERVIEW resist design directions concerning their mailboxes. An

extra measure of diplomacy and public relations may be
This chapter replaces the 1994 AASHTO publication A needed to effect changes in the design and location of
Guide for Erecting Mailboxes on Highways and deals mailbox installations.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
with mailboxes and mailbox turnout design. Highway safety
is the primary reason for a transportation agency to be-
come involved in this type of design. Limited data exist for 11.IMAILBOXES
vehicle/mailbox collisions since most record systems do
not specifically isolate these types of crashes. However, The typical single mailbox installation, shown in Figure
the data that are available suggest that as many as 70 to 11.1,consists of a light, sheet-metal box mounted on a 100
100 people die annually in the United States when collid- mm x 100mm [4in. x 4 in.J wooden post or a 38 mm [1 'I2in.]
ing with improperly designed mailboxes and their sup- diameter light gage pipe and is not a serious threat to
ports. While this number is low, it is significant because it motorists. Improvements to strengthen typical post-to-
is associated with an unnecessary hazard. box mounting details, as discussed in Section 11.2.4, would
A point that makes this a sensitive issue is that postal further reduce its threat. Mailboxes supported by struc-
patrons may view the mailbox as an extension of them- tures such as masonry columns, railroad rails and ties,
selves and part of their domain. They may resent and even tractor wheels, plow blades, and concrete-filledbarrels, as
FIGURE 11.1 Typical single mailbox installations
11-1
FIGURE 11.2 Examplesof hazardous single mailbox installations
shown in Figure 11.2, sometimes turn a single mailbox in- Only by banishing mailboxes from our highways can
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
stallation into a roadside obstacle that should be elimi- mailbox-related traffic accidents be eliminated. However,
nated. while elimination is impractical, many identifiable prob-
The typical grouped or multiple mailbox installation, lems can be corrected. Through cooperation among trans-
shown in Figure 11.3,is also a senous hazard to the motor- portation agencies, the U.S. Postal Service, and postal
ist who strikes it. This installation consists of two or more patrons, good design practices in mailbox installation and
posts supporting a horizontal member, usually a timber location can be implemented when mailboxes are installed
plank, which supports the group of mailboxes. The hori- or replaced. This should incur little or no cost increase
zontal members in these installations are poised at wind- with a typical mailbox lasting an average of about 10 years.
shield height and when struck have impaled or decapi- Furthermore, when highways are rebuilt or undergo sig-
tated motorists. For safe alternative designs for grouped nificant upgrading, there may be opportunities to incor-
mailbox installations,see Section 11.2.4. porate relatively inexpensive mailbox improvements.
Injury from striking a mailbox is not the only risk asso- The general principles and guidelines contained in this
ciated with mailboxes. The mail carriers maneuvers in col- chapter are also applicable to newspaper delivery boxes
lecting and delivering mail and the patrons activities, ei- and similar devices located along public highways. These
ther as pedestrian or motorist in collecting and depositing guidelines are compatible with the requirements of the
mail, create opportunities for traffic conflict and human U.S. Postal Service (see Appendix D) and are presented in
error. Reducing the number and severity of these conflicts the interest of providing the highest degree of safety prac-
is an important objective of this chapter. ticable for the motoring public, mail carriers, and postal

FIGURE 11.3 Examplesof hazardous multiple mailbox installations
patrons. Highway agencies and local entities are encour- a requirement that all mailbox and newspaper box
aged to use these guidelines in developing their own mail- installations conform to the current policies and
box and installation policies and standards. It should be standards of the highway agency regarding lo-
understood that these are general guidelines and that location, geometry, and structure of such installa-
cal conditions such as legal institutions and practices, tions
populatioii densities, topography, highway characteris-
tics, snowfall, prevailing vehicle characteristics, etc., are 0 information on where one can obtain copies of
factors to consider in developing regulations and stan- the current policies and standards
dards.
0 a statement on permits, if required
II.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLESAND 0 a statement on how approval of exceptions can

GUIDELINES be obtained
This section deals with regulations and design. Regula- 0 a description of the highway agencys and the
tions are needed to establish consistency in acceptable postal patrons responsibilitiesregarding new and
mailbox turnouts and design. replacement installations
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
a description of the distribution of responsibili-

11.2.1 Regulations ties and the procedures to be followed in remov-
ing unsafe or nonconforming installations
It is recommended that each highway agency adopt regu-
lations for the placement of mailboxes and newspaper
boxes within the right-of-way of public highways. Corre-
lation of these regulations with those for the granting of 11.2.2 Mail Stop and Mailbox Location
driveway entrance permits should be considered. Mail-
box and newspaper box control regulat.ions should follow Mailboxes should be placed for niaximum convenience to
the principles and guidance contained in this document the patron, consistent with safety considerations for high-
and include the following: way traffic, the carrier, and the patron. Consideration
should be given to: (1) minimum walking distance within
0 a reference to pertinent statutes the roadway for the patron, (2) available stopping sight
distance in advance of the mailbox site, and (3) possible
a statement that all mailbox installations must restrictions to corner sight distance at intersections and
meet the requirements of the U.S. Postal Service driveway entrances. Where feasible, new installations
113
should be located on the far right side of an intersection Mailbox heights are usually set to accommodate the
with a road or driveway entrance. mail carrier. Typically, the bottom of the mailbox is located
Boxes should be placed only on the right-hand side of 1.Om to 1.2 m [39 in. to 47 in.] above the mail stop surface.
the highway in the direction of travei of the carrier. An Mailboxes should be located so that a vehicle stopped
exception is one-way streets where they may be placed on at a mailbox is clear of the adjacent traveled way. The
either side. It is undesirable to require pedestrian travel higher the traffic volume or speed, the greater the clear-
along the shoulder to access the mailbox. However, this ance should be. A reasonable exception to this principle
may be the preferred solution when compared to alterna- may be on low-volume and low-speed streets and roads.
tives such as constructing a turnout in a deep cut, placing Most vehicles stopped at a mailbox will be clear of the
a mailbox just beyond a sharp crest vertical curve, or con- traveled way when the mailbox is placed outside a 2.4 m [8
structing two or more closely spaced turnouts. ft] wide usable shoulder or turnout. This location is rec-
The placing of mailboxes along high-speed and/or high- ommended for most rural highways. Although a 2.8 m [9
volume highways should be avoided if other practical lo- ft] minimum shoulder is acceptable, a minimum 3 m [10ft]
cations are available. Mailboxes should not be located turn out should be provided when practical. Where con-
where access is from the lanes of an expressway or where ditions justify, 3.6 m [12 ft] turnouts should be provided.
access, stopping, or parking is otherwise prohibited by However, it may not be reasonable to require even a 2.4 m
law or regulation. Where there are frontage roads, the abut- [8 ft] shoulder or turnout on very low-volume, low-speed
ting property owners may be served by boxes located roads or streets. To provide space outside the all-weather
along the frontage roads. It is undesirable to locate a mail- surface for opening the mailbox door, it is recommended
box that would require a patron to cross the lanes of an that the roadside face of a mailbox be set 200 mm to 300
expressway to deposit or retrieve mail. Where the U.S. mm [8 in. to 12 in.] outside the all-weather surface of the
Postal Service deems that service is not warranted on both shoulder or turnout. Suggested guidelines for the place-
frontage roads, or where there is a frontage road only on ment of mailboxes are shown in Table 11.1. These are based
one side, patrons not served directly should be accommo- on experience and design judgment.
dated by mailboxes at a suitable and safe location in the When a mailbox is installed in the vicinity of an exist-
vicinity of the crossroad nearest the patron?s property. ing guardrail, it should, wherever practical, be placed be-
Placing a mail stop near an intersection could have an hind the guardrail.
effect on the operation of the intersection. The nature and
magnitude of this effect depends on traffic speeds and
volumes on each of the intersecting roadways, the num- I I .2.3 Mailbox Turnout Design
ber of mailboxes at the stop, extent of traffic control, how
the stop is located relative to the traffic control, and the Shoulder or turnout widths suitable to safely accommo-
distance the stop is from the intersection. date vehicles stopped at mailboxes are discussed in Sec-
At intersections where one roadway is given the right- tion 11.2.2 and shown in Table 11.1.
of-way and the other is stop controlled, a vehicle at a mail The surface over which a vehicle is maneuvered to and
stop on the through roadway approach may restrict the from a mailbox must be sufficiently stable to support pas-
view from a vehicle entering the intersection from the right senger cars stopping regularly during all-weather condi-
to through traffic behind the mail stop. A mail stop on the tions. Where shoulder surface strength or width is not
through road on the far side of the crossroad increases sufficient for this purpose, the shoulder should be modi-
the chance the crossroad driver will pull into the path of fied to provide a suitable all-weather mailbox turnout. In
the vehicle on the through road that is headed for the mail most instances, adequate surface stabilization can be ob-
stop. A mail stop in advance of a stop sign creates the tained by the addition of select materials to the in-place
potential for a vehicle at the mail stop to block the view of soils. A mailbox turnout for grouped mailboxes may re-
the stop sign. The least troublesome location for a mail quire greater stabilization or possibly a surface treatment
stop at these intersections is adjacent to a crossroad lane course to accommodate multiple patron use. Special mea-
leaving the intersection. Nevertheless, there is still a sures may also be needed where highway traffic condi-
chance that a driver re-entering traffic from the mail stop tions encourage hard braking or high acceleration of ve-
will not see or be seen from a vehicle turning onto the hicles in a mailbox turnout.
crossroad. Figure 11.4 shows suggested minimum clear- Drivers are usually required to slow their vehicles in
ance distance to nearest maibox in mailstops at intersec- traffic, which increases the risk of a crash. The ideal way
tion. Using the mail stop location dimensions in the figure to minimize this risk is to provide a speed change lane. A
will minimize the effect a stop will have on an intersection?s wide surface-treated shoulder is ideal for this purpose.
operation and minimize the hazard to persons using the Unfortunately, suitable shoulders are not available at most
mail stop. mailbox turnout locations and it would be far too expen-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
114
u)
C
.-O
CI
o
Q)
$
CI
.-C
L
m
u)
o Q
O
o
o -.-
c
u)
o E
.-
C
X
c O
m
v,
n
.-m
0
E
L
u)
f
Q)
C
L
O
o
C
m
.-Uc
u)
o
%
C
!
mQ)
%D -o
E
z
.-
.-C
E
U
Q)
CI
u)
Q)
w
w
can
P
7
F-
W

' O 3
o 52
o LL
o
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 116
TABLE 11.1 Suggested guidelines for lateral placement of mailboxes
Distance Roadside Face of

I I Width of All-Weather Surface Mailbox Is to Be Offset
Highway Type and ADT, Turnout or Available Shoulder at
Behind Edge of Turnout or
Mailbox,' (m) [ft]
vpd)
. _ Usable Shoulder nm) [in.]
I Preferred I Minimum Preferred Minimum
Rural Highway
Over 10,000
Rural Highway
1,500to 10,000 O
Rural Highway 2.4 200 to 300

400 to 1,500 [81 [8 to 121
Rural Road 1.8
Under 400 [612 200
Residential Street Without [loi3
Curb or All-Weather
Shoulder
200 to 300
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Curbed Residential Street +.i . Not Applicable 150 [614
[8 to I2l4
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
vpd = vehicles per day
' If there is a need to provide for increased access, the following may be considered in
conjunction with the local Postmaster:
a. Provide a level clear floor space 0.75 m x 1.2 m [30 in. x 48 in.] centered on the box for
either side or forward approach.
b. Provide an accessible passage to and from the mailbox and projection into a circulation route
(no more than 100 mm [4 in.] if between 0.7 m [28 in.] and 2.0 m [80 in.] AFF) so that the
mailbox does not become a protruding object for pedestrians with impaired vision.
Strive for a 1.8 m [6 ft] minimum; however, in some situations this may not be practical. In
those cases, provide as much as possible.
If a turnout is provided, this may reduce to zero.
Behind traffic-face of curb.
116
sive to provide shoulders or turnouts that would allow a 50 mm [ 1.5 in. to 2 in.]) diameter standard steel or
speed change outside the traveled way. Figure 11.5 shows aluminum pipe posts, embedded no more than
a mailbox turnout layout considered appropriate for dif- 600 mm [24 in.] into the ground, should be the
ferent traffic conditions. maximum strength supports considered. Lower
The minimum space needee for maneuvering to a paral- strength supports, such as lightweight flanged
lei position in and out of traffic is also shown in Figure channel steel posts, have provided satisfactory
11.5. The typical driver would probably slow consider- service in most environments. A metal post
ably before starting into the low-speed turnout. This ten- should not be fitted with an anchor plate. How-
dency makes it unsuitable for high-speed highways where ever, an anti-twist device that extends no more
driver expectancy does not include such slow-movingtraf- than 250 mm [10 in.] below the ground surface is
fic. acceptable. The minor qualification to the crite-
Before entering a 2.4 m [8 ft] wide turnout with a 20: 1 rion of minimizing post strength is for the sup-
taper for high-speed traffic as shown in Figure 11.5, a port to break rather than to bend under impact,
driver would probably not slow as much before clearing and for the support to have sufficient strength to
the traveled way. While this is not an ideal exit maneuver, accelerate the box to a speed approaching that of
it would probably not create an unacceptable hazard on the impacting vehicle so the chances of the box
most rural highways for the few stops generated by a penetrating the vehicles windshield are mini-
single mailbox. mized. Test results indicate 100mm x 100 mm [4
Increasing the width of the turnout to 3.6 m [ 12 ft] and in. x 4 in.] or 100 mm [4 in.] diameter wood sup-
maintaining the 20: 1 taper rate suggested in Figure 11.5 ports should be both minimum and maximum post
would induce a driver using the turnout to enter it at a fair dimensions.
rate of speed, but it will not be as fast as the through
speed. While this is still not ideal, it should be quite ac- Mailbox to post attachments should prevent mail-
ceptable for most sites. The exception may be found on boxes from separating from their supports under
highways operating at high speeds and carrying over 3,000 vehicle impacts. The lighter the mailbox, the easier
to 4,000 vehicles per day and with a high percentage of it will be to mcd this criterionor, conversely,given
vehicles on long trips. For these conditions, consider- sufficient post attachment strength, the less sen-
ation should be given to providing shoulders or turnouts sitive the safety of an installation will be to the
at unavoidablemail stops that will provide for greater speed mass of the mailbox. Figures 11.6 through 11.10
change opportunity outside the traffic stream. show acceptable attachment and support details.
The tapers shown in Figure 11.5 represent theoretical The exact support hardware dimensions and de-
layouts. It may be more practical to square the ends of the sign may vary, such as having a two-piece plat-
turnout or to provide a stepped layout by strengthening form bracket or alternative slot and hole loca-
and widening the shoulder to the full width of the turnout tions. However, the product must result in a sat-
for the entire length of the taper. It may also be simpler to isfactory attachment of the mailbox to the post,
construct a continuous turnout-width shoulder rather than and all components must fit together properly.
individual turnouts where mailbox turnouts are closely
spaced. Multiple mailbox installationsmust meet the same
criteria as single mailbox installations. This re-
quirement precludes the use of a heavy horizon-
1I .2.4 Mailbox Support and Attachment tal support member such as the one shown in
Design Figure 11.3. Figures 11.7, 11.9, and 11.10 show
acceptable multiple mailbox support systems.The
All exposed mailboxes should be firnily attached to use of a series of such installations or of indi-
supports that yield or break away safely if struck by a vidually supportedboxes is acceptable. However,
vehicle. The NCHRP Report 350 contains performance cn- vehicle rollover occurred when crash tested with
teria for mailbox supports when subjected to crash testing a small car at high speed impacting off-center of
with an automobile. The criteria can be summarized as a row of eight closely spaced mailboxes individu-
follows: ally supported with 3 kg/m [ 2 lb/ft] channel post
supports. Review of a film from this test and re-
Mailbox supports should, with a minor qualifica- sults from other tests suggest that the reason for
tion, be no more substantial than required to re- this performance was a ramping caused by the
sist service loads and to reasonably minimize van- closely spaced mailboxes piling up. To avoid this
dalism.Nomind 100mm x IO0mm [4 in. x 4 in.] or problem, it is recommended the mailbox supports
100 mm [4 in.] diameter wood posts or 38 mm to be separated a distance at least equal to three-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
11-7
Roadside Desipn Guide
tO
al
U
TJ)
W
II II II II II --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
11-8
E;-
E S
m-
a
3a
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
11-9
.-8
E
E
u)
u)
Q
X
O
.-
0
1 E
al
5
3
O
U
-1 i-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
11-10
!
a
i
. E
W
at
n
a
E --
!
?
-I
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

11-11
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
11-12
bJ
SINGLE MAILBOX MOUNT
T DOUBLE MAILBOX MOUNT
MULTIPLE MAILBOX MOUNT

BRACKET MOUNT ALTERNATIVE
INSERT
WEDGE
BEHIND SYSTEM
SUPPORT
DIRECTION
WEDGE 1
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
i7 NOTE: OPPOSITE ORIENTATION WITH WEDGE ON TRAFFIC APPROACH

SIDE OF POST IS ALLOWABLE BUT NOT PREFERRED.
NOTE: SUPPORT FRAME AND FOUNDATION ARE PROPRIETARY

PRODUCTS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE.
FIGURE 11.10 Single and double mailbox assemblies, Series C
11-13
FIGURE 11.llCollection unit on auxillary lane (top)and neighborhooddelivery and collection box units
fourths of their heights and preferably their full without the vehicle first contacting the support, tests of
heights above ground. It is also preferred that the design shown in Figures 11.12 and 1 1.13did not reveal
multiple mailbox installations be located outside serious consequences. The operational advantage of these
the highway clear zone, such as on a service road supports is that snow can be plowed close to the mailbox
or a minor intersecting road. without the snow windrow pushing the support over.
The state of Minnesota has developed and tested a
The Neighborhood Delivery and Collection Box swing-away mailbox that is not patented and will not pen-
Unit (NDCBU) is a specialized type of multiple etrate a vehicle windshield. This type of a mailbox support
mailbox installation, as shown in Figure 11.11. is designed to swing back out of the way when a snow-
The NDCBU is a cluster of 8 to 16 locked boxes plow truck goes by. (See Figure 11.14.)
mounted on a pedestal or within a framework, the Lightweight newspaper boxes may be mounted below
combination of which generally has a mass be- the mailbox on the mailbox support.
tween 45 kg and 90 kg [ l O0 lb and 200 lb]. While Recently, mailboxes of heavy gage steel or other sub-
the NDCBU usually serves a limited number of stantial materials have been designed and sold as deter-
single-family residences in urban areas, their use rents to vandalism. These massive boxes, over 5 kg [i 1
has been observed in rural areas. A crash test of lb], meet U.S. Postal Service requirements for minimum
.one of these units at 100 km/h [60 mph] showed size, material durability, ease of access, etc., and are quite
that it failed to meet safety requirements. There- resistant to deformation. However, these boxes are poten-
fore, an NDCBU should be located outside the tially hazardous to occupants of errant vehicles regard-
clear zone to allow for safe recovery of errant less of the support used. They should be restricted to use
vehicles and for safe access by postal patrons only along low-speed, low-volume streets in residential
and carriers. Postmasters and designers respon- areas.
sible for the location of an NDCBU should be
instructed to contact local government authori-
ties, including the appropriate highway officials 1I.3MODEL MAILBOX REGULATION
(state, county, township, municipal, etc.) prior to
installation. This communication will help to en- A generic model regulation for mailboxes and newspaper
sure the safe location of the NDCBU. delivery boxes on public highway rights-of-way is pro-
vided in Appendix E. The model is intended only as an
In areas of high snowfall, some highway agencies have example. States and municipalities can and should tailor
found cantilever mailbox supports advantageous. While the model to fit their own particular needs.
such designs do permit windshield contact with the box
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
11-14
~
~ ~ ~~ ~-~ ~
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
m

- i
m
-
c 5,
mCD
E
E
O
m
-
3
,N
f
X
E
E
y 7
m
m
x
11-15
38 mm x 900 mm Pipe
Drywall Screws
[i1/2" x 3'1
10 mm x 19 mm [i1/$ x 31 long Cap Screw

10 mm [ 3/13"]Square Nut
1.O m to 1.2 m
I II [3'-4"to 4-07
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--=344 mm x 600 mm Pipe
c
Yoke Clamp
[I 3/4"x 2'1
Bent Washer
aa side Izn/\l view/pipe inside
1
-=+/I-
8 mm x 75 mm long Bolt
[ 5/16" x 3'1 long Bolt
On
Top of U-Post
Ground Line
;I!/ /
(Commercially Available)
FIGURE 11.13 Breakaway cantilever mailbox supports
11-16
__
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 11.14 Minnesota swing-away mailbox
11-17
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

A ? .O BVERVI EW To insall atid m i the RSAP ptogtain, yc-ur cdtnpler
must be an IBM Pt: or 100 permit compm ble, an3 haw
This appendix provides a SlininiaT ofthe conceprual -fiaine-. the fc-I Low1ng:
,orithms contained inthe RSAP coinputei-pro-
gram, whicli has been creared to assist in the economic
analysis of existing c x prqgosed roadside coiditions. R e
RSAP program has irs geiiesis in the atiaiysis procedure
presented in Chapter VIF o Sr-i'TO's IO77 Guide,ft?p.
S'elecling doca:irrg9and 13 trig .TPqfl?c-Bi,'Wiens ( I >,
the ROADSIDE coinputer 1 presented in previous
versions of the Roadst&: Desipi &ifde ( 2 ) (3 1, and the
Benefit-Cost Analysis Program (BCAP) (4)
development sfthe AASFTTO's I 989 Guide ,Sp
j rBr.iifge Rc/ibing.j (5).
Additional copies of the RSAP program acid the asso-
cjated docurnentation, 1:'ragiraee.F d A%nual and iJi.jer 3
Wanwl, may be Qbtained fmn:
Transportation R esearcb 8oard

N ational C q x r a t i v e High7ay Research Prograin
2,IO i Coiistitution Avenue, NW
Washington: DC 20418 The RSAP installation prograin and associated docu-
:nentatioi:, is provided on a CD-ROM. Users sbouldhave a
or ordered through the internet at http:j/~&~~\.i.nati~~iial- good understanding of the WINDOWS operating envi-
acadetnies.srg:tr~,oo~~store. rstinietit and general inouse and keyboard techniques. On
eer ihaiznual contains detailed descri$ims most PCs, the installation program can be initiated by in-
tuai framework and aigori tlims used with the serring the CD-ROM :cito the drive acid foilowing t'ne in-
cost-ii.Eicti~~ie~~ess ai-taiysisprocedure. R e User 5.M G U , U ~ structions on tlie screen. The program wiil auron~atically
contains detailed descriptions of the operariotis of tlie coniplete rhe insrailarion oftbe RSAP program. For PCs
KSAP program and is also available through the on-line with Autorun disabled, users n i u t open the CD-ROM and
I-relpof tl-re program. double-dick on tlie setup program .
'The RSAF program is comprised of t1&7oseparate but
integrated programs: the User herpace Program and rhe
Main Analysis Progrmi. 'T'lie Main
tains tbe cost-&ectiveness proced
caiculatims. The Main Analysis Pro-
:be FORTW AN Ia~iguagebecailse of its T'ne cost-el~fectivvl-ress analysis procedure in the w s AP
nning scientific calcuiations. The ljsei- program is based on benefitjcost (BX:) 1.cllaiysis. The ba-
InterFace Prsgram is witreti in the C++ language, which is sic coiicepr behitid bene5ticost analysis is that public
niore adept at providing a user-frieiidly environment :n ds bha;dd
., . be invested only in projects where the ex-
tlirougli the use of n/ii:dows~screens, and nenus. exceed t'ne expected direct cosrs of the
The ljser hiterface Program provides the users with a project. Benefits are nieasured in terns of reductions in
si n:,ple atid stnictured means to inpur data into t'ne RSAP crasli or societal costs due to decreases in tlie number
prograin. The program generates input data files and ti-ax- andior severity of crashes. Direct highway agency costs
fer data -files,wliich, rogether with the default and tenipo- are conipiised of initial ilistallation, mailitenaxe, and -
rary data f'iies, seme as inputs to the Main Analysis Pro- rgair
v.,. . costs. An increniental benefit/ctxt ratio bet
n. After processing by the Main Ai:aiysis Program, ts atid costs associated %/irlian i n -
the IJser Interface Frograni takes the outputs fiuni the provement option over the existing conditions or another
Main Analysis Program and presents the resuits to rlie in-tprovetnentoption is norinaliy used as the primary inva-
uses. 'Tliii. tmnsfer i ~ f & mfiles between tlx User hiterface s u e of whether or not a safety iiiiprovenieritinvestnieiit is
Program acid the Main AIiaiysis Pro appropriate. Tlie i ncrenientai benefi/cost ratio is expressed
ASCII fonnat for simplicity aid ease of file tmisfer. as fMobvs:
A-2
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

B/C R a t i ~ ~ -=~ (ACI-AC~)/(DC~-DC~) Encroachinent niod~ile.
where :
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
B/C R a t i ~ ~ -=~ incremental benefit/cost a Severity prediction inodule, and

ratio of Alternative 2
compared to Alternative I Bene fi t:cost inodule.
AC12 AC2 = annualized crash or
societal cost of Brief descriptions of each of these niod~~ies
are pre-
Alternatives 1 and 2 sented ;is foliows,
DC1, DC2 = annualized direct cost of
Alternatives 1 and 2
tlilien the incremental benefit:cost ratio conipariiig

safety iinprovetnent Al ternative 2 to Al ternative 1 is p a r e r The encroachment nioclrile uses roadm.y and traffic infor-
than 1, the analysis indicates that the iiici-eased beiie-fits niation to estiniate the expected encroaclment frequeiicy,
of Abernative 2 over Aiternative !,, i.e.>reductisti in the V*P(E), aioiig a highway segment. A two-step process js
crash and societal costs, are greater than the increased used to estimate eiicroaclmieiit fi-eqiencies. Tlie first step
costs associated with Alternative 2. over Alterisative I . iiivolves nsiiig highway type and traffic tiolimie to esti-
Crash cost is estimated usiiig ai1 encroackmxt pi-ob- niate a base or kiverage encroachment frequeiicy. There
ability model^ wbic1-r is anique to roadside safety cost- are two available sources of eiscroacl~nieisrdata: a study
effectiveiiess procedures. Bt is based on the concept that by Piutcirinson arid ICeimedy ( $ 3 in tiie nlid-1960s aid a
the tun-off-the-road crash frecjueiicy caci be directly re- stndy by Cooper (7) in the Iate i 970s. Roth srudies in-
lated to the encroackmxt fi-equency, i . ~ .the : number of volved observations of tire tracks iri die niedians or on
velsicles iisadvettenriy leaving the traveled portion of the roadsides. The Cooper emcroachment dara :vere selected
roadway. ?he severity of run-off-the-road crashes is re- ibr use in tiie RSAP prograni for tiie encroaclmient rate-
lated to encroachinent characreristics, sucli as the speed traffic voiimie reiatjoisships becaise they are niore recent,
and aigle of encroachment. ?he basi have a larger smiple size, arid iiiclude data froin two-lane
model is expressed by rhe foliowing equa-. aisd other noii-freeta.ayfacil as well as om coiitrolled-
access highways. Figne i\, I shows the encroachment fre-
n qieiicy cimnes used by the WSAP program. Encroach-
C V * P(E) * P(A1E) * P(1iIA) * C(Ii) nierit rates are expressed as the miniber of eiicroaclments
i= 1 per kin [inil per year per ADT, broken down by imdivided
and divided highways.
Two adjustmists are made to rlsese eiscroachineiir fie-
quency CuTLes:
Expected crash cost
Traffic volume, ADT
1, Illeencroachment freq:iency is adjusted upward
Probability of an encroachment
Probability of a crash given an by a ratio of 2.464 for hvo-lane imdivicled high-
encroachment ways and 1.878for multi-lane divided highways
Probability of injury severity level i, to account for imcler-reporting of encroachinents
given a crash due to paved shoulders.
Cost associated with injury severity
level i 2. he encroachment frequency is multiplied by a
Number of injury severity levels factor of0.4 to accomt for the lack of ability to
detect tiie differexice between coiitrolled and un-
coiitroiled encroachineists.The percentage of uii-
controlled ericroacimierits is assunieci to be $0
percent based on a study of reported vs uive-
A2.O R S A P PROGRAM
poited crashes involving longitudid barriers (8 !.
Inere are four major rnoduies to tlie encroachment prob-
I >T
abil iry-based cost-effectiveness aisalysis procedure in the

RSiW program:

A-3
Average Daily Traffic Volume
FIGURE 81.1 Encroachment frequency curves used by the RSAP P r o g ~ a m
Base encroachment mtes are then modified to account come ai upgrade for the upposiiig direction ofwavel. Simi-
fur speci fic higliway characteristics, i ncliidiiig liorizontal y, a veliicle riinning off to the right would be o11t'ne
and verlicai aligmieiit and the aimual trdffic growth Fac- side of a curve for one dii-ecticw of travel aiid on the
tor. The rationale for these ad-iiistmentfactors is rhat en- de of a ci in^ for {lieopposiiig direction of travel.
croachnieiit rates are affected by these chltracteristics aiid The traffic voluiiie (,&DI') entered iiitu the RSAF pru-
tlie base eiicroaclinieiit rates shoiiid therefore be a-justed gran:, applies to tlie catrent year or consrmctisii year. To
accordingly. s traffic volmie?the RSAP pi-o-
all^^ fcx h t m e i ~ c r e a s e in
Crash data studies liave iiidicated tliat crash rates on gram allows users to i i i p traffic growth in
horizontal CLI'V~S kind vertical grades are significaiitiy percent. For a given year. n, in the fimure: the traffic vol-
higher than tliose on tangent secrions (8, i O). Tt is logical LIEKis calculated as -folloivs:
to assiune that errcroacimrerrt rates would also be simi-
I arly affected by hsrizoiiral cui-ves aiid verrical grades.
I
1nusI the 1CSrtli-dprogram irrcoqorlztes adjustment Factors
>T
ADT,= ADT1 * (i+ g/lOO)"
to i ncrease eiicroachineiir rares on Iiorizontal cimes aiid
veeical grades. as shown in Figue A.L. 'Ihe adj iistment where :
factors are based oii researcli conducted by Wrighr and
Robertson (9). ADT, = traffic volume in year "n"
Note thar the ad-jiistinentfactors for horizontal cuiva- ADT1 = current or base year traffic
t u e aid veeical grade are determiiied in relation to the volume
direction of traxvel and rlie direction the vehicle ran sfftlie g = annual percent traffic growth
road, itl downgrade for one direction of travei would be-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

- 7 - 6 - 5 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
GRADE IN DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC

(Percent)
- 7 - 6 - 5 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CURVATURE (Degree)
CURVATURE (Radius in meters)
FIGURE A.2 Adjustment factors for encroachment rates on horizontaal cu wes and vertica! grades
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

A-5
The m f G c growth adjuslmei:,t factor averages tlie traf- track percentage (user i tiput item), Veliicle speed, angle,
n e the life ofthe project aiid is calculated as
fic v t ~ l ~ a over and orientaticw are deterniiiied from di swibutioiis estinmed
fol hXVS: -fi.onireai-.1voridcrash data ( L I >.
A weighting scheme is used with the rmdmn encroach-
Traffic growth - N 'e events, Le., cstnbi-
adjustment factor
-
(1 + g/lOO)"/N natioiis of distributions 1&7ith IOW probabilities such as a
n= 1 tractor-rrailer impact wit11 iiigli iinpact speed at an angle,
where : will be properly represented in the distributions.
Por each eiicroaclitnenr, tlie pat11 iassamed I O be a
N = project life in years straight iine) and the iiiipact eiivelope ofthe vehicie are a
fatiction oftbe encroachment angle and the physical di-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The RSAP program ailitxis rhe iiipur of a user-defhecl niensicm and orientation ofthe vehicle, as sh0~~7n ia Fig-
adjustment Factor to account ibr special or 1inus:iai situa- we A.3. The presence of roadside featares witiiii:, the i n -
tions that could affecr eiicroachnieiit fi-eqrieiiciesbeyond ie ~ ~ e h i cisi etlieii checked. ifthere is no
the paxaireters i~~coiporated into the -rogam. For exanpie, itbiti the iinpact emelope, the ei~croacii-
an adjiistineiir facror of greater than i .O inay be appropri- esult in a crash. Bf there is a roadside
ate if tlie highway section mider colisiderationhas a higher featiire within the impact ei:,velspe, then a crash .,vould
t11ai1 average crash hisrory or encroachment fieqiencies occur with the probability determined by the iateral exteiit
at night. An adjustnient Factor of less thm 1.8 nray be ofei~croaclitnei-rtfor the veiiicle. T'ne sev
appropriate for a higl~waysection wirb special safety com- and the associated crash cost are then estinyated by the
teimnearures, such as rarnible strips on tlie sirouider or in- severity prediction msduie. The crash frecjuexy and crash
creased l a w enforcenielx acri cost $3-ethen multiplied by the probability that the vehicie
Th:: encroachment module will then combine hase en- IVSiild travel Far e:ioagli late y to rea& the huard. The
croachmeiit rates and adjiistinent factors to detemilie lateral extent of encroachment distribution, shown in Fig-
encroachelit iYequencies for the highway section mider we A.4, is based on Rie Cooper eiicroachmei:,t data (71.
study^ A new encroachment is tlieii raiidoinly generated aid
the process is repeated. M e r every 10,UOO encroachLnie:its,
the convergence of the soiution is exm~iiied.The diswi-
htistis ofthe e~:,croacIitnentcbaracteristics for t'ne simu-
lated eiicroachnierits are cmnpared to the pre-established
prediction niodiile assesses if an encroachment disti-ibiitioiisto check ifrliey are within the specified level
nlr in a crash, P(A/E). A stochastic process us- of Con~~egeiice, which can be set by the riser to high
iiiy tlie Monte Cario sin~ilatioiiteclmique is used for the ( I percent], n:,ediun:, i 5 percenr 1, or iow ( i O percelit). Ifail
rias11 prediction modale, which iiiwlves using random cpftliese distributions are within the specified ievel of con-
selection processes to sinmiate vehicles running off the vel.,gunce, tlie siinaiaiion is terminated and t'ne resuk are
YO a \
road wirlnin the hight-vajr section iinder srudy. 0i1e en- saved in the cmtp~itfiles. Cbthem7ise. another 10,OOO itera-
is shniilatet.:ea& tirne Xyitir tire foilob~ngclix- tions will be mdettalien and the convergence cl~ecksa i t -
ai~doinlyassigiied to rhe eiicroaciinient: loca- iined above wili be repeated.
tion along the highway, lane of origiiiation, direction of
encroachment, vehicle type, vehicle speed and aiigle, ancl
vehicie arienkation. A 2 . 3 SEVERITY PREDICTIBN l i A 3 " . E
The random assigminenr of characteristics is based on
distrib:itions built into the progmi. Por example, eiicroach- Afier a crasli is predicted to occiir, the ciest srep is I O
inents are assuined to be etieiily distribiited withi31 a ho- estimate the severity of the iinpact iising the crash sever-
mogerreous roadway section and are a $diction of tire ity prediction mod.,ile. Crasli severity e
eiicroachinenr fi-eqaei~cjr(Le., the encroachments tiai? haps the most iinportaiit step of this c6~st-effectiveiiess
amoiiy roadway sections with diiTerent geonietrics kind analysis procediire, For most roadside safety improve-
encroachment ffeqiiencies). The Iaiie of origination ancl ments, the benefit, or reduction in crash cost, is derived
direction of encroachment xe a iiinctioii oftraffic idmire from iower crash sev y with I ittle or no cliange, and
distribritioii by lane, Vehicle type?which lias i 3 caregories stmetimes even ai increase, in the crash freqiieiicy. 'T'lie
miging from a sniall passenger car to a tractor-trailer, is a crash cosi is priticipaliy a fiinctioi:, of rlie crasli severiry,
fimction of rhe vehicle niix calciiiated fiom the noininal i.e., the probability of injury and/or fataiity, silice the as-
sociated crash cost is iiiglily tion-linear.
A-6
x
FlGURE A 3 Vehicle path and impact envelope
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

A-7
h
s
v
cn^
w
.-c
U
a,
a,
o
X
W
v)
+
c
E
c
o
o
(u
c
W
i1 61 i331 i501 i661 i821 i991
Lateral Extent of Encroachment, a, meters [feet]

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE A.4 Lateral extent of encroachment distribution
Each crash predicted by the crash prediction niocb.de i s Cmsh severity is expressed hi tenns ofa severity index
associated witli a particular roadside feature or hazard, (SI)? wliich is a surrogate nieasure for injury probabil ito;
vehicle type, impact speed, impact angle, aid vehicle ori- arid severity, hbie A i illustrates the relatiwiships of se-
entation. This ikfotxiation is then used by the severity verity indices and probability of injriq for various i~njmy
prediction mod~deto estirnate the severity, P ic-veis.
associated costs?E(.AC?9for the crash. Por a g T:i=
: t. s..\..rity
-o in indices used iii the WSAP program are
side object or feature aiid impacting vehicle, the condi- baskaliy those used iri the ROADSiDB prograi with surne
tions under whicli the vehicle impacts the roadside fea- inodifications, Specitically9severiry indices are expressed
ture, i .e., speed, angle and vehicie orientation, detemiiie as ;i function of iinpact speed iristead of roadway design
tne outcome and severity of the crash. Tti :lx case of a de 121, average severi-
roadside safety device, e.-.$ a grtardrail, crash cushion, ties or U1 vaines are provided for tire various roadside
etc., the perforniance limit oftlie safety device should also obJects and features for design speeds of 50, 70, 80, and
be taken into account. For example, the severity of ai I10 h h [30,45,55$and 78niphj, which were assumedto
ig a longitudinal barrier is m:icli different if be tiie design speeds for urban collectors, mial collectors
tlie vehicle is successktlly redi~ctedtlyaii if the ~ ; & i ~ l e arid urban arterials, riirai arterials, and freeways aid inter-
penetrates the batrier or rolls over, Separate procedures state highways, respectively. For each roadside object or
for determiningimpact perfimmnce are developed for each feattire, a lirrear regressioii line was fitted tllr0:igii these Sl
roadside iiardware featare inc1:ided in the modei. Aiso, vaines as a fkiction of speed. Note rhat these regression
these procedrxs are vehicle dependent, i.e.: <:LYei-eiittecli- iines v;ouid ainios! always originate fioni the zero point
niques are used to estimate rollover or vatil ti ng potentials since an impact speed ofzero (0) 1rn~Ii[S inph] sliould not
for passenger cars and trucks. produce any damage to the veiiicle or injury to tiie occu-
panrs. Figure A 5 sho$Tjis an exaniple ofthis linear relation-
ship betv;een SI aiid iinpact speed.
A-8
TABLEA,$ Relationship ofSeveri$ Indices @!)I and probability of injury
Injury Level
Severity ("/.I
Index SI None PDO 1 PD02 C B A K
0.0 ~
0.5 100.0 ~ ~
1.o 66.7 23.7 7.3 2.3

2.0 71.0 22.0 7.0 ~ ~
3.0 43 .O 34.0 21.0 1.o 1.o

4.0 30.0 30.0 32.0 5.0 3 .O
5.0 15.0 22.0 45.0 10.0 8.0
6.0 7.0 16.0 39.0 20.0 18.0
7.0 2.0 10.0 28.0 30.0 30.0
8.0 ~
4.0 19.0 27.0 50.0

9.0 ~
7.0 18.0 75.0

10.0 100.0
O 20 40 60 80 1O0 120
io1 i121 i251 i371 i501 i621 i751
Impact Speed, km/h [mph]
FlGURE A.5 Example of relationship b e k e e n Severity Index ( S i ) and impact speed
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

This simplistic calibration merliod removed sone of The cras'n cost is divided by t'ne weigl-rted num-
the inconsistencies in the exlier RCbALXIDE SI tables. bei- of encroackmxts aid tlien niuitiplied by the
ly, i t relates Si values I O spe expected number of encrsacliinenrs per year I O
speeds for each roadside object or featme instead of aver- convert to an animal basis.
age SI values, Tl-rere are?however, two exceprions to this
prtxedme. First, large vertical drops ~&7ouid not necessar- The crash cost is iaiweighted to anive at the tnie
ily have ai:, SI value of zero for an impact speed of zero cras'n cost. A s discussed previously, the prob-
because gravity \.iould also play a ixge role in the probability distri butions for various encroachinent
abiliry sfvehicle damage and occupant injury. Therefore, characteristics are weighted to eiisure proper
the regression lines for vertical drops were not tltted sanipliiig of coaditions ~ 7 i t very
h low probabili-
t'nrougii the zero poitit. Second, iateral speed, was ~
ties I O improve the accuracy of the analysis re-
used instead of iinpact speed for the S relationships of sults and the speed at which the RSAP program
lstigituditiai barriers silice the severity of a iongi tudinai arrives at a solution.
barrier iinpact is a function ofboth the impact speed and
t'ne impact angle. = V%ti .;there V is the iinpact The direct costs?wl-rich iticiude rhe costs for initial in-
speed and is the iinpact angle.) stallation of the safety feature, normal niainteimice, and
repair sfdamages l'rom cras'nes, are also mxna
an?;ral basis. The initiai installation is ConveJtted to an
l basis using tlie projecr life acid the disco
orinal niaii~tenaiicecost is already ente
anmal basis. The cost of repairing roadside safely hard-
severity prediction nidule, the crash or societal costs ware is estimated by correlating repair costs to impact
associated wit11the crash are theci calculated by multiply-. energy tertns. Por exatnpie, resuits froni fuii-scale crash
iiig the probability ofeach levei ofinjmy by the cost asso- testing and computer siimilaticm are used to determine
ciated .;titi:, tl-rat levei of itijmy. tlie relationship between iinpact energy tern~sand length
of guardrail damage. The iaiit repair cost for a typical
guardrail, e.g., $5U.U0 per merer [$i 5.34 per l'oorj is then
estimated. The total repair cost is therefore the product of
AC =
tlie 1ei:gtb of daniaged rail and the unit cosi for repair.
Procedures fbr estinming the extent
where : are developed for each ioiigitudina1b
as most coininon crash cushions, barrier terminals, and
AC = crash cost
other roadside safety devices.
P(Ii) = probability of injury severity level "i"
C(1i)
Increnientai beixfWcost ratios are then calcuiated for
= cost associated with injury severity
level "i" all aiternatives iti apaiiwise inanlier.As showti previo:isly>
n -
total number of injury severity levels the expression for calculating the inci-einental benefWcost
rarios is as folisws:
B/C R a t i ~ =
~ (AC1-AC2)/(DC2-DC1)
-~
As previously in
sl30~&7;nlli .
Table A. i the severity iadela
(Si>is associared .;titii where:
hjuq(.A), nioderate i
damage.-o:ily level 2. (PDCQ.)$and propetly-danlage-ol-riy B/C R a t i ~ ~ -=~ incremental benefit/cost
levei 1 IPDCbl). 'I'he severity estimate ofthe crash is then ratio of Alternative 2
converred to crasli costs using crash co compared to Alternative 1
by the user. 'The program offers the choice of crash cost ACi, AC2 = annualized crash or
figures froin t'ne AASI-iTO Roadsick Design G.<i&: (2.1 or societal cost of
the FHWA comprehensive cost figures based 011 the will- Alternatives 1 and 2
ingness to pay apprsacli, as shown in Table A 2, Alterna- DCi, DC2 = annualized direct cost of
tively, the user can iiiput values for crash costs for vari- Alternatives 1 and 2
ous injury severiry levels to suit the particular ~ieedsof
the agency.
The cras'n costs are norniaiieed to an annuai basis. Tlie The nuniemm ofthis equation is the diirfererice in crash
iionnali zation proce n ~ ~ ~ > lWO v e ssteps: or societal cosrs between rhe two airernatives. Since Ai-
ternative i. is being evahiared as a potential safety
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A-? o
TABLE A.2 Crash cast figures*
Crash Severity Roadside Design Guide FHWA Comprehensive Cost
Fatal Crash $1,000,000 $2,600,000
Severe Injury Crash 200,000 180,000
Moderate Injury Crash 12,500 36,000
Slight Injury Crash 3,750 19,000
PDO Crash Level 2 3,125 2,000
PDO Crash Level 1 625 2,000
* Crash cost figures are based upon the 1996 edition of the Roadside Design Guide and a 1994
FHWA memorandum entitled Update of Value of Life and Injuries for Use in Preparing
Economic Evaluations.
improvement ovei-Altemative I the societal or crash costs

~
distributions from real-world crash data. A straight path
sfAlteriiative I .;tould be expected to be nighertlian tliose XTkh no braking is assuinecl so that rlie encroaclsnient speed
ofAltemative 2. Thus, the nunieratoi-is expressed as (AC,- and mgie are tiie smie as the i m p x t speed and Lirigle.
AC,). The denominator of the equation represents tiie dif- ROADSIDE uses only a single vehicle type aiid an
ferences in direct costs to the trmsporration agency as- average encroachnient angie for the li
sociared with implementing the safety iinprovement of hide orieimtion is not taken into acc
Aiternative 2 in relation to Altermative 1. Again, since Ai- c m handie only one hazard ;it a time =id shielding of one
ternative 2. is being evaluated as a potential safety im- hazard by another is nor incorporated. For inaltipie haz-
proveinent over Alternative I, the direct costs of Aiteriia- ards, each hazard lias to be amlyzed iridividually and the
tive 2. 1vould be expected Io be higher than rhsse ofAlter-. crash costs suinined n~aii~ially. Tn comparison, RSAP ai-
native I . Hence, the denominator is expressed as (DC,- iows for 12 vehicle types, Vdiicie orientation is incoryu-
r.q)~ rated imro rile prograin based on real-Xi?iorld crash dara.
I-lazard imaging is based 0x1 the size of the vehicle, en-
croachinenr aiigle, and vehicie orieimtion. The prograni
A 3 . U COWARISON W T H ROADSIDE c m handle multiple li ds with aigorithrns to account
PRBGRAM for shielding of one hazard by anorher aiid nuilriple in]-
pacts,
Table A.3 presents the major di Kerences between the W SAP ROADSTDE uses an average severiry index witthout
program and the KOADSiDE program, ~7hichis the cost- accwuntirig for speed. RSAP estiniates severity as a f~mc-
effectiveness analysis procedme preseiited in prev isus tioii of impacr speed instead of am axverage valiie. These
vers i uns of the ROI:& ide Des i g frl~i&(2,3
~ 1. K O ADS IDE imnprovementsincorporated into RSAP provide better se-
uses a constant e:icroaci:mei:,t yare OF 0,0003 encroach-. verity estimates, idii perhaps the n m t crirical ele-
nient pel-hi[o.o005 encroac1inieiitpel-i d e ] per year per ment for estimating c osts, Firnher, ROADSIDE as-
ADT. The laterai extent of ei-rcroachnent distribution is sumes that all impacrs wirli a hazard shielded by a barrier
based on a constant deceleration rate of 3 .$6 m:sec/sec are eliminated, regardless of barrier length. RSBP ailows
[I?. fi/sec:sec]>or 0.4 g, and a sine curve density -fimetion for inipacr with a hazard shielded by barrier ifrhe vehicle
for steer back. In ct>1npai-isun,the RSAP prc>graini1ses the encroaches upstream of the barrier.
Cooper encroacliinent data. A~justnietits ve re made to
accomt for eiici-oachnieiits with 4 in CI3.i ft] or less of
estenr wliich inigl-rt not nave been derected &,E to
presence of paved shoulders.
RCjADSTDE uses a hyporhetical di This appenclix provicles a siminiav ofrlie concephiaifiame-
based oii design speed and an average work and algoritlmrs contltiried iii the RSBP computer pro-
le based on the poi~it-massmodel. A gram, which has been created to assist in the econonsic
constaiit deceleration rate of 3.65 in/sec:sec [ 12 ftiseci analysis of existing or proposed roadside conditions. For
sec], or 0,. g, is ass:imed For calciilating the impac users desiring inore detailed iiiforination, please refer to
froin the encroachinent speed. ,9 straight path is assumed tire Engineer 5 Ilfiinuai. A h , for detailed descriptions on
so h a t the impact angle is tne sanie as t l x eticroacbnietit rhe operation of rlie RSAP prograni, piense refer to the
angle. iii comparison, RSAP uses inipact speed and angle Liser s Airnzaui,
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Data Element ROADSIDE RSAP
Encroachment Rate A constant of 0.0003 Cooper encroachment data,
encroachments per km per adjusted for encroachments with
year [0.0005 encroachments lateral extent I 4 m [13.1ft]
per mi per year] per vehicle per day
Encroachment Speed Function of design speed Same as impact speed

Encroachment Angle Average angle based on point- Same as impact angle
mass model
Impact Speed = Encroachment speed-speed Based on real-world crash data
loss with 3.66 m!sec/sec [12
R/sec/sec] [0.4 g] deceleration rate
Impact Angle Same as encroachment angle Based on real-world crash data
Lateral Extent of Encroachment Assumes 3.66 m!sec/sec [12 Cooper encroachment data, lateral
R/sec/sec] [0.4 g] deceleration extent I 4 m [13.i ft]
rate and sine curve density function
for steer back
Vehicle Type One 12 vehicle types, based on

nominal percent trucks
Vehicle Orientation None Based on real-world crash data
Shielding of One Hazard by No Yes
Another
Multiple Hazards Each hazard has to be Yes
analyzed individually and the
crash costs summed manually
Effect of Barrier Protection All impacts with hazard Vehicles encroaching upstream of
shielded by barrier eliminated, barrier could impact hazard
regardless of barrier length shielded by barrier
Severity (SI) Average values only Function of impact speed
Incremental B/C Ratios for Have to be calculated manually Yes
Multiple Alternatives
Solution Method Deterministic Stochastic using the Monte Carlo
simulation techniaue
The XSAP program piesens many new advances aiid -~i~merous biiilt-in default valiies to rediice dara
featilres otit7i' its predecessors. Higliliglits oftlie j niprove- entry i equirc-ments,
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
inents incoiyorated inm the RSAP progran are s:inmia-

rized as follows:
* A user-friendly intei-f'acewith FVINDOFVS-like ---builr.-inedit and consistency checks,

screens and niemis to facilirate easier use oftlie ---optionsto ciioose built-in default valiies or in-
prograin by iiiexperiericed users, Peatues of the put user-defined vnliies fbi- crash cost tlgures
User hiterface Prograni include: and ve'njcie mixi?and
-simp1 ifjed dam jnpur process with nuiltiple ---c'noiceof reports IC preview or print to hard
choice entries where appropriate, copies or electronic files.

* Capability to halidle evaliiarions ofpro-jectswit11 Crrerreputadmal Binse. The use ofrlse Moiste Carlo
a mas iinatn of 20 different sa-fety iniprovenietit si n:,iiiatisti techiique requires longer computa-
altermtives, 20 consecutive roadway segnsersts ti omal time.
-for road.;tays of up 18 i6 lanes, and i >o00road-
side featttines. The prograns is capable of sirnulta- Mt&ipk aadutioms. Due ro tlie iiatme of tiie sto-
~ieouslyanalyzing lsazarcls on eirlier or both sides chastic process, the soiutions or answers will
of the roadway as ~7eilas in the niedian for a v a y f~otntw:, to ma withLii:,a range as detertniised
divided roadway. by the convergence criteria. This variation for a
~ivei:,project can be eii-mii-raredby using the sacne
<.
Ilse of a stochasric soliitioii method with the seed rimiber for ail the runs, which is an option
Monte Cario si n:,iiiatisti reclitiiq,~to al iow for provided ici the pro
nsodular design of the Main Analysis Program.
The program can be updated ii:, rhe futiire N~nrsaehmenidaia. The Cooper encrsaclinieiit
(piit arnajorrewi-iteofthe data are almost 30 years old aiid many in-tprove-
inents to vehicle and highway designs have been
driver iiiputs, side irnpacts, etc. i n:,plemented i 11 the interiin. The ei:croacl:Lment
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
probability nicxki c m greatly benefit from better
use of re-malyzed Choper eiscroaclitnent data ei:croacl:n:ei:t datao
fbr encroackmxt rates and latterai extent of en-

croacliinenr di stributions with adjii sti Vehicle pailla. The RSAP program does not c w
under-reporting of encroacisnieiits1&7ith rentiy take into accoiint vehicle and driver be-
exretit due to preseiice of paved sho:ilders liavior d~uingencroachments h e to lack of a i d -
and controlled versus uiicontrolied eiici-oach- able data, The iiicorporation of curvilinear ve-
cnents. hide paths, vehicle orientation, and slope effects
would significanrly iniprove crash prediction and
* Use of real-world crash data for inipact speed imp act severity e sr inxition,
aiid aiigle d*sn-ibutioiisimsread ofrheorerical dis-
tri b~trio~is, Tne
ETtealt ufralterareaacruackanentdiaQ%baltioaas.
effects ofroadside siopes and geometries are riot
* Incorporation of vehicle orientation into tlie adeqiarely ad&essed in the current disrriburions
analysis code to berter define vehicle swath or for tiie extent of laterai encroaclmieiit.
iinpact envelope. Jkfore inipoitanrly2this woiiid
ailobv for futme colisideration of nori-tracking Crash severity The severity index approach cur-
crashes and side inipacrs, which account for a oi.ated irr the RSAP program has
significant percentage of ruri-off-the-road ons. Abetter approach to estiniare
crashes and have been shown to resiiir in higher severity, such as the probabiiity of iiG iiry ap-
severiries than tracliing craslies, proach, woiiidbe highly desirabie. 1ii the inrerins,
tlie severi!y indices of iiidividual roadside ob-
While the RSAP program is il11 Unprovenieiit over e .iects or features could benefit froin a critical re-
iiig procedures, it al so has &awlsacks and 1 imitations, niosr view and tlieii revised as kippropriare.
o$ \Y -h'-..
I IL,Lare the resuit of lack of available data or which
require a levei ofesorr beyond that available for this study. Impact anodels. The iinpact niodels for predicting
Usine of tlie limitatioris and iiitiire modifications and re- vehicle penetrarion and rollover that are incor-
fineinem are as foIlows: porated ink?the KSAP pro@-amare i-elativelysim-
piistic i n natiire and couid beliefir f%xnnore so-
* Applicarisaia.The RSAP program is intended for phisticated and better validated 1nodels.
the evaluation of safety treatinents for hazarclsi
featues along tlie roadside or iri the median kind Fimallys it should again be einpkdsized that the RSAP
canisot haisdie other applicarions, siicli as cross- program is iistended as a tool for economic analysis acid
over crashes at nixow inedim sites. sli~xildnot supersede the guideliaes presented in the Road-
Dci-zgn Guiiici or sound engilieering judgmeiit.

8-13
REFERENCES
7. Cooper, P. Ai-ralysis of Roadside Bncroacl-r-

inents-Single \rehick Rm-OE-Koad Accident
Bara Alialysis for Five Provinces,B. C. Re,sc:ar.cA,.
Vaiscouver. Sriti sh Chiunlbia, Canada, March
Ii80.
2. Road.side k s i g n Guide. American Association
of Stare i-Iigl-rin/ayand Transportation Officials,
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tliashinpn, DC, i 996.
3. Road.side k s i g n Guide. American Association

of Stare i-Iigl-rin/ayand Transportation Officials,
tliashinpn, DC, i 989.
4. Benefit to Cost h a i y s i s I-rograni,

Publication
No. FHWA-TS-88. Research, De~eiopinent~ aisd
Eximoiogy,liirrier-FairbadcI-lighway I<eseiucii lu.PerchoIlolcIK., T.A. Ra-me): a. u. Blt:irn, 19,F.
Center, 6.300 (Georgerown Pike, McI.ran, VA9June Morris, and .T. D. Eppicls. Hazardous Effects of
1988. Highway Features arid Roadside Objects?
kbl. 2, Report No. FH\VA-RD-?8-2022Septeniber
5. Gi&k &wciicaiiongfiwBr.idge Railings.Ameri- 19::8.
can Associarion of State Higlsway aiid Trans-
portatioli Officiais, Washington, DC? 1989,
(archived jsiibl icatioii)

APPENDIX B
Selected Roadside Barrier Design Details
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This appendix contains design details and additional information on the roadside barrier systems discussed in
Section 5.4.1.

ui
ru
Soil Plate Soil P i a t e l 600

Typical Typical
SGROla SGRO1b SGROlc
Note: All dimensions shown are in millimeters unless otherwise noted.
FIGURE B.la Three-strand cable (metric units)
AASHTO Designation SGROlb SGROlb SGROlc

Post Type: S75 x 8.5 steel 9 kg/m steel flanged channels 14-mmdia.modified
wood
Post Spacing: 5ooOmm 5ooOmm 3800mm
Beam Type: 19-mmdia. steel cables 19-mmdia. steel cables 19-mmdia. steel
cables
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: 3.5m 3.5m 3.5 m
Remarks: For shallow angle impacts, barrier damage is usually limited to several posts, which must be replaced. Cable
damage is rare except in severe crashes. A crashworthy end terminal is critical in each of the cable systems, both
to provide adequate anchorage to develop full tensile strength in the cable and to minimize vehicle decelera-
tions for impacts on either end of an installation.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

-
GI-a -
GI-b G1-c
FIGURE B.l b Three-strand cable [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO M i t i o n G h Gl-b Glc

Post Type: S3 x 5.7 steel 4 lblft steel U-channels 5 '/-in.dia. modified
wood
Post Spacing: 16 ft 16 fi 12 fi-6 in.
Beam%: 3/4-in.dia. steel cables 3/4-in.dia. steel cables 3/4-in.dia. steel cables
Maximm Dynamic Deflection: 1 1 ft-6in. 11 ft-6in. 1 1 ft-6in.
Remarks: For shallow angle impacts, barrier damage is usually limited to several posts, which must be replaced. Cable
damage is rare except in severe crashes. A crashworthy end terminal is critical in each of the cable systems, both
to provide adequate anchorage to develop full tensile strength in the cable and to minimize vehicle decelera-
tions for impacts on either end of an installation.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- B-3
FIGURE B.2a W-beam (weak post) (metric)
AASHTO Designation SGRO2

Post Type: S75 x 8.5 steel
Post Spacing: 3810
Beam Type: 2.67 W-beam
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: approximately 2 m
Remarks: Barrier as shown is TL-2. TL-3 design is 660 mm to center of rail with W-Beam rail splices located midway
between posts. A steel back-up plate is used at all posts locations.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
E4
31;
Soil Plate
Typical /
FIGURE B.2b W-beam (weak post) [U.S. customary units]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO Designation 62
Post Spacing: 12f3
Beam Type: 12 gage W-beam
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: approximately6 ft-6 in.
Remarks: Barrier as shown is TL-2. TL-3design is 26 in. to center of rail with W-Beam rail splices located midway between
posts. A steel back-up plate is used at all posts locations.
55
Soil Plate
Typical
FIGURE B.3a Weak-post box beam (metric units)
AASHTODesignation SGRO3
Post Spacing: 1830 mm
BeamType: 152 m m x 152 mm x4.8 mm steel tube
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: approximately 1.5 m

FIGURE 6.36 Weak-post box beam [U.S.customary units]
AAsmoDesignation 63
Post Qpe: s3 x 5.7 steel
Post Spacing: 6ft
Beam Qpe: 6 in. x 6 in. x O. 19 in. steel tube
Maximm Dynamic Deflection: approximately 5 ft
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
57
$%- ritf: f PDBol
j 'i' / /, /#
1F 1 PDE02+*
I
SGR04b SGR04b
7PWBO1
SGR04a*'*
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE B.4a Blocked-outW-beam (strong post) (metric units)
AASHTO Designation varies with post type as noted below:

Post Type: PDEo2-150 mm x 200 mm wood**
PDE13-180-mm diameter wood
PwEOl-Wl50~13.5 Stel***
Post Spacing: 1905ITUll
Beam Type: 2.67 W-beam
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: approximately 0.9 m
* 1625 m m posts are also acceptable

** 200 mm x 200 mm wood posts are also acceptable
*** TL-2 with steel blocks; TL-3 with wood or plastic blocks
B-8
Selected Roadside Barrier Desinn Details
,1" 1"
G4(2WL Round Post

1"
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
G4( 1S)***
FIGURE B.4b Blocked-outW-beam (strong post) [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designationvaries with post type as noted below:

Post Type: G4(2W)4 in. x 8 in. wood**
Round Post-7-in. diameter wood
G4(1S)- x 9 steel***
Post Spacing: 6 fi-3 in.
Beam Type: 12 gage W-beam
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: approximately3 ft
* 5 ft-4 in. posts are also acceptable

** 8 in. x 8 in. wood posts are also acceptabIe
*** TL-2 with steel blocks; TL-3 with wood or plastic blocks
E9
Thrie-Beam Back-up Plate (at posts
where Thrie-Beam splice does not occur)
1
, rT:e-T
256
W150 x 13.5 Post
I dl4 / III I I
FIGURE B.5a Modifiedthrie-beam (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGRO9b

Post Qpe: W150 x 13.5 steel or 150mm x 200 mm wood
Offset Block M360 x 25.6 steel
Post Spacing: 1905IIlKl
Beam-: 2.67 thne-beam
Maximum DynamicDeflection: approximately0.9 m for a 9OOO-kg school bus (90 15" impact angle)
Remarks: Modified Thrie-beam was first installed in Rhode Island, Colorado, Nebraska, and Michigan as an experimental
barrier. Since that time, it has been re-classified as an operational system, requiring virtually no repair for
shallow-anglehits. This barrier can accommodate vehicles ranging in size from SOO-kg subcompacts to a 15000-
kg intercity bus.
810 --``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Thrie-Beam Back-up Plate (at posts

where Thrie-Beam splice does not occur)
FIGURE B.5b Modifiedthrie-beam [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: None

Post Type: W6 x 9 steel or 6 in. x 8 in. wood
Offset Block M14 x 18 steel
Post Spacing: 6 ft-3 in.
Beam Qpe: 12gage thrie-beam
Nominal Barrier Height: 34 in.
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: approximately 3 ft for a 20,000-pound school bus (56 mph, 15" impact angle)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Remarks: Modified Thrie-beam was first installed in Rhode Island, Colorado, Nebraska, and Michigan as an experimental
barrier. Since that time, it has been re-classified as an operational system, requiring virtually no repair for
shallow-angle hits. This barrier can accommodate vehicles ranging in size from 1,700-lb subcompacts to a
33,OOO-lb intercity bus.
B11
I 8 0 75,loq
O O .
18-mmdia. holes for
h g screw6 WP.) 7
2335
\
22.mm dia. holes (typ.) '
tW,7S 180
b X
-0 o O 0
355
Steel plate
IO mm thicknw
8 spams al 275 mm
STEEL RAIL
I 355 'c, timber rail 18-mm dia. hole
Centered in 8 mm
thick washer
PLATE WASHER
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
150 x 250 x 2990 mm

rough sawn limber rail
75 175 1 225 1 225 1 75 1 75

31
ill 9 mm holes 90
w p in limber rail (typ.)
++
20 x 60 mm boit slot
M16 cadage bolt with 100 x 225 x 3M)mm block,
22 x 32 mm Steel plate 10 mm thickness
hex nut and plate washer Type A
380 mm with block-out boll SIOIS (typ.)
280 mm wlth no blockout 250 x 300 x 210 mm STEEL SPLICE PLATE
rough MWI1 timber post
125 mm dia. x 25
mm depth rec~ss
PLAN
6M)mm (min.)
t
L
r II
I
\ O 0
-1
L
*, O
Plate washer
Steel splice plate lx 225 x 300
I
Iu
Edged pavement
-
250 x 3CQx210 mm or groundline al face
rough 88- timber pxl
at 3WO-mm centers
Hinge point
Of f O r 0 S l O p e - l
L---J
ELEVATION
POST CONNECTION TYPICAL GUARDRAIL CROSS SECTION
\w
Note: All dimensions shown are in millimeters unless otherwise noted
FIGURE B.6a Steel-backed wood rail (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: None

Post Type: 250 mm x 300 mm x 2100 mmrough sawn timber
Beam Type: 150 mm x 250 mm timber with steel plate backing
Nominai Barrier Height: 685m
5 12
116'
BB'
4 31;
"+;
Ji3
dia. holes lor
lag screws WP.) 7
>
Steel plate centered

11,,8' dia. hole
in 'i;
;!3 thickness
14' 8 spaces at 11' thick washer
STEEL RAIL PLATE WASHER
29
I -I
. .
15,1i. ,; 1 L Steel plata thickness
bolt slots
5;, carriage boll with hex 4' x 8 3;, x 12' block, Type A
nut and plate washer STEEL SPLICE
15' with block-ou1
11' with no block-oul 10' x 12' x 6-10'
rough sawn timber post
depth reces
PLAN
Jel ,o' , 24' (min.)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
steel
4 ' X 8 3;, x tTJ
block, Type A
1o'x 12'x6'-10' Edge of pavemeni
rough sawn timber post or gmundline al
at lo' centera lace of rail
1:lO or flatter of loreslope7
Hingepoint
u
*
L - - - l
ELEVATION
POST CONNECTION TYPICAL GUARDRAIL CROSS SECTION
FIGURE B.6b Steel-backed wood rail [U.S. customary units]
AASHTODesignation: None
Post Type: 10 in. x 12 in. x 7 in. rough sawn timber
Bem, Type: 6 in. Y IC! in. timher with steel plate hacking
E13
Symmetrical
about$ ,
Berm
Note: All dimensions shown are in millimetersunless otherwise noted.
FIGURE B.7a Concrete safety shape (metric units)
AASHTODesignation: MB5
The 810mm high concrete safety shape was initially installedprimarily as a median barrier, but has become commonly used
as both a bridge railing and as a roadside barrier. Most of these barriers use the standard New Jersey shape; any extension
in barrier height occurs above the slope break point. Several states extend the upper stem to serve as a maintenance-free
glare screen. The two designs shown above are the extreme heights to which roadside barriers have been constructed-
both along ramps with a history of truck accidents.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
514
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Symmetrical
FIGURE B.7b Concrete safety shape [U.S. customary unlts]
AASHTO Designation: MB5
The 32 in. high concrete safety shape was initially installed primarily as a median barrier, but has become commonly used
as both a bridge railing and as a roadside barrier. Most of these barriers use the standard New Jersey shape; any extension
in barrier height occurs above the slope break point. Several states extend the upper stem to serve as a maintenance-free
glare screen. The two designs shown above are the extreme heights to which roadside barriers have been constructed-
both along ramps with a history of truck accidents.
Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials B-15

!!!
P
O
al al
0 c
C ([i
o,
I p!
o,
l 0
([i
ou .c
O
e
.-C
O
E
-al
o m
rna
- 9
O
v)
O
c
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5 16
c
a
c
m
CI)
O
2 a
-
a
CI)
.-
C
CI)
CI)
m
9
I .c
O
.-C
E a
-y>
- m
ion
.*M
Y
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
E17
ELEVATION
85 3660
70 I- 1Mx) -1 230 I 1600

I
CHANNEL RAIL BENT

CHANNEL RAIL ELEVATION 6-mm PLATE
s75 x 8.5
170-mm Dia. Post 16-mm Dia. Thru Bolt
7
19-mm Dia. Thni Bolt t \ \ I I?@-
PLAN
-\170-mm Dia. Post

,I9 mm-Dia. Thru Bolt
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
'
8
S75X8.5 +I-
Groundline at Face of Rail
STEEL POST SIDE
Note: Ail dimensions shown in millimeters unless otherwise noted.
FIGURE B.9a IRONWOOD guardrail (metric units)
E18
- 6-6"
13' I.
1
7
ELEVATION
33f; 12'-o" 331;

I_ Y
CHANNEL RAIL
CHANNEL RAIL ELEVATION 1;' PLATE
s3 x 5.7
51; Dia. Thru Boit
631,' Dia. Post
3j; Dia. Thru Bolt

\\ I / , r
It; Washer
71; Dia. A 307

Rail
PLAN
63); Dia. Post
-\ -/
31 " Dia.
s3 x 5.7 s3 x 5.7
;1' x 8" x 24%;
L, sx5.7 i cn
v
Ed
Groundline at Face of Rail
STEEL POST SIDE
FIGURE B.9b IRONWOODguardrail [U.S. customary units]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
B-19
~
Thrie-Beam Back-up Plate (at post where Thrie-Beam RTM02

Thrie-Beam splice does not occur) 7 r
+b+f 30
a45
PWB02
-
WhYAYA
PWE03
FIGURE B.lOa Blocked-out thrie-beam (strong post) (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGRWa

Post Type: W150 x 13 steel or 150mm x 200 mm wood*
Post Spacing: 1905IlUD
Beam Type: 2.67 mm thrie-beam
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately 0.6 m
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
* TL-2 with steel posts and steel blocks; TL-3 with steel or wood posts and wood or plastic blocks
6-20
Thrie-Beam Back-up Plate (at post where

Thrie-Beam splice does not occur)
7 r Thrie-Beam
W6 x 9 BLOCK
FIGURE B.lOb Blocked-out thrie-beam (strong post) [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: G9
Post Type: W6 x 9 steel or 6 in. x 8 in. wood*
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Post Spacing: 6 ft-3 in.

Beam Type: 12 gage thrie-beam
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately24 in.
* TL-2 with steel posts and steel blocks; TL-3 with steel or wood posts and wood or plastic blocks
8-21
Selected Median Barrier Design Details
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This appendix contains design details and additional information on the median barrier systems discussed in
Section 6.4.1.
C1

90 mm
+
120 mm
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1770 mm
+ I
115 mrn<&=
I
600 mm
840 mm I
FIGURE C.la Three-strand cable (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: None (The former single-strandcable MBI is obsolete.)

Test Level: TL-3
Post Type: S75 x 8.5
Beam Type: 19-mm dia. steel cable
Nominal Barrier Height: 770 mm
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: 3500 mm
Remarks: Because of the high dynamic deflection for cable systems, they are not recommended for use in medians
narrower than approximately 7 m. The extensive damage done during moderate to severe impacts leaves a
significant length of barrier inoperative until repairs can be made. Cable median barrier systems are recom-
mended for use on irregular terrain and on wider medians where the need is only to prevent infrequent,
potentially catastrophic cross-median crashes. For proper performances it is essential that this system be
installed and maintained at the correct mounting height. This system is similar to the 3-strand cable roadside
barrier, except that one of the cables is mounted on the opposite side of the post from the other two. See Figure
B.l for additional remarks.
c2
-
Selecred Median Barrier Design Derails
4 31~'
--t
I
4 3/4'
30" II
2
I
24"
33 '12" I
FIGURE C.l b Three-strand cable [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: None (The former single-strandcable "MBI" is obsolete.)

Test Level: TL-3
Post Type: S3 x 5.7 Steel
Post Spacing: 16 ft
Beam Type: 3/4-in.dia. steel cable
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: 11ft-6 in.
Remarks: Because of the high dynamic deflection for cable systems, they are not recommended for use in medians
narrower than approximately 23 feet, nor in medians which contain rigid objects. The extensive damage done
during moderate to severe impacts leaves a significant length of barrier inoperative until repairs can be made.
Cable median barrier systems are recommended for use on irregular terrain and on wider medians where the
need is only to prevent infrequent, potentially catastrophic cross-median crashes. For proper performances it
is essential that this system be installed and maintained at the correct mounting height. This system is similar
to the 3-strand cable roadside barrier, except that one of the cables is mounted on the opposite side of the post
from the other two. See Figure B.l for additional remarks.
G3
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

10 m m l
<
<
7 680 mm
1600 rnm
z%%
FIGURE C.2a Weak-post W-beam median barrier (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGMO2

Test Level: TL-2
Beam Type: Two Steel W sections
Offset Brackets: None
Nominal Barrier Height: 76040mm
Maximum DynamicDeflection: Approximately2 100mm
Remarks: This barrier system is suitable for wide, flat medians where sufficient space is available to accommodate deflec-
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tions. In order to place rigid objects within the median, the SGMO2 must be divided into parallel SGRO2 barriers
with the objects centered in 6.7 m plus gap or be transitioned to a semi-rigid system.

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
63"
FIGURE C.2b Weak-post W-beam barrier [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: SGM2

Test Level: TL2
Post Type: s3x 5.7
Post Spacing: 12ft-6in.
Beamme: ' h o Steel W sections, 12 gage
offset Brackets: None
Nominal Barrier Height: 30-33 in.
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately 7 ft
Remarks: This barrier system is suitable for wide, flat medians where sufficient space is available to accommodate
deflections.In order to place rigid objects within the median, the SGM02 must be divided into parallel SGRO2
barriers with the objects centered in a 23 ft plus gap or be transitioned to a semi-rigid system.

~
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
685 mm
1440 mm
610 mm
I -
FIGURE C.3a Weak-post box-beam median barrier (metric units)

Test Level: TL3
Beam Type: TS-203 x 152x 6.4
Mountings: Steel Paddles
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: 1700 mm
Remarks: This barrier system is suitable for both wide and narrow medians and locations where the terrain is moderately
irregular. Even moderate vehicle impacts cause a large number of posts to be damaged. Temporary supports
may be used to maintain beam height until posts are replaced.

27"
24"
FIGURE C.3b Weak-post box-beam median barrier [U.S. customary units]

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Test Level: TL3
Post Type: s3x5.7
Post Spacing: 6 fi-Oin.
Beam Type: 8 in. x 6 in. x in. steel tube
Mountings: Steel Paddles
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: 5 ft-6 in.
Remarks: This barrier system is suitable for both wide and narrow medians and locations where the terrain is moderately
irregular. Even moderate vehicle impacts cause a large number of posts to be damaged. Temporary supports may
be used to maintain beam height until posts are replaced.
c7
steel W sectionsn wood blocks

T\
SGM04a SGMO6a
FIGURE C.4a Strong-post W-beam (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGMW SGM04a (with non-steel blocks) SGMO4b

Test Level: TL2 TL3 TL3
Post Type: W150x 13.5 W150x 13.5 150x 200mmTimW
Post Spacing: 1905llltn 1905mm 1905Illm
Beam Type: Two Steel W sections Two Steel W sections Two Steel W
sections
Offset Brackets: Two W150x 13.5x Two Routed 150x 200 x Two 1 5 0 x 2 0 0 ~
360 mm 360 mmTimber or Plastic 360mmTimber
or Plastic
Nominal Barrier: Height: 700 mm 700 mm 700 mm
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately 600mm Approximately 600mm Approximately
mmm
AASHTO Designation: SGM06a (with non-steelblocks) SGMOb

Test Level: TL3 TL3
Post Type: W150x 13.5 150~200mmTimbee
Post Spacing: 1905llltn 1905llltn
Beam Type: Two Steel W sections Two Steel W sections
Two C150 x 12rubrails
Offset Brackets: Two Routed 150x 200 x Two 200 x 200 x 360 mmTimkr
360 mm Timber or Plastic or Plastic
Nominal Barrier Height: 760 mm 760 mm
MaximumDynamic Deflection: Approximately 600mm Approximately 600mm
Remarks: These systems are semi-rigid and are satisfactoryfor use in narrow medians. After typical impacts, the system
remains serviceable. Some States use a W section as a rubrail, centered at 250 mm above grade. This modifica-
tion is appropriate for the SGM06a and b and a higher SGM04a and b. By dividing any of these systems into
parallel barriers, assuming adequate deflection distance, fixed objects in the median can be effectively shielded.
* 150 x 200 mm post and blockout is acceptable.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

steel W sections
n
T6-0"
I
SGMMa SGMOGa
FIGUREC.4b Strong-post W-beam median barrier [US. customary units]
M H T O Designation: SGMh SGMO4b SGM4a (wib non-

steel blocks)
Test Jkvel: TL2 &3 TL3
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Post Type: W6x9 8 in. x 8 in. Timba? W6x9
Post Spacing: 6 ft-3 in. 6 ft-3 in. 6 ft-3 in.
Beam Qpe: Two steel W Sections Two steel W sections Two steel W
sections
Offset Brackets: TwoW6x9 Two routed 8 in. x 8 in. x 14in. Two6in. x 8in.x 14
timber or plastic in. timber or plastic
Nominal BarrierHeight: 27 in. 27 in. 27 in.
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately2 ft Approximately 2 ft Approximately 2 ft
M H T O Designation: SGMO6a SGMW

Test Level: &3 TL3
Post q p e : W6x9 6 in.x 8 in. Timber*
Post Spacing: 6 ft-3 in. 6 ft-3 in.
BeamType: Two steel W sections Two Steel W sections
Offset Brackets: Two routed 6 in. x 8 in. x 14in. Two routed 6 in. x 8 in. x 14in.
timber or plastic timber or plastic
Nominal Barrier Height: 30 in. 30 in.
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately 2 ft Approximately 2 ft
Remarks: These systems are semi-rigid and are satisfactory for use in narrow medians. After typical impacts, the system
remains serviceable. Some States use a W section as a rubrail, centered at 10in. above grade. This modification
is appropriate for both the SGMMa and b, and a higher SGM4a and b. By dividing any of these systems into
parallel roadside barriers, assuming adequate deflection distance, fixed objects in the median can be effectively
shielded.
*6 in. x 8 in. post and blockout is acceptable.

-
. -
wood blocks
/- w150 13.5 r 32mm
mm
SGMO9a SGMO9b
FIGURE C.5a Strong-post thrie-beam median barrier (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGM09a(with SGMWb SGMWc

non-steel blocks)
Post Type: W150x 13.5 W150x 13.5 150x 200 mm Timber
Post Spacing: 1905mm 1905mtl-l 1905mm
Beam Type: Two Thrie-Beams Two Thrie-Beams Two Thrie-Beams
Offset Brackets: Routed 150x 200 mm M360 x 25.6 or 15Ox200mmtimber
timber or plastic W360x32.9 or plastic
Nominal Barrier Height: 810 mm 870 mm 810 mm
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately500 mm Approximately500 mm Approximately500 mm
Remarks: The SGM09 systems are satisfactory for use in narrow medians. Normal impacts do little damage to the rail.
Under severe impact conditions, the rail of an SGM09b system remains upright and has the capability to redirect
18000-kgvehicles impacting at 80 km/h and at an angle of 15 degrees.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
-1 O
wood blocks
r""
thrie-beam (RE-63-76)
i 12 gage)
SGMO9a SGMO9b
FIGURE C.5b Strong-post thrie-beam median barrier [US. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: SGM09a (with non-steel SGMWb SGMWc

blocks)
Post Type: W6x9 W6x9 6 in.x 8 in. timber
Post Spacing: 6 ft-3 in. 6 ft-3 in. 6 ft-3 in.
Beam Type: Two Thrie-Beams Two Thrie-Beams Two We-Beams
Offset Brackets: Routed 6 in. x 8 in. timber M14in. x 17.2in. Steel 6 in. x 8 in. timber or
or plastic plastic
Nominal Barrier Height: 32 in. 32 in. 32 in.
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: Approximately20 in. Approximately 20 in. Approximately20 in.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Remarks: The SGM09 systems are satisfactory for use in narrow medians. Normal impacts do little damage to the rail.
Under severe impact conditions,the rail of an SGM09b system remains upright and has the capability to redirect
40,000-lb vehicles impacting at 50 mph and at an angle of 15 degrees.
C11
60 mm
+50mm
81
/ 55'
NJ-Shape F-Shape
FIGURE C.6a Concrete safety shape (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGMa SGMlOa

Test Level: TL4 TLA
Nominal Barrier Height: 810 mm 810 mm
Maximum DynamicDeflection:* O O
Remarks: The lower sloped face redirects vehicles without damage under low-impact conditions. During moderate to
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
severe impacts, some energy is dissipated when the vehicle is lifted off the pavement. The loss of tire contact
with the pavement also aids redirection. In crash tests, the F-shape has proven to be more successful in
preventing rollover of smaller vehicles.
The details of the shape are critical. The distance from the pavement to the break between the upper and lower
slopes should be kept at 330 mm or below. Barrier performance under moderate to severe impact conditionsis
not significantly affected by overlays on the lower sloped face. The overall height of the barrier, however,
needs to be maintained at a minimum of 740 mm.
The safety-shape barrier is suitable for narrow medians. Both faces can be flared away from the centerline to
provide room for rigid objects to be installed in the medians. (Flare rates should be as shown in Table 5.7.) Since
this barrier requires a paved approach, its application in wide medians is less cost-effective.
*Very severe hits may destroy the barrier. Reinforcing is recommended to prevent shattering of concrete where the top
of the barrier has a width less than 300 mm.
C12
NJ-Shape F-Shape
FIGUREC.6b Concrete safety shape [U.S.customary units]
AASHTO Designation: SGMlla SGMlOa

Test Level: TL4 TL4
Nominal Barrier Height: 32 in. 32 in.
Maximum DynamicDeflection*: O O
Remarks: The concrete safety shapes are the only operational rigid barriers. The lower sloped face redirects vehicles
without damage under low-impact conditions. During moderate to severe impacts, some energy is dissipated
when the vehicle is lifted off the pavement. The loss of tire contact with the pavement also aids redirection.
The details of the shape are critical. The distance from the pavement to the break between the upper and lower
slopes should be kept at 13 in. or below. Barrier performance under moderate to severe impact conditions is not
significantly affected by overlays on the lower sloped face. The overall height of the barrier, however, needs to
be maintained at a minimum of 29 in.
The safety-shape barrier is suitable for narrow medians. Both faces can be flared away from the centerline to
provide room for rigid objects to be installed in the medians. (Flare rates should be as shown in Table 5.7.)
*Very severe hits may destroy the barrier. Reinforcing is recommended to prevent shattering of concrete where the top of
the barrier has a width less than i t.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
C-13
#19 Q 300 rnrn
#19-8 total longitudinal steel
I 180 rnrn
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
75 mrn
_1
_c 2%
I- 820 rnrn -4 t
FIGURE C.7a Tail wall concrete safety shape (reinforced) (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGM12

Test Level: TL5
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: O
Remarks: This tall wall concrete safety-shaped barrier is used by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
G14
32"
6#,
- Q12"
#6-8total longitudinal steel
FIGURE C.7b Tall wall concrete safety shape (reinforced) [US. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: SGMib

Test Level: TL5
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
C-15
1 300 rnm
r
180 mm
\I top of pavement
asphaltic concrete
FIGURE C.8a Tall wall concrete safety shape (non-reinforced) (metric units)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO Designation: SGMiib
Test Level: TL5
Nominal Barrier Height: lu10 mm
Maximum DynamicDeflection: O
C16
7"
I 1O"
I
3" /
\ top of pavement
l-- 3
2
'
-= asphaltic concrete
RGUREC.84 Ta11wa{l concrete safety shape (non-reinforced}[US.customary units]
AASHTO Designation: SGMib

Test Level: TL5
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
G17
top ofpavement
FIGURE C.9a Single-slope concrete barrier (metric units)
AASHTO Designation: SGMiib

Test Level: TL-5
Remarks: This barrier is suitable for both permanent and temporary applicationS.The primary advantage is that the
adjacent pavement can be overlaid several times without affecting the performance of the barrier. The disadvantage is that
greater vehicle damage occurs at shallow impact angles compared to other safety-shaped barriers.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
C-18
Selected Median Burrier Desian Details
top of pavement
FIGURE C.9b Single-slope concrete barrier [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: SGMlb

Test Level: TL5
Nominal BarrierHeight: 42 in.
Remarks: This barrier is suitable for both permanent and temporary applications. The primary advantage is that the
adjacent pavement can be overlaid several times without affecting the performance of the barrier. The disadvantage is that
greater vehicle damage occurs at shallow impact angles compared to other safety-shaped barriers.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
c19
813 mm
FIGURE C.lOa Movable concrete barrier (metric units)
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO Designation: swco1
Test Level: TL3
Nominal Barrier Height: 813mm
Maximum DynamicDeflection: 1.2m*
Remarks: This proprietary portable barrier system is suitable for both permanent (unbalanced traffic flow) and temporary
applications. It is composed of a chain of safety-shaped concrete barrier segments 940 mm in length which can
be shifted laterally. Even though the cost is relatively high, the system becomes cost-effective when frequent
lateral movement of the temporary barrier is required while maintaining traffic.
*Deflections may be reduced by using CRTS or SRTS. See discussion in Chapter 6 .
G20
FIGURE C.lOb Movable concrete barrier [U.S. customary units]
AASHTO Designation: swco1

Test Level: TLr3
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Maximum Dynamic Deflection: 2 ft"
Remarks: This proprietary portable barrier system is suitable for both permanent (unbalancedtraffic flow) and temporary
applications. It is composed of a chain of safety-shaped concrete barrier segments 37 in. in length which can be
shifted laterally. Even though the cost is relatively high, the system becomes cost-effective when frequent
IateraI movement of the temporary barrier is required while maintaining traffic.
*Deflections may be reduced by using CRTS or SRTS. See discussion in Chapter 6.
C-21
Model Regulation for the Accommodation of
Mailboxes and Newspaper Delivery Boxes
on Public Highway Rights-of-way
This section presents a model regulation for the accommodation of mailboxes and newspaper delivery boxes on public
highway rights-of-way.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

1.O SCOPE the Agency deems it in the public interest to permit lesser
clearances or to require greater clearances. On curbed
No mailbox or newspaper deliverybox, hereinafter referred streets, the roadside face of the mailbox shall be set back
to as mailbox, will be allowed to exist on the Agencys from the face of the curb a distance between 150 mm and
rights-of-way if it interferes with the safety of the travel- 300 mm [6 in. and 12 in.]. On residential streets without
ing public or the function, maintenance, or operation of curbs or all-weather shoulders that carry low traffic vol-
the highway system. A mailbox installation not confonn- umes operating at low speeds, the roadside face of the
ing to the provisions of this regulation is an unauthorized mailbox shall be offset between 200 mm and 300mm [8 in.
encroachment under State Code Section and 12 in.] behind the edge of the pavement. On very low-
The location and construction of mailboxes shall con- volume rural roads with low operating speeds, the Agency
form to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Postal Service may find it acceptable to offset mailboxes a minimum of
as well as to standards established by the Agency. Agency 2 m [6 ft] from the traveled way and under some low-vol-
standards for the location and construction of mailboxes Ume, low-speed conditions may accept clearances as low
are availablefrom: as 800mm [32 in.].
Where a mailbox is located at a driveway entrance, it
Highway Agency shall be placed on the near side of the driveway in the
Street Address or P.O. Box carriers direction of travel.
City, State Zip Code Where a mailbox is located at an intersecting road, it
Telephone number shall be located a minimum of 30 m [ 100 ft] beyond the
center of the intersection road in the carriers direction of
A mailbox installation that conforms to the following travel. This distance shall be increased to 60 m [200 ft]
criteria will be considered acceptable unless, in the judg- when the average daily traffic on the intersection road
ment of the Chief Engineer of the Agency, the installation exceeds 400 vehicles per day.
interferes with the safety of the traveling public or the Where a mailbox is installed in the vicinity of an exist-
function, maintenance, or operation of the highway sys- ing guardrail, it should, wherever practical, be placed be-
tem. hind the guardrail.
2.0 LOCATION 3.0 STRUCTURE
No mailbox will be permitted where access is obtained Mailboxes shall be of light sheet metal or plastic construc-
from a freeway or where access is otherwiseprohibited by tion conforming to the requirements of the U.S. Postal
law or regulation. Service. Newspaper delivery boxes shall be of light metal
Mailboxes shall be located on the right-hand side of or plastic construction of minimum dimensions suitable
the roadway in the carriers direction of travel route except for holding a newspaper.
on one-way streets where they may be placed on the left- No more than two mailboxes may be mounted on a
hand side. The bottom of the box shall be set at an eleva- support structure unless crash tests have shown the sup-
tion established by the U.S. Postal Service, usually be- port structure and mailbox arrangement to be safe. How-
tween l .O m [39 in.] and l .2 m [48 in.] above the roadway ever, lightweight newspaper boxes may be mounted be-
surface. The roadside face of the box shall be offset from low the mailbox on the side of the mailbox support.
the edge of the traveled way a distance no less than the
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Mailbox supports shall not be set in concrete unless

greater of the following: crash tests have shown the support design to be safe.
A single 100mm x 100mm [4 in. x 4 in.] square or 100
a 2.4 m [8 ft] (where no paved shoulder exists and mm 14 in.] diameter wooden post; or metal post, Schedule
shoulder cross slope is 13 percent or flatter), or 40,50 mm [2in.] (nominalsize IPS)(extemaldiameter60 mm
[2 3/s in.]) (wall thickness4 mm [0.154 in.] or smaller),em-
the width of the all-weather shoulder present plus bedded no more than 600 mm [24 in.] into the ground, shall
200 mm to 300 mm [8 in. to 12 in.], or be acceptable as a mailbox support. A metal post shall not
be fitted with an anchor plate, but it may have an anti-twist
the width of an all-weather turnout specified by device that extends no more than 250 mm [ 10 in.] below
the Agency plus 200 mm to 300 mm [8 in. to the ground surface.
12in.l. The post-to-box attachment details should be of suffi-
cient strength to prevent the box from separating from the
Exceptions to the placement criteria above will exist on post top if the installation is struck by a vehicle. The exact
residential streets and certain designated rural roads where support hardware dimensions and design may vary, such
D2
~~
~ ~~
Model Regulation for the Accommodation of Mailboxes and Newspaper Delivery Boxes
as having a two-piece platform bracket or alternative slot where shoulder construction is inadequate to permit all-
and hole locations. The product must result in a satisfac- weather vehicular access to the mailbox.
tory attachment of the mailbox to the post, and all compo-
nents must fit together properly.
The minimum spacing between the centers of support 5.0 REMOVAL OF NONCONFORMING OR
posts shall be three-fourths the height of the posts above UNSAFE MAILBOXES
the ground line. Mailbox support designs not described
in this regulation are acceptable if approved by the Chief Any mailbox that is found to violate the intent of this
Engineer of the Agency. regulation shall be removed by the postal patron upon
notification by the Agency. At the discretion of the
Agency, based on an assessment of hazard to the public,
4.0 SHOULDER AND PARKING AREA the patron shall be granted not less than 24 hours nor
CONSTRUCTION more than 30 days to remove an unacceptable mailbox.
After the specified period has expired, the unacceptable
It shall be the responsibility of the postal patron to inform mailbox will be removed by the Agency at the postal
the Agency of any new or existing mailbox installations patrons expense.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Postal Operations and
Manual Delivery Services
This appendix contains an excerpt from the U.S. Postal Services Postal Operations Manual. The section in this appendix
deals with delivery service policies and guidelines. In order to get the most up-to-date information available, please refer
to the USPS web site.
Mailboxes approved by the USPS may or may not meet crash-testing standards. Manufacturers and models approved by
the USPS do not necessarily signify any endorsement by AASHTO.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
E-1
632 MAIL RECEPTACLES porarily blocked by a parked vehicle during normal deliv-
ery hours for the area, or snow or ice hampers the ap-
632.1 Customer Obligation proach to the mailbox, the carrier normally dismounts to
make delivery. If the carrier continuallyexperiencesa prob-
632.1 I Responsibilities lem in serving curbline boxes and where the customer is
able to control on-street parking in front of his or her
Appropriate mail receptacles must be provided for the re- mailbox but does not take prompt corrective action after
ceipt of mail. The type of mail receptacle depends on the being properly notified, the postmaster may, with the ap-
mode of delivery in place. Purchase, installation, and main- proval of the district manager, withdraw delivery service.
tenance of mail receptacles is the responsibility of the
customer. Appropriate locations for installation should
be verified with local government officials. Customer obli- 632.2 KEYS TO CUSTOMERS PRIVATE
gations are as follows: MAIL RECEPTACLE
If door delivery is authorized, customers must Carriers are prohibited from accepting keys for locks on
provide either house-mounted boxes that pro- private mail receptacles,buildings, or offices, except where
vide adequateprotection and security for the mail an electromechanical door lock system or a key returning
and that are approved by the local postmaster, or box located within convenient reach of the door is used.
they must provide door slots (see 632.3). Both devices must incorporate an Arrow lock to access
the key or device needed to gain entry to the building. If
If curbline delivery is authorized, customers must customers place locks on their receptacles, the receptacles
erect curb-mounted receptacles that comply with must have slots large enough to accommodate their nor-
USPS STD-7 (see 632.5). mal daily mail volume so that delivery may be made by the
carrier without using a key.
If centralized delivery is authorized, customers
must install mail receptacles that comply with
USPS STD4B (RDD), Apartment House Mail 632.3 DOOR SLOT SPECIFICATIONS
Receptacles, or USPS STD-1118, Cluster Box
Units or Neighborhood Delivery and Collection The clear rectangular opening in the outside slot must be
Box Units (see 632.6). at least 38 mm wide by 178 mm long [1Yz in. wide by 7 in.
long]. The slot must have a flap, hinged at the top if placed
horizontally or hinged on the side away from the hinged
side of the door if placed vertically. When an inside hood
632.12 Exception is used to provide greater privacy, the hooded part must
not be below the bottom line of the slot in the outside
The Postal Service may elect, under certain conditions, to plate if placed horizontally or beyond the side line of the
purchase, install, or maintain curb or cluster box units. slot in the outside plate nearest the hinge edge of the door
if placed vertically. The hood at its greatest projection
must not be less than 52 mm [2 in.] beyond the inside face
632.13 Receptacles Not Required of the door. Door slots must be placed no less than 762
mm [30 in.] above the finished floor line.
Business Houses are not required to provide mail recep-
tacles or door slots if they are open and someone is on
hand to receive the mail when the carrier arrives. If the 632.4 RECEPTACLES PURCHASED BY
offices are not open when the carrier arrives, mail recep- USPS
tacles or door slots must be provided.
Neighborhood delivery and collection box units and par-
cel lockers may be purchased by the USPS from approved
632.14 Approach to Mailbox manufacturers. Specifications for construction and ap-
proval procedures for manufacturers are covered in
The customer is responsible for keeping the approach to USPS-l118D, USPS Specification,Cluster Box Units. Indi-
his or her mailbox clear to facilitate delivery. Where the viduals or firms interested in the manufacture of cluster
approach to the mail receptacle located at the curb is tem- units should write to:
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Postal Operations and Manual Delivery Services
OFFICEOFTECHNICALSUPPORT b. Variances. Curbside mailboxes may be con-

US. POSTAL SERVICE structed in any size between the maximum and
475 L'ENFANT PLAZA SW minimum outside dimensions specified on ap-
WASHINGTON,DC 20260-6203 proved drawings if the general shape and the
proportions of height, width, and length are main-
tained.
632.5 CURBSIDE MAILBOXES
632.51 Specification for Manufacturers 632.51 3 Application for Approval
632.51 1 Policy Manufacturers must notify USPS Delivery and Customer

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ServicesEquipment by letter that mailboxes are being subi

Manufacturers of all mailboxes designed and manufac- mitted for approval. To secure approval of a curbside mail-
tured to be erected at the edge of a roadway or curbside of box, manufacturersmust submit the following to Delivery
a street and to be served by a carrier from a vehicle on any and Customer Services Equipment at this address:
city, rural, or highway contract route must obtain approval
of their products according to USPS STD-7, Mailboxes, DELIVERY&CUSToMERSVCS
City and Rural Curbside. Construction standards and draw- EQUIPMENTENGINEERING
ings (USPS STD-7) for guidance in the manufacture of US. POSTAL SERVICE
curbside mailboxes may be obtained by writing to: 8403LEEHwY
MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101
DELIVERY&CUSToMERSVCS
EQUIPMENTENGDEEFUNG a. Sample Mailboxes. No fewer than two complete
US. POSTAL SERVICE mailboxes with markings required in paragraph
8403LEEm 3.7 of USPS SJD-7 of each style made of exact
MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101 materials, construction, coating, paint and so
forth, including the panels required by paragraph
3.14.8 of USPS STD-7, and otherwise identical in
every way with the boxes intended to be mar-
632.512 Dimensions and Styles keted.
The permitted sizes and styles for mailboxes are as fol- b. Instructions. A copy of the instructions required
lows: by paragraph 3.1 1 of USPS-STD-7.
a. Sizes and Styles. Three standard sizes and two C. Color Samples. Color samples showing all color
styles of mailboxes are approved for use on city, schemes to be used.
rural, and highway contract routes:
d. Proposed Packaging. Boxes or packaging of the
StyleiSize Length' Width' Height' type proposed for shipping production units.
T1 andCl' 18 % 5.00 6.00
e. Documentation. Two complete sets of manufac-
T2 and C2 19 '/z 6.00 7.00 turing drawings and installation instructions
T3 and C3 22 '/z 8.00 11 ?h showing that the units submitted meet the re-
' Dimensions in appropriate inches quirements of USPS STD-7. The drawings must
T = Traditional style; C = contemporary style be dated, signed, and certified to represent the
production units exactly as submitted.The draw-

ings must include enough details to allow the tion, coating, workmanship, finish, etc., as the
USPS to document and inspect all materials, con- approved units. The USPS reserved the right at
struction methods, processes, coatings, treat- any time to examine and retest production units
ments, finishes, control specifications,parts, and obtained either in the general marketplaceor from
assemblies used in the construction of the units. the manufacturer, and may require the manufac-
The USPS may request individual piece parts to turer to provide units for examination and test-
verify drawings. ing. Failure of these production units to be manu-
factured in strict accordance with the approved
units, the identified drawings, and the provisions
632.51 4 Modifications During Application of USPS STD-7 may result in the rejection of units
Process and the suspension or revocation of the
manufacturers authorization as an approved
The manufacturer may not make changes to its products manufacturer through a decision issued by Engi-
or drawings without written notification of and approval neering.
from the USPS. Any changes must be submitted with rea-
sons in writing and documented in the revision block of b. Packaging. Mailboxes and accessories must be
the affected drawings. Two units of each type with the packaged in a manner to ensure arrival at desti-
changes incorporated must be submitted for testing and nation in satisfactory condition. Boxes must be
approval. All changes are subject to written approval by shipped fully assembled except that protruding
the USPS. parts, such as door latching hardware, mounting
adapters, and mounting posts or stands, may be
removed if necessary to protect them from dam-
632.515 Application Approval age. Containers and packaging must comply with
the National Motor Freight Classification Rule
The following pertain to the approval process: 222, sections 2 and 3. Boxes must be suitably
wrapped or protected and packaged in separate
a. Authorizing Organization. The decision to ap- containers to prevent damage to painted surfaces
prove or disapprove mailboxes is issued by En- by rubbing against other parts or the internal
gineering. All correspondence and inquiries must surfaces of the container.
be directed to that office.
c. Changes. Manufacturers must receive written
b. Retention of Drawings and Sample Mailboxes. approval from the USPS before making any
The USPS returns one set of manufacturingdraw- change to the production unit or the identified
ings to the manufacturer, with written notifica- design drawing. Approval for changes requires
tion of approval or disapproval and if applicable, resubmission of units for testing and updated
reasons for disapproval. The drawings are drawings for review.
stamped and identified as representing the pro-
duction unit type if the mailbox is approved. Af-
ter testing, the USPS keeps approved boxes and
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
disposes of disapproved boxes unless the manu- 632.51 7 Marking

facturer requests their return and pays the ship-
ping costs. All curbside mailboxes must have the following legible
inscriptions on the carrier service door: U.S. MAIL and
APPROVEDBY THE POSTMASTERGENERAL.Manu-
632.516 Production Units facturers must mark these inscriptions by embossing on
sheet metal, or they must use raised lettering on plastic or
The following guidelines apply to production units: engraving on wood or other materials that would not be
suitable for embossing. The name and address of the manu-
a. Construction. Manufacturers must construct pro- facturer and the month and year of manufacture must also
duction units in accordance with identified be marked on the box. Manufacturers must either emboss
(stamped) drawings and USPS STD-7. These this marking on the rear wall or affix a permanent decal on
units must be of the exact materials, construc- the inside near the front opening of the box.

~~
632.518 List of Approved Manufacturers FLAMBEAU PRODUCTS CORPORATION

PO BOX 97
Following is a list of manufacturers of traditional and con- MIDDLEFELD,OH 44062-0097
temporary style curbside receptacles whose mailboxes are Model: 6529 [Ci]
approved by the USPS: 6530 [Ci]
6531 [Ci]
Approved Curbside MailboxManufacturers and Models
GDM COMPANY
Sizes for contemporary style mailboxes are approximate. 1316-1/2CLEWLANDRD
SANDUSKY,OH 44870-4213
AMERICAN MAILBOX CORPORATION Model: HBl [Ci]
35cENTuRYTRAIL 3332[ a l
HARRISON,NY 10528-1717 Hl-2 [C21
Model: Large Domed Roof [C2] 3333 [C3]
ARMOR PLATE MAILBOX INC GER-IVABERRYCOMPANY

POBOX 1060 14OINDUSTRIALAVE
STERLING HEIGHTS, MI 48311-1060 HIAWATHA, IA 52233-1159
Model: MB-001-COLOR [C2] Model: Secure Mailbox [da]
BACOVAGUILDLTD HECHT HOME PRODUCTS

1MAINSTGENEWDELIVERY 7804 HAYh4ARKET LN
BACOVA, VA 24122-9999 RALEIGH, NC27615-5441
Model: Poly-Box (90000 Senes) [Cl] Model: Double Door Rural Delivery [Ci]
#122 [Tl]
#128 [T2] IMPERIALMAIL BOX SYSTEMS INC
#121 [T3] 3901 NORRIS DR
MILLBROOK,AL 36054-2433
BERARDIANDCOMPANY Model: Style O01 [C2]
15745CRABBS BRANCH WAY
ROCKVILLE, MD 20855-2634 JANZER CORPORATION
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Model: Designer 474 [C11 6 LINCOLNC R

HULMEVILLE, PA 19047-5876
BERKELYPRODUCTSINC Model: Stony Brae [C2]
14680ALONDRABLVD
LA MIRADA, CA 90638-5603 J & J MAILBOX
Model: MI000 (aluminum) [da] 20594 OTTAWA RD
APPEVALLEY,CA 92308-6253
BRANDONLNDUSTRIESINC Model: Letter Locker [da]
1601WEST WILMETH RD
MCKINNEY,TX 75069-8250 LEIGH A HARROW COMPANY
Model: MB05 [C2] 411 64THAVE
COOPERSVILLE,MI 49404-1234
CLAPPER SUPPLY Model: Parkway 4064 & 4066 [Ci]
8TERRACEAVE Hilitop 4053,4054 & 4055 [Ci]
BINGHAMTON,NY 13901-5736 Lamplighter4150& 4156 [Ci]
Model: secured mailbox [n/al
&TB CLASSICS
CUTLERh44NFA-G 909cE"NIAL.m
CORPORATION NARBETH, PA 19072-1407
PO BOXM Model: Contemporarystyle [Ci]
EATON PARK, FL 33840-1903
Model: Mailmaster [da]
E5
MR TWO-DOOR MAILBOX INC TRAILSIDEMAJLBOXINC

9750 PAGE RD 2100 E 32ND PKY
STREETSBORO, OH 44241-5014 AURORA, CO 80011-8148
Model: Two Door [C2] Model: 1012M [da]
Boxglow [C2] 1013M [da]
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
NORTHWEST METALPRODUCTS VFEDmMAILBoxINc

PO BOX 10 POBOX42048
KENT, WA 98035-O010 CINCINNATI,OH 45242-0048
Model: Traditional [Tl] Model: SmVMB-W & SmVMB-B [Ci]
LgVMB-W & LgVMB-B [C2]
RUBBERMAID SmVMB-G& SmVMB-T [Ci]
1147AKRON RD LgVMB-G & LgVMB-T [C2]
WOOSTER,OH44916ooo SmVMB-SS [Ci]
Model: 727 1Econo Mailbox [Ci] LgvMB-ss [C2]
7272 Sma [Ci]
7273 Large [C2] ZUBIELRFSYSTEMSINC
POBOX1184
SHELLTERINC MONUMENT, CO 80132-1184
POBOX30011 Model: 201, MailCall [Ci]
INDIANAPOLIS, LN 46230-001 1 1 - Curbside Box Size No. 1
Model: Rural mailbox size 1 [Ci] 2 - Curbside Box Size No. 2
3 - Curbside Box Size No. 3
STEELCITYCORPRATiON T - TraditionalCurbside Box Style
19ONORTHMERIDIANRD C - Contemporary Curbside Style
YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44501-1227
Model: CA-1B Carlyle [Cl]
LE-IB Bnite [Ci] 632.52 INSTALLATIONAND USE
PX-1 Polybox [Ci]
1-1 [Tl] 632.521 Custom Built Curbside Mailboxes
1-1'12 [T2]
2-2 WI Postmasters are authorized to approve curbside mailboxes
315B Streandher [Ci] constructedby individuals who, for aesthetic or other rea-
2D-1 Two-DoorBrute[Ci] sons, do not want to use an approved manufactured box.
The custom built box must conform generally to the same
STEP 2 CORPORATiON requirements as approved manufactured boxes relative to
10010AURORA-HUDSONRD the flag, size, strength, and quality of construction.
STREETSBOR0,OH 44241-1621
Model: 5401 [Cl]
5402 [Ci] 632.522 Painting and Identification
5403 [ a ]
The USPS prefers that curbside mailboxes and posts or
THE SOLAR GROUP supports be painted white, although other colors may be
PO BOX 525 used. Where box numbers are used, the numbers must be
TAYLORSVILLE,MS 39 168-0525 inscribed in contrasting color in neat letters and numerals
Model: CC-lR(uses ST-10) [Ci] not less than 1inch high on the side of the box visible to
CC-2R (uses ST-10) [Ci] the carrier's regular approach, or on the door if boxes are
PL-10 [Ci] grouped. Where street names and house numbers are as-
RB-15 [C2] signed by local authorities and the postmaster has autho-
ST-1OAluminum Fl] rized use of a street name and house number as a postal
ST-10 n i ] address, the house number must be shown on the box. If
ST-15 m ] the box is on a different street from the customer's resi-
ST-20 [T3] dence, the street name and house number must be in-
BB2D [C2] scribed on the box. Placement of the owner's name on the
M
~- ~~
box is optional. Advertising on boxes or supports is pro- and curb conditions and other factors, the USPS recom-
hibited. mends that customers contact the postmaster or carrier
before erecting or replacing their mailboxes and supports.
632.523 Post and Supports

632.527 Grouping
Posts or other supports for ciirbside mailboxes must be
neat and of adequate strength and size. They may not be Boxes should be grouped wherever possible, especially
designed to represent effigies or caricatures that tend to at or near crossroads, service turnouts, or other places
disparageor ridicule any person. The box may be attached where a considerable number of boxes are presently lo-
to a fixed or movable arm. cated.
632.524 Location 632.526 More Than One Family
Curbside mailboxes must be placed so that they may be More than one family, but not more than five families, on
safely and conveniently served by carriers without leav- rural or highway contract routes may use the same box if a
ing their conveyances. They must be reasonably and safely written notice of agreement, signed by the heads of the
accessed by customers. Boxes must also be on the right- families or by the individuals who want to join in the use
hand side of the road and in the carriers direction of travel of such box, is filed with the postmaster at the distributing
in all cases where driving on the left-hand side of the road office.
to reach the boxes would pose a traffic hazard or violate
traffic laws and regulations. On new rural or highway con-
tract routes, all boxes must be on the right side of the road 632.527 Locks
in the carriers direction of travel. Boxes must be placed to
conform to state laws and highway regulations. Carriers The use of loch on mailboxes on rural highway contract
are subject to the same traffic laws and regulations as are routes is not required. If, however, a box is equipped with
other motorists. Customers must remove obstructions,in- a lock, the box must have a slot large enough to accommo-
cluding vehicles, trash cans, and snow, that make delivery date the customers normal daily mail volume. The USPS
difficult. Generally, customers should install boxes with does not open locked boxes and does not accept keys for
the bottom of the box at a vertical height of between 3 /* this purpose.
and 4 feet from the road surface. Because of varying road
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
E-7
Area of Concern-An object or roadside condition that Crash Tests-Vehicular impact tests by which the struc-
may warrant safety treatment. tural and safety performance of roadside barriers and other
highway appurtenances may be determined.Three evalua-
Barricade-A device which provides a visual indicator of tion criteria are considered, namely (1) structural adequacy,
a hazardous location or the desired path a motorist should (2) impact severity, and (3) vehicular post-impact trajec-
take. It is not intended to contain or redirect an errant ve- tory.
hicle.
Crashworthy-A feature that has been proven acceptable
Barrier-A device which provides a physical limitation for use under specified conditions either through crash
through which a vehicle would not normally pass. It is testing or in-service performance.
intended to contain or redirect an errant vehicle.
Design Speed-A selected speed used to determine the
Breakaway-A design feature which allows adevice such various geometric design features of the roadway. The
as a sign, luminaire, or traffic signal support to yield or assumed design speed should be a logical one with re-
separate upon impact. The release mechanism may be a spect to the topography, anticipated operating speed, the
slip plane, plastic hinges, fracture elements, or a combina- adjacent land use, and the functional classification of high-
tion of these. way.
Bridge Railing-A longitudinal barrier whose primary Drainage Feature-Roadside items whose primary pur-
function is to prevent an errant vehicle from going over the pose is to provide adequate roadway drainage such as
side of the bridge structure. curbs, culverts, ditches, and drop inlets.
Clearance-Lateral distance from edge of traveled way to End 'hatment-The designed modification of the end of
a roadside object or feature. a roadside or median barrier.
Clear Runout Area-The area at the toe of a non-recover- Experimental Barrier-A barrier that has performed sat-
able slope available for safe use by an errant vehicle. isfactorily in full-scale crash tests and promises, but has
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
not yet demonstrated satisfactory in-service performance.

Clear Zone-The total roadside border area, starting at
the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by Flare-The variable offset distance of a barrier to move it
errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a re- farther from the traveled way; generally in reference to the
coverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear upstream end of the barrier.
run-out area. The desired width is dependent upon the
traffic volumes and speeds and on the roadside geometry. Frangible-A structure quality or feature that makes the
structure readily or easily broken upon impact.
Cost-effective-An item or action taken that is economical
in terms of tangible benefits produced for the money spent. Fuse Plate-The plate which provides structuraireinforce-
ment to the sign post hinge to resist wind loads but which
Crash Cushion-Device that prevents an errant vehicle will release or fracture upon impact of a vehicle with the
from impacting fixed objects by gradually deceleratingthe post.
vehicle to a safe stop or by redirecting the vehicle away
from the obstacle.
G-1
Glare Screen-A device used to shield a drivers eye from Recoverable Slope-A slope on which a motorist may, to a
the headlights of an oncoming vehicle. greater or lesser extent, retain or regain control of a vehicle.
Slopes flatter than 1V4Hare generally consideredrecover-
Hinge-The weakened section of a sign post designed to able.
allow the post to rotate upward when impacted by a ve-
hicle. Recovery Area-enerally synonymous with clear zone.
Impact Angle-For a longitudinal barrier, it is the angle Roadside-That area between the outside shoulder edge
between a tangent to the face of the barrier and a tangent and the right-of-way limits. The area between roadways of
to the vehicles path at impact. For a crash cushion, it is the a divided highway may also be considered roadside.
angle between the axis of symmetry of the crash cushion
and a tangent to the vehicles path at impact. Roadside Barrier-A longitudinal barrier used to shield
roadside obstacles or non-traversable terrain features. It
impact AttenuatorSee Crash Cushion. may occasionally be used to protect pedestrians or by-
standersfrom vehicle traffic.
Length of Need-Total length of a longitudinal barrier
needed to shield an area of concern. Roadside Signs-Roadside signs can be divided into three
main categories: overhead signs, large roadside signs, and
Levei of PerformanceThe degree to which a longitudi- small roadside signs. Large roadside signs may be defined
nal barrier, including bridge railing, is designed for con- as those greater than or equal to 5 m2 [50 ft2]in area. Small
tainment and redirection of different types of vehicles. roadside signs may be defined as those less than
5 m2[50 fi2]in area.
Longitudinal Barrier-A barrier whose primary function
is to prevent penetration and to safely redirect an errant Roadway-The portion of a highway, including shoulders,
vehicle away from a roadside or median obstacle. for vehicular use.
Median-The portion of a divided highway separating the Rounding-The introduction of a vertical curve between
traveled ways for traffic in opposite directions. two transverse slopes to minimize the abrupt slope change
and to maximize vehicle stability and maneuverability.
Median Barrier-A longitudinal barrier used to prevent
an errant vehicle from crossing the highway median. Severity Index-A severity index (SI) is a number from
zero to ten used to categorize accidents by the probability
Non-Recoverable Slope-A slope which is consideredtra- of their resulting in property damage, personal injury, or a
versable but on which the errant vehicle will continue on fatality, or any combination of these possible outcomes.
to the bottom. Embankment slopes between 1V3H and The resultant number can then be translated into an acci-
1V4Hmay be consideredtraversablebut non-recoverable dent cost and the relative effectiveness of alternate safety
if they are smooth and free of fixed objects. treatments can be estimated.
Offset-Lateral distance from edge of traveled way to a Shielding-The introduction of a barrier or crash cushion
roadside object or feature. between the vehicle and an obstacle or area of concern to
reduce the severity of impacts of errant vehicles.
Operating Speed-The highest speed at which reason-
ably prudent drivers can be expected to operate vehicles Shy Distance-The distance from the edge of the traveled
on a section of highway under low traffic densities and way beyond which a roadside object will not be perceived
good weather. This speed may be higher or lower than as an obstacle by the typical driver to the extent that the
posted or legislated speed limits or nominal design speeds driver will change the vehiclesplacement or speed.
where alignment, surface, roadside development, or other
features affect vehicle operations. Slip Base-A structural element at or near the bottom of a
post or pole which will allow release of the post from its
Operational Barrier-One that has performed satisfacto- base upon impact while resisting wind loads.
rily in full-scale crash tests and has demonstrated satisfac-
tory in-service performance. Slope-The relative steepness of the terrain expressed as
a ratio or percentage. Slopes may be categorized as posi-
Performance Level-See Level of Performance. tive (backslopes) or negative (foreslopes) and as parallel
or cross slopes in relation to the direction of traffic.
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
G-2
Glossarv
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Temporary Barrier-Temporary barriers are used to pre- Traveled Way-The portion of the roadway for the move-
vent vehicular access into construction or maintenance ment of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders.
work zones and to redirect an impacting vehicle so as to
minimize damage to the vehicle and injury to the occu- Through Traveled Way-The portion of roadway for the
pants while providing worker protection. movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders and auxiliary
lanes.
Traffic Barrier-A device used to prevent a vehicle from
striking a more severe obstacle or feature located on the Ilaversable Slope-A slope from which a motorist will be
roadside or in the median or to prevent crossover median unlikely to steer back to the roadway but may be able to
accidents. As defined herein, there are four classes of traf- slow and stop safely. Slopes between 1V3H and 1V4H
fic barriers,namely, roadsidebarriers,median barriers,bridge generally fall into this category.
railings, and crash cushions.
Vehicle-A motorized unit for use in transportingpassen-
Transition-A section of barrier between two different gers or freight, ranging from an 820-kg [ 1,800-lb]automo-
barriers or, more commonly,where a roadside barrier is con- bile to a 36OOO-kg [8O,OOO-lb] van-type tractor-trailer.
nected to a bridge railing or to a rigid object such as a
bridge pier. The transition should produce a gradual stiff- Warrants-The criteria by which the need for a safety
ening of the approach rail so vehicular pocketing, snag- treatment or improvementcan be determined.
ging, or penetration at the connection can be avoided.
G3
A buffer distance, 9-24
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7-1,7-7 bullnose, 8-22
AASHTO Standard Specijcationsfor Highway Bridges,
7-1 C
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural cable barrier, 5-9
Supportsfor Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Trafic cable system, 6-4
Signals, 4- 1 CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation, 6-8,6- 17
ABSORB 350, 8-22,9-24 cast-in-place, 6-8
ADIEM, 6-11 chain-link restraining net, 8-33
Advanced Dynamic Impact Extension Module channelizingdevices, 9-31,9-32
(ADIEMa),8-19,9-24 clear recovery area, 9- 1
adverse geometrics, 6-3 clear roadside concept, 3-1
aesthetic and environmentai considerations, 5-27 clear zone, 9- 1
ALPm lOOKTMA, 9-28 clear-zone concept in work zones, 9- 1
ALPHA 70K TMA, 9-28 clear-zone width, 5-34
compatibility, 5-26
B concrete barrier, 5- 18,6-7
barricade sign support, 9-35,9-39 concrete barrier, other, 9- 13
barricades, 9-31 cones and tubular markers, 9-32
barrier anchored in backslope, 8-2 Connecticut Impact Attenuation System (CIAS), 9-2 1
barrier, cable, 5-9,5-11 Connecticut TMA, 9-27
barrier, concrete, 5-18,6-7 conservationof momentum principle, 8-19,8-28
barrier deflection characteristics, 5-24 construction zone, 6-10,9-1
barrier warrants, 5-2 crash cushion, 8-18,8-25,8-34,9-20
BarrieGate, 6-10 Crash Cushion Attenuating Terminal (CAT), 8- 19
Beam-EatingSteel Terminal (BEST), 8-11 crash frequency, 6- 17
bending strength, 8-10 crash maintenance, 5-26
benefitkost analysis, 2- 1 crash severity, 6- 11
bi-directional device, 8-19 crash-reduction program, 4- 14
block-out, 5-16 crashworthy supports, 4-2
blocked-out thrie-beam, 6-6 critical foreslope, 3-2,3-13
blocked-out W beam, 6-4 crossover crashes, 6-4
bogie vehicle, 4-2 Cubs, 5-29,10-2,10-7
bolting to bridge deck or pavement, 9-13 cyclists, 5-3,7-2
hox heam,5-12,h-4
Brakemaster 350, 6-11,8-19 D
breakaway cable terminal (BCT), 8-7 debris, 10-4,lO-6
breakaway luminaire supports, 4-9 delineation, 9-26
breakaway support, 4-2,4-3 depressed median, 6- 14,6-17
bridge piers, 6-8,6-12,6-14 design deflection distance, 6-3,6-4,6-12
bridge railing, 7- 1,7-2 desigdplacement inadequacies, 5-37
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

double-nested, 5-23 L
downstreamimpacts, 8-5 large roadside signs, 4-3
Dragnet, 8-33,9-24 Lateral Extent of the Area of Concern, 5-32
drainagechannel, 3-2,3-10,3-13 Lateral Extent of the Runout Length, 5-32
drums, 9-31,9-33 lateral offset, 5-27
dynamic buckling strength, 8-7 length of need, 5-32
life-cyclecosts, 5-26
E longlintermediate-term sign supports, 9-35
Eccentric Loader Terminal (ELT), 8-7 longitudinal, 10-3,lO-5
electrical hazard, 4- 12 longitudinal channelizing barricades, 9-35
embankments, 5-2,lO-4 low profile barrier system, 9-15
emergency opening, 6-11 low-profilebarrier sloped end, 9-19
end treatments, 9-18
Extruder Terminal (ET-2000), 8-13 M
mailbox support, 11-7,ll- 14
F maintenance, 5-26
F-shape, 5- 19,6-7,7-3 material and storage requirements, 5-26
F-shape, modified, 6-8 median barrier, 6-1,6-3,6-4,6-8,6-13,6-14
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 7-1,7-2,7-19 median barrier, concrete,6-7,6446-9
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) web site, 7-2 median shoulder width, 6-8
field experience, 5-23 Memtt Parkway aesthetic guardrail, 5-17
f i e hydrants, 4- 13 minimize deflection, 8-8
fixed objects, 10-2,lO-7 Mobile Protection System 350, 9-28
flarerate,5-31,6-13,6-17,9-3 motorist-aidcallbox, 4- 13
Flared Energy-AbsorbingTerminal (FLEAT), 8-11 mounting heights, 6-3
flexible system, 5-9 moveable barrier, 6-3,6-8,6-10
foreslope, variable, 3-10 multidirectionalcoupler, 4-4
forgiving roadside, 1-2,4-1,9-1 multiple post supports, 4-10
fracture-type support, 4-3
frost heave, 6-3 N
Narrow Connecticut Impact Attenuation System (NCIAS),
G 8-25
gating, 8-2 Narrow Energy-Absorbing Terminal (NEAT), 8-15
glare screens, 9-41,10-6 NCHRPReport230, 5-18,5-21
grates, 10-7 NCHRPReprt350, 4-2,5-1,5-9,5-10,5-12,5-21
gravel-bed attenuator, 8-17,8-32 New Jersey shape, 5-19,6-6,7-3
GUARDIAN" Safety Barrier System, 9-15 New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 6-7
New York, 6-8,8-3
H non-gating, 8-2
headlight glare, 6-8 non-recoverable foreslope, 3-2,3-13,3-15
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV), 6-1 nylon straps, 8-33
high-mast lighting, 4-13
high-speed roadway, 6-13 O
offset, 9-3,9-20
I Ontario, 5-19,6-7
impact attenuator, 8-15,8-25,8-32 opposing traffic, 10-5
inertial barrier, 8-19,8-25 overhead sign supports, 4-4,6-8,6-12
inlet, drainage, 10-7 overhead signs, 4-3
innocent bystander, 5-3 overlay depths, 6-7
ironwood aesthetic guardrail, 5-12
P
K parallel installation, 5-34
kinetic energy principle, 8- 18 paved shoulder, 10-2
kinker beam, 8-14 pavement edge drop-offs, 9-42
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

pedestrian railing, 7-8 shear, 4-2,4-10
pedestrians, 5-2,5-4,7-2,lO-4
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
short-termwork zone sign support, 9-38

pendulum test, 4-2 shoulder, 11-4,11-7
performancelevels, 5-37 sidewaikon a bridge, 7-4,7-5,7-7,7-8,7- 14
perlite, 8- 19 sight distance, 11-3
placement, 9-26 sign flutter, 4-10
polyethylene cylinders, 8-24 signs and supports, 4-3,9-35
portable concrete barrier (PCB), 9-1,9-2,9-3 simplicity of barrier design, 5-22
portable work-zone sign trailer, 9-38 single slope, 6-7,6-8
precast, 6-8 site conditions, 5-26
precast masonry wall, 5-21 slip bases, horizontal, 4-4,4-8
slip bases, inclined, 4-7
Q Slip-frmed, 6-8
QuadGuard 6- 11 8-22
~
slope breakpoint, 6-7
QuadGuard CZ, 9-21 sloped concrete end treatment, 8-12
QuadTrend-350, 8-11 slopes, 5-29
Quickchange@MoveableBarrier System, 8-15,9-13 slotted fuse plate, 4-4
SlottedRail Terminal (SRT-350), 8-7
R small roadside signs, 4-3,4-8
railing, deficient, 10-6 speed change lane, 11-4
railing, rigid, 10-5 standard crash test, 5-1
railroad crossing warning devices, 4- 13 steel cables, 5-9
REACP 350 CZ, 9-21 steel plate transition, PCB, 9-20
R E A P 350, 6-11 steel-backedwood rail, 5- 18
recoverablefo~-eslopes,$ 2 , 3 4 3 stepped-median, 6-8
RECENT, 8-10 stiffened transitions, 7-7,7-14
release mechanism, 4-2 stone masonry wall, 5-21
RENCO RAM 100K TMA,9-31 strengthened barriers, 9-13
RENCO Ren-Gard 8 15TMA, 9-26 strong post, 6-4,6-6
restricted sites, 9-13 structural inadequacies, 5-37
retrofit, 7-10 stub height, 4-2,4-12
reversibletraffic lanes, 6-3 substandardrailing, 7- 10,7-13
rigid system, 5- 19,5-25 supports, base-bending, 4-8
roadsidebarrier, 5-1,5-2,5-5,5-8,5-15,5-23,5-24,5-37, supports, fracturing sign, 4-8
5-38 supports, yielding sign, 4-8
roadside barriers, operational, 5-8
roadside obstacle, 5-2,lO-4,ll-2 T
roadside signs, large, 4-3 tall wall, 6-8,7-6
roadside signs, small, 4-3,4-8 temporary longitudinal traffic barriers, 9-2
roll angle, 6-8 terminal 8-1,8-2
routine maintenance, 5-22 terrain effects 5-24
rubrail, 6-6,6-13 test-level selection for truck mounted attenuators, 9-24
runaway vehicles, 8-33 three-strand cable terminal, 8-2
three-strand cable, 6-4
s thrie-beam, 5-25,7-2,7-12
Safe-StopTMA, 9-29 thrie-beam,blocked-out, 5-15
safety shapes, 5-19,6-7,7-2 thrie-beam median barrier, 6-6
sand barrels, 6- 11,9-18 thrie-beam, modified, 5-i6
Scorpion A O,OOTMA, 9-31 timber barrier curbhail, 9-18
screen, debris, 10-6 trafk bamiers, 9-2
screen, glare, 9-41,lO-6 traffic control devices, 9-3 1
selection guidelines, 5-23,6-10 traffic fatalities, 10-4
semi-rigid system, 5-24 traffk signal, 4- 13
SequentialKinking Terminal (SKT-350), 8-14 trailer-mounted devices, 9-39

transition designs, 5-23 upgrading needs, 5-38

transitionsection, 6-11,6-12,6-17,7-1,7-7,7-14 upgrading system, 5-37
transverse slopes, 3-8,3-17,3-18 utility pole, 4-14
trees, 4-15
Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion (TRACC), 6-11,8-25, V
9-21 Vanderbilt TMA, 9-29
Triton@barrier, 9-15 vehicular pocketing, 7- 14
truck escape ramps, 8-32 vertical panels, 9-31,9-32
truck mounted attenuators (TMAs), 8-17,9-24 vertical wall, 6-7
turbineffluid interaction, 8-33
turnout, 11-1, 11-3,ll-4 W
two-stage fiberglass composite tube, 8-2 W-beam, 5-9,5-10,5-13,5-17,5-23,5-25,5-30
W-beam, weak post, 6-4
U warning lights, 9-41
U-MAD 100KTMA, 9-31 Water Twister Vehicle Arresting System (VAS), 8-33
U.S. Forest Service, 7-2 water-filled plastic shell with steel barriers, 9-15
U.S. Postal Service, 11-2,ll-3,ll-4 weaksoil, 4-3
U-channel posts, 4-3 workzone, 6-10
unanchored barrier, 6-8 work zone traffic barriers, 9-2
unidirectional device, 8- 19 working width, 6-12
unidirectional slip base, 4-8 Wyoming Box Beam End Terminal(WYBET-350), 8-2
--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

--``,,`````,`,`,,`````,,```,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


Aashto Roadside Design Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aashto Roadside Design Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 2004

Technical Corrections, August 2001-February 2003

. for Fixed Object on Horizontal Curve.?

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO staff sincerely apologizes for any inconvenience.

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

TABLE 3.1 (Contd)

TuS. Customary Units]

CLEAR DISTANCE LINE 7

Note: All dimensians shown are in rniliimeiers unless oihenkise noted

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

I .O SCOPE the Agency deems it in the public interest to permit lesser

2.0 LOCATION 3.0 STRUCTURE

Select: C:iearZ,onel&.= 5.0---5.5III [16---18fi] ('lableS.1)

Flare rate: not appiicahle

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Crash Cushion reserve area'

* No curbs, raised pavement, or

Dimensions for Crash Cushion, Reserve Area (meters)

110 2 8.5 0.5 2.5 13.5 1 3.5 17 1.5

Dimensions for Crash Cushion, Reserve Area [feet]

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

FlGURE &"IGrading for flared guardrail end treatment

F E U R E 8.2 Grading for non-fiar& guardraii end fraatmanf

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Copyright O 2002 by the American Association of State Highway

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

President: Brad Mallory, Pennsylvania

Vice President: James Codell, Kentucky

Secretary-Treasurer: Lamy King, Pennsylvania

REGION I Joseph Boardman, New York, One-YearTerm

REGION II: Bruce Saltsman,Tennessee, One-Year Term

REGION Ili: Kirk Brown, Illinois, One-Year Term

REGION IV Joseph Perkins, Alaska, One-YearTerm

Immediate Past President: E. Dean Carlson, Kansas

Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC

Chairman: Kam K.Movassaghi, Ph.D., Louisiana

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Richard B. Albin Washington 1998 -Present

Contributing Former Members

Randy Cannon South Carolina 1998- 200 1

Nick Artimovich FHWA 1998-Present

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTIONTO ROADSIDE SAFETY

CHAPTER2: ROADSIDE SAFETY AND ECONOMICS

C"TER3: ROADSIDE TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGEFEA-

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

CHAPTERS: ROADSIDE BARRIERS

5.4.1.2 W-Beam (Weak Post) ...................................................................................................... 5-9

CHAPTER 7: BRIDGE RAILINGS AND TRANSITIONS

7.8 TRANSITIONS .............................................................................................................. 7-14

CHAPTER 8: BARRIER END TREATMENTSAND CRASH CUSHIONS

C"ER9: TRAFFICBARRIERS.TRAFF'ICCONTROLDEVICES. ANDOTHERSAFETYFEA-FOR

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

CHAPTER 10: ROADSIDE SAFETYIN URBANOR RESTRICTED ENVIRONMENTS

CHAPTER 11: ERECTINGMAILBOXES ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS

3.11 Alternate location for a parallel drainage culvert ............................................................................... 3-19

excessive speed 1. Remove the obstacle.

Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

TABLE 1.I First harmful event fixed-object fatalities by object type