Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 554 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2005 (Membership as of November 2005) OFFICERS Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT Vice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA ANNE P. CANBY, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia ANGELA GITTENS, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL GLORIA JEAN JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT SUE MCNEIL, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio) GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio) J. RICHARD CAPKA, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio) JAMES J. EBERHARDT, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio) JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) DAVID B. HORNER, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) JOHN E. JAMIAN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio) ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) BRIGHAM MCCOWN, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio) SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio) ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio) CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio) NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP JOHN R. NJORD, Utah DOT (Chair) MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology J. RICHARD CAPKA, Federal Highway Administration ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA and Transportation Officials C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 554 Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design D. LANCE BULLARD, JR. NAUMAN M. SHEIKH ROGER P. BLIGH REBECCA R. HAUG JAMES R. SCHUTT BEVERLY J. STOREY Texas Transportation Institute College Station, TX S UBJECT A REAS Highway and Facility Design Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP REPORT 554 PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 22-19 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISSN 0077-5614 interest and can best be studied by highway departments ISBN 0-309-08849-6 individually or in cooperation with their state universities and Library of Congress Control Number 2005938042 others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to 2006 Transportation Research Board highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Price $34.00 In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States NOTICE Department of Transportation. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the was requested by the Association to administer the research approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee National Research Council. structure from which authorities on any highway transportation The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation a position to use them. Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The program is developed on the basis of research needs Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed Council. to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. Published reports of the The needs for highway research are many, and the National NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of are available from: mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or Transportation Research Board duplicate other highway research programs. Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board's varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 554 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP CHARLES W. NIESSNER, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications NATALIE BARNES, Editor BETH HATCH, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 22-19 Field of Design--Area of Vehicle Barrier Systems MARK J. BLOSCHOCK, Texas DOT (Chair) KEITH ROBINSON, California DOT NORMAN W. GARRICK, University of Connecticut DON J. GRIPNE, Trinity Industries, Inc., Olympia, WA RICHARD D. LAND, California DOT DOUGLAS E. MCCLURE, South Carolina DOT RICHARD D. POWERS, FHWA HOWARD R. RESSEL, New York State DOT PRISCILLA TOBIAS, Illinois DOT HARRY W. TAYLOR, JR., FHWA Liaison STEPHEN F. MAHER, TRB Liaison

OCR for page R1
This report contains guidelines for aesthetic treatment of concrete safety shape barri- FOREWORD ers. The report will be of particular interest to design and safety practitioners with By Charles W. Niessner responsibility for roadside safety improvements. Staff Officer Transportation Research Board The increasing application of context-sensitive design solutions for highway projects has created a national need for aesthetic improvement of typical highway features. Requests for concrete barrier treatments and bridge rails that contribute to the overall aesthetic experience are increasing. Concrete barriers (e.g., New Jersey, F-shapes, single-slope, and vertical-face designs) are often the barriers of choice in urban and sub- urban environments. Many transportation agencies and communities have expressed a desire for aesthetic treatments for these standard shapes. To date, there has been limited evaluation to determine which aesthetic treatments are safe and practical. Designers need guidance regarding the safety implications of aes- thetic treatments for concrete barriers. Under NCHRP Project 22-19, "Aesthetic Concrete Barrier and Bridge Rail Design," the Texas Transportation Institute developed design guidelines for aesthetic safety shape (New Jersey and F-shape profile) concrete barriers. In Phase I, the research team identified the features and methods that contribute to the aesthetics of longitudinal traffic barriers and the aesthetic experience provided by the roadway. The research team conducted a literature review, surveyed U.S. and foreign sources for examples of aesthetic longitudinal traffic barriers, and reviewed existing test results and ongoing research to assess the crashworthiness of the aesthetic concrete bar- riers and see-through bridge rails. At an interim meeting, the project panel and researchers agreed that the work to develop specific designs for see-through bridge rails should not continue. Also, after the initiation of this project, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) study developed guidelines for single-slope and vertical-face concrete barriers. Thus the focus of research under NCHRP Project 22-19 shifted to developing guidelines for aesthetic treatment of safety shape barriers only. In Phase II, the research team conducted a finite element simulation pilot study, per- formed model validation, and developed a surrogate measure of occupant compartment deformation. Further finite element simulations were performed to develop preliminary design guidelines in terms of asperity depth, width, and angle of inclination. Based on these preliminary guidelines, a crash test plan was developed, in which the outcome of one test determined the configuration evaluated in a subsequent test. Results of the crash tests performed were used in conjunction with the preliminary guidelines developed through simulation to develop final design guidelines for aesthetic treatment of safety shape concrete barriers. For the convenience of an aesthetic designer, guidelines developed for safety shape barriers in this research and the guidelines previously developed by the FHWA and Cal-

OCR for page R1
trans for stone masonry guardrails and for single-slope and vertical-face concrete barri- ers, respectively, were consolidated into a single set of design guidelines. Designers now have sufficient guidelines to apply aesthetic treatments to various types of barriers.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Research Problem Statement, 1 Research Objective, 1 2 CHAPTER 2 State of the Practice Review of the Literature, 2 Summary of Literature Review, 3 Survey of State DOTs, 4 Survey of U.S. and International Crash Test Laboratories, 5 16 CHAPTER 3 Considerations for Developing an Aesthetic Barrier Developing a Definition for Aesthetics, 16 Changing the Aesthetics of a Longitudinal Concrete Traffic Barrier, 17 Design Techniques, 17 Factors Affecting Design, 17 Applications, 18 Viewer Preference Survey, 23 Assessment, 29 Aesthetic Design Discussion, 29 30 CHAPTER 4 Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design Guideline Development Objective, 30 Overall Summary of the Development Approach, 30 32 CHAPTER 5 Simulation and Preliminary Aesthetic Design Guideline Development Introduction, 32 Pilot Study and Finite Element Model Validation, 33 Generalized Surface Asperity Definition, 47 Preliminary Aesthetic Design Guidelines, 48 56 CHAPTER 6 Crash Testing and Further Evaluation of Preliminary Aesthetic Design Guidelines Crash Test Conditions and Evaluation Criteria, 56 Selection Considerations for Crash Test Configurations, 57 Crash Test 1 (474630-1), 59 Crash Test 2 (474630-2), 59 Crash Test 3 (474630-3), 60 Crash Test 4 (474630-4), 60 Crash Test 5 (474630-5), 62 Crash Test 6 (474630-6), 62 Crash Test 7 (474630-7), 64 66 CHAPTER 7 Final Design Guidelines Guidelines for Aesthetic Surface Treatments of Safety Shape Concrete Barriers, 66 Comparison with Guidelines for Single-Slope and Vertical-Face Barriers and Stone Masonry Guardwalls, 66 70 CHAPTER 8 Conclusions 71 REFERENCES A-1 APPENDIX Guidelines for Aesthetic Barrier Design