Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Comparison with Guidelines for Single-Slope and Vertical-Face Barriers andStone Masonry Guardwalls
Comparison with Guidelines for Single-Slope and Vertical-Face Barriers andStone Masonry Guardwalls
Pages 66-69
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 66... ...
In the case of guidelines for safety shape barriers, the use of finite element simulation studies in conjunction with crash testing enabled the researchers to define relationships over a range of asperity parameters. Previously existing guidelines for single-slope and vertical-face barriers and stone masonry guardwalls were developed using crash testing alone and therefore were not in the form of relationships defined over a range of asperity parameters.
|
From page 67... ...
The single-slope and verticalface barrier guidelines, however, were developed primarily through crash testing, and finite element simulations were not performed. This restricted the guidelines to single maximum asperity depth values for different asperity angles.
|
From page 68... ...
Figure 84. Final design guidelines for aesthetic surface treatment of safety shape concrete barrier (metric)
|
From page 69... ...
The guidelines for safety shape barriers have been presented in graphic form, whereas the guidelines for single-slope and vertical-face and stone masonry guardwalls have been presented in textual form. This appendix also includes examples of the use of the guidelines developed for safety shape barriers.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.