Design of Roadside Barrier Systems Placed on MSE Retaining Walls (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 3-21
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 3... ...
32.1 Design of MSE Wall MSE walls are made of alternating layers of soil (fill) and reinforcement (Figure 2.1)
|
From page 4... ...
4Source: Elias et al.
|
From page 5... ...
Source: Elias et al.
|
From page 6... ...
reporting formats was included. These procedures gained wide acceptance following their publication, but it was recognized at that time that periodic updating would be needed.
|
From page 7... ...
Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)
|
From page 8... ...
contact with the supporting foundation and adjacent panels were Teflon coated to minimize friction. In this first study, eight full-scale crash tests were conducted using various sizes of passenger cars and buses.
|
From page 9... ...
9Source: Noel et al.
|
From page 10... ...
Data from the instrumented wall studies were used to derive barrier design loads for various impact conditions included in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings (14) and subsequently, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 13, Railings (2)
|
From page 11... ...
96.5 km/h (60 mph) and a test with an 8,165 kg (18,000 lb)
|
From page 12... ...
the edge of MSE walls, compares the AASHTO ASD and LRFD procedures, and describes previous test results. 2.3.1 Design of MSE Wall for Barrier Impact In AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 11.10.6.2.1, the following equation is presented to calculate horizontal stress due to the soil weight and the impact load: where σh = horizontal stress due to the soil weight = kr × σv, kr is the horizontal earth pressure coefficient given by 1.7 ka, σv is vertical stress due to the soil weight Δσh,max = horizontal stress due to the impact load (Ph1)
|
From page 13... ...
2.3.2 Comparison between ASD and LRFD AASHTO is in the process of changing from ASD to LRFD. The 2002 AASHTO ASD makes use of a 44.5 kN (10 kips)
|
From page 14... ...
The MSE wall was 3.05 m (10 ft) high with two rows of 1.52 m (5 ft)
|
From page 15... ...
(0.06 in.) of residual movement after the impact.
|
From page 16... ...
modular blocks. Entries made by responding states in the "other" category for facing panel types noted use of wire-face walls, cast-in-place concrete walls, Gabion/exposed rock, and two-stage walls.
|
From page 17... ...
rails atop MSE walls, while five states (28%) indicated use of both guardrail and bridge rail.
|
From page 18... ...
barrier slabs and 50% use jointed barrier slabs. Those states indicating use of jointed slabs were asked a follow-up question regarding joint spacing.
|
From page 19... ...
19 Flush, 6, 40% Offset, 9, 60% Percentages derived from number of states using the category shown divided by the total number of states responding Figure 2.32. Flush or offset barrier from face of wall (RCP, Question 24)
|
From page 20... ...
states responded that lateral and vertical movement of the barrier system is isolated from the wall panels, while the remaining 17% indicated that the wall panels and barrier system are connected to one another. A question specific to RCP applications (Question 29)
|
From page 21... ...
21 Yes, 3, 17% No, 15, 83% Figure 2.40. Other performance issues associated with MSE walls or barriers atop MSE walls (Question 40)
|
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.