The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 417-436

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 417... ... 417 CHAPTER 16 –FIELD GUIDE APPLICATION EXAMPLES The assessment procedures are designed to identify the types and levels of damage that will likely compromise the barrier's crash performance in subsequent impacts on the unrepaired system. In other words, the assessment process is designed to determine if the damage warrants high priority for repair. Read the entire page →
From page 418... ... 418 Example 1 This example involves a modified G4(1S) guardrail with crash damage extending over two rail panels, including the w-beam splice, as shown in Figure 355. Read the entire page →
From page 419... ... 419 User Input for Question 2: The damage was on the length-of-need section of the guardrail (i.e., not on the end-terminal) , so the "yes" response was selected. Read the entire page →
From page 420... ... 420 User Input for Question 5: The rail height was 26.5 inches measured from the ground to the middle-point of the top wbeam corrugation, so the "No" response was selected. User Input for Question 6: The lateral deflection was less than 9 inches, so the "No" response was selected. Read the entire page →
From page 421... ... 421 User Input for Question 8: The extent of damage included two straight rail panels. The number "2" was entered in the appropriate text box; the other box was left blank. Read the entire page →
From page 422... ... 422 User Input for Question 11: The posts experienced negligible deformations. No input is required on this page since the default values are "zero". Read the entire page →
From page 423... ... 423 User Input for Question 14: There were no damages noted for the upstream end-terminal. The response boxes were left "unchecked" (i.e., indicating no damage) Read the entire page →
From page 424... ... 424 Assessment Results: The damage assessment is now complete. The results of the assessment are provided on the final page of the online guardrail condition assessment guide. Read the entire page →
From page 425... ... 425 Example 2 This example also involves a modified G4(1S) guardrail with crash damage extending over two rail panels on the length-of-need section of the guardrail, as well as a portion of the end-terminal, as shown in Figure 356. Read the entire page →
From page 426... ... 426 User Input for Question 2: The damage was extended over a portion of the end-terminal and onto the length-of-need section of the guardrail, so the "yes" response was selected. User Input for Question 3: The radio buttons corresponding to components of the G4(1S) Read the entire page →
From page 427... ... 427 User Input for Question 5: The rail height was 28 inches measured from the ground to the middle-point of the top w-beam corrugation, so the answer was "No". User Input for Question 6: The lateral deflection was only 4 inches, so the "No" response was selected. Read the entire page →
From page 428... ... 428 User Input for Question 8: The extent of damage included two straight rail panels on the length of need section and one rail panel on the endterminal. The number "3" was entered in the appropriate text box; the other box was left blank. Read the entire page →
From page 429... ... 429 User Input for Question 11: There are a total of 3 posts that need replacement. Two line posts were damaged and one CRT post. Read the entire page →
From page 430... ... 430 User Input for Question 14: The post-bolts did not have washers under the bolt-heads. User Input for Question 15: There was no soil erosion since the posts were all embedded in asphalt. Read the entire page →
From page 431... ... 431 User Input for Question 17: There were no damages noted for the downstream end-terminal. Again, the response boxes were left "unchecked". Read the entire page →
From page 432... ... 432 Assessment Results: The results of the assessment are provided on the final page of the online guardrail condition assessment guide. The results are also sent to the e-mail address provided on the Question 1 page. Read the entire page →
From page 433... ... 433 Example 3 This example also involves damages to a FLEAT guardrail end-terminal section, as shown in Figure 357. The following images show the step-by-step evaluation procedure using the on-line GCA program. Read the entire page →
From page 434... ... 434 User Input for Question 2: The damage was located at the last CRT post of the end-terminal section, so the "no" response was selected. User Input for Question 3: The GCA field guide does not currently include assessment criteria for this section of the end-terminal, and the user is referred to the manufacturer's recommendations for repair. Read the entire page →
From page 435... ... 435 User Input for Question 5: The downstream end-terminal was not an energy absorbing terminal and thus the assessment criteria is not applicable. However, there were no visual damages to the system. Read the entire page →
From page 436... ... 436 Assessment Results: The results of the assessment are provided on the final page of the online guardrail condition assessment guide. The results are also sent to the e-mail addressed provided on the Question 1 page. Read the entire page →

From page 417...

... 417 CHAPTER 16 –FIELD GUIDE APPLICATION EXAMPLES The assessment procedures are designed to identify the types and levels of damage that will likely compromise the barrier's crash performance in subsequent impacts on the unrepaired system. In other words, the assessment process is designed to determine if the damage warrants high priority for repair.