Concrete road barriers subjected to impact loads: An overview

Zain, Muhammad Fauzi Bin Mohd.; Mohammed, Hasan Jasim

doi:10.1590/1679-78251783

Muhammad Fauzi Bin Mohd. Zain

Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Hasan Jasim Mohammed

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

fauzi@vlsi.eng.ukm.my,hasanmohammed166@yahoo.com

Figures (27)
Tables (7)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Suggested modifications following the aesthetic design guidelines, (Bullard et al., 2006Bullard, D., Nauman, M.S., Roger, P.B., Rebecca, R.H., James, R.S., Beverly, J.S., (2006). Aesthetic concrete barrier design. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.).

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Typical cross-section of an F-shape concrete safety barrier and a single-slope concrete barrier, (Menges et al., 2007Menges, R., Bligh, P., Wanda, L., (2007). Initial assessment of compliance of Texas roadside safety hardware with proposed update to NCHRP Report 350. 1-136, Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Im-plementation, Austin.).

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Geometry of the GM Shape barrier, (Rosenbaugh et al., 2007Rosenbaugh, S.K., Sicking, D., Faller, R., (2007). Development of a TL-5 Vertical Faced Concrete Median Barrier Incorporating Head Ejection Criteria. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF), University of Nebraska-Lincoln.).

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Overall discrete design matrix, (Dhafer et al., 2007Dhafer, M., Buyuk, M., Kan, S., (2007). Performance evaluation of portable concrete barriers. National Crash Analysis Center, The George Washington University,http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports.html.
http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports... ).

Thumbnail

Figure 5
Typical shapes of concrete barriers, (Dhafer et al., 2007Dhafer, M., Buyuk, M., Kan, S., (2007). Performance evaluation of portable concrete barriers. National Crash Analysis Center, The George Washington University,http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports.html.
http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports... ).

Thumbnail

Figure 6
Super elevation concrete barrier section, (Sujuan et al., 2011Sujuan, W., Zhengbao, L., Jian, Z., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., Yiheng, L., (2011). A research of similarity design of collision guardrails under the overpass. IEEE Computer Society: 1903-6. DOI: 978-1-4244-9439-2/11/$26.00 (c)2011 IEEE.)

Thumbnail

Figure 7
Relationships of concrete barrier dimensions.

Thumbnail

Figure 8
Comparison of tests and simulation of angle fluted barrier, (Bullard et al., 2006Bullard, D., Nauman, M.S., Roger, P.B., Rebecca, R.H., James, R.S., Beverly, J.S., (2006). Aesthetic concrete barrier design. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.)

Thumbnail

Figure 9
Barrier model and collision vehicle model, (Sujuan et al., 2011Sujuan, W., Zhengbao, L., Jian, Z., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., Yiheng, L., (2011). A research of similarity design of collision guardrails under the overpass. IEEE Computer Society: 1903-6. DOI: 978-1-4244-9439-2/11/$26.00 (c)2011 IEEE.).

Thumbnail

Figure 10
Simulation of collision using the optimal combination, (Jian et al., 2011Jian, Z., Zhengbao, L., Sujuan, W., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., (2011). Optimization of the level of SS crash barrier overpass bridge on highway. IEEE Computer Society.).

Thumbnail

Figure 11
Car-barrier primary impact scheme and car motion, (Amato et al., 2011Amato, G., Fionn, O., Ciaran, K., Bidisha, G., (2011). Development of roadside safety barriers using natural building materials. Paper presented at the ITRN Conference Cork.).

Thumbnail

Figure 12
Sketch of the car-barrier primary and secondary impacts, (Amato et al., 2013bAmato, G., Fionn, O., Bidisha, G., Gavin, W., Ciaran, K., (2013b). A scaling method for modelling the crashworthiness of novel roadside barrier designs. International Journal of Crashworthiness 18(1): 93-102.).

Thumbnail

Figure 13
Sketch of the angled crash test and the equivalent spring-mass system, (Amato et al., 2013bAmato, G., Fionn, O., Bidisha, G., Gavin, W., Ciaran, K., (2013b). A scaling method for modelling the crashworthiness of novel roadside barrier designs. International Journal of Crashworthiness 18(1): 93-102.).

Thumbnail

Figure 14
Parameters used in impact tests.

Thumbnail

Figure 15
Yield Line Analysis of Concrete Walls, (AASHTO, 2012AASHTO, (2012). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Washington, DC.).

Thumbnail

Figure 16
Double steel strap design details, (Bielenberg et al., 2003Bielenberg, R., Faller, R.K., Reid, J.D., Rohde, J.R., Sicking, D.L., (2003). Design and testing of tie-down systems for temporary barriers. Transportation Research Board, 82st Annual Meeting, January 13-17, 2003, Washington, DC.).

Thumbnail

Figure 17
Double steel strap design details, (Karla et al., 2003Karla, A.P., Faller, R., Rohde, J., James, C.H., Bob, W.B., Sicking, D., (2003). Development and evaluation of a tie-down system for the redesigned F-shape concrete temporary barrier. 1-59, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility.).

Thumbnail

Figure 18
Permanent New Jersey safety shape barrier connection with asphalt, (Polivka et al., 2006Polivka, K.A., Faller, R., Sicking, D., Rohde, J., Bielenberg, R., Reid, J., Coon, B., (2006). Performance evaluation of the permanent New Jersey safety shape barrier-update to NCHRP 350 Test No. 4-12 (2214NJ-2). MwRSF Research Report No. TRP-03-178-06 October 13.).

Thumbnail

Figure 19
Double steel strap design details, (MRSF, 2006Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MRSF), (2006). Temporary Concrete Barrier System: 1-6, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.).

Thumbnail

Figure 20
Connection of the barrier to the deck slab, (Zhao et al., 2004Zhao, L., Karbhari, V.M., Hegemier, G.A., Seible, F., (2004). Connection of concrete barrier rails to FRP bridge decks. Composites Part B: Engineering 35(4): 269-78. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.02.006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.... ).

Thumbnail

Figure 21
Connection of the barrier to the deck slab, (Rosenbaugh et al., 2007Rosenbaugh, S.K., Sicking, D., Faller, R., (2007). Development of a TL-5 Vertical Faced Concrete Median Barrier Incorporating Head Ejection Criteria. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF), University of Nebraska-Lincoln.).

Thumbnail

Figure 22
Precast concrete bridge parapet, (Colombia and Transportation, 2007Colombia, British and Ministry of Transportation, (2007). Bridge Standards and Procedures Manual 1. British Colom-bia Ministry of Transportation.); (CSA, 2013CSA., (2013). CAN/CSA-S6-14. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CSA International, Ontario, Canada.).

Thumbnail

Figure 23
Proposed barrier wall to deck slab connection details, (Khaled et al., 2008Khaled, S., Patel, G., Kianough, R., (2008). Development of precast barrier wall system for bridge decks. 1-46, Ministry of Transportation Bridge Office.).

Thumbnail

Figure 24
Designs of barriers, (Claude et al., 2011Claude, J-F., Ahmed, E., Cusson, D., Benmokrane, B., (2011). Early-age cracking of steel and GFRP-reinforced con-crete bridge barriers. 2011 CSCE Annual Conference, 1-12, Ottawa, Canada.).

Thumbnail

Figure 25
Details of barriers reinforcement, (El-Salakawy and Islam, 2012El-Salakawy, E., Islam, M., (2012). Behaviour of full-scale GFRP-reinforced concrete bridge barriers,www.civil.usher-brooke.ca/chaire/english/activity_5.htm:1-6.
www.civil.usher-brooke.ca/chaire/english... ).

Thumbnail

Figure 26
Details of barrier connection at the bridge substructure, (Queensland, 2014Queensland, Goverment, (2014). Manual Design Criteria for Bridges and Other Structures. Transport and Main Roads, August 2014.).

Thumbnail

Figure 27
Proposed GFRP-reinforced barrier, (Khederzadeh and Sennah, 2014Khederzadeh, H., Sennah, K., (2014). Experimental investigation on transverse strength of PL-3 barriers reinforced with sand-coated GFRP bars. 9th International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, 280-1--10. Calgary, July 15-18, 2014, Alberta, Canada.)

Thumbnail

Table 1
Results of the similarity design for different degree barrier, (Sujuan et al., 2011Sujuan, W., Zhengbao, L., Jian, Z., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., Yiheng, L., (2011). A research of similarity design of collision guardrails under the overpass. IEEE Computer Society: 1903-6. DOI: 978-1-4244-9439-2/11/$26.00 (c)2011 IEEE.).

Thumbnail

Table 2
Concrete barrier dimensions summarize.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Barrier Test Methods (MASH, AASHTO, 2009AASHTO, (2009). Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, MASH-1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.and NCHRP Report 350 summarize).

Thumbnail

Table 4
Parameters used in impact tests.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Bridge barriers test levels and crash test criteria, (AASHTO, 2012AASHTO, (2012). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Washington, DC.).

Thumbnail

Table 6
Barrier Test Categories, (Indian, 2014Indian, Roads Congress., (2014). Standards Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Brides Section 2: Loads and Stresses Indian Roads Congress.).

Thumbnail

Table 7
Containment Levels, (EN, 2003EN, 1317 DIN., (2003). Rückhaltesysteme an Straßen. Beuth-Verlag GmbH, Berlin.).

LEVEL	Vehicle		Guardrail
LEVEL	Velocity km/h	MASS (t)	Collision Angle	A (cm)	B	C	D (cm)	E (cm)	F (cm)
SB	80	4.55	30º	12.1	75º	85º	7.3	14.6	67.8
SA	80	6.48	30º	13.6	75º	85º	8.2	16.4	76.3
SS	80	8.43	30º	14.8	75º	85º	8.9	17.8	83.3
SH	80	10.37	30º	16	75º	85º	9.6	19.1	89.3

Author (s) (year)	Base width (mm)	Top width (mm)	Height (mm)	Type of concrete barriers
(R. K. Faller et al., 1996)	570	200	810	F-shape
(McDevitt, 2000McDevitt, C.F., (2000). Basics of concrete barriers. Public Roads Journal 63(5): 10-4.)	820	300	1070	New Jersey shape+ F-shape (tall)
(McDonald and Kirk, 2001)	610	240	813	F-shape
	660	230	1067	F-shape (tall)
(Richard et al., 2002Richard, B.A., Bullard, D., Abu-Odeh, A., Menges, W., (2002). Washington State precast concrete barrier. 1-23, Washington State Department of Transportation. P.O. Box 47329, Olympia, Washington.)	610	150	810	New Jersey shape
(Consolazio et al., 2003Consolazio, G.R., Chung, J., Gurley, K., (2003). Impact simulation and full scale crash testing of a low profile concrete work zone barrier. Computers & Structures 81(13): 1359-74. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00058-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)... )	711	381	508	new shape
(Zhao et al., 2004Zhao, L., Karbhari, V.M., Hegemier, G.A., Seible, F., (2004). Connection of concrete barrier rails to FRP bridge decks. Composites Part B: Engineering 35(4): 269-78. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.02.006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.... )	380	300	810	bridge concrete barrier
(D. C. Alberson et al., 2004)	382	152	813	New Jersey shape
(D. C. Alberson et al., 2004)	254	152	1100	bridge concrete barrier
(Roger et al., 2005aRoger, P.B., Nauman, S., Menges, W., Rebecca, R.H., (2005a). Portable concrete traffic barrier for maintenance oper-ations. Technical Report No.FHWA/TX-05/0-4692-1.)	600	235	813	F-shape
(MRSF, 2006Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MRSF), (2006). Temporary Concrete Barrier System: 1-6, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.)	570	203	813	F-shape
(Bullard et al., 2006Bullard, D., Nauman, M.S., Roger, P.B., Rebecca, R.H., James, R.S., Beverly, J.S., (2006). Aesthetic concrete barrier design. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.)	300	200	1067	single-slope bridge concrete barrier
(Polivka et al., 2006Polivka, K.A., Faller, R., Sicking, D., Rohde, J., Bielenberg, R., Reid, J., Coon, B., (2006). Performance evaluation of the permanent New Jersey safety shape barrier-update to NCHRP 350 Test No. 4-12 (2214NJ-2). MwRSF Research Report No. TRP-03-178-06 October 13.)	381	152	813	New Jersey shape
(Itoh et al., 2007aItoh, Y., Chunlu, L., Ryuichi, K., (2007a). Dynamic simulation of collisions of heavy high-speed trucks with concrete barriers. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 34(4): 1239-44. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2006.05.059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2006.0... )	680	250	1100	F-shape (tall)
(Menges et al., 2007Menges, R., Bligh, P., Wanda, L., (2007). Initial assessment of compliance of Texas roadside safety hardware with proposed update to NCHRP Report 350. 1-136, Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Im-plementation, Austin.)	610	240	813	F-shape
	610	203	1067	Single-slope
(Rosenbaugh et al., 2007Rosenbaugh, S.K., Sicking, D., Faller, R., (2007). Development of a TL-5 Vertical Faced Concrete Median Barrier Incorporating Head Ejection Criteria. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF), University of Nebraska-Lincoln.)			813	GM shape
(Dhafer et al., 2007Dhafer, M., Buyuk, M., Kan, S., (2007). Performance evaluation of portable concrete barriers. National Crash Analysis Center, The George Washington University,http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports.html. http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports... )			813	5-Type- standards
(Se-Jin et al., 2008Se-Jin, J., Myoung-Sung, C., Young-Jin, K., (2008). Ultimate strength of concrete barrier by the yield line theory. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 2(1): 57-62. DOI:http://www.ce-ric.net/wonmun2/kci/KCI_3_2008_2_1_57(C).pdf. http://www.ce-ric.net/wonmun2/kci/KCI_3_... )	420	230	1320	bridge concrete barrier
(Atahan and Sevim, 2008Atahan, A.O., Sevim, U., (2008). Testing and comparison of concrete barriers containing shredded waste tire chips. Materials Letters 62(21-22): 3754-7. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.04.068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.... )	450	250	1000	New Jersey shape
(Kuebler, 2008Kuebler, J., (2008). Improvement of safety barriers on German bridges - results of impact test with heavy Lorries. 10 th International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Transport Technology, 1-21. HV, May 19-22, 2008, Paris.)	580		1070	bridge concrete barrier
(Esfahani et al., 2008Esfahani, E., Dhafer, M., Kenneth, S.O., (2008). Safety performance of concrete median barriers under updated crash-worthiness criteria, 1-12, The National Crash Analysis Center.)	610	152	813	New Jersey shape+F-shape
			940	New Jersey shape+F-shape
			1067	New Jersey shape+F-shape
(Zhong et al., 2009Zhong, W., Fengru, Y., Li, Y., (2009). Safety design of median barriers impacted on elevated road. International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, 586-9. Zhangjiajie, Hunan IEEE Computer Societyhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5203273&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5203273 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp... )	566	203	810	F-shape
(Nauman et al., 2009Nauman, S., Bligh, R., Menges, W., (2009). Development and testing of a concrete barrier design for use in front of slope or on MSE wall. Texas Transportation Institute Proving Ground.)	610	203	1067	Single-slope
(Atahan, 2009Atahan, A.O., (2009). Effect of permanent jersey-shaped concrete barrier height on heavy vehicle post-impact stability. International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems 16(1): 243-57.)			810	New Jersey shape
			950	New Jersey shape
			100	New Jersey shape
			1050	New Jersey shape
(Coughlin et al., 2010Coughlin, A.M., Musselman, E.S., Schokker, A.J., Linzell, D.G., (2010). Behavior of portable fiber reinforced concrete vehicle barriers subject to blasts from contact charges. International Journal of Impact Engineering 37(5): 521-9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.11.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.200... )	610		1070	rectangular
(Uttipec, 2010Uttipec, (2010). Guidelines and design specifications for crash barriers, pedestrian railings and dividers. 20th UTTIPEC Governing Body meeting held on 15.01.2010 under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Lt, Governor, Delhi.)	610	170	810	Parabolic Divider
(Bin-Shafique et al., 2011Bin-Shafique, S., Barrett, M., Sharif, H., Charbeneau, R., Ali, K., Hudson, C., (2011). Mitigation methods for tempo-rary concrete traffic barrier effects on flood water flows. Technical Report FHWA/TX-11/0-6094-1.)	600	240	1060	New Jersey shape
(Sujuan et al., 2011Sujuan, W., Zhengbao, L., Jian, Z., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., Yiheng, L., (2011). A research of similarity design of collision guardrails under the overpass. IEEE Computer Society: 1903-6. DOI: 978-1-4244-9439-2/11/$26.00 (c)2011 IEEE.)				new shape+bridge concrete barrier
(Jian et al., 2011Jian, Z., Zhengbao, L., Sujuan, W., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., (2011). Optimization of the level of SS crash barrier overpass bridge on highway. IEEE Computer Society.)				new shape+bridge concrete barrier
(Claude et al., 2011Claude, J-F., Ahmed, E., Cusson, D., Benmokrane, B., (2011). Early-age cracking of steel and GFRP-reinforced con-crete bridge barriers. 2011 CSCE Annual Conference, 1-12, Ottawa, Canada.)	830	380	904	bridge concrete barrier
(Amato et al., 2011Amato, G., Fionn, O., Ciaran, K., Bidisha, G., (2011). Development of roadside safety barriers using natural building materials. Paper presented at the ITRN Conference Cork.)	750		750	rectangular

Test Methods	Validation	Comments
Structural Analysis	Preliminary bridge barrier design	Complex vehicle-barrier behavior occurs during impacts. Thus, this test method is necessary as a means to back up both sufficient barrier strength and vehicle impact reaction.
Static Tests	Structural analysis and force-displacement behavior	Static test is applied mostly in designing new precast barriers. Studies must prove the structural capacity of the barrier, anchors, and deck to evaluate design development. In addition, the barrier system is set to satisfy the test level.
Dynamic Tests (Pendulum)	Bridge barrier dynamic strength and anchor system strength	The benefit of dynamic tests (pendulum) is that they can make realistic crash loads and demonstrate the dynamic capacity of barrier systems.
Computer Simulations	Parametric studies and design optimization	Simulation is one of the most important steps to model and optimize a new barrier design at a low cost compared with crash tests.
Crash Test Levels (Full-scale)
TL-1	In general, this level is suitable for work zones with low-posted speeds, very low volume of vehicles, and low-speed local streets.	This test level is used in small streets where speed is limited.
TL-2	In general, this level is suitable for work zones as well as local and collector roads with a small number of heavy vehicles expected and decreased speed.	This test level is employed in local streets and with heavy vehicles.
TL-3	In general, this level is suitable for a wide range of high-speed arterial highways with very low mixtures of heavy vehicles and with favorable site conditions.	This test level is basic in all types of barrier design, as well as in bridge crash barrier.
TL-4	In general, this level is suitable for the majority of applications on high-speed highways, freeways, expressways, and interstate highways with a mixture of trucks and heavy vehicles.	TL4 barriers concur with bridge barrier design requirements.
TL-5	In general, this level is suitable for the same applications as TL-4 as well as on roads where large trucks comprise a significant portion of the average daily traffic or when unfavorable site conditions justify a high level of rail resistance.	TL-5 provides vehicles, in cases where TL-4 gives an insufficient case because of the high number of vehicles; rollover or penetration beyond the barrier can occur.
TL-6	In general, this level is suitable for applications where tanker-type trucks or similar high center-of-gravity vehicles are anticipated, particularly along unfavorable site conditions.	A tanker-type truck exhibits a high center of gravity. TL-6 is for such vehicle type.

Author (s) (year)	Collision angle		Speed of vehicle (km/h)		Weight of vehicle (kg)		Type of tests	Shape of barrier
Author (s) (year)	15º	20º	25º	90º	50	70 & 80	100	700 & 820	2000	8000 & 36000
(Bullard, 2003aBullard, D., (2003a). Performance evaluation of two aesthetic bridge rails. Technical Report No. 4288-S.)		√	√				√	√	√		Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Consolazio et al., 2003Consolazio, G.R., Chung, J., Gurley, K., (2003). Impact simulation and full scale crash testing of a low profile concrete work zone barrier. Computers & Structures 81(13): 1359-74. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00058-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)... )		√	√			√		√	√		Field	Low profile barrier
(Roger et al., 2005bRoger, P.B., Nauman S., Menges, W., Rebecca, R.H., (2005b). Development of low-deflection precast concrete barrier,http://www.ntis.gov. http://www.ntis.gov... )			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Roger et al., 2005aRoger, P.B., Nauman, S., Menges, W., Rebecca, R.H., (2005a). Portable concrete traffic barrier for maintenance oper-ations. Technical Report No.FHWA/TX-05/0-4692-1.)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Ren and Vesenjak, 2005Ren, Z., Vesenjak, M., (2005). Computational and experimental crash analysis of the road safety barrier. Engineering Failure Analysis 12(6): 963-73. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.12.033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.... )		√					√	√			Field	F-shape
(Borovinšek et al., 2007Borovinšek, M., Vesenjak, M., Ulbin, M., Ren, Z., (2007). Simulation of crash tests for high containment levels of road safety barriers. Engineering Failure Analysis 14(8): 1711-8. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.11.068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.... )	√	√				√	√	√		√	Field	F-shape
(Itoh et al., 2007aItoh, Y., Chunlu, L., Ryuichi, K., (2007a). Dynamic simulation of collisions of heavy high-speed trucks with concrete barriers. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 34(4): 1239-44. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2006.05.059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2006.0... )	√						√			√	Field	F-shape
(Se-Jin et al., 2008Se-Jin, J., Myoung-Sung, C., Young-Jin, K., (2008). Ultimate strength of concrete barrier by the yield line theory. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 2(1): 57-62. DOI:http://www.ce-ric.net/wonmun2/kci/KCI_3_2008_2_1_57(C).pdf. http://www.ce-ric.net/wonmun2/kci/KCI_3_... )				√							Lab	Bridge concrete barrier
(Atahan and Sevim, 2008Atahan, A.O., Sevim, U., (2008). Testing and comparison of concrete barriers containing shredded waste tire chips. Materials Letters 62(21-22): 3754-7. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.04.068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.... )				√	√			√			Field	New Jersey Shape
(Kuebler, 2008Kuebler, J., (2008). Improvement of safety barriers on German bridges - results of impact test with heavy Lorries. 10 th International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Transport Technology, 1-21. HV, May 19-22, 2008, Paris.)		√				√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Zhong et al., 2009Zhong, W., Fengru, Y., Li, Y., (2009). Safety design of median barriers impacted on elevated road. International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, 586-9. Zhangjiajie, Hunan IEEE Computer Societyhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5203273&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5203273 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp... )		√				√			√		Field	F-shape
(Bayton et al., 2009Bayton, D., Long, R., Fourlaris, G., (2009). Dynamic responses of connections in road safety barriers. Materials & Design 30(3): 635-41. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.05.048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.... )				√							Lab	Bridge concrete barrier
(Coughlin et al., 2010Coughlin, A.M., Musselman, E.S., Schokker, A.J., Linzell, D.G., (2010). Behavior of portable fiber reinforced concrete vehicle barriers subject to blasts from contact charges. International Journal of Impact Engineering 37(5): 521-9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.11.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.200... )											Field	Rectangular
(Nauman et al., 2010Nauman, S., Bligh, R., Albin, D., Olson, D., (2010). Application of a precast concrete barrier adjacent to a steep roadside slope. Accident Analysis & Prevention.)			√	√	√		√	√	√		Field	Single-slope
(Gabauer et al., 2010Gabauer, D.J., Kristofer, D.K., Dhafer, M., Kenneth, S.O., Martin, H., Hampton, C.G., (2010). Pendulum testing as a means of assessing the crash performance of longitudinal barrier with minor damage. International Journal of Impact Engineering 37(11): 1121-37. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.03.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.201... )				√	√						Field	F-shape
(Bin-Shafique et al., 2011Bin-Shafique, S., Barrett, M., Sharif, H., Charbeneau, R., Ali, K., Hudson, C., (2011). Mitigation methods for tempo-rary concrete traffic barrier effects on flood water flows. Technical Report FHWA/TX-11/0-6094-1.)				√							Field	F-shape
(Kala et al., 2012Kala, J., Hradil, P., Salajka, V., (2012). Numerical analysis of concrete crash barriers. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 70: 770-3. DOI:www.waset.org/journals/waset/v70/v70-145.pdf. www.waset.org/journals/waset/v70/v70-145... )	√		√			√	√	√		√	Field	F-shape
(Seung et al., 2012Seung-Kyung, K., Sang-Seung, L., Dooyong, C., Sun-Kyu, P., (2012). An experimental study on development of the connection system of concrete barriers applicable to modular bridge. World Academy of Science, Engineering and technology 6 217-23. DOI:www.waset.org/journals/waset/v65/v65-70.pdf. www.waset.org/journals/waset/v65/v65-70.... )				√							Lab	Bridge concrete barrier
(Sujuan et al., 2011Sujuan, W., Zhengbao, L., Jian, Z., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., Yiheng, L., (2011). A research of similarity design of collision guardrails under the overpass. IEEE Computer Society: 1903-6. DOI: 978-1-4244-9439-2/11/$26.00 (c)2011 IEEE.)			√			√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Jian et al., 2011Jian, Z., Zhengbao, L., Sujuan, W., Yonghan, L., Muxi, L., (2011). Optimization of the level of SS crash barrier overpass bridge on highway. IEEE Computer Society.)			√			√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Nauman et al., 2009Nauman, S., Bligh, R., Menges, W., (2009). Development and testing of a concrete barrier design for use in front of slope or on MSE wall. Texas Transportation Institute Proving Ground.)			√	√	√		√	√	√		Field	Single-slope
(Uttipec, 2010Uttipec, (2010). Guidelines and design specifications for crash barriers, pedestrian railings and dividers. 20th UTTIPEC Governing Body meeting held on 15.01.2010 under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Lt, Governor, Delhi.)		√				√	√		√	√	Field	F-shape
(Australian Barriers, 2008Barriers, Australian Road., (2008). Installation and maintenance instructions concrete safety barriers. Australian Road Barriers PTY LTD.)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Bullard et al., 2003bBullard, D., Buth, C.E., William, F., Menges, W.L., Rebecca, R.H., (2003b). Crash testing and evaluation of the modified T77 bridge rail. 1-41, Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Implementation Office P.O. Box 5080 78763-5080, Austin, Texas.)		√	√				√	√	√		Field	F-shape
(D. C. Alberson et al., 2004a)	√					√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(D.C. Alberson et al., 2004b)	√		√			√	√		√	√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Karla et al., 2003Karla, A.P., Faller, R., Rohde, J., James, C.H., Bob, W.B., Sicking, D., (2003). Development and evaluation of a tie-down system for the redesigned F-shape concrete temporary barrier. 1-59, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility.)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Esfahani et al., 2008Esfahani, E., Dhafer, M., Kenneth, S.O., (2008). Safety performance of concrete median barriers under updated crash-worthiness criteria, 1-12, The National Crash Analysis Center.)	√					√				√	Field	F-shape+ N J Shape
(Bullard et al., 2006Bullard, D., Nauman, M.S., Roger, P.B., Rebecca, R.H., James, R.S., Beverly, J.S., (2006). Aesthetic concrete barrier design. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.)			√				√		√		Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(McDonald and Kirk, 2001)	√		√			√	√		√	√	Field	F-shape
(R. K. Faller et al., 1996)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Rosenbaugh et al., 2007Rosenbaugh, S.K., Sicking, D., Faller, R., (2007). Development of a TL-5 Vertical Faced Concrete Median Barrier Incorporating Head Ejection Criteria. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF), University of Nebraska-Lincoln.)	√					√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(B. Bielenberg et al., 2003Bielenberg, R., Faller, R.K., Reid, J.D., Rohde, J.R., Sicking, D.L., (2003). Design and testing of tie-down systems for temporary barriers. Transportation Research Board, 82st Annual Meeting, January 13-17, 2003, Washington, DC.)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Abu-Odeh et al., 2011Abu-Odeh, A., Kim, K., Williams, W., Patton, C., (2011). Crash wall design for Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wall phase I: Engineering Analysis and Simulation. Texas Transportation Institute.)	√					√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Dhafer et al., 2007Dhafer, M., Buyuk, M., Kan, S., (2007). Performance evaluation of portable concrete barriers. National Crash Analysis Center, The George Washington University,http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports.html. http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/reports... )			√				√		√		Field	5-type
(Dhafer et al., 2011Dhafer, M., Dao, C., Kan, S., Opiela, K., (2011). Safety performance evaluation of concrete barriers on curved and superelevated roads. 1-17, The National Crash Analysis Center.)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Richard et al., 2002Richard, B.A., Bullard, D., Abu-Odeh, A., Menges, W., (2002). Washington State precast concrete barrier. 1-23, Washington State Department of Transportation. P.O. Box 47329, Olympia, Washington.)			√				√		√		Field	New Jersey Shape
(Sicking et al., 2003Sicking, D.L., Reid, J.D., Polivka, K.A., (2003). Deflection Limits For Temporary Concrete Barriers. 1-15, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF), University of Nebraska-Lincoln.)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Nauman et al., 2012Nauman, S., Bligh, R., Holt, J., (2012) Minimum rail height and design impact load for MASH TL-4 longitudinal barriers. TRB 2012 Annual Meeting,trb.metapress.com/index/26H634147164X1L5.pdf. trb.metapress.com/index/26H634147164X1L5... )	√					√				√	Field	Bridge concrete barrier
(Bambach et al., 2010Bambach, M., Grzebieta, R., McIntosh, A., (2010). Crash characteristics of motorcyclists impacting road side barriers. Paper presented at the Proc. Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Canberra, Aus-tralia.)	√						√			√	Field	Many type
(Amato et al., 2011Amato, G., Fionn, O., Ciaran, K., Bidisha, G., (2011). Development of roadside safety barriers using natural building materials. Paper presented at the ITRN Conference Cork.)		√					√	√			Field	Rectangular
(Ivey et al., 1980Ivey, D.L, Ross, H., Hirsch, C.B., Olson, R., (1980). Portable concrete median barriers: Structural design and dynamic performance. Transportation Research Record (769).)			√				√		√		Field	F-shape
(Amato et al., 2013bAmato, G., Fionn, O., Bidisha, G., Gavin, W., Ciaran, K., (2013b). A scaling method for modelling the crashworthiness of novel roadside barrier designs. International Journal of Crashworthiness 18(1): 93-102.)		√				√			√		Field	Single-slope
(Reid et al., 2013Reid, J., Bielenberg, R., Faller, R., Karla, A.L., Sicking, D., (2013). Racetrack SAFER barrier on temporary concrete barriers. International Journal of Crashworthiness 18(4): 343-55. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2013.794321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2013.... )			√				√		√		Field	Rectangular
(Tabacu and Pandrea, 2008Tabacu, S., Pandrea, N., (2008). Numerical (analytical-based) model for the study of vehicle frontal collision. Interna-tional Journal of Crashworthiness 13(4): 387-410.)						√			√
(Sturt and Fell, 2009Sturt, R., Fell, C., (2009). The relationship of injury risk to accident severity in impacts with roadside barriers. Inter-national Journal of Crashworthiness 14(2): 165-72.)		√				√		√
(Reid and Faller, 2007Reid, J., Faller, R., (2007). Interaction between single unit trucks and concrete barriers in high speed impacts. Paper presented at the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Date: Nov 11-15, 2007, Seattle, WA.)	√					√				√	Field	Single-slope
(Mi et al., 2013Mi, X., Jingmei, W., Yu, C., (2013). Research on the impact test conditions of safety barriers on mountain rural roads. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety, June 29-July 2, 2013, Wuhan, China.)			√				√		√		Field	Single-slope
(Polivka et al., 2006Polivka, K.A., Faller, R., Sicking, D., Rohde, J., Bielenberg, R., Reid, J., Coon, B., (2006). Performance evaluation of the permanent New Jersey safety shape barrier-update to NCHRP 350 Test No. 4-12 (2214NJ-2). MwRSF Research Report No. TRP-03-178-06 October 13.)	√					√				√	Field	New Jersey Shape
(Prochowski, 2010Prochowski, L., (2010). Analysis of displacement of concrete barrier on impact of a vehicle. Theoretical model and experimental validation. Journal of KONES 17(4).)	√	√	√				√	√

	Vehicle Characteristics	Small Automobiles		Pickup Truck	Single- Unit Van Truck	Van-Type Tractor-Trailer		Tractor- Tanker Trailer
NCHRP Report 350	W(kg)	700C	820C	2000P	8000S	22500	36000	36000
	Crash angle	20º	20º	25º	15º	15º	15º	15º
	Test Level	Test Speed (km/h)				15º	15º	15º
	TL-1	50	50	50	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-2	70	70	70	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-3	100	100	100	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-4	100	100	100	80	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-5	100	100	100	N/A	N/A	80	N/A
	TL-6	100	100	100	N/A	N/A	N/A	80
AASHTO MASH	W(kg)	1100C	1500C	2270P	10000S	N/A	36000	36000
	Crash angle	25º	N/A	25º	15º	N/A	15º	15º
	Test Level	Test Speed (km/h)				N/A	15º	15º
	TL-1	50	N/A	50	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-2	70	N/A	70	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-3	100	N/A	100	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-4	100	N/A	100	90	N/A	N/A	N/A
	TL-5	100	N/A	100	N/A	N/A	80	N/A
TL-6	100	N/A	100	N/A	N/A	N/A	80

Category	Application	Containment for
P-1: Normal Containment	Bridges carrying expressway or equivalent.	15 kN vehicle at 110 km/h, and 20º angle of impact
P-2: Low Containment	All other bridges except bridge over railways.	15 kN vehicle at 80 km/h and 20º angle of impact
P-3: High Containment	At hazardous and high risk locations, over busy railway lines, complex interchanges, etc.	30 kN vehicle at 60 km/h and 20º angle of impact

Test	Impact Velocity (km/h)	Impact Angle	Vehicle Weight (kg)
TB11	100	20º	900
TB21	80	8º	1300
TB22	80	15	1300
TB31	80	20	1500
TB32	110	20	1500
TB41	70	8	10000
TB42	70	15	10000
TB51	70	20º	13000
TB61	80	20	16000
TB71	65	20	30000
TB81	65	20	38000

[1] fauzi@vlsi.eng.ukm.my,hasanmohammed166@yahoo.com

Brasil

Brasil

Concrete road barriers subjected to impact loads: An overview

Abstract