Vehicular Crash Tests of the California ST-20 Bridge Rail

Vehicular Crash Tests of the California ST-20 Bridge Rail

Author: John Russell Jewell

Publisher:

Published: 2004

Total Pages: 64

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Over the course of this project a see-through steel bridge rail (Type California ST-20) was developed and tested. The ST-20, as tested, is at the limits of meeting the NCHRP Report 3501 TL-4 test matrix. The bridge rail also met the requirements established in the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications for use as a bicycle rail and is considered an aesthetically pleasing see-through bridge rail. The barrier, as tested, uses steel posts at 3-m spacing to support four boxbeam rails and one additional handrail to meet the height requirements for bicycles. Because the ST-20 is based on a TL-4 bridge rail from Wyoming DOT3,4, only Test 4-11 (NCHRP Report 350) was considered necessary.


Report No. FHWA-RD.

Report No. FHWA-RD.

Author: United States. Federal Highway Administration. Offices of Research and Development

Publisher:

Published: 1977

Total Pages: 700

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK


Roadside Design Guide

Roadside Design Guide

Author: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Task Force for Roadside Safety

Publisher:

Published: 1989

Total Pages: 560

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK


Vehicle Crash Tests of the Type 70 Bridge Rail

Vehicle Crash Tests of the Type 70 Bridge Rail

Author: Robert Meline

Publisher:

Published: 1998

Total Pages: 90

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

A bridge rail Type 70 was built and tested in accordance with NCHRP Report 350. The Type 70 bridge rail is an 810 mm tall concrete barrier with a sloping face of 9.1 deg from the vertical. The barrier tested was 22.9 m long and was constructed at the Caltrans Dynamic Test Facility in West Sacramento, California. A total of four crash tests were conducted under NCHRP Report 350 test level 4, one with an 820 kg car, two with 2000 kg pickup trucks and one with an 8000 kg van truck. Both the 820 kg and the 8000 kg tests were within the limits of NCHRP Report 350 guidelines.


Highway Noise; a Design Guide for Highway Engineers

Highway Noise; a Design Guide for Highway Engineers

Author: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman

Publisher:

Published: 1971

Total Pages: 840

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Various methods of assessing noise, loudness, and noise annoyance are reviewed and explained; sources, types, and intensities of traffic noise are noted; typical means of abatement and attenuation are described; design criteria for various land uses ranging from low-density to industrial are suggested and compared with the results of previous BBN and British systems for predicting annoyance and complaint; and a design guide for predicting traffic noise, capable of being programmed for batch and on-line computer applications, is presented in form suitable for use as a working tool. A flow diagram describes the interrelationships of elements in the traffic noise prediction methodology, and each element is discussed in detail in the text. The text is presented of a tape recording that takes the listener through a series of traffic situations, with such variables as traffic distance, flow velocity, distance, outdoors and indoors, and presence or absence of absorbers and attenuators.


Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design

Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design

Author: Delbert Lance Bullard

Publisher: Transportation Research Board

Published: 2006

Total Pages: 87

ISBN-13: 0309088496

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

This report contains guidelines for aesthetic treatment of concrete safety shape barriers. The report will be of particular interest to design and safety practitioners with responsibility for roadside safety improvements. 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 suburban 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 aesthetic treatments for concrete barriers.