nO ee PL OTTO Tame Prorat ICE Selection of Longitudinal Traffic Safety BarrierGuidelines on Design and Selection of Longitudinal Traffic Safety Barrier10 20 3.0 ROAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION OF MALAYSIA GUIDELINES ON DESIGN AND SELECTION OF LONGITUDINAL TRAFFIC SAFETY BARRIER TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 21 AIM 2.2 BARRIER TYPES 2.2.1 Rigid Barriers 2.2.2 Semi-Rigid Barriers 2.2.3 Flexible Barriers 2.3. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 2.4 CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT 24.1 Primary Considerations 2.5 SAFETY BARRIERS WARRANTS 2.5.1 Embankment Safety Barriers 2.5.2. Safety Barrier at Fixed Objects 2.5.3 Median Safety Barrier SAFETY BARRIER SELECTION GUIDELINES & LAYOUT 3.1 SELECTION GUIDELINES 3.1.1 Barrier Performance Capability 3.1.2 Barrier Deflection Characteristics 3.1.3 Site Conditions 3.14 Compatibility Life Cycle Costs Maintenance 1.7 Aesthetic and Environmental Considerations 1.8 Field Experience 3.2. SAFETY BARRIERS LOCATION AND LAYOUT 3.2.1 Roadside Safety Barrier Systems Elements 3.2.2 Layouts and Location 3.2.3 Median Safety Barriers 3.3 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 3.3.1 Combination of Safety Barrier System 3 3. 3 3,40 5.0 CONCRETE BARRIERS 41 42 INTRODUCTION CONCRETE BARRIERS DESCRIPTION AND BEHAVIOR 42.1 Design Parameters of Multi Slopes Barriers, 4.3 CONCRETE BARRIERS SELECTION 4.4 RECOMMENDATION W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 5.1. INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 General 5.1.2 Safety Performance of W-beam guardrail 5.2. BLOCKED-OUT STEEL W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 5.2.1 Description and Behavior under Impact $2.2 Guardrail Height 5.2.3. Location on Road Cross-section 5.2.4 — Lateral Offset 5.3. INSTALLATION 53.1 Installation Length 53.2 Transitions to Rigid Objects 53.3 Installation of W-Beam Guardrail in Vicinity of Conerete Drains 5.4 TERMINAL SECTIONS 54.1 Flared Terminals 5.4.2 Ramped Terminals 5.4.3 Straight Extensions 544 Terminals Treatment 54.5 Breakaway Terminals 5.5 MODIFIED BLOCK OUT STEEL THRIE BEAM 5.5.1 On Shoulders 5.5.2 OnMedian 5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.7 APPENDIX 5.7.1 Appendix SA 5.1.2 Appendix SB ii 39 39 a2 45 45 47 47 47 48 49 49 52 52 54 55 55 55 37 58 59 59 2 a 61 7 or 0 70INDEX 60 70 WIRE ROPE SAFETY FENCE 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 6.3. WIRE ROPE SAFETY FENCE COMPONENTS: 6.4 CONSIDERATION FOR WIRE ROPE SAFETY BARRIER INSTALLATION 65 LOCATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF WIRE ROPE SAFETY BARRIER 66 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 6.7 RECOMMENDATION 68 APPENDIX 6.8.1 Appendix 6A 68.2 Appendix 6B 68.3 Appendix 6C 68.4 Appendix 6D REFERENCES iii 1 n n B 16 1 7 8 19 19 81 82 83,FOREWORD Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM, through the cooperation and support of various road authorities and engincering institutions in Malaysia, publishes a series of official documents on STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, GUIDELINES, MANUALS and TECHNICAL NOTES which are related to road engineering, The aim of such publications is to achieve quality and consistency in road and highway construction. The cooperating bodies are:- Public Works Department, Malaysia Malaysian Highway Authority Institution of Engineers, Malaysia Institution of Highways & Transportation (Malaysian Branch) The productions of such documents are carried out through several stages. The documents are initially compiled/drafted by the relevant Technical Committee and subsequently scrutinised by relevant Standing Committee of REAM. There are finally endorsed by road authorities and practitioners of road engineering at a conference/workshop before publication. REAM welcomes feedback and suggestions which can update and improve these documents. This GUIDELINES ON DESIGN & SELECTION OF LONGITUDINAL TRAFFIC SAFETY BARRIER is the revision of the existing Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 1/85 (Pindaan 1/89) “Manual on Design Guidelines of Longitudinal Traffic Barrier” published by Jabatan Kerja Raya. In addition this GUIDELINES has also incorporated a new section on the use of wire rope safety fence for highway. The revision was undertaken by the Technical Committee on Safety (TC09) of the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM). The draft of this GUIDELINES was presented and discussed at the workshop session of 6" Malaysian Road Conference held on 16" — 18" August 2004. It is hoped that this GUIDELINES will further enhance the understanding and application of these safety barriers for highways in Malaysia ROAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION OF MALAYSIA. 46-A, Jalan Bola Tampar 13/14, Section 13, 40100 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: 603-55136521 Fax: 55136523 email: ream@po,jaring my1.0 INTRODUCTION Longitudinal traffic safety barriers are highway features designed primarily to reduce the severity of run-off-road accidents, prevent out-of-control vehicles from crossing the median, and decelerate errant vehicles. These features include guardrail, concrete barrier and wire rope fence. Over the years, standards for traffic safety barriers have evolved and continue to change in response to changing technology, research findings, and changes in the design and speed of vehicles. Consequently, many existing traffic safety barriers need to be reviewed to comply with the latest design standards. This new guideline is intended to update the Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 1/85 “Manual on Design Guidelines of Longitudinal Traffic Barrier” (Pindaan 1/89) This new Guideline will provide clearer design, selection consideration and installation details for the 3 different longitudinal traffic safety barriers namely: a) Concrete Barrier (Chapter-4) b) W-Beam Guardrail (Chapter-5) ©) Wire Rope Safety Fence (Chapter-6)2.0 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 AIM Longitudinal traffic safety barrier is installed to reduce the severity of run-off-road accidents. This is accomplished by redirecting a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipating the energy of the errant vehicle. However, safety barrier will reduce accident severity only for those conditions where striking the safety barrier is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Safety barrier should only be installed where it is clear that accident severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-road accidents at this location. Consideration should first be given to eliminating or minimizing conditions requiring safety barrier. This can be done by flattening embankment slopes and by determining alternative locations and designs of roadside appurtenances. Special consideration should be given to eliminating or relocating solitary fixed objects that cannot be made breakaway or yielding, The cost of eliminating the object may be offset by savings from reduced collision frequency and reduced maintenance, Safety barrier requires to provide protection at such objects increases exposure and ‘may result in an increase in the number of accidents. Safety barrier is not intended to and should not be used as a barricade or to prevent indiscriminate use of otherwise clear portions of the roadside.2.2 BARRIER TYPES 2.2.1 Rigid Barriers It refers to longitudinal safety barrier which does not deflect upon impact. ‘The basic fs dissipated by raising and lowering the vehicle and by deformation of the vehicle sheet of rigid barrier is to redirect a vehicle that hits it. During collisions, energy is metal. The energy management feature of rigid barriers is able to redirect the colliding vehicle stably without any rolling movement. 2.2.2 Semi-Rigid Barriers It is used where small to moderate deflection is acceptable (maximum deflection of 1.2m) and can generally be categorized into two (2) groups: a) Strong Beam / Weak Post The posts near the point of impact are purposely designed to break away so that the force of impact is distributed by beam action to a relatively larger number of posts. Attributes of this system are * Barrier performance is independent of impact point at or between posts and of soil properties, and © Vehicle snagging on a post is virtually eliminated. b) Strong Beam/ Strong Post The posts near the point of impact are purposely designed to only deflect moderately and the force of impact is distributed by beam action to a smaller number of posts. This is to be considered when: * Minimal deflection is required. ‘© Transitioning to rigid objects such as bridge parapets. 2.2.3. Flexible Barriers tis a longitudinal safety barrier which relies on large dynamic deflection by utilizing the energy management principle. It absorbs the dynamic impacting kinetic energy through the posts, anchors and the pre-tensioned wire ropes whereby the posts aredesigned to collapse progressively on impact. It guides the collided vehicle forward away from the line of traffic as it deflects, rather than deflected it back into the flow of traffic, with potentially lethal consequences. The post in conjunction with the wire ropes is designed to prevent crossovers, Flexible Barriers keep vehicles damage to a minimum and reduce the risk of serious personal injury 23 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 350 is a guideline for testing both permanent and temporary road safety features and it recommends performance evaluation criteria to assess the test results. The objective of the testing is to determine the manner in which a road safety feature performs during a vehicle crash situation, for typical site and traffic conditions, There are six test levels as shown in Table 2.1 below, each being defined by impact conditions, ie. speed, angle of approach, mass and vehicle type. ee TL-1 a) 820kg Car (20°) S0km/hr b) 2000kg pickup truck (25°) TL2 a) 820kg Car (20°) 7Okm/hr b) 2000kg pickup truck (25°) TL3 a) 820kg Car (20°) 100km/hr b) 2000kg pickup truck (25°) TL4 a) 820kg Car (20°) 100km/nr b) 2000kg pickup truck (25°) 100kn/hr | c) 8000kg single unit truck (15°) 80km/hr TL-5 a) 820kg Car (20°) 100km/hr b) 2000kg pickup truck (25°) 100km/hr c) 36000kg tractor/van trailer (15°) 80km/hr TL6 a) 820kg Car (20°) 100kn/hr b) 2000kg pickup truck (25°) 100km/hr c) 36000kg tractor/tank trailer (15°) 80km/hr Table 2.1; 6 Tests Levels (TL) for longitudinal barriers established in NCHRP Report 350 (Source: FHWA)It should also be noted that, although different types of barriers have road safety features that meet a given test level, they would generally have different performance characteristics. The minimum performance level for road safety barriers (roadside & median) is NCHRP 350 Test Level 3 (TL-3) for major roads (R4 & U4 geometrics standard and above) or expressway. Higher performance level barriers will, however, be required in many situations. 2.4 CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT An area clear of fixed objects adjacent to the roadway is desirable to provide a recovery zone for vehicles that have left the traveled way. Studies have indicated that on high-speed highways, a clear width of 9 m from the edge of the traveled way permits about 80 percent of the vehicles leaving the roadway out of control to recover. ‘On most conventional highways, a 9 m clear zone distance may be difficult to justify for engineering, environmental or economic reasons. For these reasons, a minimum, traversable clear recovery area of 6 m on conventional highways is advised. The designer must keep in mind that site-specific conditions such as volume, specd, alignment, side slope, weather, adjacent development, and environmental conditions should be evaluated when determining the clear recovery zone, Generally, if a potentially hazardous features lies within the adopted clear zone for a particular road segment, there exists an increasing probability of a collision as the lateral offset from the running lanes to the feature is reduced. Figure 2.1 depicts the relationship between vehicle speed and the encroachment probability of an errant vehicle travelling a particular lateral distance from the traveled way.100 50 50 PROBABILITY (%) 30. 20 10 LATERAL OFFSET (METERS) Figure 2.1; Probability Encroachment Curve (Source: Road Planning and Design Manual, Australia) Figure 2.2 below illustrates the roadside ‘Clear-Zone’ Requirements of Vicroads (1995). Obstacles located in the clear recovery zone should be removed, relocated, made breakaway, or shielded by safety barrier or other means. 12 14 16 18 20 2 24 26 28 30 32Clear Zone Width wena = = amen ate = 7 oa Clear Zone Width on Straights YN ta TN Radius Clear Zone Width on Curve = Clear Zone Width on Straights x Fe Figure 2.2: The roadside ‘Clear-Zone’ Requirements (Source: Vicroads 1995)24.1 Primary Considerations . we / Rel the OI ‘There are several locations where a fixed object can be relocated from the clear recovery zone. By order of preference, they are: a) Remove it if practicable. b) Move it to a location where it is unlikely to be hit, such as up a slope or behind a safety barrier or wall that is required for other reasons. ©) Relocate it far enough from the traveled way to minimize its chances of being struck, Non-traversable ditches, drainage structures, columns, utility poles, and overhead sign structures may be handled by this method. 4) Relocate an obstacle in the median or gore to a location beyond the left shoulder, thereby reducing the risk of exposure to at least one direction of travel. © Make the Obstacle Breakaway If fixed objects such as light standards and ground-mounted sign supports cannot be moved out of the clear recovery zone, they should be considered for breakaway treatment, Other features in the vicinity should not impede the function of the breakaway device or adversely influence the vehicle response. All light standard signs located where they can be struck by a vehicle should have a slip-base, except where pedestrians might be struck by the falling standard signs or it could conflict with traffic. © Shield the Obstac! Ifit is not practical to eliminate, relocate, or make a fixed object break away, then the object should be shielded. All the systems available to shield fixed objects are also fixed objects. They do not prevent an accident but are intended to reduce the severity of the accident. Longitudinal safety barriers such as wire rope, W-beam guardrail, median barrier, and bridge railing are designed to redirect a vehicle away from its errant path, These barriers must be tested for structural integrity and occupant risk.2.5 SAFETY BARRIERS WARRANTS 2.5.1 Embankment Safety Barriers The primary contributors to the severity of over-embankment accidents arc the height and slope of the embankment or side hill. Safety barrier is a fixed object and should be installed only at locations where going off the embankment would be more severe than hitting the safety barrier (Figure2.3) and there has been a history of over- embankment accidents. SAFETY BARRIER WARRANTED fe 1:1.5 z Wo 4:2 3 lt an 133 1:4 SAFETY BARRIER [MAY NOT BE WARRANTED 0 3 6 9 12 15 EMBANKMENT HEIGHT (Meters) Figure 2.3: Equal Severity Curve (Source: Caltrans)Figure 2.4 outlines the recommended process for assessing the treatment for embankment: Te atnt ascepable wih mega to engineering wn envionment ses Figure 2.4: Embankment Flow Chart (Source: Roadside Design Guide, RTA New South Wales, Australia)2.5.2 Safety Barrier at Fixed Objects Longitudinal traffic safety barrier should be considered at all fixed objects that are accessible to traffic and within the clear recovery zone. Objects with slip-bases or breakaway features and those that yield because of their small size are not considered fixed objects for this application. Non traversable and fixed objects which normally warrant shielding are listed below: a. Rough rock cuts b. Large boulders €. Permanent bodies of water with depth of > 600 mm 4. Line of large trees (matured diameter > 200 mm) ¢. Bridge piers and abutment at underpasses f Retaining walls and culvert headwalls § Culvert end or wing walls forming abrupt drops greater than about 1.0m in height h. Gap between twin bridges i, Narrowing of roadway (loss of shoulder) over structure j. Street lighting poles k. Traffic sign poles in particular gantry signs or butterfly signs L Railway tracks 1Figure 2.5 outlines the recommended process for assessing the treatment of fixed object hazards. Hand is \t med tow isk | 7 7 | snd | Does the object have an adverse crash history? ce— 7 Is the ‘object within ihe adjusted clear zone Does the object have high severity attributes? 7™ Te the most economical treatment acceptable with regand to| 7 ‘engineering and environmental issues? "No. Priortise against competing projects according to quantitative and qualitative criteria Figure 2.5: Fixed Object Flow Chart (Source: Roadside Design Guide, RTA New South Wales, Australia) T Fass25.3 Median Safety Barrier Median safety barrier should ideally function to: a) Reduce the risk of an out-of-control vehicle crossing the median and colliding with opposing traffic. b) Reduce the risk of deflection back into the traffic stream of a vehicle colliding with the barrier. ©) Decelerate the errant vehicle within tolerable limits, 4) Improve safety through access limitations, Figure 2.6 suggests warrants for median barriers on high speed, controlled access roadways which have relative flat and traversable medians.24.0 21.0 18.0) £ 15.0 3 = = 12.0 5 = z 5 9.0 & = 6.0 30 7 fences pcee SD 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (Thousands) Barriers in these cases should TZ] Borrier Warranted be considered only if there is an unusually high number or rate of cross~median accidents. Figure 2.6: Median Barrier Study Warrants (Source: Caltrans) While median safety barriers are capable of preventing nearly all of the cross-median accidents, their installation will result in fixed-object accidents that might not otherwise occur. Figure 2.7 outlines the recommended process, for assessing the need for median safety barrier installation 14Isthe ‘road high speed and divided? Median barrier not recommended 1s the road ‘ross median crash fate above the threshold? z Is bamer installation acceptable with regard to bp engineering and environmental issues? “| Proritise against competing projects according to quantitative and qualitative criteria. : t| | ! : Figure 2.7: Median Safety Barrier Flow Chart (Source: Roadside Design Guide, RTA New South Wales, Australia)3.0 SAFETY BARRIER SELECTION GUIDELINES & LAYOUT 3.1. SELECTION GUIDELINES Once it has been decided that a barrier is warranted, a specific barrier type must be selected. Although this selection process is complicated by a number of variables and the lack of objective criteria, there are some general guidelines that can be followed. The most desirable system is usually one that offers the required degree of shielding at the lowest total cost. Table 3.1 summarizes the factors that should be considered before making a final selection. Each of these factors is described in more detail in the following subsections. TABLE 3.1: Selection Criteria for Roadside Barriers (Source: AASHTO) Criteria ‘Comments T. Performance | barrier must be structurally able to contain and redirect design Capability _| vehicle. 2. Deflection expected deflection of barrier should not exceed available room to deflect. 3. Site conditions | slope approaching the barrier, and distance from traveled way, may preclude use of some barrier types. Z, Compatibility | barrier must be compatible with planned end anchor and capable of transition to other barrier systems (such as bridge railing). 5. Cost standard barrier systems are relatively consistent in cost, but high-performance railings can cost significantly more 6._Maintenance a. routine | few systems require a significant amount of routine maintenance. . collision | generally, flexible or semi-rigid systems require significantly ‘more maintenance after a collision than rigid or high- performance railings. ©. materials | the fewer different systems used, the fewer storage __| inventory/items/storage space required. d. simplicity | simpler designs, besides costing less, are more likely to be reconstructed properly by field personnel. 7. Aesthetics | occasionally, barrier aesthetics is an important consideration in its selection. 8. Field the performance and maintenance requirements of existing Experience __| systems should be monitored to identify problems that could be lessened or eliminated by using a different barrier type. 163.1.1 Barrier Performance Capability The first decision to be made when selecting an appropriate traffic barrier concemns the level of performance required. Traditionally, most barriers have been developed and tested for passenger cats, and offer marginal protection when struck by heavier vehicles such as trucks and buses at high speeds and large angles of impact. Therefore, if passenger vehicles are the main concer, a standard railing which satisfies.other concems will normally be selected. However, locations with poor geometrics, high traffic volumes and/or speeds and a significant volume of heavy truck traffic may warrant a higher performance level or stronger railing system. This is especially true if barrier penetration by a vehicle is’ likely to have serious Consequences. Similarly, for low volume, low speed roadways, a standard barrier may not be cost-effective, At locations like these, a less expensive system may adequately contain the likely range of expected vehicle impacts, Any design used should indicate satisfactory performance, cither through crash testing or favourable accident experience within the range of expected conditions. The following factors are often considered in reaching a decision on barrier capaci a) High percentage of heavy vehicles. b) Adverse geometries (horizontal curvature coincides with steep down grade). ¢) Serious consequences if a vehicle penetrated, or rolled over, the barrier, 3.1.2 Barrier Deflection Characteristics Once the desired performance level or barrier capability has been determined, site characteristics may dictate the type of barrier to install. If the distance between the barrier and the shielded object or terrain feature is relatively large, a barrier which deflects upon impact, thereby imposing lower impact forces on the vehicle and its occupants, may be the best choice. If the hazard is immediately adjacent to the barrier, a semi-rigid or rigid railing system may be the only choice available. Most semi systems can be strengthened locally by adding additional posts or by reinforcing the rail clement to shield isolated fixed objects located near the rail. Table 3.2 tabulates the design deflection for longitudinal barriers: 17aa =e — aig Tae Tea tere | ence, | qaemiteiereey | er | — #4 Se | arene | cer re eee | pepe z cer | SASaensoes | seven ee fai Seat aaabeaiet a ar |r — TORRE | TORTS] ET me |e roe oe a oe os on en ma om _W-beas redid bari ae a a eae |S } E apd side “velcie @100rs od 25° approach = pete th =—_ iF Boa otal i == saa ee ns —— same} as] RE TRE IT one é = [oe eee ¢ J Ceram —t nansgutntets ‘ Ta ar | me RR maT HT thee ict : = eae mh parents: Seca, vast tn alate sa | RRR] TICS =e Som I fo esl al tran samy 5 vditinyrtine P Pea =e rer ase SRT] EAT ATTCT ta eee nesbignue 2 a 8 ge ones in tr Table 3.2: Design Deflections for Longitudinal Barriers (Source: Transit New Zealand) 183.1.2.1 Occupant Risk Generally vehicle accelerations and occupant impact velocities are higher for rigid and semi rigid safety barriers as compared to flexible safety barrier. Table 3.3 shows the severity indices for all vehicles at varying speeds. Roadside Features Design Speeds (km/h) <70__| 80-90 | >100 Safety Barrier: Wire Rope (4 wire ropes) is 2.0 25 W Beam (G4) 2.0 2.5 3.0 Thrie Beam 2.0 25 3.0 Type F (concrete barrier) 2.0 25 35 Drain & Kerbs: Unlined Table Drain 2.0 25 3.0 Barrier Kerb 2.0 25 35 Mountable Kerb 0.5 10 2.0 Non Frangible Objects: Bridge Piers, Bridge End Posts 50 60 80 End of Retaining Wall 5.0 6.0, 8.0 Post Poles & Trees: 200dia, 35 45 55 300 dia. 4.0 5.0 7.0 Crash Attenuators, Breakaway 25 3.0 35 terminals Treatments Embankments 5 slope, height (1.0m — 2.5m) 2.0-5.0 | 2.5-6.0 1:2.0 slope, height (2.0m — 4.0m) 2.0-5.0 | 2.5-6.0 3.0 slope, height (4.5m — 7.5m) 2.0-5.0 :4.0 slope, height (10.0m—14.0m) | 1.5-4.0 1:5.0 slope, height (any) 10 1:10.0 slope, height (any) 05 Near Vertical Drop 6-10m 7095 | 7095 [80-95 | >10m 10 10 10 [Vertical Drops Pavement Excavation up to 0.5m. 3.0 3.5 [4.0 Vehicle | Impact oncoming vehicle 75 75 8.0 Impact stationary vehicle 3.0 35 4.0 Table 3.3: Severity Indices for all Vehicles at Varying Speeds (Source: Roadside Design Guide, RTA New South Wales, Australia)‘The relationship between Severity Index and the type of injury is shown in Table 3.4 below: SI | Damage Only | Minor Injury | Medical Hospitali- Accident (%) (%) ‘Treatment (%) | sation (%) 0 0 0 0 0 05 100 0 0 0 0 1 904 73 23 0 0 2 71 22 7 0 o | 3 B 34 2 T 1 4 30 30 32 3 3 3 15 2 45 10 8 6 7 16 Es 20 18 7 2 10 2B 30 30 8 0 4 19 27 30 9 0 7 18 75 10 0 0 0 0 100 | ‘Table 3.4: Severity Index Summary Table (Source: Road Planning and Design Manual, Australia) 3.1.3 Site Conditions The choice of barrier type will often be influenced by conditions at the site, The distance from the edge of traveled way, if too great, may preclude the use of a rigid barrier. If the barrier is to be placed on a slope steeper than about 1(V):10(H), @ flexible type should be used. Narrow grade widths, with corresponding narrow shoulders, may result in reduced post restraint and the need for deeper embedment, a closer post spacing, or soil plates. In wide medians where the slopes are steeper than 1(V):10(H) but not steeper than 1(V):6(H), cable barrier placed near the center of the median is preferred. Placement of beam guardrail requires that the barrier be placed at least 3.6m from the slope break 20as shown on Figure 3.1. Do not use concrete barrier at locations where the foreslope into the face of the barrier is steeper than 1(V):10(H). No barrier except wire rope safety barrier in this area Shoulder 3.6m Figure 3.1: Barrier Location on Slopes (Source: Washington State Department of Transportation) 3.1.4 Compatibility Asa general practice, most highway agencies use only a few different barrier systems on new construction and on reconstruction. The advantages of this are relatively obvious: @) the systems in use have been proven effective over the years, b) construction and maintenance personnel are familiar with the systems, ©) parts and inventory requirements are simplified when only a few different types of barrier are routinely used, d) and end treatments/transition sections for normal installations can also be standardized. The only time a non-standard or special barrier design need be considered is when site characteristics or performance requirements cannot be satisfied with a standard railing. 213.1.5 Life Cycle Costs Initial costs and future maintenance costs of alternate barrier systems may weigh heavily in the final selection process. Normally, the initial cost of a system increases as its strength increases, but maintenance costs decrease, Conversely, a system having a relatively low installation cost usually requires significantly more maintenance effort following impacts. 3.1.6 Maintenance Maintenance factors can be grouped into one of three categories: routine maintenance, collision maintenance, and material and storage requirements. a) Routine Maintenance Routine maintenance costs are usually not appreciably different for any of the operational barrier systems. Although some cleaning and painting is occasionally done, use of preservative-treated wood posts and galvanized steel posts and rail components have nearly eliminated the need for this activity. Some systems may interfere more with right-of-way mowing and vegetation control, but no one system appears to create significantly more problems in this area than any of the others. b) Collision Maintenance Collision maintenance includes any and all repairs or adjustments to barriers that are necessitated by vehicle impacts. These costs should play an important role in the selection of a barrier system since the majority of maintenance costs are usually due to collision repairs. 2The number of impacts that will occur along a particular installation depends upon a number of factors including traffic speed and volume, roadway alignment, and the distance between the edge of the traveled way and the barrier itself. The extent of barrier damage for any specific impact depends upon the strength of the railing system. Collision maintenance costs may become an overriding consideration in areas where traffic volumes are extremely high and collisions with the barrier are frequent. This is almost always the case along urban freeways, where railing repair creates hazardous conditions for both the repair crew and for motorists using the roadway. For this reason, a rigid traffic barrier such as the concrete safety shape is often the barrier of choice at such locations. A consideration in collision maintenance for post and rail systems is the ability of the rail element and possibly the posts to be re-used after a hit. Savings may be realized if the rail can be straightened. In some cases, of course, the rail will be damaged beyond repair in which case salvage value may be a consideration. and Storage Requirements Before selecting a barrier system, an effort should be made to determine the future availability of the materials needed for repairs and their storage requirements. The need for stocking spare parts increases as the number of required parts increases. ‘Thus, there are obvious advantages of using only a few barrier systems whose component parts are standardized, easy to stockpile, and readily available, 4d) Simplicity of Barrier Design The simpler the railing system is, the easier it is to repair properly. Thus, the degree of expertise or the level of working knowledge of the system by the repair crew should be considered when selecting a barricr. An operational system that is improperly installed or maintained is only partially effective at best. 233.1.7 Aesthetic and Environmental Considerations Aesthetic concerns are not usually a significant factor in the selection of a barrier except in environmentally sensitive locations such as recreational areas or parks. In these instances, a natural-looking barrier that blends with its surroundings is often selected. In such cases, it is important that the systems used be crashworthy as well as visually acceptable to the highway agency. Environmental factors may be important to consider in the selection process. Certain types of railings may deteriorate rapidly in highly-corrosive urban/industrial environments. In some cascs, solid barriers may restrict sight distances of motorists entering the highway from a side road or intersection, or may block a motorist’s view of a particularly scenic panorama. 3.1.8 Field Experience There is no substitute for documented proof of a barrier’s field performance. If a particular barrier system is working satisfactorily and does not require an extraordinary amount of maintenance, there is little reason to install a barrier for which these characteristics are not conclusively known. If site conditions warrant a non-standard installation, the highway agency which developed and/or used the new system should be contacted for specific information on the system and on its performance. Itis particularly important that impact performance and repair cost data be maintained by appropriate highway agency personnel and that the information be made available to design and construction engineers in charged with selecting and installing traffic barriers.3.2 SAFETY BARRIERS LOCATION AND LAYOUT 3.2.1 Roadside Safety Barrier Systems Elements The various elements that make up a typical longitudinal roadside barrier system are illustrated in Figure 3.2. Median barrier systems are virtually identical but the elements are designed to resist impacts from either side, The functions of the various barrier elements are: a) Terminal, or end Treatment © To safely accommodate end impacts and allow development of the structural capacity of the barrier. b) Length of Need (LON) © The total length of standard barrier and transition section needed to shield the area concern ° Standard Section © The length of standard design barrier d) Transition © The length of batricr between two different barrier types, or between a barrier and bridge rail or a rigid object such as bridge pier, which is designed to provide gradual change in stiffness that will prevent vehicle pocketing or snagging. 25LENGTH OF NEEO reba AML eNoMH OF NEED Down sREM emma Temmnaa OREN. Sen eee sam _TRANsTION, an _ Figure 3.2: Longitudinal Roadside Safety Barrier System Elements (Source: Transit New Zealand) 3.2.2 Layouts and Location ‘The factors that must be considered in the location and layout of safety barriers are as follow: a) Offset from Edge of Traffic Lane Drivers tend to react adversely to objects placed too close to the edge of a traffic lane by slowing unnecessarily or steering away. The distance ftom the adjacent traffic lane beyond which roadside features do not cause such a reaction is termed as the shy line offset, The shy line offsets shown in Table 3.5 below should be provided wherever possible. Design Or 85" Shy Line Offset —Ls(m) Percentile Speed (kwh) | Nearside (Left) | Offside (Right) =70 15 10 80 2.0 10) 90) 25 Ls = 100 3.0 20 + The absolute minimum shy line offset of a roadside barrier from edge of traffic lane is 1.0m ‘Table 3.5: Recommended Shy Line Offsets (Source: Transit New Zealand) 26b) Deflection Requirements The expected deflection of a barrier must not exceed the space available for it to freely deflect. Figure 3.3 illustrates: two situations where the barrier deflection distance is important and must be considered Barrier Deflection Requirement Deflection Requirements for Fl ible and Semi-rigid Barriers 600 mm (Minimurn) 2 Barrier Placement on Fill Embankment Figure 3.3: Two Situations where the Barrier Deflection Distance is Important (Source: Transit New Zealand) 27©) Any Terrain Effects Barriers perform best when impacted by vehicle with all of its wheels on the ground, and the suspension components are in their normal position. © Kerbs Kerbs should not be located in front of barriers as errant vehicle can vault over, or break through the barrier (unless the system is specifically designed and tested). © Side slopes Safe barriers perform most effectively when installed on slopes of < 1(V):10H). © Shoulder To help ensure vehicle stability the shoulder should be extended to the face of safety barrier. When a barrier is located < 600mm from the edge of a traffic lane the full width of shoulder surface should be sealed or paved. d) Flare Rate A flare rate is normally used to adjust the distance of a safety barrier from the edge of the carriageway. Flared barriers will minimise driver reaction to an obstacle close to the road, Table 3.6 shows the recommended flare rates at various design / operating speed. Design/Operating |_ Flare Rate any Inside Shy Line Tar Shy Line | <60 118 1:12 70 L241 1:14 80. 1:24 L16 12 90 1:26 1:18 14 2100 1:30 1:20 1:15 Table 3.6: Recommended Flare Rates (Source: Transit New Zealand) 28©) Length of Need Installation should be extended upstream from the warranted limits to prevent vehicle access behind the barrier system. It is not necessary to extend the installation downstream past the hazard on highways with one way traffic. For highways with two way undivided traffic, the installation should extend downstream, A method to establish the length-of-need of the installation is based on the run out distance Lx (refer Table 3.7). The length-of-need is calculated by: A w= (I~ F)x Ly where Ly= Length-of-need ‘A. = Distance of barrier from the edge of pavement B_ = Distance of object from edge of pavement Lx = Runout length Terminal lengths are added to the length-of-need as in Figure 3.4. RUNOUT, Le RUNOUT, La Figure 3.4: Determination of Installation Length 29RUN-OUT LENGTH, Ex ‘Speed RUN-OUT (koh) (m) 60. 50-60 80. 80-90 100 100-120 2110 120 Table 3.7: Recommended Run-out Length, Ly (Source: NAASRA) Short sections of barrier system should be avoided as they are ineffective and often introduce new hazards instead. An isolated length of barrier system on an embankment should not be less than 30 meters. For high speed facilities, a minimum of 75 meters is desirable. Short length of barrier system is only useful as a warning of the presence of obstruction or hazard but is inadequate as a physical protection, © Graphical Method for Determining the Length of Need The length of need can be found by scaling details directly from road layout plans as shown in Figure 3.5 below: La = Distance from edge of traffic lane to the back of hazard Lc = Clear Zone Width Figure 3.5: Length of Need for a Barrier Located on the outside of a Horizontal Curve (Source: Transit New Zealand)© Terminals (End Treatment An untreated end of a barrier is extremely hazardous if hit. A crashworthy end treatment is therefore considered essential if the barrier terminates within the clear zone and / or is in an area where it is likely to be hit head- on by an errant motorist. The end treatment should not spear, vault or roll a vehicle for head-on or angled impacts. 3.2.3 Median Safety Barriers a) General A median safety barrier should only be installed if the consequences of hitting the barrier are less severe than those that would result if no barrier existed. Note: The preferred side slope for a traversable median is 100kph and percentage of heavy vehicle composition is high and the expected performance test level of TL- 5 is required. The details of the recommended barriers F810 & F1070 are shown in Figure 4.5, 4.6 &AT.FIGURE 4.6 vewse "THRIE BEAM TOF SHAPE CONCRETE 2ARRIER TRANSTION DETAL (ROADS “THREE REAM TO FSIAPE CONCRETE BARWER TRANSITONDETAL (MEDIAN)FIGURE 47 SHAPE BARRIER RANOED TERMINAL TREATMENT SS ee SN ~ 2. S SN SN SA ° Iw SL SHAPE BARRIER RAMPED TERMINAL TREATMENT ISOMETRIC VW) SO me — SS a u SS ~ ‘ SQ WAM uy SS [a =] SS oom | fal lal ~ SARREROOWEL TOBEUSED ~~ LON CONCRETE SURFACE ce creanviow ge aACEMENT LAYOUT {TYPICAL SECTION OF METAL CLADDING SHAPE ohecece atta view Ak SARRERFORSTREETLEGHTNG POST sees5.0 W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 General W-Beam Guardrail is a semi-rigid barrier system which can be used in areas where small to moderate deflection is acceptable (maximum deflection of 1.2m). It can be classified into two (2) groups: a) b) Strong Beam / Weak Post The strong beam / weak post concept, is that the posts near the point of impact are purposely designed to break away so that the force of impact is distributed by beam action to a relatively larger number of posts. Attributes of this system are: (i) __ barrier performance is independent of impact point at or between posts and of soil properties, and (ii) vehicle snagging on a post is virtually eliminated. Strong Beam / Strong Post The strong beam / strong post concept is that the posts near the point of impact are purposely designed to only deflect moderately and the force of impact is distributed by beam action to a smaller number of post. This is to be considered when: () Minimal deflection is required. (ii) Transitioning to rigid objects such as bridge parapets. 47‘The W-Beam guardrail can be used on both the shoulders and the median. The details of both the off side and near side W-Beam guardrails are as shown in Figure 5.1. It has to be highlighted that the W-Beam guardrail is a relatively rigid object to be impacted and will cause relatively serious injury to errant motorist, particularly motoreyclists. Care should be exercised to install them only in places where their absence will likely cause a more serious injury. It is of utmost importance that the design guidelines outlined in this chapter be incorporated in the standard drawings for guardrails. A sample of standard drawings for W-Beam guardrail is as attached in Appendix 5A. 5.1.2 Safety Performance of W-beam guardrail Longitudinal roadside barriers are used to shield motorists from natural or human made obstacles located along either side of the traveled way, and sometimes to protect pedestrians and bicyclists W-beam guardrail must contain and redirect vehicles. Because of the complicated dynamic behavior involved, the most effective way to ensure performance of the W- beam guardrail is through full scale crash testing. As crash testing facilities and standards are not available in Malaysia, the standard crash tests presented in NCHRP Report 350, “Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features” are adopted for this guideline. To match barrier performance to service needs, a series of six (6) test levels are recommended to evaluate occupant risk, structural integrity and post impact vehicle behavior. Various vehicle masses, velocities and impact angles are included. ‘The W-beam guardrail with block out units and with 2.0m post spacing fulfils the requirements of Test Level 3 (TL 3) 485.2 BLOCKED-OUT STEEL W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 5.2.1 Description and Behavior under Impact ‘The blocked-out steel W-beam guardrail recommended to be used in Malaysia (Figure 5.1) consists of a steel beam of W-shape cross-section attached to spacers supported on posts. Generally, spacers and posts are constructed of steel. Concrete posts and timber posts are not favored because of poor impact performance, Figure 5.1: Blocked-Out Steel W-beam guardrail ‘ON EDEN ‘ON SHOULDER 7 70 If 10 | HT JEL oA fa_§ [as Mais. as ass LoCKED-oUT Ww BLocKED-OUT “W ‘LOCKED-OUT “Ww BEAM (STEAL POST) Beau (STEEL POST) BEAM (STEEL POST) __2.0m SPACING. ‘40m SPACING MAXINUM DEFLECTION oem 00 120 POST SPACING 2.0m 2.0en 4.0m leoer| © secnow © SECTION © SECTION 150 x 76 x 6 mm | 150 x 76 x 6 mm| 180 x 76 x 6 mm| BEAM ouRLe WAM sncLe woe SNGLE WEAN OFF SET BRACKETS TWO c SECTIONS | SINGLE C SECTION | SINGLE c SECTION 150 x 76 x 6 mm [180 x 76 x 6 mm [150 x 76 x 6 mm MOUNTINGS 16 mm DIA STEEL | 16 mm DIA STEEL | 16 mm OIA STEEL Bours 80LTS. BOLTS NONE, NONE NONE FOOTING (EXCEPT AT POINTS | (EXCEPT AT POINTS | (EXCEPT AT POINTS: OF TRANSITION) — | OF TRANSITION) OF TRANSITION) 49‘The W-Beam Guardrail is classed as being ‘semi-rigid’ because it deflects substantially but not excessively under the U.S. standard structural adequacy crash test; i.e. undergoes a dynamic deflection of 0.8 - 0.9m (and a maximum deflection of 1.2m for post spacing of 2.0m) and a permanent deflection of 0.5 — 0.6 m when hit at an angle of 25 degrees by a 2 tones vehicle traveling at up to 100 km/h. It follows that this type of guard fence can require extensive repair after a severe impact, and this, may have safety, cost and road capacity implications. Under substantial impact the guardrail has been designed to behave as follows: (a) The W-beam first bends and then flattens out forming a wide tension band to contain the impacting vehicle. (b) The posts are initially restrained by passive pressure in the soil, resulting in local failure of the soil at the ground line and for a short distance below. (©) The steel posts partially rotate, with their point of rotation some distance below the ground and also bend near the ground line. Figure 5.2: W-beam Guardrall Post Displacement W-Beam Source: Safety Barriers, Considerations for the Provision of Safety Barriers on Rural Roads, National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, 1987 50(@ __ Deflection of the posts and spacers causes the line of action of the restraining force, acting on the side of the vehicle, initially to rise, before ultimately dropping (Figure 5.2), thus minimizing the risk of vehicle vaulting or roll over; the spacers also lessen the risk of vehicle wheels snagging on the post. (©) The post eventually yield and the rail tears away from the bolt heads and restrains the vehicle by tension. Note: A 1984 U.S, report (FHWA 1984) suggest that the large rectangular washers, previously included, may be omitted from under the heads of bolts holding the W-beam to the spacers. This allows the W-beam to pull free of the spacers to facilitate the action indicated in (e) above. (© Additionally, if steel spacers and posts are used, the tendency of the W-Beam to hinge or tear on the spacers can be minimised by ensuring there are two thicknesses of W-Beam at every spacer, e.g. by inserting a steel back-up of W-Beam section at every spacer at which the W-beam is not spliced Figure 5.3), Figure 5.3: W-Beam Guardrail Assembly — General Arrangement Backup Plate qiesece Splice- NOTE: Backup plates required where Beam not spliced, if spacers are steel Source: Safety Barriers, Considerations for the Provision of Safety Barriers on Rural Roads, National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, 1987 51