Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Effective Lateral Placement of Cable Barriers in Flat-Bottom, Sloped Medians Dr. Dhafer Marzougui.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
High Tension Cable Median Barrier March 17, 2011.
Advertisements

Presented by: Mike Sisson February 23, It is the Law The Americans with Disabilities Act of It is the Right Thing to do Provide Equal Access.
Zachary Tess D7 Project Manager. US 14 – New Ulm to North Mankato ADT & Serious Crashes 2009 AADT (HCAADT: 12.6%); K+A Crashes.
Revisions to Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates.
Intersection Sight Distance Case C1 Ryan Miller CE /19/10.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT Spring 2015.
Road Design Basic Road Design
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM)
M.A.S.H.: The New Safety Hardware Crash Testing Criteria
Research and Development 5 Mar 01, page 1 Dr. W. Riley Garrott National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Research and Test Center April 12,
Tutorial 3: Slope stability and soil nailing walls
Western Oregon University Oregon Department of Transportation Transportation Safety Division Driver Risk Prevention Curriculum Introduction to Backing.
Oklahoma’s Experience with Wire Rope Safety Fence.
AAA Kentucky Driver Training. Introduction decisions/mile 1 per sec) Decisions relate to adjusting time, space, and visibility within.
October 13, 2006 Kyushu Institute of Technology Kyushu Institute of Technology Prof. Keiichi Kimura Keiichi Kimura, Katsuya Nagayama, Yosuke Inatsu, Panart.
Florida Department of Transportation, November 2009
The National Crash Analysis Center The George Washington University Un-Constrained Models Comparison For Elastic Roof – Production Roof – Strong Pillars.
Median Barriers & Rumble Strips in North Carolina Missouri Traffic & Safety Conference May 16, 2006 Brian Murphy, PE North Carolina DOT - Traffic Engineering.
Gauging Devices.
Office of Highway Safety Tire Testing and Simulations Lawrence E. Jackson, P.E.
Hydraulics Engineering
Accident simulation and analysis using Vehicle Infrastructure Interaction Simulation Stephan Kunz Young Researchers Seminar 2009 Torino, Italy, 3 to 5.
Sight Distances CE 453 Lecture 8.
Spring INTRODUCTION There exists a lot of methods used for identifying high risk locations or sites that experience more crashes than one would.
Hurricane Frances (2004) Hurricane Rita (2005) Hurricane Ike (2008) Supported by National Science Foundation grants , , , ,
Introduction Transportation System Objectives : Military; Knit together the inhabitants of a territory by providing mutual access and communication; Economic.
Chapter 2 Kinematics in One Dimension. Mechanics: Study of motion in relation to force and energy, ie, the effects of force and energy on the motion of.
Force on Floating bodies:
 Cross section elements consist of the following:  1.Traffic lanes (carriage ways);  2.Shoulders;  3.Medians;  4.Curbs;  5.Side slopes.
CAD Standards Presented by Gary Holeman PE Senior Design and Automation Engineer Roadway Engineering unit
Dynamics. Chapter 1 Introduction to Dynamics What is Dynamics? Dynamics is the study of systems in which the motion of the object is changing (accelerating)
Driving Simulator Performance Variables: An Overview Ronald R. Mourant – Northeastern University –
Sponsored by ANB45 Occupant Protection Committee ANB45 (1) Rollover Crashworthiness Subcommittee Co-Chairs: Raphael Grzebieta & Ken Digges Other sponsors:
Oregon State University Solar Vehicle Team
FOOTINGS. FOOTINGS Introduction Footings are structural elements that transmit column or wall loads to the underlying soil below the structure. Footings.
Rural Intersection Collision Avoidance System (RICAS) US Highway 53 and State Highway 73 Minong, Wisconsin Additional information Project Website:
A Focus Technology of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Technology Implementation Group (TIG) CABLE MEDIAN.
Office of Highway Safety Commercial Vehicle Tires and Testing Jennifer Russert.
Human Supervisory Control May 13, 2004 Measuring Human Performance: Maintaining Constant Relative Position to a Lead Vehicle in a Simulation Paul.
ROUNDABOUTS Improving Safety and Efficiency The Ohio Department of Transportation District Clark Ave. Ashland, OH Julie Cichello, P.E. District.
Timothy E. Barnett, P.E., PTOE State Safety Operations Engineer Alabama Department of Transportation.
FUNDAMENTALS OF HAIR CUTTING
© 2014 Bentley Systems, Incorporated Templates 202 Presented by: Chuck Lawson, PE Bentley Systems, Inc.
ANCHORAGE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS George Mouchahoir Office of Performance Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration May, 2002.
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
1 COMPARISON OF MPD VALUES FROM HIGH- SPEED LASER MEASUREMENTS WITH MPD FROM TWO STATIONARY DEVICES Rohan Perera, PhD, PE Soil and Materials Engineers,
Cable Median Barrier with Inside Shoulder Rumble Strips on Divided Roads Raghavan Srinivasan, Bo Lan, & Daniel Carter, UNC Highway Safety Research Center.
Results of the Study on ACSF Transition Time Informal Document: ACSF National Traffic Safety and Environment Laboratory, Japan 4th Meeting of ACSF.
Jiangbi Hu, Transportation Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering,Beijing University of Technology, China A QUANTITATIVE MODEL OF ROAD-SURFACE.
Lay-On Gable Frame Connection Overview. Introduction A lay-on gable frame is typically connected from the top during truss placement, but after sheathing.
Rollover Avoidance System
Gauging Devices.
Surface Area of Pyramids
Fits and Tolerances: Linear and Geometry.
Vehicle Dynamics.
Orientation to Controls Moving Stopping & Steering Smoothly
Airfoil Any surface that provides aerodynamic force through interaction with moving air Aerodynamic force (lift) Moving air Airfoil.
Physics Support Materials Higher Mechanics and Properties of Matter
Pure Bending.
Prepared BY: Helwan University Faculty Of Engineering
FDOT Research concerning the detection, mitigation, and prevention of wrong way crashes Darryll Dockstader Florida Department of Transportation.
ROUNDABOUTS Improving Safety and Efficiency
Structure I Course Code: ARCH 208 Dr. Aeid A. Abdulrazeg
Bumper Trajectories During High-Speed Impacts with 6-in. Curbs
Industry Homework from AEB 02
Vehicle Characteristics and Car Following
Chapter 1 Introduction.
 More Fluids  November 30,  More Fluids  November 30, 2010.
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Contributing Factors for Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Raghavan Srinivasan University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (UNC HSRC)
Presentation transcript:

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Effective Lateral Placement of Cable Barriers in Flat-Bottom, Sloped Medians Dr. Dhafer Marzougui NCAC, George Washington University Ashburn, VA under contract to Offce of Safety R&D Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center Federal Highway Administration McLean, VA

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Introduction: Cross median crashes have grown to be a serious problem Cable median barriers offer an option to mitigate the problem Many DOTs are installing cable barriers because of: olow costs oease of installation oadaptability for sloped conditions Research has shown that effectiveness is related to: obarrier design (number & height of cables, tensioning) oconfiguration of the median (shape, width, slopes, depth) olateral position Objective - evaluate vehicle-to-barrier interface for placement in flat-bottomed medians with varying widths and side slopes

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Vehicle Dynamics Analysis: Point 2. Point 1.

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Research Factors & Assumptions: Vehicle Models: -2000P - 820C - Mid-size Sedan Shoulder Median Median Barrier Near Side Impact Far Side Impact Initial Speeds: 50, 70, 100 km/hr Approach Angles: 5 to 25 deg 5 o 25 o

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Simulation Assumptions: Median has firm surface. Ploughing into the surface by tires is negligible Non-tracking vehicle paths were not considered Initial velocity was assigned to vehicle as it left the shoulder. Some deceleration occurred crossing the median. No driver reactions (e.g., steering, braking) Vehicle full-engagement with a minimum of one cable is needed to capture vehicle

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Validation: Comparisons of Simulation to Crash Test Results

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Effective Interface Conditions: To avoid over-ride, the top cable should contact the vehicle above Point 1 (lower critical point) To avoid under-ride, lower cable should contact the vehicle below Point 2 (upper critical point) These conditions should be met for all approach angles, speeds, and different vehicles Point 2 Point 1

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Point 1 Trajectories – All Cases & Maximums:

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Point 2 Trajectories – All Cases & Minimums:

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Maximum and Minimum Heights Override Limit Underride Limit

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Effective Lateral Placement: (10:1 slopes – 36’ width not including shoulders – generic 3 cable)

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Effective Lateral Placement: (10:1 slopes – 36’ width including shoulders – generic 3 cable)

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Evaluating Flat Bottom Median Profiles: Median Widths ft Slopes 8:1, 6:1, 4:1 Shldr 10 ft Widths 25, 40, 60, and 100 ft Slopes 4:1, and 6:1 Shldr 2ft4ft6ft Analyzed varied flat-bottomed median profiles: - Median width (25, 40, 60, & 100 ft) - Median depth (2, 4, & 6 ft) - Median slopes (4:1 and 6:1) Vehicle dynamics simulations were conducted for each combination of these factors.

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Cable Barrier Systems Considered: Brifen System Cable heights o480 mm (18.9 in) o630 mm (24.8 in) o780 mm (30.7 in) o930 mm (36.6 in) Gibraltar System Cable heights 508 mm (20 in) 635 mm (25 in) 762 mm (30 in) 990 mm (39 in)

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-694 Medians

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-694 Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-694 Section A Median Profile Median Widths ft Slopes 8:1, 6:1, 4:1 10 ft 51 ft Slope 6:1 3ft 15 ft 51 ft Slope 6:1 4ft 3 ft Two profiles were analyzed to account for depth variation

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-694 Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-694 Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-694 Section B Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I694 Section B Median Profile 51 ft Slope 10:1 2.5ft 1 ft

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I694 Section B Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Profiles

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section A Median Profile Median Widths ft Slopes 8:1, 6:1, 4:1 10 ft 33 ft Slope 4:1 2.5 ft 13 ft 33 ft Slope 4:1 3.5 ft 5 ft Two profiles were analyzed to account for depth variation

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section B Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I35W Section B Median Profile Median Widths ft Slopes 8:1, 6:1, 4:1 10 ft 49 ft Slope 4:1 2.5 ft 29 ft 49 ft Slope 4:1 3.5 ft 21 ft

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section B Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section B Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section C Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section C Median Profile Median Widths ft Slopes 8:1, 6:1, 4:1 10 ft 29 ft Slope 4:1 2.5 ft 9 ft 29 ft Slope 4:1 3.5 ft 1 ft

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section C Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation I-35W Section C Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH-13 Profiles

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section A Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section A Median Profile Three profiles were analyzed to account for width variations

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section A Median Profile – 28’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section A Median Profile – 35’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section A Median Profile – 42’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section B Median Profile No analyses performed (3:1 sloped section)

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section C Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section C Median Profile Two profiles were analyzed to account for width variations

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section C Median Profile – 18’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section C Median Profile – 25’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section D Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section D Median Profile One profiles was analyzed

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 13 Section D Median Profile – 20’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH-55 Profiles

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section E Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section E Median Profile Three profiles were analyzed to account for width variations

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section E Median Profile – 23’

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section E Median Profile – 28’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section E Median Profile – 31’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section F Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section F Median Profile Two profiles were analyzed to account for width variations

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section F Median Profile – 23’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section F Median Profile – 31’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile Six profiles were analyzed to account for width variations

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile – 24’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile – 30’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile – 40’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile – 50’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile – 60’ width

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation TH 55 Section G Median Profile – 100’ width