Scribd
Upload
46 views30 pages

Chapter 13 Railing

Uploaded by

กิตติพงศ์ ศรีอาจ
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
46 views30 pages

Chapter 13 Railing

Uploaded by

กิตติพงศ์ ศรีอาจ
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
SECTION 13 (SI): RAILINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS 13.1 SCOPE, 132 DEFINITIONS. 133 NOTATION 1344 GENERAL, 135 MATERIALS, 136 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS, 13.6.1 Strength Limit State 13,62 Extreme Event Limit State 13.7 TRAFFIC RAILING 13.7.1 Railing System [Link] General 137.12 Approach Railings 137.13 End Treament.. 13.72 Test Level Selection Criteria, 13.73 Railing Design. 1373.1 General [Link] Application of Previously Tested Stems 13.73.12 New Systems 13.732 Height of Traffic Parapet or Railing 13.8 PEDESTRIAN RAILING, 138.1 Geomeny. 13.82 Design Live Loads 13.9 BICYCLE RAILINGS, 139.1 General 13.92 Geometry 1393 Design Live Leeds. 13.10 COMBINATION RAILINGS 13.10. General 13.102 Geometry. 15.10. Design Live Loads 13.11 CURBS AND SIDEWALKS. IBALI General. IB.LL2 Sidewalks. 13.113 End Treatment of Separation ing REFERENCES APPENDIX A13 RAILINGS ‘A13,1 GEOMETRY AND ANCHORAGES. AIB.L.L Separation of Reil Elements. AI3.1.2 Anchorages, A132 TRAFFIC RAILING DESIGN FORCES... ‘A133 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR RAILING TEST SPECIMENS AI33.1 Concrete Railings ‘A1332 Post-and-Beam Railings A13.3.3 Concrete Perapet and Metal Rail 1334 Wood Barriers A134 DECK OVERHANG DESIGN. AI3A.1 Design Cases. ‘A134.2 Decks Supporting Concrete Parapet Railings. A343 Desks Supporting Pst and Beam Relig. ‘A13.43.1 Overhang Design A13.43.2 Resistance to Punching Shear. 134 > SecTION 13 (S1) RAILINGS 13.1 SCOPE ‘This Section applies to railings for new bridges and for rchabiliteted bridges to the extent that miling replacoment is determined to be appropriate ‘This Section provides six bridge railing test levels and their associated crash test requirements. Guidance for ‘determining the level to meet the warrants for the more common types of bridge sites and guidance for structural and geometric design of railings are provided. ‘A process for the design of erash test specimens to dojermine their crashworthiness is described in Appendix A. This methodology is based on an application, ofthe yield line theory. For use beyond the design of test specimens with expected failure modes similar to those shown in Figures CAI3.3.1-1 and CA13.3.1-2, rigorous ‘yald line solution or a finite element solution should be ‘developed. Tho procedures of Appendix A are not applicable to traffic railings mounted on rigid structures, such as retaining walls or spread footings, when the cracking pattem is expected to extend to the supporting ‘components. 132 DEFINITIONS Agency. cB All bridge traffic barrier systems will be referred 108 railings herein, ‘The bridge railing performance need not be identical cover the whole highway network, New railing designs should match site needs leading to a multiple test level concept, as desribed in NCHRP Report 350, Previously crash tested railing should retain its test level approval and should not have to be tested to meet NCHRP Report 350 updating, With the finite resources available to bridge owners it {snot reasonable to expect all existing rails to be updated any more than to expect every existing building to be ‘immediately updated with the passing of a new building code, Many existing bridge rails have proven functional ‘and need only be replaced when removed for bridge widenings, ‘A responsible business or service authorized to act on behalf of others, i.e, a governmental department, consulting engineering firm, or owner of the feility or feature, Barrier Curb—A platform or block used to separates raised pedestrian and/or bicycle sidewalk above the roadway level; see Figure 197.11. Bieycle Railing—A railing o fencing system, as illustrated in Figure 13.93-1, that provides a physical guide for bicyclists crossing bridges to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist falling over tho system. Bridge Approach Railing—A roadside guardrail system preceding the structure and attached to the bridge rail system that is intended to prevent a vehicle from impacting the end ofthe bridge railing or parapet. ‘Combination Railing—A bicycle or pedestrian railing system, as illustrated in Figures 13.8,2-1 and 13.9.3-1, added toa crashworthy bridge vehicular railing or burier system. Concrete Barrier—A railing system of reinforced concrete having a traffic face that usually but not always adopts some form of a safety shape Concrete Parapet—A railing system of reinforced concrete, usually considered an adequately reinforced conerete wall, (Crash Testing of Bridge Railings-~Conducting a series of fll sale impact tests of abridge railing in accordance with the recommended guidelines in NCHRP Report 350 in order to evaluate the railing’s strength and safety performance Cras hwortiy—A system that has been successfully crash-tested to a currently acceptable crash test matrix and test level or ‘one that can be geometrically and structurally evaluated as equal tos crash-tested system, Design Force—An equivalent static force that represents the dynamic force imparted to a railing system by a specified vehicle impacting a railing at a designated speed and angle, Bt Ba. AASHTO LRFD Bunce Drsiow SrecivicaTions (SI) ‘Encroachment An intcusion into prescribed, restrictive, or limited areas of a highway system, such as crossing a traffic lane or impacting a barrier system. Also, the occupancy of highway right-of-way by nonhighway structures or objets of any kind or character. nd Zone—The area adjacent to any open joint in a concrete railing system that requires added reinforcement. Expressway —A controlled access arterial highway that may or may not be divided or have grade separations at intersections Face ofthe Curb—The vertical or sloping surface on the roadway side of the cur, Freeway—A controlled access divided arterial highway with erade separations at intersections, Longitudinal Loads—Horizontal design forces thet re ayplied parallel othe railing or barrier system and tha result from, fiction on the transverse loads, ‘Multiple Use Railing—Railing that may be used either with or without a raised sidewalk ‘Owner—An authority or governmental department representing investors end/r taxpayers that is responsible for all the safety design features and functions ofa bridge. Pedestrian Railing—A railing or fencing system, as illustrated in Figure 13.8.2-1, providing a physical guidance for pedestrians across a bridge so as to minimize the likelihood of a pedestrian falling over the system. Post—A vertical or sloping support member ofa rail system that anchors a railing element to the deck Rail Element—Any component that makes up a railing system. It usually pertains to a longitudinal member ofthe railing. Severity—A characterization ofthe degree ofan event. Itis usually associted with characterizing accidents as fatal, injury, fr property damage only So that a doliar value can be assessed for economic study. It may also pertain to indexing the intensity of an accident so that a railing system can be assessed asa preventive or safety measure, ‘Speeds—Low/High—Vehicle veloctics in ka/h. Low speeds are usually associated with city or rural wavel where speeds are well posted and are under 70 km/h. High speeds are usually associated with expressways or freeways where posted speeds are 70 kan/h or more. ‘Traffic Railing Synonymous with vehicular railing; used asa bridge or structure-mounted railing, rather than a guardrail or median barrier as in other publications. Transverse Loads—Horizental design forces that are applied perpendiculae to a railing or barrier system. Vehicle Rollover—A term used to describe an accident in which a vehicle rotates atleast 90° about its Tongitudinal axis afler contacting 2 railing. This term is used if the vehicle rolls over as a result of contacting a barrier and not another vehicle, Warrants—A document that provides guidance to the Designer in evaluating the potential safety and operational benefits of traffic control devices or feetures. Warrants are not absolute roquirements; rather, they are a means of conveying concer over @ potential traffic hazard 133 NOTATION 4 area of post compression flange (mnm") (A13.4.3.2) ‘out-to-out wheel spacing on an axle (mm); distance between centroids of tensile and compressive stress resultans in post (mm) (A13.2) (A13.4.3.2) = _ength of deck resisting post strength or shear load = h+ W7,(A13.43.2) vertical post capacity ot compression flange resistance of post in bending (N-mm) (CA13.4.3.2) depth of base plete (mm) (A13.4:3.2) distance from edge of slab to centroid of compressive stess resultant in post (mm) (A13.43.2) mbpat SecTIon 13 (81): Rams 3 longitudinal friction force along ril = 033 F,(N) (A132) ‘transverse vehicle impact force distributed over a length at a height , above bridge deck (N)(A13.2) vertical foree of vehicle laying on top of rail (N) (A13.2) ‘28day compressive strength of concrete (MPa) (AI3.4.3.2) height of vehicle center of arevity above bridge deck (mm) (A13.2) ‘eight of wall rm) (A13.3.1) height of rail a) (13.4) hight of wall ram) (13.4) depth of slab mm) (A13.43.2) post spacing of single spun (mum) (A13.3.2) ‘tical length of wall failure (mm) (A13.3.1) longitudinal length of distribution of friction foree Fi, Lr = L, (mam) (AL3.2) longitudinal length of distribution of impact fore F along the railing located height ofthe above the deck (nm) (A13.2) longitudinal distribution of vertical force F, ontop of railing (mm) (A13.2) length of vehicle impact load on railing or barir taken aL, 2, or Zy, a8 appropriate (mm) (A13.3.1) ultimate moment capacity of beam at top of wall (N-mm) (A13:3.1) ultimate flexural resistance of wall ebout horizontal axis (N-mnvimm) (A13.3.1) deck overbang moment (N-mn/mm) (A13.4.3.1) plastic or yield line resistance of rail (N-mm) (AI3.3.2) flexural resistance of railing post (N) (A3.43.1) ultimate Slexural resistance of wall about vertical axis (N-mm) (A13.3.1) 2 ‘mate load resistance ofa single post (N) (A13.3.2) R= tolalulimate resistance, ie, nominal resistance, ofthe railing (N) (A13.3.2) Re = ultimate capacity of rail over one span (N) (A1333) R= ultimate transverse resistance of ral over two spans (N) (13.3.3) Re total transverse resistance ofthe ailing (N); ultimate capacity of wall as specified in Anite AI3.3.1 (N) (4133.1) (41333) RL = _cepacity of wall, reduced to resist post load (N) (A13.3.3) z sam of horizontal components of el strengths (N) (A132) T= eile free por unit of dock length Qn) (A124. ye nominal shear resistance provided by tensile stresses in the concrete (N) (A13.4.3.2) hy = nominal shear resistance of the section considered (N) (A13.4.3.2) ¥, factored shea resistance (N)(AT3.43.2) V, = etored shear force at section (N) (A13.43.2) w weight of vehicle comesponding to the required test level, from Table 13.7.2-4 (N) (13.72) % wid of base plat o dstsbutin block (mm) (A13.43.1) x length of overhang from fae of support to exterior girder or we (ram) (A13.43.1) Y = hight of R above bridge deck (mm) (A13.2) Be ratio ofthe long sie to the short side ofthe concentrated lond or reaction area (A13.4.3.2) 6 = resistance fctor = 1.0 (A13.43.2) 134 GENERAL cua ‘The Owner shall develop the warrants forthe bridge site, A bridge railing should be chosen to satisfy the concerns of the warrants as completely a¢ possible and practical Railings shall be provided slong the edges of Additional idence applicable to bridge-tength structures for protection of traffic and pedestrians. Other culverts may be found in the AASHTO Roadbide Design applications may be warranted on bridge-length eulvers. Guide, 4 A pedestrian walkway may be separated from an adjacent roadway by a barrier curb, traffic railing, or combination railing, as indicated in Figure 1. On high speed urban expressways where a pedestrian walkway is provided, the walkway area shall be separated from the adjacent roadway by a trafic railing or combination railing. = Low Speed Application Combination TrafFie-Pedestr ian ot ea Pedestrian Railing High Speed Application ‘igure 13.41 Pedestrian Walkway. ‘New bridge railings and the attachment to the deck ovechang shall satisfy crash testing requirements to confirm that they meet the structural and geometric requirements ofa speciied railing test level using the test criteria specified in Article 13.7.2 AASHTO LRED Brupcs: Deston Sercrications (SD) The following guidelines indicate the application of various types of ris: ‘© Traffic railing is used when a bridge is forthe exclusive use of highway tratic; © A combination barrier in conjunction with a raised curb and sidewalk is used only on low- speed highways, © On high-spesd highways, the pedestrian or bicycle path should have both an outboard pedestrian or bicycle sailing and an inboard combination railing; and ‘© Separate pedestrian bridges should be considered where the amount of pedestrian traffic or other risk factors s0 indicat. For the purpose of this Article, low speed may be taken as speeds not exceeding 70 kmvh. High speed may be taken as speeds in excess of 70 ken, ‘The walkway faces of combination railings separating ‘walkways from adjacent roadways serve as pedestrian oF bicycle railings. When the height of such railings above the walkway surface is less than the minimum height required for pedestrian or bicycle railings, as appropriate, the Designer may consider providing additional ‘components, such as metal rails, on top ofthe combination railing. The aditional components need to be designed for ‘the appropriate podestrian or bicycle railing design forces ‘Waring device for pedestrians are beyond the scope of these Specifications, but they should be considered, Procedures for testing railing are given in NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features SECTION 13S): RatLnes 13.5 MATERIALS. The requirements of Sections 5, 6,7, and 8 shell apply to the materials employed in a sailing system, unless ‘otherwise modified herein 13.6 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE, FACTORS 13.6.1 Strength Limit State ‘The strength limit states shall apply using the applicable load combinations in Table 3.4.1-1 and the Toads specified herein. The resistance factors for post and railing components shall be as specified in Articles 5.5.4, 654,754, and 8.5.2. Design loads for pedestrian railings shall be as specified in Article 13.8.2. Design loads for bicycle railings shal bo as specified in Article 13.9.3. Pedestrian ‘or bicycle loadings shall be applied to combination railings ‘as specified in Article 13.10,3, Deck overhangs shall be designed for applicable strength load combinations specified in Table 3.4.1-1. 13.62 Extreme Event Limit State ‘The forees to be transmitted from the bridge railing to the bridge deck may be determined from an ultimate strength analysis of the railing system using the loads given in Appendix A. Those forces shall be considered to Ihe the factored leads at the extreme event init tae 137 TRAFFIC RAILING 13.74 Raling System 13.7441 General The primary purpose of traffic railings shall be to contain and redirect vehicles using the structure. All new vehicle traffic barrier systems, traffic railings, and ‘combination railings shall be shown to be structurally and ‘geometrically erashworthy. Consideration should be given to: ‘© Protection of the occupants of a vehicle in collision with the railing, ‘Protection of other vehicles near the collision, + Protection of persons and property on roadways and other areas underneath the structure, Possible future rail upgrading, + Railing costeffectiveness, and cs Factors to be considered in choosing the material for ruse in any railing system include ultimate strength, durability, ductility, maintenance, ease of replacement, and long-term behavior. 1444 Variations in traffic volume, speed, vehicle mix, roadway alignment, activities and conditions benesth @ structure, and other factors combine to produce a vast ‘variation in traffic railing performance requirements, 136 ‘+ Appearance and freedom of view from passing vehicles, A-combination railing, conforming to the dimensions siven in Figures 13.8.2-1 and 13.9.3-1, and crash tested With a sidewalk may be considered acceptable for use with sidewalks having widths 1000 mm or greater and curb heights up to the height used inthe crash test nstallation. ‘A railing designed for multiple use shall be shown to be crashworthy with or without the sidewalk, Use of the combination vehicle-pedestrian rail shown in Figure 1 shall be restricted to roads designated for 70 km/h or less and need be tested to Test Level 1 or 2 Face of Rating Ack Typtea Rupe stdewath, 13.7.12 Approach Railings ‘An approach guardrail system should be provided at the beginning of all bridge sailings in high-speed rural A bridge approach railing system should include transition from the guardrail system to the rigid bridge railing system that is capable of providing lateral resistance to an errant vehicle, The approach guardrail system shall have a crashworthy end terminal tits nosing, AASHTO LRED Baipce Design Sr¥cintcaT1ONs (51) Because of more recent tests on sidewalks, 200-mm ‘maximum height for sidewalk curbs hes generally been accepted. ‘AASHTO's 4 Policy om Geometric Design of Highways and Streets recommends that a barter eurb be used only for speeds of 70 kamh or less. For speeds of 80 kaw, or greater, pedestrians should be protected by & separation traffie barrier. ‘A rsiling intended for use only on a sidewalk need not bbe tested without the sidewalk, 13742 In urban areas or where city streets and/or sidewalks prevent installation of approach guardrail transitions or crashworthy terminals, consideration should be given to © Extending the bridge rail or guard rail in a manner that prevents encroachment ofa vehicle onto any highway system below the bridge, # Providing a barter curb, ‘+ Restricting speed, Adding signing of intersections, and + Providing recovery areas AA biidge end drainage facility should be an intogral part of the barrier transition design. ‘SHCTION 13 (SD: RastaNos [Link] End Treatment In high-speed rural areas, the approsch end of a parepet of raling shall have a crashwerthy configuration obo shielded by crashworthy watic barr. 13.7.2 Test Level Selection Criteria (One ofthe following test levels should be specified: © TL1—Test Level One—taken to be generally acceptable for work zones with low posted speeds and very low volume, low speed local streets; © TL-2—Test Level Two—taken to be generally acceptable for work zones and most local and collector roads with favorable site conditions as ‘well as where a small mumber of heavy vehicles is expected and posted speeds are reduced; © TL-3—Test Level Threo—taken to be generally acceptable fora wide range of high-speed areca ways with very low mixtures of heavy ‘vehicles and with favorable site conditions; ‘+ TL-4—Test Level Four—taken to be generally acceptable for the majority of applications om igh speed highways, freeways, expressways, and Imerstat highways with » mixture of trucks and heavy vehicles; © TL-S—Test Level Five—taken to be generally acceptable for the same applications as TL~4 and ‘here large trucks make up a significant portion of the average daily traffic or when unfavorable site conditions justify a higher level of rail resistance; and © TL6—Test Level Six—taken to be generally acceptable for applications where tanker-type ‘rucks or similar high center of gravity vehicles are anticipated, particularly along with unfavorable site conditions It shall be the responsibility of the user agency to determine which of the test levels is most appropriate for the bridge site, ‘The testing criteria for the chosen test level shell correspond to vehicle weights and speeds and angles of ‘impact outlined in Table 1 Ba 13.97.13 1 the approach railing is connected to aside of road railing system, it ean be continuous with the bridge approech system, and only transition froma flexible toa rigid railing system is required, 1372 ‘The six test levels mentioned herein are intended to comespond with the six test levels contained in NCHRP Report 350, “Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.” AASHTO's 2001 4 Polley on Geometric Design of Highways and Street and its 2002 Roadside Design Guide are referred to as aides in the bridge railing selection process. ‘The individual tests are designed to evaluate one or ‘more of the principal performance factors of the bridge railing, which include siructural adequacy, occupant risk, and postimpact behavior of the test vehicle. In goneral, the lower test levels are applicable for evaluating and. selecting bridge railings to be used on segments of lower service level roadways and certain types of work zones. ‘The higher test levels are applicable for evaluating and selecting bridge railings to be used on higher service level roadways or at locations that demand a special, high-performance bridge rsiling. In this regard, TL-4 railings are expected to satisfy the majority of interstate design requirements, ‘TLS provides for a van-type tractor-trailer that will satisly design requirements where TL-4 railings. are deemed to be inadequate due to the high number ofthis type of vehicle anticipated, or due to unfavorable site conditions where rollover or penetration boyond tho railing could result in severe consequences. ‘TL-6 provides fora tanker-type truck that will satisfy design requirements where ths type vehicle with a higher center of gravity has shown a history of rollover or penetration, or unfavorable site conditions may indicate the need for this level of ral resistance. Unfavorable site conditions include but are not limited to reduced radius of curvature, steep downgrades on curvature, variable cross slopes, and adverse weather conditions, Agencies should develop objective guidlines for use of bridge railings. These guidelines should take into account factors such as traffic conditions, traffic volume and mix, cost and in-service performance, and life-cycle cost of existing railings ‘These criteria, including other vehicle characteristics and tolerances, ate described in detail in the NCHRP. Report 350. 138 ‘Table 13.7.2-4 Belge Railing Test Levels and Crash Test Criteria, Vehicle | Small | Pickup _| Singlo-Unit Van-Type Characteristics | _Automobiles_| Truck _| Van Truck Tractor-Trailer [roo "7000 [| 8000| 20.000 | 80.000 | 220000 |” 385 000 355 000 B (mmm ¥700_| 1700 | 2000 |_2300 2480 2450 2450 G coum) 350_| 550 700_| 1250 1630 1850 2050 Crash angle, @_|_20°[_20" 25" 15° 1 1 15° Test Level "Test Speeds Gam/i) Tl 0 9 30_[ WA NA NA NA TE 70_| 70 70_|_NA WA NA NA Too [100 [Too | "WA NA NA NIA 100_| 100 100 80 WA NAL NA 100_| 90 |~100[ WA NA 80, NA 100_—[ 190 [100A WA WA 80 13.73 Railing Design 13.731 General 13734 A. traffic railing should normally provide a smooth continuous face of rail onthe traffic side. Stecl pasts with nail elements should be set back from the face of rail Structural contimaty inthe rail members and anchorages of tends should be considered. ‘A uling system and its connection tothe deck shall bbe approved only after they have been shown through ctasi testing to be satisfactory for the desired test level 13.73.11 Application of Previously Tested Systems A crashworthy railing system may be used without farther analysis and/or testing, provided that the proposed installation does not have features that are absent in the tested configuration and that might detract from the performance ofthe tested railing system. 13.73.12 New Systems New sailing systems may be used, provided that acceptable performance is demonstrated trough full-scale crash tests, ‘The crash test specimen fora railing system may be designed to resist the applied loads in accordance with Appencix A of this Seotion or NCHRP Repor’ 350 withits revisions. Provision shall be made to transfer loads from the nailing systom to the deck. Railing loads may be taken from Appendix A ofthis Section Protrusions or depressions at rail openings may be scceptable, provided that their thickness, depth, or ‘geometry does not prevent the railing from meeting the ‘rash test evaluation criteria, ‘Test specimens should include a representative length of the overhang to account for the effet of deck ‘lexibility on the distance over which the railing engages the deck, C1731 ‘When a minor detail is changed on or an improvement is made toa railing system that has already been tested and approved, engineering judgment and analysis should be used when determining the need for additional crash testing 13.73.12 SSeCTION 13 (SD; RAILINGS Unless a lesser thickness can be proven satisfactory uring the crash testing procedure, the minimum edge thickness for concrete deck overhangs shall be taken a: * For concrete deck averhangs supporting a deck ‘mounted post system: 200 mn * Fora side-mounted post system: 300 mm ‘© Forconorete deck overhangs supporting concrete ‘parapets or barriers: 200 mm 13.73.2 Height of rate Parapet or Railing ‘Traffic railings shall be st least 685 mm for TL-3, 810 mm for TL-4, 1070 mm for TL-S, and 2290 ram in height for TL-6. ‘The ortom 75-mmlip of the safety shape shall not be {noreased for future overlay considerations. ‘The minimum height for a conorete parapet with a vertical face shall be 685 mm. The height of other combined concrete and metal rails shall not be less than {685 mu and shal be determined tobe satisfactory through crash testing forthe desired tet level ‘The minimum height of the pedestrian or bicycle railing should be measured above the surface of the sidewalk or bikeway. ‘The minimum geometric requirements for combination railings beyond those required to meet crash test requirements shall be taken as specified in Articles 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10. 138 PEDESTRIAN RAILING 138.1 Geometry ‘The minimum height of a pedestrian railing shall be 1070 mm measured from the top of the walkway. A pedestrian rail may be composed of horizontal andlor vertical elements. The clear opening between clements shall be such that « 150-mm diameter sphere shall not pass through. ‘When both horizontal and vertical elements are used, the 150-mm clear opening shall apply tothe lower 685 mm ‘of the railing, and the spacing inthe upper portion shall be ‘such that 200-mam diameter sphere shall not passthrough. ‘A safety ioe rail or eurb should be provided. Rails should project beyond the face of posts andor pickets as shown in Figure A13.1.1-2 ‘The rail spacing requirements given above should not apply to chain link or metal fabri fence support rails and ‘posts, Mesh size in chain link or metal fabric fence should have openings no larger then 50 mm, 139 Preliminary design for bridge decks should comply with Article 413.1.2. A determination ofthe adequacy of deck reinforcement for the distribution of post anchorage Toads to the deck should be msde during the rail testing program. Ifthe ral testing program satisfactorily models the bridge deck, damage tothe deck edge ean be assessed at this time, In adequately designed bridge deck overhangs, the ‘major crash-related damage presently occurs in short sections of slab areas where the baie is it. 1373.2 These heights have been determined as satisfactory ‘hrough crash tests and experience. For future deck overlays, an encroachment of SO mm, leaving a 25-mm lip, has been satisfactorily tested for safety shapes, 13.841 ‘The size of openings shouldbe capable ofreteining en average size beverage container. 13.10 AASHTO LRED Brince Drsicy SrrciricaTioxs (SI) 138.2 Design Live Loads ‘The design live load for pedestrian railings shall be taken as w= 0.73 Ninm, both transversely and vertically, acting simultaneously. In addition, each longitudinal clement will be designed for a concentrated load of 890 N, Which shall act simultaneously with the above loads at any point and in any direction at the top of the longitudinal clement. ‘The posts of pedestrian railings shall be designed fora concentrated design live load applied transversely atthe center of gravity ofthe upper longitudinal element or, for railings with a total height greater than 1500 mm, at 2 poiat 1500 mm above the top susface ofthe sidewall. The value ofthe concentrated design live load for posts, Pr, in IN, shall be taken as P,, =890+0.731, (1382-1) where: = post spacing (mm) ‘The design load for chain link or metal fabric fence shall be 72x10 MPa acting norma to the entire surface The application of loads shall be as indicated in Figure 1, in which the shapes of rail members. are illustrative only. Any material or combination of materials specified in Article 13.5 may be used, 4070 mm Min. ] lg igure 13.8.2-1 Pedestrian Railing Loads—To be used on the outer edge ofa sidewalk when highvvay traffic separated from pedestrian traffic by a trafic railing Railing shape illustrative only. 139 BICYCLE RAILINGS 139.1 General Bicycle railings shall be used on bridges specifically designed to cay bieycle traffic and on bridges where specific protection of bicyclists is deemed necessary. 13.82 ‘These live loads apply tothe railing. The pedestrian live load, specified in Article [Link], applies to the sidewalk, SECTION 13 (SD): RAILINGS BAL 13.92 Geometry ‘The height ofa bieyele railing shall not be less than 1070 mm, measured from the top of the riding surface. ‘The height of the upper and lower zones of bicycle railing shall be at least 685 mm. The upper and lower zones shall have rail spacing satisfying the respective provisions of Article 13.8.1. If deemed necessary, rubrails attached to the rail or fence to prevent snagging should be deep enough 10 protect a wide range of bicycle handlebar heights. If screening, fencing, or a solid face is utilized, the ‘number of rails may be teduced. 13.93 Design Live Loads If the rail height exceeds 1370 mm above the riding surface, design loads shall be determined by the Designer. ‘The design loads for the lower 1370 mun of the bicycle railing shall not be Tess than those specified in Article 13.8.2, except that for railings with total height ‘greater than 1370 mun, the design live load for posts shall be applied ata point 1370 mm above the riding surace. "The wpplicaion oF Iyads sll be ws kicated i Figure 1, Any material or combination of materials specified in Article 13.5 may be used. ae a | | ' ii : | : Biway Suroce Figure 139.31 Bieycle Railing Loads—To be used on the ‘outer edge ofa bikeway when highway traffic ls separated from bieyele traffic by a trafic rlling. Railing shape ‘Mustrative only. C1392 Railings, fences or barriers on either side ofa shared ruse path on a structure, or along bicycle lane, shared use path or signed shared roadway located on a highway bridge should be a minimum of 1070 mm high. The 1070-mm minimum height is in accordance with the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition, (7999). ‘On such a bridge or bridge approach where high-speed high-angle impact with a railing, fence or barrier are more likely t0 occur (such as short radius curves with restricted sight distance or at the end of @ long descending grade) or in locations with site-specific safety concemns, a railing, fence or barrier height above the minimum should be considered. ‘The need for rubrails attached to 2 rail or fenes is controversial among many bicyclists, 13.10 COMBINATION RAILINGS 1310.1 General The combination railing shall conform to the requirements of either the pedestrian or bicycle railings, as specified in Articles 13.8 and 139, whichever is applicable. The traffic railing portion of the combination ‘ailing shall conform to Article 13.7. 13.102 Geometry The geometric provisions of Articles 13.7, 13.8, and 139 shall apply to theit respective portions of a combination railing. 1310.3 Design Live Loads Design Toads, specified in Articles 13.8 and 13.9, shall not be applied simultaneously with the vehicular impact Toads. 43.11 CURBS AND SIDEWALKS 13.1.1 General Horizontal measurements of roadway width shall be taken from the bottom of the face ofthe curb, A sidewalk ‘cub located on the highway traffic side ofa bridge railing shall be considered an integral part of the railing and shall be subject to the crash test requirements specified in Article 13.7. 1311.2 Sidewalks ‘When curb and gutter sections with sidewalks are used on roadway approacites, the curb height for raised sidewalls on the bridge should be no more than 200 mn, Ifa barter cucb is required, the curb height should not be Jess than 150 mm. Ifthe height of the curb on tie bridge differs from that off the bridge, it should be uniformly transitioned over a distance greater than or equal to 20 times the change in eight. 1311.3 End Treatment of Separation Railing ‘The end teatment of any traffic railing or barrier shall meet the requirements specified in Articles 13.7.1. and 13713 AASHTO LRED Bamnce DesiGy SeucinicxTIONS (SI) 13.112 Raised sidewalks on bridges are not usually provided ‘where the approach roadvvay is not curbed for pedestrians ‘or the structure is not planned for pedestrian occupancy. For recommendations on sidewalk width, see igure [Link]-1 and AASATO's 4 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets During stage construction, the same transition ‘considerations will be given to the provision of remap from ‘the bridge sidewalk tothe approach surface. 13.13 REFERENCES AASHTO, 2002. Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition, RSDG-3. American Association of State Highway and ‘Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO, 2004. A Policy on Geomesric Design of Highways and Streets, th Edition, GDIS-5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Alberson, D.C.,R. A. Zimmer, and W. L. Menges. 1997. NCHRP Report 350 Compliance Test 5-12 ofthe 1.07-m Vertical Wall Bridge Railing, FHWAJRD-96/199. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘Washington, DC. Buth, C. E,, W. L. Campise, L. I. Griffin, M, L, Love, and D. L. Sicking. 1986. Performance Limits of Longitudinal Barriers, FHWA/RD-86/153, Test 4798-13. Federal Highway Administration, U'S. Department of Transportation, ‘Washington, DC. Michie, J. D. 1981. NCHRP Report 230: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Ross, H. E,,D-L. Sicking, R. A Zimmer, and J.D. Michie. 1993. NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features, Transportation Research Boxtd, National Research Council, ‘Washington, DC. 13.4 AASHTO LREFD Buce Desie APPENDIX A13 RAILINGS A131 GEOMETRY AND ANCHORAGES AI3AL1 Separation of Rail Elements For traffic railings, the criteria for maximum clear ‘opening below the bottom ral, cy, the setback distance, S, and maximum opening between rails, , shall be based on the following eriteria: Thera contact widths for typical mllings may be ‘taken as illustrated in Figure 1; + The total width ofthe ril() in contact with the vehicle, 4, shall not be less than 25 percent of ‘ho height ofthe railing; + For post rulings, the vertical clear opening, ©, ‘and the post setback, S, shall be within or below the shaded area shown in Figure 2; and ‘+ Forpostrailings the combination of @.4/H) and the post setback, S shall be within or above the shaded area shown in Figure 3. ETAL OR CONCRETE AND ETAL oR TTMBER RAN, UMETALRAL—TMBER RAL Figure A13.1.1-1 Typical Traffe Rallings. CAB. ‘The post setback shown from face of rail fr various post shepes is based upon a limited amount of crash test ota, The potential for wheel snagging involved with a agivon design should be evaluated as part of the crash test program, ‘The post setback, 5, shown for various shape posts Figure 2, recognizes the tendency for various shape posts to snag wheels. The implication of the various definitions ‘of setback, 5 is that al other factors being equa, the space Detween a rail and the face of a rectangular post will be greater than the distance between a rail and the face of a circular post. Section 13 (SD: RAMLiNGs a High Potential Tene as 340: hove met NCHRP 250 . etic er E sat E raat 2 Low Potential 2 so Low Potential 8 .. ° oxo Ralls j = L, oft zeol ele $4 Posts kc an OE 2 0 « {Le oa I l BO 100160 300260300 SS = Post Setback Distance (rm) Figure A13.1.1-2 Potential for Wheel, Bumper, or Hood Impact with Post = RATIO OF RAIL CONTACT WDTH TO HEIGHT Nor RecouieNDE> A = 30109780200 750 = Post Setback Distance (nm) Figure A131.1-3 Post Setback Criteria, ‘The maximum clear vertical opening between succeeding rails or posts shall be as specified in Articles 138, 13.9, and 13.10, 1316 131.2 Anchorages The yield strength of anchor bolts for steel railing shall be fully developed by bond, hooks, atiachment to ‘embedded plates, or any combination thereof. Reinforcing steel for concrete barriers shall have cembedment length sufficient to develop the yield strength, A132. TRAFFIC RAILING DESIGN FORCES Unless modified herein, the extreme event limit state and the corresponding load combinations in Table 3.4.1-1 shall apply. Railing design forces und geometric criteria to be used in developing test specimens for e crash test program should be taken as specified in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure |. The transverse and longitudinal loads given in ‘Table I need not be applied in conjunction with vertical toads. Tae effective height of the vehicle rollover foree is taken as: (aB21) height of vebicle center of gravity above bridge deck, as specified in Table 13.7.-1 (mm) W = weight of vehicle corresponding tothe required test level, as specified in Table 13.7.2-1 (N) ‘out-to-out whee! spacing on an axle, as specified in Table 13.7.2-1 (mm) transverse force corresponding to the required test level, as specified in Table 1 (N) Railings shall be proportioned such tha: (A132.2) (A323) in whit ER, (A132-4) (A325) AASHTO LRED Brupge Drsicy SepcinicaTioNs (SD) caB12 Eee aie eterna bbe cement grout, epoxy, or a magnesium phosphate compound. Sulfur or expansive-iype grouts should not be used. Some bonding agents on the market have corrosive characteristics; these should be avoided. Development length for reinforeing bars is specified in Section 5 cAI Nomenclature for Es. 1 and 2 is illustrated in Figure CL Figure CAIB.21 Trae Railing, Ifthe total resistance, , ofa post-and-beam railing system with multiple rail elements is significa greater than the applied load, then the resistance, Ry for the lower ail elements) used in calculations may be reduced. The reduced value of F will result in a inrease in the computed value of ¥. The reduced notional total rail resistance and its effective height must satisfy Eqs. 2 and 3 SecTioN 13 (SD; RAILINGS iat where: resistance of the ral (N) distance from bridge deck to the ith rail (rm) All forces shall be applied to the longitudinal rail elements. The distribution of longitudinal loads to posts shall be consistent with the continuity of rail elements. Distribution of transverse loads shall be consistent with the assumed failure mechanism of the railing system. ‘Table A13.2-1 Design Forces for Traffic Bq, has been found to give reasonable predictions of effective rating height requirements to prevent rollover. If the design load located at H, falls between rail elements, it should be distributed proportionally to rail * ‘elements above and below such that Y'> H, ‘As an example of the significance of the data in ‘Table 1, the length of 1220 mm for Zand Ly is the length of significant contact between the vehicle and railing that thas boon observed in films of erash tests. The length of 1070 mm for TL-4 is the rear-axlo tie diameter of the truck, The length of 2440 mm for TL-S and TL-6 is the Tength of the tractor rear tandem axles: two 1070-xun diameter tres, plus 300 mm between them, Fry the weight of the vehicle lying on top ofthe bridge rail is distributed over the length ofthe vehicle in contact ‘with the ral, For conereie railings, Eq, 1 resulis ina theoretically- required height, H, of 857 mm for Test Level TL, However, a height of 810 mm, shown in Table 1, was considered to be acceptable because many sailings ofthat height have been built and appear to be performing acceptably. ‘The minimum height, 4, listed for TL-1, TL-2, and ‘TL-3 is based on the minimum railings height used in the past. The minimum effective height, He, for TL-1 is an ‘estimate bused on the Hine formation avaliable ror ts test level The minimum height, , of 1070 mm, shown in ‘Table 1, for TL-S is based on the height used for successfully crash-tested concrete barrier engaging only the tires of the truck. For post and beam metal bridge railings, it may be prudent to increase the height by 300 mm so as to engage the bed of the truck. ‘The minimum height, 1, shown in Tle I, for TL-6 is the height required to engage the side of the tank as determined by crash test. Tang Tex Lls Design Forces and Designations [Ti [ta | 13 | ma | 1s | 16 F:Tranvene (N) soond | Tav wo] 340.000] 0000 | 350000 | THO F, Longitudinal (N) 20.000 | 40.000 | 80.000 | 80 000 | 183 000 | 260 000. [Fc verials) Dow 30 oH [30 ooo [20 000-| 0 000 | 355000 | 335 00 | [and om) raa0| 1290] 12901070 | 2440 | 2aM0 tam) 5500] 5500} —ss00| —ss00| 1 200] 12200 Cin a) a0] — S10 — 10 — 101070 | 10 ‘Minimum H Height of Rall Gay [685 | — ens [ens | — st0-| 10702200 1318 Figure A13.2-1 Metal Bridge Ralling Design Forces, Vertical Location, and Horizontal Distribution Length, A133 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR RAILING TEST SPECIMENS A133.1 Concrete Railings ‘Yield tine analysis and strength design for reinforced concrete and prestressed conerete barriers or parapets may be used. ‘The nominal railing resistance to transverse load, Ruy say be determined using a yield line approach as: ‘© For impacts within a wall segment: Mie A (aBau-), ‘The critical wall length over which the yield Tine ‘mechanism oceurs,£, shall be taken as: |, (ay en) Ro, ‘© For impacts at end of wall or at joint a(g2gfinem (a13.1-2) (aia.4) where: F = transverse force specified in Table A132-1 assumed tobe acting t top ofa concrete wal (N) AASHTO LRED Buupce:Drsiox SrucincaTions (SI) Figure 1 shows the design forces from Table 1 applied toa beam and post railing. This is for ilustrative purposes only. The forces and distribution lengis shown apply t0 any type of railing CAB ‘The yield linc analysis shown in Figures Cl and C2 ‘includes only theultimate flexural capacity ofthe concrete ‘component. Stirups or tes should be provided to resist the shear aneVor diagonal tension forces. ‘The ultimate flexural resistance, M, of the bridge deck cr slab should be determined in recognition thatthe deck is also resisting a tensile force, caused by the component ofthe impact forces, F In this analysis itis assumed thatthe yield line failure patter occurs within the parapet only and does not extend {nto the deck. This means that te deck must have suficent resistance to force the yield line faire pattem to remain ‘win the purapes te ature paver eens tw the deck, the equation for resistance ofthe parapet are not valid. ‘The analysis is also based on the assumption that sufficient longitudinal length of parapet exists to resol inthe yield ine failure pater shown. For short engths of parapet, ‘single yield line may form along the juncture ofthe parapet and deck, Such a failwe pattern is permissible, and the resistance of the parapet should be computed using an appropriate analysis, ‘This analysis is based on the assumption that the negative and positive wal resisting moments are equal and that the negative and positive beam resisting moments are coqual ‘The measurement of system resistance of a conerete railing is Ry, which is compared to the loads in Table A13.2-1 to determine structural adequacy. The flexure resistances, My My and M, are related 10 the system resistance R,, through the yield line analysis embodied in ‘gs, 1 and. Inthe terminology of these Specifications, Reis the “nominal resistance” because it is compared to the “nominal load” given in Table A13.2-. ‘Where the width ofthe concrete railing vaies along the height, used in Eqs. I through for wall resistance should be taken as the average of its value along the height ofthe railing ‘SecTi0N 13 (SD; RasLaNos 13.19 H = bright of wall (mm) Ze = erica length of yield line failure patter (mm) Ly = longitudinal length of disteibution of impact foree Fe(mm) Ry = total transverse resistance ofthe railing (N) additional flexural resistance of beam in addition 10 Ma if any, at top of wall (N-mm) Me = flexural resistance of cantilevered walls about an ‘axis patalle othe Longitudinal axis of the bridge (Nanwmm) My = flexural resistance of the wall about its vertical axis (N-mm) For use inthe above equations, M- and M, should not vary significantly over the height of the wall. For other ‘eases, a rigorous yield line analysis should be used. Figure CAIS.A.4+1 Yield Line Analysis of Concrete Parapet Walls for Impact within Wal Segment. Figure CA133.1-2 Vield Line Analysis of Concrete Parapet Walls for Impact Near End of Wall Segment. 1332 Post-and-Beam Railings caI332 ‘Inelastic analysis shall be used for design of post-and- A basis for applying inelastic analysis is showa in ‘beam railings under failure conditions. Tae ertical rail Figure Cl ‘nominal resistance, 2, when the failure does not involve the end post ofa segment, shall be taken as the least value determined from Eqs. I'and 2 for various numbers of railing spans, N. 13.20 AASHTO LRFD Baipor Deston SrectricaTioNs (SI) ee ; ok Single—Spen Follure Mode Ee Ye ST Two-Spen Feilure Mode * For failure mods involving an odd number of ‘ys design proceaure 1s applicable to concrete and railing spans, V: ‘metal post and beam railings. ‘The post on each end ofthe plastic mechanism must 16M, + (V-1) (WD BL be able to resist the rail or bear shear. 2NE-L, aB32n) ‘For failure modes involving an even mumber of railing spans, N: 16M, + NPL 2NL-1, (A133.2-2) where: L = post spacing or single-span (mm) ‘M, = inelastic or yield line resistance of all ofthe rails contributing toa plastic hinge (N-mm) P, = ultimate transverse load resistance of a single post located Y above the deck (N) R= total ultimate resistance, ie, nominal resistance, ofthe railing (N) ‘SucrioN 13 (SD; RanLanes 13.21 Lyle = wansverse length of distributed vehicle impact loads, Fund F (cam) For impact atthe end of rll segments that eases the end posto fil, the erica afl nominal resistance, , shall be calculated wing Eq. 3, # Forany sumber of railing spans (ey am, +2p.1{$i] Saeresaly (3323) A1333. Conerete Parapet and Metal Rail ‘The resistance of each component of @ combination Dridge rail shall be determined as specified in Articles A13.3.1 and A13.3.2. The flexural stength of the rl shall be determined over one spa, Re, and over two spans, R's, The resistance ofthe poston top ofthe wall, including the resistance ofthe anchor bolts or post shall be termined. ‘The resistance of the combination parapet and rail shall be taken as the lesser of the resistances determined forthe two failure modes shown in Figures 1 and 2. PLAN VIEW Figure A13.3.31 Concrete Wall and Metal Rail Evaluation—Impact at Midspan of Rai. For multiple rail systems, each of the rails may contribute tothe yield mechanism shown schematically in Figure Cl, depending on the rotation corvesponding to its vertical position, 13.22 Rol Bake Post a! i wout-f 4 4 Hy Figure A13.33-2 Concrete Wall and Metal Rail Evaluation —Impactat Post. Where the vebicle impact swt midspan ofthe metal nal, a illustrated in Figure 1, the flexural resistance of the ral, Re, and the maximum strength of the concrete wall, R shall be added together to determine the combined resultant strength, F, andthe elfetive height, F, taken a Roa sk, (ai3334) Rally tH, i332) R where Re = wlinate capacity ofl over one span (N) R, = ukimate capaciy of wall as specified in Article A13.3.1 (N) Ht, = eight of wall (mn) ‘Hg = height of rail (mm) Where the vehicle impact is ata post, as ilustrated in Figure, the mexinzum resultant strength, 2 , shall betaken asthe sum ofthe post capacity, Pp, the ral strength, Rp, aud reduced wall strength, Ra, located ata height F AASHTO LRFD Bunce DesiGy Sezcificartons (3 ‘The commentary to Article CAI3.2 applies. Itshould also be recognized that maximum effective hit, F, equal tothe cenoid ri igh, Hp, could be obtained, but at a reduced resultant strength, Resa to the post capacity, P, and rail capacity, only (a13333) (A1333-4) (a1333-5) where: Py = ultimate transverse resistance of post (N) Ry = ultimate transverse resistance of rail over two spans (N) Ru, = capacity of wall, reduced to resist post load (N) Ry = ultimate transverse resistance of wall as specified in Article AI3.3.1 (N) A13.34 Wood Barriers Wood barriers shall be designed by elastic linear analysis with member sections proportioned onthe bass of their resistances, specified in Section 8, using the strength limit states and the applicable load combinations specified in Table 3.4.1-1 A134 DECK OVERHANG DESIGN AI3A.L Design Cases Bridge deci overhangs shall be designed for the following design cases considered separately: Design Case 1: the transverse and longitudinal forces specified in Article AI32— Extreme Event Load Combination 1 limit state Design Case2: the vertical forces specified in Anicle AI32—Extreme Event Load Combination II limit state Design Case3: the Toads, specified in Article 3.6.1, that occupy the overhang—Load ‘Combination Strength I limit sate For Design Case 1 and2, the load factor for dead load, “p Shall be taken as 1.0. ‘The total factored fore effect shall be taken as: AASHTO LRFD Buuncx Desiex Sexciricari0ns (SD) ‘The analysis herein does not consider impacts near ‘open joints in the concrete wall or parapet. The metal rail, ‘will help distribute load across such joints, Improved rail resistance will be obtained if the uso of expansion and. contraction joints is minimized For impact near the end of railing segments, the ‘nominal resistance may be calculated as the sum of the wall resistance, calculated using Eq. A13.3.1-3, and the ‘metal rail resistance over one span, calculated using Eq. 433.23. cAI33.4 A limit or failure mechanism is notrecommended for ‘wood railings. (A414) load modifier specified in Article 1.3.2 y= load factors specified in Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2, unless specified elsewhere Q) = force effeets from loads specified herein A13.4.2 Decks Supporting Concrete Parapet Railings For Design Case 1, the deck overhang may be designed to provide a flextral resistance, Mia N-rar/mm ‘Which, acting coincident with the tensile force Tin N/mm, specified herein, exceeds M, ofthe parapet at its base. The axial tensile foree, 7, may be taken as (ai342-1) where: Ry = parapet resistance specified in Article A13.3.1 o 2, = critical length of yield line filure patter (mm) height of wall (mm) T= tensile force per unit of deck length (N/mm) Design of the deck overhang for the vertical forces specified in Design Case 2 shall be based on the ‘overhanging portion ofthe deck. ‘A134.3 Decks Supporting Post-and-Beam Railings AI343.1 Overhang Design For Design Case 1, the moment per mm, Mj and thrust per mm of deck, 7, may be taken as: Me (AIBA3.11 7 c -D) é (A13.43.1-2) oO ¢ 2) For Design Case 2, the punching shear force and ‘overhang moment may be taken as: AASHTO LRED Bunce Destey Srrcinieations ($1) cAB42 If the deck overhang capacity is less than that specified, th yield fine failure mechanism forthe perapet ‘may not develop as shown in Figure CAI33,[-1, and Eqs, A13.3.1-1 and A13.3,1-2 will not be correct. ‘The crash testing program is oriented toward survival, not necessarily the identification ofthe ultimate strength of the railing system. This could produce a railing system that is significantly overdesigned, leading to the possibilty thatthe dock overhang is also overdesigned, CAIB43.4 Beam and post railing systems, such as @ metal system with wide flange or tubular posts, impose large concentrated forees and moments on the deck atthe point ‘where the post is attached to the deck. SecTion 13 (SD: Ramune (13.43.13) (4134314) in whiek: b=2N4+W,

You might also like