Proposed Methodology For Upgrading Bridge Barriers

th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR UPGRADING

BRIDGE BARRIERS
Vincenzo Colosimo, VicRoads, Australia
ABSTRACT
The AS 5100 Bridge Design standard (Standards Australia 2007) provides requirements for
multiple performance level barriers. Historical barriers constructed before 1970 generally do not
meet current standards. This paper builds on ongoing previous research projects within
VicRoads which include the VicRoads research report on "Improving existing bridge barriers"
(Colosimo 2004a)and the ARRB Conference paper on "Bridge barriers - towards national
standards (Colosimo 2006). The report describes typical details of substandard barrier types in
Victoria and classifies them into various performance levels. This paper updates details and
practices for retrofitting or upgrading bridge barriers by strengthening to the new MASH
(AASHTO 2009) heavier test vehicle performance requirements. It also includes updates to the
higher performance level barriers as affected by changes in size and mass of local vehicles
since the AS 5100 standard implementation as incorporated in the new draft AS 5100 Bridge
Design standard (Standards Australia 2014). The paper introduces a methodology for upgrading
such barriers by considering both risk and cost aimed at facilitating such improvements.
The barrier retrofit upgrading proposals detailed are intended to align with the changing
roadside vehicle environment in order to improve roadside safety.
INTRODUCTION
Bridge barriers designed and built prior to 1970 generally do not meet the current AS 5100
Bridge Design standard Standards Australia 2004 requirements for multiple performance level
barriers, with respect to design load and vehicle containment capacity. The older handrail type
barriers include poor detailing such as: posts which protrude in front of the rails creating
potential traffic snagging hazards; simply supported rails with lack of tensile continuity and end
posts exposed to potential traffic impacts.
This paper updates results of previous research projects within VicRoads which include the
VicRoads research report 834 on Improving bridge barriers(Colosimo 2004a) and the ARRB
Conference paper on Bridge barriers towards national standards (Colosimo 2006).
This paper updates practices by incorporating the new MASH (AASHTO 2009) heavier test
vehicle performance requirements as introduced in the new draft for public comment AS 5100
Bridge Design standard (Standards Australia 2014). In addition the paper outlines barrier
upgrade options for the higher performance levels. Improvements have been incorporated by
making modifications to barriers, in order to produce recognisable multiple performance level
barriers. The paper introduces a rational methodology for upgrading such barriers by
considering both risk and cost aimed at facilitating such improvements.
These measures will reduce the severity of accidents where implemented.
EXISTING BARRIERS
Existing bridge barriers can be separated into three basic types based on material as: timber,
concrete and steel. The older barriers were designed for reduced design loading and could be
considered to be architectural handrails rather than traffic barriers. Refer to the following Figures
1 to 10 for typical barriers.
ABC2014 Proposed Methodology for upgrading bridge barriers VC 231014
th
Figure 1: Timber posts on timber bridge
Figure 2: Timber posts on concrete deck
Figure 3: Concrete posts twin steel tube

rails
Figure 4: Reinforced concrete posts and

rails
Figure 5: Concrete parapet steel rail
Figure 6:
panels
Concrete end post and steel
th
Figure 7: Steel posts and guard rail
Figure 9: Steel posts with twin RHS rails
Figure 8: Steel posts with twin steel tube

rails
Figure 10: Steel posts with 3 RHS rails
The older pre-1970 designed existing barriers usually fall into the low performance level. A few
more recent barriers, namely the precast concrete parapet plus rail shown in Figure 5 and the
steel post plus three rails shown in Figure 10 comply with the current regular performance level.
PERFORMANCE LEVEL UPDATE

AS 5100 Bridge Standard and new draft AS 5100 changes
AS 5100 (Standards Australia 2004) specifies a number of barrier performance levels with the
associated design and crash test requirements for each performance level based originally on
NCHRP 350 (Ross et al. 1993) test requirements. NCHRP 350 was replaced by MASH
(AASHTO 2009) in 2009 which has for some levels, increased test vehicle mass, speed, angle
and impact energy as shown in Table 1. This paper also considers similar order updates to the
higher performance level barriers as affected by changes in size and mass of local vehicles
since the AS 5100 implementation. This paper includes the proposed main changes in the new
draft AS 5100 standard, as detailed in Table 2. The barrier upgrading should be designed to
contain the updated test vehicles. In brief, justification for barrier upgrading is based on the
following factors:
The latest AASHTO Manual for Assessment of Safety Hardware (AASHTO 2009) has
increased current test vehicle criteria and mass by the order of 10-15 % requiring
stronger and marginally higher barriers. This has increased the regular 8 tonne at 80
km/h vehicle to 10 tonne at 90 km/h, the 2 tonne pickup truck to 2.27 tonne and the 0.8
tonne to 1.1 tonne vehicle with a change in impact angle from 20 to 25 degrees.
th
Table1: Crash test vehicle criteria update for NCHRP 350 to MASH 2009
Local heavy vehicles in Australia have and are continually increasing in mass thus
affecting consideration of marginally higher mass trucks for the medium and special
(high) performance levels, as follows:
o
Semi-trailer vehicles have increased from the 42.5 tonne legal to the 45.5 tonne
higher high mass limit and Truck-Dog vehicles are currently travelling at 50-57
tonne.
B-doubles have increased from the original 62.5-68.5 tonne. Currently

VicRoads is receiving quad axle B-double applications to travel over specific
routes at 72.5 -77.5 tonne.
Other high performance freight vehicle applications from industry include 79-85
tonne A-double, 82-90 tonne B-triple and 102.5-113 tonne AB-triple. Similar
vehicle mass is currently allowed on roads in the vicinity of Port Melbourne and
other specific routes. The trend for vehicle loading to increase will continue and
this more than justifies the updating of the design criteria including mass and
height in the draft AS5100 ( Standards Australia 2014).
The design requirements of the bridge infrastructure locally as compared to the

USA have also influenced the size and height requirements of bridge barriers.
In the USA bridges are currently designed for a light HS20 33 tonne articulated
semi-trailer (or 9.4 kN/m uniformly distributed load per lane). In Australia the
T44 design vehicle has been a five axle 44 tonne vehicle since 1976 and since
2004 it consists of a SM1600 12 axle (four tri-axle bogie) vehicle plus uniformly
distributed load of the order of 160 tonne. The critical constraint to the size and
height of vehicles is in part governed by the bridge infrastructure strength and
vehicles here are generally heavier and taller than in USA. This trend also
justifies the corresponding update in test vehicle requirements and marginal
th
(20%) lateral design force increase recommended for the higher barrier
performance levels.
The AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2012) had updated the design load for the
test level 5 (equivalent to the medium performance level) from 500 kN to 550 kN
representing the 36 tonne medium mass semi-trailer test vehicle rather than the
previous 22tonne rigid vehicle.
It should be noted that the British-European practice have relatively basic performance
concrete barriers at generally one metre minimum height.
The above factors have been considered leading to the following updates in performance test
level: vehicle test criteria; lateral force and effective height values for the respective MASH
(AASHTO 2009) test level in Table 2. This information is included in the newdraft AS 5100
standard (Standards Australia 2014).
Table 2: Recommended crash test vehicle, design mass and effective height
Barrier Test
Vehicle Test Criteria
Lateral Force
Effective Height
MASH Test
Level
tonne km/h degrees
kN
metre
Level
Low
2.27
70
25
150
0.6
Regular
10
90
15
300
0.9
Medium
36
90
15
600
1.2
Special (High)
44
100
15
1200
1.5
~6
Mathematical extrapolation for updates in vehicle test criteria is based on the following:
1. The severity index impact energy being proportional to half of the
mass*{speed*sin(degrees)} squared.
2. The low performance force is approximated by the 2 to 2.27 tonne increase in mass.
3. The regular performance force is approximated by the 8 to 10 tonne increase in mass.
4. The medium performance force is approximated by the 80 to 90 km/h speed squared.
Note: This update by coincidence is also equivalent to the impact energy from the heavy Euro - British
standard CEN H4b test level for a 38 tonne vehicle at 65 km/h and 20 degrees impact angle.
5. The special high performance mass and height denote a marginal correction to values
adopted for the AS5100 2004 bridge standard with regards to consideration of the effect
of the rear trailer impact at the 100 km/h speed.
Note that for the regular performance, in order to maintain the simple recognizable doubling up
of lateral containment force between successive performance levels, it is considered that the
increase of impact energy due to the speed change from 80 to 90 km/h will be absorbed by an l
increase in barrier deflection for metal barriers or additional panel deformation for the rigid
barriers. It is also of interest to note that the new lateral design forces are roughly in line with the
original design loads stipulated by the historical AASHTO Specification 1989 (AASHTO 1989)
shown in brackets in (kN) as follows: Low 150 (134); Regular 300 (356); Medium 600 (624).
Analysis
th
The methodology for analysing current deficient bridge barriers for performance and then
designing retrofit upgrading is provided in the current AS 5100 Standard (Standards Australia
2004), the draft AS 5100 Standards Australia 2014) and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Specifications (AASHTO 2012) including the 2007 edition. This paper has considered the Table
2 changes and updated the barrier upgrade details where necessary.
In order to ensure that the rails redirect the test vehicles effectively from the body, wheel and
truck floor, an attempt was made historically to provide rails at appropriate positions as indicated
in the AASHTO Guide Specifications (Figure A1 Concept A) (AASHTO 1989) as shown in Figure
11. The actual loading pattern from current test vehicles should be considered for new designs.
Figure 11: Bridge loading pattern

Note that for the current AS 5100 (Standards Australia 2004) the barrier design loadings
adopted from the AASHTO Specifications (AASHTO 1998) were originally proved analytically as
formulated by HIRSH (1986). The formulation for average force at 100 milli-second average
(equivalent to the maximum force divided by 1.5) had to incorporate an additional multiplier of
two as shown in Figure 12, to correlate with the vehicle impact force at 50 milli-second as the
design load proven by testing.
Figure 12: Comparison of vehicle impact force with weight
th
UPGRADING EXISTING BRIDGE BARRIERS

Most of the pre-1970 bridge barriers consisted of low light handrail panel systems suitable for
upgrading to the low level performance. This can be done by the provision of a continuous
rubbing guardrail in front of the existing barrier. The containment capacity of these barriers can
be considered as being low performance to the draft AS 5100 Bridge design.
Note that the MASH test vehicle for low performance needs to have the guardrail raised in the
order of an additional 50 mm above the reference traffic surface. This requirement was also
confirmed by Dr. Roger Bligh of the Texas Transportation Institute in July 2011 by his
presentation at the offices of both the RMS NSW and VicRoads. They had carried out full
scale testing of the traditional guardrail (similar to the VicRoads type B guardrail) with the centre
of the guardrail at 550 mm above the reference surface, which proved to be unsuccessful for the
new MASH requirement for height and mass.
In practice this could mean that the stronger Type A guardrail shown in Figure 13 as extracted,
from the Country Roads Board standard drawing (CRB 1980) compared to the current Type B
(as used by VicRoads since the 1980s) would now provide for this requirement. The post
should be redesigned to the current loading and the posts should be spaced at two metre
centres. The barrier should then be tested by prototype or simulation testing to the approval of
the relevant authority jurisdiction (or based on alternative MASH 2009 manual tested products).
Figure 13: Steel Beam Guard Fence Type A (CRB 1980)

The substandard railings can be substantially improved in containment capacity by retrofitting
rubbing rails with or without additional posts. Typical upgrading treatments, for some types of
existing deficient barriers are detailed in this paper. Upgrading modifications are included or
described to fulfil the new performance levels. For more comprehensive retrofit upgrading
options refer to the Colosimo V. Austroads paper (Colosimo 2004b).
Note that the figures for the following upgrades are in part based on prior treatments
recommended in the references but now incorporate essential updates where necessary. The
updates ensure that they match the updated requirements for the MASH (AASHTO 2009) and
the draft AS 5100. Changes made include the guardrail height, cross section geometry, steel
sections, size etc.
th
Standard Timber Handrail

The option for timber structures is essentially a guardrail acting as a tensile rubbing rail, based
on the strong beam-weak post principle. The new double nested guardrail shown in Figure 14
replaces the existing timber rails thereby reducing snagging and spearing aspects of the
existing railing, while providing tensile continuity for redirecting light vehicles. The guardrail
section can continue off the structure to the typical guardrail approach treatment.
This arrangement incorporates additional timber posts midway between the existing posts which
strengthens the barrier and improves its re-directional capacity. Two extra large washers are
required for each bolt through timber, to minimise the potential for punching through the timber.
The capacity of the guardrail can be marginally improved, by replacing the existing undersized
timber posts (152 mm x 102 mm) with larger 175 mm x 125 mm hardwood sections, and
increasing the size of connecting bolts. The performance level for this arrangement due to its
low height is Low. It is recommended that this design should also be proven by testing prior to
its wider adoption.
Double nested
Figure 14: Standard timber handrail
Barrier Improvement Tubular Grille Barrier

The option in Figure 15 provides a rubbing guardrail, to avoid the potential for snagging of the
existing system and improve vehicle redirection. The existing rails should be made continuous
by butt welding to minimise the creation of loose projectiles during vehicle impacts. The system
is strengthened to a regular performance level by the addition of an additional steel hollow
section rail (to be designed and tested as required by the relevant authority jurisdiction).
th
Figure 15: Steel tube grille
Barrier Improvement Metal Grille Barrier

The option shown in Figure 16 provides a continuous rubbing guardrail to avoid the potential for
snagging of the existing system and thus improve vehicle redirection. This treatment is similar to
that described for the tube grille barrier. The system may also be strengthened to a regular level
performance by retrofitting two square hollow section rubbing rails.
Figure 16: Metal grille Regular level improvement
BARRIER STRENGTHENING OPTION

The barrier options shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 are intended to be at the traditional low
performance level of the AS 5100(Standards Australia 2004). Marginal upgrading to achieve
continuity of the steel rails can achieve the requirements of the MASH (AASHTO 2009) low test
level. The discontinuous simply supported rails can be made continuous by butt welding the
rails together for improved tensile behaviour. This will improve both the containment capacity as
well as increase the effective height of the barrier. Over the expansion joints continuity splices
need to be designed and introduced as per the AS 5100 (Standards Australia 2007) and its new
draft (Standards Australia 2014).
th
BARRIER REPLACEMENT OPTIONS

Barrier replacement improvements have been reported in (Colosimo 2004b). A typical example
for concrete bridges is shown in Figure 17. If it is considered that complete replacement of an
existing deficient barrier is warranted, then a new barrier may be adopted or the proposal shown
in Figure 17 may be utilised to fulfil the regular level performance. This is particularly suitable for
sites that incorporate a guardrail approach treatment. This barrier needs to be proof designed
and approved (possibly subject to at least simulation testing) as required by the relevant
jurisdiction.
This arrangement can also be considered as an alternative strengthening to options like those
of Figures 15 and 16 in where the rubbing rails may not provide economically the effective
height for the regular performance level. A marginally modified arrangement of that shown in
Figure 17 with shorter posts and base plates fixed in front of the existing grille barrier can be
designed for the regular performance. The existing grille barrier provides the pedestrian
balusters and some restraint to the test vehicle impact. The alternative to this arrangement
would be to incorporate three steel hollow sections as shown in Figure 10.
Considerable progress has already been made in developing some proposed standard barriers.
Some proposals for the various performance levels are shown in Colosimo (2009) on
recommended higher performance bridge prototype barriers. The higher performance barriers
warrant prototype testing prior to them being considered for national use.
Figure 17: Concrete bridge deck replacement option
METHODOLOGY FOR RETROFIT UPGRADING BARRIERS

The methodology should incorporate three stages including bridge selection, barrier
performance level and upgrading priority.
Bridge Selection
Bridge selection should be based on the following:
1. Road classification in regards to transportation needs such as heavy permit vehicles
and commercial vehicles.
10
th
2. Age and type of barrier with emphasis on the older pre -1970 bridges with handrail type
barriers as detailed in this paper.
3. Site risk factors affecting barrier performance deficiency such as traffic and commercial
vehicle count, type and width of road, alignment, height, gradient, offset of barrier to
lane, and under structure land use etc. Refer to the draft AS5100 (Standards Australia
2014) for full details.
Performance Level
Performance level should be based on the following:
1. The required performance level should be determined from the AS 5100 selection
procedure based on the site risk factors.
2. Determine by structural analysis the performance of the existing barrier and
3. Determine the performance level upgrade for the bridge barrier.
4. Design the upgrade requirement which could consist of the following alternatives:
Guardrail retrofit in front of the barrier including consideration of twin guardrail

for additional height effectiveness. The guardrails can be single or double
nested for extra strength. The guardrails can also be fixed on steel pivot arms
forwards of the existing barrier to ensure that they do not rotate downwards
when impacted.
One or more cold formed hollow steel sections fixed to the front of the existing
barrier with or without separate posts forwards of the existing deficient barrier.
An additional post and rail barrier fixed to the top or rear of the existing barrier
or parapet.
If the retrofit is too complex or too costly consideration can be made to retrofit a
new barrier on the bridge structure following removal of the existing barrier.
Upgrading Priority
Priority for barrier upgrading should be determined once most of the upgrading sites and
relevant cost is available and a benefit risk cost analysis has been carried out to determine the
theoretical order for the barrier upgrades. The following factors should be considered in
determining priority:
1. The remaining life of the bridge and existing barrier.
2. The accident history if any and associated potential future cost.
3. Site risk as determined for the performance level selection.
4. Historical significance of the bridge as it may influence the type of barrier upgrade and
additional cost.
5. The allocation of funding for bridge strengthening which would need to incorporate a
new barrier instead of the upgrading.
6. Other factors such as natural disasters which can influence the priority as well.
11
th
CONCLUSIONS
The draft AS 5100 provisions for barriers will facilitate the design, approval and introduction of
recognisable standard barriers for multiple performance level criteria. This will improve road
safety and minimise litigation issues in respect to bridge barriers.
The upgrading proposals detailed in this paper have been developed and updated, to provide
suitable strengthening measures for typical types of deficient barriers in use and reduce hazards
caused by protruding posts. Strengthening proposals are based on the provision of a smooth
continuous steel railings or high strength guardrail continuous with the approach guardrail.
Alternatives to strengthening involving more costly replacement barriers are also considered.
A methodology for retrofit upgrading of deficient bridge barriers is detailed in order to assist the
relevant authority jurisdiction to select and upgrade when possible in order to mitigate risk
economically
It is proposed that barrier systems and barrier retrofit upgrades as detailed in this paper with
minor improvements, additional design and testing when required may be considered for future
barrier upgrades.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank the Chief Executive of VicRoads Mr. John Merritt for his permission
to publish this paper and acknowledges the contribution provided by other staff from the
VicRoads Structures Group including Sukie Shen for their assistance in providing proof analysis
of minor barrier modifications. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect the views of VicRoads.
REFERENCES
AASHTO 1989, Guide specification for bridge railings, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA.
nd
AASHTO 1998, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2 Edition, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. 20001.
th
AASHTO 2012, Bridge design specifications, 6 edn, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA.
Standards Australia 2007, AS 5100 Bridge Design, Standards Australia.
Standards Australia 2014, Draft AS 5100 Bridge Design, Part 2 Design loads, Standards
Australia.
th
Colosimo V. 2009, Recommended higher performance bridge prototype barriers 7 Austroads

Bridge Conference, New Zealand.
nd
Colosimo V. 2006, Bridge barriers towards national standards, 22 ARRB Conference,

Perth.
Colosimo V. 2004a, Improving Existing Bridge Barriers, VicRoads research project report 834,
VicRoads, Melbourne.
Colosimo V. 2004b, Bridge Barriers Implementing the AS5100 Bridge Design Code
th
Provisions, 5 Austroads Bridge Conference, Hobart, Tasmania.
CRB. 1980, Book of Standard Drawings for Roadworks, Country Roads Board, Melbourne.
Ross, HE , Sicking, DL, Zimmer, RA & Michie, JD 1993, Recommended procedures for the
safety performance evaluation of highway features, NCHRP report 350, Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC., USA.
AASHTO 2009, Manual for assessing safety hardware (MASH), American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA.
12
th
HIRSH, T.J. 1986, Longitudinal barriers for buses and trucks, Symposium on geometric design
for large trucks, Texas Transportation Institute, Transportation Research Record 1052.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Vincenzo Colosimo is an Engineer in the Structures Group of Technical Services within the
Operations Division of VicRoads. He joined the organization in 1966 and has extensive
experience in the design of bridges and associated road structures. Other experience includes
road design and bridge construction. He is currently the Manager Bridge Assessment,
responsible for coordinating heavy load permit vehicle bridge assessments, making bridge load
rating recommendations to the Principal Bridge Engineer and making recommendations for the
approval of new commercial vehicles by VicRoads. He has been involved with research, testing,
and developmental work associated with standardization of components for bridge and road
structures. He has acquired extensive expertise in bridge furniture with a particular emphasis on
road safety barrier developments. He also provides specialist support to other areas of
VicRoads and external organizations.
Copyright Licence Agreement
th
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 9 Austroads Bridge
Conference, granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:
publish the work in printed format
publish the work in electronic format
publish the work online.
The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works
The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.
13

Proposed Methodology For Upgrading Bridge Barriers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Proposed Methodology For Upgrading Bridge Barriers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014