Emergency Opening System for an Authorized Vehicle Lane · EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM FOR AN...
Transcript of Emergency Opening System for an Authorized Vehicle Lane · EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM FOR AN...
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 3. Recipient's Catalog No. -----l 5. Report Dote i
~1arch 1984 _______ j 6. Pt-rforming Orgon•zot•on Code I
I
1. Report No. 2. Gov('rnmeont Access•on No.
TX-84/105-lF ________ .._ _________________ _ 4. Title and Subtitle
EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM FOR AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE
7. Author's) 8. Performong Org-a-no-zo-ti-on-R:-e-po-rt_N_o __ ----j! John W. Strybos, James R. Morgan, and I Hayes E. Ross, Jr.. Research Report 1 05-1 F ,
~~-----------------------------------------~~~---------------~ 9. Performong Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Uno! No. I Texas Transportation Institute 1
The Texas A&M University Sys tern 1l.IAcCon(t8,a4c_'
8or5c),o-n
0t 6N6o.4
- __ - ___ ] 1 Co 11 ege Station, Texas 7784_3________ _ _ l_ _ _ _ ----------413. Type of Report and Perood Covered I
I
. 12. Sponsorong Agency Nome and Address Fi na 1 Report -~ Houston Urban Project State Department of Highways and Mar. 1983 - Apr. 1984
Pub 1 i c Trans porta ti on 14. Sponsoring Agency Code ~------· P.O. Box 187; Houston, Texas 77001 I
1--15-. -S-up-p-le-m-en-to-ry_N_o--t.,-s ----------·------------------------ ---------------··~
16. Abstract
An emergency opening system (EOS) for an authorized vehicle lane was developed and crash tested. The design consisted of two steel box tubes mounted on top of each other. The beams were supported by pins at the ends that were connected to modified concrete median barrier sections. Factors considered in the develooment of the system were ease of operation and ability to redirect errant vehicles'.
Three full-scale crash tests were conducted to evaluate the impact behavior of the design. All of the occupant risk values as well as the vehicle trajectory hazard were below recommended values for all of the crash tests. In addition, the EOS was still operational after the first two tests. The system was not I operational after the third test because the anchorage system for the downstream concrete median barrier failed. Several modifications in the design of the EOS , were recommended to improve the operation of the system. These changes were a
1
,
result of observations of the construction and crash testing of the system.
17. Key Words Median Barriers, Authorized Vehicle Lane Emergency Opening System, Traffic Barriers, Crash Tests, Highway Safety
18. Oistribulion Statement , No restrictions. This document is
available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Clossif. (of this page) 21. No, of Pages 22. Price
~~lassified Unclassified ------- ---------- -----------__ __._ ______ ___. _________ __
Farm DOT F 1700.7 te-691
EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM FOR AN
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE
by
John W. Strybos James R. Morgan
and Hayes E. Ross, Jr.
Research Report 105-lF on
IAC(84-85)-0664 Emergency Opening System for Authorized Vehicle Lanes
Sponsored by Houston Urban Project of the
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843
March 1984
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors
who are responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Texas State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation or the Houston Urban
Expressway Office. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
KEY WORDS
Median Barriers, Authorized Vehicle Lanes, Emergency Opening
System, Traffic Barriers, Crash Tests, Highway Safety
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research study was conducted by the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) for the Texas State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT). Technical liaison
and guidance was provided by William v. ward, Engineer-Manager
and James G. Darden,III, Associate Designing Engineer of the
Houston Urban Project of SDHPT. The crash tests were carried out
by personnel of the Highway Safety Research Center of TTI. This
report is based on a Master of Engineering report by John w.
Strybos.
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
At the writing of this report the concepts and designs
presented herein are being implemented on the I-45 Authorized
Vehicle Lane project in Houston, Texas.
i i
ABSTRACT
An emergency opening system (EOS) for an authorized vehicle
lane was developed and crash tested. The design consisted of two
steel box tubes mounted on top of each other. The beams were
supported by pins at the ends that were connected to modified
concrete median barrier sections. Factors considered in the
development of the system were ease of operation and ability to
redirect errant vehicles.
Three full-scale crash tests were conducted to evaluate the
impact behavior of the design. All of the occupant risk values
as well as the vehicle trajectory hazard were below recommended
values for all of the crash tests. In addition, the EOS was
still operational after the first two tests. The system was not
operational after the third test because the anchorage system for
the downstream concrete median barrier failed. Several
modifications in the design of the EOS were recommended to
improve the operation of the system. These changes were a result
of observations of the construction and crash testing of the
system.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ANALYSIS
EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
CRASH TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX A - DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS
APPENDIX B - SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C - ACCELEROMETER TRACES AND PLOTS OF ROLL, PITCH, AND YAW RATES
REFERENCES
iv
1
2
4
14
34
42
44
51
61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure .H.Q....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Emergency Opening system for Authorized Vehicle Lane
Emergency Opening System
Emergency Opening System in Operation
Summary of Test 1
Test Vehicle Before and After Test 1
Test Installation Before and After Test 1
Summary of Test 2
Test Vehicle Before and After Test 2
Test Installation Before and After Test 2
Summary of Test 3
Test Vehicle Before and After Test 3
Test Installation Before and After Test 3
Design Modifications for Emergency Opening System
Sequential Photographs for Test 1
Sequential Photographs for Test 2
Sequential Photographs for Test 3
Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration Trace for Test 1
Vehicle Lateral Acceleration Trace for Test 1
Vehicle Angular Displacement for Test 1
Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration Trace for Test 2
v
5
9
10
16
19
20
22
24
25
28
29
30
36
45
47
49
52
53
54
55
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 1iQ...
21
22
23
24
25
Vehicle Lateral Acceleration Trace for Test 2
Vehicle Angular Displacement for Test 2
Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration Trace for Test 3
Vehicle Lateral Acceleration Trace for Test 3
Vehicle Angular Displacement for Test 3
vi
56
57
58
59
60
Table ~
1
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Crash Tests
vii
~
15
INTRODUCTION
A $52 million project is underway in Houston to install
an authorized vehicle lane (AVL) down the center of Interstate
45. This AVL will provide buses, van pools, and other authorized
traffic with an expressway free from normal traffic congestion
over a distance of 13.1 miles (21.1 km). Concrete median barriers
{CMBs) will be used to separate traffic within the AVL from the
normal I-45 traffic. Limited access to the AVL will insure
smooth flow uninterrupted by unauthorized vehicles. However, in
the event of a mechanical problem, minor breakdown (e.g., flat
tire, etc.), accident or other emergency, this limited access
also will impede the wrecker or other emergency equipment,
causing major traffic congestion. Such eventualities make the
implementation of a gate or emergency opening system (EOS) for
the AVL essential.
The design of an EOS for a CMB involves several key
parameters. The EOS must function as a median barrier in its
ability to safely redirect errant vehicles and stop them from
entering adjacent traffic lanes. This should be achieved without
endangering the driver during vehicle redirection. At the same
time, the EOS must be opened and closed by the operator of the
emergency vehicle. This requires that the EOS either be
lightweight or include provision for mechanical or electrical
devices to aid in its operation. Futhermore, it would be
desirable to have an EOS that would remain operational following
moderate impacts with little or no maintenance. Guidelines and
designs also are needed to properly transition the CMB both on
the upstream and downstream ends of the EOS.
1
ANALYSIS
The EOS is designed to safely redirect errant vehicles and
stop them from entering adjacent traffic lanes. The general
configuration of the gate system is a steel beam 30 ft. (8.9 m)
long that is connected to modified CMB sections at each end. A
square tube was selected for the beam section based on a
preliminary analysis of the system. The beam was pinned at the
ends so that the gate could be opened and closed by an emergency
vehicle operator.
When impacted by an errant vehicle, the EOS should behave
similarly to a guardrail system. Both barriers can be modelled
as a series of rigid beams connected together at joints. The EOS
was therefore analyzed with a computer program developed to
analyze the behavior of an automobile striking a deformable
barrier of general configuration(~). For a description of the
computer model the reader should refer to the referenced report.
In the computer program, a dynamic, inelastic large
displacement structural analysis problem in two dimensions is
solved using a step-by-step method. The automobile is modelled
as a plane body of arbitrary shape surrounded by inelastic
springs. During impact, the automobile slides along the barrier.
Forces between the automobile tires and the pavement are taken
into account, as well as the interaction forces between the
automobile and the barrier. The barrier is an arbitr.ary
assemblage of beams, posts, springs, and damping devices. Loads
2
are applied to the barrier only at the nodes.
Impact with a large, 4500 lb (2040 kg) vehicle travelling at
60 mph (96.6 km/h) and 25 degrees was investigated. The joint
loads and deflections from this simulation were used to design
all of the appurtenances of the EOS. Impact with an 1800 lb (815
kg) vehicle travelling at 60 mph (96.6 km/h) and 15 degrees was
also investigated. This simulation gave smaller loads and
deflections than the impact with the large vehicle.
The EOS was modelled as a system of 20 beams. Each beam was
16.7 in. (42.4 em) long with a centerline height of 19 in. (48.3
em) above the pavement surface. In addition, there were two
support posts in the model. The posts were placed at the initial
node and at the terminal node of the model. The posts were given
arbitrarily high values for the stiffness, base moment at
failure, shear force at failure and deflection at failure because
the computer simulation was performed to test the strength of the
barrier itself, not the strength of the support posts. This
accurately models the situation of a rigid CMB support.
3
EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
The EOS must perform as a median barrier in its ability to
safely redirect errant vehicles and stop them from entering
adjacent traffic lanes. Futhermore, the EOS must be opened and
closed by the operator of the emergency vehicle. Finally, the
barrier should be relatively inexpensive to build and maintain,
and it should not be too difficult to install in place.
Design of a system to satisfy these requirements presents
special problems. Consultation with several state highway
departments found that there was not a system presently in
operation that would satisfy all of these requirements. The
first function of the EOS was achieved by using two square
steel tubes mounted on top of each other, but separated by 1.38
in. (3.5 em) vertically. The size and orientation of the steel
members was selected based on information from the computer
analysis. The tubes were mounted between two 30 ft (8.9 m)
long modified concrete median barrier sections that were
separated by 30 ft (8.9 m) • The emergency opening system is
described in detail by Figures l and 2. Figure 3 shows the
system in operation.
The other parts of the EOS were designed, using the
applicable standards (.2..t.J.) ' from peak loads taken from the
computer simulation. These loads were 250 kips (34 .6 kN) axial
and 50 kips (6.9 kN) lateral shear. The steel members
transferred these forces to one 3.25 in. (8.3 em) diameter pin at
each end of the tubes. The pins were sized to carry the loads in
4
2'- 8 II
7 111 2
1-1
11
PLAN
1'-5 3/8"
(.,)'1
PIVOT PIN-SEE DETAIL
......._CONCRFTF BARRER
ELEVATION
0 4
6" 1·-Q" 2'-0"
6'-3"
30" SPECIAL END SHOE 10 GA H.D G STEEL BOLT TO 1/4~x12"x4~ STL PL& 1''JC12"x12" STL PL (TYPICAL)
30'-o''
6'-3"
2-8"x8"x3/8"x28'-10" STL ASTM A500 GRADE B
25'-o"
1/4' STL. PL. ON BOTH SIDES (TYPICAL)-SEE DETAIL
NOTE: AT Efoll OF SHOE PROVIDE 1-1"x12"x12" STL. PL. AT Efoll & 1-1/4"x12"x18" PL.
W-BEAM 12 GA. STAfoiJARO 25'-Q" H.D.G. STEEL
AT INTERIOR END (TYPICAL)
12" x 4" x 1/4" STEEL PLATE (FOR W-BEAM BOLT PLATES
1 ON BOTH SIDES. USE 3/4" DIA. HOLE FOR 5/8" DIA. BOLT.
6'-3 11
TYPICAL 25'-o" SECTION W-BEAM GUARDRAL BOLTED TO TUBE SECTIONS WI 5/8" DIA. BOLT THROUGH 1/4" PLATE SEE DETAIL
LOWERABLE CASTER WHEEL- SEE DETAIL
3/4" ROO BENT TO APPROXIMATELY THIS CONFIGURATION
E 10 xx.> " e-
3 1/4" DIA. ROO ASTM A572 GRADE 42 BEVEL EDGES TO EASE INSERTION --1
2'-4"
s'-311 1'-9"
30" SPECIAL END SHOE 10 GA. HD.G. STEEL BOLT TO 1/4" STL. PL. UNDER W-BEAM & TO 1" PL. AT Efoll.
OPENING END SUPPORT PLATES SEE DETAIL.
2rfx19 518"x7/8" STL. PL.
1"~12"x 12" STL. PL.
BARRER-SEE DETAR.
3/4" DIA. ROD W/3" BEND AT END OR ASTM A325 H.S. BOLT 20" LONG AT BOTH ENDS
~~~ 1.9,~ .. ~j= (~ 10 XX
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
I ~JJ~j!r -·ro~ E70X .. X.~~~g ....;:E?OXX AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE ( _ _ _ '-
11 ... ,
1 . EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
AS BUILT-STEEL GATE
IDRAWN BY-" n_A_§ DATE: JULY, 1983
'·JACK/CASTER-SEE NOTES AT DETAIL A-A 1 of 4
Figure l. EmergencJ' Opening S~tstem for /\uthorized Vehicle Lane.
0\
22'
2' 3 1/2' 10" 8 1/2'
~ ....
~ "'
;3 11 cE roxx
i" ~ "'
a 1 I CEroxx !!! ....
ELEVATION
22'
51/2' 10' 8 1/2'
ci 1/2' r. w
--{f) I ¥ 1 1118' r. I t 1o
ci w
PLAN 1/4' CHAMFER AT ALL CORI\ERS
DETAILS AT END SUPPORTS --0 3' 6' 1'-D' 2'-D'
~ <')
~ "'
.., .... ..,
~ "' 0. .;
7/8'
93/4'
8'
2.5~•l• 3• •I• 2.s• 4' 4'
2.35:1 3.30',1 ,2.35:
END ELEVATION
BOLT HOLE SIZE AS NOTED
GENERAL NOTES
7/8'
'x8'x3/8' STL. TUBE
NOTE 7/8' PLATE AT EITHER SIDE, REFER TO PLAN TO DETERMINE LOCA TIO)'l & SIZE
W-BEAM GUARDRAIL
HAND CRANKED JACK W/CASTER ASSEMBLY CRANK MAY BE TOP MOUNTED AS MANUFACTURED BY HOLLAND HITCH CO., REQUIRING ACCESS TO JACK P.O. BOX 3015, 430 W. 18TH ST., HOLLAND, THROUGH BEAM. JACK HANDLE MI. 49423. JACK TO BE ABLE TO LIFT 5 NOT TO PROTRUDE INTO TRAFFIC VERTICAL 2-3 INCHES HOLLAND HITCH OR LANE WHILE NOT IN USE APPROVED EQUAL US-300- JS-300-J &
SECTION A-A V-3QO-JS .. -.-o 3' 8' 1'-Q'
1' ROO Fy = 50ksi fill •U
8'x8' STL. TUBE--~~;;;~~
1111s:<E70XX
114' SHIM AT SIDE AND BOTTOM I!M--'f--1-__;~- 7'x7'x3/8'x 13' STL TUBE WELDED
BOLT HOLE TO ACCOMMODATE INSIDE 8'x8' STL TUBE WI 1/4' 8-1 1/2' DIA. 6NC EB BOLTS x 4' SHIM PLATES AT SIDE AND BOTTOM LONG STEEL FABRICATOR IS TO PROVIDE SPECIFIED BOLTS ..
SECTION B-B
ALL STEEL TO BE ASTM A572 GRADE 50 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
...... - I 0 3" 6" 1'-0" 2'-{)"
PROVIDE BOTH PINS (3 1/4' DIA. & 3/4' DIA.) AT BOTH ENDS
ALL WELDS E70XX ELECTRODES.
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
AS BUILT-STEEL GATE DETAILS
DRAWN BYt G.R.S DATF· JULV, 1983 ISHH7 NUMBHf
RfVISION DATE OUOSFR. 1983 2 Of 4 APPROVED BY H.f R
Figure 1. Emergency Opening Systen for Authorized Vehicle Lane. (continued)
• I . ~:' . . I J.l,~5 !I 10 ~c
PLAN E
JQ'.-O" 811 f4 11 ~~~ 5/811
25'-0 112· 3" 14 1/8" 2'-6" 2" 1 I ~
"'E 10 31 I < c "' t~ I I\
: I \ -2 '? ~-----------------1---------------------------------------------------------------tf-~~----t---~r-- I I "'
13!f.ilg-- /' I'\ _l:E=L=E=VA=T=I=O=N======<:t:le====================o=.s::·=c=HA=M::::F:;ER:::::::AL=L=c::o::::R=NE::R=s===~:;!;"'ll;:1::::=::::::::j <::c:::s±:::=+ I
27
i14
... ~
"' UPSTREAM TRANSITION SECTION ELEVATION
E~
o> 1 ~~-------------------------------------------------------------+------------------,
---9~60 ~~~==E~·-1---It o> e> PLAN
30' Q"
5" ¢4• g• 518" , 2" 5'-0" ~ 11 " 16" 3" 22'·6 1/2" STANDARD CMO SHAPE
~ ~. o> [ 10 e I> m=~~ 1~
\t
-.....!
~ ' ~ : ~ ~ ~~~----++------------------------------------~-----------------+----------------~ :': ]., 1,. 1 0.5" CHAMFER ALL CORNERS I> ELEVATION
27 1/411 a~ ot> E
ELEVATION
DOWNSTREAM TRANSITION SECTION
8'-5" (INCLUDES 5"COUPLE)
21'-7" 7'-11 1/2" ,.2." J ·43 STIRRUPS AT s", 21' -o" 9-# 4 STIRRUP.S 30-# 4 STIRRUPs .2• I
AT4"=3'-o" 1 AT 2"= 5'-o"
r=f~fjEf=ft=El=t=tf=Ej=t=tt=E!Ef1=fj=tJt1=fjEfjEf=f]Ef~!jEj]t1=t:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T•XAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUT• I UJ TH. T.XAS A&ll UNIVI!!RSITY SYSTEM
++hK~~~~~~++i~+H~~~~++~~~~~mm~~~
Cf- IIIII 1 AUTHORIZED VEHCLE LANE
EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
LAST SPACE WILL BE 7" LAP WITH TYPICAL# 5 BARS USE/ 10-#l4 BARS ~ AS BUILT CONCRETE BARRIER DETAILS ·1 24" LAP SPLICE BeND #5 BARS
SECTION (TYPICAL) IN TO MATCH #14 BARS. . _,...,o.u. 1•.,., JULY,, • ., J••m '""'"'" Ll';; 141-o... !AIMOWD n: H.f.lll. I lfEVI$10, DArE OCfOftU. , .. 1 I 3 of 4
Figure l. Emergency Opening Systeo for Authorized Vehicle Lane. (continued)
co
16"
\a· 7 1/2" 3"
'"' J Jg_·
3 •9BARS GRADe 60
· .. t :
<i~
-- --~ 0 ,.;
~ ml ~~
~
_J "' .
2.561
1 1/2"
I
~
I ~ ...
: ;}..f.
' I 7.79. l3ol
~ -
2 1/2"
"' "'! ., ;q .,
"' "" ~~
"' "' ,.; "' vF--bl cqi
hi ~.35"
1" ~
NOTE: SHADED BARS ARE TO BE TERMINATED WITH A FLANGED COUPLER
NOTE: THESE STIRRUPS ARE
BENT IN AS CMB SECTION TAPERS IN AND ARE NOT USED AFTER THE
+9 BARS ARE ENDED.
10-+ 14 BARS GRADE 60
+4 GRADE 60 STIRRUPS TAPERED TO FIT FOAM
CONCRETE
NOTE: 3-+9 BAAS END 3'-0" FROM END
13.5"
~
l I
"' "' .0
"'
31/2"
'N ~r----
~ ' ' ' "' "'
.,______
3.35
10"
3"
I !
H ~--
n
~
~-
~ 6"
3.30
3 1/2"
"' ,.;
"' ,.;
~ .0
"' ~
,.; "' "' . v-:- ---
1/ ~
~l=:= 1----
"' "' ll:
3.35"
4 STIRRUP INSIDE DIA
OF ALL BENDS IS 2 0"
=,o
#4 GRADE 60 CLOSED STIRRUP BE NO AS SHOWN--
6"
-.,
UPSTREAM END SECTION C-C STIRRUP DETAIL FOR SECTION C-C
DOWNSTREAM END SECTION D-D
STIRRUP DETAIL FOR SECTION D-D
0 3" 6" 1'-0" 2'-o"
tcMB
:,>
"'
SECTION E-E ·
0 3" 6" 1'-o" 2'-o"
Figure l.
~ . .,. . # 14 BAR GRADE 60
NOTE: SHADED +14 BARS (SEE SECT.C-C & D-D)
TERMINATED BY REBAR FLANGE COUPLER, WILLIAMS . ~O~ET~-~-.. ·~ :. -~ .
FORM ENGINEERING CORP., GRANO RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, OR SIMILAR PRODUCT. REBAR IS THREADED INTO 3" OF COUPLER. FLANGE COUPLER IS BOLTED OR NAILED TO FORM FOR FABAICA liON. END OF REBAR 18 THREADED TO FIT FLANGE COUPLER. LAST 3" OF REBAR IS THfiEAoEo 1 1/2" DIA. x 6NC.
to·. . . ,. ...• , ...--+-h. '-' ,. ·. · .. · .. __ . > .·•
------li-----·-a
1 1/4" DIA. ANCHOR SLEEVE WI 1" DIA. STL. ROD DRIVEN 6" INTO CONC. SLAB AN> CUT OFF FLUSH WITH TI-E CMB SUII'ACE.
-:.. ·--·--+- -· --- ·---1 _______ _,_ ___ _
: ·"·
3" 3"
FLANGE COUPLER M W M I 0 2" 6" 1'-0"
NOTE: ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS "C" IN THE LATEST EDITION.OF SDHPT SPECIFICATIONS. ALL REINFORCEMENT IS OfiADE 80.
NOTE: STIRRUP SPACING FOR HINGED END AND LATCHED END SECTIONS ARE TYPICAL.
NOTE: REGARDLESS OF METHOD OF HANDLING, BARRIER
SECTION LIFTING POINTS SHALL BE 6.25 FT. FROM THE
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE EMERGENCY OP~NING SYSTEM
AS BUll T CONCRETE BARRIER DETAILS
ENDS OF THE BARRIER. LIFTING DEVICES AND ATTACHMENTS DATE• JULY, 1083 SHEEr IIUII&ER•
TO BARRIER SECTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. REVtstON DATE• OCTOBER, 1083 4 of 4
Emergency Opening Syste'm for Authorized Vehicle Lane. (continued)
Figure 2. Emergency Opening System.
9
__, 0
r - ~ - 1
II"" l,l )
I 1 : r
on•-o• --1
UPSTREAM TRANSITION SECTION DOUBLE s• SQUARE TUBE GATE
01=->!!!! o" 4'-o"
PLAN WITH GATE CLOSED
SECTION AT UPSTREAM TRANSITION MEMBER (SHOWING #14'a an:! #4 REINFORCING BARS)
o-."."""",':'._,.~--•. _0"
GATE BEING OPENED BY EMERGENCY
VEHICLE PUSHING WITH BUMPER
PLAN WITH GATE BEING OPENED
PLAN WITH GATE BEING CLOSED
\ \ \ \ \
DOWNSTREAM TRANSITION SECTION
a•xa•xa/a• STEEL TLBE
INSERT C3x6 STEEL CHANNEL ASTM A36
HAND CRANKED JACK ASSEMBLY , WITH FIXED CASTER
SECTION AT JACK/CASTER ASSEMBLY
o· 1'-o· 2·-o-
, ____ ,~,- -1 Lo':) = .
EMERGENCY GATE BEING CLOSED WITH
WENCH ON EMERGENCY VEHICLE
(CABLE AROUND REMOVABLE PIN)
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEIIII
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
SCHEMATIC
DATE: JULY, 1983 I SHEET NUMBER:
REVISION DATE: OCTOBER, 1983 I 1 or 1
Figure 3. Er.1ergenc~' Opening Syster.1 in C!)erati on.
quadruple shear. The pins transferred the load to three tongue
plates. The tongue plates were welded to a base plate that was
attached to the concrete median barrier section by eight 1.5 in.
(3.8 em) diameter anchor bolts. The anchor bolts were screwed
into rebar flange couplers manufactured by Williams Form
Engineering Corporation of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Ten #14
reinforcement bars 8 ft (3.1 m) long were used in each CMB
section to transfer the design loads from the steel gate to the
CMB section. The #14 reinforcement bars were located in the part
of the CMB section that was closest to the steel gate. The last
3 in. (7.6 em) of the top eight #14 bars was threaded so that the
reinforcement bars could screw into the rebar flange couplers.
The last 8 ft (3.1 m) of the concrete median barrier before the
gate had different shaped stirrups and a different cross
sectional geometry from that used in the standard CMB cross
section.
The steel tubes had a 3.5 in. (8.9 em) diameter hole cut in
them at each end for the pins. Both of these holes were
reinforced with a 3.5 in. (8.9 em) diameter schedule 40 steel
pipe sleeve insert. The main tubes also had a short steel tube
insert welded inside them at each end. The inserts were designed
to reduce the potential for the pins to fail the tubes. The 1.38
in. (3.5 em) vertical gap between the beams was kept constant
over the length of the tubes by steel straps that were welded
onto both sides of the tubes. These straps helped the two
separate tubes to act as one unit and facilitated the mounting of
the W-beam on both sides of the tubes. End shoes were used with
ll
the W-beams to reduce the snagging potential of the system. The
CMB part of the system was held in place by 1.25 in. (3.2 em)
diameter anchor rods driven 6 to 8 in. (15.2 to 20.3 em) into
the pavement. There were eight anchor rods in each CMB section.
The rods were separated by a center-to-center spacing of 6.5 ft
(2.0 m) and the rods were angled toward the center of the CMB at
approximately 45 degrees.
There were three features included in the design of the EOS
to facilitate the opening and closing of the gate by the .
emergency vehicle operator. The first feature was a top mounted
jack and caster assembly manufactured as a single unit by Holland
Hitch Inc. of Holland, Michigan. The system was designed to open
into the bus lane at one end only, thus requiring one jack and
caster mechanism. The second feature consisted of two sets of
vertical 1 in. (2.5 em) diameter rods. One rod was welded in
the end of the tubes and the other rod was inserted through a
hole cut in the tongue plates. The emergency vehicle operator
could then wrap a cable or chain around the rods and pull the
gate shut with the emergency vehicle. The final feature was the
vertical clearance between the beams and the tongue plates, and
the slotted holes cut in the tongue plates.
Tests were conducted after the EOS was fabricated to
demonstrate the amount of time required to open and close the
steel gate by an emergency vehicle operator. The complete EOS
tested was 90 ft (27.4 m) long and cost approximately $19,300.
The cost included two 30 ft (9.1 m) long modified CMB sections.
At a cost of $215/ft ($705./m), the barrier is reasonably priced
when compared to other alternatives. The average cost of
12
repairing the EOS
approximately $2440.
after three full-scale crash tests was
This value includes the cost to replace the
downstream CMB section after the third test.
13
CRASH TEST RESULTS
Three full-scale crash tests were conducted on the EOS as
shown in Figures 1 and 2. The tests conducted were designed to
evaluate the limits of performance of the barrier. The vehicle
impact point for test 1 and for test 3 was 6 ft (1.8 m} upstream
from the downstream end of the gate system. This point of impact
should cause the maximum forces on the CMB anchorage system, and
the maximum forces on the steel gate to the CMB section
connection. In addition, this impact point should give the
greatest possibility of vehicle snag on the barrier. The impact
point for test 2 was 6 ft (1.8 m} upstream from the midpoint of
the gate. This point of impact should cause maximum beam
deflections and maximum forces in the beam. The tests are
summarized in Table 1. Data acquisition systems are described in
Appendix A. Sequential photographs of the tests are given in
Appendix B. Appendix C shows accelerometer traces and plots of
roll, pitch, and yaw angles.
~l.
In the first test, an 1800 lb (815 kg) Honda Civic 1200
(1977) impacted the EOS 6 ft (1.8 m) upstream from the downstream
end of the steel gate system at 55.2 mph (88.8 km/h} and 15
degrees. Figure 4 contains a summary of this test. The test
vehicle was smoothly redirected. The vehicle exit angle and
speed were 5.5 degrees and 48.0 mph (77.3 km/h), respectively.
The occupant impact velocities were 14.15 ftjsec (4.31 m/s)
longitudinal and 16.42 ft/sec (5.00 m/s) lateral. The peak 50 ms
14
TABLE 1 • SUMMARY OF CRASH TESTS
Test 1 2 3
Vehicle Weight, lbs (kg) 1800 (815) 4500 (2040) 4500 (2040)
Impact Speed, mph (km/h) 55.2 (88.8) 60.7 (97.7) 60.04 (96.6)
Impact Angle, degrees 15.0 25.25 25.5
Exit Speed, mph ( km/h) 48.0 (77. 3) 47.96 (77.2) 39.01 (62.8)
Exit Angle, degrees 5.5 4.0 1.75
Maximum Beam Deflection, Dynamic, in. (em) 3.36 (8.53) 17.16 (43.59) 30.84 (78.33)
Permanent, in. (em) 0.0 1.63 (4.14) 23.88 (60.66)
Maximum CMB Movement Dynamic, in. (em) 2.04 (5.18) 15.12 (38.40) 31.68 (80.47)
Permanent, in. (em) o.o 3.75 (9.53) 24.00 (60.96)
Maximum CMB Roll, degrees o.o 3.5 9.0
Maximum CMB Yaw, degrees o.o o.o 5.5
Occupant Impact Velocity Longitudinal,ft/sec (m/s) 14.15 (4.32) 18.89 (5.76) 25.62 (7.81)
Lateral, ft/sec (m/s) 16.42 (5.00) 22.77 (6.94) 20.54 (6. 26)
Vehicle Accelerations, g's Occupant Ride Down
Longitudinal 1.49 8.21 4.11
Lateral 10.83 7.78 6.99
Peak 50 ms Average, g's
Longitudinal 4.27 5.77 8.59
Lateral 7.52 9.32 8.32
Vehicle Damage Classification
TAD 10LFQ4 11LFQ5 11FL6
VDI 10LFEW3 11LDEW4 11FDAW6
15
--' O'l
0.238 sec 0.193 sec 0,0143 sec 0,048 sec
1 (]l):=fs.o' 30 ft "I< > I< I CMI SECTION I
6 ft 24 n > I E: 30 ft >I
Test Number Test Date Vehicle
fib de 1 Mlss, lb (kg)
Speed, mph (km/h) Impact Exit
Angle, degrees Impact Exit
Mlximum Beam Deflection Dynamic, in (em)
Mlximum OB ifovement Dynamic, in. (em)
0999-1 9-5-83
Honda Civic 1200 (1977) 1800 (815)
55.2 (88.8) 48.0 (77.3)
15.0 5.5
3.36 (8.53)
2.04 (5.18)
Occupant Impact Velocity, ft/s (m/s) Longitudinal Lateral
Vehicle Accelerations, g's Occupant Ride Down
Longitudinal Lateral
Peak 50 ms Average Longitudinal Lateral
Vehicle Damage Classification TAD VDI
Figure 4. Summary of Test 1.
14.15 (4.32) 16.42 (5.00)
1.49 10.83
4.27 7.52
10LFQ4 10LFEW3
average acceleration was 4.27 g's longitudinal and 7.52 g's
lateral. All of the occupant risk values as well as the vehicle
trajectory hazard are below recommended values (~) for this type
of test.
17
The test vehicle before and after the test is shown in
Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the test installation before and after
the test. Damage to the vehicle occured when the W-beam
corrugation dragged the front bumper down and the left front tire
snagged on one corner of the downstream CMB section. The vehicle
damage consisted of sheet metal damage to the left front fender,
the left front tire was flattened and the left front tire rim was
bent from the impact with the CMB. Damage to the EOS consisted
of the paint being scraped off the W-beam at the impact point and
some surface cracking in the downstream end of the CMB. The only
repairs to the gate were repainting the W-beam at the impact
point. The EOS was still operational after this test. This test
was considered a success based on the barrier safety performance
and the relatively light damage incurred by the system.
fi§t 2.
Test 2 examined the strength of the gate system. In this
test a 4500 lb (2040 kg) Plymouth Grand Fury (1977) impacted the
EOS 6 ft (1.8 m) upstream from the midpoint of the steel gate at
60.7 mph (97.7 km/h) and 25.25 degrees. Figure 7 contains a
summary of this test. The test vehicle was smoothly redirected.
The occupant impact velocities were 18.89 ft/sec (5.76 m/s)
longitudinal and 22.77 ft/sec (6.94 m/s) lateral. The vehicle
exit angle was 4 degrees and the vehicle exit velocity was 47.96
mph (77.2 km/h). The peak 50 ms average acceleration was 5.77
g's longitudinal and 9.32 g's lateral. The vehicle accelerations
were within acceptable limits (~) for this type of test. The
longitudinal occupant impact velocity was also within acceptable
18
Figure 5. Test Vehicle Before and After Test 1.
19
Figure 6. Test Installation Before and After Test 1.
20
··~ .
' ,::.:'1;::?~~.:. ~
Figure 6. Test Ins ta 11 ati on Before and After Test 1 (continued).
21
N N
0.491 sec 0.328 sec 0.246 sec 0.083 sec
._,,,_ c ------ rm , ~,,, --=+ i" ~1"' >I< )11~ >-l
30 ft 21 ft 9 ft 30 ft CMB SECTION GATE SECTION CMB SECTION
Test Number 0999-2 Maximum CMB fvbvement, in. (em) Test Date 9-7-83 Dynamic Vehicle Permanent
fvbde l Miss, lb (kg)
Speed, mph (km/h)
Plymouth Grand Fury 4500
(1977) (2040)
Occupant Impact Velocity, ft/s (m/s) Longitudinal
Impact Exit
Angle, degrees Impact Exit
~~ximum Beam Deflection, Dynamic Permanent
Mlximum CMB Roll, degrees
in. (em)
60.7 47.96
( 97. 7) (77 .2)
25.25 4.0
17.16 (43.59) 1.63 (4.14)
3.5
Lateral Vehicle Accelerations, g's
Occupant Ride Down Longitudinal Lateral
Peak 50 ms Average Longitudinal Latera 1
Vehicle Damage Classification TAD VDI
Figure 7. Summary of Test 2.
15.12 (38.40) 3.75 (9.53)
18.89 (5.76) 22.77 (6.94)
8.21 7.78
5.77 9.32
11LFQ5 11LDEW4
limits, but the lateral occupant impact velocity exceeded the
recommended value. Although the lateral occupant impact velocity
for this test exceeded the recommended value, it was less than
the limiting value. In addition, this type of test was not
required to meet the NCHRP criteria.
Figure 8 shows the damage incurred by the test vehicle. The
damage to the test installation is shown in Figure 9. The
vehicle damag~ consisted of sheet metal damage to the left front
fender. Damage to the EOS included the W-beam on the vehicle
impact side of the gate having to be replaced and noticeable
flexural cracking in the CMB sections. The permanent beam
deflection was 1.63 in. (4.1 em). The gate could still be opened
after this test. This test was considered very successful based
on the safety performance of the system.
23
Figure 8. Test Vehicle Before and After Test 2.
24
-<-... :s-<~-
~i;;~~7;;JJ~:_ __ ~
Figure 9. Test Installation Before and After Test 2.
25
Figure 9. Test Installation Before and After Test 2 (Continued).
26
~.l
Test 3 examined the strength of the beam to CMB connection.
In this test a 4500 lb (2040 kg) Plymouth Grand Fury (1977)
impacted
of the
degrees.
the EOS 6 ft (1.8 m) upstream from the downstream end
steel gate system at 60.04 mph (96.6 km/h) and 25.5
Figure 10 contains a summary of this test. The test
vehicle was smoothly redirected. The vehicle exit angle was 1.75
degrees and the vehicle exit speed was 39.01 mph (62.8 km/h).
The occupant impact velocities were 25.62 ft/sec (7.81 m/s)
longitudinal and 20.54 ft/sec (6.26 m/s) lateral. The peak 50
ms average acceleration was 8.59 g's longitudinal and 8.32 g's
lateral. The vehicle accelerations were within acceptable limits
(J.) for this type of test. The lateral occupant impact velocity
was also within recommended limits, but the longitudinal occupant
impact velocity exceeded the recommended value. Although the
longitudinal occupant impact velocity for this test exceeded the
recommended value, it was less than the limiting value.
addition, this type of test was not required to meet
criteria.
In
this
Figure 11 shows the damage incurred by the test vehicle.
The damage to the test installation is shown in Figure 12. The
test vehicle was severely damaged in this test when the vehicle
snagged on the downstream CMB section. The permanent deflection
of the gate was 23.88 in. (60.66 em). Damage to the gate section
consisted of the W-beam on the impact side of the tubes having to
be replaced. The downstream CMB section was severely damaged due
to flexure cracking and when one of the anchor rods failed the
concrete. The upstream CMB section was also severely damaged due
27
N (X)
0.573 sec 0.382 sec 0.285 sec 0.094 sec
~
1.71 [ - II [0 I I 0/?=j 25.5° I I
fo( .. j( ~1, .. iE il'l 30 ft 6 ft 30 ft 30 ft CJIB SECTION rATE SECTION CJIB SECTION
Test Number Test Date
0999-3 Jlt.ximum CJIB M:>vement, in. (em) 9-9-83 Dynamic
Permanent Vehicle M:>de 1 Jlt.ss, lb (kg)
Speed, mph (km/h)
Plymouth Grand Fury ( 1977) 4500 (2040)
Occupant Impact Velocity, ft/s (m/s) Longitudinal
Impact Exit
Anlge, degrees Impact Exit
Maximum CJIB Roll, degrees Maximum CJIB Yaw, degrees Jlt.ximum Beam Deflection, in.
Dynamic Permanent
(em)
60.04 (96.6) 39.01 (62.8}
25.5 1.75 9.0 5.5
30.84 (78.33) 23.88 (60.66)
Latera 1 Vehicle Accelerations, g's
Occupant Ride Down Longitudinal Latera 1
Peak 50 ms Average Longitudinal Latera 1
Vehicle Damage Classification TAD VDI
Figure 10. Summary of Test 3.
31.68 (80.47) 24.00 (60.96)
25.62 (7.81) 20.54 (6.26)
4.11 6.99
8.59 8.32
11FL6 11FDAW6
Figure 11. Test Vehicle Before and After Test 3.
29
Figure 12. Test Installation Before and After Test 3.
30
Figure 12. Test Installation Before and After Test 3 (Continued).
31
Figure 12. Test Installation Before and After Test 3 (Continued).
32
to flexural cracking. In addition, the gate could not be opened
due to the metal tubes binding about the pin connections.
However, this test was still considered a success based on the
barrier's safety performance and because the vehicle did not
penetrate the barrier.
33
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An emergenc~ opening system (EOS) for an authorized vehicle
. lane (AVL) was developed and crash tested. The system, as shown
in Figures 1 and 2, consisted of two steel box tubes mounted on
top of each other. The beams were supported by pins at the ends
that were connected to modified concrete median barrier sections.
Factors considered in its development were ease of operation and
ability to redirect errant vehicles.
Three full-scale crash tests were conducted to evaluate the
impact behavior of the design. In the first test, a small
vehicle was smoothly redirected. In test 2, a large vehicle was
smoothly redirected. In the third test a large vehicle was
redirected. All of the vehicle accelerations were below
recommended values for all of the crash tests. In addition, all
of the occupant impact velocities were within acceptable limits
for all of the crash tests except for the lateral occupant impact
velocities for tests 2 and 3. Although the lateral occupant
impact velocities for tests 2 and 3 exceeded the recommended
value, they were less than the limiting value. Futhermore, this
type of test was not required to meet this criteria. In addition,
the EOS was still operational after the first two tests. The
system was not operational after the third test because the
anchorage system for the downstream concrete median barrier
failed.
Several modifications in the design of the EOS were
34
recommended to improve the operation of the system. These
changes resulting from observations of the construction and crash
testing of the system can be seen in Figure 13. The differences
in the designs are listed as follows:
1. The concrete in the CMB below the steel mounting plates
should be rounded to reduce the snagging potential of
the EOS.
2. The stirrups in the transition section of the CMB should
be increased in size from #4 reinforcement bars to iS
reinforcement bars, and the spacing between the
stirrups should be increased to 3 in. (7.62 em) center
to-center. The #14 reinforcement bars should have more
horizontal clearance between them. This increased
clearance will allow State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation (SDHPT) Class-C concrete (~) to be
used in the fabrication of the CMB.
3. The height of the concrete median barrier should be kept
constant at 32 in. (81.3 em) to accommodate the
increased gap between the steel tubes.
4. The #14 reinforcement bars should be extended further
into the standard CMB shape to transfer more of the load
past the anchorage system. These reinforcement bars
should not all be cut off at the same location.
5. ·The fabricator of the concrete median barrier must place
the flange couplers exactly where the plans dictate,
and he must be certain that the concrete face used to
mount the base plate is vertical with respect to the
horizontal ledge.
35
(:.)
C'l
3'"8·_· __ _,.~------3'-1" 5'-3"
PIVOT END SUPPORT PLATES-SEE DETAIL - 5" X 22 1/2" x7/8" STL. PL.;. 3 1/2"X22 1/2"x7/8" Pl.
PLAN
0
:I:
30'-o" -·-·---------·
23'-o" ·---··--·----
6'-3"
2-8"x8"x3/B"x28'-10" STL TUBES ASTM A500 GRADE B
/
6'-3"
C3x6 STEEL CHANNELS J ASTM A36x7" LONG 1/2" CLEAR ON EA. CASING.
31/2"x 22 1i2"x 7/8" STL. PL. LOWERABLE CASTER PIVOT C3x6 STEEL CHANNEL_... LOWERABLE CASTER PIVOT WHEEL- SEE DETAIL
PIVOT PIN-SEE DETAIL
CONCRETE BARRER
ELEVATION
0 4
4" DIA.x 8" SCHD.40 PIPE SLEEVE INSERT (WELDED IN PLACE IN ALL ( C3x6 ASTM A36 STEEL END STIFFENER TUBES)Ar CHANNEL x 7" LONG
~?Ill ( ?! !7 v' \ I I ' I ~~ II iP 7 I ' ' f--------,------J
s• 1'-o" 2'-o"
Al
1-. -'
·JACK/CASTER-SEE NOTES AT DETAIL A-A
5"x22 112"x7/8" STL. PL.
OPENING END SUPPORT PLATES SEE DETAIL.
3 1/2"x22 112"x7/8" STL. PL.
1, 4' I \ ,I
\\SECURE PIN- SEE DETAIL
~3 1/2"x22 1/2" x7/8" STL. PL.
DRILL 1" DIA. HOLE THROUGH PIN SO THAT LIFTING ROD CAN BE
------H-------ROTATED DOWN PARALLEL WITH PAVEMENT SURFACE
l/4"x7'x 1'-1" SHIMPL.AT TOP a SlOE. SEE DETAIL SHEET 2
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
IMPROVED DESIGN--OPENING STEEL GATE
IDRAWN 8Y' G.R.S DATE: JULY, 1983 SHEET NUMBER:
REVISION DATE: OCTOBER, 1983 1 Of 4
Figure 13. Design Modifications for Emergency Opening Syste~.
w ""'-.!
22'
2' I 31/2' 10' 61/2'
~
~ "'
~-~ g
ELEVATION
5'k22112"x7/8" STL. PL:
5112' 61/2'
d 112• r. w
---{!) ( I I "I I I 0
g
PLAN 114' CHAMFER AT ALL CORNERS
DETAILS AT END SUPPORTS
II 3/4"
NOTE: ALL EXPOSED EDGES OF SIDE PLATES ARE TO BE BEVELED AT 45 °.
f I I (+~BOLT HOLES-SEE DETAIL ON 'x8'x3/8' STL. Tli!E
1 3/4' DIA. BOLT HOLE TO ACCOMMODATE 8-1 112' DIA. ASTM A490HS BOLTS x 4' LONG-----
END ELEVATION
31/2" K 22 1/2" STL.PL. BOLT HOLE SIZE AS NOTED
THIS SHEET FOR SIZE AND SHAPE
~INSERT C3x6 STEEL CHANNEL ASTM A38
NOTE 7/8' PLATE AT EITHER SIDE. REFER TO PLAN TO DETERMINE LOCATION & SIZE
HAND CRANKED JACK W/CASTER ASSEMBLY CRANK MAY BE TOP MOUNTED AS MANUFACTURED BY HOLLAND HITCH CO., REQUIRING ACCESS TO JACK P.O. BOX 3015, 430 W. 18TH ST., HOLLAND, THROUGH BEAM. JACK HANDLE MI. 49423. JACK TO BE ABLE TO LIFT 5000+ NOT TO PROTRUDE INTO TRAFFIC VERTICAL 2-3 INCHES HOLLAND HITCH OR LANE WHILE NOT IN USE APPROVED EQUAL Us-300- J8-300-J &
V-300-JS 6' DIA. CASTER SECTION A-A MINIMUM REQUIRED. CASTER MUST BE FIXED
SO THAT IT WILL NOT ROTATE 360°. ·-·--0 3' 6' 1'-Q'
.............
2'-Q'
e---+--::< E70 XX
NOTE GATE SHOWN IN OPEN POSITION
7'x7'x3/8'x13' STl TUBE WELDED INSIDE 8'x8' STL. TUBE W/ 1/4' SHIM PLATES AT SIDE AND BOTTOM (1/4'x7'x13')
1' ROO Fy = SOksi -m 8'x8' STL. TUBE_w~·:.:::: .......... .".......... 221/2'x31/2' x7/6' STL. PL. 114' SHIM A1 SIDE AND BOTTOM
....-~ I GENERAL NOTES SECTION B-B
0 3' 6' 1'-Q' 2'-Q' ALL STEEL TO BE ASTM A572 GRADE 50 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. PROVIDE BOTH PINS (3 1/4' DIA. & 3/4' DIA.) AT BOTH ENDS ALL WELDS E70XX ELECTRODES.
-- ~. 0 3' 6' 1'-Q' 2'-o'
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUT. THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTBM
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
IMPROVED DESIGN-OPENING STEEL GATE
DRAWN BY: O.R.S. DATE': JULY, 18113 SHeET MJtiBEif:
APPROVED BY: H.E.R. REVISION DATE: OCTOBER, 1113 2 Of 4
Figure 13. Design t1odifications for Emergenc~' Opening System. (continued)
t I J _ ~~; ~;y~m~ PLAN jE c
30'-o" < c <t I 2s'-1 3/4' ss 2s· 2' 10 1311s·
4.' i4· s· .-6/
8'
~E ' W•
. H+ 1-, I\ 7·
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~~~~~~==~~1~·7~···~·~~.·~-i;~dmrri'-'l'~,~~:+ ~~\~~~ ELEVATION < E 0.5" CHAMFER ALL CORNERS "'1111 ..., 1 f-l.. < c 27 1/4'
UPSTREAM TRANSITION SECTION I ELEVATION
w C0
~10 E~ , ~~~~jll q? ; . . ; 1 •
l E PLAN
30'-0'
6' ~· 9' 5/8' 6 2' 6'-4114' 23'-53/4' STANDARD CMB SHAPE
~ft~ of> Ef>
I ~ J A ' 1}.. ~ ~I I 13~:..::::==-----t---------------------------_:~---------l
I I J.: ... i ~ R _::.=
I J I "tOt 1 ,.1 0.5' CHAMFER ALL CORNERS i> ELEVATION .( 271/4. J· I 0[> E
ELEVATION
DOWNSTREAM TRANSITION SECTION / RIGID ANCHOR OF CONTRACTOR DESIGN
ENGINEER APPROVED AT LOCATIONS SHOWN 30'-0' FOR DIMENSION OF BULLETNOSE SEE ELEV. ABOVE
19'-9' #4 STIRRUPS AT 6' C-c 10'-3'
's·-o· 3'-9' 2' 2' 2' 2' 2' _I 10'-o· 3\ "2·
I l 1 40-+5 STIRRUPS AT 3' c-c
I TBXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE TIIB TEXAS AAM UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
I [ I '--, AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE = J EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
NOTE: AS +14'S END CONNECT ,.4 BARS ~#14 BARS CUT OFF AT LOCATIONS SHOWN TYPICAL IMPROVED DESIGN -CONCRETE BARRIER
SECTION (TYPICAL) WITH APPROVED LAPPING AND TYING DRAWNBY:G.R.s. I DATE: JULY, 1983 (sHEETNfRIBER:
0111"'..-.~4'-Q" APPROVEDBY:H.E.R.l REVISIONDATE:~CTOBER, 198~1 3 Of~
Figure l3. Desi~n ~·iodifications for Emergency Opening Syster.1. ( conti n'ued)
w <._[.)
j
~
~
12"
NOTE: SHADED BARS TO BE TERMIMNATED WITH A FLANGE COUPLER
10-+14 BARS GRADE 60
GRADE 60 STIRRUPS TAPERED TO FIT FORM
1~+4 BARS GRADE 60
· ~ T I - .. 5 STIRRUPS@3" c-c
~ +5STIRRUPS
•. ··•·•·. •. . .. ..•••• .··•···••••••· + ... ·•·. · • CONCRETE (SHADED) .,tft, ... ~ .. ;_ • ~ NOTE: WHERE +14 BARS END CONNECT +4 BARS WITH ENGINEER APPROVED LAPPING AND TIES
UPSTREAM END SECTION C-C
0 3" 6"
z I
"' I
"' I ~
..,
1'-0" "2'-0"
(.CMB
2" 4"1 4" 2" oJc tt •!uJ
1'-15/8" 1'-15/8"
2'-3 114"
SECTION E-E
0 3" 6" 1'-0" 2'-0"
1"R.
16 1/2" 8"
·'---
~ I +5· STIRRUP INSIDE DIA. OF ALL BENDS IS 2.0"
reI ~I ~1 Ill Ill "'I re !
112 "'L--
3 1121-;- .I 5"1. -;+3 112"
l---1
f-+5 GRADE 60 CLOSED
STIRRUP BEND AS SHOWN-
STIRRUP DETAIL FOR SECTION C-C
DOWNSTREAM END SECTION D-D
STJRRUP DETAIL FOR SECTION D-D
NOTE: SHADED +14 BARS (SEE SECT.C-C & D-D)
TERMINATED BY REBAR FLANGE COUPLER, WILLIAMS FORM ENGINEERING CORP., GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, OR SIMILAR PRODUCT. REBAR IS THREADED INTO 3" OF COUPLER. FLANGE COUPLER IS BOLTED OR NAILED TO FORM FOR FABRICATION. END OF REBAR IS THREADED TO FIT FLANGE COUPLER. LAST 3" OF REBAR IS THREADED 1 1/2" DIA. x 6NC.
FLANGE COUPLER
0 2"
NOTE: ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 'C" IN THE LATEST
EDITION OF SDHPT SPECIFICATIONS. ALL REINFORCEMENT
IS GRADE 60.
NOTE: STIRRUP SPACING FOR HINGED END AND LATCHED END SECTIONS ARE TYPICAL.
NOTE: REGARDLESS OF METHOD OF HANDLING, BARRIER
SECTION LIFTING POINTS SHALL BE 6.25 FT. FROM THE
ENDS OF THE BARRIER. LIFTING DEVICES AND ATTACHMENTS
6" 1'-0"
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE LANE EMERGENCY OPENING SYSTEM
IMPROVED DESIGIII-CONCRETE BARRIER
MA-·Y·n•• DATE: JULY, 1883 SHEET ,:IMBER:
IIEVISION DATE: OCTOBER, 1083 4 Of 4
Figure 13. Design i'1odifications for Emergenc~' Opening Syster.1. (continued)
6. The vertical concrete face used to mount the tongue
plates should have its width increased from 10 in. (25.4
em) to 12 in. (29.5 em).
7. The traffic side of the upstream concrete median barrier
should keep the same shape and reinforcement as the
typical CMB section in the transition part of the EOS.
8. A different anchorage system should be used to anchor
the CMB sections to the roadway surface.
9. TheW-beams, end shoes and the side straps used to mount
them should be left off the side of the box beams to
reduce the snagging potential of the EOS. C3X6 steel
channels should be used between the tubes in place of
the steel side straps to keep the vertical
clearance between the beams constant.
10. A larger diameter and wider caster should be used
the jacks to facilitate opening and closing the
with
EOS.
The caster should be fixed so that it will not rotate
360 degrees but will roll only back and forth across the
roadway.
11. The pin holes in the tongue plates should be increased
to 4 in. (10.2 em) wide by 5 in. (12.7 em) long to make
it easier to open and close the gate.
12. The holes in the base plates for the anchor bolts that
screw into the rebar flange couplers should be changed
from slotted holes to 1.75 in. (4.4 em) diameter holes.
The bolt holes should be located as shown in Figure 13.
13. The vertical clearance between the steel tubes should be
40
increased to 3 in. (7.6 em) to make it easier to open
and close the EOS.
14. The pipe sleeve inserts in the tubes should be increased
in size to 4 in. (10.2 em) diameter schedule 40 steel
pipe.
15. The pins used to operate the system will have to be
longer to take into account the increased distance
between the tubes.
16. A jack and caster mechanism should be used at both ends
17.
of the tubes so that the gate can be opened at either
end.
The side mounted plates on the tongue plates will have
to be arranged differently so that the gate can open
into the authorized vehicle lane from either end, yet
not open into the freeway traffic lanes. In addition,
the tongue plates and the base plate that the
tongue plates are welded to should have their width
increased from 8 in. (20.3 em) to 10 in. (25.4 em).
18. The handles on the pins should be built so that they can
be laid flat rather than sticking up in the air when
they are not needed to raise or lower the pin.
The full-scale crash tests showed that the system tested can
be used by an emergency vehicle to gain immediate access to an
authorized vehicle lane. In addition, the tests showed the
barrier's safety performance characteristics. Finally, the
ability of the steel gate to be opened and closed from either end
will allow the EOS to be used on any highway system that is
separated by concrete median barriers.
41
APPENDIX A
DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS
42
Instrumentation
Test vehicles were equipped with triaxial accelerometers
mounted near the center of gravity. Yaw, pitch and roll were
sensed by on-board gyroscopic instruments. The analog signals
were telemetered to a base station for recording on magnetic tape
and display on real-time strip chart. Provision was made for
transmission of calibration signals before and after the test,
and an accurate time reference signal was simultaneously recorded
with the data.
Tape switches near the impact area were actuated by the
vehicle to indicate elapsed time over a known distance to provide
a quick check of impact speed. The initial contact also produced
an "event" mark on the data record to establish the instant of
impact.
High-speed motion pictures were obtained from various
locations, including overhead, to document the events and provide
a time-displacement history. Film and electronic data were
.synchronized through a visual/ electronic event signal at initial
contact.
43
APPENDIX B
SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
44
0.000 sec
0.048-sec
0.095 sec
0.0143 sec
Figure 14. Sequential Photographs for Test 1.
45
0.193 sec
0.240 sec
0.288 sec
0.328 sec
Figure 14. Sequential Photographs for Test 1.
46
(Continued)
0.000 sec
0.163 sec
0.246 sec
Figure 15. Sequential Photographs for Test 2.
47
0.328 sec
0.409 sec
0.491 sec
0.579 sec
Figure 15. Sequential Photograprs for Test 2. (continued)
48
0.000 sec
0.094 sec
0.191 sec
0.285 sec
Figure 16. Sequential Photographs for Test 3.
49
0.382 sec
0.476 sec
0.573 sec
0.690 sec
Figure 16. Sequential Photographs for Test 3. (Continued)
50
APPENDIX C
ACCELEROMETER TRACES AND
PLOTS OF ROLL, PitCH, AND YAW RATES
51
z: 0 ....... 1-
10
5
0
~ -5 LLI __. LLI u u .:::(
__. .:::( z: 8 -10 ::::> 1-....... ~ z: 0 __.
-15
Class 180 Filter
I. I I
········r···· I I
Max. o. qso sec Avg. := -4.27 g . .
I .j .................. ) ........................... .
I ~ I . I
I I!
I I [ I 1 i
..... [ .. ····(···· ······················ ·························
I I: I I! I I i
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 17. Vehicle Longitudinal Accelerometer Trace for Test 1.
52
0.50
z: 0 ........ 1-
~ L1J .....!
5
0
-5
~ I i : I : ffi -lo ····· .1... ·H··· :5 i I
I I
Class 180 Filter . . . .
Max. o;oso sec Avg; = -7.52 g
-15 L_1:
0~--------~--------~--------~------_J
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 18. Vehicle Lateral Accelerometer Trace for Test 1.
53
0.50
,.z
~®VAW ~~
0 0
Lf)
0
(Do 0 w .
WLD eel L:l w Do '----'0
0 f--..-. z1 w L: Wo uo a:: .
Lf) _j ...... o_ I
())
Do 0
0 ru
I
0 0
Lf)
ru I
•f'O\..\..
Axes are vehicle fixed. Sequence for determining orientation is:
1. Yaw 2. Pitch 3. Roll
Yaw
Figure .l9. Vehicle Angular Displacement for Test 1.
54
z: 0 ,__, 1-c::( 0::: w _J w u u c::(
_J c::( z: ,__, Cl :::::> 1-...... <.!:! z: 0 _J
Class 180 Filter
20 ~oo~l14~--___;__-..;___,.---+1•--- Max. a . 050 sec )1, vg • = - 5 . 7 g
I I I I
10 .................. ····· ·····l······ ··:·····~········ .................................. ····················· I : I I : I I
0
-10 ·········· .............. .
-20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
TIME ( SECONDS)
Figure 20. Vehicle Longitudinal Accelerometer Trace for Test 2.
55
x Telemetry Failure
0.25
20
z: 0
~ -20 <::( c::: LLJ ....J LLJ u u <::(
....J
~ -40 LLJ 1-c:( ....J
0
Class 180 Filter
I I ..................... -1. \ .......... .
I I I I I I
: I . . ... ·.:: .... -~. . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. : .... 1. I
I I ,..1 .. ---~·+-1•-- Ma~. 0.050 sec jAvg. = I I
-60 0.00 0.('5 0.10 0.15 0.20
TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 21. Vehicle Lateral Accelerometer Trace for Test 2.
56
Telemetry Failure
-9.3 g
0.25
0 0
LD
En. 0
u=;o 0 w .
WLD a=' C)
w Do ...._..0
0 1---.--. z' w z= Wo uo a:: . LD _j.--. Q_ I (f) t--i
Do 0
0 ('\j
I
0 0
LD ('\j
I
00
Axes are vehicle fixed. Sequence for determining orientation is:
1. Yaw 2. Pitch 3. Roll
Roll
Pitch
Yaw
Figure 22. Vehicle Angular Displacements for Test 2.
57
20
-(.!' -z 0 ~ 0 .,_ c:( 0::.: UJ -I UJ u u c:(
-I c:(
-20 ·····- ... z ~
Cl :::::> .,_ ~
(.!' z 0 -I
-40 0.00 0.10
Figure 23.
Class 180 Filter
Max. 0.050 sec Avg. = -8.59 g
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:
0.20 0.30 0.40
TIME (SECONDS)
Vehicle Longitudinal Accelerometer Trace for Test 3.
58
0.50
z 0 ....... I-
~ LLI -I LLI u u c:::(
-I
20
0
~ -20 LLI 1-c:::( -I
-40 0.00 0.10
Figure 24.
Class 180 Filter
Max. 0.050 sec Ayg. = -8.32 g
0.20 0.30 0.40
TIME (SECONDS)
Vehicle Lateral Accelerometer Trace for Test 3.
59
0.50
0 0 . 0 ...-.
en w&. 00
Axes are vehicle fixed. · Sequence for determining orientation is:
1. Yaw 2. Pitch 3. Roll
Roll
w -~~~~~~--------~--~~~~ ceo C)
w Do '--'0 .
0 f--..-. z:1 w ::E Wo uo IT . _j~ o._ I
en
. 0 (Y)
I
Figure 25. Vehicle Angular Displacements for Test 3.
60
REFERENCES
1. Powell, Graham H., "Barrier VII: A Computer Program for
Evaluation of Automobile Barrier Systems," Federal Highway
Administration, washington, D. C., April, 1973.
2. "Building Code Requirements
318-77, American Concrete
1977.
for Reinforced Concrete," ACI
Institute, Detroit, Michigan,
3. "Manual of Steel Construction," American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois, May, 1981.
4. Michie, Jarvis D., "Recommended Procedure for the Safety
Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances," NCHRP
Report 230, March, 1981.
5. "Standard Specifications for Construction of
Streets and Bridges," Texas State Department of
Highways,
Highways
and Public Transportation,
1982.
Austin, Texas, September 1,
61