LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Design Manual
7.56
7.4 Design of Bridge Railing
Many different railings are used on our nations bridges today. The bridge engineer
usually does not need to design the railings for a bridge. Instead the railings are
selected from a set of crashed-tested and approved railings.
NCHRP Report 350, Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance
Evaluation of Highway Features, was published in 1993 and presents uniform
guidelines for the crash testing of both permanent and temporary highway safety
features and recommended evaluation criteria to assess the test results.
Performance is evaluated in terms of several parameters:
Degree of hazard to which occupants of the impacting vehicle would be
exposed
Degree of hazard to workers and pedestrians who may be behind the barrier
Structural adequacy of the barrier
Behavior of the vehicle after impact
With the guidelines provided in NCHRP 350, a given railing or barrier may be tested
to one of six test levels. A test level is defined by the impact speed, the impact angle
of approach, and the type of test vehicle. Bridge barriers designed and tested to
satisfy Test Level 1 are generally used on low service level roadways, such as rural
connectors, local roads, or restricted work zones. Barriers designed and tested to
satisfy Test Level 6, however, are usually used on high service level roadways, such
as freeways and major highways. To illustrate the six test levels, Table 7.8 contains
testing information used for each level.
Table 7.8 Test Matrix for Barriers
Impact Conditions
Test Level Heaviest Vehicle Used Nominal Speed Nominal Impact
Angle
TL-1 2000P
(Pickup Truck)
50 km/hr 25
TL-2 2000P
(Pickup Truck)
70 km/hr 25
TL-3 2000P
(Pickup Truck)
100 km/hr 25
TL-4 8000S
(Single-unit Van Truck)
80 km/hr 15
TL-5 36000V
(Tractor/Van Trailor)
80 km/hr 15
TL-6 36000T
(Tractor/Tank Trailor)
80 km/hr 25
Table 7.8 shows that, as the test level increases, either the heaviest test vehicle size
increases or the nominal impact speed increases if the same vehicle is being used.
VOLUME 1: General Design Considerations
CHAPTER 7: Deck Design
7.57
To be approved for use on a bridge, a barrier must satisfy three phases:
1. Research and development the design evolves and is eventually subjected
to a set of crash tests, which are assessed based on a set of evaluation
criteria.
2. Experimental the in-service performance of the experimental barrier is
closely monitored.
3. Operational the in-service performance of the approved barrier continues to
be monitored.
When a barrier satisfies these three phases, it is approved to resist a set of design
forces, as presented in Table 7.9. J ust as Table 7.8 shows that a higher test level
can resist a heavier test vehicle or a greater impact speed, Table 7.9 shows that a
higher test level can resist greater design forces. The variables and designations
used in Table 7.9 are defined in AASHTO LRFD Article 13.3 and are illustrated in
AASHTO LRFD Figure A13.2-1.
Table 7.9 Design Forces for Traffic Railings
(Based on AASHTO LRFD Table A13.2-1)
Railing Test Level
Design Forces and Designations
TL-1 TL-2 TL-3 TL-4 TL-5 TL-6
F
t
Transverse (kips) 13.5 27.0 54.0 54.0 124.0 175.0
F
L
Longitudinal (kips) 4.5 9.0 18.0 18.0 41.0 58.0
F
v
Vertical (kips) Down 4.5 4.5 4.5 18.0 80.0 80.0
L
t
and L
L
(feet) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 8.0 8.0
L
v
(feet) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 40.0 40.0
H
e
(min.) (inches) 18.0 20.0 24.0 32.0 42.0 56.0
Minimum H Height of Rail (inches) 27.0 27.0 27.0 32.0 42.0 90.0
Example:
The Typical Concrete Barrier, shown in Figure 7.22, has been tested and approved
for Test Level 5.
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Design Manual
7.58
Figure 7.22 Typical Concrete Barrier, Approved for Test Level 5
Similarly, the Alternate Concrete Barrier, shown in Figure 7.23, has been tested and
approved for Test Level 4.
VOLUME 1: General Design Considerations
CHAPTER 7: Deck Design
7.59
Figure 7.23 Alternate Concrete Barrier, Approved for Test Level 4
Several observations can be made from these two barrier examples. First, the two
barriers are similar, but the Typical Concrete Barrier, which is 3-6 high, is approved
for Test Level 5, while the Alternate Concrete Barrier, which is only 2-8 high, is only
approved for Test Level 4. It is intuitive that for similar barriers, the taller barrier can
be utilized for higher service level roadways.
Second, the approved barrier details define more than just the barrier shape. They
also define all dimensions of the barrier, all reinforcing steel required in the barrier,
the required reinforcement clear distance, and the required concrete and reinforcing
steel strengths. If these barriers are utilized on a bridge, each of these requirements
must be fully satisfied.
Third, the barrier has been approved for a specific test level and therefore satisfies
specific performance characteristics. However, the test level does not necessarily
define a specific barrier application. That determination rests with the appropriate
transportation agency responsible for the bridge.
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Design Manual
7.60
Finally, the engineer does not necessarily need to perform any barrier design.
Instead, they select a barrier that has been tested and approved for the specific test
level required by the governing agency for that particular bridge location. However,
for a concrete barrier, sample design computations are presented in Section 7.3.4 of
this chapter. The values computed in Section 7.3.4 are required for the design of the
overhang portion of the deck.
7.5 Metal Decks
Future Development
7.6 Other Decks (Timber, Aluminum, FRP, etc.)
Future Development
7.7 Deck Connections to the Superstructure
Future Development
7.8 Deck Detailing
Future Development
