Highway Barrier Hardware Guide Discussion Board
« Drawing/spec »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 22, 2009, 12:59am

[Home] [Help] [Search] [Login] [Register]



Highway Barrier Hardware Guide Discussion Board :: New Hardware Submissions - Guardrails / Median Barriers :: SGR05 :: Drawing/spec
   [Search This Thread][Reply] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
AuthorTopic: Drawing/spec (Read 682 times)
Administrator
Administrator
*****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Mar 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 331
Drawing/spec
« Thread Started on Jul 27, 2005, 12:18pm »		[Quote]
Updated drawing and specification at http://users.wpi.edu/~skwirl/HardwareGuide/New/Ready/Systems/sgr05.pdf - with links to components.

I have left this system exactly as it was in the last Guide, just updated to dual units. I think it is a TL-2 system, but I didn't find it on the FHWA approval letters webpage (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/).

Anyone using a non-steel block with this system?
« Last Edit: Aug 22, 2005, 12:34pm by Administrator »Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Terry Hale
Guest
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #1 on Jul 28, 2005, 7:22am »		[Quote]
As this is essentially identical to the TL-3 roadside HPBO W-Beam, except for a slightly different post anchorage, the culvert variant should be accepted as a TL-3 device. However, since the steel blockouts for the roadside HPBO have been indicted, the culvert variant should only be shown with solid blockouts.
Our current guidance calls for the solid blockouts for this culvert rail, but I don't believe we've used it yet. Shallow culverts (typically found in rural settings) don't tend to occur in the locales where we typically use HPBO (high-volume urban settings).
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Donald Bennett
Guest
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #2 on Jul 28, 2005, 7:42am »		[Quote]
SGRO5: Soft conversion of 175mm should be 7", not 6 7/8(non standard length). Question selection of "a"(A307) on FBX20 and FRS20. Anchor bolts and studs normally "b"(A449/A325".*Don Bennett
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
cheimbecker
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: May 2005
Posts: 25
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #3 on Aug 3, 2005, 1:54pm »		[Quote]
FLDOT shows a 12" x 12" plate and epoxy bolt options.

ALDOT has a double nesting option with increased post spacing.

NCDOT has a 1' 7" x 8" plate with 1/2" thick brace angles at base of post front & back.

TXDOT shows same as this SGR05 drawing....

BUT - ALL states show the solid wood/plastic block as a requirement.
=========================
FWP01 detail - Side View: Bolt holes are shown on what would be the backside of post. Post bolt holes should be on the opposite side so that holes are on same side as toe of plate extending towards the w-beam.



Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Administrator
Administrator
*****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Mar 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 331
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #4 on Aug 4, 2005, 10:41am »		[Quote]
I've posted revised drawings for SGR05, PWF01, and FPB03.

SGR05 - changed to solid block, changed conversion of 175mm, and checked the drawing with TXDOT's version. TXDOT uses A307 anchors too, so I'm leaving that as is.

PWF01 - fixed the bolt hole locations
FPB03 - fixed bolt hole size

There are a two differences from the TXDOT version that I want to check with y'all:
(1) The height from the road surface to the guardrail bolt is 22" in this drawing but only 21" in TXDOT's drawing.
(2) This drawing shows a minimum distance of 2' from the back of the culvert slab to the front of the guardrail. TXDOT shows a distance of at least 2' from the back of the culvert to the back of the guardrail post.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Administrator
Administrator
*****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Mar 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 331
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #5 on Sept 8, 2005, 1:03pm »		[Quote]
Regarding testing/approval: D. Powers of FHWA says it has not officially been approved by FHWA, but MWRSF has tested something similar. Any comments on the testing from MWRSF?
« Last Edit: Sept 8, 2005, 1:03pm by Administrator »Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Administrator
Administrator
*****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Mar 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 331
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #6 on Oct 27, 2005, 5:06pm »		[Quote]
Drawing/spec moved to http://aashtotf13.tamu.edu/Guide/New/In-progress/Systems/sgr05.pdf
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Karla Polivka
New Member
*
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: May 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 21
Re: Drawing/spec
« Reply #7 on May 8, 2007, 2:00pm »		[Quote]
MwRSF successfully tested a W-beam system attached to a culvert with the back of the steel post 10" from the front of the concrete headwall to TL-3 criteria. MwRSF also tested the same system but with the back of the steel posts adjacent to the front of the concrete headwall and it was unsuccessful.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2007, 2:01pm by Karla Polivka »Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
   [Search This Thread][Reply] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free


This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!