Performance and Capacity Assessment of Concrete Barriers Subject to Lateral Loading
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 26, Issue 12
Abstract
Current specifications for concrete barrier design (AASHTO-LRFD Section 13) indicate that the yield line method (YLM) should be used to ensure that a barrier has the adequate flexural capacity to resist the demand imposed by the truck impact. However, ensuring appropriate shear behavior of the parapet is not clearly addressed. Two recent experimental studies suggested that punching shear, rather than flexural yielding, can be the dominant failure mode of concrete barriers subjected to lateral loading. These studies employed idealized static loading setups in the laboratory, which are not necessarily accurate representations of truck impact loading on a barrier. The objective of this study is to use computational simulation to systematically investigate the failure pattern of concrete barriers subjected to lateral truck impact and assess their behavior in both flexure and shear. A set of pushover tests on half-scale concrete walls are selected from the literature and the failure modes of the tested parapets are simulated and analyzed in detail. Static loading demands from the tests are compared with those from impact loading as computed from high fidelity truck impact simulations and the results used to assess the potential for punching shear failure. A punching shear model is proposed. It is shown that the punching shear capacity of the MASH concrete barrier considered, which has standard details, is substantially larger than its flexural capacity. Therefore, it is conservative to continue to design barriers for flexural capacity as is the current practice.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported, in part, under the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. CNS-0958379, CNS-0855217, and ACI-1126113) and the City University of New York High-Performance Computing Center at the College of Staten Island.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 8th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2011. Building code requirements for structural concrete (318-11) and commentary-(318R-11). Detroit, MI: ACI.
Agrawal, A. K., S. El-Tawil, R. Cao, X. Xu, X. Chen, and W. Wong. 2018. A performance based approach for loading definition of heavy vehicle impact events. FHWA-HIF-18-062. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
Ahmed, E. A., C. Dulude, and B. Benmokrane. 2013. “Concrete bridge barriers reinforced with glass fibre-reinforced polymer: Static tests and pendulum impacts.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 40 (11): 1050–1059. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0019.
Alberson, D. C., W. F. Williams, and W. L. Menges. 2005. Testing and evaluation of the Florida F shape bridge rail with reduced deck thickness. FHWA/TX-05/9-8132-3. College Station, TX: Texas Dept. of Transportation.
Cao, R., A. K. Agrawal, S. El-Tawil, and W. Wong. 2020. “Numerical studies on concrete barriers subjected to MASH truck impact.” J. Bridge Eng. 25 (7): 04020035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001570.
Figueroa, A. M., E. Negron, G. Portela, R. N. Gonzalez-Rivera, H. Diaz-Alvarez, and G. I. Velazquez. 2011. Evaluation of bridges subjected to military loading and dynamic hydraulic effects: Review of design regulations, selection criteria, and inspection procedures for bridge railing systems. No. ERDC/GSL-TR-11-24. Vicksburg, MS: Engineer Research and Development Center, Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory.
Frosch, R. J., and A. J. Morel. 2016. Guardrails for use on historic bridges: Volume 2—Bridge deck overhang design. JTRP Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2016/34. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ.
Fujikake, K., B. Li, and S. Soeun. 2009. “Impact response of reinforced concrete beam and its analytical evaluation.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (8): 938–950. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000039.
Grzebieta, R., and G. Rechnitzer. 2013. “Interface analysis and design: Improving heavy vehicle road safety barrier design.” In Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conf. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Hallquist, J. O. 2006. “LS-DYNA theory manual.” Livermore Soft. Technol. Corp. 3: 25–31.
Hirsch, T. J. 1978. Analytical evaluation of Texas bridge rails to contain buses and trucks. Rep. No. FHWA TX 78-230-2. College Station, TX: Performed for the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Performed by Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M Univ.
Jeon, S. J., M. S. Choi, and Y. J. Kim. 2011. “Failure mode and ultimate strength of precast concrete barrier.” ACI Struct. J. 108 (1): 99–107.
MASH (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware). 2016. AASHTO subcommittee on bridges and structures. Washington, DC: MASH.
Miele, C. R., C. Plaxico, D. Stephens, and S. Simunovic. 2010. U26: Enhanced finite element analysis crash model of tractor-trailers (Phase C). Knoxville, TN: National Transportation Research Center, Inc., Univ. Transportation Center.
Namy, M., J.-P. Charron, and B. Massicotte. 2015. “Structural behavior of bridge decks with cast-in-place and precast concrete barriers: Numerical modeling.” J. Bridge Eng. 20 (12): 04015014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000751.
Sennah, K., and H. Khederzadeh. 2014. “Development of cost-effective PL-3 concrete bridge barrier reinforced with sand-coated GFRP bars: Vehicle crash test.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 41 (4): 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0393.
Zhao, X. 2013. “Yield line mechanism analysis of steel members and connections.” Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 5 (4): 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.161.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 29, 2021
Accepted: Jul 30, 2021
Published online: Oct 6, 2021
Published in print: Dec 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Mar 6, 2022
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Yi Zhang, Ruiwen Li, Kai Heng, Feng Hu, Dynamic Behaviors of Optimized K12 Anti-Ram Bollards, Symmetry, 10.3390/sym14081703, 14, 8, (1703), (2022).
- Lei Pan, Hong Hao, Jian Cui, Thong M Pham, Numerical study on impact resistance of rubberised concrete roadside barrier, Advances in Structural Engineering, 10.1177/13694332221120130, 26, 1, (17-35), (2022).