View Q&A

I have a couple of thoughts related to this.

1. The connection detail you use is similar to the original pin and loop connection we utilized with the Midwest Pooled Fund F-shape PCB. In the original design we used two loops top and bottom and a similar pin. We also had plate washers and a retaining bolt to prevent the pin from pulling out under loading. You design is similar in that that pin is constrained. The advantage of the three loop design we currently use is that the retention pin or nut like you have is not necessary. The loops lock the pin in place through double shear. The other advantage of the three loop connection is that the loading of the pin is reduced. I am not aware of this connection being evaluated to MASH in either a free-standing or anchored application.  
2. In terms of using the barrier with the WisDOT reduced deflection PCB, I don’t believe that the difference in the connection would make much of an issue as that system uses a saddle cap and steel tubing across the joint to transmit loads more effectively between barrier segments and reduce deflection. We did make note of using alternative barriers with the WisDOT system in the report. See text below. As noted below, the biggest issue for using the system with the Indiana PCB would likely be barrier capacity. I don’t have details for your system for comparison.
1. Finally, there may be a desire to adapt the low-deflection TCB system developed in this research to other TCB designs. It is believed that this design could be adapted to other systems with some additional considerations. First, the reinforcement of the alternative TCB design would need to provide equal or greater capacity to the barrier segment used in this research. Second, there is potential for different TCB segment connections to be used with the design as the design of the steel cap and tubes in the low-deflection hardware provides the majority of the load transfer across the TCB joints. However, barriers with different joint constraints and joint gap tolerances may result in slightly different performance, and differences in joint design should be considered. Third, barrier geometry may affect the performance of the system. Barrier height should be maintained at the 32 in. (813 mm) height of the barrier evaluated herein in order to maintain the position of the continuous steel tubes in the as-tested design. In addition, different barrier shapes, such as single slope or New Jersey shape TCB’s may affect the performance of the system, but the horizontal tubes used in the design would be expected to provide a more vertical profile regardless of the barrier shape and would tend to increase vehicle stability. Finally, variations in specific TCB designs, like those noted here, may affect the extent of the reduced lateral deflections when using the low-deflection retrofit design. Thus, the reduction in barrier deflection may vary from those observed in this study and should be further investigated on an individual basis.
3. In terms of dealing with the other anchoring systems that we have for the Midwest F-shape PCB, I did answer some questions previously on this with Indiana – likely before your time. See below. If you have a specific anchorage that you would like to incorporate into your PCB, we can help provide guidance.
1. https://mwrsf-qa.unl.edu/view.php?id=273

One more note I forgot to add.

The LON for the WisDOT reduced deflection PCB has been tested to MASH, and a transition to free-standing PCB has been designed. However, the transition has yet to be tested and evaluated to MASH.

Let me know if that helps or if there are additional questions you would like to discuss.