Skip to main content
University
of
Nebraska–Lincoln
Log In
Search
Search
Submit
Close
Midwest Roadside Safety Facility
Menu
Search
Log In
Home
Who We Are
History
Faculty/Staff
Employment
Contact Us
Services
Testing
Finite Element Analysis
Design/Consulting
Pooled Fund
About
Member States
Active Projects
Members Only
Tech Transfer
Newsletters and Featured Research
Research Hub
AFB20 (user/password required)
Pooled Fund Q&A
Q&A Home
Ask a Question
Search Questions
Q&A Reports
Login
Q&A Home
Ask Us A Question
Search Answered Questions
Q&A Reports
Login
Nebraska
MwRSF
Q&A Home
Seach Q&A
View Q&A
View Q&A
Guardrail Placement in a Cut Area
Question
State
IL
Description Text
Here is a question that has been posed to me by a designer in one of our Districts. They want to minimize cut of the existing back slope (virtually not touch it), while squeezing in a curb and guardrail along the roadway. This results in the earth slope rising steeply behind the curb and within the deflection space of the guardrail system.
I am suggesting to them to use a concrete barrier, if a barrier is needed here.
However, can you see any way the guardrail might work? I think this probably is not possible because the increased embedment of the posts would lead us to a shorter post in order to compensate for the increased fill. However, there is not room for deflection before encountering the back slope and the deflecting system will be interfered with by that slope. Also, the vehicle itself will encroach into the back slope area, contributing lifting and/or snagging potential.
System Performance Evaluation
System Types
Permanent Concrete Barriers
W-beam Guardrails
Applications
Systems Adjacent to Slope
System Features
Date
October 4, 2010
Previous Views (115) Favorites (0)
Attachment
Guardrail in Cut Area.jpg
Response
Response
(active)
Both the 1:1 and 1.5:1 cut or back-slopes on the upper side of the road would be potentially hazardous and provide an increased propensity for impacting vehicles to climb the unprotected slope and result in vehicle rollover. As such, your group has accurately identified the need to shield the hazard if it cannot be removed, flattened, etc. assuming traffic volumes, speeds, other factors, etc. warrant shielding it.
Placing a standard MGS directly in front of the steep slope would result in the impacted vehicles contacting the slope under the rail as the barrier deformed backward. The guardrail system would likely be more stiff as the built-up soil would provide increased soil resistance for the steel posts in addition to that already provided by the increased fill height located behind the curb section. The back side of the guardrail system would also likely make contact with the back-slope as it deformed during the high-energy impact event.
Although there would exist the possibility for this system to perform in an acceptable manner, full-scale testing would likely be needed to demonstrate satisfactory performance for the MGS with a back-slope starting under the rail and at the post locations. If 12 in. of clear and level terrain (33 in. from rail face) were provided behind the posts, I think the system would likely perform in an acceptable manner with the adjacent 1:1 back-slope shown in the plans.
Unfortunately, it does not appear as though the clear and level terrain can be provided behind the guardrail system. For such situations, it may be necessary to utilize a more rigid barrier system at the base of the back-slope.
Date
October 5, 2010
Previous Views (115) Favorites (0)
Response
Response
(active)
Could you provide guidance for flatter backslopes? Would the same 12-inch offset behind the posts be recommended for 3:1, 4:1, 6:1, 8:1 backslopes? Or at some degree of slope, could the toe of the slope be located closer to the post or face of rail?
Date
June 11, 2013
Previous Views (115) Favorites (0)
Response
Response
(active)
Date
September 12, 2014
Previous Views (115) Favorites (0)
Some parts of this site work best with JavaScript enabled.