Please review the attached details from Illinois. Would this barrier be acceptable in Wisconsin? I presume it is approved for use by FHWA.
The Illinois barrier does not meet the requirements of WisDOT S.D.D.s. I did a cursory review of the details and compared the details for both states. There are some differences as I outline below:
Overall dimensions are the same.
The location of the loop bars are different vertically.
Anchor locations are different.
Anchor hole size is different.
Dimensions and shape of the connecting loop bars are different.
Steel anchor stakes are different is size and shape.
Illinois shows no provision for anchoring to a bridge deck or pavement.
These are a few of the issues I spotted quickly.
If the Illinois barrier is acceptable, the field staff would be required to write a CCO in order to incorporate the details into their contracts. The two barriers could not be intermixed.
Please provide some guidance as to the use of the Illinois concrete barrier. The staff on the USH 41 projects are trying to be proactive in case this barrier does show up in this area. I don't know how the N-S Freeway is handling this situation.
I have reviewed the Illinois barrier detail you sent. We believe that the design will be okay for free standing applications. The design is basically the MwRSF F-shape with the Oregon connection. A few additional comments:
FHWA approved a Colorado barrier that was very similar to the Illinois barrier design. The only real difference was the steel reinforcement which was setup to match the Oregon detail rather than the MwRSF barrier. See attached.
The difference in reinforcing steel is not a big issue as the MwRSF barrier has met MASH with current reinforcement.
The tie-down anchorage for this is very different than the MwRSF barrier.
Again, we would be hesitant to apply the MwRSF tie-down anchor systems with the Illinois barrier as detailed, but believe it should be acceptable in a free-standing configuration.
Some parts of this site work best with JavaScript enabled.