1 / 13

Bureau of Materials and Research 2014 AASHTO RAC/TRB Annual Meeting High Value Research Sweet 16

Bureau of Materials and Research 2014 AASHTO RAC/TRB Annual Meeting High Value Research Sweet 16 Ann Scholz, P.E., Assistant Research Engineer ascholz@dot.state.nh.us.

kynton
Download Presentation

Bureau of Materials and Research 2014 AASHTO RAC/TRB Annual Meeting High Value Research Sweet 16

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bureau of Materials and Research 2014 AASHTO RAC/TRB Annual Meeting High Value Research Sweet 16 Ann Scholz, P.E., Assistant Research Engineer ascholz@dot.state.nh.us

  2. Roadway resurfacing reduced the height of the guardrail relative to the roadwayReduced height did not meet AASHTO’s Roadside Design GuideResetting guardrail post added significant expense to pavement overlay projects Performance of W-Beam Guardrail after Height Adjustment

  3. Hey Boss. What’s the allowable range of height for a W-beam guardrail? Hmmmm, let me check with the FHWA Safety Office Why Research? New “unofficial” guidance is 27” Top of Rail +3”/-1”

  4. Research Findings Topic investigation revealed possible solutions from: Proposed use of WSDOT detail with FHWA-NH:

  5. Proposed changes from traditional work Standard detail for resetting offset block on existing wood post

  6. Proof of Concept Computer simulation by George Washington University FHWA-NH required: Two-year field study on installations Evaluate in-service performance Compare to traditional methods Photograph and document Summarize finding into a report Provide donuts and coffee Namesake your first born Kind words to D.C. Kiss a frog Etc.

  7. Research approved November 2009 – National Crash Analysis Center study was releaseddocumenting the successful computer simulation providing additional confirmation of the anticipated performance. Summer 2010 through Fall 2012 - Field in-service evaluations proved successful June 2012 – Highway Design provides special detail for projects

  8. Implementation Strategy http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/detailsheets/index.htm

  9. Value of Implementing the Research Highway safety was not compromised as evidenced by several accidental hits and review of available crash reports

  10. Value of Implementing the Research $5,200,000 savings from Spring 2009 through Fall 2013.

  11. Value of Implementing the Research In addition to direct costs, projects required less time for completion which resulted in additional savings from other contract items: Uniformed officers Flaggers Maintenance of traffic Temporary and portable signage

  12. Return on Investment

  13. Thank you Region 1 for your recognition Acknowledgements: Mike Hazlett, NHDOT Highway Design – driving force Don Coleman, NHDOT Construction – initial review Julie Fowler, NHDOT Research – field monitor and report Marty Calawa, FHWA – support and guidance

More Related