Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GUIDELINES
FOR
TRAFFIC SAFEW BARRIERS
GUIDELINES
FOR
TRAFFIC SAFETY BARRIERS
Published by:
INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS
Kama KotiMarg,
Sector6, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 O22
January 2O1S
Price : t 300/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
IRC:11 9-2015
-
(Att Rights Reserued. No paft of this publication shall be reproduced,
translated or transmifted in any form or by any means without the
permission of the Indian Roads Congress)
Gontents
S. No. Description page No.
Personnel of the Highways Specifications and Standar"ds Committee . --. i - ii
1
il Introduqtion 1
1 Das, S.N.
Director c:l?1".t (Road Devetopment),
(Convenor) Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways, trlew Oetni.
2. Varkeyachan, K.C.
Addl. Director General, Ministry of Road
(Co-Convenor)
Transport & Highways, New Oettri.
Chief Engineer (R) S,R&T (Rep. by Shri S.K. Nirmat), Ministry
(Member-Secretary) of Road
Transport & Highways, New Delhi
Members
4. Basu, S.B.
Chief Engineer (Retd.), MORTH, New
Dethi
5. Bonginruat p.L.
Advisor, L&I Mumbai
6. Bose, Dr. Sunil
Head, FpC Divn. CRRI (Retd.), Faridabad
7. Duhsaka, Vanlal
Chief Engineer, pWD (Highways), Aizwat
(Mizoram)
8. Gangopadhyay, Dr. S.
Director, Central Road Research Institute,
New Delhi
9. Gupta, D.p.
DG (RD) & AS (Retd.), MORTH, New
Dethi
10. Jain, R.K.
Chief Engineer (Retd.), Haryana pWD,
Sonipat
11. Jain, N.S.
Chief Engineer (Retd.), MORTH, New
Dethi
12. Jain, Dr. S.S.
Professor & Coordinator, Centre of
Transportation
Engg., Dept. of Civit Engg., ilT Roorke,
Roorkee
13. Kadiyati, Dr. L.R.
Chief Executive, L.R. Kadiyali&Associates,
New Dethi
14. Kumar, Ashok
Chief Engineer (Retd.), MORTH, New
Dethi
15. Kurian, Jose
Chief Engineer, DTTDC Ltd., New Delhi
16. Kumar, Mahesh
Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana pWD, Chandigarh
17. Kumar, Satander
Ex-Scientist, CRRI, New Delhi
18. Lal, Chaman
Director (projects_ilt), NRRDA (Minisby
of Rural
Development), New Delhr
19. Manchanda, R.K.
Consultant, Intercontinental Consuttiants
and
Technocrats pv.t. Ltd., New Delhi
20. Marwah, S.K.
Addt. Director Generat (Retd.), MORTH,
New Dethi
21. Pandey, R.K.
Chief Engineer (ptanning), MORTH,
New Dethi
22. Pateriya, Dr. l.K.
Director (Tech.), NRRDA, (Ministry
of Rural
Development), New Delhr
23. Pradhan, B.C.
Chief Engineer, National Highways, pWD,
Bhubaneshwar
24. Prasad, D.N.
Chief Engineer (NH), RCD, patna
25. Rao, P.J.
Consulting Engineer, H.No. 399, Sector_19,
Faridabad
IRC:119-2015
Corresponding Members
1' Bhattacharya,c.c. DG (RD) & AS (Retd.), MORTH, New Dethi
2. Das, Dr. Animesh professor, llT, Kanpur
3. Justo, Dr. C.E.G. Emeritus Fellow, 334,14th Main, 25th Cross,
Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore
4. Momin, S.S. Former Secretary, pWD Maharashtra, Mumbai
5. Pandey, Prof. B.B. Advisor, llT Kharagpur, Kharagpur
Ex-Officio Members
1. President, (Bhowmik, Sunil), Engineer_in_Chief,
Indian Roads Congress pWD (R&B), Govt. of Tripura
2' Honorary Treasurer, (Das, S.N.), Director General (Road Development),
Indian Roads congress Ministry of Road rransport & Highways
3. Secretary General,
Indian Roads Congress
IRC:119-2015
I INTRODUCTION
Traffic Safety Barriers, also known as Crash Barriers, are provided on high speed highways
to prevent accidents when vehicles lose control and run off the road. Especially dangerous
are road sections with sharp curves, approaches to bridges with restricted roadway, high
embankments, hazardous obstacles such as poles, trees and bridge structural elements.
Experience has shown that if suitably designed and properly located, it is possible to redirect
the vehicle nearly parallel to the direction of the barrier, contain within tolerable limits the
forces experienced by the vehicle occupants, minimize the severity of the accident and reduce
the damage to property. In view of the highly cost-effective safety provided by these devices,
they are being extensively used on modern high speed highways. The present guidelines
have been prepared taking note of the best international practices.
The Road Safety and Design Committee (H-7) deliberated on the draft in a series of meetings.
The H-7 Committee finally approved the draft document in its meeting held on 25th March,
2014 and decided to send the final draft to IRC for placing before the HSS Committee.
The Composition of H-7 Committee is as given below:
Kadiyali, Dr. L.R. Convenor
Prasad. C.S. Co-Convenor
Tiwari, Dr. Geetam Member Secretary
Members
Ahuja, Manoj Sreedevi, Ms. B.G.
Ahuja, Yuvraj Singh The Addl. Director General of Police
Bahadur, A.P. (Traffic & Road Safety), Bangalore
Balakrishnan, Mrs. Bina C. The Chief Engineer & Director, GERI
Gupta, D.P. The Director, QAR (Formerly HRS),
Jain. Dr. S.S. Chennai
Mohan, Dr. Dinesh The Director, Transport Research
Pateriya, Dr. l.K. Wing, MORTH
Ram, Dr. Sewa The Head, Traffic Engineering &
Sarin, Dr. S.M. Safety Division, CRRI
Shankar, Dr. Ravi The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Sharma, S.C. Traffic, Delhi
Sikdar. Prof. P.K. The C.E.(R), S&R, MORTH
Singh, Amarjit
1
IRC:119-2015
Ex-Officio Members
President. (Bhowmik, Sunil), Engineer-in-Chief,
Indian Roads Congress PWD (R&B), Govt. of Tripura
Honorary Treasurer, (Das, S.N.), Director General
Indian Roads Congress (Road Development), Ministry of
Road Transport & Highways
Secretary General,
Indian Roads Congress
.The Highways Specifications & Standards Committee (HSS) approved the draft document
in its meeting held on 9th August, 2014. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on
18th$ugust,2014 approved the same document for placing it before the Council. The Council
in its 203'd meeting held at New Delhi on 19th and 20th August,2Ol4 approved the draft
"Guidelines for Traffic Safety Barriers" for publishing.
For preparing this document, literature published by Organisations likeAmericanAssociations
of State Highways and Transportation Officials, (AASHTO) has been consulted. Indian Roads
Congress acknowledges with thanks the kind permission given by AASHTO to use some of
their Figures and Annexures of this document.
2
IRC:119-2015
BE TI
BARRTER
E-
-CONCREIE
RIGID BARRIER
Fig Barriers
4.1 Definition
A road edge barrier, also known as roadside barrier,
is a longitudinal system used to shield
vehicfes from hazards on the edge of a road.
6
F
h
i;
the least hazard potential. Fig. 6 shows the suggested criteria for determining the clear zone
on fill and cut sections for three different vehicle-operating speeds for unrounded shoulder-
slope corner. Non-transversable hazards or fixed objects should be removed, relocated or
shielded by a barrier if they are within the indicated minimum clear zone width. A "Clear Zone"
is 'that roadside border area, starting at the edge of the carriageway, available for safe use
by errant vehicles'. Establishment of a minimum width clear zone implies that rigid objects
and certain other hazards with clearances less than the minimum width should be removed,
rdlocated to an inaccessible position or outside the minimum clear zone, remodelled to make
safely traversable or breakaway or shielded. Fig. 6 shows the clear zone width, speed and
slope criteria.
CLEAR RUNOUTAREA
l
d, v.
^u ^ul
fic ilq
*6
*r 6
-
q (1)
RECOVEMBLE ELOPE
1V: ORf R
SLOPE
'1V: OR F R
NON RFCOVERABLE SLOPE
(TRAVERSABLE SLOPE)
*
ThIE CL RUNOUT AREA IS ADD1TIONAL CLEAR-ZONF SPACE THAT IS NEEDE' BECAUSEAFORTIONOF THESUGGESTED
All roadside obsfac/es within the clear zone should be removed if possible, otherwise provide
barrier protection.
IRC:119-2015
Fixed Objects within Clear Zone as Determined by Fig. 5 Traffic Barrier Required
Yes * No
Sign, traffic signal, and luminaire supports
Breakaway or yielding design with linear impulse
Less than 4895 N - sec X
Notes : (1) Fixed objects should be removed or relocafed so that a barrier is unnecessary if
practical.
(2) Breakaway or yielding design is desirable regardless of distance from carriageway.
Large sign supports are formidable obstacles and require protective treatment. Where
continuous guard-rail is not available, sections of barrier should be introduced in front of the
supports, the length in advance of a sign being not less than 25 m and preferably 40 m. The
approach end should be flared and anchored. The barrier should normally extend 25 m or
more beyond the sign support when not anchored, and at least 8 m when anchored. The off-
set between the face of the barrier and the support should not be less than 0.6 m, or if the
support has a concrete base, it should not be less than 0.5 m.
Protection against collision with lighting columns is difficult, because the columns are
numerous and are located relatively close to the road edge. Where continuous barrier is
not justified, columns may be installed without protection, if they are lightweight and are set
atleast 0.75 or 0.9 m beyond the edge of the useable shoulders. Where barriers are provided,
the lighting columns should be set not less than 0.5 m, and preferably 0.6 m behind the face
of the barrier. Short sections of barriers are not recommended at each lighting column as a
general practice.
4.3.3 Bridge Rail Ends, Transitions and End Treatments
Fig. 7 summarises the warrants for an approach barrier to a bridge. The criteria for clear zone
requirements given in Fig. 6 apply here also. lf an approach barrier is warranted, adequate
transition section between the approach barrier and the bridge railing is needed. lf the end of
the approach barrier terminates within the clear zone, a crash worthy end treatment is also
warranted.
f RC:119-2015
Exomple- 1
1:4
1-6 Slope
, (fill Slope)
100 Km\h J:5
5000 v.P.D 't:6
1:8
a 1:10
o
A
Answer
-a
i Cleor Zone
Width = 9m 1:2O
Flot
1:2O
Exomple-2
1-6 Slope
(Cut Slope) 1:10
750 v.P.D. 1:8
1:6
1:5
Answer
Cleor Zone
1:4
Width - 6m
0 J69 12 15
0 J69 12 15
bd
>2x Cleor Zon6 Width
CB
ll Only Al Widths CD
I Only Al lVidths AB
81
o+
3:1
@
i 0..
a
4t1 \
s 0.2 \ 5:1
6:1
6i1
0,1
10:l
(Fot)
0 \
0 01 02 o.J 05
04 o(Frot) 01 04 os
Front Slope - bl/o1
,,:;r"""=tr;r",
Fig. 8 Preferred Ditch Sections for : Fig. 9 Preferred Ditch Sections for:
(a) Vee Ditch; or (a) Trapezoidal Ditch, Bottom Width = j.22 m to 2.44 m; or
(b) Round Ditch, Bottom Width < 2.44 m,; or (b) Round Ditch, Bottom Width = 2.44 m to 3.66 m
(c) Trapezoidal Ditch, Bottom Widh < 1.22 m,: or (Source: Ref. 1)
(d) Rounded Trapezoidal Ditch, Bottom Widh < 1.22 m
(Source: Ref. 1)
10
IRC:119-2015
11
f RC:119-2015
12
IRC:119-2015
,o2
o1/b1
8:l 5
ol 6 3:1
3:l
a a.2
5
I
ol
o
rs-rlg.l
-r'1- -i". -ltl-
llt? itl+ll+tl
l l+g fr
Jl?
o(Flot) oi ;l"l +l(
0.2 oJ 04 05 I trt atl
Front Sope = btlol
**_',**Hffi*_
Fig. 10 Preferred Ditch Sections for: Fig. 11 Typical Details of 'W' Structural Elements
dat Ditch, Width > 2.44 m: or
ch, Bottom Width > 3.66 m,: or
pezoidal Ditch, Width > j.22 m
(Source: Ref. 1)
4.8 Advantages of Using channel Sections vis 6 vis l-section
American designs adopt channel sections in
s. The channelsections make the connections
much more convenient than for l_sections, In
nel sections is more than what can be made
d, a channel section will deform more than a
corresponding l-section, thus reducing the magnitude
of impact on the impacting vehicle.
Lastly, channer sections are more economicar
than r-sections.
4.9 Minimum Length of safety Barriers and foundation Detairs
The minimum length of safety barrier shall be 50
m. For barriers at hazardous location 2/3d
of length shall be before the hazard and 1/3'd after hazard.
The overall design, length and
foundations shall be such that meet the specifications
given in Annexure ll.
4.10 End Treatment for Steel Edge Barriers
An untreated end of the roadside barrier can be hazardous
if hit, because the barrier beam
can penetrate the passenger comparlment and cause
the impact vehicle to stop abruply.
End treatments should, therefot", iorm-an integral part
of safety barriers. An end treatment
should not spear, vault or roll a vehicle for head--on
or angled impacts.
The end treatment on approach shall be Modified Eccentric
Loader Terminal (MELT)
arrangement as shown in Fig. 13 and departure sides
arrangement shown in Fig. 14. Following the same
it ;hall be Trailing Terminal (TT)
end treatments, Fig. 15 gives the typical
layor-rt of w-beam whether on raised median
sides or on depressed/flushed median sides.
13
f RC:119-2015
ti
.tl
'li
'
::. ",:
ll';.'
,.
ll
ll
II
ii
ll
tl
PI.AN
@
@@@@ @ @ @
I in:aori ,
14
IRC:119.2015
15
4:
IRC:119-2015
At road cross sections in cutting or if the road transitions from cut to fill, the safety barriers
can be anchored in backslopes. The backslope covering the anchored portion of the barriers
should be graded flat, with side slopes preferably not steeper than 10:1 . The anchored portion
should develop tensile strength in the rail element to prevent the rail from pulling out of the
anchorage. The barrier can also be anchored in an earthen berm specially constructed for
this-purpose, provided the new berm itself is not a hazard to the traffic. The earthen berm
should be made resistant to erosion.
lql SEcr-rgls Ql ry.q!.m cro-+! qojf,q cN. 5qI l\5 0E THE orHER
i loo -;,
16
IRC:119-2015
5 MEDIAN BARRIERS
5.1 Definition
As the name suggests, median barriers are those that are provided in the medians of
highways. They accordingly protect the traffic on both the carriageways. They are intended
to prevent head-on collisions, especially on highways with narrow medians, caused by out-
of-control vehicles jumping across the medians. They also shield fixed objects on the median
from the traffic flow.
5.2 Warrants
The requirements of a median barrier is a function of the width of the median and the traffic
volume on the road. Fig. 22 indicates the warrants for provision of median barriers in terms
of the combination of median width and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in PCUs (Passenger Car
Units). At ADT less than 20,000 PCUs and with medians wider than 9 m, the probability of a
vehicle crossing across the median is relatively low and median barriers in such cases are
optional. Medians with width between 9 and 15 m do not warrant a barrier unless there is an
adverse history of median cross-overs.
17
IRC:119-2015
50 g0
18
IRC:119-2015
_t
3FfiH
-i;rq
? @,.8
sgE; i
r-Fb e
5Aso
:a!=
FEHH
,
e
o
L
L
(s
d]
C
o
L
o
i5
o
o
o
C,
o
L
o
o
o
E
l.-
ee
e fii
=iE
-i
q
z
€; ffl N
2 z
5E
IE EE, i
z.
8l
l|li
o t
Ei3' El .o)
\| II
E
E U
=
o
:B
_d
U
=
o
H!
U = u o'
z E
u
q
@
a
a
ft
ur!
-r
o U
E oi
I'
ul C l
u
o U JI
Ei
= z o
ri
oi
U E* D (i
@ e5
st .t,
l
lrj:
F!
E n 2:
E UJ:
oi
"EE.
EE. qrJ
t.
= €e
.€ F:
F;
:i 6 <l
=i
{l
uli
aoi
zo *i
t
E*o
?U<
=C)r
3EB
=EE
19
IRC:119-2015
20
IRC:119-2015
sections) are two important features to be considered. A kerb, either when used alone or
when placed in front of a median barrier, should not be used for purposes of redirecting
errant
vehicles. For sloped medians, the recommendations are shown in Fig. 23.
5.3.8 Aesthetic and Environmental Considerations
The same considerations as applicable to roadside barriers also apply to median barriers.
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW
@t'lcRE E
FOOTING
SECTION A-A
21
IRC:119-2015
22
IRC:119-2015
A profile of the concrete median barrier constructed in-situ and anchored to the carriageway
by dowels is given in Fig. 26. A design with pre-cast units is given in Fig.2T.
tl,--lltl .* TFAFFIc DI
_i __ !__
PLAN
@@ @g @@@@@
rIRE ROPE W BEAM
-i
,IITBER. BREAI(AiA}
u:{E POST:;
oo@o@ o
' : tBEAx
1iil
&AID BARREE
rum[oN 7
TSmillSmmrSmm Chonn.l
..\
IRC:119-2015
lfYSD BoE
ll'
llt 12mm O l50mm }mD
lir ./"
//i'
llt 25mmx4o0mm Dorcls
At End Joints
llr
or-J,,
,,
(
,///
/tt
//
t8J{;
,,nn verd stronqth Defomed Reinrorcement
LL l_ L,_*., tttttrl
_ r-_ t_ t_ t_ t_ L_ t_
L 1_ L lspocins Bor V
-LLL LL LL
40 Droft
t-
I
75mm+0.3
-
Femole Mole
40 Droft
End Keywoy
/\
\/
Bor'v'-LiftingHooks
12mm 6 HYSD
-n 11{ t-
rl
50r u
Noles:
1. Concrete M 30 Orode
2, Ploce On 25mm Grout Bed
3, HYSD Reinforcing Bars.
Mew A-A
I
+
-L
*r IIABC0EF
. +25H
I l:--I lF-l
I
ELEvATIoN
SIDE VIEW
T
Cho6iered edge
i
F g.2
(Source Ref. 1)
26
IRC:119-2015
iltt
illl
lt lr
65 Ng H€T T E]ASS HPE ll lt
wrfi ff16flf < 7.9ffi9/ft Itt
EAST-IN*STTU ils
rt ftgc u,s- Pr"AlE iltt
0 lr00 c,ic CRASH BARRIIR UIJ
M*4O OONCRETE
0AST-|l'l-slllJ
cRASd x^iafR
.A'
DFTAII -
6 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
27
IRC:119-2015
6.2 Maintenance
6.2.1 Routine Maintenance
risesonlyoccasiona|cleaningandpainting;right-of.waymowing
trol'However,ifpreservative-treatedwoodpostsandgalvanised
entsareused,thereison|yanominalroutinemaintenance
requirement.
6.2.2 Collision Maintenance
Ali repairs or adjustments to barriers i:alrs
categg,rY of maintenance. Bulk of the em'
and these costs, to a large measure, i and
The number of impacts that may be expecte
volume, distance betwee
extent of barrier damage
particular imPact situatio
repair is difficult and coll
preferred. In flexible barri
impact is to be considere
6.2.3 Simpticity in Design; Material and Storage
28
IRC:119-2015
ANNEXURE I
5. Damage suffered
1) Month/year
2) Vehicle involved (Car/ Bus/ TrucU Two-wheeler/ Other)
3) Damage suffered (Description, Photo)
4) Cost of Repair
5) Casualties (Fatal/ Injury/ Damage to vehicle)
6. General Recommendations
of Safety Expert 1) Adequacy of design
2) Placement
3) Any lmprovements needed
29
IRC:119-2015
ANNEXURE II
SOURCE REFERENGES
1. Guide for Selecting, Locating and Designing Traffic Barriers, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1977.
2. B.S. 6579: Parl-7:1988, Specifications for Concrete Safety Barrier, British Standards
Institution. London. 1988.
30
(The official amendments to this document would be published by
the IRC in its periodical, 'rndian Highways' which shall be
considered as effective and as part of the code/guidelines/manual,
etc. from the date specified therein)