traffic management and concrete safety barriers · trl limited iv ppr 278 iv published project...

Published Project ReportPPR278

Traffic management and concrete safety barriers

A ChequerJ MitchellS Thompson


by A Chequer, J Mitchell and S Thompson

PPR278

HA Task Ref No. 3/372/R22

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT

TRL Limited

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR 278

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONCRETE SAFETY BARRIERS

Version: 3

By A Chequer, J Mitchell and S Thompson (TRL Limited)

Prepared for: Project Record: TRL 11107768

Client: Safety Standards and Research (SSR) Division, Highways Agency (Mr Danny Ruth)

Copyright Transport Research Laboratory, August 2007 This report has been prepared for the Safety Standards and Research Department of the Highways Agency, The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Highways Agency. Published Project Reports are written primarily for the Customer rather than for a general audience and are published with the Customer’s approval.

Approvals

Project Manager

Quality Reviewed

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a Contract placed by the Highways Agency. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Highways Agency. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

ivTRL Limited iv PPR 278

Published Project Report Version: 3

CONTENTS

Executive summary v

1 Introduction 1

2 Objectives 1

3 Methodology 2

4 Current practice 3

4.1 Observations of selected road work sites 3

4.2 The Traffic Management Contractors Association (TMCA) 5

4.3 The Highways Agency 6

4.4 Permanent signs located in the central reserve 10

4.5 Britpave/ Extrudakerb 10

4.6 Sign frame manufacturers 11

4.7 The Netherlands, other EU countries and the United States 11

5 Review of draft standard BS 8442 12

6 Modification of current frame design 12

7 Retrofit mountings for vertical sign mountings. 13

8 Specification of a standard sign mounting socket 14

8.1 A proposed built-in socket design 15

9 Steel eyelet fittings on top of the concrete safety barrier 16

10 Provision of electrical power sockets for VCB mounted signs 16

11 Comparison of temporary and fixed sign mounting strategies 17

12 Potential solutions 21

13 Conclusions and recommendations 21

14 Reference 22

15 Acknowledgements 22

Appendices 23

vTRL Limited v PPR 278


Executive summary This report presents a study that has investigated the issues of mounting signs on concrete safety barriers in the central reserve. The design of concrete safety barriers causes problems for the mounting of existing temporary traffic management signs since traditional sign mounting ‘A’ frames are considered to be unsuitable due to the height of the safety barrier. ‘A’ frames (which generally straddle the barrier) cannot touch the ground without modification. Various solutions to these problems have been investigated and are described in this report.

Concrete barriers have been widely used within mainland Europe for many years and have several advantages over steel safety barriers. They are narrower than two parallel rows of safety fence, and also do not deflect upon impact, freeing up valuable space for carriageway widening. Their inherent strength and impact resistance means they do not require repairs after accidents and as such are essentially maintenance free.

The solutions for temporary traffic management signs included the provision of temporary brackets to provide anchor points for conventional ‘A’ frames, retro-fit square post brackets for vertical type sign frames, eyelets mounted on top of the barrier, square post brackets pre-cast into the barrier during construction and establishing guidelines to make best use of current practice.

Permanent signs, such as matrix signals (MS1’s), could be securely bolted down to the top of the concrete barrier using anchor bolts. Small permanent traffic signs could be installed into the top of the concrete barrier by fixing sign mounting posts into small diameter holes which are drilled into the top of the barrier and secured either mechanically or chemically using permanent adhesive.

Of the options discussed in this report, in cases where a wide barrier (approximately three times the width of a normal safety barrier) is used to accommodate lighting columns, vertically mounted sockets, built into the concrete safety barrier, to accommodate mounting posts for temporary traffic management signs is the favoured option, both in terms of ease and safe set up. However, in the cases of a normal width ‘step’ type safety barrier, a favoured solution is to use especially designed mounting brackets and straps to stabilise the sign mounting frames. An alternative solution is to mount steel eyelets on top of the barrier, to which securing straps could be attached to stabilise the sign frames.

Vertically mounting posts for permanent traffic signs, e.g. warning signs, can be appropriately positioned on top of the concrete safety barrier to allow for the laterally positioned re-enforcing bars in the barrier structure.

This report outlines the research and comprises four main areas:

• A study that has assessed current practice for mounting Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) signing on Vertical Concrete Barriers (VCB)’s. Current practices include the use of conventional sandbags plus webbing straps which tie sign frames to adjacent road furniture.

• A survey of TTM experts to gauge current opinions on the subject. Those consulted include Highways Agency Area Teams, the Traffic Management Contractors Association, Britpave, manufacturers of concrete barriers, and sign frame manufacturers.

• A questionnaire based survey of Highways Agency Area teams to establish the different types of permanent traffic sign located in the central reserve on the motorway and major trunk road network.

• A description and discussion of the various available solutions and recommendations for both permanent and temporary traffic management signs.

1TRL Limited 1 PPR 278


1 Introduction

The requirement to increase the capacity on some very busy stretches of motorway by increasing the number of traffic lanes has resulted in a reduction of the physical width of the central reserve. Partly as a result of this action, there has been an increase in the use of concrete safety barriers.

The Highways Agency has also issued an Interim Advice Note (IAN60/05) requiring that on the central reserve of motorways with an AADT greater than 25,000, a concrete safety barrier of H2 containment class, Working Width Class of W2 and with a maintenance free serviceable life of 50 years, must be installed on new schemes where the safety barrier is to be replaced. A particular type of concrete barrier, referred to as the ‘Concrete step barrier’, will be widely used in future in the central reserve due to its proven H2 containment level.

Safety concerns have been raised about the installation of temporary traffic management signing in the central reserve on existing stretches of motorway where concrete safety barriers are used. There are inherent problems with instability of sign mounting frames (‘A’-frames), which are often wedged across the concrete barrier and weighed down using sandbags as ballast. This is illustrated in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Conventional 'A' frame in-situ on concrete barrier

The installation requirements for any vertically mounted permanent signs in the central reserve have also been considered. These signs are usually matrix warning signs (MS1) requiring mains power.

2 Objectives

The objective of the study is to conduct a review with the aim of finding how the erection of temporary traffic management and permanent signing in the central reserve with concrete barriers should be managed. This review covers both wide and narrow central reserves and also considers aspects relating to power supplies and services.



3 Methodology

To address the objectives of this review, the methodology adopted was to:

1. Establish current practice on the HA network by contacting those bodies responsible for the maintenance of motorway sections that include concrete safety barriers. Those bodies would include Highways Agency staff, maintenance agents, and traffic management contractors.

2. Review the new draft standard BS 8422, which specifies the wind loading and

stability requirements for sign mounting frames.

3. Establish, from sign frame manufacturers, what products are currently available on the market and to investigate possible ways of modifying current frame design to accommodate the different types of concrete safety barrier.

4. Establish what types of sign mounting arrangements are used in the Netherlands and

other EU countries where concrete step barriers in the central reserve have been used for a number of years.

5. Investigate the development of a specification for standard mounting sockets in a

concrete barrier to accommodate frame posts for vertically mounted signs. The need for an electrical connection at each socket for any mains powered signs was also investigated.



4 Current practice

4.1 Observations of selected road work sites Drive-through observations of temporary traffic management signing at a road works site, with concrete safety barriers in the central reserve, were carried out between Junctions 11 to 15 of the M25 where work is currently being completed to widen this stretch of the motorway from four lanes to five.

To accommodate the additional lanes, a concrete safety barrier has been installed in the central reserve as can be seen in Figures 2 to 4 below.

Drawings showing the different types of concrete safety barrier used in the central reserve on the HA network are to be found in Appendix 1.

The most common types of temporary signs found over the whole length of the site were mounted on ‘A’ -frames which were stretched across the concrete safety barrier, as can be seen in Figure 2. This is not considered a satisfactory installation arrangement, since the sign sits slanted across the barrier.

.

Figure 2: Sign mounted on an ‘A’ frame stretched across a concrete safety barrier

Signs were also observed to be mounted on ‘A’-frames which are located on the top of the concrete safety barrier where the top of barriers were wide enough to locate the base of the ‘A’; frame (see Figure 3). Again, ballasting in the form of sand bags was used to provide stability for the sign.

Figure 3: Sign with ‘A’ frame located on the top of a concrete barrier



A number of the ‘A’ frames were observed to be strapped to lamp columns using webbing straps with a plastic buckle to tighten or release the strap. This can be seen in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: ’A’ frames secured to lamp columns by webbing straps

Also seen in the works area were a small number of temporary traffic management signs, e.g. diagram 610 arrow signs, mounted on vertical posts which are permanently fixed into the concrete barrier, see Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Temporary traffic management signs mounted on vertical posts in the central reserve



4.2 The Traffic Management Contractors Association (TMCA)

Results are presented in this section for a questionnaire which was sent to the TMCA. Both the questions asked, and the answers obtained, are shown. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2 and TMCA contact names can be found in Appendix 4.

1. TRL: What types of sign (by shape and size) do you use in the central reserve?

TMCA: This could be any sign as required by Contract Specification in accordance with Chapter 8 of The Traffic Signs Manual (1991) and Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions, the signs can be up to 3.5 metres wide if sufficient width is available, and up to 5 metres high.

2. TRL: What means do you currently use to locate temporary and permanent signs in the central reserve, which have the following types of safety barrier? :

Concrete barriers, Steel beams, Wire rope safety fences.

TMCA: Quick fit frames, ballasted with sandbags and/or tied with rope/straps to safety fence or lighting columns.

3. TRL: Are the systems which are currently available for locating temporary and permanent signs to concrete barriers satisfactory? If not, what system would you propose for locating such signs in these circumstances?

Note that any systems proposed will need to satisfy the stability requirement of the new British Standard BS 8442 (due to be published at the end of March 2006). TMCA: The problem is with the higher concrete barriers, the standard quick fit frames are not suitable without extending the legs and raising the cross-members. If appropriate sockets were installed within the concrete barriers then proprietary quick fit barrier frames could be installed. However these frames are only suitable for smaller type signs, not larger than WBM signs (e.g. signs for contra-flow working) required on type A works. In some areas, i.e. where motorway widening has occurred, the width of the central reserve limits the size of signs available for use. Some guidance on this aspect is required as Client’s/Managing Agents do not fully understand the problems and some are reluctant to extensively vary from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD, 2002).

4. TRL: What problems do you currently experience fixing signs to these barriers,

beams and fences?

TMCA: As above.



5. TRL: What do you currently do to counteract these problems?

TMCA: Purchase/fabricate bespoke sign frames/fixings. On the newly widened M25 Junction 12 – 15, slots have been installed in the central reserve at appropriate locations, which work fairly well with purpose-made frames. However, the maximum width of sign which can be used is 1.8m. (The profile of the slots used is shown in Appendix 5.)

6. TRL: When external lighting of signs is required, what lighting system(s) and power source(s) do you use?

TMCA: Battery operated white lights.

7. TRL: How often do you experience problems with the stability of the signs and their

frames?

TMCA: Intermittently, problems are also encountered for nearside signs where little or no verge exists, or if the safety fencing is at limited set-back to rear of hard shoulder. Furthermore, the current trend of installing high containment barriers (i.e. Sistema) in front of existing parapets will create increasing future problems in placing nearside signs, as these barriers cannot be straddled with signs/frames.

4.3 The Highways Agency

Results presented in this section are for the questionnaire sent to the Highways Agency. The responses given by each of the area managers for each of the questions asked are tabulated. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2 and the list of Highways Agency contacts can be found in Appendix 4.



1. TRL: What signs (temporary and permanent) are typically used in the central reserve

on the HA network?

The responses given by the area managers are shown in Table 1 below:

HA Response given HA area

The only permanent signs are the matrix signs that stand alone. Temporary signs are for traffic management and dependant on type (A or B) could be for overnight work or some duration, obviously this would cover a multitude of signs.

1,7, 9

Permanent MS1 matrix signs throughout the network plus fixed text message signs (rotating prism) to facilitate type B tunnel closures at Hatfield, Holmesdale and Bell Common. Similar signs also exist on approaches to the Dartford Crossing. Permanent warning signs are also present on approaches to all tunnels and offside lane drop arrangements at A1(M) Jct 6 Northbound, M1 Jct 5 to 4 Southbound and M11 southbound approach to A406. Type A and B temporary chapter 8 signing employed throughout the network.

5

We put out our normal advanced notice and tapers prior to any concrete walls; it does not cause problems in positioning, stability and manual handling for ourselves.

4

There are also signs associated with lane gain/ lane drop and warning signs such as ‘slow lorries’ etc.

2

Table 1: Permanent and temporary signs in the central reserve on the HA network

2. TRL: Are you aware of any problems, if so, what have they been? The responses given by the area managers are shown in Table 2 below:


As long as the frames are secured there should not be a problem. The installation and removal does necessitate crossing of the live carriageway and any reduction in that would be welcome

1, 7, 9

Chapter 8 provisions has been problematic within sections of VCB, where socketed sign frame provision has not been made or where reserve width is too narrow to safely accommodate a standard ‘wicket’ sign. This problem is particularly prevalent on wider sections where TM signing and tapers will have to commence within preceding 4 lane (max) sections. Increasing closure lengths.

5

We have to put out long sites than required. It does not help the travelling public as they have extended sections of the highway with restrictions.

4

There are problems when the centre reservation is of insufficient width to accommodate the signs. This tends to occur on the elevated sections.

Typically we try to avoid erecting signs in these situations by extending the length of the TM (increased user effect & reduced working window) by erecting the signs prior to the restricted area. On other occasions we have made special brackets to mount the signs on the parapets.

2

Table 2: Problems occurring with signing in a central reserve using concrete safety barriers



3. TRL: If so, what safety issues are you aware of?

The responses given are shown in Table 3 below:


Only crossing of the carriageway, however, as long as the men are fully trained, certificated and inducted into company method statements and risk assessments, there should not be too much of a problem.

1, 7, 9

In addition to narrow width and encroachment issues adjacent to live lane, the provision of widened sections places increased risk on the TMC activity of setting and removing TM signs through the multiple operative crossings of live lanes.

5

The men are on the network for longer installing/removing extended traffic management.

4

There are risks associated with signs falling/ blowing into the carriageway. Additionally if the barrier can not be easily crossed by the operatives there would be less opportunity to get into positions of safety.

2

Table 3: Safety issues associated with signing and concrete safety barriers in the central reserve

4. TRL: Similarly, what operational issues are you aware of?



Sizes of signs, particularly on elevated sections together with numbers of cones and lamps that need to be carried severely reduce the length of works that can be achieved. Time spent installing and removing traffic management has an impact on the window of working.

1, 5, 7, 9

Increased cost, both time and materials, reduced worksite availability. 4

Theft of traffic Management is sometimes an issue and manual handling issues if the signs need to be lifted too high.

2

Table 4: Operational issues associated with signing and concrete safety barriers in the central reserve



5. TRL: Are you aware of any possible solutions?



In areas where overhead gantries are abundant, greater use of these could be made for lane closures; it is generally thought by the operatives that the travelling public take more notice of them than the wicket signs anyway. Gantries throughout the Birmingham Box are used to assist Traffic Management operations, i.e. Red ‘X’ over lanes; operatives views are that these red ‘X’s should remain on throughout the duration of the works. However, current process is they only remain on whilst Traffic Management is installed and removed.

1, 7, 9

9

Provision of fixed text message signs at all cyclic closure sites i.e. tunnels and elevated sections and extend to frequently used safe taper locations. Vertical concrete barrier installations should be socketed at 200m centres.

5

Sign mountings on the wall might be a way ahead. Sockets in wall at appropriate centres.

4

Possibly introduce permanent ‘rotating plank’ signs at key locations. We believe that this is done on the tunnels in North Wales so that regular maintenance contra- flows can be set up easily.

2

Table 5: Possible solutions to safety and operational issues associated with signing and concrete safety barriers in the central reserve

6. TRL: One possible solution could be the use of permanent fixtures in the central reserve e.g. sockets and the provision of power points. Do you have any views on this?



This would be a good move, however, the main benefit would be in areas of high congestion but this would then present operational problems as we may lose the flexibility that temporary traffic management offers. This is particularly so at strategic junctions where motorways merge and diverge.

1, 7, 9

Unless installed at regular intervals, such points would dictate traffic management taper locations and lead to excessive length of closures. Furthermore the infrastructure would need regular maintenance and testing to reduce the number of closures being cancelled due to power point failures.

5

As above, sockets seem the most sensible solution short term. Ultimately going for remote activated permanent signage for known critical, regular TM sections.

4

With the development of increasingly better standards of reflective sign face materials, it would be advantageous to revisit the TSRGD with a view to removing the requirement to illuminate temporary signs. This would remove a large number of ‘issues’. Permanent sockets in the barrier systems to accommodate signs.

2

Table 6: HA managers views on the use of permanent fixtures, such as sockets, in the central reserve



4.4 Permanent signs located in the central reserve

The results of the questionnaire based survey, which was sent to different Highways Agency Area teams, showed that Matrix signals (MS1) are the most common type of permanent sign located in the central reserve of a motorway. They are usually located at 3km intervals, but they can occur more frequently. Where concrete barriers have been installed in the central reserve, the mounting posts for these matrix signals are bolted down on top of the concrete safety barrier using four retaining bolts.

Fixed text message signs (i.e. rotating prisms) are also present in at least one Highways Agency area; these signs are used to facilitate temporary road closures in both tunnels and bridges.

Permanent warning signs are also to be found in the central reserve of both motorways and dual carriageways. These signs are often found on the approaches to tunnels and on steep inclines, where they are used to warn of slow moving vehicles.

Informatory signs, which are often associated with lane drop or lane gain, are also found in the central reserve.

In the case of a double safety barrier, such as is found on some sections of the M25, to accommodate permanent traffic signs, a sign post socket 500mm deep, surrounded by non–reinforced concrete is positioned between the two concrete safety barrier sections. The concrete surrounding the sign post socket also includes longitudinal cable ducts for motorway control signals and mains power for street lighting, etc (a diagram of this arrangement is shown in Appendix 5).

4.5 Britpave/ Extrudakerb

Britpave were aware of the new Highways Agency policy in Interim Advice Note 60/05 requiring safety barriers with H2/W2 performance and a maintenance free life of fifty years on motorways. To implement these new performance requirements the type of concrete safety barrier to be adopted would be of a ‘Step’ type, which is not currently used extensively on the motorway network (see Appendix 1 for an illustration of the step type of barrier). For the installation of small permanent traffic signs, e.g. triangular warning signs, to concrete safety barriers in the central reserve, Britpave said that their recommended method of securing the mounting posts for these signs would be to drill small diameter holes in the top of the concrete barrier and fix the mounting posts, either mechanically or chemically using permanent adhesive.

For fixed signs requiring mains power, i.e. MS1 matrix signs, the sign should be mounted to a vertical post on the top of the barrier and mains power would be supplied to the sign via cable ducts as is usually the case for powering external lighting columns.

For signs mounted on ‘A’ frames, Britpave agreed that frame securing brackets mounted on the top of the barrier could be a satisfactory solution to the frame stability problem. However they would prefer a solution such that the brackets are easily removable at the completion of the works. Britpave do not have any experience of what techniques are used in other countries, for example in France and the Netherlands, where there is a common occurrence of concrete barriers in the central reserve.



4.6 Sign frame manufacturers

UK sign frame manufacturers, some of which are members of The Association for Road Traffic Safety and Management (ARTSM), were approached and asked what sign frames they currently manufactured to mount both temporary and permanent signs to concrete safety barriers located in the central reserve. The manufacturers were also asked if they had any plans for designing and/or making such frames in the future. They were also invited to suggest any possible designs for such a frame. The responses given by each of the sign manufacturers are shown in Table 7 below:

Sign manufacturer

Current situation Suggested designs or modifications to exiting frames

Altaroute Ltd Holes are drilled in the sign mounting ‘A’ frames to accommodate expanding anchor bolts (commonly known as Hilti bolts), which are located into holes drilled into the top of the concrete barrier.

N/a

Morelock Signs Ltd

Morelock are one the major manufacturers of sign mounting ‘A’ frames and posts for permanent signs in the UK.

They do not currently manufacturer any specific sign mounting frames for temporary or permanent signs; however they have designed sign securing brackets for ‘A’ frames to concrete barriers.

See Section 6 below

Sullivan Holdings Ltd

Sullivan’s are one of the major manufacturers of sign mounting ‘A’ frames in the UK.

They were not aware of the problems with installing mounting frames for temporary or permanent signs to/over concrete barriers.

The largest frame size they manufacturer (“WMB”: 1500mm wide by 3500mm high) have additional locking bars to improve the rigidity of the frame.

Modify the smaller size ‘A’ frames to accommodate locking bars to improve the rigidity of the frame. No suggestions were forthcoming on how to anchor the frames.

There is the need to be aware of any additional cost implications of fixing brackets, etc.

Table 7: Responses given by sign frame manufacturers

4.7 The Netherlands, other EU countries and the United States

A questionnaire, the details of which are shown in Appendix 3, were sent to a number of European government research institutes and other relevant organisations including a private consultant and a Highways authority in the United States. These organisations approached included the Dutch Ministry of Transport, the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), two government bodies in France (Setra and LCPC), a Danish independent consultant, an Italian university and the United States Federal Highways Authority.

The purpose of this questionnaire was, through a number of specific questions, to establish the current practice in each of the countries approached regarding the installation of both permanent and temporary traffic management signs to concrete safety barriers that are located in the central reserve of a motorway and other dual carriageways, highlighting any relevant operational or safety issues.

Unfortunately, despite reminders being sent to a number of the above organisations, no completed questionnaires were received during the timescale of this project.



5 Review of draft standard BS 8442 This new draft standard, BS 8422, specifies that the height of the lower edge of an erected sign (or supplementary plate) should not be less than 300mm above the supporting surface. It also specifies the maximum tilt back angle of the sign from the vertical position, which is 22.5 degrees. It clearly states that if a microprismatic retro-reflective material is used, the sign needs to be mounted vertically. BS 8442 offers three classes of resistance to wind loads, which are specified via three effective wind speeds: 8.7, 17.6 and 28.3 m/s. The lowest specified wind speed, 8.7 m/s would be appropriate for light breezes and for road works only present for short time durations; the highest wind speed, 28.3 m/s would be appropriate for long-term road works. The standard states that any sign mounting assembly would need to be designed to allow the use of ballasting, so that the sign assembly is able to resist the specified wind speed classes. The sign frame manufacturer would also be required to indicate both the mass of the ballasting, which is required to resist these wind speed classes, and to indicate the positioning of the ballasting on the sign supports.

Any sign mounting frames, proposed or designed by sign frame manufacturers, would need to satisfy the stability requirement of this new British Standard. 6 Modification of current frame design

After becoming aware of this study, one UK sign frame manufacturing company, Morelock signs Ltd, have designed two alternative types of bracket to secure the sign mounting ‘A’ frames to concrete safety barriers. Drawings of both types of design of securing bracket are shown in Appendix 6.

Figure 6 below illustrates where both types of securing bracket would be permanently located on the top of a concrete safety barrier.

It is proposed by the manufacturer that the simpler design type A bracket would be mounted on the top of the concrete safety barrier and secured using epoxy resin or chemically bolted. The more elaborate type B bracket would be fitted over the top of the barrier and screwed securely into place using turnkeys.



Figure 6: Location of ‘A’ frame securing brackets on a concrete safety barrier

The sign mounting ‘A’-frame would be secured to either type of bracket by means of ‘Smartlock’ straps. Technical specifications of this type of strap and recommendations for its use are given in the Appendix 7.

Neither type of frame securing bracket have been used so far on a ‘live’ road works situation and it has been proposed by the manufacturer that these securing brackets be trialled on a live motorway with concrete safety barriers sometime in the near future.

Safety concerns have been raised regarding any incidents which might occur at the location of one of these safety brackets in the central reserve, one particular concern is the risk of a serious injury to a motorcyclist if they hit one of these brackets which has two protruding turnkeys. These safety issues are still outstanding.

7 Retrofit mountings for vertical sign mountings.

TRL’s review has established that square-post vertical sign mountings have been in use on VCBs for some time in the United States. As well as cast-in-place post mountings (see Section 9), designs exist for sockets which may be bolted to the top of the barrier as shown in Figure 7 below: The anchor bolts for the retrofit mountings are filled with approved epoxy grout in the drilled holes (either 1.5” or 2” diameter).



Figure 7: Schematic of a type of retro-fit square post sign mounting in use in the United States

This particular method of mounting traffic signs has been adopted as the current ‘best practice’ on sections of the M25 where concrete safety barriers are installed in the central reservation.

8 Specification of a standard sign mounting socket

The specification of a standard sign mounting socket should encompass shape, size and minimum depth of insertion. In the absence of extensive research to the contrary, it is logical to base any national standard around the current practice.

Consultation with several manufacturers of vertical mount frames has revealed that the sign frames currently in use have a common size and shape of 60mm (outside diameter) square. The sockets that accompany these posts are also square in cross-section and have an internal dimension of 70mm. This 10mm clearance is considered to be adequate to facilitate easy insertion in adverse conditions, without being excessively loose.

A minimum depth of insertion should be specified, though consideration should be given to the height of the barrier locally. As a rule, the stability of the sign will increase with insertion depth. If the barrier is particularly high at any point, a greater insertion depth should be considered to bring the sign face closer to the surface of the carriageway. A minimum insertion depth of 500mm has been suggested by one of the manufacturers

There would be difficulties in using this type and size of sign mounting socket, particularly in the case of a ‘step’ type safety barrier, where the width of the top of the barrier is only 200cm. The steel reinforcing bars (20mm diameter), inside the barrier structure are located only 150mm below the top of the concrete safety barrier.

It might be possible to offset the sign mounting socket, so as to avoid the reinforcing bars, but there would be little room for error and also such a large structure (70mm square profile) might cause the concrete to fracture, this weakening the barrier’s properties.

There are cases, however, where a much wider barrier with a top width of 600cm are used, for example, where lighting columns have to be installed on top of the barrier. With this extra width available, it might be suitable to install the mounting sockets during the slip form process.



The specification of a Standard for vertical sign mounting is shown in Table 8 below:

Sign Post Sign Socket

Shape Square Square

Size 60mm (outer dimension) 70mm (inner dimension)

Depth of insertion 500mm min.

Table 8: Specification of a Standard for a vertical sign mounting

8.1 A proposed built-in socket design

One solution which is proposed by TRL, and discussed above, is the provision of a standardised socket which is built into the barrier during its construction. This is technologically feasible as the slip form process used to construct the concrete barriers already allows the insertion of round conduits for lamp standards.

It is proposed that a square post could be set into the ground in the path of the slip form machine and that the barrier can then be formed around the posts. It is shown schematically in Figure 8 below:

Figure 8: Proposed built-in sign post

As discussed above, this particular arrangement could be beneficial in the case of very wide safety barriers, usually where lighting columns are required. In these situations, where the width of the top of the barrier may be up to 600mm, traditional A-frames may be unstable if placed on top the barrier.

Morelock signs Ltd have produced engineering drawings of a suitable set-in post. This is shown in the Appendix 8. It is proposed that these posts be set into the barrier at 50 metre intervals. This should provide enough flexibility for most applications - Chapter 8 of the Road



Signs Manual features dimensions between signs not less than 50m. In special circumstances - for example, complex junctions or heavily curved sections of carriageway, the frequency of the fitments could be increased.

9 Steel eyelet fittings on top of the concrete safety barrier

For securing temporary traffic management signs, one option is to mount steel eyelets on top of the concrete safety barrier. This could take place during the slip form process, where the eyelets can be pushed into the wet concrete. One possible arrangement could be two eyelets positioned either side of the centre line of the barrier with spacing between them of, say 50cm (see Figure 9 below). This arrangement could be repeated at 50 metre intervals along the top of the barrier.

Figure 9: Steel eyelets installed on the top surface of concrete safety barrier (plan view)

One installed, the eyelets can be attached to temporary traffic management ‘A’ frames by means of tensioning straps.

10 Provision of electrical power sockets for VCB mounted signs

This study has identified a need for a mains power supply on concrete safety barriers. Power may be required for VMS-type signs mounted on a permanent basis, but also possibly on a more temporary basis for the illumination of Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) signing. Consideration also needs to be made for the provision of a mains power supply for permanent external lighting columns in appropriate locations.

Consultation with Britpave has revealed that the concrete safety barrier can be cast with a recess in the top for a wiring conduit. This gives added maintainability and flexibility and supersedes an earlier design where cables were buried in the concrete. These cables would supply mains power for VMS type signs, any Temporary Traffic Management signing requiring illumination and also for external lighting columns. Drawings of the new step type concrete safety barrier, which were supplied by Britpave, have shown that within the concrete barrier structure itself, a vertically mounted cable duct runs from the bottom to the top the barrier in order to distribute mains power to any external lighting column.

There are a variety of industry standard sockets which may be used in this application which will suit permanent VMS-type signs well; however, this may not suit TTM signs unless paired with the cast-in mounting posts discussed in Section 8. Concerns were voiced by Britpave over the cost and maintenance of such a system for TTM and suggested that battery operated



luminaries would be more cost effective and also they would not have to be designed especially for use with a concrete safety barrier.

11 Comparison of temporary and fixed sign mounting strategies

A direct comparison of the properties of current practice, ‘A’ frames tethered to especially designed securing brackets, built-in vertical sockets and steel eyelets for temporary traffic management signs, are shown in Table 9 below.

18

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TR

L Li

mite

d 1

8 PP

R 2

78

C

urre

nt p

ract

ice:

- ‘A

’ fra

me

– T

ethe

red

and

othe

r in

stal

latio

n m

etho

ds

(Sec

tion

4)

Prop

osed

solu

tion

# 1:

teth

erin

g ‘A

’ fra

mes

to e

spec

ially

des

igne

d se

curi

ng b

rack

ets

(tw

o di

ffer

ent

desi

gns)

(Sec

tion

6)

Prop

osed

sol

utio

n #

2: b

uilt

in

vert

ical

mou

ntin

gs

(soc

ket d

esig

n)

(Sec

tion

8)

Prop

osed

solu

tion

# 3:

teth

erin

g ‘A

’ fr

ames

to st

eel e

yele

ts

(Sec

tion

9)

Star

t-up

cos

ts

Cos

ts o

f tet

hers

(reu

sabl

e), c

able

ties

(n

on-r

eusa

ble)

and

sand

bags

. C

ost o

f tem

pora

ry m

ount

ing

brac

ket,

not m

ore

than

£50

* fo

r eac

h de

sign

of

brac

ket

Estim

ated

£3

.5m

illon

** fo

r in

stal

latio

n on

the

who

le m

otor

way

ne

twor

k

Cos

t of s

teel

eye

lets

and

se

curin

g st

raps

Cos

ts

Tool

s, su

ndrie

s and

labo

ur

Tool

s, su

ndrie

s and

labo

ur

Labo

ur o

nly

Tool

s, su

ndrie

s and

la

bour

Posi

tioni

ng

Can

be

fitte

d w

here

ver r

equi

red,

but

fo

r ext

ra si

gn st

abili

ty, i

t wou

ld

requ

ire a

suita

ble

teth

erin

g po

int,

such

as

a fi

tted

brac

ket o

r oth

er ro

ad

furn

iture

(e.g

. a li

ghtin

g co

lum

n)

In th

eory

, can

be

fitte

d w

here

ver

requ

ired

how

ever

, one

of t

he o

ptio

ns

requ

ires m

ore

prep

arat

ion

time

Ava

ilabl

e at

fixe

d po

ints

, eve

ry 5

0m, o

n th

e ca

rria

gew

ay

whi

ch is

suff

icie

nt

for t

he d

eman

ds o

f C

hapt

er 8

of t

he

Traf

fic S

igns

Man

ual

Ava

ilabl

e at

fixe

d po

ints

, eve

ry 5

0m, o

n th

e ca

rria

gew

ay w

hich

is

suff

icie

nt fo

r the

de

man

ds o

f Cha

pter

8

of th

e Tr

affic

Sig

ns

Man

ual

Met

hod

of si

gn in

stal

latio

n Th

e ‘A

’ fra

me

is e

ither

stre

tche

d ac

ross

the

conc

rete

safe

ty b

arrie

r or,

if th

e to

p of

the

barr

ier i

s wid

e en

ough

, m

ount

ed o

n th

e to

p. S

and

bag

balla

stin

g is

use

d to

pro

vide

stab

ility

fo

r the

sign

s.

If a

ppro

pria

te te

ther

ing

poin

ts a

re

avai

labl

e, ‘A

’ fra

me

is fi

xed

to th

e pe

rman

ent f

eatu

re b

y st

raps

, rop

es o

r ca

ble

ties.

Dril

ling

and/

or g

luin

g re

quire

d fo

r in

stal

latio

n of

one

type

of b

rack

et to

th

e to

p of

con

cret

e sa

fety

bar

rier,

then

in

stal

l the

sign

fram

e an

d se

cure

us

ing

Smar

tlock

stra

ps

The

othe

r typ

e of

mou

ntin

g br

acke

t w

ould

be

fitte

d ov

er th

e to

p of

the

conc

rete

safe

ty b

arrie

r and

scre

wed

se

cure

ly in

to p

lace

usi

ng tu

rnke

ys,

then

inst

all t

he si

gn fr

ame

and

secu

re

usin

g Sm

artlo

ck st

raps

Inst

all v

ertic

ally

m

ount

ed si

gn p

ost

into

bui

lt in

sock

et

Secu

re th

e si

gn

mou

ntin

g fr

ames

to th

e st

eel e

yele

ts m

y m

eans

of

adj

usta

ble

stra

ps.

19

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TR

L Li

mite

d 1

9 PP

R 2

78

C

urre

nt p

ract

ice:

- ‘A

’ fra

me

– T

ethe

red

and

othe

r in

stal

latio

n m

etho

ds

(Sec

tion

4)

Prop

osed

solu

tion

# 1:

teth

erin

g ‘A

’ fra

mes

to e

spec

ially

des

igne

d se

curi

ng b

rack

ets

(tw

o di

ffer

ent

desi

gns)

(Sec

tion

6)

Prop

osed

sol

utio

n #

2: b

uilt

in

vert

ical

mou

ntin

gs

(soc

ket d

esig

n)

(Sec

tion

8)

Prop

osed

solu

tion

# 3:

teth

erin

g ‘A

’ fr

ames

to st

eel e

yele

ts

(Sec

tion

9)

Item

s lef

t ove

r af

ter

wor

ks

Non

e Fo

r one

of t

he d

esig

ns, n

on-

rem

ovab

le (e

.g. g

lued

) bra

cket

s w

ould

be

left

on th

e co

ncre

te sa

fety

ba

rrie

r afte

r the

wor

ks a

re c

ompl

ete

Non

e N

on –

rem

ovab

le st

eel

eyel

ets

Sign

secu

rity

Sp

ecifi

catio

n of

teth

ers s

houl

d be

co

ntro

lled

to e

nsur

e se

curit

y.

Spec

ifica

tion

and

appl

icat

ion

of

adhe

sive

s, br

acke

ts a

nd te

ther

s sho

uld

be c

ontro

lled

to e

nsur

e se

curit

y.

Sign

fram

es sh

ould

be

secu

re w

ithou

t re

cour

se to

furth

er

fast

enin

g

Spec

ifica

tion

and

appl

icat

ion

of st

eel

eyel

ets a

nd st

raps

sh

ould

be

cont

rolle

d to

en

sure

secu

rity.

Poss

ible

safe

ty is

sues

:

Inst

abili

ty o

f the

sign

s, pa

rticu

larly

in

the

abse

nce

of su

itabl

e te

ther

ing

poin

ts. T

his i

s a m

ajor

safe

ty is

sue

for

larg

er si

gns,

espe

cial

ly in

exp

osed

lo

catio

ns w

here

the

win

d lo

adin

g on

th

e si

gn c

an b

e ve

ry la

rge.

Whe

re

wid

e co

ncre

te b

arrie

rs a

re fo

und

ther

e m

ay b

e a

risk

of th

e fr

ames

falli

ng o

ff

the

barr

ier.

Ass

umin

g go

od se

curit

y, th

e sa

fety

of

wor

kers

wou

ld d

epen

d on

set-u

p tim

e, w

hich

is c

urre

ntly

unk

now

n.

This

mig

ht b

e a

safe

ty c

once

rn if

the

set u

p tim

e ta

kes s

igni

fican

tly lo

nger

th

an c

urre

nt p

ract

ice.

Ease

and

secu

rity

of

inst

alla

tion

ensu

res

that

tem

pora

ry tr

affic

m

anag

emen

t wor

kers

w

ould

be

in h

arm

’s

way

for t

he sh

orte

st

poss

ible

tim

e. A

pr

efer

red

optio

n fo

r w

ider

than

stan

dard

co

ncre

te b

arrie

rs.

Ass

umin

g go

od

secu

rity,

the

safe

ty o

f w

orke

rs w

ould

dep

end

on se

t-up

time,

whi

ch is

cu

rren

tly u

nkno

wn.

Adv

anta

ges

Ver

y lo

w in

stal

latio

n an

d m

ater

ial

cost

s

Ease

of f

ittin

g

Low

inst

alla

tion

cost

s

Flex

ibili

ty in

whe

re th

e se

curin

g br

acke

ts a

re in

stal

led

for o

ne

parti

cula

r opt

ion.

Secu

rity

of

inst

alla

tion

– i.e

. it i

s un

likel

y fo

r the

sign

pl

us fr

ame

will

get

di

slod

ged

Ease

and

spee

d of

in

stal

latio

n –

Ease

of a

nd sp

eed

of

inst

alla

tion

– im

prov

ing

safe

ty fo

r tra

ffic

m

anag

emen

t wor

kers

20

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TR

L Li

mite

d 2

0 PP

R 2

78

C

urre

nt p

ract

ice:

- ‘A

’ fra

me

– T

ethe

red

and

othe

r in

stal

latio

n m

etho

ds

(Sec

tion

4)

Prop

osed

solu

tion

# 1:

teth

erin

g ‘A

’ fra

mes

to e

spec

ially

des

igne

d se

curi

ng b

rack

ets

(tw

o di

ffer

ent

desi

gns)

(Sec

tion

6)

Prop

osed

sol

utio

n #

2: b

uilt

in

vert

ical

mou

ntin

gs

(soc

ket d

esig

n)

(Sec

tion

8)

Prop

osed

solu

tion

# 3:

teth

erin

g ‘A

’ fr

ames

to st

eel e

yele

ts

(Sec

tion

9)

impr

ovin

g sa

fety

for

traff

ic m

anag

emen

t w

orke

rs

Dis

adva

ntag

es

Safe

ty c

once

rns r

egar

ding

the

stab

ility

of

all

tem

pora

ry tr

affic

man

agem

ent

sign

s, pa

rticu

larly

larg

er si

gns

Stab

ility

issu

es c

ould

rem

ain

for v

ery

larg

e te

mpo

rary

traf

fic m

anag

emen

t si

gns

Poss

ible

non

-com

plia

nce

of th

e us

e of

se

curin

g st

raps

Lack

of f

lexi

bilit

y fo

r the

opt

ion

that

re

quire

s a p

erm

anen

t mou

ntin

g on

top

of th

e ba

rrie

r, pa

rticu

larly

at s

trate

gic

junc

tions

, whe

re m

otor

way

s mer

ge

and

dive

rge

Ver

y hi

gh in

itial

co

sts o

f im

plem

enta

tion

Can

onl

y be

ado

pted

w

here

ver

y w

ide

conc

rete

safe

ty

barr

iers

are

use

d

Lack

of f

lexi

bilit

y,

parti

cula

rly a

t st

rate

gic

junc

tions

, w

here

mot

orw

ays

mer

ge a

nd d

iver

ge

Hig

h in

itial

cos

ts o

f im

plem

enta

tion

Lack

of f

lexi

bilit

y pa

rticu

larly

at s

trate

gic

junc

tions

, whe

re

mot

orw

ays m

erge

and

di

verg

e

* An

appr

oxim

ate

cost

bas

ed o

n pr

ices

of s

imila

r ste

el fa

bric

atio

ns. D

oes n

ot in

clud

e in

stal

latio

n co

sts.

** B

ased

on

a ne

twor

k le

ngth

of 3

,500

km, a

pos

t spa

cing

of 5

0m a

nd a

n es

timat

ed in

stal

latio

n un

it co

st o

f £50

Tab

le 9

: A

n es

timat

ed c

ompa

riso

n of

the

prop

ertie

s of c

urre

nt p

ract

ice,

teth

ered

‘A’ f

ram

es u

sing

secu

ring

bra

cket

s, bu

ilt-in

ver

tical

mou

ntin

gs a

nd st

eel e

yele

ts

21


TRL Limited 21 PPR 278

12 Potential solutions

Four potential solutions have been identified to overcome the problem of securely mounting temporary traffic management signing to concrete safety barriers located in the central reserve:

1. Clamps or straps to stabilise existing “A” type frames to the concrete barrier.

2. Sockets built into the barriers that accept standardised vertical sign frames.

3. Installing steel eyelets in the top of the concrete safety barrier as anchor points to attach adjustable straps to stabilise existing “A” type frames.

4. Existing methods: refining these procedures to provide a satisfactory solution (e.g. providing guidelines for cable ties / straps / sandbags or the use of extra long A-frames, which may have extra locking bars to improve frame rigidity).

13 Conclusions and recommendations

As can be seen in Table 9, there are both advantages and disadvantages for all of the potential solutions listed in Section 12. However, in the opinion of the project team, all of these solutions are potentially viable in different operational situations.

Of the options presented above, the built-in sockets (potential solution 2) is one favoured solution as they enable secure and easy sign installation for the minimum amount of time TTM operatives are on site. However, this particular solution is only a viable option in the case of very wide concrete safety barriers, which are often used in areas where lighting columns are required.

Where the normal width ‘step’ type safety barriers are used , the favoured solution is either to use especially designed mounting brackets and straps to stabilise the sign mounting frames or alternatively, to install steel eyelets in pairs at regular intervals along the top of the concrete safety barrier. Of these two options, the mounting bracket/ strap solution is more flexible in terms of sign positioning. However, the steel eyelet/ strap solution should reduce the sign installation time, which has major safety benefits for the temporary traffic management workers.

Recommendations for future work

1. Temporary traffic management signing

• Off – road evaluation of all potential solutions

It is recommended that a short evaluation of all potential solutions is performed in a suitable environment, e.g. on the TRL test track. This could involve the construction of a mock-up of a typical concrete barrier section (for example, in wood) to help determine how viable and

22



usable the new methods are from an operational point of view. Alternatively, a short section of safety barrier could be produced at TRL using the slip form process.

To facilitate this evaluation, it is suggested that experienced temporary traffic management operatives are brought in to provide their input on the new designs using their experience to give a view on their ease of use. The off-road trial would be substantially cheaper than the on – road trial and it would yield valuable data.

• On-road trial

The next stage that is proposed is an on-road trial conducted at the site of a long term road works scheme on a stretch of motorway where concrete safety barriers are present in the central reserve. This would assess the safety benefits in an operational environment.

• Creation of guidelines and standards for securing temporary signs

Following on from the on-road trial, guidelines and standards should be created to define the optimum method(s) for securing temporary signs to be adopted in a range of different road environments.

2. Permanent signing

• Creation of guidelines and standards for the installation of permanent signs

Guidelines and standards should be created for the installation of permanent traffic signs, including matrix signals, to concrete safety barriers in the central reserve.

The current practice of installing matrix signals to the existing concrete safety barriers could be adopted for the new step type of concrete safety barrier, although it should be noted that the width of the top of the step type barrier is slightly narrow compared to the width of the existing concrete safety barriers (200mm, compared to either 240mm or 300mm for a vertical concrete barrier or a higher vertical concrete barrier respectively).

For permanent traffic signs, i.e. warning and informatory signs, in the case of sections of a motorway with a double width concrete safety barrier, which can be found on some parts of the M25, the currently adopted method of installing a 500mm deep sign post socket surrounded by non–reinforced concrete positioned between the two concrete safety barrier sections could be used.

Where only a single width concrete safety barrier exists, small permanent traffic signs, such as triangular warning signs, could be mounted on top of the concrete safety barrier by fixing the sign mounting posts into small diameter holes which are drilled in the top of the barrier and secured either mechanically or chemically using permanent adhesive. However, further work would be required to confirm the safety and effectiveness of this approach.

14 Reference Figure 7 drawings from “Concrete Barrier Sign Post Installation”:-

http://www.dot.state.co.us/S_Standards/S_standard_2000/INDEX6.html.

15 Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was carried out in the Networks Group of TRL Limited.

23



Appendices Appendix 1: Typical Cross-Sections of UK Concrete Barriers

Note: Dimensions shown are approximate

Vertical Concrete Barrier (VCB)

Higher Vertical Concrete Barrier (HVCB)

24



Concrete ‘Step’ Barrier (courtesy of Britpave)

25



Appendix 2: Questions to the TMCA, sign manufacturers and the Highways

Agency

Questions to the Traffic Management Contractors' Association (TMCA)

1. What types of sign (by shape and size) do you use in the central reserve?

2. What means do you currently use to locate temporary and permanent signs in the central reserve, which have the following types of safety barrier?

Concrete barriers, Steel beams, Wire rope safety fences.

3. Are the systems which are currently available for locating temporary and permanent

signs to concrete barriers satisfactory? If not, what system would you propose for locating such signs in these circumstances?

Note that any systems proposed will need to satisfy the stability requirement of the new British Standard BS 8442.

4. What problems do you currently experience fixing signs to these barriers, beams and

fences?

5. What do you currently do to counteract these problems?

6. When external lighting of signs is required, what lighting system(s) and power source(s) do you use?

7. How often do you experience problems with the stability of the signs and their

frames?

26



Questions to sign frame manufacturers This project deals specifically with locating temporary and permanent signs to permanent concrete barriers.

1. What sign frames do you currently manufacture to do this? What plans do you have

for making such frames in the future? (Ask for suggested designs). Note: Sign manufactures will need to be aware that any systems proposed will need to satisfy the stability requirement of the new British Standard BS 8442. Questions to the Highways Agency

1. What signs (temporary and permanent) are typically used in the central reserve on the HA network?

2. Are you aware of any problems, if so, what have they been?

3. If so, what safety issues are you aware of?

4. Similarly, what operational issues are you aware of?

5. Are you aware of any possible solutions? 6. One possible solution could be the use of permanent fixtures in the central reserve

e.g. sockets and the provision of power points. Do you have any views on this?

Questions to the Britpave (a body representing the concrete industry)

1. Are there any specific measures your members use at present regarding the design of concrete barriers for the central reserve to accommodate sign mounting frames for temporary signs or vertically mounted permanent signs?

2. Do you have any experience of what techniques are used in other countries, for

example, France, where there is a common occurrence of concrete barriers in the central reserve?

27



Appendix 3: Questions to the Netherlands and other EU countries

SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE OF INSTALLING TRAFFIC SIGNS TO CONCRETE SAFETY BARRIERS

Would you please complete the following questionnaire:

Questions:

1. What type of traffic signs (road work and permanent) are typically used in the central reservation on the motorway network in your country?

2. What methods are used in your country to secure road work sign mounting

frames to the concrete barriers?

(Please send us any drawings or diagrams as an attachment)

3. Are you aware of any problems with installing sign mounting frames for road

work signs to concrete safety barriers in the central reservation?

If so, what have the problems been?

28



4. If there are any problems with installing the sign mounting frames to concrete barriers, what are the safety and / or operational issues?

5. What methods do you use to install any permanent traffic signs to concrete

safety barriers in the central reservation?

(Please send us any drawings or diagrams as an attachment)

6. If permanent traffic signs, for example variable message signs, located in the

central reservation require mains power, how is this achieved?

29



Please add any further comments or any additional information that you feel would be useful: Thank you very much for your assistance in completing this questionnaire. Please enter your personal details here: Your name: ___________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Country: ___________________________________________________ Email: _______________________________________________ Tele: ____________________________________________________

30

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TRL

Lim

ited

30PP

R27

8

App

endi

x 4:

Tra

ffic

man

agem

ent a

nd sa

fety

bar

rier

s: c

onta

ct li

st

C

onta

ct d

etai

ls

Nam

e

Org

anis

atio

n A

dditi

onal

info

rmat

ion

Phon

e

Em

ail

Con

tact

ed

Y/N

? C

onta

cted

by

(ini

tials

) R

icha

rd P

ears

on

Traf

fic

Man

agem

ent

Con

tract

ors'

Ass

ocia

tion

(TM

CA

)

Cha

irman

of T

MC

A

Ric

hard

's co

mpa

ny is

cu

rren

tly re

spon

sibl

e fo

r the

te

mpo

rary

traf

fic m

anag

emen

t on

the

M25

J12-

15 w

iden

ing

0173

7 64

7966

R

icha

rd.P

ears

on@

aggr

egat

e.co

m

Y –

12/

09

Res

pond

ed

19/0

9

JM

Gra

ham

e B

esw

ick

TM

CA

D

eput

y C

hairm

an, T

MC

A

0177

3 81

3214

gb

esw

ick@

hwm

artin

.com

Ian

Spel

lacy

C

arill

ion

R

oute

Man

ager

for t

he M

25

07

803

9756

45

Y

-13/

08

ST

Rob

in H

utch

inso

n H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

01

306

8782

70

Rob

in.H

utch

inso

n@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-15/

09

JM

Dav

id Jo

nes

Jam

es C

harle

swor

th

Mat

thew

Cha

rlesw

orth

Brit

pave

Ex

truda

kerb

Ex

truda

kerb

This

com

pany

repr

esen

t the

co

ncre

te in

dust

ry a

nd

norm

ally

hav

e in

form

ed v

iew

s on

rela

ted

subj

ects

.

0127

6 33

160

01

709

8620

76

01 7

09 8

6207

6

info

@br

itpav

e.co

.uk

Y-2

0/09

Y

-20/

09

JM

JM

Stev

e G

arre

tt

Mor

eloc

k Si

gns

Ltd

Nat

iona

l Sal

es m

anag

er

Mor

eloc

ks a

re o

ne o

f the

m

ajor

man

ufac

ture

rs o

f sig

n m

ount

ing

fram

es in

the

UK

0190

2 63

7575

Y-2

1/09

JM

W

illia

m S

mith

Lt

d Si

gn fr

ame

man

ufac

ture

rs a

nd

supp

liers

01

833

6903

05

Y

-20/

09

JM

A

ltaro

ute

Ltd

Sign

fram

e m

anuf

actu

rers

0145

4 31

1475

Y-2

0/09

JM

31

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TRL

Lim

ited

31PP

R27

8

Con

tact

det

ails

N

ame

O

rgan

isat

ion

Add

ition

al in

form

atio

n

Phon

e

Em

ail

Con

tact

ed

Y/N

? C

onta

cted

by

(ini

tials

)

De

Org

an L

td

Sign

fram

e su

pplie

rs

01

418

8970

00

Y

-20/

09

JM

Ash

field

Ltd

Si

gn fr

ame

supp

liers

0121

5 57

8008

Y- 2

0/09

JM

Lim

elig

ht S

igns

Lt

d Si

gn fr

ame

supp

liers

01

706

8738

66

Y

– 1

5/12

JM

S&

J Sig

ns

Sign

fram

e m

anuf

actu

rers

0121

5 26

4010

Y- 2

0/09

JM

Bar

ry P

atch

am

Rin

gway

Sig

ns

Ltd

Sign

fram

e m

anuf

actu

rers

and

su

pplie

rs

0193

4 42

1400

Y-2

0/09

JM

Bar

ry S

ulliv

an

Sulli

van

H

oldi

ngs L

td

Sign

fram

e m

anuf

actu

rers

Su

lliva

ns a

re o

ne o

f the

maj

or

man

ufac

ture

rs o

f sig

n m

ount

ing

fram

es in

the

UK

0154

3 37

7280

Y-2

1/09

Y

- 14/

12

JM

JM

Dav

id B

ooth

Nat

ionw

ide

Sign

s

Sign

fram

e m

anuf

actu

rers

0190

2 87

1116

R

oadf

ram

esdi

rect

@ao

l.com

Y

-29/

09

JM

Arth

ur N

orto

n H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 5

man

ager

01

306

87 8

312

Arth

ur.N

orto

n@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-28/

09

JM

Pete

r Rix

Hig

hway

s A

genc

y A

rea

4 m

anag

er

0130

6 87

8115

Pe

ter.R

ix@

Hig

hway

s.gsi

.gov

.uk

Y-2

8/09

JM

John

Ryl

ett

H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 3

man

ager

01

306

8782

51

John

. Ryl

ett@

Hig

hway

s.gsi

.gov

.uk

Y-2

8/09

JM

Ral

f Klo

eckn

er

B

AST

+49

2204

43

542

kloe

ckne

r@ba

st.d

e Y

-12/

10

Y –

08/

12

AC

G

W

32

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TRL

Lim

ited

32PP

R27

8

Con

tact

det

ails

N

ame

O

rgan

isat

ion

Add

ition

al in

form

atio

n

Phon

e

Em

ail

Con

tact

ed

Y/N

? C

onta

cted

by

(ini

tials

) H

uib

Kw

int

Min

istry

of

Tran

spor

t, N

ethe

rland

s

+3

1 (1

0) 2

82

5896

h.

kwin

t@av

v.rw

s.min

venw

.nl

Y-1

2/10

Y

- 08/

12

AC

G

W

Chr

istin

e M

arca

illou

SETR

A

33

+ 1

4611

3636

ch

ristin

e.m

arca

illou

@eq

uipe

men

t.gou

v.fr

Y

-12/

10

Y -0

8/12

AC

G

W

Pe

ter J

ohns

en

Priv

ate

cons

ulta

nt

pj@

john

senc

onsu

lt.dk

Y

– 0

8/12

G

W

Vitt

orio

Gia

votto

Polit

echn

ico

di

Mila

no

giav

otto

@ae

ro.p

olim

i.it

Y –

08/

12

GW

Har

ry T

aylo

r

US

Fede

ral

Hig

hway

s A

utho

rity

Har

ry.ta

ylor

@fh

wa.

dot.g

ov

Y –

08/

12

GW

Vin

cent

Led

oux

LC

PC

Vin

cent

.ledo

ux@

lcpc

.fr

Y –

08/

12

JM

Mal

colm

Wilk

inso

n H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 2

man

ager

01

17 3

9280

85

Mal

colm

.Wilk

inso

nt@

Hig

hway

s.gsi

.gov

.uk

Y-2

8/09

JM

Dav

id C

ropp

er

Hig

hway

s A

genc

y A

rea

9 m

anag

er

0121

678

8482

D

avid

.Cro

pper

@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-28/

09

JM

Step

hen

Edw

ards

H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 11

man

ager

01

21 6

7883

60

Step

hen.

Edw

ards

@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-28/

09

JM

Gra

eme

Free

man

H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 10

man

ager

01

61 9

3056

73

Gra

ham

.Fre

eman

@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-29/

09

JM

Bob

Bal

dwin

H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 13

man

ager

01

61 9

3056

80

Bob

.Bal

dwin

@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-29/

09

JM

Ant

ony

Firth

H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 12

man

ager

01

132

8364

36

Ant

ony.

Firth

@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-28/

09

JM

Ivan

Bea

vis

Hig

hway

s A

rea

7 m

anag

er

0121

678

8130

Iv

an.B

eavi

s@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-29/

09

JM

33

Publ

ishe

d Pr

ojec

t Rep

ort

V

ersi

on: 3

TRL

Lim

ited

33PP

R27

8

Con

tact

det

ails

N

ame

O

rgan

isat

ion

Add

ition

al in

form

atio

n

Phon

e

Em

ail

Con

tact

ed

Y/N

? C

onta

cted

by

(ini

tials

) A

genc

y

Iain

Sem

ple

Hig

hway

s A

genc

y A

rea

8 m

anag

er

0123

4 79

6045

Ia

in.S

empl

e@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-29/

09

JM

Pete

r Sm

ith

Hig

hway

s A

genc

y A

rea

6 m

anag

er

0123

4 79

6094

Pe

ter.S

mith

@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-29/

09

JM

Pete

r Mof

fatt

Hig

hway

s A

genc

y A

rea

14 m

anag

er

0113

2 83

6503

Pe

ter.M

offa

tt@H

ighw

ays.g

si.g

ov.u

k Y

-28/

09

JM

Rog

er W

antli

ng

H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

Are

a 12

pro

ject

spon

sor

0113

283

6253

R

oger

.Wan

tling

@H

ighw

ays .

gsi.g

ov.u

k Y

– 0

4/10

JM

Th

e A

ssoc

iatio

n fo

r Roa

d Tr

affic

Sa

fety

and

M

anag

emen

t.

(AR

TSM

)

AR

TSM

is a

n in

fluen

tial b

ody

in th

e hi

ghw

ays a

nd

trans

porta

tion

area

.

020

8977

8339

02

0897

7695

2 (F

ax)

Y –

06/

10

JM

34



Appendix 5: Profile and dimensions of slots used for vertically mounted signs on M25 (J12 – 15) road works scheme.

Two rows of Vertical Concrete Barrier (VCB)

35



Appendix 6: Frame securing bracket - type A design For detailed Drawings of the frame securing brackets, type A and B, contact Steve Garrett of Morelock Signs on +44(0)1902 637575

36



Appendix 7: Smartlock straps – product specification (courtesy of Morelock Signs Ltd)

SmartLock Strap SmartLock is a resilient, strong strap designed to be used to replace or reduce the number of sandbags used to secure your “A” frames. It can withstand extreme weights and weathers – lasting for years even in the harsh roadside environment. It is also cheaper than the normal method of weighting down road signs with several heavy and expensive sandbags. Each SmartLock strap can hold up to 300kg, the equivalent weight of 24 sandbags, though it is always advised to use at least two straps per frame. If the webbing is torn or damaged in any way it is advised that you throw that particular strap away and use another one. Characteristics WEBBING STRAP Material: Polypropylene Webbing Standard: RTL R4691 Finish: Yarn Pigmented Length: 2m (2000mm) Width: 38mm Minimum Tensile Strength: 430kg Available in many standard colours BUCKLE Material: PA 6.6 50% Glass Fibre Length: 74mm Width: 56mm Breaking Strain: 165kg SMARTLOCK ASSEMBLY Maximum Design Load: 300kg (when correctly fitted) Breaking Strain: 340kg (when correctly fitted) SAFE USAGE

• The strap must not be in contact with sharp edges. • The strap must be pulled tight enough to take up any slack. • The strap should always be doubled over to form a complete

loop. • Never use a damaged strap.

37



Recommended methods of using SmartLock to secure an “A” frame

Clamping leg to barrier Standard configuration

Two SmartLocks joined together Alternative configuration

38



Appendix 8 - Proposed cast-in sign post socket design For detailed Drawings of the proposed cast-in sign post socket design, contact Steve Garrett of Morelock Signs on +44(0)1902 637575


TRL Limited 39 PPR278

Abstract

This report presents a study that has investigated the issues of mounting signs on concrete safety barriers in the central reserve. The design of concrete safety barriers causes problems for the mounting of existing temporary traffic management signs since traditional sign mounting ‘A’ frames are considered to be unsuitable due to the height of the safety barrier. ‘A’ frames (which generally straddle the barrier) cannot touch the ground without modification. Various solutions to these problems have been investigated and are described in this report.

Concrete barriers have been widely used within mainland Europe for many years and have several advantages over steel safety barriers. They are narrower than two parallel rows of safety fence, and also do not deflect upon impact, freeing up valuable space for carriageway widening. Their inherent strength and impact resistance means they do not require repairs after accidents and as such are essentially maintenance free.

The solutions for temporary traffic management signs included the provision of temporary brackets to provide anchor points for conventional ‘A’ frames, retro-fit square post brackets for vertical type sign frames, eyelets mounted on top of the barrier, square post brackets pre-cast into the barrier during construction and establishing guidelines to make best use of current practice.

Permanent signs, such as matrix signals (MS1’s), could be securely bolted down to the top of the concrete barrier using anchor bolts. Small permanent traffic signs could be installed into the top of the concrete barrier by fixing sign mounting posts into small diameter holes which are drilled into the top of the barrier and secured either mechanically or chemically using permanent adhesive.

Of the options discussed in this report, in cases where a wide barrier (approximately three times the width of a normal safety barrier) is used to accommodate lighting columns, vertically mounted sockets, built into the concrete safety barrier, to accommodate mounting posts for temporary traffic management signs is the favoured option, both in terms of ease and safe set up. However, in the cases of a normal width ‘step’ type safety barrier, a favoured solution is to use especially designed mounting brackets and straps to stabilise the sign mounting frames. An alternative solution is to mount steel eyelets on top of the barrier, to which securing straps could be attached to stabilise the sign frames.

Vertically mounting posts for permanent traffic signs, e.g. warning signs, can be appropriately positioned on top of the concrete safety barrier to allow for the laterally positioned re-enforcing bars in the barrier structure.


• A study that has assessed current practice for mounting Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) signing on Vertical Concrete Barriers (VCB)’s. Current practices include the use of conventional sandbags plus webbing straps which tie sign frames to adjacent road furniture.

• A survey of TTM experts to gauge current opinions on the subject. Those consulted include Highways Agency Area Teams, the Traffic Management Contractors Association, Britpave, manufacturers of concrete barriers, and sign frame manufacturers.

• A questionnaire based survey of Highways Agency Area teams to establish the different types of permanent traffic sign located in the central reserve on the motorway and major trunk road network.

• A description and discussion of the various available solutions and recommendations for both permanent and temporary traffic management signs.

TRLCrowthorne House, Nine Mile RideWokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GAUnited Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 773131F: +44 (0) 1344 770356E: [email protected]: www.trl.co.uk

ISSN 0968-4093

Price code: 2X

Published by IHSWilloughby Road, BracknellBerkshire RG12 8FBUnited Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 328038F: +44 (0) 1344 328005E: [email protected]: www.uk.ihs.com PP

R2

78


This report presents a study that has investigated the issues of mounting signs on concrete safety barriers in the central reserve. The design of concrete safety barriers causes problems for the mounting of existing temporary traffic management signs since traditional sign mounting ‘A’ frames are considered to be unsuitable due to the height of the safety barrier. ‘A’ frames (which generally straddle the barrier) cannot touch the ground without modification. Various solutions to these problems have been investigated and are described in this report.


A study that has assessed current practice for mounting Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) signing on Vertical Concrete Barriers (VCB)’s. Current practices include the use of conventional sandbags plus webbing straps which tie sign frames to adjacent road furniture.

A survey of TTM experts to gauge current opinions on the subject. Those consulted include Highways Agency Area Teams, the Traffic Management Contractors Association, Britpave, manufacturers of concrete barriers, and sign frame manufacturers.

A questionnaire based survey of Highways Agency Area teams to establish the different types of permanent traffic sign located in the central reserve on the motorway and major trunk road network.

A description and discussion of the various available solutions and recommendations for both permanent and temporary traffic management signs.

Other recent titles from this subject area

PPR276 Whole Life Cost-Benefit Analysis for Median Safety Barriers Task 1 – Relocation of Services, G L Williams

PPR277 Whole Life Cost-Benefit Analysis for Median Safety Barriers Task 2 – Structural Consequences, G L Williams

PPR279 Whole Life Cost-Benefit Analysis for Median Safety BarriersG L Williams

PPR280 A Review of HGV Crossover Accidents, and the Relative Costs of Steel and Concrete Barriers (Phase II Report), G L Williams

•

•

•

•

traffic management and concrete safety barriers · trl limited iv ppr 278 iv published project...

Documents