MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-1

13. RAILINGS Section 13 of the LRFD Specifications addresses the design of railings.
“Railings” is used as a generic term in the specifications. Railings include
traffic safety barriers as well as median barriers, bicycle, and pedestrian
railings.

The design requirements for railings utilized on Mn/DOT bridges have

undergone changes in recent years as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) established crash-testing requirements and the
AASHTO Specifications were revised accordingly. Additionally, the desire
for more attractive railings has influenced the style of railings on projects
where aesthetics is a major consideration. Accidents involving objects
thrown from overpasses onto traffic below has led to the adoption of
protective screening requirements. The rapid increase in bicycle trails and
traffic has increased attention on bicycle railings. This section of the
LRFD Bridge Design Manual details our policies regarding the design of
bridge railings for Mn/DOT projects.

13.1 Materials Reinforced concrete, steel, and timber are all used for railings. The
majority of traffic railings are reinforced concrete. Bridges with timber
decks on low volume secondary roads may have timber railings.
Pedestrian and bicycle railings are typically galvanized steel that has
been painted for aesthetics.

13.2 Design The design of newly constructed bridge railings must conform to the
Requirements requirements of Section 13 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. This specification gives geometric and strength
requirements and also describes crash test levels. FHWA requires all
bridges carrying traffic on the National Highway System (NHS) to be
crash tested in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 Recommended
Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.
There are six levels of service and testing depending on vehicle size and
speed. A list of crash tested railings is found on the following FHWA Web
sites:
• http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bridgerail/
• http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/bridgerailings.htm
• http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/longbarriers.htm
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-2

Crash testing requirements may be waived if the railing in question is

similar in geometrics to an approved crash tested rail and an analytical
evaluation shows the railing to be crash worthy. This allows minor
changes to crash tested railings without having to go through the time
and expense of crash testing. For bridges on the NHS any such
evaluation must be approved by the FHWA.

Crash testing has shown that during impact vehicles slide along the top of
the railing and parts of the vehicle, especially the boxes on trucks, extend
beyond the face of the railing a considerable distance. The envelope of
the vehicle encroachment beyond the face of railing is known as the zone
of intrusion. Attachments to bridge railings, such as architectural metal
railings or objects just behind the railing (such as light poles), must
address safety concerns presented by this encroachment, which include:
1) Snagging - which can cause the attachment or the vehicle hood to
penetrate the occupant compartment.
2) Spearing – objects, such as a horizontal railing member, penetrating
windshields and injuring occupants.
3) Debris falling onto traffic below.

A Midwest Roadside Safety Facility report, titled Guidelines for

Attachment to Bridge Rails and Median Barriers, February 26, 2003,
identifies zones of intrusion for several types of railings. Figure 13.2.1
shows the zone of intrusion for a Test Level 4 barrier.

Generally attachments within the zone of intrusion shall be designed to

break away before severely damaging the vehicle, contain any debris
from damaging traffic below, and have no members (such as rail ends)
that might spear the occupant compartment of the vehicle. Ends of rails
shall be sloped at 45 degrees or less to top of barrier to reduce the
chance of spearing. Posts shall be set back from the face of railing to
minimize snagging. (See Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.3 for setback
requirements.)

Railing designs shall include consideration of safety, cost, aesthetics and

maintenance. Safety shapes (Types J and F) were developed to minimize
damage to vehicles, as well as to contain and redirect vehicles back onto
the roadway, and have low initial and maintenance costs. Use of designs
that allow for easy replacement of damaged sections and use of standard
railings can minimize maintenance costs since replacement components
can be stockpiled.

Three general classes of bridge railings are Traffic Railings, Pedestrian or

Bicycle Railings, and Combination Railings. Bridge cross sections showing
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-3

these three classes are shown in Figure 13.2.2. Railing classes are
further defined in the following sections. Also, refer to Table 13.2.1 for
guidance on standard rail applications.

1
Figure 13.2.1
Intrusion Zones for TL-4 Barriers

1
Reproduced from Keller, Sicking, Faller, Polivka & Rhode, Guidelines for Attachments to Bridge
Rails and Median Barriers, (Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, February 26, 2003), page 24.
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-4

Figure 13.2.2
 TABLE 13.2.1: Standard Rail Applications

Rail Test Speed

Description Application Comment
Type Level Limit
MAY 2006

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-4) TL-4 All Traffic Only 2'-8" tall
5-397.114: Separate End Post w/o W.C.
5-397.115: Integral End Post w/o W.C.
5-397.116: Separate End Post w/ W.C.
5-397.117: Integral End Post w/ W.C.

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5) TL-5 > 40 mph High Protection Area where 3'-6" tall
5-397.122: Integral End Post w/ W.C. Dc > 5° and Speed > 40 mph. (Gives added protection to
5-397.124: Integral End Post w/o W.C. motorists on high speed, high
curvature roadways. Modify
standard to remove sidewalk.)

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5) w/ Sidewalk TL-5 All Between sidewalk and roadway 3'-6" tall
5-397.125: Integral End Post w/ W.C. where the shoulder is < 6'. (The additional height is to protect
5-397.126: Integral End Post w/o W.C. a bicycle rider from falling over the
railing into traffic.)

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5) TL-5 All Bridges with designated bike path 4'-8" tall
5-397.128: Integral End Post w/ W.C. or where glare screen is required.

Traffic
5-397.129: Integral End Post w/o W.C
LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN

Solid Median Barrier (Type F, TL-4) TL-4 All Traffic Only 2'-8" tall
5-397.130: w/ W.C.

Split Median Barrier (Type F, TL-4) TL-4 All Bridges with a longitudinal joint 2'-8" tall
5-397.131: w/ W.C. between roadways. (Usually the (For stage construction, each half of
bridge is very wide or is to be barrier meets TL-4 standard.)
constructed in stages.)

Solid Median Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-4) TL-4 All Traffic Only 4'-8" tall
5-397.132: w/ W.C.

Split Median Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-4) TL-4 All Traffic Only 4'-8" tall
5-397.135: w/o W.C.
5-397.136: w/ W.C

Offset Split Median Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-4 All Use where roadways are at 4'-8" tall
TL-4) different elevations. (Usually on (Separation allows both sides to be
5-397.137: w/ W.C. superelevated bridges.) slipformed.)
13-5
 TABLE 13.2.1: Standard Rail Applications (cont.)

Rail Description Test Speed

Application Comment
Type Level Limit
MAY 2006

Concrete Barrier (Type P-2, TL-4) and Structural TL-4 All Traffic Only, where an aesthetic 1'-3" metal railing on 1'-9" parapet
Tube Railing (Type T-1) railing is desired. (Designer must modify detail for
5-397.157: w/ Integral End Post separate end post or no W.C.)

Traffic
Concrete Barrier (Type P-4, TL-4) TL-4 All Traffic Only 2'-8" tall
5-397.173: Integral End Post w/ W.C.

Concrete Barrier (Type P-1, TL-2) and Wire Fence TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 2'-4" parapet and 6' metal rail with
(Design W-1) rail is used on the outside edge of chain link fabric.
5-397.119: Integral End Post walk and meets bicycle and
5-397.120: Separate End Post protective screening requirements.
Concrete Barrier (Type P-1, TL-2) and Metal Railing TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Outside edge of walk on highway 2'-4" parapet with 2'-2" metal rail
for Bikeway (Type M-1) bridges with sidewalks where (Modify for separate end post.)
5-397.154: Integral End Post bicycle traffic on the walk is
expected and protective screening
is not required.
Structural Tube Railing (Design T-2) TL-4 All Attachment to Type F rail for use Top of metal railing 1'-10½" above

Combination
5-397.158 where significant bicycle traffic will top of 2'-8" Type F rail (Total height
be using roadway shoulder. of 4'-6"+ meets bicycle standard.)

(Traffic and Ped./Bicycle)

Concrete Barrier (Type P-1, TL-2) and Structural TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 2'-4" parapet and 5'-8 ½" metal rail
Tube Railing with Fence (Design T-3) rail is used on the outside edge of with chain link fabric
5-397.212 walk and meets bicycle and
protective screening requirements.
5' Wire Fence (Design W-1) for Pedestrian Bridges Ped. & Yes Pedestrian bridges or sidewalks 5' tall chain link fence
LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN

5-397.202 Bike separated from roadways by a

traffic barrier.

8' Wire Fence for Pedestrian Walks Ped. & Yes Pedestrian bridges or sidewalks 8' tall chain link fence
5-397.205 Bike separated from roadways by a

Ped./Bicycle
traffic barrier.

NOTES:
• Crash testing levels refer to NCHRP Report 350. The structural tube traffic rail (Bridge Details Manual Part II, Fig. 5-397.157) and bicycle rail attachment
to Type F rail (Bridge Details Manual Part II, Fig. 5-397.158) were developed by Minnesota and crash tested through the pooled fund program.
Combination railings with the 2'-4" parapet have been judged to meet crash Test Level 2 (TL-2) by comparison to other crash tested vertical face railings.
• Railing heights are measured to the finished surface (top of wearing course).
• Information on current costs of these railings may be obtained from the Bridge Estimating Unit.
• Combination railings may also be used as bicycle/pedestrian railings. The 2'-4" parapet height permits a wider spacing of spindles (6" openings rather
than the 4" openings required up to 27" above the finished surface).
13-6
 TABLE 13.2.2: Non-Standard Rail Applications

Rail Test Speed

Description Application Comment
Type Level Limit
MAY 2006

Cloquet Railing TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Outside edge of walk on highway 2'-2 3/4" metal rail on 2'-4" parapet
Bridge No. 09008 and 09009 bridges with sidewalks where (Sheet is metric.)
bicycle traffic on the walk is
expected and protective screening
is not required.

Concrete Barrier (Type P-3, TL-2) and Ornamental TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 3'-9" metal rail on 2'-4" parapet
Metal Railing (Type M-2) rail is used on the outside edge of (Developed by City of Minneapolis
walk and meets bicycle and for use on bridges in their city.)
protective screening requirements.

St. Peter Railing TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 4'-6" metal rail on 2'-4" parapet
Bridge No. 27R05 rail is used on the outside edge of (Bridge No. 23022 has a 2'-2"
walk and meets bicycle and height of metal rail for use where
protective screening requirements. protective screening is not needed.)

TH 100 Corridor Standard TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 3'-9" metal rail on 2'-4" parapet
Bridge No. 27285 rail is used on the outside edge of
walk and meets bicycle and

Combination
protective screening requirements.

TH 212 Corridor Standard TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 5'-8' to 9'-2" metal rail on 2'-4"

(Traffic and Ped./Bicycle)

Bridge No. 27148 rail is used on the outside edge of parapet
walk and meets bicycle and
protective screening requirements.

TH 610 Corridor Standard TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 5'-51/2" metal rail on 2'-4" parapet
LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN

Ornamental Metal Railing Type DWG rail is used on the outside edge of (Sheet is metric.)
Bridge No. 27222 walk and meets bicycle and
protective screening requirements.

Victoria Street Railing TL-2 ≤ 40 mph Highway bridges with walks. This 5'-8" metal rail on 2'-4" parapet
Bridge No. 62823 rail is used on the outside edge of with chain link fabric
walk and meets bicycle and
protective screening requirements.
13-7
 TABLE 13.2.2: Non-Standard Rail Applications (cont.)

Rail Test Speed

Description Application Comment
Type Level Limit
MAY 2006

Gooseberry Falls Suspended Walkway Rail Pedestrian bridges or sidewalks 3'-6" tall (Sheet is metric.)
Bridge No. 38010 Ped. N/A separated from roadways by a
traffic barrier.

Lexington Rail Pedestrian bridges or sidewalks 4'-6" tall (Sheet is metric.)

Ped. &
Bridge No. 62823 N/A separated from roadways by a
Bike
traffic barrier.

St. Peter Rail Pedestrian bridges or sidewalks 4'-6" tall (Sheet is metric.)

Pedestrian/Bicycle
Ped. &
Bridge No. 40002 N/A separated from roadways by a
Bike
traffic barrier.

NOTES:
• Crash testing levels refer to NCHRP Report 350. Combination railings with the 2'-4" parapet have been judged to meet crash Test Level 2 (TL-2) by
comparison to other crash tested vertical face railings.
• Railing heights are measured to the finished surface (top of wearing course).
• Information on current costs of these railings may be obtained from the Bridge Estimating Unit.
• Combination railings may also be used as pedestrian/ bicycle railings. The 2'-4" parapet height permits a wider spacing of spindles (6" openings rather
than the 4", which is required in the lower 27").
LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN
13-8
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-9

13.2.1 Traffic Traffic railings are designed to contain and safely redirect vehicles.
Railing Requirements based on speed are as follows.
1) High Speed Roadways with a Design Speed > 40 mph
Mn/DOT requires crash testing to Test Level 4 as the minimum
standard for these roadways. Test Level 4 is run with a small car and
a pickup truck at 60 mph and a single unit van truck impacting at 50
mph. This railing will normally be the 32" high Type F barrier (Bridge
Details Manual Part II, Figure 5-397.114-117). Where aesthetic
needs warrant, the tubular traffic railing (Bridge Details Manual Part
II, Figure 5-397.157) is an acceptable alternative that provides an
increased viewing opportunity to drivers crossing the bridge. It
consists of a structural tube and posts mounted to the top of a 1'-9"
high concrete base. Note, however, that the tubular traffic railing has
higher initial and maintenance costs than the Type F barrier. Consult
the Preliminary Bridge Unit for additional acceptable railings.

Mn/DOT has developed a bicycle railing attachment to the Type F

barrier for use where the bridge shoulders carry a bicycle route as
defined in the Mn/DOT State Bicycle Transportation System Plan or
another recognized authority. This attachment (Bridge Details Manual
Part II, Figure 5-397.158) adds height to the railing to protect bicycle
riders and has been crash tested to Test Level 4. It has a cable
system inside the rail tubes that will contain the rail pieces in the
event of an accident. It also uses weakened posts designed to lessen
the impact to vehicles in the event of a hit. This railing may be
applied to other traffic barriers provided that the same or greater
offset distance to the face of metal rail is provided and the post
attachment has the same or greater strength. The cable system must
be maintained even if there is no traffic below as the cables act to
keep the entire rail system intact during a crash.

The zone of intrusion (see Section 13.2 for definition) shall be kept
free of rail attachments or other features unless they have been crash
tested or an analytical evaluation has shown them to be crash worthy.
Exceptions to this policy include noise walls and safety features such
as signs or lights. Note that light poles shall be located behind the
back of the barrier. When noise walls are attached, consider using a
higher Type F barrier to lessen the risk. The zone of intrusion for a
TL-4 railing is shown in Figure 13.2.1.

A more stringent rail design may be considered on a case-by-case

basis for bridges with high design speeds, high truck volume, and
curvature or other site-specific safety considerations. Generally a
Test Level 5 railing should be considered for these sites. Test Level 5
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-10

includes a small car and a pickup truck traveling at 60 mph plus a

van-type tractor trailer impacting at 50 mph. As a guide, a 42" high
Type F barrier that meets TL-5 requirements is recommended for
bridges having a horizontal curvature of 5 degrees and sharper on a
roadway where the design speed is 45 mph or higher. The
Preliminary Bridge Plans Engineer will designate the rail design on the
Preliminary Bridge Plan.

2) Low Speed Roadways with a Design Speed ≤ 40 mph

Mn/DOT requires crash testing to Test Level 2 as the minimum
standard for these roadways. Test Level 2 is run with a small car and
pickup truck both impacting at a speed of 45 mph.

Normally these railings will be the same as used for higher speeds,
usually the Type F concrete barrier, but with the reduced level
required for crash testing more options are available. Consult the
Preliminary Bridge Unit for additional acceptable railings.

If the addition of an ornamental metal railing is desired on the top of

the traffic railing, a 32" high vertical faced concrete barrier (see
Bridge Details Manual Part II, Figure 5-397.173) shall be used rather
than the Type F barrier. The vertical face will cause more damage to
a vehicle for minor hits but reduces the tendency for the vehicle to
climb the face or roll over and will keep the vehicle back from the
metal rail. A small 2" wide by 6" high curb is provided at the base to
minimize snowplow damage to the barrier. For design speeds of
35 mph and below a metal railing may be used on the top of the
concrete barrier with no minimum offset required, as it is unlikely that
vehicles will contact the metal portion.2 With a design speed of 40
mph the front face of the metal railing shall be offset a minimum of 9"
from the face of barrier at the top of concrete.3

It is strongly recommended that a smooth face be used on the highway

side of concrete barriers. Aesthetic treatments on the highway face
increase the risk of vehicle snagging. In addition, in this environment the
aesthetics treatment will routinely experience vehicle hits, snowplow
scrapes, and high exposure to salt. As a result, their performance will be
greatly reduced, causing increased maintenance costs.

2
Reproduced from Keller, Sicking, Faller, Polivka & Rhode, Guidelines for Attachments to Bridge
Rails and Median Barriers, (Report dated February 26, 2003), pages 3 and 27.
3
Reproduced from Keller, Sicking, Faller, Polivka & Rhode, Guidelines for Attachments to Bridge
Rails and Median Barriers, (Report dated February 26, 2003), page 15 and 16. 9" offset at
40 mph judged acceptable based on 12" offset at 45 mph.
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-11

13.2.2 Pedestrian/ Pedestrian or bicycle railings are generally located at the outside edge of
Bicycle Railing a bridge sidewalk and are designed to safely contain pedestrians or
bicyclists. AASHTO specifications require pedestrian railings to be at
least 3'-6" in height and bicycle railings to be at least 4'-6" in height.
The height is measured from the top of walkway to top of the highest
horizontal rail component.

Openings between members of a pedestrian railing shall not allow a 4"

sphere to pass through the lower 27" of the railing and a 6" sphere
should not pass through any openings above 27". This is more restrictive
than AASHTO and is intended to prevent small children from slipping
through the railing. The International Building Code requires a 4"
maximum opening.

13.2.3 Combination railings are dual purpose railings designed to contain both
Combination vehicles and pedestrians or bicycles. These railings are generally located
Railing at the outside edge of a bridge sidewalk. A raised sidewalk is used to
clearly define the walkway area and keep roadway drainage off the
walkway. The sidewalk curb offers some protection to pedestrians from
errant vehicles entering the walkway. There is no other barrier between
the roadway and the sidewalk. Combination railings are applicable for
design speeds of 40 mph and under. Mn/DOT requires crash testing to
Test Level 2 for these railings and the strength and geometrics
requirements for bicycle or pedestrian railings also apply.

Combination railings will normally consist of a 2'-4" high concrete parapet

with a fence or ornamental metal railing mounted on the top. The
concrete parapet serves to contain traffic and has been judged to meet
crash Test Level 2. The metal railing must comply with the strength and
geometric requirements for bicycle or pedestrian railings. A non-crash
tested metal railing may be used on the top of the concrete barrier, as it
is unlikely that vehicles will make contact with the metal portion.

For typical applications, the highway face of a concrete parapet shall be

relatively smooth for ease of construction (slipforming) and maintenance.
Where aesthetic needs warrant it, beveled recesses up to 2" deep may be
allowed for inset panels and beveled form liner textures. Concrete posts
above the parapet are acceptable but they may not project in front of the
parapet.

For design speeds greater than 40 mph, a traffic railing is required

between the roadway and sidewalk or bikeway. Use a 32" high Type F
barrier for the traffic railing when the shoulder is 6'-0" or greater in
width. If the roadway shoulder is less than 6'-0", use a 42" Type F
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-12

barrier for added protection. Metal railings shall not be placed on top of a
traffic railing between a sidewalk and a roadway. Although metal railings
may somewhat increase protection for bicyclists, they are a risk hazard to
vehicles.

13.2.4 Strength of Barrier resistance values have been determined for the standard Mn/DOT
Standard Concrete concrete barriers and are shown in Table 13.2.4.1. They are based on
Barriers using both near and far face reinforcement as tension reinforcement.
These values can be used when analyzing deck overhangs to determine
reinforcement requirements. (See Section 9.2.4J for an overhang
reinforcement design example.)
 TABLE 13.2.4.1: Resistance Values for Standard Concrete Barriers

End Panel Interior Panel

Description
MAY 2006

Lc Rw Lc Rw
(ft) (kips) (ft) (kips)

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-4)

5-397.114: Separate End Post w/o W.C. 4.6 59.2 9.9 124.1
5-397.115: Integral End Post w/o W.C.

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-4)

5-397.116: Separate End Post w/ W.C. 4.6 57.2 10.2 122.9
5-397.117: Integral End Post w/ W.C.

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5)

5-397.122: Integral End Post w/ W.C. 9.3 128.5 14.3 128.8

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5)

5-397.124: Integral End Post w/o W.C. 9.2 133.6 14.0 131.4

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5) w/ Sidewalk

5-397.125: Integral End Post w/ W.C. 9.3 128.5 14.3 128.8

Concrete Barrier (Type F, TL-5) w/Sidewalk

5-397.126: Integral End Post w/o W.C. 9.2 133.6 14.0 131.4

Concrete Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-5)

5-397.128: Integral End Post w/W.C. 9.3 128.5 14.3 128.8

Concrete Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-5)

LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN

5-397.129: Integral End Post w/o W.C. 9.2 133.6 14.0 131.4

Split Median Barrier (Type F, TL-4)

5-397.131: w/ W.C. 4.5 54.0 12.1 91.1

Split Median Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-4)

5-397.135: w/o W.C. 4.1 55.8 9.0 106.6

Split Median Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-4)

5-397.136: w/ W.C. 4.2 61.1 9.2 107.5
13-13
 TABLE 13.2.4.1: Resistance Values for Standard Concrete Barriers

End Panel Interior Panel

Description Lc Rw Lc Rw
(ft) (kips) (ft) (kips)
MAY 2006

Offset Split Median Barrier and Glare Screen (Type F, TL-4)

5-397.137: w/ W.C. 4.2 61.1 9.2 107.5

Concrete Barrier (Type P-2, TL-4)

5-397.157: w/ Integral End Post
4.6 87.7 9.0 196.7

Concrete Barrier (Type P-4, TL-4)

5-397.173: Integral End Post w/ W.C. 4.6 76.8 9.9 151.7

Concrete Barrier (Type P-1, TL-2)

5-397.119
5-397.120
5-397.154 4.9 50.4 9.2 103.7
5-397.212
LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN
13-14
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-15

13.2.5 Protective The addition of protective screening to bridge railings is a further Mn/DOT
Screening policy requirement. The practice of adding protective screening is
common nationwide in response to accidents and fatalities that have
occurred due to pedestrians throwing objects from overpasses onto
vehicles below.

Protective screening must be included in the design of new bridges that

accommodate pedestrians when the bridge crosses a roadway or railroad,
and also when railings are replaced on existing bridges as follows:
• On bridges where a sidewalk is included in the design, incorporate a
protective screening system in the design of the railing adjacent to
the sidewalk.
• On pedestrian bridges, place the protective screening on both sides of
the bridge.

The protective screening system will be, preferably, a chain link fence
system or a railing system. The height of the fence or railing shall be
8'-0" above the top of the sidewalk. For sites with special aesthetic
treatments involving ornamental railings a minimum height of 6'-0" will
be allowed. However, it should be recognized that the lower railing
height provides a reduced level of protection. The protective screening
system shall not allow objects 6" or greater in diameter to pass through
the fence or railing.

13.2.6 In response to local requests, special railing designs have been

Architectural/ incorporated in some projects to address aesthetic concerns. These
Ornamental ornamental architectural bridge railings have been utilized in lieu of
Railings standard combination railings for placement on the outboard side of
bridge sidewalks. The Bridge Office will consider railing designs in
addition to our standard railings for such locations and corridors. It is
recommended that special railings incorporate features from the standard
railings (such as connection details) as significant effort has gone into the
development of these details.

Mn/DOT participation in the cost of aesthetic railings is governed by the

Mn/DOT Policy Manual of June 2001. Refer to these documents for more
information:
• Guidelines: Mn/DOT Policy and Procedures for Cooperative
Construction Projects with Local Units of Government
• Position Statement: Mn/DOT Policy and Procedures for Cooperative
Construction Projects with Local Units of Government
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-16

Railings are included with other aesthetic costs of the bridge. Mn/DOT
participation is limited to 5%, 7% or 15% of the cost of a basic bridge,
depending on the aesthetic level of the bridge.

Cost participation of architectural/ornamental railings on local bridges is

generally funded up to the prorated cost of standard railing or chain link
fence. Consult the State-Aid for Local Transportation Office for conditions
on bridge funding eligibility.

13.3 Design Two design examples follow. The first illustrates the design procedures
Examples associated with a conventional Type F barrier. The second design
example illustrates the steps undertaken for the design of adhesive
anchors to support a metal railing.
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-17

13.3.1 Type F This example illustrates a design check of the vertical reinforcing steel
Barrier Design that ties a standard Mn/DOT Type F barrier to a concrete deck. The
Example geometry of the barrier and the reinforcing bar sizes and types are
illustrated in Bridge Details Part II Fig. 5-397.117. The configuration of
the horizontal reinforcing bars in the railing is assumed fixed. The
spacing of the vertical reinforcing steel is checked to ensure adequate
capacity is provided. The design check uses the method described in
LRFD Article A13.3.1.

A. Design Forces Mn/DOT’s Type F barrier satisfies the geometric height constraint of a
and Dimensions TL-4 barrier and has satisfactorily passed crash testing to such a level.
The design forces and dimensional limits for a TL-4 barrier presented in
[13.7.3.2] LRFD Table A13.2-1 are repeated below.

Design Forces and Designations TL-4 Barrier

Ft Transverse (kip) 54
FL Longitudinal (kip) 18
FV Vertical/Down (kip) 18
L t and LL (ft) 3.5
L V (ft) 18
He Minimum Height of Horizontal Loads (in) 32
H Minimum Height of Rail (in) 32

The design is based on yield line analysis methods and has three
variables:
• Mb – the flexural capacity of the cap beam (if present)
• Mw – the flexural capacity of the railing about its vertical axis
• Mc – the flexural capacity of the railing about a horizontal axis

LRFD Article 13.1 cautions designers that railings placed on retaining

walls or spread footings may require investigation beyond that presented
in this example. The governing or controlling yield line mechanism is
assumed to form in the railing. If additional mechanisms with potentially
lower load capacities are possible, designers should investigate them.
The yield line mechanisms vary with rail location. Interior rail regions are
assumed to have three yield lines. Two of the yield lines have tension on
the inside of the railing and one has tension on the outside of the railing.
See Figure 13.3.1.1, reproduced from LRFD Figure CA13.3.1-1.

The assumed failure mechanism at the end of rail sections (near

deflection joints, expansion joints, openings, etc.) has one yield line that
produces tension on the inside face of the railing. See Figure 13.3.1.2,
reproduced from LRFD Figure CA13.3.1-2.
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-18

Figure 13.3.1.1
Yield Line Analysis for Interior Region

Figure 13.3.1.2
Yield Line Analysis for End Region
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-19

Figure 13.3.1.3 contains a rail elevation detail that identifies the location
of interior and end regions. The length of end regions and interior
regions is dependent on the relative flexural capacities of the railing ( Mw
and Mc ). The design example uses L ce to represent the length of end
regions and L ci to represent the length of interior yield line mechanisms.
Holding Mw constant, rail sections with larger Mc resistances have
shorter and steeper yield line mechanisms.

Designers should note that in addition to inclined yield lines, one-way

cantilever resistance of the rail should be investigated for rail segments
with lengths less than twice L ce .

B. Barrier Flexural Three section details of a Type F barrier are presented in Figure 13.3.1.4.
Resistance The top section presents typical reinforcement and geometry. The
horizontal reinforcement consists of eight #13 bars. Two #16 bars are
used for the vertical reinforcement. The R1601E bar is anchored in the
deck and projects 10" into the rail. The R1602E bar is a closed stirrup
that laps the R1601E bar.

The center detail in Figure 13.3.1.4 labels the horizontal reinforcement

and identifies the “d” dimension assumed in Mw calculations. At any one
yield line location four bars are assumed to provide flexural resistance
and four bars are assumed available to carry shear loads via shear
friction.

[CA13.3.1] The bottom detail in Figure 13.3.1.4 identifies the “d” dimension of the
vertical reinforcement at different locations. These values are averaged
to compute Mc .

Determine Mb
The Type F barrier has no additional beam section at its top.
Consequently, the Mb term is equal to zero in the rail resistance
computations.

Determine Mw
Using the center detail of Figure 13.3.1.4 the flexural capacity about a
vertical axis is computed. Bars 1, 3, 5, and 7 are assumed effective for
yield lines that produce tension on the inside face of the rail. Bars 2, 4,
6, and 8 are assumed effective for the case where the yield line has
tension on the outside face of the rail.
APRIL 2005 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-20

Figure 13.3.1.3
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-21

Figure 13.3.1.4
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-22

[5.7.3.2] Mw for Interior Region

[1.3.2.1] Capacities ϕ Mn for a typical interior region are listed in the following
table. The lever arm dimension of the different bars is found by
subtracting half the depth of the flexural compression block.

⎛ a⎞
ϕ Mn = ϕ A s fy ⎜ d − ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
ϕ = 1.0 (for Extreme Event Limit State)

A s = 0.20 in2

fy = 60 ksi

A stotal ⋅ fy 4 ⋅ 0.20 ⋅ 60
a = c β1 = = = 0.42 in
0.85 ⋅ fc′ ⋅ b 0.85 ⋅ 4.0 ⋅ 34
a 0.42
= = 0.21 in
2 2

Lever Arm ϕ Mni for ϕ Mno for

BAR d (in) a Inside Face Outside Face
d− (in)
2 Tension (k-in) Tension (k-in)

1 7.72 7.51 90.1

2 7.94 7.73 92.8
3 8.88 8.67 104.0
4 9.07 8.86 106.3
5 10.04 9.83 118.0
6 11.93 11.72 140.6
7 10.77 10.56 126.7
8 14.87 14.66 175.9
Totals 438.8 515.6

⎛ ϕ M ⎞ ⎛ 438.8 / 12 ⎞
M =⎜ ni ⎟ =
⎜ ⎟ = 12.92 kip - ft/ft
wi ⎜ H ⎟ ⎝ 2.83 ⎠
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ϕ Mno ⎞ ⎛ 515.6 / 12 ⎞
Mwo = ⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ = 15.18 kip - ft/ft
⎜ H ⎟ ⎝ 2.83 ⎠
⎝ ⎠

For interior rail regions there is one outside tension yield line and two
inside tension yield lines. Compute the average Mw :

2 ⋅M + 1 ⋅ Mwo 2 ⋅ 12.92 + 1 ⋅ 15.18

wi
M = = = 13.7 kip - ft/ft
wint 3 3
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-23

Mw for End Region

At end regions not all of the horizontal bars will be fully developed by the
time they intersect with the anticipated yield line. Assume the L ce
dimension is at least 4.0 feet. The #13 bars have a development length
of 12". Figure 13.3.1.5 shows the reinforcement in the end region of the
rail in relation to the assumed yield line.

Figure 13.3.1.5

Similar to the interior region, the lever arm is found by subtracting off
one half of the depth of the flexural compression block.
⎛ a⎞
ϕ Mn = ϕ A s fy ⎜ d − ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
ϕ = 1.0 (for Extreme Event Limit State)

A s = 0.20 in2

fy = 60 ksi
A stotal ⋅ fy 0.62 ⋅ 60
a = c β1 = = = 0.32 in
0.85 ⋅ fc′ ⋅ b 0.85 ⋅ 4.0 ⋅ 34
a 0.32
= = 0.16 in
2 2
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-24

Capacities ϕ Mn for the end region are listed in the following table.

ϕ Mn for
Bar Developed Lever Arm
Embedded Inside Face
BAR Fraction Bar Area d (in) a
Length (in) d− (in) Tension (k-
Developed A s (in ) 2
in)
2

1 36 1.00 0.20 7.72 7.56 90.7

3 24.9 1.00 0.20 8.88 8.72 104.6
5 10.9 0.91 0.18 10.04 9.88 106.7
7 2.1 0.18 0.04 10.77 10.61 25.5
Total 0.62 Total 327.5

Mw is found by averaging the capacity of the rail over the height of the
rail.
⎛ ϕ Mn ⎞ ⎛ 327.5 / 12 ⎞
Mwend = ⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ = 9.6 kip-ft/ft
⎝ H ⎠ ⎝ 2.83 ⎠

Determine Mc
The Type F barrier does not have a uniform thickness. Consequently the
“d” dimension of the vertical reinforcement varies with the vertical
location in the rail. Averaged “d” dimensions are used to compute Mc
separately for the top and bottom sections. Then a weighted average of
the two sections is taken to determine Mc for the entire rail section.
Using “d” dimensions labeled in the bottom detail of Figure 13.3.1.4, the
average “d” dimensions can be found.

Location d (in) Average d (in)

Top 7.97
9.24
Mid Top 10.50
Mid Bottom 11.02
12.64
Bottom 14.25

Mc for Interior Region

The internal flexural lever arm is dependent on the amount of
reinforcement in the cross section. The maximum spacing of vertical
steel in interior regions is 12". Use a 12" vertical steel spacing to
evaluate the interior rail region.

For the top portion, A stop = 0.31 in2 /ft

A stop ⋅ fy 0.31 ⋅ 60
atop = c β1 = = = 0.46 in
0.85 ⋅ fc′ ⋅ b 0.85 ⋅ 4.0 ⋅ 12.0
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-25

⎛ atop ⎞
Mctop = ϕ Mn = ϕ A stop fy ⎜⎜ dtop − ⎟ = 1.0 (0.31)(60) ⋅ ⎛⎜ 9.24 − 0.46 ⎞⎟ ⋅ ⎛⎜ 1 ⎞⎟
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠

= 14.0 kip-ft/ft

For the bottom portion, the R1601E bars are not fully developed at the
rail/deck interface. Determine bar development fraction:
For a straight #16 bar, the basic development length l db is:

1.25 A b fy 1.25 (0.31)(60)

l db = = = 11.63 in
fc′ 4
or
l db = 0.4 db fy = 0.4 (0.625)(60 ) = 15.00 in GOVERNS

Using modification factors for epoxy coating (1.2) and bar spacing > 6"
with > 3" cover (0.8), the straight bar development length is:
l db = 1.2 (0.8)(1500 ) = 14.40 in

For a hooked #16 bar, the basic development length l hb is:

38.0 ⋅ db 38.0 (0.625)

l hb = = = 11.88 in
fc′ 4

Using modification factors for epoxy coating (1.2) and cover (0.7), the
hooked bar development length is:
l dh = 1.2 (0.7)(11.88) = 9.98 in

Therefore, the benefit derived from the hook is:

14.40 − 9.98 = 4.42 in

The R1601E bar is hooked with a vertical embedment of 5.18 in.

Then the development fraction is:

5.18 + 4.42
Fdev = = 0.67
14.40

The required extension beyond the 90° bend for a standard hook (A or G
dimension) is 10" for a #16 bar. The R1601E bar has an extension of
18". Because of this extra extension and the fact that the 18" extension
will have to pull through the top mat of reinforcement in order for the bar
to fail, assume a higher development fraction Fdev = 0.75 .
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-26

Then A sbot = 0.75 (0.31) = 0.23 in 2 /ft

A sbot ⋅ fy 0.23 ⋅ 60
abot = c β1 = = = 0.34 in in
0.85 ⋅ fc′ ⋅ b 0.85 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 12

⎛ a ⎞
Mcbot = ϕ Mn = ϕ A sbot fy ⎜⎜ dbot − bot ⎟⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

⎛ 0.34 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
= 1.0 (0.23)(60) ⎜12.64 − ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 14.3 kip-ft/ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠

14.0 (1.83) + 14.3 (1.00 )

Mc int = = 14.1 kip-ft/ft
2.83

Mc for End Region

The end region has nine A16 and nine R16 bars in the end 4.0 feet of
the rail. For the last R16 bar, due to the small amount of bar extending
above the yield line, consider only 8 bars to be effective in resisting load.

Then, the average A stop = 0.62 in 2 /ft

A stop ⋅ fy 0.62 ⋅ 60
atop = c β1 = = = 0.91 in
0.85 ⋅ fc′ ⋅ b 0.85 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 12

⎛ atop ⎞
Mctop = ϕ Mn = ϕ A stop fy ⋅ ⎜⎜ dtop − ⎟ = 1.0 (0.62)(60) ⋅ ⎛⎜ 9.24 − 0.91 ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ 1 ⎞⎟
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠

= 27.2 kip-ft/ft

The average effective A sbot = 0.75 (0.62) = 0.47 in 2 /ft

A sbot ⋅ fy 0.47 ⋅ 60
abot = c β1 = = = 0.69 in
0.85 ⋅ fc′ ⋅ b 0.85 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 12

⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ 0.69 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
Mcbot = ϕ Mn = ϕ Asbot fy ⋅ ⎜⎜ dbot − bot ⎟⎟ = 1.0 (0.47)(60) ⋅ ⎜12.64 − ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠

= 28.9 kip-ft/ft

27.2 (1.83) + 28.9 (1.00)

Then Mcend = = 27.8 kip-ft/ft
2.83
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-27

C. Flexural With Mw and Mc computed for an interior and end region, the resistance
Capacity Check of the railing can be computed with the equations in LRFD Article
A13.3.1.

Check the Capacity of an Interior Region

With Mb int = 0 , Mw int = 13.7 kip-ft/ft and Mc int = 14.1 kip-ft/ft, the
length of the yield line mechanism and the resistance of the mechanism
can be found:

⎡ 8 ⋅ H ⋅ (Mbint + Mwint ⋅ H) ⎤
2
Lt ⎛L ⎞
[Eqn A13.3.1-1] L ci = + ⎜⎜ t ⎟⎟ + ⎢ ⎥ = 9.8 ft
2 ⎝2 ⎠ ⎣ Mcint ⎦

⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎛⎜ M ⋅L 2 ⎞
[Eqn A13.3.1-2] R wi = ⎜⎜ ⎟ 8 ⋅ Mbint + 8 ⋅ Mwint ⋅ H + cint ci ⎟ = 98.0 kips
2 L ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⋅ ci − L t ⎠⎝ H
⎠
which, is greater than the 54 kip extreme event design load.

Check the Capacity of the End Region

With Mbend = 0 , Mwend = 9.6 kip-ft/ft and Mcend = 27.8 kip-ft/ft, the
length of the yield line mechanism and the resistance of the mechanism
can be found:

2
L ⎛L ⎞ ⎛M + Mwend ⋅ H ⎞
Eqn A13.3.1-4 L ce = t + ⎜⎜ t ⎟⎟ + H ⋅ ⎜⎜ bend ⎟ = 4.2 ft
⎟
2 ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ Mcend ⎠

⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎛⎜ M ⋅L 2 ⎞
[Eqn A13.3.1-3] R we = ⎜⎜ ⎟ Mbend + Mwend ⋅ H + cend ce ⎟ = 81.8 kips
⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⋅ L ce − L t ⎠⎝ H
⎠
which, is also greater than the required load capacity of 54 kips.

The other end regions are to be checked similarly.

D. Shear Capacity Use shear friction methods to evaluate the shear capacity of the joint
Check between the deck and railing. Assume that Ft and FL occur
simultaneously.

The resultant shear force is:

Vres = Ft 2 + FL 2 = 542 + 182 = 56.9 kips

[5.8.4] The basic shear capacity equation for a section using shear friction is:
ϕ Vn = ϕ ⋅ [c ⋅ A cv + μ (A vf ⋅ fy + Pc )]
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-28

Neglect cohesion and the small permanent compression across the

interface due to selfweight. Conservatively assume that the interface
between the railing and the deck is not roughened. The appropriate of
friction factor μ is 0.60.

Substitute Vres for ϕ Vn rearranging the remaining terms, and solve for
the required area of reinforcement:
⎛ v ⎞ ⎛ 56.9 ⎞
A =⎜ res ⎟=⎜ ⎟ = 1.58 in2
vfreq ⎜ϕ ⋅μ⋅ f ⎟ ⎝ 1.0 ⋅ 0.60 ⋅ 60 ⎠
⎝ v y ⎠

The required number of #16 bar legs is:

⎛A ⎞
⎜ vfreq ⎟ ⎛⎜ 1.58 ⎞⎟ = 5.1 legs
⎜ A ⎟ ⎝ 0.31 ⎠
⎝ b ⎠

Check the interior region first. Assuming the #16 bars are at the
maximum spacing of 12" and the L ci dimension is 9.9 feet, 10 bars will
be provided.

At the end region, nine #16 bars are provided in the end 4.2 feet ( L ce ).
Both interior and end regions have adequate shear capacity at the deck
railing interface.

E. Summary When checked in accordance with the procedure shown within this
example, the capacity of the end regions adjacent to the expansion joint
and deflection joints did not meet the required 54 kip load capacity.

Because the neutral axis is located very close to the outside face of the
rail for determination of both Mw and Mc , all of the regions were
reanalyzed to take advantage of the additional capacity provided by the
outside face reinforcement. Therefore, in the second analysis, both the
inside face rail reinforcement and the outside face rail reinforcement were
included in the determination of the rail capacity. The revised values for
the F-rail are:
Interior Region:
With wearing course Without wearing course
L = 10.2 ft L = 9.9 ft
ci ci
R = 122.9 kip R = 124.1 kip
wi wi

End Region:
With wearing course Without wearing course
L ce = 4.6 ft L ce = 4.6 ft

R we = 57.2 kip R we = 59.2 kip

APRIL 2005 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-29

Adequate vehicle collision load capacity is provided with the default

reinforcing provided in Bridge Details Part II Figure 5-397.117. (See
Figure 13.3.1.6.)
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-30

Figure 13.3.1.6
MAY 2008 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-31

13.3.2 Adhesive The objective of this example is to design adhesive anchors (as an
Anchor Design alternate to the cast-in-place anchorage) to secure a metal railing atop a
Example concrete barrier. The railing under consideration is Mn/DOT 5-397.154
“Metal Railing for Bikeways (Type M-1) and Concrete Parapet (Type P-1)
(with Integral End Post)”. The standard anchorage elements beneath
each vertical post are four cast-in-place 5/8" x 8" anchor bolts. All steel
components for the railing have a yield strength of 36 ksi. The concrete
used for the parapet has a design compressive strength of 4 ksi.

The example is structured in a top-down fashion. After determining the

design loads, the railpost and base plate are checked. After that, the
shear and tensile capacity of the anchors is computed. For each of the
forces, the resistance of steel and concrete is determined individually.

Figure 13.3.2.1
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-32

Reference material on the design of adhesive anchors is limited. The

equations for concrete shear capacity and tension capacity, and modifiers
for group effect and for edge effect presented in this example are based
on material in Behavior and Design of Fastening to Concrete, Richard E.
Klingner, University of Texas at Austin, 48th Annual Concrete Conference,
University of Minnesota, December 3, 1998 and ACI 318, Appendix D.
Reference material on the design of non-adhesive anchors can also be
found in Chapter 6 of the PCI Design Handbook.

Figure 13.3.2.1 presents the typical railpost detail for the railing. The
maximum distance L between railposts is 10'-0".

A. Design Loads Section 13 of the LRFD Specifications covers bridge railings. Article
13.8.2 lists the loads to consider for the design of rail elements and posts
for pedestrian and bicycle railings. Design railposts to resist
concentrated design live load P LL applied at the height of the top rail
element.
[Eqn 13.8.2-1] P LL = 0.20 + 0.050 ⋅ L = 0.20 + 0.050 ⋅ 10 = 0.70 kips

[Table 3.4.1-1] Using a load factor of 1.75 for live load results in a design horizontal
force of:
Hu = 1.75 ⋅ P LL = 1.75 ⋅ 0.70 = 1.23 kips

Per Figure 13.3.2.1, the lever arm from top rail to top of concrete is
2.17 feet. The design moment at the bottom of the base plate is:
Mupost = Hu ⋅ d = (1.23) ⋅ (2.17) = 2.66 k-ft = 31.9 kip-in

B. Railpost Design Begin by checking the railpost. It must have adequate capacity to resist
Check the design moment. By inspection, the rail elements provide adequate
bracing to develop the yield moment of the section. Therefore, the
capacity is:
[6.12.2.2.4b] Mn = My = Fy ⋅ S

The railpost is a 1/2" x 4" plate loaded about its strong axis.

b ⋅ d2 0.5 ⋅ 42
Spost = = = 1.33 in 3
6 6
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-33

[6.5.4.2] For steel elements in flexure, φ f = 1.00 .

φ f ⋅ Mn = φ f ⋅ Spost ⋅ Fy = 1.00 ⋅ 1.33 ⋅ 36 = 48 kip-in > 31.9 kip-in OK

C. Base Plate A plan view of the base plate is shown in Figure 13.3.2.2. Assume that
Design Check the critical section occurs at the face of the vertical post (1" from the
edge of the plate on the compression side).

Figure 13.3.2.2

Conservatively assume that the compression reaction, R comp , acts at the

edge of the base plate. The internal lever arm between the anchors and
the compression edge of the plate is 5". Then,
Mupost 31.9
R comp = = = 6.38 kips
armint 5.0
and

Muplate = R comp ⋅ armplate = 6.38 ⋅ 1.0 = 6.38 kip-in

The resisting moment at the face of the column is the capacity of the
plate minus two anchor bolt holes.

Splate =
(bplate − 2 ⋅ dhole ) ⋅ tplate2
=
(7 − 2 ⋅ 0.9375) ⋅ 0.52 = 0.214 in 3
6 6

Mrplate = φ f ⋅ Splate ⋅ Fy = 1.00 ⋅ 0.214 ⋅ 36

= 7.70 kip-in > 6.38 kip-in OK

MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-34

D. Adhesive Factored Shear Force

Anchor Design Assume that the base plate engages each of the anchors equally. Then,
Forces
Hu 1.23
Vu = = = 0.31 kips/anchor
4 4

Factored Tension Force

Determine the factored tension load Tu on one anchor using the
overturning moment Mupost (31.9 kip-in). As a simplifying design
practice Mn/DOT uses the distance between anchor rods (4.0 in) as the
flexural lever arm:

Mu 31.9
Tu = = = 3.99 kips/anchor
arm ⋅ N (4.0) ⋅ 2

E. Anchor Rod The anchor rods are assumed to have sufficient embedment to develop
Shear Capacity their shear capacity.

Try Mn/DOT 3385, Type A anchor rods.

Fy = 36 ksi and Fub = 58 ksi

[6.5.4.2] Since Fy of the Type A anchor rods is equal to Fy for A307 bolts, use
φ s = 0.65 .

Each anchor rod will be subject to one shear plane. Assume that threads
are included in the shear plane. The area A b of one 5/8" diameter anchor
rod is 0.31 in 2 . Then,
[6.13.2.7] R n = 0.38 ⋅ A b ⋅ Fub ⋅ Ns = 0.38 ⋅ 0.31 ⋅ 58 ⋅ 1 = 6.83 kips

φ sR n = 0.65 ⋅ 6.83 = 4.44 kips > 0.31 kips OK

F. Concrete Shear The concrete shear capacity is a function of geometry and compressive
Capacity strength. Assume the two anchors on the compression side of the base
plate connection are the critical shear anchors. For calculation of shear
capacity, consider “end effects”, “edge effects”, and “group effects”. For
this example, end effects need to be considered near the expansion joint
and deflection joints in the parapet. Consider group effects based on the
distances between anchors in a group. Widely spaced anchors function
as individual anchors, while more closely spaced anchors have a reduced
capacity.
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-35

For shear, the end effects, edge effects, and group effects are
incorporated in the calculation for the concrete area effective in resisting
shear. See Figure 13.3.2.3.

Per Mn/DOT policy the center of a railpost can be no closer than 12" to a
deflection joint or an expansion joint end of the parapet. The anchors are
located 2.25 inches away from the center of the railpost. Consequently,
the end distance is dend = 12 − 2.25 = 9.75 in.

[Klingner] The anchor rod edge distance c1 = 4 in. The influence distance for shear
is:
1.5 ⋅ c1 = 1.5 ⋅ 4.0 = 6.0 in < 9.75 in

Therefore, end effects need not be considered for shear.

Figure 13.3.2.3
Two Anchor Shear Interface Area
(From Klingner)

Plugging values into the formula results in:

s = 4.5 in, c = 4 in
1 1

⎛ s ⎞ ⎛ 4.5 ⎞
θ = 2 ⋅ acos ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ = 2 ⋅ acos ⎜ ⎟ = 111.5°
⎝ 2 ⋅ c1 ⎠ ⎝2 ⋅ 4⎠

⎡ θ ⎤
⎢ π⋅
A v = ⎢π − 2 + sin(θ)⎥ ⋅ c 2 = 49.6 in2
⎥ 1
⎢ 180 ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-36

The capacity of the concrete on this interface is:

4 ⋅ 4000
[Klingner] Vc _ interface = 4 ⋅ fc′ = = 0.253 ksi
1000

Concrete capacity of two anchors in shear is:

Vc2 = A v ⋅ Vc _ int erface = (49.6 ) ⋅ (0.253) = 12.54 kips

Concrete capacity of one anchor in shear is:

Vc2 12.54
Vc1 = = = 6.27 kips
2 2

φVc1 = 0.90 ⋅ 6.27 = 5.64 kips> 0.31 kips OK

[Klingner] Because the shear demand is less than 20% of the shear capacity, ignore
the interaction effects between shear and tension.

G. Anchor Rod Determine the capacity of the anchor rods. Begin by checking if
Tension Capacity interaction effects need to be considered.
Pu 0.31
[6.13.2.11] = = 0.045 ≤ 0.33
Rn 6.83

The tension capacity can be found without considering shear. The

tension capacity of each anchor rod is:
Tn = 0.76 ⋅ A b ⋅ Fub = (0.76 ) ⋅ (0.31) ⋅ (58) = 13.66 kips

[6.5.4.2] Using φ t for an A307 bolt ( φ t = 0.80 ),

φTn = 0.80 ⋅ (13.66 ) = 10.93 kips > 3.99 kips OK

H. Resistance In the past, adhesive anchors were designed with allowable stress
Factor for Adhesive methods. A typical factor-of-safety (FS) was 4. A similar safety or
Anchor Pullout reliability level will be used for LRFD designs. The load factor for live
loads is 1.75. Choose a resistance factor that when combined with the
load factor for live load will produce a factor near 4.
γ LL γ 1.75
If FS = , then φ a = u = Use φ a = 0.45
φa FS 4
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-37

I. Pullout Capacity According to research referenced by Klingner, the best model for tensile
of Adhesive Anchor behavior of adhesive anchors is a simple bond model that assumes a
uniform bond stress over the length of the anchor. Taking into account
end effects, edge effects, and group effects, the factored tensile
resistance φ a Tna is:
φ a ⋅ Tna = φ a ⋅ Tn0 ⋅ ψ c ⋅ ψ e ⋅ ψ g

where, Tn0 = nominal adhesive tensile capacity = τbond ⋅ (π ⋅ danchor ⋅ L conc )

τbond = ultimate bond stress of adhesive
danchor = diameter of steel anchor
L conc = steel anchor embedment length
ψ c = concrete strength variation factor
ψ e = end/edge effect factor
ψ g = group effect factor

Based on adhesive anchor product literature for a 5/8" diameter threaded

rod anchored in concrete with fc′ = 4 ksi, use an ultimate bond stress
τbond = 2 ksi for the adhesive.

The concrete strength variation factor ψ c accounts for variations in bond

stress with changes in concrete strength. For concrete strengths greater
than 3 ksi, ψ c can conservatively be taken equal to 1.0.

End Effect and Edge Effect

The end/edge effect correction is independent of the depth of
embedment. It is only dependent on the ratio of the end/edge distance
to the diameter of the anchor. Consider end/edge effects when adhesive
anchors are located within 10 anchor diameters of an edge.
c 0 = 10 ⋅ danchor = 10 ⋅ 0.625 = 6.25 in

Actual edge distance c1 = 4.0 in < 6.25 in

0.4 ⎛ c1 ⎞ 0.4 ⎛ 4 ⎞
[Klingner] then, ψ e = ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 0.60 = ⋅⎜ ⎟ + 0.60 = 0.86
10 ⎝ danchor ⎠ 10 ⎝ 0.625 ⎠

Group Effect
The reduction in capacity due to group effects is a ratio of the sum of
influence areas for single anchors to that of the group. It is dependent
on the depth of embedment and the spacing between anchors. The
minimum embedment length he min for an adhesive anchor is 6 ⋅ danchor :
hemin = 6 ⋅ danchor = 6 ⋅ 0.625 = 3.75 in
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-38

Try an embedment length he = 4.0 in

[Klingner] The critical spacing between anchors, s o , where group effects disappear
is:
s o = 1.75 ⋅ he = 7.0 in
The actual spacing between anchors ( s1 dimension) is 4.5 inches.
Therefore, use a group effect reduction in capacity.

Figure 13.3.2.4 shows the influence area for anchors with an embedment
of 4".

[Klingner] The influence area of a single anchor is:

A 0 = 3 ⋅ he = 3 ⋅ (4.0) = 48 in 2
2 2

The influence area of two anchors with s1 equal to 4.5 inches is:
A n2 = s0 ⋅ (s 0 + s1 ) = 7.0 ⋅ (7.0 + 4.5) = 80.5 in 2
A n2 80.5
ψg = = = 0.84
2 ⋅ A0 2 ⋅ 48
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-39

Figure 13.3.2.4

Pullout Capacity and Embedment

During construction, the contractor will select a Mn/DOT Approved
Concrete Anchorage, which are listed at the Mn/DOT Office of Materials
Web site (http://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us). The approved product must
have a factored tensile resistance φ ⋅ Tna that is at least equal to the
factored tension force Tu determined in design:
φ a ⋅ Tna = φ a ⋅ Tn0 ⋅ ψ c ⋅ ψ e ⋅ ψ g ≥ Tu
Tu 3.99
then, Tn0 ≥ = = 12.3 kips
φa ⋅ ψ c ⋅ ψ e ⋅ ψ g 0.45 ⋅ 1.0 ⋅ 0.86 ⋅ 0.84
MAY 2008 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-40

Assuming 1/2" of top surface deterioration, the minimum anchor

embedment depth L conc is:
⎛ Tn0 ⎞
L conc ≥ ⎜⎜ ⎟ + 0.5 in
⎟
⎝ τbond ⋅ π ⋅ danchor ⎠

⎛ 12.3 ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ + 0.5 = 3.63
⎝ 2 ⋅ π ⋅ 0.625 ⎠

This is less than the assumed 4". OK

At the job site, anchors are subjected to a proof load test. The proof load
will be the smaller of:
A limit based on yielding the steel rod:
2 2 2
⋅ (A b ⋅ Fy ) = ⋅ (0.31 ⋅ 36 ) = ⋅ (11.16 ) = 7.4 kips
3 3 3

A limit based on the nominal adhesive capacity:

1 1
⋅ (Tn0 ) = ⋅ (12.3) = 6.2 kips GOVERNS
2 2

J. Summary An adhesive anchor detail with the following properties has adequate
capacity to support the Type M-1 railing: The anchor rods shall be 5/8"
diameter, Mn/DOT 3385 Type A anchor rods with a 4" minimum
embedment. The adhesive shall have a minimum ultimate pull-out
strength of 12.3 kips. The proof load for field testing shall be 6.2 kips.

K. Adhesive The design of adhesive anchors for traffic rails is different than the design
Anchor Design for of adhesive anchors for pedestrian rails shown above. A traffic rail
Traffic Rails requires reinforcement or anchor rods to withstand a vehicle crash load
under the Extreme Event II limit state. For a metal rail on parapet
system or a concrete barrier where the design is based on successful
crash testing along with a yield line analysis, design the adhesive to
develop the strength of the reinforcement bar or anchor rod.

The Extreme Event II limit state has a load factor of 1.0 for the vehicle
crash load. Using the procedure in Article 13.3.2H of this manual to
determine a resistance factor results in the following:
γ 1.0
φ a = CT = = 0.25 (This value seems very low.)
FS 4

The factor of safety (FS) of 4 used by adhesive manufacturers is based

on a working load and not an extreme event load. Using the low crash
probability under an extreme event and the non-working load nature of
the crash load as a basis, Mn/DOT policy is to design for an FS of 1.66.
MAY 2008 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-41

Then,
γ CT 1.0
φ = = = 0.60 (Use φa = 0.60 for traffic rail only.)
a FS 1.66

Consider the following example:

A rail reconstruction project requires the use of #16 bars @ 12" spacing
to anchor a new F-rail to an existing deck with adhesive anchors.
Tu = A s ⋅ Fy = 0.31 ⋅ 60 = 18.6 kips

φ a ⋅ Tna = φ a ⋅ Tn0 ⋅ ψ c ⋅ ψ e ⋅ ψ g ≥ Tu

Assuming that ψ c ⋅ ψ e ⋅ ψ g = 1.0 :

T 18.6
T ≥ u
= = 31.0 kips
n0 φ 0.60
a

Based on adhesive anchor product literature for a #16 bar anchored in

concrete with fc′ = 4 ksi, use an ultimate bond stress τbond = 2.5 ksi.
Assuming 1/2" of top surface deterioration, the minimum required
embedment is:
⎛ Tn0 ⎞
L conc = ⎜⎜ ⎟ + 0.5
⎟
⎝ τbond ⋅ π ⋅ danchor ⎠

⎛ 31.0 ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ + 0.5 = 6.82 in Say 7" min. embedment
⎝ 2 .5 ⋅ π ⋅ 0 .625 ⎠
MAY 2006 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 13-42

[ This Page Intentionally Left Blank ]