FprCEN/TR 1317-10
(Main)Road restraint system - Part 10: Assessment methods and design guidelines for transitions and terminal and crashcushion connection - Transitions
Road restraint system - Part 10: Assessment methods and design guidelines for transitions and terminal and crashcushion connection - Transitions
This Technical Report defines assessment methods for transitions, considered as the linkage between safety barriers or between
safety barriers and removable barrier sections defined by CEN/TS RBS.
This Technical Report also defines assessment methods for connection-transitions to terminals and crash cushions.
Road Authorities and regulatory authorities are free to determine assessment methods, values, measurements etc. and to fix the
details of the requirements.
Assessment methods and design rules can also be utilised in connection to evaluation of changed versions.
Rückhaltesysteme an Straßen - Prüfmethoden und Design-Richtlinien für Übergangskonstruktionen und Anbindungen von Anpralldämpfern und von Anfangs- und Endkonstruktionen an Schutzeinrichtungen
Dispositifs de retenue routiers Méthodes d'évaluation et lignes directrices de conception pour les raccordements et les raccordements d'extrémités de file et d'atténuateur de choc
Le présent document définit les méthodes d’évaluation des raccordements, considérés comme formant le lien entre les barrières de sécurité ou entre les barrières de sécurité et les sections de barrière amovibles.
Le présent document définit également les méthodes d’évaluation pour les raccordements d’extrémités de file et d’atténuateurs de choc.
Les autorités routières et les organismes de réglementation sont libres de déterminer les méthodes d’évaluation, les valeurs, les mesures, etc. et de préciser les détails des exigences.
Les méthodes d’évaluation et les règles de conception peuvent également être utilisées dans le cadre de l’évaluation des versions modifiées.
Oprema cest - 10. del: Metode ocenjevanja in smernice za načrtovanje povezave prehodov ter zaključnic in naletnih blažilnikov trkov - Prehodi
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
01-julij-2023
Oprema cest - 10. del: Metode ocenjevanja in smernice za načrtovanje povezave
prehodov ter zaključnic in naletnih blažilnikov trkov - Prehodi
Road restraint system - Part 10: Assessment methods and design guidelines for
transitions and terminal and crashcushion connection - Transitions
Rückhaltesysteme an Straßen - Prüfmethoden und Design-Richtlinien für
Übergangskonstruktionen und Anbindungen von Anpralldämpfern und von Anfangs- und
Endkonstruktionen an Schutzeinrichtungen
Dispositifs de retenue routiers Méthodes d'évaluation et lignes directrices de conception
pour les raccordements et les raccordements d'extrémités de file et d'atténuateur de
choc
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: FprCEN/TR 1317-10
ICS:
13.200 Preprečevanje nesreč in Accident and disaster control
katastrof
93.080.30 Cestna oprema in pomožne Road equipment and
naprave installations
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 en,fr,de
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FINAL DRAFT
TECHNICAL REPORT
FprCEN/TR 1317-10
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
TECHNISCHER REPORT
May 2023
ICS 13.200; 93.080.30 Will supersede ENV 1317-4:2001
English Version
Road restraint system - Part 10: Assessment methods and
design guidelines for transitions and terminal and
crashcushion connection - Transitions
Dispositifs de retenue routiers ¿ Méthodes d'évaluation Rückhaltesysteme an Straßen - Prüfmethoden und
et lignes directrices de conception pour les Design-Richtlinien für Übergangskonstruktionen und
raccordements et les raccordements d'extrémités de Anbindungen von Anpralldämpfern und von Anfangs-
file et d'atténuateur de choc und Endkonstruktionen an Schutzeinrichtungen
This draft Technical Report is submitted to CEN members for Vote. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC
226.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and
United Kingdom.
Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are
aware and to provide supporting documentation.
Warning : This document is not a Technical Report. It is distributed for review and comments. It is subject to change without
notice and shall not be referred to as a Technical Report.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2023 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
Introduction . 4
1 Scope . 5
2 Normative references . 5
3 Terms and definitions . 5
4 Abbreviations. 7
5 Assessment methods and design rules for transitions . 7
6 Assessment methods for connection-transitions . 15
7 Performance of transitions and connection-transitions . 17
8 Reporting . 18
Annex A (informative) Reduction factors for normalized dynamic deflection in design rule C2. 19
Annex B (informative) Working width and vehicle intrusion for transitions . 20
Annex C (informative) Choice of the impact point for long transitions . 21
Bibliography . 22
2
---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
European foreword
This document (FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 226
“Road equipment”, the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR.
This document is currently submitted to the Vote on TR.
This document will supersede ENV 1317-4:2001 in conjunction with FprCEN/TS EN 1317-7 :2023,
FprCEN/TS EN 1317-9 :2023.
This document is read in conjunction with EN 1317-1:2010, EN 1317-2:2010, EN 1317-3:2010,
EN 1317-5:2007+A2:2012, EN 16303:2020 and FprCEN/TS EN 1317-7 :2023, FprCEN/TS EN 1317-
9:2023, CEN/TS 17342:2019.
3
---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
Introduction
In the design of roads, safety problems may arise in the connection between two different safety barriers
having consistent difference in design and/or in performance. Transitions are required to provide a smooth
and safe change from one safety barrier to another.
If the two safety barriers are not connected or if the connection is not strong enough to resist the forces
under impact and to transfer these forces at least from the weaker to the stronger safety barrier, an impact
on the connection, or its vicinity, may represent an undue risk. A similar risk can arise if the change from
one safety barrier to the other is not gradual enough.
A special type of transition is the connection of two parts of the same barrier separated by a span with
particular requirements that cannot be covered by a piece of the same barrier. For example, the barrier
expansion joint corresponding to a bridge deck expansion joint with large movement. In this document
such connections are called barrier interruptions.
The performances of transitions can be ascertained by tests, with the test methods and the acceptance
criteria similar to those specified for safety barriers in EN 1317-2:2010. Due to the increasing number of
different safety barrier types, which leads to a high number of barrier combinations for which transitions
are needed, efforts have been made to propose simplified assessment methods for some types of transition
that can be assessed more easily.
For these reasons, different Countries have established different assessment methods for transitions or, in
some cases, simple design rules. Such different assessment methods and design rules cannot be considered
equivalent but, if correctly applied, can allow the development of performing transitions.
Some similar problems might arise in the connection of crash cushions with barriers and in the connections
of terminals with barriers different from the one connected in the terminal TT installation. As for the
transitions, also these connections provide a continuous passage to and from the barrier.
A barrier-to-barrier transition should have, all along its length, at least the same containment category
value as the lowest value containment level of the connected barriers (as defined in EN 1317-2:2010). On
the contrary this is not required for a barrier-terminal system tested in accordance with FprCEN/TS 1317-
7:2023. The terminal is always connected at the beginning (or at the end) of a barrier whose performance
is measured at one third of the test installation length. The main requirement of the terminal-to-barrier
connection is to carry the axial forces of barrier end anchorage and the push of the terminal. Furthermore
the surface of the connection that can come in contact with the vehicles should be continuous and smooth.
Similar considerations apply to the connections of crash cushions with barriers.
For all these reasons, connections of terminals and crash cushions to barrier are not denominated
transitions but terminal connection-transitions.
Due to specific local conditions on national and local road networks there might be a need to connect safety
barrier(s) or cushions to other infrastructures. Road authorities can see the need to require specific
connections that in part, or as a whole, can be assessed according to the principles of the methods in this
document. Every connection scenario (e.g. to tunnel portal, bridge pier or a sign gantry pillar) should be
analysed individually. In general the testing and assessment methods describe herein can have a wider
application than the one specified in the scope of this document.
This document is a guideline for assessment methods and design rules that are not equivalent, but are good
practice for designing performing transitions and terminal connections.
This document aims to propose a set of assessment methods that might help to move closer to the
harmonization of assessment methods in different countries.
4
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
1 Scope
This document defines assessment methods for transitions, considered as the linkage between safety
barriers or between safety barriers and removable barrier sections.
This document also defines assessment methods for connection-transitions to terminals and crash
cushions.
Road Authorities and regulatory authorities are free to determine assessment methods, values,
measurements etc. and to fix the details of the requirements.
Assessment methods and design rules can also be utilized in connection with the evaluation of changed
versions.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
EN 1317-1:2010, Road restraint systems - Part 1: Terminology and general criteria for test methods
EN 1317-2:2010, Road restraint systems - Part 2: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and
test methods for safety barriers including vehicle parapets
EN 1317-3:2010, Road restraint systems - Part 3: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and
test methods for crash cushions
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, definitions given in EN 1317-1:2010, EN 1317-2:2010,
EN 1317-3:2010 as well as the following terms and definition apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
• IEC Electropedia: available at https://www.electropedia.org/
• ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://www.iso.org/obp
3.1
transition
device connecting two safety barriers of different design and/or performance assessed in accordance with
this document
3.2
transition element
transition used to join two similar safety barriers
Note 1 to entry: Such transition may be a simple joint and its length may be 0.
5
---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
3.3
length of a transition
distance between the start and end points of the transition
Note 1 to entry: A transition’s start and end points are located where a safety barrier starts to have changes in its
standard design pattern that exists over the complete length of the safety barrier. Such changes could be post distance
spacing, changes in the material or in its composition, additional/other elements such as spacers, different/additional
beams, height, width, etc.
3.4
severity test
initial type test carried out with a passenger car, which focuses on measuring the severity of the impact
Note 1 to entry: These are the tests listed in the column labelled ”impact severity level ASI-THIV” in
EN 1317-2:2010, Table 6.3.5
3.5
impact point
point of intersection of a straight line parallel to the vehicle centreline, at the maximum width of the vehicle,
with the traffic side of the transition, or of the safety barrier (see Figure 1)
Key
1 Impact point
Figure 1 — Impact point
3.6
critical impact point
CIP
impact point identified to reasonably represent the worst case for testing the transition
Note 1 to entry: An impact point can be critical from several points of view, e.g. containment, deflection or severity.
Hence, critical impact points may be different from test to test.
3.7
containment test
vehicle impact test providing the highest impact momentum among tests specified for the chosen
containment level in accordance with EN 1317-2:2010, Table 2
Note 1 to entry: The term “containment category” used in this document has the same meaning as the term
“containment level” used in EN 1317-2:2010
3.8
full scale test
real crash test performed with a physical vehicle and a physical test item
Note 1 to entry: See also EN 1317-1:2010 and EN 1317-2:2010
6
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
3.9
virtual test or virtual testing
activities related to the use of a numerical model to reproduce a real test and/or to simulate an impact
Note 1 to entry: In accordance with EN 16303:2020
3.10
connection-transition to terminal or crash cushion
connection of a crash cushion to a barrier or of a terminal to a barrier different from the one in the TT
installation
3.11
downstream
situated in the direction of the traffic on the side of the barrier
3.12
upstream
situated in the opposite direction from that of the traffic on the side of the barrier
3.13
barrier interruption
connection of two parts of the same barrier separated by a span with particular requirements
3.14
validated model
numerical model of a road restraint system that has been validated
Note 1 to entry: In accordance with EN 16303:2020.
4 Abbreviations
For the purposes of this document, the abbreviations given in EN 1317-1:2010 apply.
5 Assessment methods and design rules for transitions
5.1 General
Transitions can be assessed by full scale or virtual tests, as specified in 5.2 (assessment method A1 and B1),
5.3 (assessment method A2 and B2) and 5.4 (assessment method B3, and B4) or can be designed in
accordance with appropriate design rules as specified in 5.5 (design rules C1 and C2). A barrier
interruption can be assessed as a transition or as a transition element.
Assessment methods described in this document are not equivalent. It is up to the Road Authority and the
Regulatory Authority to decide which method is appropriate for which use. Some methods may be excluded
in some countries.
In assessment method A1 and A2 the transition is assessed by full scale tests.
In assessment method B1, B2 and B3 the transition is assessed by virtual tests. For these assessment
methods one of the following validation categories for the connected safety barriers should be chosen:
a) the numerical models of the safety barriers are validated according to EN 16303:2020 (F, full
validation)
7
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
b) the numerical models of the safety barriers are only partially validated, i.e. validated against at least
the following performances according to EN 16303:2020: ASI value or severity index class, working
width value or working width class, dynamic deflection value (S, simplified validation)
c) the numerical models of the safety barriers are NOT validated (N, no validation)
NOTE 1 Assessment method B1, B2 and B3 will be further classified as B1F, B1S or B1N, B2F, B2S or B2N and B3F,
B3S or B3N.
NOTE 2 For assessment method B1, B2 and B3, one or several full-scale tests can also be required to validate the
model or to improve the assessment of the transition.
In assessment method B4 the transition is assessed by full scale tests and virtual tests. The results of the
full-scale tests from the two connected safety barriers and the transition are then used to validate the
numerical models of the barriers and that of the transition according to EN 16303:2020. Alternatively, the
full-scale test on the transition may be required after the identification of the most critical impact points
identified during the scan of the transition by virtual tests to improve the assessment of the performance.
Table 1 — Summary of the Assessment Methods
Full scale tests Virtual tests
Validation
Assessment
Method
Category
Containment Severity Containment Severity
a)
A1 - 1 - -
1+1
a)
A2 - 1 - -
2+1
B1F Full
a)
B1S Simplified - - 1
1+1
B1N No validation
B2F Full
a)
B2S Simplified - - 1
2+1
B2N No validation
B3F Full
Scanning of the length on
several impact points to find
B3S Simplified - -
the CIP for containment and the
CIP for severity
B3N No validation
Scanning of the length on
several impact points to find
a)
B4 Full 1
1+1
the CIP for containment and the
CIP for severity
C1 Design rules – No test
C2 Design rules – No test
a)
TB32 only for L Containment Category levels
The numerical models should follow the requirements for numerical model of the vehicle and vehicle
restraint system described within EN 16303:2020.
8
---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023
FprCEN/TR 1317-10:2023 (E)
For assessment method A1, A2, B1, B2, B3 and B4 the test installation should include a length of the
upstream safety barrier, the transition and a length of the downstream safety barrier. The length of the two
safety barriers should be sufficient to show the performance of longer installations. The adequacy of the
installed length, including transition and connected barriers but excluding any barrier end anchorages,
should be evaluated from the result of the tests, i.e. with the procedure in EN 1317-2:2010, Annex B.
5.2 Assessment method A1 and B1
5.2.1 General
The minimum containment category of a transition is equal to the lower containment category, as
determined by testing according to EN 1317-2:2010, of the two connected safety barriers. If this
containment category is an L category, the minimum containment category required for the transition is
the corresponding H category or L category. For example, if the lower containment category is L2 the
minimum category for the transition should be H2 or L2.
The transition should be tested to the requirements of the selected containment category according to
EN 1317-2: three tests for containment category of type “L”, two tests for containment category of type “H”
and N , and one test for containment category of type “N1”. Test site and vehicles should be according to
2
EN 1317-1:2010.
5.2.2 Impact direction
In general, the direction of the impacts considered in the assessment should be from the safety barrier with
the lower containment category to the safety barrier with the higher containment category. If the two safety
barriers have the same containment category the direction of the impacts should be from the safety barrier
with the larger dynamic deflection to the one with the lower dynamic deflection. If a different impact
direction is chosen, this should be justified in the test report.
The direction of the impact should be chosen to demonstrate the worst-case testing condition for the
transition, according to the design of the transition.
5.2.3 Impact points
This subclause includes guidelines for the choice of the critical impact points. However, it is up to the testing
laboratory to choose different critical impact points. Road Authorities and the Regulatory Authorities may
choose a different position of critical impact points. If several critical impact points are identified for a
transition (both for containment and severity test), it is recommended to assess additional impact points
through method A or B.
NOTE Physical testing laboratories are accredited according to the EN ISO/IEC 17025 for the appropriate ty
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.