Search results for: use of overbridge

Authors: Sumit Roy

Abstract:

A clear understanding of pedestrian behaviour at road crossing at intersections is needed for providing necessary infrastructure and also for enhancing pedestrian safety at any intersection. Pedestrian road crossing behaviour is studied at Motijheel and Kakrail intersections where Motijheel intersection is a controlled roundabout, and Kakrail intersection is a signalized intersection. Around 60 people at each intersection were interviewed for a questionnaire survey and video recording at different time of a day was done for observation at each intersection. In case of Motijeel intersection, we got pedestrian road crossings were much higher than Kakrail intersection. It is because the number of workplaces here is higher than Kakrail. From questionnaire survey, it is found that 80% of pedestrians crosses at intersection to avail buses and their loading and unloading locations are at intersection, whereas at Kakrail intersection only 25% pedestrian crosses the road for buses as buses do not slow down here. At Motijheel intersection 25 to 40% of pedestrians choose to jump over the barricade for crossing instead of using overbridge for saving time and labour. On the other hand, the pedestrians using overbridge told that they use overbridge for safety. Moreover, pedestrian crosses at the same pace for both red and green interval with vehicle movement in the range of 12.5 to 14.5 km/h and gaps between vehicle were more than 4 m. Here pedestrian crossing speed varies from 3.5 to 7.2 km/h. In Kakrail intersection the road crossing situation can be classified into 4 categories. In case of red time, pedestrians do not wait to cross the road, and crossing speed varies from 3.5 to 7.2 km/h. When vehicle speed varies from 5.4 to 7.4 km/h, and gaps between vehicle vary from 1.5 to 2 m, most of the pedestrians initially choose to wait and try to cross the road in group with crossing speed 2.7 to 3.5 km/h. When vehicle speed varies from 10.8 to 18 km/h, and gaps between vehicles varies from 2 to 3 m most of the people waits and cross the road in group with crossing speed 3.5 to 5.4 km/h. When vehicle speed varies from 25.2 to 32.4 km/h and gaps between vehicles vary from 4 to 6 m most of the pedestrians choose to wait until red time. In Kakrail intersection 87% of people said that they cross the road with risk and 60% of pedestrians told that it is risky to get on and off the bus at this intersection. Planned location of loading and unloading area for buses can improve the pedestrian road crossing behaviour at intersections.

Keywords: crossing speed, pedestrian behaviour, road crossing, use of overbridge

Procedia PDF Downloads 178

Authors: Evangelos G. Ilias, Panagiotis G. Ilias, Vasileios T. Popotas

Abstract:

The United Kingdom has one of the oldest railway networks in the world dating back to 1825 when the world’s first passenger railway was opened. The network has some 40,000 bridges of various construction types using a wide range of materials including masonry, steel, cast iron, wrought iron, concrete and timber. It is commonly accepted that the successful operation of the network is vital for the economy of the United Kingdom, consequently the cost effective maintenance of the existing infrastructure is a high priority to maintain the operability of the network, prevent deterioration and to extend the life of the assets. Every bridge on the railway network is required to be assessed every eighteen years and a structured approach to assessments is adopted with three main types of progressively more detailed assessments used. These assessment types include Level 0 (standardized spreadsheet assessment tools), Level 1 (analytical hand calculations) and Level 2 (generally finite element analyses). There is a degree of conservatism in the first two types of assessment dictated to some extent by the relevant standards which can lead to some structures not achieving the required load rating. In these situations, a Level 2 Assessment is often carried out using finite element analysis to uncover ‘latent strength’ and improve the load rating. If successful, the more sophisticated analysis can save on costly strengthening or replacement works and avoid disruption to the operational railway. This paper presents the ‘strengthening by assessment’ achieved by Level 2 analyses. The use of more accurate analysis assumptions and the implementation of non-linear modelling and functions (material, geometric and support) to better understand buckling modes and the structural behaviour of historic construction details that are not specifically covered by assessment codes are outlined. Metallic bridges which are susceptible to loss of section size through corrosion have largest scope for improvement by the Level 2 Assessment methodology. Three case studies are presented, demonstrating the effectiveness of the sophisticated Level 2 Assessment methodology using finite element analysis against the conservative approaches employed for Level 0 and Level 1 Assessments. One rail overbridge and two rail underbridges that did not achieve the required load rating by means of a Level 1 Assessment due to the inadequate restraint provided by U-Frame action are examined and the increase in assessed capacity given by the Level 2 Assessment is outlined.

Keywords: assessment, bridges, buckling, finite element analysis, non-linear modelling, strengthening

Procedia PDF Downloads 309