free n10 005 study guide
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
File Name:free n10 005 study guide.pdf
Size: 1759 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 29 May 2019, 22:37 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 782 votes.
Status: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 13 Minutes ago!
In order to read or download free n10 005 study guide ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers
free n10 005 study guidePlease review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. New Knovel Search Widget Add a Knovel search bar to your internal resource page. New Knovel Integrations Learn about Knovel workflow integrations with engineering software and information discovery platforms. New Excel Add-in One-click access to Knovel’s search and unit conversion tools. Promotional Toolkit Access promotional content and links to illustrate the power of Knovel Search and analytical tools for your end users Knovel Steam Calculators Online Knovel Steam Calculators based on IAPWS IF-97 Knovel Browser Extension Quickly access Knovel results on the search engine page. Engineering Data Module Beta Cancel Support Center Login Create Account Preview Mode- Learn More Do you usually access Knovel through an organization. Check Institutional Access JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use Knovel. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. Please enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again. Top of Page Knovel subscription is supported by. All rights reserved. To decline or learn more, visit our Cookies page. Please try again.Please try again.Please try again. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Full content visible, double tap to read brief content. Videos Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video. Upload video To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness. Please try again later. MS2004 3.0 out of 5 stars.https://equinelibertysports.com/userfiles/field-manual-mercenaries-revised-pdf.xml
- Tags:
- free n10 005 study guide, free n10 005 study guide template, free n10 005 study guide pdf, free n10 005 study guide printable, free n10 005 study guide answers.
You may try clicking the browser Back button to return to the previous page or clicking the button below to return to the library's home page. If you get this error again, contact the library for assistance. Return To Home Page. GlobalSpec may share your personal information and website activity with our clients for which you express explicit interest, or with vendors looking to reach people like you. GlobalSpec will retain this data until you change or delete it, which you may do at any time. You may withdraw your consent at any time.When a webinar seems like a good fit, we will send you an email to invite you to attend. When a white paper seems like a good fit, we will send you an email to invite you to download. Periodically, these affiliates, editorial sponsors, and sponsored content providers will reach out to you via email to determine if you have additional interest in their product or service. Based on information provided at registration (country, job function, industry, etc.), companies may wish to send you email pertaining to their products or service. Please try again in a few minutes.Please try again in a few minutes.The scope of the guidelines includes roads in both rural and urban areas. Where the term higher volume roads is used in this document, this refers to roads with design volumes of more than 2,000 vehicles per day, which are outside the scope of these guidelines. The risk assessment on which the guidelines are based shows that these less restrictive design criteria can be applied on low-volume roads without substantial effects on crash frequency and severity. The guidelines discourage widening of lanes and shoulders, changes in horizontal and vertical alignment, and roadside improvements except in situations where such improvements are likely to provide substantial reductions in crash frequency or severity.http://gleamrecruits.com/userfiles/field-manual-no_-100-5-operations-department-of-the-army-1993.xml Thus, projects designed in accordance with these guidelines are less likely to negatively impact the environment, roadway and roadside aesthetics, existing development, historic and archeological sites, and endangered species. In reviewing the geometric design for sections of existing roadway, designers should strive for consistency of design between that particular section and its adjoining roadway sections. The potential effects of future development that may affect the traffic volume, vehicle mix, and presence of pedestrians or bicyclists on the roadway should also be considered. Expenditures for highway improvements are discouraged at sites where such improvements are likely to have little effect on crash frequency or severity, but are strongly encouraged at sites where crash patterns exist that can be corrected by a roadway or roadside improvement. Designers are provided substantial flexibility to retain the existing roadway and roadside design, where that existing design is performing well, but are also provided flexibility to recommend improved designs, even designs that exceed the guidelines presented here, where needed to correct documented crash patterns or meet other agency goals. Geometric design criteria for new construction apply to construction of a new road where none existed before. Projects on existing roads may involve reconstruction, resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, and other types of improvements. For traffic control device guidance, see the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( 8 ). The purpose of the guidelines is to help highway designers in selecting appropriate geometric designs.Facilities are only one of several elements essential to a community's overall bicycle program. Bicycle.Although these guidelines can be applied to existing pedestrian facilities, it is.http://ninethreefox.com/?q=node/16393 The purpose is to help highway designers select appropriate geometric designs for roads that have very low traffic volumes traveled by motorists who are generally familiar with the roadway and its geometric design. Very low volume roads are defined as: a road that is functionally classified as a local road and has a design average daily traffic volume of 400 vehicles per day or less. The scope of the guidelines includes geometric design for new construction and for improvement of existing roads. Geometric design criteria for new construction apply for construction of a new road where none existed before. Projects on existing roads may involve reconstruction, resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, and other types of improvements. Order URL: All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement. This approach covers both new and existing construction projects. Because geometric design guidance for very low-volume local roads differs from the policies applied to high-volume roads, these guidelines may be used in lieu of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, also known as “The Green Book.” Design values are presented in both metric and U.S. customary units. Includes errata. Item Code: VLVLR-1 Published: 2001 Format: Paperback Pages: 94 ISBN: -560511663 Visit us on Facebook. Because geometric design guidance for very low-volume local roads differs from the policies applied to high-volume roads, these guidelines may be used in lieu of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, also known as 'The Green Book.' Design values are presented in both metric and U.S. customary units. If it is added to AbeBooks by one of our member booksellers, we will notify you! All Rights Reserved. One of the main reasons for insufficient fund availability to maintain the road network is the poor selection of pavement type during road construction. Selection of an appropriate pavement type should consider the expected traffic levels, terrain and ground conditions and should also give consideration to the socio-environmental factors relevant to the area such as land use, economic activities, noise and dust generation, connectivity etc. If this is not carried out properly, the invested would not yield maximum benefits to the community. The study proposes a framework to select pavement types for low volume roads considering traffic, social, environmental characteristics. Several attributes were identified which should be incorporated when selecting a pavement type for a low volume road. These are, traffic volume, traffic composition, land use, connectivity, terrain and weather. Five different pavement types were assessed under life cycle cost, maintenance requirements and road user experience to evaluate which pavement types were most appropriate for the different combinations of attributes, which represent the transport, socio-environmental characteristics present at different road segments. The proposed framework provides a useful tool for planning level decision making for local highway agency for pavement type selection for a low volume road network. Published by Elsevier B.V. Recommended articles No articles found. Citing articles Article Metrics View article metrics About ScienceDirect Remote access Shopping cart Advertise Contact and support Terms and conditions Privacy policy We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies. Please try again.Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer. Obtenez votre Kindle ici, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness. By continuing to browseFind out about Lean Library here Find out more and recommend Lean Library. This product could help you Lean Library can solve it Simply select your manager software from the list below and click on download.Simply select your manager software from the list below and click on download.For more information view the SAGE Journals Sharing page. See all articles by this author. Search Google ScholarSee all articles by this author. Search Google ScholarVanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700, Vienna, VA 22182.See all articles by this author. Search Google ScholarChanges in roadway ownership, diverse user groups, traffic patterns, and new developments often create conditions unanticipated in the original roadway design. This problem is particularly true for low-volume roads, many of which were not formally designed. Low-volume roads represent a large portion of the national roadway network and crash problem. It is difficult to quantify the crash problem on low-volume roads, but 40 of fatal crashes in the United States occur on local roads, many of which are rural and low volume. Rural roads also have much higher crash rates than urban roads. Although the magnitude of crashes on this network is relatively large, crashes are fairly disbursed because of the vast mileage. Thus, it is difficult to identify crash clusters and trends with traditional engineering studies. Also, crash data may not be maintained, and allocation may not be referenced for these roadways. Road safety audits (RSAs) are one way to overcome several shortcomings of traditional engineering studies that analyze low-volume roads. RSAs are an effective tool for proactively improving the safety performance of a road. This paper discusses applying RSAs to identify and address safety issues on low-volume paved roads by considering their unique characteristics. In addition, unpaved roads are discussed with respect to the potential for RSAs to address safety concerns at these locations. The paper summarizes common safety issues identified on low-volume roads through 10 years of RSA experience. Potential low-cost safety strategies are also identified. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Washington, D.C., 2005. Google Scholar 2. NHTSA. FARS Query System.. Accessed October 2010. Google Scholar 3. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ? 400), 1st ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2001. Google Scholar 4. Stephens, L. B. Barrier Guide for Low-Volume and Low-Speed Roads. FHWA, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Lakewood, Colo., 2005. Google Scholar 5. Russell, E. R., and Smith, B. L. Kansas Low-Volume Roads Handbook: Just Another Manual. Google Scholar 7. FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. Report FHWA-SA-06-06. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006. Google Scholar 8. Hallmark, S. L., Veneziano, D., McDonald, T., Graham, J., Bauer, K. M., Patel, R., and Council, F. M. Safety Impacts of Pavement Edge Drop-Offs. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C., 2006. Google Scholar 9. McGee, H. W., and Hanscom, F. R. Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety. FHWA-SA-07-002. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. Google Scholar 11. Roadside Design Guide, 3rd ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2002. Google Scholar 12. Hallmark, S., Hawkins, N., Smadi, O., Kinsenbaw, C., Orellana, M., Hans, Z., and Isebrands, H. Strategies to Address Nighttime Crashes at Rural, Unsignalized Intersections. Center for Transportation Research and Education, Ames, Iowa, 2008. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. Google Scholar 14. Campbell, B. J., Zegeer, C., Huang, H., and Cynecki, M. A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill; FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004. Google Scholar 15. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.. Accessed July 2010. Google Scholar 16. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System.. Accessed July 2010. Google Scholar 17. Animal Vehicle Crashes. Tech Transfer Newsletter, Winter 2001.. Accessed July 2010. Google Scholar 18. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Critter Crossings, 2000.. Accessed July 2010. Google Scholar Find out about Lean Library here See all articles by this author. Search Google ScholarCrossref Carlo Giacomo Prato and more. Transportation Research Record Jan 2014 Show details Hide details All rights reserved. By continuing to browse. Books Audiobooks Magazines Podcasts Sheet Music Documents (selected) Snapshots Guidelines For Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads Uploaded by GnabBang 0 (4) 0 found this document useful (4 votes) 2K views 10 pages Document Information click to expand document information Description: These guidelines were developed as part of the continuing work of the Standing Committee on Highways. The Committee was established in 1937 to formulate and recommend highway engineering policies. Comments are sought and considered from all the states, the federal highway administration. Report this Document Download now Save Save 66928793 Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very L. For Later 0 (4) 0 found this document useful (4 votes) 2K views 10 pages Guidelines For Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads Original Title: 66928793 Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads Uploaded by GnabBang Description: These guidelines were developed as part of the continuing work of the Standing Committee on Highways.Cancel anytime. Share this document Share or Embed Document Sharing Options Share on Facebook, opens a new window Share on Twitter, opens a new window Share on LinkedIn, opens a new window Share with Email, opens mail client Copy Text Related Interests Road Transport Land Transport Transport Transportation Engineering Footer menu Back to top About About Scribd Press Our blog Join our team. Quick navigation Home Books Audiobooks Documents, active. It used four tree groupings, three tree diameters, and four lateral offsets from the roadway to configure 120 scenarios. Three safety treatment methods were considered: (a) a do-nothing option representing the baseline condition; (b) tree removal, with cost estimates coming from reliable sources; and (c) a crashworthy guardrail system. For various reasons, the guardrail system was no more cost-effective than the do-nothing or tree removal options. B-C ratios were used to recommend tree removal on the basis of several pertinent variables. In all cases, B-C ratios for tree removal were never less than 1.0, which indicated limited justification for keeping the trees. Tree removal was considered the safest and primary alternative when trees were far from other fixed obstacles. Because these guidelines are based solely on B-C analyses, the road designer or engineer is encouraged to use them as a foundation for making safety improvements but also to consider site-specific investigation and analysis.Tree size, strength, and rigidity can affect the sever ity of a vehicular crash as well as the loading imparted to the occupants, while longitudinal tree density and lateral offs et between a tree and roadway edge affect their exposure and risk of impact to encroaching vehicles. Unfortunately, trees have been responsible for a significant numb er of fatal and seriou s injury crashes during run-off-road events. A total of 120 scenarios were configured from four tree groupings, three different tree diameters, and four lateral offsets from the ro adway. Each tree configuration combination was analyzed with ten different traffic volumes ra nging from 50 to 500 ADT in increments of 50. Three safety tree-treatment methods were consider ed. Th e second treatment alternative consisted of tree removal using costs gathered from tree removal experts, county forestry commissioners, and coun ty engineers. The third treatment alternative was the installation of a crashworthy guard rail system. However, due to the high initial cost, small object size, and added risk of striking a longitudinal barrier system, l ongitudinal barrier was not more cost-effective than the “Do Nothing” and tree removal options. Benefit-to-cost ratios were determined and us ed to make tree removal recomm endations based on the number of trees present, tree size, spacing between trees, and la teral offset of tree line away from roadway edge. In all cases, the be nefit-to-cost ratios for tree removal were never less than 1.0, which indicates limited justificati on for allowing the roadside trees to rem ain in place. Tree removal was considered the safest a nd primary alternative wh en located away from other fixed obstacles. Since these guidelines were based solely on benefit-to-cost analyses, the road designer or engineer is encouraged to us e the guidelines as a foundation for making future safety improvements but also consider a si te specific investigation and analysis.Tree size, strength, and rigidity can affect the sever ity of a vehicular crash as well as the loading imparted to the occupants, while longitudinal tr ee density and lateral o ffset between a tree and roadway edge affect their exposure and ri sk of impact to encroaching vehicles. Unfortunately, trees have been responsible fo r a significant number of fatal and serious injury crashes during run-off-road events, both in the U.S. as well as internationally. Trees account for more than 8 percent of all traffic-related fatalities, a nd 90 percent of all fatalities which result from tree impacts occur on two-lane roadways ( 1 ). Furthermore, 65 percent of all tree-related fatalities occur on roads classified as rural major collector, rural minor collec tor, or rural local roadways. Data collected by the Fata lity Accident Reporting System (FARS) from years 1990 through 1999 indicated that impacts with trees were responsible for nearly 30 percent of the fatalities occurring on very low-volume roads ( 1 ). In 2009, trees accounted for 2,697 fatalities out of a reported 10,555 fixed-object collision fatalities ( 2 ). Over the last 35 years, nume rous studies have been spons ored by state departments of transportation and Federal Highway Administration to investigate and develop guidelines for the safe treatment of trees on low-volume roads or ro ads with less than 400 vehicles per day (vpd) ( 1, 3-12 ). For one such study, researchers developed Guidelines for Removing Hazardous Trees from Highway Rights-of-Wa y: A Management Manual ( 3 ). In this study, trees with diameters larger than 6 in. (152 mm) and located within 30 ft (9.1 m) of the roadway contributed to a majority of fatal crashes. Many other studies developed guidelines for removal of roadside trees as well as provided vegeta tion control practices ( 4-7, 9, 10 ). National Cooperative Highway Research Pr ogram (NCHRP) Report No. 500 - Volume 3 addressed goals to eliminate tree impacts or redu ce the harm that results from these vehicle-to- tree collisions ( 1 ). The study addressed several key areas, including strategies to prevent trees from growing in specified locations to eliminat e the hazardous condition or reducing the severity of the crash. The American Association of State Highw ay Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide (RDG) ( 13 ) primarily provides roadside design guidance for moderate- to high-speed, high-volume highways and roadwa ys, while providing somewhat limited guidance for low-volume, local roads and streets. Genera lly-speaking, much of the latter guidance was extrapolated from higher-speed and higher-volume design guidelines. As a result, the guidelines for most rural, local roads are only loosel y based on actual research results and may be impractical for local road applications due to right-of-way and fi nancial constraints. Consequently, recommendations for implementing safety treatments for trees have been provided for many high-speed, high-volume roadways, but safety treatments for trees along low- volume roadways have not received the same a ttention due to the perception that few cost- effective treatments are available fo r a reasonable severity reduction. The AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads ( 14 ) gives cursory coverage to roadside safety fo r roads with ADTs less than 400 vpd. In essence, improvements are only recommended where a docum entable accident history exists. The very low traffic volumes produce sparsely populated acci dent histories. As a result, a single serious accident can dramatically affect the apparent need for safety treatment. FIELD INVESTIGATION Locations A limited field survey was undertaken to de termine the common characteristics for tree placement along very low-volume roadways. The field study was conducted in Marshall County, Kansas. The Kansas Department of Trans portation (KDOT) and Marshall County officials identified two continuous stretches of rural, roadways, which represent typical very low-volume roadways and conditions. Observations Trees were observed with high frequency along th e investigated low-volume roads. Trees near the roadway were observed in different arrangements and sizes. Some trees were spaced far apart from other trees and tended to be larger in diameter. These trees were considered to be independent, isolated hazards for the purpose of fixed object definition. Other trees were found to be located in clusters or groups. Tree clusters had three ge neral forms: (1) small group of trees; (2) long run (parallel to the roadway) of widely-spaced trees; and (3) long run (parallel to the roadway) of tightly-spaced trees. Small gro ups of trees were representative of seemingly random tree growth with some located near the e dges of fields where farm tilling machinery may not remove the saplings from the fertile soil s or where mowing operations inconsistent mowing operations occurred within ditches. Long runs of widely-spaced trees were common near houses and property lines, particularly in the plains region, to serve as a wind break or an acreage enhancement. The variability of tree size was dependent on age, type, and pruning activities. Trees near houses tended to be well-pruned with one or two large trunks at ground level. Trees dispersed randomly were more variable and were found to have as many as six identifiable trunks extending out of the same root or base struct ure. Large-diameter tr ees generally had single trunks, whereas trees with multiple trunks generall y had smaller and more branching trunks. Tree diameters in excess of 36 in. (914 mm) were observe d as well as tree clusters as large as 84 in.Examples of trees observed during the field study are shown in Figure 1. Collected field data included tree diameter, le ngth and width of tree cluster, lateral tree offset away from ro adway edge, roadway width, shoulder width, and Additional details on the collect ed field data can be found in the referenced research report ( 15 ). RSAP ANALYSIS Overview This study was based on a parametric analysis of the characteristics found during a real-world site survey. Several roadway geometry, tree geometry, and tree density parameters were incorporated into the Roadside Safety Analys is Program (RSAP) m odels. Once the baseline models with relevant parameters were developed, safety treatment options were identified. RSAP was used to analyze each scenar io under a variety of roadway a nd traffic characteristics. The results of the RSAP runs were used to determine recommendations for the treatment of tree hazards. RSAP Functional Class Coding Error A version of RSAP (version 200 3.04.01), which utilizes a user interface to allow users to develop the necessary data files fo r the executable file to simulate the scenarios, was used during this research study. Unfortunatel y, the RSAPv2 FORTRAN code cont ained a logical, but fixable error. When specifying a local highway, the user interface creates a mode l using a more severe speed and angle distribution associated with fr eeways. Left unmodified, this error provides results with accidents having abnormally-high severi ty indices. Therefore and to account for this coding error, the data file created by the user interface was modified to allow the functional class code to use the speed and angle distribution of local highways instead of freeways. A detailed explanation of this coding erro r as well as the associated re solution can be found in the referenced research report ( 15 ). Road Geometry and Modeling Vertical grades and horizontal curves were common on low-volume roadways and can influence the number of accidents that occur on these roadwa ys. Areas on hills or at crests would likely correlate with a more stringent treatment of roadside trees than those found on straight, level road sections. Numerous studies have shown that encroachments and tr ee crash frequency are greater on curved road sections and roads with grades, as compared to straight road sections ( 3,6 ). Therefore, an analysis of st raight, level roads is believed to be very conservative. In other words, any recommendations for treating roadside trees found on straight ro ads with level terrain should also be applied to roadways with vertic al grades and horizontal curves due to a higher likelihood of serious impacts. A dditionally, analyzing trees on side slopes was not conducted due to limitations in RSAP for treating fixed objects located on slopes and based on the results of another study that evaluated th e treatment options for steep ro adside slopes and ditches, as further discussed in the full research report ( 15 ). The results of the slope and ditch study concluded that it was only cost-beneficial to trea t a slope or ditch with a barrier when the slope was steeper than or equal to 2.5H:1V and any slop e or ditch with a slope shallower than 2.5H:1V was to be left untreated. The traffic growth factor, which is the anticipated annual traffic growth rate expressed as a percent, was zero. This means that one would not expect the amount of traffic to increase in subsequent years. The encroachment ra te adjustment factor is intended to be used for special situation when the encroachment rate is e xpected to differ significantly from the average, thus it was left at the default value of 1.0. If locations have a higher than average encroachment history, a value greater than 1.0 is used. Conversely, if a value less than 1.0 is use d, it means the location has a less than average encroachment hi story. However, encroach ment frequencies vary widely on low-volume roadways. Tree Geometry and Modeling Besides modeling the road geometry, the variables necessary to develop the tree model had to be determined. The modeling parameters are shown in Figure 2. Tree Profiles The first step in modeling tree scenarios was to determine what tree sizes should be investigated. According to the AASHTO RDG, a tree with a diam eter greater than 4 in. (102 mm ) is considered a fixed object ( 13 ). For tree diameters of 4 in.