Patent Publication Number: US-2003223812-A1

Title: Magnum FP planter barrier

Description:
[0001] This invention is related to my co-pending patent applications utilizing composite stone and glass fiber technology, namely: U.S. Ser. Nos.—60/380,150 filed May 7, 2002 60/380,149 filed May 7, 2002 60/379,706 filed May 13, 2002 and 60/379,641 filed May 13, 2002. 
    
    
     
       BACKGROUND OF INVENTION  
       [0002] 1. Field of Invention  
       [0003] This invention relates to composite concrete barrier, specifically to such planter barriers designed to resist frontal attack of a crashing vehicle.  
       [0004] 2. Prior Art  
       [0005] Basic principles of concrete barriers are generally unknown or misunderstood. Concrete barriers appear to be simple and uncomplicated devices, but in reality they can be sophisticated. Inventors created several types of barriers intended for roads and bridges comprising of impact-absorbing elements or for the purpose of separating vehicular traffic as in the case of U.S. Pat. No. 5,651,635 to Nagle (1997), U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,470 to Johansson (1998) or U.S. Pat. No. 6,203,242 to Englund.  
       [0006] Crash barrier used as a divider separating the roadways are the most common type. Such barriers are disadvantageous since they are expansive and time-consuming both to mount and to repair after being damaged, and they have poor collision properties since vehicles striking against them usually bounce back into their own passageway at the risk of colliding with vehicles traveling in the same direction.  
       [0007] Crash barriers of homogeneous and heavy concrete wall elements comprise an upwardly extending wall portion and a lower base portion. This barricade type is composed of a plurality of such barrier elements successively arranged in a row. Such crash barriers are based on the principle that their mass is to be so great that in a collision they are not dislodged at all or at least but to a very small extent. In a possible collision, they will therefore act as a solid wall with no possibility of soft absorption of the collision forces. Such barrier elements are, owing to their great mass per unit of length, expensive to buy and time-consuming to mount.  
       [0008] There have been several systems proposed or used for reducing the damages to motor vehicles and injuries to their occupants when the vehicles accidentally impact the concrete barriers. One system is known using a continuous series of vertical cylinders as has been used along vehicle racetracks. The cylinders are positioned adjacent the concrete wall or barrier and are covered by an overlapping sheet of high density polyethylene material. The cost of this system is substantial and is therefore primarily used on concrete walls or barriers at racetracks adjacent the seating area for patrons.  
       [0009] U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,681,302 and 5,054,954 disclose other forms of energy absorbing roadway barriers which involve formed or molded sheets or bodies of plastics material to form a container defining a chamber. The chamber is filled with a liquid or a filler material which can absorb impact forces, sometimes by being forced out of the container when the container is crushed by an impacting vehicle.  
       [0010] Other barricade systems featuring movable or pivotally interconnected sections can sustain structural damage when struck and deflected by an automobile or other vehicle. One type of damage that can occur is breakage at the corners of the modules when they are deflected or moved in such a way as to bring the corners of adjacent modules into direct exposure causing more hazard than protection to impacting vehicles.  
       [0011] Most commonly known design of concrete barriers are the Jersey shape barriers. These inverse cone shape barrier is intended to minimize sheet metal damage to vehicles by allowing tires to ride up on the lower sloped face. However, it is only necessary to lift the vehicle enough to reduce the friction between the tires and the paved surface. This aides in banking and redirecting the vehicle. If the vehicle is lifted too high into the air, it may yaw, pitch or roll which can cause the vehicle to roll over when the wheels come in contact with the ground again.  
       [0012] On the other hand, vertical concrete parapet walls do not have this energy management feature, but crash tests have demonstrated that they can perform acceptably as traffic barriers. All of the energy absorption in an impact with a rigid vertical wall is due to crushing of the vehicle. Bumpers usually do not slide up vertical concrete walls and lift the vehicle. This minimizes the potential for vehicle rollover. Because the vehicle is not lifted and tilted by the vertical face, this also increases the possibility of a motorist&#39;s head going through the window and contacting the vertical barrier.  
       [0013] Objects and Advantages  
       [0014] Accordingly, besides the objects and advantages of the crash barriers cited above, the objects and advantages of the present invention are:  
       [0015] 1) to provide a planter barrier that is engineered to absorb a progressive impact;  
       [0016] 2) to provide a planter barrier that has three dimensional shape and decorative appearance;  
       [0017] 3) to provide a planter barrier with thinner walls and smaller foundation;  
       [0018] 4) to provide a planter barrier that can be shipped to the job-site economically because of their light-weight construction.  
       [0019] 5) to provide a planter barrier with high level of protection;  
       [0020] Further objects and advantages of my invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and ensuing description. 
     
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS  
     [0021] In the drawings, related figures are supplied with alphabetic suffixes.  
     [0022]FIG. 1 is a cross sectional isometric view showing various aspects of the barrier comprising of an outer shell, rebar caging and planting compartment.  
     [0023]FIG. 2 presents the aesthetic design and elevation of the planter barrier, as well as depth of trenching from the ground surface.  
     [0024]FIG. 3 illustrate a cross section view of the internal construction relative to the thickness and aesthetic detail of the outer layer, a mid layer rebar caging compacted with aggregate cement, and a planting compartment layer.  
     [0025]FIG. 4 shows a side view of the rebar caging design. FIG. 4A is a plan view of said rebar. FIG. 4B is an elevated view of the same.  
     [0026]FIG. 5 is a side view of the planting compartment detail. FIG. 5A is a plan view of the said planting compartment shown in relation to the outer shell enclosure. FIG. 5B is an elevated view of the planting compartment. The broken line indicates the level of chamfered base relative to the back vertical walling.  
     [0027]FIG. 6 shows a broken section of composite stone showing embedded glass fiber. 
    
    
     REFERENCE NUMERALS IN DRAWINGS  
     [0028]                               Reference Numerals in Drawings:                                        10   outer enclosure shell       11   rebar caging       12   planting compartment       13   three-dimensional shape       14   trenching depth       15   compacted cement       16   thickness detail       17   back vertical wall surface       18   front vertical wall surface       19   chamfered base design       20   soil fill or planting medium       21   chamfer level       22   composite stone       23   embedded glass fibers                    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION  
     [0029] A typical embodiment of the internal structure of the present invention is illustrated in FIGS.  1  to  3 . The planter barrier consists of an outer layer  10 , which serves as a decorative enclosure shell that is pre-designed and pre-finished. Its length is nominally 12 feet long though it is intended to fit any length or configuration. Ground surface trenching  14  requires 18-inch depth sufficient to absorb force against frontal impact. The outer shell and planter compartment thickness  16  ranges from ⅜ to ⅝ of an inch composed of fine aggregates of clear silica sand and alkali resistant glass fibers produced specifically for use in glass fiber reinforced concrete with glass content of at least 3% and a minimum length of 1 to 1½ inches, a high modulus glass fiber specially embedded as reinforcement. The result is a composite that combines the strength and lightweight characteristics of conventional fiberglass with the durability and longevity of cast stone.  
     [0030] The shell finish and color may vary depending on the aesthetic requirement of the area. This provides an added motif to the enclosure design and thus easily blends with the architecture of an improvement. This eliminates and conceals a concrete barricade look without sacrificing the need for a high level of security and protection.  
     [0031] A rebar-caging layer  11  serves as internal supports that add to the level of protection provided by the invention&#39;s material technology. The rebar caging designs FIG.  4  demonstrate a plurality of vertically and horizontally arranged standard grade #4-5 steel. FIGS. 4A and 4B shows a plan view and elevation view respectively.  
     [0032] The planting compartment FIG. 5 illustrates a chamfered base surface on the lower backside supported by similarly inclined rebar underneath the compartment. A distance between the planting compartment and the outer enclosure is created for back filling of compacted cement aggregate  15 . FIG. 5A shows thicker concrete surface from the rear segment in contrast to the front. The chamfered lower back walling is designed to provide an oblique angle intended to deflect the force of an impacting vehicle thereby generating progressive resistance. The broken line  21  indicates the level of chamfered base relative to the back vertical walling.  
     [0033]FIG. 6 shows a proprietary compound of graded stone and cement  22  reinforced with long-strand Alkaline Resistant glass fiber  23 .  
     [0034] From the description above, a number of advantages can be found with this invention:  
     [0035] 1) A multi-layered planter barrier comprising of an outer enclosure shell made of glass fiber reinforced concrete that is pre-engineered and pre-designed, a rebar caging made of light grade steel back filled with compacted cement, and a planting compartment intended for soil;  
     [0036] 2) With an outer decorative design it eliminates the flat concrete look and conceals the concrete barricade thereby providing ability for “progressive resistance” to the impact of a moving vehicle;  
     [0037] 3) The result is a Magnum force protection Planter Barrier that combines the strength and lightweight characteristics of conventional fiberglass with the durability and longevity of cast stone.  
     [0038] While my above description contains a number of specifications, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of the invention, but rather as an exemplification of one preferred embodiment thereof. Many other variations are possible.