A
SEMINAR PRESENTATION
ON
FLUID SPEED BREAKER
Submitted to:
Dr. Krishan Kr. Saini
HOD & Associate
Professor
Presented by:
Manaswee Verma
22EJCCE054
JAIPURENGINEERING COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONTENT
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Comparison between conventional and liquid
speed breaker
 Conclusion
 Reference
INTRODUCTION
 A speed breaker is a hump surface across the
pavement having a rounded shape with width
greater than the wheel base of most of the
vehicles using road
TYPES
Speed bump Speed hump
SPECIFICATIONS
 Heights range from 50 to 120 mm, with the most
common being 75 or 100 mm.
 Previous research from several countries
suggests that to achieve overall speeds of 25 to 30
km/h, speed breakers should be placed between
40 and 60 meters apart. Maximum spacing, up to
100 meters, can be used for speeds of 50 km/h.
 Speed breakers can either span the entire width
of a road or taper short of the curb or road edge.
PROBLEMS WITH CONVENTIONAL BREAKERS
Heavy and permanent
Cause spinal damage
Damages the vehicle suspension Affect the emergency vehicles
REDUCTION DUE TO BREAKER HEIGHT
REDUCTION IN SPEED TO TYPE OF VEHICLE
METHODOLOGY
 Material
Acrylic
Oobleck
Kevlar
Synthetic Plastic
COMPARISON BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL
AND LIQUID SPEED BREAKER
Characteristics Of Breaker
Conventional Speed
Breaker
Non-Newtonian Fluid
Speed Breaker
Nature Permanent Mobile
Sensitivity
Not Sensitive To Speed Of
Vehicle
Sensitive
Speed Restriction Slow- Every Condition
Slow – Only When It Over
Speeding
Fuel Efficiency Of Vehicle Decrease Decrease
Toll On Mechanical
Components Of Vehicle
Yes No
Installation Method
Requirement
Technical Skilled Labour No Technical Skilled Labour
Installation Cost High Low
Maintenance Cost High Low
Medical Problem Arise
Spinal Damage Or Aggravate
Chronic Backache
Not Damaged
Weight Heavy Light
Response Time Of
Emergency Vehicle
Slow Down (3- 10sec
/Breaker)
Does Not Affect
Traffic Noise Pollution Increase Decrease
CONCLUSION
 The Non -Newtonian fluid speed breaker help in
increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles up to a large
extent.
 Vehicles need not come to a complete halt in from of
speed breaker, reducing traffic congestion.
 The installation cost and maintenance cost of non
Newtonian fluid speed breaker is comparatively low
as compare to conventional speed breaker.
 It does not damage on a vehicle's mechanical
components, such as the shock absorbers and steering
system if the vehicle is following the speed limit.
 The setup is completely mobile and can be installed
within an hour.
 The installation process does not require technically
skilled person.
 It helps in reducing traffic noises.
REFERENCES
 L. R. Kadiyali, Traffic Engineering and Transport
Planning, 2015, pp 456.
 Rahul Bagchi, “Traffic calming measures”, International
Journal of Chemical, Environment and Biological Sciences
(IJCEBS), Volume 1, 2013.
 IRC: 99 – 1988, “Tentative Guidelines On The Provision Of
Speed Breakers For Control Of Vehicular Speeds On Minor
Roads”.
 IRC: 99 – 1988, “Tentative Guidelines On The Provision Of
Speed Breakers For Control Of Vehicular Speeds On Minor
Roads”.
 Geetam Tiwari, “Indian case study of traffic calming
measures on National and State highways”, Transportation
Research and Injury Prevention Program, 2009.
 K. Subramanya , Tata McGraw-Hill Education ,Hydraulic
Machines
THANK YOU

A seminar presentation on Fluid speed breaker

  • 1.
    A SEMINAR PRESENTATION ON FLUID SPEEDBREAKER Submitted to: Dr. Krishan Kr. Saini HOD & Associate Professor Presented by: Manaswee Verma 22EJCCE054 JAIPURENGINEERING COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
  • 2.
    CONTENT  Introduction  Methodology Comparison between conventional and liquid speed breaker  Conclusion  Reference
  • 3.
    INTRODUCTION  A speedbreaker is a hump surface across the pavement having a rounded shape with width greater than the wheel base of most of the vehicles using road
  • 4.
  • 5.
    SPECIFICATIONS  Heights rangefrom 50 to 120 mm, with the most common being 75 or 100 mm.  Previous research from several countries suggests that to achieve overall speeds of 25 to 30 km/h, speed breakers should be placed between 40 and 60 meters apart. Maximum spacing, up to 100 meters, can be used for speeds of 50 km/h.  Speed breakers can either span the entire width of a road or taper short of the curb or road edge.
  • 6.
    PROBLEMS WITH CONVENTIONALBREAKERS Heavy and permanent Cause spinal damage Damages the vehicle suspension Affect the emergency vehicles
  • 7.
    REDUCTION DUE TOBREAKER HEIGHT
  • 8.
    REDUCTION IN SPEEDTO TYPE OF VEHICLE
  • 9.
  • 10.
  • 11.
    COMPARISON BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL ANDLIQUID SPEED BREAKER Characteristics Of Breaker Conventional Speed Breaker Non-Newtonian Fluid Speed Breaker Nature Permanent Mobile Sensitivity Not Sensitive To Speed Of Vehicle Sensitive Speed Restriction Slow- Every Condition Slow – Only When It Over Speeding Fuel Efficiency Of Vehicle Decrease Decrease Toll On Mechanical Components Of Vehicle Yes No Installation Method Requirement Technical Skilled Labour No Technical Skilled Labour Installation Cost High Low Maintenance Cost High Low Medical Problem Arise Spinal Damage Or Aggravate Chronic Backache Not Damaged Weight Heavy Light Response Time Of Emergency Vehicle Slow Down (3- 10sec /Breaker) Does Not Affect Traffic Noise Pollution Increase Decrease
  • 12.
    CONCLUSION  The Non-Newtonian fluid speed breaker help in increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles up to a large extent.  Vehicles need not come to a complete halt in from of speed breaker, reducing traffic congestion.  The installation cost and maintenance cost of non Newtonian fluid speed breaker is comparatively low as compare to conventional speed breaker.  It does not damage on a vehicle's mechanical components, such as the shock absorbers and steering system if the vehicle is following the speed limit.  The setup is completely mobile and can be installed within an hour.  The installation process does not require technically skilled person.  It helps in reducing traffic noises.
  • 13.
    REFERENCES  L. R.Kadiyali, Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning, 2015, pp 456.  Rahul Bagchi, “Traffic calming measures”, International Journal of Chemical, Environment and Biological Sciences (IJCEBS), Volume 1, 2013.  IRC: 99 – 1988, “Tentative Guidelines On The Provision Of Speed Breakers For Control Of Vehicular Speeds On Minor Roads”.  IRC: 99 – 1988, “Tentative Guidelines On The Provision Of Speed Breakers For Control Of Vehicular Speeds On Minor Roads”.  Geetam Tiwari, “Indian case study of traffic calming measures on National and State highways”, Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program, 2009.  K. Subramanya , Tata McGraw-Hill Education ,Hydraulic Machines
  • 14.