UCSD Final Report Isa

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
RESEARCH PROJECT

Report No.
SSRP- 11/07

FATIGUE TESTS OF WELDED CONNECTIONS
IN CANTILEVERED STEEL SIGN STRUCTURES

by

HYOUNG-BO SIM
CHIA-MING UANG

Final Report Submitted to International Sign Association

October 2011

Department of Structural Engineering
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085

Structural Systems Research Project

Report No. SSRP-11/07

Fatigue Tests of Welded Connections in Cantilevered
Steel Sign Structures

by

Hyoung-Bo Sim
Postdoctoral Researcher

Chia-Ming Uang
Professor of Structural Engineering

Final Report Submitted to International Sign Association

La Jolla, California 92093-0085

October 2011
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this research was provided by the International Sign Association
(ISA). We would like to thank Mr. Bill Dundas, ISA Director of Technical and
Regulatory Affairs, and the ISA Mechanical and Structural Subcommittee, chaired by
Mr. Wes Wilkens, for providing guidance in this research. We would also like to thank
Mr. J ack Lester for preparing the specimen drawings and arranging the fabrication and
shipping of most of the specimens. Additionally, we would like to thank Mr. Roy Flahive
for coordinating efforts at the laboratory on test specimen preparation, repairs and
inspections. Union Metal (Canton, OH) donated the tapered-pole specimen (A7) and Fyfe
Company LLC (San Diego, CA) donated materials and services for the Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) repair.
The testing was conducted in the Charles Lee Powell Structural Components
Laboratory at the University of California, San Diego. Assistance from the laboratory
staff is much appreciated.
ii
ABSTRACT
Freestanding (cantilevered) steel sign structures have been widely used by
commercial and retail business for many years. The actual probability of failure for
cantilevered sign structures due to wind-induced vibration is relatively small. In this case,
failure is defined as fatigue cracking which causes collapse or loss of a structures
serviceability. While the majority of these structures have performed well in long-term
use, however, some structures have been damaged or destroyed.
This type of structure is flexible, has a low damping and, under certain
circumstances, can be prone to fatigue-type cracking due to wind-induced vibration.
Cracks at the sleeve connections, some resulting in sign failures, have been reported
when the wind speed was significantly below that used in design. In connection with its
ongoing efforts to support the safety and acceptability of signage products, the
International Sign Association (ISA) made a decision to investigate potential remedies by
sponsoring the tests described in this report.
Fatigue tests of seventeen full-scale connection details were conducted to evaluate
their relative fatigue resistance. Test specimens included four conventional (with or
without a guide ring), five repaired (with various combinations of welded gussets, grout,
steel cones or jackets and Fiber Reinforced Polymer composites), and eight alternative
connection details for new construction.
Testing demonstrated that conventional welded sleeve connections had a
relatively low fatigue resistance. All four specimens showed the same cracking pattern as
commonly observed in the field on damaged or failed structures. The use of a guide ring
had a minimal effect on the fatigue resistance. After testing, the damaged conventional
specimens were repaired with various schemes to evaluate their effectiveness.
A gusset-repaired specimen also showed relatively low fatigue resistance. Steel-
jacketed cement grouting, or the use of a welded steel cone above the upper ring,
significantly improved the fatigue resistance at the most commonly observed failure
location, although fatigue cracking later occurred at the next weak locations (i.e., the
lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld and the slot welds, which also are prone to fatigue).
Grouting the sleeve region or using welded patch plates did not improve the fatigue
iii
resistance of the slot welds. An FRP-repair scheme for cracked slot welds effectively
prevented further crack growth.
Some promising alternative connections that can potentially be used for new
construction were experimentally evaluated. A bolted match-plate connection performed
relatively poorly. But a revised sleeve connection incorporating a one-sided, bottom-only
fillet weld detail at the upper pipe-to-upper ring joint was effective in enhancing the
fatigue performance compared to the conventional sleeve connections. To avoid cracking
at slot welds, the use of grout between the pipes in the sleeve region significantly
increased the fatigue resistance. Using a welded cone to provide a smooth transition
between the pipes also showed improved performance. A tapered slip-joint connection,
which requires no welded joints between the pipe sections, substantially outperformed all
of the other specimens tested.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................vii
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Problem Statements................................................................................................ 10
1.2 Past Research.......................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Objectives and Scope.............................................................................................. 13
2. TEST PROGRAM........................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Test Setup................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Test Matrix.............................................................................................................. 15
2.3 Connection Details.................................................................................................. 16
2.3.1 Conventional Welded Sleeve Connection Details....................................... 16
2.3.2 Repaired Connection Details....................................................................... 19
2.3.3 Alternative Connection Details.................................................................... 24
2.4 Loading Scheme...................................................................................................... 27
2.5 Instrumentation and Crack Inspections................................................................... 27
3. TEST RESULTS OF CONVENTIONAL CONNECTIONS......................................... 29
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 29
3.2 Conventional Connection Details without Guide Ring.......................................... 29
3.2.1 Specimen C1................................................................................................ 29
3.2.2 Specimen C2................................................................................................ 31
3.3 Conventional Connection Details with Guide Ring................................................ 33
3.3.1 Specimen C3................................................................................................ 33
3.3.2 Specimen C4................................................................................................ 34
3.4 Comparison of Test Results.................................................................................... 35
4. TEST RESULTS OF REPAIRED CONNECTIONS..................................................... 36
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 36
4.2 Gusset Repair: Specimen R1.................................................................................. 36
4.3 Steel-J acketed and Cement-Grouted Repair........................................................... 38
v
4.3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 38
4.3.2 Specimen R2................................................................................................ 38
4.3.3 Specimen R3................................................................................................ 44
4.4 Steel Cone and Cement Grout Repair: Specimen R4............................................. 45
4.5 FRP Repair: Specimen R5...................................................................................... 52
4.6 Comparison of Test Results.................................................................................... 56
5. TEST RESULTS OF ALTERNATIVE CONNECTIONS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................................... 58
5.1 Modified Sleeve Connection Details...................................................................... 58
5.1.1 Specimen A1................................................................................................ 58
5.1.2 Specimen A2................................................................................................ 64
5.1.3 Specimen A3................................................................................................ 69
5.1.4 Specimen A4................................................................................................ 75
5.2 Cone Transition Connection Details....................................................................... 79
5.2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 79
5.2.2 Specimen A5................................................................................................ 79
5.2.3 Specimen A6................................................................................................ 81
5.3 Tapered Slip J oint: Specimen A7........................................................................... 82
5.4 Bolted Match-Plate Connection: Specimen A8...................................................... 83
6. ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS.................................................................................. 87
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 87
6.2 Comparison of Fatigue Resistance.......................................................................... 88
6.2.1 Specimens C1 to C4..................................................................................... 88
6.2.2 Specimen R1 (Gusset-Repair)...................................................................... 91
6.2.3 Specimens R2 and R4 (Grout- or Cone-Repair).......................................... 91
6.2.4 Specimens R5 (FRP-Repair)........................................................................ 92
6.2.5 Specimens A1 and A2 (Modified Sleeve Connection)................................ 92
6.2.6 Specimens A3 and A4 (Modified Sleeve Connection)................................ 93
6.2.7 Specimens A5 and A6 (Cone Transition).................................................... 93
6.2.8 Specimen A7 (Tapered Slip-J oint)............................................................... 93
6.2.9 Specimen A8 (Bolted Match-Plate Connection).......................................... 93
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................. 94
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX A. APPLIED LOAD TIME HISTORY ............................................................. 98
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Test matrix........................................................................................................ 15
Table 6.1 Detail category constant and threshold (AASHTO 2010)................................ 90
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Typical configuration of a sign structure......................................................... 12
Figure 1.2 Assumed force transfer mechanism at sleeve connection (J ones 1998).......... 12
Figure 1.3 Typical failure locations of sign structures..................................................... 12
Figure 1.4 Proposed connection details (Sim and Uang 2008)......................................... 13
Figure 2.1 Test setup......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.2 Overall configuration of test specimens.......................................................... 17
Figure 2.3 Connection details of Specimens C1 to C4..................................................... 18
Figure 2.4 Connection details of Specimen R1................................................................ 20
Figure 2.5 Grout-repaired region of Specimens R2 to R4................................................ 20
Figure 2.6 Connection details of Specimens R2 and R3.................................................. 21
Figure 2.9 Connection details of Specimens A1 and A2.................................................. 25
Figure 2.10 Connection details of Specimens A3 and A4................................................ 25
Figure 2.11 Connection details of Specimens A5 and A6................................................ 26
Figure 2.12 Connection details of Specimen A7.............................................................. 26
Figure 2.13 Connection details of Specimen A8.............................................................. 27
Figure 2.14 Loading scheme............................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.15 Sample instrumentation layout (Specimen A1)............................................. 28
Figure 3.1 Specimen C1: observed crack......................................................................... 30
Figure 3.2 Specimen C1: measured strains near crack location....................................... 31
Figure 3.3 Specimen C1: strain profiles near fillet weld toe (at 1500 cycles).................. 31
Figure 3.10 Comparison of fatigue resistance of conventional connections.................... 35
Figure 4.1 Specimen R1: gusset connection before testing.............................................. 37
viii
Figure 4.2 Specimen R1: crack at fillet weld of Gusset No. 4.......................................... 38
Figure 4.3 Specimen R2: repair procedure....................................................................... 40
Figure 4.4 Specimen R2: crack locations......................................................................... 41
Figure 4.5 Specimen R2: cracks at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld.......................... 41
Figure 4.6 Specimen R2: crack on lower pipe at slot weld location................................. 42
Figure 4.7 Specimen R2: measured strains near lower pipe-to-upper ring welded joint.. 42
Figure 4.8 Specimen R2: grout condition after testing..................................................... 43
Figure 4.9 Specimen R2: fracture surface at slot weld location....................................... 43
Figure 4.10 Specimen R2: measured flexural strain distribution in grout region............. 44
Figure 4.11 Specimen R3: observed crack on slot weld................................................... 45
Figure 4.12 Specimen R3: measured strains near crack location..................................... 45
Figure 4.13 Specimen R4: repair procedure..................................................................... 47
Figure 4.14 Specimen R4: connection after repair ........................................................... 48
Figure 4.15 Specimen R4: crack locations....................................................................... 48
Figure 4.16 Specimen R4: crack at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld......................... 49
Figure 4.17 Specimen R4: crack on lower pipe at the slot weld location......................... 50
Figure 4.18 Specimen R4: view of inside after cut........................................................... 51
Figure 4.19 Specimen R4: fracture surface (Detail 1)...................................................... 51
Figure 4.20 Specimen R4: fracture surface (Detail 2)...................................................... 52
Figure 4.21 Specimen R5: crack at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld......................... 53
Figure 4.22 Specimen R5: measured strains on FRP........................................................ 54
Figure 4.23 Specimen R5: slot weld crack examination after FRP removal .................... 55
Figure 4.24 Comparison of fatigue resistance of repair connections................................ 57
Figure 5.1 Specimen A1: connection................................................................................ 59
Figure 5.2 Specimen A1: cracks on slot welds at lower ring (at 45,000 cycles).............. 60
Figure 5.3 Specimen A1: repair procedure of damaged slot welds.................................. 60
Figure 5.4 Specimen A1: needle peening of patch plate weld.......................................... 61
Figure 5.5 Specimen A1: crack at patch plate location.................................................... 61
Figure 5.6 Specimen A1: crack on slot weld location at guide ring level ........................ 62
Figure 5.7 Specimen A1: measured strains....................................................................... 63
Figure 5.8 Specimen A1: examination of inside after testing........................................... 63
ix
Figure 5.9 Specimen A2: assembly procedure................................................................. 65
Figure 5.10 Specimen A2: measured strains near upper pipe-to-upper ring.................... 66
Figure 5.11 Specimen A2: disassembly after testing........................................................ 67
Figure 5.12 Specimen A2: crack at upper pipe-to-upper ring welded joint...................... 68
Figure 5.13 Specimen A3: crack locations on slot welds................................................. 70
Figure 5.14 Specimen A3: typical crack pattern at slot weld location............................. 70
Figure 5.15 Specimen A3: measured strains near crack locations.................................... 71
Figure 5.16 Specimen A3: specimen cut after testing...................................................... 71
Figure 5.17 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 1..................................................................... 72
Figure 5.18 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 2 (guide ring level)........................................ 73
Figure 5.19 Specimen A3: fracture surface at Detail 2 (guide ring level)........................ 73
Figure 5.20 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 3 (lower ring level)........................................ 74
Figure 5.21 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 4 (lower ring level)........................................ 74
Figure 5.22 Specimen A4: crack locations....................................................................... 75
Figure 5.23 Specimen A4: crack pattern at gusset-to-upper ring fillet weld.................... 76
Figure 5.24 Specimen A4: crack pattern at slot weld location......................................... 77
Figure 5.25 Specimen A4: crack pattern at gusset-to-upper pipe welded joint................ 78
Figure 5.26 Specimen A5: observed crack....................................................................... 79
Figure 5.27 Specimen A5: crack view from inside........................................................... 80
Figure 5.28 Specimen A6: observed cracks...................................................................... 81
Figure 5.29 Specimen A7: assembly using come-along hoists......................................... 82
Figure 5.30 Specimen A7: examination of inside after testing......................................... 83
Figure 5.31 Specimen A8: observed crack....................................................................... 84
Figure 5.32 Specimen A8: examination of inside after testing......................................... 85
igure 5.33 Specimen A8: fracture surface......................................................................... 86
Figure 6.1 Summary of fatigue resistance........................................................................ 88
Figure 6.2 S-N curves (AASHTO 2010) .......................................................................... 91
Figure A.1 Specimen C1: Applied load time history........................................................ 98
10
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Pr oblem Statements
Freestanding (cantilevered) steel sign structures have been widely used for
commercial and retail signs. A common configuration for this type of structure is shown
schematically in Figure 1.1(a). The pole supporting the sign cabinet consists of
progressively smaller diameter pipes, with the smaller pipes inserted into larger pipes as
per a commonly used welded sleeve connection shown in Figure 1.1(b). Both the lower
and upper rings, as well as an optional guide ring which aids in alignment of the pipe
sections during erection, are first shop-welded to the upper pipe. In the field, the upper
ring is then fillet-welded to the top of the lower (outer) pipe. The lower and guide rings
are also slot- or plug-welded to the lower pipe in the field.
It is a common practice in design that the moment at the splice location is resisted
by a force couple as shown in Figure 1.2 (J ones 1998). This simplified static design
procedure has been used for decades and has served well for the majority of sign
structures. But this type of structure is flexible, has a low damping, and can be prone to
fatigue-type cracking due to wind-induced vortex shedding. Damage and collapses of
sign structures due to fracture at the sleeve connections, even with no apparent defects in
the construction, have been reported when the wind speed was far below that used in
design. Figure 1.3 shows the typical crack locations of sign structures. As shown in
Figure 1.3(a) and (b), the fatigue-type failure occurs most often in the upper pipes at the
toe of the fillet-weld between the upper pipe and the upper ring. Although the sleeve
connections have sometimes been strengthened or repaired by vertical gussets or C-
channel gussets, fatigue cracks at the gusset-to-upper pipe (or upper ring) welded joint
have been observed; see Figure 1.3(c) and (d) for the typical crack locations.
1.2 Past Resear ch
Case studies on ten failed sign structures and the associated finite element analyses
have been performed in an attempt to identify the cause of failure at the welded sleeve
connection (Sim and Uang 2008). It was concluded that the fatigue-type cracks in the
11
upper pipe initiated at the toe of the fillet weld connecting the upper pipe to the upper
ring. The crack then propagated into the pipe section and caused failure.
Finite element analysis of a typical sign structure showed a very high, geometry-
induced stress concentration at this location. The following observations were also made
from the finite element analysis. Within the practical range of the ring plate thickness,
only 60% to 80% of the moment was transferred through the horizontal force couple. The
remaining portion was transferred by the bending of the ring plates, which is a
mechanism not reflected in a simplified, conventional design procedure. The stress
concentration at the top fillet weld became more severe if the upper pipe was allowed to
move due to defective or damaged slot welds. Based on case studies of damaged
structures and other available evidence, it was determined that a common practice of
strengthening or repairing the upper ring welded joint by installing welded gusset plates
is not effective in mitigating fatigue cracking. Adding these gussets simply moves the
critical stress concentration location to the top end of the gussets where fatigue-type
cracking also has been observed. The use of a guide ring had a minimal effect on the
stress distribution.
Based on the observations from case studies and finite element analysis results,
two alternative connection details were proposed (Sim and Uang 2008). Figure 1.4(a)
shows the first proposed connection detail. The detail and fabrication of this connection
are very similar to those of the conventional sleeve connection. However, no weld is
specified on the top side of the fillet-weld joint between the upper ring and upper pipe;
only the bottom side is welded. The second proposed connection detail is shown in
Figure 1.4(b). Instead of using a pair of rings to transfer the moment through a horizontal
force couple, a structural filler material (e.g., concrete or mortar) is used to fill the gap
between the two pipes. The lateral moment is transferred through the bearing action of
the filler material between the pipes.

12
Sign
Cabinet
Steel Pipe
Sleeve
Connection
Sign
Cabinet
Steel Pipe
Sleeve
Connection

Upper Ring
Lower Ring
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Guide Ring
(Optional)

(a) Elevation (b) Sleeve connection
Figure 1.1 Typical configuration of a sign structure

M
H = M/d
d
H+V
V
M
H = M/d
d
H+V
V

Figure 1.2 Assumed force transfer mechanism at sleeve connection (J ones 1998)

Upper Pipe
Upper
Ring
Crack
Upper Pipe
Upper
Ring
Crack

Upper Ring Upper Ring

(a) Conventional sleeve connection (b) View of lower pipe after failure
Lower
Pipe
Crack
Upper Pipe
Lower
Pipe
Crack
Upper Pipe

C-Channel
Crack
Upper
Ring
C-Channel
Crack
Upper
Ring

(c) Stiffened gusset plate connection (d) Stiffened C-channel gusset connection
Figure 1.3 Typical failure locations of sign structures
13
Upper
Ring
Upper
Pipe
Lower
Pipe
Typ.
Lower
Ring

Filler (Mortar
or Concrete)
Lower Ring
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Optional
Guide Fins
Typ.

(a) Connection detail 1 (b) Connection detail 2
Figure 1.4 Proposed connection details (Sim and Uang 2008)
1.3 Objectives and Scope
The objective of this research was to evaluate the performance of various
alternative connection details for new construction and retrofit or repair of sign
structures, and to compare the results to those derived from similar tests of conventional-
type sleeve connections. Fatigue tests of seventeen different connection details were
conducted to evaluate the relative fatigue resistance of these connection details.
14
2. TEST PROGRAM
2.1 Test Setup
Figure 2.1 shows the test setup. The specimens were tested in the horizontal
position using a hydraulic actuator acting at the free end to simulate wind-induced
bending stresses at the connections. The lower pipe end was welded to a base plate and
was anchored to a reaction wall. Such base boundary was not intended to simulate the
actual base details of sign structures under study. To rule out any potential fatigue failure
at this location, it was decided to clamp the specimen 22 in. away from the specimen base
by a pair of concrete collars such that the bending stresses at the base plate weld was
greatly reduced.

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

W
a
l
l
Upper Pipe Lower Pipe
North
8'-6" 12'-6"
21'
3'
22"
Concre Blocks for
Fixed Boundary Condition
M
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

P
L
.
Strong Floor
Hydraulic Actuator
Actuator Corbel

(a) Elevation

(b) Photo view
Figure 2.1 Test setup
15
2.2 Test Matr ix
A total of seventeen, 21-ft-long full-scale specimens were tested. Table 2.1 shows
the test matrix. Specimens included four conventional (with or without a guide ring), five
repaired (by welded gussets, grout, or Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites), and
eight alternative connection details. ASTM A53 Grade B steel for the pipes and A36 steel
for the plates were used for the specimens.

Table 2.1 Test matrix
Connection Type
Specimen
Designation
Connection Details
C1 No guide ring used
No Guide Ring
C2 Specimen C1 +peening
C3 Guide ring used
Conventional
Guide Ring
C4
Specimen C3 +gussets
(gussets not connected to upper ring)
Gusset Repair R1 Gusset repair of Specimen C1
R2 Grout repair of Specimen C3
R3 Grout repair of Specimen C2
Grout Repair
R4
Steel cone & grout repair of
Specimen C4
Repair
FRP Repair R5 FRP repair of Specimen R3
A1
Conventional weld details, but without
top fillet weld at upper pipe-to-upper
ring
A2 Grout +no field welds and slot welds
A3
No fillet weld at lower pipe-to-upper
ring +gussets +peening
Modified
Sleeve Connection
A4
No fillet weld at upper pipe-to-upper
ring +gussets
A5
Conical transition connection between
upper and lower pipes
Cone
A6 Specimen A5 +peening
Tapered A7 Tapered slip joint
Alternative
Bolted A8 Bolted match-plate connection
16
2.3 Connection Details
2.3.1 Conventional Welded Sleeve Connection Details
A total of four conventional sleeve connections were tested. The objectives of
testing were to (1) evaluate the failure mode as compared to field observations, (2)
establish a baseline fatigue resistance for comparison with those of improved connection
details, (3) assess the significance of guide ring in improving structural performance, and
(4) assess the effect of post-weld peening treatment. After testing, these specimens were
also repaired and re-tested to evaluate the effectiveness of several repair schemes.
The overall configuration of the test specimens is shown in Figure 2.2. The
diameters of the upper and lower pipes were 18 in and 22 in, respectively. The specified
thickness of the pipes was 3/8 in (0.375 in); the measured thickness was approximately
0.35 in. The sleeve length between the upper and lower ring plate levels was 35 in.
Figure 2.3 shows the connection details of each specimen; the slot-weld details
are also provided in Figure 2.3(c). Specimens C1 and C2 did not incorporate guide rings
and were nominally identical, except that Specimen C2 received a post-weld peening
treatment at the upper pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld. Both Specimens C3 and C4 had a
guide ring, but the latter had a total of 12 gusset plates welded to the upper pipe and the
upper ring. Specimen C4 had no weld specified on the lower pipe-to-upper ring joint per
design, but this joint was welded in error during fabrication. Therefore, it was decided to
modify the details of Specimen C4 such that the lower ends of the gussets near the upper
ring were removed. Since the structural detail of the modified specimen was similar to
that of the conventional sleeve connection, Specimen C4 was grouped with the
conventional connections, assuming that the effect of the partially connected gussets on
the fatigue performance of the specimen was insignificant.

17
1
2
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
2
1
'
Upper Pipe
(O.D. 18" x 3/8" )
Lower Pipe
(O.D. 22" x 3/8" )
3
'

Figure 2.2 Overall configuration of test specimens

18
Peening
(Specimen C2 Only)
Slot Weld
6-1/2
1" Thk Guide Ring
(Specimen C3 Only)
1" Thk Lower Ring
3/16
3/8
3/16
1/4
1/4
1/2
5/8" Thk Upper Ring
36

(a) Specimens C1 to C3
Slot Weld
6-1/2
1" Thk Guide Ring
1" Thk Lower Ring
3/16
3/8
3/16
1/4
1/4
5/8" Thk Upper Ring
36
10
3/8" Thk Gusset, Typ
1/4
1/4
Typ

(b) Specimen C4
3
0
Lower Pipe
3
11/16
Lower or Guide
Ring PL.

(c) Slot weld details
Figure 2.3 Connection details of Specimens C1 to C4
19
2.3.2 Repair ed Connection Details
The investigated repair scheme included (1) welded gusset plates, a procedure
commonly used in practice, (2) cement grout with steel jacketing, and (3) Fiber
Reinforced Polymer strengthening. The objective was to develop effective and
economical procedures for not only repairing damaged sign structures but also for retrofit
or new construction.
The details of the repair procedure investigated in this study are presented below.
Gusset-Repaired Connection (Specimen R1)
Specimen R1 is the repaired Specimen C1. After testing of Specimen C1, the
damaged fillet weld between the upper pipe and upper ring was repaired, and gusset
plates (A36 steel) were then added to strength the connection. Specimen R1 represents a
common practice of attempting to strengthen or repair sleeve connections by installing
gussets. Figure 2.4 shows the gusset connection details. Six 3/8-in.-thick gussets were
fillet-welded to the upper pipe and the upper ring. A slight modification on the gusset
weld was made such that the fillet weld at the tip of the gusset was not wrapped around
for three of the gussets (located on the top side in the test setup), while welds on the other
three gussets were wrapped around (located on the bottom side in the test setup).
Cement Grout-Repaired Connection (Specimens R2 to R4)
Figure 2.5 shows the region where the connection was strengthened by grouting.
Specimens R2 and R3 had a steel collar installed above the upper ring, and Specimen R4
used a steel cone. Specimens R2 and R3 were grouted between the steel collar and the
upper pipe. Compared to Specimen R2, Specimen R3 was also grouted between the two
pipes in the sleeve region. Specimen R4 was grouted only in the sleeve region. The
connection details of the repair specimens are shown in Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7. The
repair procedures are described in Section 4.3.
FRP-Repaired Connection (Specimen R5)
Specimen R5 was the repaired Specimen R3. After testing of Specimen R3, Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites were used to strengthen the cracked lower pipe at
the slot weld. Figure 2.8 shows the connection details. The repair was performed by
FYFE CO. LLC. The FRP was applied symmetrically with respect to the crack location
20
in the longitudinal direction. Five layers of FRP (oriented longitudinally) and three layers
of FRP (oriented transversely) were applied, as shown in Figure 2.8. For surface
preparation, a 4-in grinder with a rough wire wheel was first used to remove the mill
scale of the steel, and then an 80-grit flapper disk was used for a clean finish. Two
separate epoxy resins were used. Epoxy resin (Tyfo MB-3) was used for improved
adhesion to the metal and between layers of the fabric, and epoxy resin (Tyfo S) was used
to saturate the fabric.
1/4
1/4
Typ
3/8" Thk Gusset PL (6 Total)
10
1/2

Figure 2.4 Connection details of Specimen R1

6'

3'

3'

(a) Specimen R2 (b) Specimen R3 (c) Specimen R4
Figure 2.5 Grout-repaired region of Specimens R2 to R4
21
3
"
6
"
6
"
6
"
6
"
6
"
3
"
3
'
-
0
"
38
"
2
'
-
1
1
"
No Weld
No Weld
1 / 4
Non-Shrink Grout
See Detail
R =0 to 1/4
f =0 to 1/8
o =45
R =0 to 1/4
f =0 to 1/8
o =45

(a) Elevation (b) CJ P weld details
5/16
PJ P
Same size Pipe

Tack Weld
Nuts in Place
1/2" x 1.5" Bolts
1/4" x 3" Flat Bar
(Yellow Zinc Grade 8, Snug-Tight)
Tack Weld
Nuts in Place
1/2" x 1.5" Bolts
1/4" x 3" Flat Bar
(Yellow Zinc Grade 8, Snug-Tight)
(c) Exploded view (d) Plan view of splice sleeve
Figure 2.6 Connection details of Specimens R2 and R3

22
3 ft 3 ft

(a) Elevation (b) Exploded view

(c) Detail A

(d) Detail B (e) Detail C
23
3
2
"
4
0
"
2
4
"
2
4
"
Apply 5 Layers of FRP,
Oriented Longitudinally
Taper 2 Layers
Every 4 inches
Oriented Transversely Overtop
the Longitudinal Fiber
Section A-A
3
2
"
4
0
"
2
4
"
2
4
"
Oriented Longitudinally
Taper 2 Layers
Every 4 inches
Oriented Transversely Overtop
the Longitudinal Fiber
Section A-A

(a) Elevation
APPLY 5 LAYERS OF THE
SCH-41-2X SYSTEM (SECOND),
ORIENTED LONGITUDINALLY
APPLY 2 LAYERS OF THE
SCH-41-2X SYSTEM (LAST),
ORIENTED TRANSVERSELY
0-1/2" GAP, TYP.
22"
21.25"
APPLY 1 LAYER OF THE TYFO
WEB SYSTEM (FIRST) TO ACT AS A
DIELECTRIC BARRIER TO THE STEEL
6" OVERLAP, TYP.

(b) Cross section (Section A-A)

24
2.3.3 Alter native Connection Details
Modified Sleeve Connection Details (Specimens A1 to A4)
Specimen A1, shown in Figure 2.9(a), used the same connection details as
Specimen C3, except that no weld was specified on the top of the fillet-welded joint
between the upper pipe and the upper ring; only the bottom side was welded. Specimen
A2, shown in Figure 2.9(b), also eliminated the top-side fillet weld like Specimen A1.
But slot welds were not used to avoid potential cracking at these locations. Instead, the
gap between the two pipes in the sleeve region was filled by grout after the upper pipe
was inserted into the lower pipe. Furthermore, the lower pipe-to-upper ring field fillet
weld was eliminated.
The connection details of Specimens A3 and A4 are shown in Figure 2.10. Each
specimen used a total of twelve gusset plates; see Figure 2.10(b) for the gusset details.
Both specimens had similar connection details, but the weld detail in the sleeve region of
each specimen was slightly different. While Specimen A3 used no weld at the lower
pipe-to-upper ring joint, Specimen A4 used no weld at the upper pipe-to-upper ring joint.
Cone Transition Connection Details (Specimens A5 to A6)
Specimens A5 and A6 incorporated a steel conical section between the upper and
lower pipes. Both specimens were identical, except that Specimen A6 received a post-
weld peening treatment. The connection details are provided in Figure 2.11. Complete-
joint-penetration (CJ P) welds were used to connect the cone to the pipes.
Tapered Slip-Joint (Specimen A7)
Specimen A7, shown in Figure 2.12, incorporated a tapered slip-joint between the
two pipes. The upper pipe was slipped into the lower pipe until a target slip engagement
length (=38 in) was achieved. No welds were needed to connect the two pipes.
Bolted Match-Plate Connection Details (Specimen A8)
Specimen A8 incorporated a bolted match-plate connection between the upper
and lower pipes. The connection details are shown in Figure 2.13. Each pipe was CJ P-
welded to a circular match plate in the shop. Two pipe sections were then connected by
25
pretension bolting of two match plates in the field. No field welding is required for this
type of connection.

Slot Weld
6-1/2
1" Thk Guide Ring
1" Thk Lower Ring
3/16
3/8
1/4
1/4
1/2
5/8" Thk Upper Ring
36
No Weld at Top
No Weld
No Weld at Top
3/8
1/4
1/4
Grout
No Slot Weld

(a) Specimen A1 (b) Specimen A2
Figure 2.9 Connection details of Specimens A1 and A2

1" Thk Lower Ring
1/4
1/4
5/8" Thk Upper Ring
Gusset, Typ
3/8
3/8
3/16
3/16
Peening
Specimen A4
Only
Specimen A3 Only
Slot Weld
1" Thk Guide Ring
(12 Total)
1" Thk Lower Ring
1/4
1/4
5/8" Thk Upper Ring
Gusset, Typ
3/8
3/8
3/16
3/16
Peening
Specimen A4
Only
Specimen A3 Only
Slot Weld
1" Thk Guide Ring
(12 Total)

(a) Specimens A3 and A4 (b) Gusset details
26


15'-8"
1'-7
5
8
"
1'-2
1
2
"
12'-6"
8'-6"

SECTION
BASE SECTION
3/8" FORMED PLATE
TOP SECTION
3/8" FORMED PLATE
O.D. UPPER OUTER PIPE 18"
O.D. LOWER INNER PIPE 17.25"
O.D. UPPER OUTER PIPE 18.89"
O.D. LOWER INNER PIPE 18.14"
SECTION

(a) Elevation (b) Slip-joint
Figure 2.12 Connection details of Specimen A7

27

R1'-1"
1" BOLT ASTM A325
1" PLATE
1
1
8
"
R1'-3"
(Pretensioned)
R1'-1"
1" BOLT ASTM A325
1" PLATE
1
1
8
"
R1'-3"
(Pretensioned)

(a) Plan view (b) Weld details
Figure 2.13 Connection details of Specimen A8
2.4 Loading Scheme
The cyclic testing was conducted in a displacement-controlled mode. Since it was
not possible to measure the nominal strain on the upper pipe section at the upper ring
level of the sleeve connection due to stress concentration, a free-end displacement target
for each specimen was determined based on the recorded strains on an upper pipe section
away from the connection such that a nominal stress range of 30 ksi (15 ksi) was
applied to the critical upper pipe section (see Figure 2.14). (The instrumented section was
selected to be sufficiently away from the critical section such that it would remain in the
elastic range.) The measured actuator forces applied to the specimens are provided in
Appendix A. Testing was conducted with a loading frequency ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 Hz.
2.5 Instr umentation and Cr ack Inspections
The specimens were instrumented with uni-axial and rosette strain gages to
measure local strains. Figure 2.15 shows a sample instrumentation layout. Strain gage
locations varied for each test specimen. During testing, strains were recorded at interval
(e.g., every 5,000 loading cycles) and strain variations at critical welded joints were
monitored to identify any cracking. Dye penetrant, magnetic particle, and ultrasonic
testing inspections were also conducted by a local inspection company.
28
L2 L1
L1 L2
Nominal Flexural Strain Profile
Strain Gages
Ac
top
Ac
bot
) 10 ( 1034
29000ksi) ( E
30ksi) (
6
target

=
=
=
=
target
2 1
1 bot top
0

L L
L
2

A
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
+
=
0
L
1
L
2
L
1
L
2
L2 L1
L1 L2
Nominal Flexural Strain Profile
Strain Gages
Ac
top
Ac
bot
) 10 ( 1034
29000ksi) ( E
30ksi) (
6
target

=
=
=
=
target
2 1
1 bot top
0

L L
L
2

A
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
+
=
0
L
1
L
2
L
1
L
2

Figure 2.14 Loading scheme

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

W
a
l
l
18"x0.375" Pipe
22"x0.375"
Pipe
3'-1
1
2
" 6"
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
Section 4 Section 1
North
8'-6" 12'-6"
21'
1'-3"
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

3
Section 3 Section 2
S10
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2
1'-3"
0.375" (Typ.)

Figure 2.15 Sample instrumentation layout (Specimen A1)
29
3. TEST RESULTS OF CONVENTIONAL CONNECTIONS
3.1 Intr oduction
Figure 2.3 shows the details of the four conventional welded sleeve connection
specimens. The testing had the following objectives:
- to evaluate the fatigue resistance and the associated failure mode for comparison
with field observations,
- to provide a baseline for comparison with alternative connection details,
- to evaluate the effectiveness of using a guide ring,
- to evaluate the effectiveness of peening as a post-weld treatment.
3.2 Conventional Connection Details without Guide Ring
3.2.1 Specimen C1
Testing of Specimen C1 was completed at 22,000 cycles when the crack length
was about 14 in long (or 25% of the circumference). The specimen cracked at the upper
pipe-to-upper ring fillet welded joint. The observed crack on the top side of the specimen
is shown in Figure 3.1. No cracks were observed on the bottom side. The crack initiated
at the toe of the fillet weld between the upper pipe and the upper ring, and then
propagated into the upper pipe wall thickness along the weld toe circumference.
Strain range variations measured near the crack location are shown in Figure 3.2;
the strain gage locations are provided in Figure 3.1. The strain range began to decrease at
early stage, which indicates that the crack may have initiated very early. The strain range
gradually decreased as the crack propagated. To monitor the strain concentration at the
weld toe, Specimen C1 was instrumented with a strip gage, which was a series of five
closely spaced gages. As shown in Figure 3.1(a), one strip gage (S1 to S5) was placed on
the upper pipe right above the upper ring, and another strip gage (S6 to S10) was placed
on the lower pipe right below the upper ring. The centerline of each strip gage was
located 3/8 in away from the weld toe. The strain profiles measured by the strip gages are
shown in Figure 3.3. For comparison purposes, the nominal strain range (=1034 c)
based on beam theory was also shown. High strain readings (with large strain gradient)
30
on the upper pipe near the weld toe are clearly shown, while the lower pipe had low
strains. This experimental evidence on stress concentration is consistent with that
reported in a finite element analysis (Sim and Uang 2008).

Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Upper
Ring
Crack Location
(Fillet Weld Toe)
S1 to S5
S6 to S10
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Upper
Ring
Crack Location
(Fillet Weld Toe)
S1 to S5
S6 to S10

(a) Crack location

0.375
S1 to S5
Upper Ring
Upper Pipe
0.375
S1 to S5
Upper Ring
Upper Pipe

(b) Close-up view of crack
Figure 3.1 Specimen C1: observed crack
31
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Number of Cycles (x 1000)
S1
S2
S4
S5
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S3 Malfunctioned
Nominal Strain Range
at Sleeve Connection
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S1
S2
S4
S5
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S3 Malfunctioned
Nominal Strain Range
at Sleeve Connection

Figure 3.2 Specimen C1: measured strains near crack location

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Distance from Fillet Weld Toe (in.)
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S1
S2
S4
S5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S1
S2
S4
S5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
(a) on upper pipe (b) on lower pipe
Figure 3.3 Specimen C1: strain profiles near fillet weld toe (at 1500 cycles)
3.2.2 Specimen C2
Specimen C2 was nominally identical to Specimen C1, except that Specimen C2
received a post-weld peening treatment at the upper pipe-to-upper ring fillet-welded joint.
If properly applied, peening the toe of a weld termination can effectively increases the
fatigue resistance by producing beneficial compressive residual stresses (Fisher et. al
1998). However, it was realized after testing that peening had not been performed
according to specifications in AWS D.1.1, Section 5.27 (AWS 2006). Therefore, the
effect of peening on this specimen might be minimal.
Testing of Specimen C2 was completed at 17,000 cycles when the maximum
crack length was about 15 in. Specimen C2 showed the same crack pattern as that
observed in Specimen C1. Figure 3.4 shows the crack at the upper pipe-to-upper ring
fillet welded joint. While Specimen C1 cracked on the top side only, Specimen C2
32
cracked on both the top and bottom sides of the pipe. Strain range variations measured
near the crack locations on both the top and bottom sides are shown in Figure 3.5. The
strain ranges began to decrease between 10,000 and 15,000 cycles, which indicates that
the cracks initiated during this period.

Crack
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Upper Ring
S5 (on Top Side)
S6 (on Bottom Side)
0.375
Crack
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Upper Ring
S5 (on Top Side)
S6 (on Bottom Side)
0.375


0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
S5
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
S5


33
3.3 Conventional Connection Details with Guide Ring
3.3.1 Specimen C3
Specimen C3 was nominally identical to Specimen C1, except that Specimen C3
had a guide ring. Testing of Specimen C3 was completed at 17,000 cycles when the crack
length was about 10 in. Specimen C3 had the same crack pattern as that observed in both
Specimens C1 and C2. Figure 3.6 shows the crack observed at the upper pipe-to-upper
ring fillet welded joint on the top side of the specimen. Strain range variations measured
near the crack location, shown in Figure 3.7, showed the similar trend as that observed in
Specimen C2.

Crack Location
(Fillet Weld Toe)
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Upper Ring
S2
0.375
Crack Location
(Fillet Weld Toe)
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Upper Ring
S2
0.375

(a) Crack location

Upper Pipe
Crack at Weld Toe
Upper Ring
Fillet Weld
Upper Pipe
Crack at Weld Toe
Upper Ring
Fillet Weld

34
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S2
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S2
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)

3.3.2 Specimen C4
As described in Section 2.3.1, inspections of this specimen detected a misplaced
weld due to a fabrication error, so it was decided to detach the gusset plates from the
upper ring. This modified connection is similar to, but not exactly the same as that of
Specimen C3.
Testing of Specimen C4 was completed at 25,000 cycles when the maximum
crack length was about 14 in. Specimen C4 also showed the similar crack pattern as that
observed in the previous specimens. Figure 3.8 shows the crack location. Both the top
and bottom sides cracked, but the crack length on the bottom side (3 in at 25,000 cycles)
was shorter when compared with the top side crack (14 in long at 25,000 cycles). Strain
range variations measured near the crack location on the top side are shown in Figure 3.9.

1
S11
S13
Crack Location
(Fillet Weld Toe)
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Ring
Top Edge Line
1
S11
S13
Crack Location
(Fillet Weld Toe)
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Ring
Top Edge Line

35
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S11
S13
0 10 20 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S11
S13

3.4 Compar ison of Test Results
All four conventional welded sleeve connection specimens showed the same crack
pattern in which the crack initiated at the toe of the fillet weld between the upper pipe and
the upper ring due to high strain concentration. The cracks then propagated into the upper
pipe section and along the weld toe circumference. The crack pattern from testing was
similar to that observed in the failed sign structures like that shown in Figure 1.3(a). The
use of a guide ring had an insignificant effect on the fatigue resistance of the critical joint.
This experimental evidence is consistent with the finding from a finite element analysis
(Sim and Uang 2008).

0
50
100
150
200
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

C
y
c
l
e
s

(
x

1
0
3
)
C1
Specimen No.
C2 C3 C4
0
50
100
150
200
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

C
y
c
l
e
s

(
x

1
0
3
)
C1
Specimen No.
C2 C3 C4

Figure 3.10 Comparison of fatigue resistance of conventional connections

36
4. TEST RESULTS OF REPAIRED CONNECTIONS
4.1 Intr oduction
Each of the four tested conventional sleeve connection specimens was repaired by
various methods to evaluate their effectiveness. One specimen was repaired twice,
resulting in a total of five repaired specimens (R1 to R5, see Table 2.1). Figures 2.4 to 2.8
depict the design of these repaired specimens.
4.2 Gusset Repair : Specimen R1
After repair, the tested specimen C1 is designated as R1 (see Figure 2.4). The
damaged fillet weld between the upper pipe and upper ring was repaired first, and then
gusset plates were added to strength the connection. Specimen R1 represents a common
means of attempting to strengthen or repair sleeve connections by installing gussets in the
field. Figure 4.1 shows the connection with the designation of six gussets. Along the long
side of the gusset plate, the fillet weld at the tip was not wrapped around for three gussets
(Gussets 1, 2, and 6), while the other three gussets (Gussets 3, 4, and 5) were wrapped
around. On the short side, fillet weld was wrapped around for all specimens.
Specimen R1 cracked early during testing at the short side (i.e., horizontal side
when the specimen is in an upright position) of the gusset weld. Figure 4.2 shows the
crack observed at the bottom gusset (Gusset 4) fillet weld at 4,200 cycles. The top gusset
(Gusset 1) fillet weld also showed a similar crack pattern. The crack first initiated at the
wrap-around location, and propagated along the gusset weld length. After the welds along
the short side of the gusset failed, the connection behaved like a conventional sleeve
connection, and additional cracks similar to those observed in Specimens C1 to C4
occurred at the toe of the fillet weld between the upper pipe and the upper ring. Testing of
Specimen R1 was completed at 13,000 cycles when the crack length of the upper pipe-to-
upper ring fillet weld reached about 20% of the upper pipe circumference.
Note that the location of the weld fracture is different from that commonly
observed in the field, as shown in Figure 1.3(c). This is mainly due to the very short
horizontal weld length for connecting the gussets to the upper ring.

37

West
2
1
6
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Upper Ring
Gusset
Designation
Fillet Weld
Not Wrapped Around
for Gussets 1, 2, and 6
West
2
1
6
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Upper Ring
Gusset
Designation
Fillet Weld
Not Wrapped Around

(a) Top side

Lower Pipe
Upper Ring
Upper Pipe
3
West
4
5
Fillet Weld
Wrapped Around
Lower Pipe
Upper Ring
Upper Pipe
3
West
4
5
Fillet Weld
Wrapped Around

(b) Bottom side
Figure 4.1 Specimen R1: gusset connection before testing

38
Upper Ring
Gusset
Upper Ring
Gusset

Upper Ring Upper Ring

(a) View from East (b) View from West
Figure 4.2 Specimen R1: crack at fillet weld of Gusset No. 4
4.3 Steel-Jacketed and Cement-Gr outed Repair
4.3.1 Intr oduction
Two tested conventional sleeve connections (Specimens C2 and C3) were repaired
by a steel jacketed grouting scheme. It has been shown in an analytical study (Sim and
Uang 2008) that the bending moment from the upper pipe is not completely transferred as
a force couple (see Figure 1.2) to the lower pipe. As well as aiming to reduce the stress
concentration at the upper ring welded joint, the intent of this strengthening scheme was
to transfer the moment through bearing action of the filler material between the pipes.
After the testing of Specimens R2 and R3, another weakness in the existing slot-
welded location surfaced. Therefore, Specimen R3 was again repaired using Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) material, and the twice-repaired specimen is designated as R5.
4.3.2 Specimen R2
Specimen R2 was the repaired Specimen C3 [see Figure 2.5(a) and Figure 2.6].
After testing of Specimen C3, the damaged fillet weld between the upper pipe and the
upper ring was first repaired, and the specimen was strengthened by steel jacketing and
grouting using cement (Rapid SetCement All Grout), a non-shrinking, multipurpose
grout which can attain a 2,000 psi compressive strength in one hour.
39
Figure 4.3 shows the repair procedure. After the weld repair, a steel collar was
first installed and welded to the upper ring. The steel collar consisted of two separate
halves, and these were connected by snug-tight bolts. The gap between the steel collar
and the upper pipe was then filled with grout. After grouting, a cap ring consisting of two
separate half pieces was welded to the collars to seal the grout. The cap ring pieces were
first fillet-welded to the steel collars but not to the upper pipe, and then they were
connected together by partial-joint-penetration groove welds.
Although cracks did not occur at the upper pipe-to-upper ring welded joint with
the grout-repair scheme, fatigue cracks occurred at the next weak locations as the number
of cycles imposed on the specimen increased. Figure 4.4 shows the crack locations
observed during testing. As shown in Figure 4.5(a), the crack first occurred at the existing
fillet weld between the lower pipe and the upper ring on the bottom side. As the testing
continued, another crack on the lower pipe at the slot weld location of the lower ring was
observed as shown in Figure 4.6. Near the end of the testing, a small crack at the lower
pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld on the top side was observed, as shown in Figure 4.5(b).
Strain range variations measured near the cracked fillet welds are shown in Figure 4.7;
see Figure 4.5 for the strain gage locations.
Testing of Specimen R2 was completed at 155,000 cycles when the length of the
crack in Figure 4.6 propagated to 16 in. After testing, the steel jackets were removed to
examine the condition of the grout (see Figure 4.8). A visual inspection showed that the
quality of grout remained sound with no crushing observed. A steel piece at the slot weld
location was also cut out for examination (see Figure 4.9). The fractured surface showed
that the crack may have initiated at the ends of the slot weld and propagated outward
through the lower pipe wall thickness.
Figure 4.10 shows the measured flexural strain profiles on the upper pipe and the
steel collar, respectively. As shown in the plots, the strains on the upper pipe gradually
decreased from the grout cap level to the upper ring level, while the strain on the steel
collar gradually increased. Figure 4.10(a) shows that the jacketed grout was effective in
reducing the stresses transferred to the existing upper ring weld. Therefore, the crack
potential at this welded joint was significantly reduced.

40

(a) Weld Repair

(b) Install steel collars and
bolt together

(c) Groove weld of steel
collar to upper ring

(d) Grouting (e) Install cap cover ring
Figure 4.3 Specimen R2: repair procedure
41
(3) Last location where crack was observed
(crack at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld)
(1) Location where crack was first observed
(2) Location where crack was next observed
(crack at slot weld at lower ring level)
Top Edge Line
Slot Weld Orientation
(at Lower Ring Level)
45, Typ.
South
Lower Pipe
Steel
Collar
axis of bending
(3) Last location where crack was observed
(1) Location where crack was first observed
(2) Location where crack was next observed
(crack at slot weld at lower ring level)
Top Edge Line
45, Typ.
South
Lower Pipe
Steel
Collar
axis of bending

Figure 4.4 Specimen R2: crack locations

Lower Pipe
Crack Length =17
at 150,000 Cycles
Steel Collar
U
p
p
e
r R
in
g
0.375
S24
Lower Pipe
Crack Length =17
at 150,000 Cycles
Steel Collar
U
p
p
e
r R
in
g
0.375
S24

(a) Bottom side

Lower Pipe
Crack Length =3
at 155,000 Cycles
Steel Collar
U
p
p
e
r R
in
g
0.375
S16
Lower Pipe
Crack Length =3
at 155,000 Cycles
Steel Collar
U
p
p
e
r R
in
g
0.375
S16

(b) Top side
Figure 4.5 Specimen R2: cracks at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld
42
C
r
a
c
k

L
e
n
g
t
h

~
1
6

i
n
.

a
t

1
5
5
,
0
0
0

C
y
c
l
e
s

Crack
C
r
a
c
k

L
e
n
g
t
h

~
9

i
n
.

a
t

1
3
2
,
0
0
0

C
y
c
l
e
s

Slot Weld Location
C
r
a
c
k

L
e
n
g
t
h

~
1
6

i
n
.

a
t

1
5
5
,
0
0
0

C
y
c
l
e
s

Crack
C
r
a
c
k

L
e
n
g
t
h

~
9

i
n
.

a
t

1
3
2
,
0
0
0

C
y
c
l
e
s

Slot Weld Location

Figure 4.6 Specimen R2: crack on lower pipe at slot weld location

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S24
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S16
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S24
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S16

Figure 4.7 Specimen R2: measured strains near lower pipe-to-upper ring welded joint

43
Cut-Out Location
Grout
Cut-Out Location
Grout

Figure 4.8 Specimen R2: grout condition after testing

Lower
Ring
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Slot Weld
Lower
Ring
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Slot Weld

(a) Cut-out piece

Slot Weld Slot Weld

(b) Fracture surface
Figure 4.9 Specimen R2: fracture surface at slot weld location
44
0 10 20 30
0
200
400
600
800
1000
5
10
15
20
25
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
x, Distance from Upper Ring (in.)
x
U
p
p
e
r

R
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
G
r
o
u
t

C
a
p

L
e
v
e
l
Location for Plots
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
k
s
i
)
L
o
w
e
r

P
i
p
e
U
p
p
e
r

P
i
p
e
0 10 20 30
0
200
400
600
800
1000
5
10
15
20
25
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
x
U
p
p
e
r

R
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
G
r
o
u
t

C
a
p

L
e
v
e
l
Location for Plots
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
k
s
i
)
L
o
w
e
r

P
i
p
e
U
p
p
e
r

P
i
p
e

0 10 20 30
0
200
400
600
800
1000
5
10
15
20
25
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
Location for Plots
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
x
U
p
p
e
r

R
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
G
r
o
u
t

C
a
p

L
e
v
e
l
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
k
s
i
)
L
o
w
e
r

P
i
p
e
U
p
p
e
r

P
i
p
e
0 10 20 30
0
200
400
600
800
1000
5
10
15
20
25
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
Location for Plots
Top Surface
Bottom Surface
x
U
p
p
e
r

R
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
G
r
o
u
t

C
a
p

L
e
v
e
l
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
k
s
i
)
L
o
w
e
r

P
i
p
e
U
p
p
e
r

P
i
p
e

(a) Strain profiles on upper pipe (b) Stain profiles on steel collar
Figure 4.10 Specimen R2: measured flexural strain distribution in grout region
4.3.3 Specimen R3
Specimen R3 was the repaired Specimen C2 [see Figure 2.5(b) and Figure 2.6].
After testing of Specimen C2, the damaged fillet weld between the upper pipe and the
upper ring was first repaired. The slot weld was ground flush for an UT inspection; the
inspection revealed no rejectable weld cracks. Then the specimen was strengthened by
steel jacketing and grouting. The same repair procedure as used in Specimen R2 was
applied, except that Specimen R2 was grouted above the upper ring only while Specimen
R3 was grouted in the sleeve region as well. Two holes ( 2 in diameter) on the upper
ring were drilled to accommodate the grouting in the sleeve region.
Figure 4.11 shows the crack location. The crack occurred on the lower pipe at the
slot weld location of the lower ring. Strain range variations near the cracked slot weld are
shown in Figure 4.12. Specimen R2 was subjected to a large number of cycles (155,000
cycles), however the slot-weld crack had extended to a length of 5 in. at only 40,000
cycles. To better utilize this specimen, it was decided to stop the testing of R3 at that
point such that the potential of using fiber reinforced polymer composites to repair the
cracked slot welds could be evaluated in Specimen R5.
45
Steel Collar
Lower
Pipe
Crack at Slot
Weld Location
T
o
p

E
d
g
e

L
i
n
e
4 in
axis of
bending
Steel Collar
Lower
Pipe
Crack at Slot
Weld Location
T
o
p

E
d
g
e

L
i
n
e
4 in
axis of
bending

Crack
S15
S13
1(Typ)
Crack
S15
S13
1(Typ)
(a) Crack location (b) Close-up view of crack
Figure 4.11 Specimen R3: observed crack on slot weld

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S15
S13
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S15
S13
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)

Figure 4.12 Specimen R3: measured strains near crack location
4.4 Steel Cone and Cement Gr out Repair : Specimen R4
Specimen R4 was the repaired Specimen C4 [see Figure 2.5(c) and Figure 2.6].
After testing of Specimen C4, the damaged fillet weld between the upper pipe and upper
ring was first repaired, and the specimen was strengthened by a steel cone and cement
grouting above and below the upper ring, respectively. Figure 4.13 shows the repair
procedure. The gap between the pipes above the guide ring in the sleeve region was first
filled by grout; small holes on the upper ring were drilled to accommodate the grouting.
The gap between the pipes below the guide ring was also filled by grout; small holes on
the lower pipe right below the guide ring were also drilled to accommodate the grouting.
46
A steel cone (A36 steel) was then installed and welded to the upper ring and the upper
pipe. The steel cone consisted of two separate half pieces, and they were connected by
welding (see Figure 2.5). Figure 4.14 shows the connection after repair.
Figure 4.15 shows the crack locations observed during testing. As shown in
Figure 4.16(a), the crack (on the bottom side) first occurred at the existing fillet weld
between the upper ring and the lower pipe. As the testing continued, another crack on the
lower pipe at the slot weld location was observed, as shown in Figure 4.17(a). Testing of
Specimen R4 was completed at 105,000 cycles. At the end of testing, the length of the
crack in Figure 4.16(a) propagated to 30 in and the length of the crack in Figure 4.17(b)
was 11 in.
After testing, the specimen was cut to examine the inside, as shown in Figure
4.18. The grout remained intact and its condition was good. The fracture surfaces on the
slot weld are shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.20. A visual inspection on the fracture surface
indicated that the crack initiated at both ends of the slot weld and propagated outward
through the lower pipe wall thickness. This slot-weld failure appeared to be caused by
high bending stresses on the lower pipe together with a geometric imperfection resulting
from the slot weld itself.

47

(a) Weld repair

(b) Grouting between upper and guide rings

(c) Grouting between guide and lower rings (d) Installation of steel cone
Figure 4.13 Specimen R4: repair procedure
48
PJ P Weld
Upper Pipe
Cone
Cone
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Cone
Lower Pipe
PJ P Weld
Upper Pipe
Cone
Cone
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Cone
Lower Pipe

Figure 4.14 Specimen R4: connection after repair

(2) Crack at Slot
Weld Location
Cone
Lower
Pipe
(1) Crack at Lower Pipe-
to-Upper Ring Fillet Weld
(Bottom Side Only)
5 in
axis of
bending
(2) Crack at Slot
Weld Location
Cone
Lower
Pipe
(1) Crack at Lower Pipe-
to-Upper Ring Fillet Weld
(Bottom Side Only)
5 in
axis of
bending
5 in
axis of
bending

Figure 4.15 Specimen R4: crack locations
49
Crack
S18
Ring
Lower
Pipe
Cone
0.375
Crack
S18
Ring
Lower
Pipe
Cone
0.375

(a) Crack location

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S18
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S18

(b) Measured strains
Figure 4.16 Specimen R4: crack at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld

50
Crack
S29
1 in
1 in
South
S25
Crack
S29
1 in
1 in
South
S25

(a) Crack location

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S29
S25
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S29
S25

Figure 4.17 Specimen R4: crack on lower pipe at the slot weld location

51
Cone
Top Side
during Testing
Lower
Pipe
Guide Ring Level
Lower Ring Level
Detail 1
Grout
Detail 2
Cut-out
Piece
Cone
Top Side
during Testing
Lower
Pipe
Guide Ring Level
Lower Ring Level
Detail 1
Grout
Detail 2
Cut-out
Piece

Figure 4.18 Specimen R4: view of inside after cut

Ring
Slot Weld
Upper Pipe
Grout
Ring
Slot Weld
Upper Pipe
Grout

Figure 4.19 Specimen R4: fracture surface (Detail 1)
52
Outer Surface of Lower Pipe
Slot Weld
Outer Surface of Lower Pipe
Slot Weld

Figure 4.20 Specimen R4: fracture surface (Detail 2)
4.5 FRP Repair : Specimen R5
Observations made from testing of Specimens R2 and R3 revealed two additional
weaknesses in existing welds: the slot welds connecting the lower ring to the lower pipe
and the fillet weld connecting the upper ring to the lower pipe, both made in the field. For
Specimen R2, cracking first occurred in the fillet weld, followed by cracking in the slot
weld. Specimen R3 first experienced cracking in one slot weld in the early stage of
testing. It was then decided to stop the testing at 40,000 cycles and repair the specimen
with Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites to prevent further cracking in the slot
weld. The repaired specimen is designated as R5. See Figure 2.8 for the strengthening
scheme and location.
Figure 4.21 shows the crack location and measured strain. The crack (on the top
side) occurred at the lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld. Strains on the FRP material
were also monitored during testing to identify any failure. Figure 4.22(a) shows the
rosette strain gage locations; the gages in parentheses were located on the bottom side.
The measured strains are provided in Figure 4.22(b). As shown, the strain ranges on the
FRP remained constant during testing, which indicates no failure of the FRP.
53
Testing of Specimen R5 was completed at 120,000 cycles when the length of the
crack shown in Figure 4.21(a) was about 20 in. After testing, the FRP was removed [see
Figure 4.23(a)] to examine the pre-existing crack. As shown in Figure 4.23(b), the
Magnetic Particle (MT) test showed that the pre-existing crack length remained at 5 in.,
indicating no further crack growth after the FRP composites were applied to the
specimen. The bottom slot weld was also examined and no cracks were observed.

Crack
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Upper Ring
S11
0.375
Crack
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Upper Ring
S11
0.375

(a) Crack location

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S11
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S11

Figure 4.21 Specimen R5: crack at lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld

54
3 ft
R1b
(R2b)
R1y
(R2y)
R1r
(R2r)
3 ft
R1b
(R2b)
R1y
(R2y)
R1r
(R2r)

(a) Strain gage locations

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
R1b
R2b
R2r, R1r
R2y, R1y
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
R1b
R2b
R2r, R1r
R2y, R1y

Figure 4.22 Specimen R5: measured strains on FRP

55
FRP
Upper
Pipe
Upper Ring
Cut-out Location
FRP
Upper
Pipe
Upper Ring
Cut-out Location

(a) Specimen cut

FRP
Crack Indication by
Magnetic Particle Test
FRP
Crack Indication by
Magnetic Particle Test

(b) Crack inspection
Figure 4.23 Specimen R5: slot weld crack examination after FRP removal
56
4.6 Compar ison of Test Results
Figure 4.24 compares the fatigue resistance of the repaired specimens. For
comparison purposes, the mean failure cycle from the conventional sleeve connection
specimens is also shown. The failure cycles were 13,000 (Specimen R1: gusset repair),
155,000 (Specimen R2: grout repair), 40,000 (Specimen R3: grout repair), 105,000
(Specimen R4: cone and grout repair), and 160,000 (Specimen R5: FRP repair). Since the
testing of Specimen R3 was completed early for the FRP repair, this specimen is
excluded in the comparison of fatigue resistance.
Specimen R1 showed early cracking at the gusset-to-upper ring welded joint. After
the gusset welds failed, the specimen experienced the same crack pattern as that observed
in the conventional connection specimens. The fatigue resistance of this specimen is
similar to that of the conventional connection (see Figure 3.10).
Specimens R2 and R4 performed better, showing significant improvements in
fatigue resistance. Cement grouting (above the upper ring) with steel jackets in Specimen
R2, and the use of a steel cone (above the upper ring) in Specimen R4 effectively
prevented cracks at the upper pipe-to-upper ring fillet welded joint. However, cracks
occurred at the next weak locations (i.e., the lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld and the
slot welds). As demonstrated in the testing of Specimens R3 and R4, grouting below the
upper ring was not effective in preventing cracks at the next weak locations, although the
fatigue life of the entire connection was significantly improved.
Based on visual inspections of the fractured surface of the lower pipe at the slot-
weld locations, the cracks appeared to be caused by high bending stresses on the lower
pipe with cracking initiated from the inner surface of the pipe (likely at the slot-weld
terminations of stress concentration). This observation indicates that the slot welds, when
used, should be oriented such that the bending stresses at the slot-weld locations are
minimized. As shown in Figure 4.4, the slot welds of Specimen R2 were located away
from the top and bottom sides, where the highest bending stresses on the pipe section
were developed in testing. The slot-weld crack length at 132,000 cycles was 9 in (see
Figure 4.6). On the other hand, Specimen R3 experienced cracking at the slot weld in the
early stage of testing (the crack length was 5 in at 40,000 cycles), possibly due to a
different slot-weld orientation. As shown in Figure 4.11(a), the slot weld of Specimen R3
57
was located near the top side, where the bending stress was higher. In actual applications,
the optimal slot weld locations are 45 degrees from the design longitudinal and transverse
axis of the cross section.
The cracks on the lower pipe-to-upper ring joint occurred at the fillet weld, not in
the base metal. The failure of this fillet weld also did not significantly contribute to the
reduction of the specimen global stiffness during testing. Since the failure was in the fillet
weld, the fatigue resistance of this detail can be increased with a larger size of fillet weld
in repair.
Specimen R5, which used FRP as a repair scheme for the slot welds, was effective
in enhancing the fatigue resistance. An inspection after the FRP removal indicated no
further growth of the pre-existing crack.

0
50
100
150
200
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

C
y
c
l
e
s

(
x

1
0
3
)
R1
Specimen No.
R2 R3 R4 R5
G
u
s
s
e
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
G
r
o
u
t

R
e
p
a
i
r

(
T
e
s
t
i
n
g

S
t
o
p
p
e
d

E
a
r
l
y
f
o
r

F
R
P

R
e
p
a
i
r
)
G
r
o
u
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
C
o
n
e

&

G
r
o
u
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
F
R
P
R
e
p
a
i
r
mean failure cycle
of conventional
sleeve connections
0
50
100
150
200
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

C
y
c
l
e
s

(
x

1
0
3
)
R1
Specimen No.
R2 R3 R4 R5
G
u
s
s
e
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
G
r
o
u
t

R
e
p
a
i
r

(
T
e
s
t
i
n
g

S
t
o
p
p
e
d

E
a
r
l
y
f
o
r

F
R
P

R
e
p
a
i
r
)
G
r
o
u
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
C
o
n
e

&

G
r
o
u
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
F
R
P
R
e
p
a
i
r
mean failure cycle
of conventional
sleeve connections

Figure 4.24 Comparison of fatigue resistance of repair connections

58
5. TEST RESULTS OF ALTERNATIVE CONNECTIONS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION
5.1 Modified Sleeve Connection Details
5.1.1 Specimen A1
The connection details of Specimen A1 were the same as those of Specimen C3,
except that no weld was specified on the top of the fillet-welded joint between the upper
pipe and the upper ring; only the bottom side is welded. See Figure 2.9(a) for the
connection details. The intent of this detail was to eliminate the high stress concentration
at the top fillet weld of the upper ring. The connection of the specimen is shown in Figure
5.1.
Up to 45,000 cycles, no fatigue cracks were detected at the fillet weld of the upper
pipe-to-upper ring joint based on the recorded strains near the weld and UT inspection.
However, top and bottom slot welds at the lower ring level experienced cracking with a
crack length of about 4 in at 45,000 cycles, as shown in Figure 5.2. To further test the
robustness of the proposed one-sided fillet weld detail at the upper ring, the damaged slot
welds were first repaired. Then 1/2-in.-thick, 7-in.-diameter, circular patch plates were
welded over each of the four slot welds. The slot-weld repair procedure is described in
Figure 5.3. The welds of two patch plates (on the bottom and east sides) received post-
weld peening per AWS D1.1. The peening was performed along the toe of the fillet welds
with a needle peener at 45 degrees and at a rate of 1 in. per second for at least four passes
along the length of the entire fillet welds (see Figure 5.4). To evaluate the effectiveness
of peening, the other two patch plate fillet welds (on top and west sides) were not peened.
Testing was continued after the repair of the damaged slot welds. A crack at the
top patch plate fillet weld with no peening was observed (see Figure 5.5), while no cracks
were observed on the bottom patch plate weld with peening. The crack (length ~ 2 in at
110,000 cycles) initiated and propagated along the toe of the weld, and extended further
into the pipe section. See Figure 5.7(a) for the strain range variations measured near the
top patch plate.
59
The top and bottom slot welds at the guide ring location were also cracked. Figure
5.6(a) shows the crack pattern viewed from outside, while Figure 5.6(b) shows the view
from inside once the damaged portion was cut out after testing. The slot weld crack
initiated somewhere along the weld on the inner surface of the lower pipe and propagated
outward into the pipe section. The crack propagated slowly and the crack length at
110,000 cycles was 3 in.
Testing was completed at 150,000 cycles when the crack at the top patch plate
weld propagated to 18 in. After testing, the specimen was cut at two locations to examine
the conditions of the slot welds and the fillet weld at the upper ring. Figure 5.8(b) shows
a gap (~ 3/16 in) between the lower ring and the lower pipe. By eliminating the fillet
weld on the upper side of the upper ring, the most commonly observed fracture in the
upper pipe did not occur. Furthermore, the only fillet weld which was placed on the
underside of the upper ring remained intact and showed no crack by visual inspection and
recorded strains [see Figure 5.7(a)].

Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Guide Ring Level
Lower Ring Level
North
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
0.375
S1 (on Top Side)
S4 (on Bottom Side)
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Guide Ring Level
Lower Ring Level
North
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
0.375
S1 (on Top Side)
S4 (on Bottom Side)

Figure 5.1 Specimen A1: connection
60
Crack
North
Crack
North

Crack Indicated by Dye Penetrant
North
Crack Indicated by Dye Penetrant
North

(a) Top side (b) Bottom side
Figure 5.2 Specimen A1: cracks on slot welds at lower ring (at 45,000 cycles)

(a) Grind crack (b) Repair weld (c) Grind surface (d) Weld patch plate
Figure 5.3 Specimen A1: repair procedure of damaged slot welds

61
Bottom
East
Bottom
East

Figure 5.4 Specimen A1: needle peening of patch plate weld

North
S28
0.375
Crack
North
S28
0.375
Crack

Figure 5.5 Specimen A1: crack at patch plate location

62
Lower Pipe
Slot Weld
Crack
North
Lower Pipe
Slot Weld
Crack
North

(a) View from outside

Crack
Guide Ring
Upper
Pipe
Lower
Pipe
Crack
Guide Ring
Upper
Pipe
Lower
Pipe

(b) View from inside
Figure 5.6 Specimen A1: crack on slot weld location at guide ring level
63
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
Testing after Slot Weld Repair
S28
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
Testing after Slot Weld Repair
S28
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S1
S4
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S1
S4
(a) Near patch plate (see Figure 5.5) (b) Near upper ring (see Figure 5.1)
Figure 5.7 Specimen A1: measured strains

Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Figure 5.8(b)
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Figure 5.8(b)

(a) Cut locations
Gap ~ 3/16
Lower
Pipe
Lower
Ring
Upper
Pipe
Patch Plate
Slot Weld
Gap ~ 3/16
Lower
Pipe
Lower
Ring
Upper
Pipe
Patch Plate
Slot Weld

(b) View of inside
Figure 5.8 Specimen A1: examination of inside after testing
64
5.1.2 Specimen A2
Testing from Specimen A1 showed that the fatigue resistance of the proposed
one-sided weld detail at the upper ring was significantly improved compared to the
conventional two-sided weld detail. Nevertheless, the fatigue resistance of Specimen A1,
like some of the grout-repaired specimens, was hampered by the low fatigue resistance of
the slot welds. Therefore, for Specimen A2 it was decided to keep the same upper ring
weld detail as in A1, but the slot weld detail was eliminated and replaced by filling grout
between the two pipes; see Figure 2.9(b) for the detail of the connection.
The simulated field assembly procedure is shown in Figure 5.9. The upper pipe
was first inserted into the lower pipe. The upper ring was then only tack-welded to the
lower pipe to secure the pipes in the proper position. The gap between the two pipes was
filled with grout to transfer the moment through the bearing action in the sleeve region.
Holes on the upper ring were drilled to pour grout.
Compared to the conventional sleeve connection test specimens (C1 to C4),
Specimen A2 performed well. The small tack welds between the lower pipe and the
upper ring broke in the early stage (before 5,000 cycles), but these non-structural welds
were not expected to affect the performance of the specimen. Testing of Specimen A2
was completed at 180,000 cycles when both the recorded strains (see Figure 5.10) and
UT inspection indicated that cracks might have developed at the upper ring fillet weld.
After testing, the specimen was cut for further examination. The lower pipe was
first removed to examine the grout condition. As shown in Figure 5.11(a), cracks on the
grout were observed, but the overall integrity of the grout remained intact. The grout was
then removed [see Figure 5.11(b)] to examine the fillet weld. A visual inspection
revealed a 15-in long crack, which initiated at the root of the fillet weld and propagated
through the upper pipe wall thickness (see Figure 5.12). The location and the length of
the crack identified from the cut piece were consistent with the UT inspection result
conducted before the piece was cut out.

65

(a) Upper pipe inserted into lower pipe

(b) Tack welding of lower pipe to upper ring

(c) Grouting between upper and lower pipes (d) Connection after assembly
Figure 5.9 Specimen A2: assembly procedure
66
S3 (Top Side)
S4 (Bottom Side)
0.375
S3 (Top Side)
S4 (Bottom Side)
0.375

(a) Connection with strain gage location

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S4
S3
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S4
S3

(b) Strain range variations
Figure 5.10 Specimen A2: measured strains near upper pipe-to-upper ring

67
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Pipe
Lower Ring
Upper Ring Grout
Crack
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Pipe
Lower Ring
Upper Ring Grout
Crack

(a) Examination of grout

Remove
d Grout
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Pipe
Remove
d Grout
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Pipe

(b) Pipes after grout removal
Figure 5.11 Specimen A2: disassembly after testing

68
Crack
Location
Upper Ring
Upper Pipe
Cross Section
Crack
Location
Upper Ring
Upper Pipe
Cross Section

(a) Crack location

Upper
Pipe
Upper Ring
Fillet Weld
Crack
Gap
Upper
Pipe
Upper Ring
Fillet Weld
Crack
Gap

(b) Cross sectional view of crack
Figure 5.12 Specimen A2: crack at upper pipe-to-upper ring welded joint
69
5.1.3 Specimen A3
Specimen A3 was similar to the gusset-strengthened Specimen R1, except that no
weld was specified at the lower pipe-to-upper ring joint. Post-weld peening treatment at
the upper pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld was also applied to this specimen. See Figure
2.10 for the connection details. Since the upper ring was not connected to the lower pipe,
the bending moment of the upper pipe was expected to transfer to the lower pipe through
the slot welds at the guide and lower ring levels.
This specimen failed after testing to 55,000 cycles. Cracks at six slot-weld
locations were observed (see Figure 5.13). The typical crack pattern (on the top-west slot
weld at the lower ring level) is shown in Figure 5.14. The measured strains on the outer
surface of the lower pipe near the cracked locations are provided in Figure 5.15.
After testing, the specimen was cut for further examination (see Figure 5.16).
Figures 5.17 and 5.18 show the cracks identified at the upper ring-to-guide ring fillet
welded joint. The fracture surface in Figure 5.19 revealed that the crack initiated at the
weld toe, then propagated inward through the pipe wall thickness. It is also noted that the
crack initiation locations were not at the extreme fibers (i.e., top and bottom sides of the
specimen) but near the slot welded regions of high stress concentration. In general, the
crack pattern observed at this location was similar to that of the conventional connection
specimens.
Figures 5.20 and 5.21 show the fractured surface at the slot weld locations at the
lower ring level. A visual inspection showed that the cracks also initiated from the inner
surface of the lower pipe and propagated outward through the pipe wall thickness.

70
Crack Length at 55,000 Cycles
Top-East: 2
Top-West: 8
Bottom-East: 2.5
Bottom-West: 6
South
Top-East: 3
Top-West: 3
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
60
S13
S15
S17 S19
Top-East: 2
Top-West: 8
Bottom-East: 2.5
Bottom-West: 6
South
Top-East: 3
Top-West: 3
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
60
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
60
S13
S15
S17 S19

Figure 5.13 Specimen A3: crack locations on slot welds

South
Crack
South
Crack

Figure 5.14 Specimen A3: typical crack pattern at slot weld location

71
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S13
S15
S17
S19
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S13
S15
S17
S19

Figure 5.15 Specimen A3: measured strains near crack locations
Bottom Edge Line
during Testing
Top Edge Line
during Testing
Slot Weld
(Bottom-West)
Slot Weld
(Top-West)
Guide Ring Level Lower Ring Level
Detail 1
Detail 2
Detail 3
Detail 4
Bottom Edge Line
during Testing
Top Edge Line
during Testing
Slot Weld
(Bottom-West)
Slot Weld
(Top-West)
Guide Ring Level Lower Ring Level
Detail 1
Detail 2
Detail 3
Detail 4

Figure 5.16 Specimen A3: specimen cut after testing

72
Guide Ring
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Crack
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Guide Ring
Slot Weld
(Bottom-West)
Bottom Edge Line
Guide Ring
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Crack
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Guide Ring
Slot Weld
(Bottom-West)
Bottom Edge Line

Figure 5.17 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 1

73
Crack at Fillet-Weld Toe
Lower
Pipe
Upper Pipe
Crack
Guide
Ring
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Slot Weld
(Top-East)
Slot Weld
(Top-West)
Top Edge Line
View from Inside
Crack at Fillet-Weld Toe
Lower
Pipe
Upper Pipe
Crack
Guide
Ring
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Slot Weld
(Top-East)
Slot Weld
(Top-West)
Top Edge Line
View from Inside

Figure 5.18 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 2 (guide ring level)

Lower
Pipe
Upper
Pipe
Upper Pipe
(Cut-Out Piece)
Guide
Ring
Semi-Elliptical Beach Marks
Slot Weld
Crack Initiation
Locations
Slot Weld
Lower
Pipe
Upper
Pipe
Upper Pipe
(Cut-Out Piece)
Guide
Ring
Semi-Elliptical Beach Marks
Slot Weld
Crack Initiation
Locations
Slot Weld

Figure 5.19 Specimen A3: fracture surface at Detail 2 (guide ring level)
74
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Lower
Ring
Slot Weld (Bottom-West)
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Lower Pipe
Lower
Ring
Slot Weld (Bottom-West)
Lower Pipe

Figure 5.20 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 3 (lower ring level)

Figure 5.21 Specimen A3: crack at Detail 4 (lower ring level)
75
5.1.4 Specimen A4
Specimen A4 is similar to Specimen A3, but weld detail in the sleeve region was
slightly different. While Specimen A3 used no weld at the lower pipe-to-upper ring joint,
Specimen A4 used no weld at the upper pipe-to-upper ring joint. See Figure 2.10 for the
connection details. The intent of this connection was to eliminate the fatigue problem at
the upper pipe-to-upper ring welded joint.
Testing of Specimen A4 was stopped at 130,000 cycles when cracks were
observed at various locations (see Figure 5.22). The specimen first cracked at the short
side of the gusset weld, as shown in Figure 5.23. A total of ten gussets out of twelve
failed in very early stage. For example, three top gusset (Gussets 1, 2, and 12) fillet welds
completely failed before 3,000 cycles, and three bottom gusset (Gussets 6, 7, and 8) fillet
welds also completely failed before 7,500 cycles.
As the testing continued, the specimen experienced cracking on the lower pipe at
the top and bottom slot weld locations of the lower ring (see Figure 5.24), followed by
the same crack pattern at the guide ring level as well. Near the end of the testing, another
cracking on the upper pipe at the tip of the long-side gusset weld was observed, as shown
in Figure 5.25.

South
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
60
(2) Crack Length at 130,000 Cycles
Top: 15
Bottom: 8
Top: 3
Bottom: 3
(1) Top Three Gusset Welds:
Completely Failed before
3,000 Cycles
Bottom Three Gusset Welds:
7,500 Cycles
Top Gusset 1: 3
Bottom Gusset 8: 3
1
2
3
12
11
Note: number in parentheses refers
to the sequence of occurrence
South
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
60
(at Guide and Lower
Ring Levels)
60
Top: 15
Bottom: 8
Top: 3
Bottom: 3
(1) Top Three Gusset Welds:
3,000 Cycles
Bottom Three Gusset Welds:
7,500 Cycles
Top Gusset 1: 3
Bottom Gusset 8: 3
1
2
3
12
11
Note: number in parentheses refers
to the sequence of occurrence

Figure 5.22 Specimen A4: crack locations
76
1
2
3
12 1
2
3
12

Crack
S1
1
Upper
Ring
Crack
S1
1
Upper
Ring

(a) Crack locations


0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S1
Indication of Crack Development
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S1
Indication of Crack Development

(c) Measured strains
Figure 5.23 Specimen A4: crack pattern at gusset-to-upper ring fillet weld

77
Crack
S9
S11
Crack Length ~ 3
at 45,000 Cycles
Crack Length ~ 15
at 130,000 Cycles
South
Crack
S9
S11
Crack Length ~ 3
at 45,000 Cycles
Crack Length ~ 15
at 130,000 Cycles
South

(a) Crack on top slot weld at lower ring level

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S9
S11
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S9
S11

Figure 5.24 Specimen A4: crack pattern at slot weld location

78
1
2
12
S5 (on Top Gusset 1)
S6 (on Bottom Gusset 7)
Crack Location
Lower Pipe
1
2
12
S5 (on Top Gusset 1)
S6 (on Bottom Gusset 7)
Crack Location
Lower Pipe

(a) Crack location

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
S5
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
S5

Figure 5.25 Specimen A4: crack pattern at gusset-to-upper pipe welded joint

79
5.2 Cone Tr ansition Connection Details
5.2.1 Intr oduction
One major weakness of the conventional sleeve connection is the stress
concentration at the upper ring level. To provide a smooth stress flow from the upper to
the lower pipes, two specimens (A5 and A6) incorporating conical transition connections
were tested. Figure 2.11 shows the connection details. Unlike conventional sleeve
connections, this connection type requires complete-joint-penetration (CJ P) groove welds
with (steel) backing left in place at both ends of the cone.
5.2.2 Specimen A5
Testing of Specimen A5 was completed at 130,000 cycles. Figure 5.26 shows the
observed crack. The crack occurred at the upper pipe-to-cone CJ P welded joint. Figure
5.26(b) shows the strain range variations measured on the outer surface of the upper pipe
and the cone near the crack location. It is noted that strain ranges increased at around the
100,000 cycle mark, which indicates the crack initiated from the root of the CJ P weld and
propagated outward through the pipe wall thickness.
The specimen was cut to examine the inside after testing. A visual inspection of
the crack from the inside indicated that the crack indeed initiated from the inner surface
of the pipe at the CJ P weld root (see Figure 5.27)

Upper Pipe
Cone
S2
S6
0.375
0.375
Crack
CJ P Weld
Upper Pipe
Cone
S2
S6
0.375
0.375
Crack
CJ P Weld
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S2
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S2
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S6
(a) Crack at upper pipe-to-cone CJ P weld (b) Measured strains
Figure 5.26 Specimen A5: observed crack

80
Cone
Upper
Pipe
Steel Backing
Cone
Upper
Pipe
Steel Backing

(a) Cut-out piece

Cone
Steel
Backing
Upper Pipe
Crack
Cone
Steel
Backing
Upper Pipe
Crack

Figure 5.27 Specimen A5: crack view from inside

81
5.2.3 Specimen A6
Specimen A6 was nominally identical to Specimen A5, except that the former
received a post-weld peening treatment at the CJ P welds. Testing of Specimen A6 was
completed at 75,000 cycles. Figure 5.28 shows the observed cracks. While Specimen A5
cracked at the upper pipe-to-cone CJ P weld (top side only), Specimen A6 cracked at the
lower pipe-to-cone CJ P weld (top and bottom sides, see Figure 5.28). Figure 5.28(c)
shows the strain range variations measured on the outer surface of the lower pipe and the
cone near the crack location. The plots show a similar trend as seen in Specimen A5,
which indicates the crack developed at the root of the CJ P weld and propagated outward.

Lower Pipe
Cone
Crack
S7
S8
Lower Pipe
Cone
Crack
S7
S8

(a) Crack at lower pipe-to-cone CJ P weld (top side)
Cone
Lower Pipe
Crack
S13
S14
Cone
Lower Pipe
Crack
S13
S14

(b) Crack at lower pipe-to-cone CJ P weld (bottom side)
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S14
S8
S7
S13
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S14
S8
S7
S13

(c) Measured strains
Figure 5.28 Specimen A6: observed cracks
82
5.3 Taper ed Slip Joint: Specimen A7
The tapered slip joint connection has been used successfully in other industries.
One advantage of this connection is that no welded joint is required, thereby completely
eliminating any fatigue problem associated with welded joints. One specimen (A7)
incorporating this connection type was tested; see Figure 2.12 for the connection details.
The two pipe sections were delivered unassembled to UCSD and were assembled
in the laboratory using come-along hoists, as shown in Figure 5.29. The assembly
achieved a target slip engagement length of 3-2 per design. During testing, the upper
pipe was observed to slip further into the lower pipe by about 2.
The testing was stopped at 200,000 cycles. As expected, Specimen A7 did not
sustain any damage. After testing, the specimen was cut to examine the inside of the
pipes (see Figure 5.30). A visual inspection revealed no evidence of damage.

Figure 5.29 Specimen A7: assembly using come-along hoists

83
Slip Engagement
A
A
Upper
Pipe
Lower
Pipe
Slip Engagement
A
A
Upper
Pipe
Lower
Pipe

(a) Specimen cut

(b) View A-A
5.4 Bolted Match-Plate Connection: Specimen A8
Specimen A8 was the only specimen which used high-strength bolts to connect
the upper and lower pipes together. The connection detail in Figure 2.13 shows that each
pipe was connected to a matching plate by a CJ P weld.
Specimen A8 failed early and the testing was stopped at 15,000 cycles. As shown
in Figure 5.31, the crack occurred on the upper pipe-to-match plate welded joint. After
testing, the specimen was cut to examine the fracture surface. Figure 5.32 shows the cut-
out location and the inside view of the upper pipe-to-match plate connection. The piece in
Figure 5.32(b) was also cut to expose the fracture surface. Based on a visual inspection
84
on the fracture surface and the recorded strains near the crack location, the crack
appeared to initiate from the weld toe, and then propagated inward through the upper pipe
wall thickness.

Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Match
Plates
0.375
Typ.
5
S5
5
S2
S6
Crack
Lower Pipe
Upper Pipe
Match
Plates
0.375
Typ.
5
S5
5
S2
S6
Crack

(a) Crack at upper pipe-to-match plate CJ P weld

0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S2
S6
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S5
0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S2
S6
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
a
n
g
e

(
x

1
0
-
6
)
S5

Figure 5.31 Specimen A8: observed crack

85
Upper
Pipe
Match
Plate
Upper
Pipe
Match
Plate

(a) Specimen cut

Backing
Ring
Match Plate
Match Plate
Upper Pipe
Tack Weld,
Typ.
See the Next Figure
Backing
Ring
Match Plate
Match Plate
Upper Pipe
Tack Weld,
Typ.
See the Next Figure

(b) Upper pipe-to-match plate connection
86
Match Plate
Upper Ring
Match Plate
Steel Backing
Match Plate
Upper Ring
Match Plate
Steel Backing

Figure 5.33 Specimen A8: fracture surface

87
6. ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
6.1 Intr oduction
In this test program, testing of the specimens was stopped when the maximum
crack length was about 20% to 25% of the pipe circumference. Defining this level of
cracking as failure, the global stiffness of the specimen was reduced by about 5%. Figure
6.1 compares the relative fatigue resistance of all test specimens. Since the testing of
Specimen R3 was stopped early for an FRP repair, this specimen is excluded in the
comparison of fatigue resistance. Also, Specimen A7 was stopped at 200,000 cycles
without any sign of damage. In general, the repaired and alternative connection
specimens improved the fatigue life significantly compared to the conventional
specimens.
It should be noted that the failure cycles of the test specimens do not represent the
number of loading cycles that can cause failure of sign structures in the field. Because of
significant variations in the locations and physical dimensions of cantilevered sign
structures, the actual number of loading cycles experienced by existing structures is
difficult to predict. In the test program, a high nominal stress range of 30 ksi (i.e., 15
ksi) at the sleeve connection was imposed to expedite the testing such that the relative
fatigue resistance of different connection types could be evaluated. For practical design,
however, the stress range chosen for testing and the number of failure cycles for each test
specimen should be extrapolated with caution.
88
0
50
100
150
200
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

C
y
c
l
e
s

(
x

1
0
3
)
C1
Conventional
Connections
Repaired
Connections
F
R
P
R
e
p
a
i
r
Alternative New Connections
C2 C3 C4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
G
u
s
s
e
t
-
R
e
p
a
i
r
B
o
l
t
e
d

M
a
t
c
h
-
P
l
a
t
e
Specimen No.
+
+ M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d

S
l
e
e
v
e

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
n
e

T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
T
a
p
e
r
e
d

S
l
i
p
-
J
o
i
n
t
G
r
o
u
t
-
R
e
p
a
i
r
0
50
100
150
200
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

C
y
c
l
e
s

(
x

1
0
3
)
C1
Conventional
Connections
Repaired
Connections
F
R
P
R
e
p
a
i
r
Alternative New Connections
C2 C3 C4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
G
u
s
s
e
t
-
R
e
p
a
i
r
B
o
l
t
e
d

M
a
t
c
h
-
P
l
a
t
e
Specimen No.
+
+ M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d

S
l
e
e
v
e

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
n
e

T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
T
a
p
e
r
e
d

S
l
i
p
-
J
o
i
n
t
G
r
o
u
t
-
R
e
p
a
i
r

Figure 6.1 Summary of fatigue resistance
6.2 Comparison of Fatigue Resistance
6.2.1 Specimens C1 to C4
All four conventional sleeve connection specimens showed the same crack pattern
as that commonly observed in the field. The use of a guide ring in Specimens C3 and C4
had an insignificant effect on the fatigue resistance. Specimen C2 received a post-weld
peening treatment at the critical location. Unfortunately, it was determined after testing
that the peening on this specimen did not conform to AWS specifications and, therefore,
no conclusions about the effectiveness of peening can be made.
The upper and lower pipe diameters of the test specimens were 18 in and 22 in,
respectively. Defining the diameter ratio (DR) as:
pipe lower
pipe upper
D
D
DR (6.1)
The DR of the test specimens was 0.82. Although specimens with other DR were
not tested, the effect of DR on the fatigue life can be evaluated from case study of failed
sign structures.
89
Table 6.1 summarizes the data of five failed sign structures (Sim and Uang 2008).
Based on this limited database, the trend in Figure 6.2 shows that the fatigue life has a
tendency to decrease with the DR ratio. In other words, if the test specimens had a
smaller diameter ratio, the fatigue life could have possibly been further decreased.
The averaged failure cycle of the conventional sleeve connection specimens is
about 20,000 with a standard deviation of 4,000 cycles. The fatigue test results were
compared with the SN curves of the AASHTO fatigue design specifications (AASHTO
2010). In the specifications, various details are categorized by fatigue resistance (see
Figure 6.3). The exponential equation of the line is:
A S N
m
r
(6.2)
The above equation can be rewritten as
r
S m A N log log log (6.3)
where N =number of cycles of failure, A =constant dependent on the detail category (see
Table 6.1), S
r
=applied constant amplitude stress range; and m =3 (inverse of the slope
of the SN curve). The horizontal dashed line of each category is a lower-bound stress
range (threshold) below which fatigue crack growth will not occur under constant
amplitude loading. This limit is known as the Constant Amplitude Fatigue Limit (CAFL)
and differs for different details (see Table 6.2).
With a nominal stress range of 30 ksi, the predicted numbers of cycles at failure
(based on the lower bound of the S-N curves) are 14,500 for design category E and
40,750 for design category E. This implies that the fatigue resistance of the conventional
sleeve connection details appears to fall in design category E (at best), which is the
lowest fatigue category.
The CAFL, which is a permissible stress range for an infinite-life fatigue design,
for detail category E has a low value of only 2.6 ksi (see Table 6.2). This implies that if
the stress range at the critical sleeve connection of a sign structure is above 2.6 ksi,
cracking could occur. Connor (2006) performed field measurements on high-mast
lighting towers, and reported that the measured stress range in vortex shedding was
approximately 2 ksi. Even if this low level of stress range is applied to existing sign
structures, cracks still could occur; however, no similar field measurements on sign
structures have been made.
90

Table 6.1 Case study: failure life depending on pipe diameter ratio (Sim and Uang 2008)
Case Height (ft) Location
Diameter Ratio
(D
upper
/ D
lower
)
Year to Failure
1 100 IL
0.6
(18 in. / 30 in.)
6
2 100 GA
0.73
(22 in. / 30 in.)
7
3 80 TX
0.75
(18 in. / 24 in.)
9
4 80 CA
0.8
(24 in. / 30 in.)
12
5 80 OH
0.8
(24 in. / 30 in.)
13

Table 6.2 Detail category constant and threshold (AASHTO 2010: Section 6.6)
Detail Category Constant, A (10
8
, ksi
3
) Threshold (ksi)
A 250.0 24.0
B 120.0 16.0
B 61.0 12.0
C 44.0 10.0
C 44.0 12.0
D 22.0 7.0
E 11.0 4.5
E 3.9 2.6

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Diameter Ratio
Y
e
a
r

t
o

F
a
i
l
u
r
e
Diameter ratio of
test specimens
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Diameter Ratio
Y
e
a
r

t
o

F
a
i
l
u
r
e
Diameter ratio of
test specimens

Figure 6.2 Effect of pipe diameter ratio on fatigue life
91
Number of Cycles (X 1,000,000)
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
k
s
i
)
A
B
B'
C&C'
D
E
E'
A
B
B'&C'
C
D
E
E'
0.1 1 5 10 100
5
10
20
30
50
100
200
300
500
1
3
5
10
30
50

Figure 6.3 S-N curves (AASHTO 2010)
6.2.2 Specimen R1 (Gusset-Repair )
Specimen R1 (gusset-repair) failed early during testing at only 13,000 cycles.
Thus, the fatigue resistance of this specimen is similar to that of the conventional
specimens. While field observation showed that cracks of a vertical gusset-strengthened
connection occurred mostly at the tip of the gusset-to-upper pipe weld [see Figure 1.3(c)],
Specimen R1 failed at the gusset-to-upper ring fillet weld. The latter failure mode is
likely due to the very short weld length between the gussets and the upper ring. In the
situation where a longer weld length (with the space allowance due to a larger difference
in the upper and lower pipe diameters) could be used, the fatigue resistance of the gusset
weld may have been somewhat improved. However, the beneficial effect might not be
significant considering the observed crack pattern in the field [see Figure 1.3(d)],
although C-channels (not vertical gussets) were used in the case.
6.2.3 Specimens R2 and R4 (Gr out- or Cone-Repair )
Specimens R2 and R4 performed relatively well, showing a significant
improvement in fatigue life. The failure cycles were 155,000 and 105,000 for Specimens
R2 and R4, respectively. Compared with the conventional specimens, the fatigue life was
increased by about five to eight times.
Cement grouting (above the upper ring) with steel jackets in Specimen R2 and the
use of a steel cone (above the upper ring) in Specimen R4 effectively prevented cracks at
92
the upper pipe-to-upper ring fillet welded joint. Although cracking at this location was
successfully avoided with this repair scheme, fatigue cracks occurred at the next weak
locations (i.e., the lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld and slot welds) as the number of
cycles imposed to the specimen increased. But it should be noted again that an arbitrary
and high stress range was used in this test program, and the failure cycles should be
extrapolated for practical design with caution. For these two specimens, the nominal
stress ranges imposed to the lower pipe section of the above two mentioned welds were
about 20 ksi and 24 ksi, respectively. With regard to existing sign structures in the field,
the actual stress ranges at these locations are unknown, but probably are significantly
lower than those used in testing.
6.2.4 Specimens R5 (FRP-Repair )
Specimen R5, which used FRP as a repair (or strengthening) scheme for the slot
welds, also performed relatively well. This repair scheme effectively prevented further
crack growth at the slot weld locations, although the lower pipe-to-upper ring fillet weld
eventually cracked. The failure cycle of this specimen was 160,000 (i.e., a fatigue life
improvement of about eight times compared to the conventional specimens).
6.2.5 Specimens A1 and A2 (Modified Sleeve Connection)
Each specimen used a one-sided (underside) fillet-welded joint between the upper
pipe and the upper ring. For Specimen A2, the slot welds were also eliminated and
replaced by grout filled between the two pipes. These specimens performed relatively
well, showing a significant improvement in fatigue life. The failure cycles were 150,000
and 180,000, respectively.
During testing of Specimen A1, the damaged slot welds were repaired with
circular patch plates such that the fatigue life of the one-sided fillet weld could be
evaluated. The fillet welds of two patch plates received post-weld peening treatment per
AWS D1.1 (AWS 2006), while the fillet welds of the other two patch plates were not
peened. Test results showed those fillet welds without peening cracked, but no cracks
were observed on those welds with peening. With this very limited test database (only
one specimen tested), peening, if properly applied, might increase the fatigue life for
93
repair of damaged slot welds by circular patch plates. But using thicker patch plates may
not be desirable due to high stress concentration.
6.2.6 Specimens A3 and A4 (Modified Sleeve Connection)
Both specimens, which used slightly modified sleeve connection details with
welded gussets, also increased the fatigue life compared to the conventional specimens.
The failure cycles were 55,000 and 130,000, respectively. Although fatigue cracks at the
upper pipe-to-upper ring fillet welded joint were avoided, theses specimens experienced
cracks at various locations. For example, by not welding the upper ring to the lower pipe,
the effect of bending from the upper pipe is directly transferred to the guide and lower
rings and distressed the slot welds, which reduced the number of cycles to failure.
6.2.7 Specimens A5 and A6 (Cone Tr ansition)
These specimens, which incorporated smooth, conical transition connections
between the pipes, performed relatively well. Unlike conventional sleeve connections,
this connection type required complete-joint-penetration (CJ P) groove welds, and the
cracking occurred at the CJ P welds. The failure cycles were 130,000 and 75,000,
respectively. But the quality of CJ P welds including (steel) backing requires more
attention. Specimen A6 received peening, but the failure cycle is much lower than that
(A5) without peening. The variation of failure cycles for connections with CJ P welds also
appears higher.
6.2.8 Specimen A7 (Taper ed Slip-Joint)
This specimen, which does not incorporate welded joints, did not crack during
testing. The testing was stopped at 200,000 cycles with no damage to the specimen. This
connection scheme has been used successfully in other industries, and compares
favorably with the other alternatives tested.
6.2.9 Specimen A8 (Bolted Match-Plate Connection)
This specimen cracked very early at the CJ P weld. The failure cycle was only
15,000 cycles (i.e., fatigue resistance similar to the conventional specimens). The crack,
observed at the CJ P weld between the upper pipe and the match plate, may have occurred
due to a local (secondary) deformation of the match plate.
94
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the fatigue test results of seventeen full-scale specimens (four
conventional, five repaired, and eight alternative connection details), the following
summary and conclusions can be made.
(1) Fatigue tests of four conventional welded sleeve connection specimens (Specimens
C1 to C4) demonstrated that the most critical location (i.e., the upper pipe-to-upper
ring fillet welded joint) had a relatively low fatigue resistance. All four specimens
showed the same crack pattern, in which the crack initiated at the toe of the top fillet
weld due to high strain concentration. This crack pattern was consistent with that
commonly observed in the field in cases where structural damage exists. The use of
a guide ring had a minimal effect on the fatigue resistance. This experimental
evidence is also consistent with the finding from a finite element analysis (Sim and
Uang 2008). The upper pipe-to-lower pipe diameter ratio of the test specimens was
0.82. Although specimens with other diameter ratios were not tested, the trend
evaluated from case studies of failed sign structures showed that the fatigue life of
sleeve connection tends to decrease with a smaller diameter ratio.
(2) One gusset-repaired specimen (Specimen R1) showed a similar fatigue resistance to
that of the conventional connection specimens. While field observations showed that
cracks occur most often at the top end of the gusset-to-upper pipe welds, this
specimen failed at the gusset-to-upper ring fillet weld, probably due to the very short
weld length for connecting the gussets to the upper ring. When the difference in the
upper and lower pipe diameters is larger (i.e., a smaller diameter ratio) such that a
longer gusset weld length could be used, the fatigue resistance of the gusset weld
may be somewhat increased, but the beneficial effect might not be significant. After
the gusset welds failed, the specimen experienced the same crack pattern as that
observed in the conventional connection specimens.
(3) Steel-jacketed cement grouting (Specimen R2), or the addition of a welded steel
cone above the upper ring (Specimen R4) effectively prevented cracks at the upper
ring welds. These two specimens showed significant improvements in fatigue life.
Although cracking at this location was successfully avoided with this repair scheme,
95
fatigue cracks occurred at the next weak locations (i.e., the lower pipe-to-upper ring
fillet weld and slot welds) as the number of cycles imposed on the specimen
increased.
(4) Testing of two specimens (A1 and A2) showed that the fatigue resistance of the
upper ring welded joint can be significantly improved when a bottom-only, one-
sided fillet welded joint is used instead of the two-sided fillet welded joint typical of
the common connection (see Figure 2.9 for the details). This experimental evidence
is consistent with a finite element analysis finding, which showed that the stress
concentration on the bottom side of the upper ring was significantly lower (Sim and
Uang 2008).
(5) Once the fatigue resistance of the upper pipe-to-upper ring welded joint is improved
by using either the one-sided weld detail (for new construction) or a scheme like
steel-jacketed cement grout (for repair or retrofit), testing showed the next weak
point at the slot welds of lower ring and, if used, the guide ring. Cracks usually start
from the ends of the slot welds, propagating through the lower pipe wall thickness
from the weld root, where the weld profile is irregular and difficult to control during
welding (see Figure 5.21 for example).
For new construction, one way to avoid this problem is to use grout between the
upper and lower rings to replace slot welds. If the conventional slot-welded detail is
still to be used, research indicates that a minimum of four slot welds should be used
such that these welds are oriented at 45 degrees from the longitudinal and transverse
directions of the sign structure. With this configuration, the bending stress effect
from not only the governing design wind but also the potential vortex shedding is
minimized.
For repair or retrofit, testing showed that the grouting scheme mentioned above still
could not prevent the slot welds from cracking. Using patch plates (see Figures 5.3
and 5.4) to repair or strengthen existing slot welds should be used with caution, as
these patch plates also serve as a stress raiser. Peening the patch plate welds may be
helpful, but this testing program did not provide enough evidence to justify it.
(6) Instead of using a sleeve connection, having a welded conical piece provides a much
smoother stress flow between the upper and lower pipes. But this connection type
96
requires complete-joint-penetration (CJ P) groove welds at both ends of the cone,
with at least one of these welds being performed in the field (see Figure 2.11).
Testing of two specimens (A5 and A6) showed good relative performance. But the
variation in fatigue resistance also appeared high (see Figure 6.1), probably because
the quality of CJ P welds is more sensitive to weld workmanship.
(7) One specimen (A8) which incorporated a bolted match-plate connection performed
relatively poorly. Unless very thick match plates are used, high stress concentration
due to out-of-plane deformation of the match plate would cause the CJ P weld
between the pipe and match plate to fail prematurely.
(8) A tapered slip-joint connection specimen (A7), which requires no welded joints
between the pipe sections, substantially outperformed all of the other specimens
tested. This connection scheme has been used successfully in other industries, and
compares favorably with the other alternatives tested.
Finally, it should be noted that the failure modes and fatigue resistance reported in
this study were based on a stress range ( 15ksi) at the connection. This relatively high
stress range was chosen to expedite the testing program such that the relative
performance of different connections could be evaluated. Only one stress range was used
for all connection types tested, with no attempt to establish the S-N curves. While it is
believed that the relative fatigue resistance derived from this test program is valid for
other stress ranges, extrapolation of the test results for design implication also requires
that a more realistic assessment of the vortex-shedding induced bending stresses at the
location of interest be conducted through wind tunnel or field measurements of actual
sign structures.
97
REFERENCES
(1) AASHTO. (2010). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5
th
Ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
(2) American Welding Society (2006), Structural Welding Code-Steel AWS
D1.1/D1.1M, Miami, FL.
(3) Connor, R. J ., and Hodgson, I. C. (2006). Field instrumentation, testing, and
long-term monitoring of high-mast lighting towers in the State of Iowa. Final
Report, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA.
(4) Fisher, J . W., Kulak, G. L., and Smith, Ian F. C. (1997) A Fatigue Premier for
Structural Engineers. ATLSS Report No. 97-11, Advanced Technology for
Large Structural Systems, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
(5) J ones, B. (1998). Engineering Sign Structures, ST Publications, Inc., Cincinnati,
OH.
(6) Sim, H. B., and Uang, C. M. (2008). Evaluation of sleeve connection of
cantilevered steel sign structures. Report No. SSRP-08/11, Dept. of Structural
Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego.

98
APPENDIX A. APPLIED LOAD TIME HISTORY

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,500 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 20,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,500 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 20,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
Figure A.1 Specimen C1: Applied load time history

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 15,200 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 2,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 15,200 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 2,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 14,800 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 14,800 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

99
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 300 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 23,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 300 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 23,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 600 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 12,800 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 600 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 12,800 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
Figure A.5 Specimen R1: Applied load time history

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 800 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 150,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 800 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 150,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

100
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 900 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 35,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 900 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 35,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 2,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 90,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 2,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 90,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 110,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 110,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

101
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 900 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 140,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 900 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 140,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
Figure A.10 Specimen A1: Applied load time history

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 3,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 170,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 3,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 170,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 2,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 51,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 2,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 51,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

102

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 3,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 120,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 3,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 120,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 3,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 110,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 3,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 110,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 5,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 70,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 5,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 70,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

103

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 5,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 195,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 5,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 195,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,500 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 13,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 1,500 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)
-10
-5
0
5
10
(at 13,000 cycles)
Time
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

UCSD Final Report Isa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCSD Final Report Isa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

You might also like