SECTION TI: FATIGUE DESIGN UA-SCOPE cma ‘his Section contains provisions forthe fatigue design This Section focuses on fatigue, which s defined herein as of eaatilevered and noncantlevered steel and akiminum — the damage that may result in facture after a suficent structural suppor fo highway signs minies, and allie numberof stress fctatons. Its bascd on NCHRP Report signals 412, Fatigue Resistant Design of Cntlevered Signal, Sign ‘nd Light Supports (Kaczinski etal, 1998), NCHRP Report 469, Farigue-Resistant Design of Canilever Signal, Sign, and Light Supports (Dexter and Ricker, 2002), NCHRP. Report 494, Siructural Supports for Highway Signs, Laninaires, and Traffe Signals (Fouad etal, 2003), NCHRP ‘Web Only Document 176: Cost iffeerive Connection Details for Highway Sign, Lauminaire and Trafic Signal Structure, Final Report of NCHRP Project 10-70 (Ray etal, 2011), and NCHRP Report 718, Development of Fatigue Loading and Design Methodology for High Mast Lighting Towers (Connor et a. 2012) 11.2—DEFINITIONS Constant-Amplitude Fatigue Threshold (or Limit) (CAFT oF CAFL)—Nominal stress range below which a particular fatigue detail can withstand an infinite number of repetitions without fatign failure Fatigue—Damage resulting in fracture caused by stress fuctuatons, Jn-Plane Bonding—Bending in-plane for the main member (column). At the connection of an arm or arm's built-up box toa vertical coum, the inplane bending stress range in the column is a result of galloping or truck-induced gust loads on the arm and/or arm's attachments Limit State Wind Lood Effect —A specifically defined loading criteria, Looe Bearing Auachment—Atachment to main member where thete is alo ‘primary stress range in the main member. range in the attachment ise in addition to any ‘High-Level Luminaire Support—Truss-type or pole-ype tower that provides lighting at heights greater than 55 f, typically using four to twelve luminaires. High-Mast Lighting Tower (HIMLCT}—Another description for a pole-type high-level luminaire suppor ‘onload: Rearing Artachment—Attachment to main member wire the only significant stress range is the primary stress i the main member. Out-of-Plane Bending—Bending out-of-plane for the main member (column). At the connection ofan arma or arm's built-up ‘box toa vertical column, the out-of-plane hending stress range inthe eshumin is a result of natural wind-gust loads on the arm and the arm's attachmens, Prossure Range—Pressure duc toa limit state wind lond effect that produces a stress range. Siress Ramge—The algebraic difference between extreme stresses used in fatigue design, Typical Light Support—yertical light support less than $$ 7 tll. Yearly Mean Wind Velociny—Longe-term average of the wind speeds fora given area, met © 2015 oy the mercan Assocation of Stat Hiya and Tranponstion FFs ‘All igh reseed. Dict sa Volstion ope12. 113-NOTATION A= finite life constant (ksi*) (11.9.3) p, Coc = boltoiteleratio, “= (11,93.1) D, Cx = appropriate drag coeficient from Section 3 for given attachment or member (11.7.1.2) (C11.7.1.2) (11.7.1) (C117.13) (11.72) (C172) b, Con = opening rato, 7 (11.93.1)(C11.93.1) Dr diameter of the fastener (bot) circle through in the transverse plate (in. (11.93.1) (C1193.1) Dop > diameter of concenivie opening in the transverse plate (in) (11.9.3.1) (CH.93.1) Dr ‘extemal diameter of around tube or outer flatfo-lat distance of a mult-sided ube at top of transverse plate (in) (193.1) {C11.93.1) a diameter ofa circular section (R) (11.7.1) (11.7.1) Hf = effective weld throat (in) (11.93.1) ‘isp = eight of longitudinal attachment (stiffener) (in) (11.9:3.1) Je = fatigue importance factors applied to limit state wind load effects to adjust for the desired level of structural reliability (11.6) (11.7) (117.1) (CH17.1.1) (1.7.1.2) (CH.7.1.2)(117.13) Ke finite life fitigne stress concentration factor (1.9.3.1) (C11.9.3.1) Kj, infinite life fatigue stress concentration factor (1.9.3.1) (C11.93.1) L = lipsplice overlap length (in) (11.9.3.1) numberof wind load induced stress eycles expected! during the lifetime ofthe structure (11.9.3) numberof fasteners inthe transverse plate (1.9.3.1) ‘number of sides (11.9.3.1) (CLL93.1) ‘number of longitudinal attachments (stiffeners) (11.9:3.1) (C11.93.1) ‘combined wind pressure range for fatigue design of HMLTs (psf) (11.7.2) (C172) fatigue limit state wind pressure range (psf) (11.7.2) (C172) (11.931) galloping-induced vertical shear pressure range (pe) (11.7.1-1) natural wind gust pressure range (psf) (11.7.1.2) (C1I7.1.2), tnuckeinduced gust pressure range (psf) (1.7.1.3) r= radius of chord of column (in.) (1.93.1) ry = inside bend radius ofa plate (in. (11.93.1) (C11.93.1) Se = nominal stress range ofthe main member or branching member (ksi) (11.9:3.1) ' thickness (in.)(11.9.3.1) » ‘wall thickness of branching member (in) (11.9.1) 1 © wall thickness of main member (column) (i.) (11.9.3 1) 4 > plate thickness of attachenent in.) (11.9.1) ts = thickness of longitudinal attachment (stiffener plate in.) (11.9.3.1) ty = thickness of tbe (i.)(11.9.3.1)(CLL93.1) tye = thickness of transverse plate (in) (11.9.3.1) (CLL93.1) Vows = yearly mean wind velocity for a given area (mph) (C11.7.1.2) Ve truck speed for truck-induced wind gusts (mph) (11.7.1.3) (11.7.1) & = _ovalizing parameter for bending in the main member (11,9.3.1) Sf = sind oad induced stress range (ksi) (11.5) (A%} —~ —wominal fatigue resistance (ksi (11.5.1) (11.93) (C11.93) @Phe ~ constant arvpltude ftioue threshold (ksi) (11.9.3) (C118, {©2015 by he Amencan Asean oF Sate Whey and Transporation fics Allg eerved: Duplin sa vsaton ost lw2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE L RED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFICSIGNALS Secrion 11: FAricur Drsiox 113, AP = fitigue resistance stress range (ksi) (11.5) (11.5.1) Ag indication of stress range in member (1.93.1) 1 fond factor (11.5) (11.5.1) (11.9) = resistance factor (11.5) (11.5.1) (11.93) 11.4 APPLICABLE STRUCTURE TYPES cng Design for fatigue shall be required forthe following NCHRP Report 412 and NCHRP Web Only. ‘ype structures: ‘A overhead cantilevered sign structures, b. ovethead cantilevered traiie signal structures, ©. high-mast lighting towers (HMLT), 4. overhead noncanlevered sign structures, and Overhead noncantilevered trathe signal structures, 1L5—DESIGN CRITERIA, Cantilevered and noncantilevered support structures shall be designed for fatigue to resist wind-induced stresses ‘Sltess ranges on all components, openings, mechanical fisteners, nd weld details shall be limited to Satisfy: 7(a7)< (ar) (us) where Afis the wind load induced stress range; AF's the fatigue resistance, is the load factor pet the Fatigue | limit state defined in Table 34-1, and 9 isthe resistance factor equal to 10, Fatigue design ofthe support structures may be conducted using the nominal stess-based classifications of {ypical counection details as provided in Article 11.9.1 and, Table 11.9.3 1-1, or using the alternate local stress-basel andor experiment-based methodologies presented in ‘Appendix C. Support structures shall be proportioned such that the wind: induced stress is below the constant amplitice fatigue threshold (CAFT) providing infinite life ‘The remaining fatigue life of existing stel structures may be assessed based on a finite life, The finite life rcthodology shall only be used to evalate the fatigue life of existing stnitures and shall not be used inthe design of new structural elements Document 176 are the basis forthe fatigue design provisions for canfilevered structures. NCHRP Report 494 is the basis for the fatigue design provisions for non-cantileveted support sinictures. The fatigue design procedures outlined inthis Section may be applicable to steel and aluminum structures Aypes of structures are fatigue design in this Article, Common lighting poles and roadside signs are not included because they are smaller structures and normally have not exhibited fetigue problems. An exception would be square lighting poles, as they are much more prone to fatigue than round or multi sided cross-sections having eight or more sides. Caution should be exerejsed rezarding the use of square lighting poles even when a fatigue design is performed. The provisions of this Section are not applicable forthe design of spanowite (strait) poles. cus: Fatigue design of connection details in support structures may eas per nominal siess- of local stross-hased and/or experimeni-based methodologies, The nominal stress- based design approach using classification of typical connection details and their fatigue resistances as provided in Article 11.9.1 3nd Table 11.9:3.1-1 should suffice in most cases, However, ifa connection detail is employed that has not been addressed in Table 11.9.3.1-1, un alternate local stress-based and/or experiment-based methodology as provided in Appendix C may be used for fatigue design. Itis important thatthe tosses age calculated in agreement with the definition of stress used fora partielar design methodology. “Accurate load specira for defining fatigue loadings are generally not available. Assessment of stress Muctuations and the corresponding number of cycles forall wind-induced events (lifetime loading histosram) is difficult. With this tuncertainty, the design of sign, high-level luminaite, and traffe signal supports fora finite fatigue life is unceliable, ‘Therefore an infinite life fatigue design approach is recommended, The infinite life fatigue design approach should ensure that a structure performs satisfactorily for its design life to an acceptable level of reliability without significant fatigue ‘damage. While some fatigue cracks may initiate at local siress Concentrations thee should not he any time dependent propagation ofthese cracks. This is typically the case for Structural supports where the wind-load eycles in 25 yeats ot -more are expected to exceed 100 million eycles, whereas ‘ypical weld details exhibit Constant Amplitude Fatigue © 2016 ty ho Amerean Astaciton of State Highvsy an Transporation Oil ‘All ighisescva Dugan is woladon of aplebi in2017 INTERIM REVIS OR HIGHWAY SIG’ 11.5.1—Nominal Stress-Based Design For nominal stess-based design, Equation 11.51 is rewritten as: (ar), < 9(A?), (tse wher: (Pu = theswindinduced nominal sess range defined in Amite 11.92 (Alp = the nominal fatigue resistance as specified in Article 1.9.3 forthe various deal classes identified in Artle 11.1, y= thetad factor per the Fatigue Thin state defined in Table 34-1, and 4 = theresistaee factor equal to 1.0 11.6-FATIGUE IMPORTANCE FACTORS 4 fatigue importance factor, that accounts forthe risk ‘of hazard o traffic and damage to property shall be applied to the limitstate wind-load effects specified in Article 11.7. Fatigue importance factors for traffic signal and sign support structures exposed to the three wind load effects are presented in Table 11.6-1. Fatigue importance categories for HMLTsare provided in Table 11.62. ONS TOTHELRED .S,LUMINATR RUCTURAL SUPPORTS AND TRAFFICSIGNALS Threshold (CAFT) at 10 1020 milion cycles, It may be ‘noted that in the predevessor to these specifications, che CAF was termed as Constant Amplitide Fatigue Limit (CARL) Am aceurate assessment ofthe lifetime wind induced stress range histogram is required for assessing finite life {afigue performance. Thus, designing new structures for finite fatigne life i impractical, Where an accurate assessment of the lifetime wind induced stress range histogram is available, a finite fatigue life may be considered ‘for estimating remaining life of existing strictures at the discretion ofthe Owner. “The equivalent satic wind load efeets as specified in Article 117 are to be considered for infinite life Fatigue design, The wind effects for evaluating finite fatigue life should be obtained from analysis based on historical wind so directly ffom field measurements on the subject or similar structures situated inthe same ot similar wind environments, as approved by the Owner, Due to significantly lower fatigue resistance compared to stet, remaining life assessinent of aluminum siructues is not advised cust Fatigue-critical details may be designed such that the nominal stress ranges experienced by the details are less than the nominal fatigue resistance of respective detail classes For fatigne design classification of typical support structure dletals, te applicable nominal stress ranges and their fatigue resistances are provided in Articles 11.9.1, 11.9.2, and 1193. cus Fatigue importance factors are introdnced into th Specifications to adjust the level of structural reliability cantilevered and noncantilevered support structures. Fatigue importance factors should be determined by the Ornes The importance categories and fatigue importance factors (rounded to the nearest 0.05) are results from NCHRP Reports 469 and 494, Two types of suppor structures are presented in Table 11.61, Structures clasited as Category 1 present high hazard inthe event of failure and should he designed to resist rarely-occuring wind loading and vibration phenomena. Itis recommended that al structures, without effective mitigation devices on roadways with 3 speed limitin excess of 35 mph and average daly t ceeding 10,000 or average daily tuck tattic exceeding 1,000 should be classified as Cate te Amerian Asotin of St Haha and Transporation Oc re Duplication i vioaon of ppc lwSemon Exnaue Desc siruetures. ADT and ADTT are for one direction regardless of the number of lanes, NCHRP Report 718 provides fatigue loads and the associated importance factors for HMLTs (Conor et al, 2010) Structures without mitigation devices may be classified 5 Category | if any ofthe following apply + Canfilevered sign structures witha span in excess of 50 fk or high-mast towers in excess of 100, ‘+ Large sign structures, both cantilevered and ‘noncantlevered, including changeable message signs, and + Structures located in an area that is known to have wind conditions that are conducive to vibration, Structures should be classified as Category IL if they are located on roads with speed limits 33 mph or les. Structures that are located such that a faire will not affect traffic may be classified as Category II. High-mast lighting towers are addressed in Article 11.7.2 and these supports do ‘ot carry un importance factor per se. All structures not explicitly meeting the Category Tor Category Il critetia should be classified as Category U Maintenance and inspection programs should be ‘considered integral tothe selection ofthe fatigue importance category, “There are may Factors that affect the selcction of the fatigue category and engineering judgment is required The fatigue importance categories for FIVILTS found in ‘Table 11,6-2 are based on the research conducted as pat of NCHRP Report 718 (2012). The fatigue importance categories for HIML'Ts have been separated and simplified fiom those in Table 11.6-1. Since HMLITs are generally only used on high ADT roadways, whether a pole etn or cannot Gal in the path of traffic i selected a the evtical parameter, 102015 bythe american assortin of State Highway and Transporation Oftsae All ip reserved Diplieation 9 volaion of appa kw16 LRED Sencwicsvions FoR SrmUCTURAL. SUPPORTS fox HGMWaY CNS, LUMINAIRE, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS “Table 1.6-1—Fatgue Importance Factors fr Fale Category ate lmporiance Fusion Galoping [Natural Wind Gusts | TrucksInduced Gusts se 10 10 7 Traiesignal | 1.0 19 Lo 7 se 070 Os 090 Traesignal_| 0.55 080 035 Se 040 070 x0 ‘aeSiznal_| 030 35 070 q y Psi = 10 10 z ‘raf Signal 3 1 10 Z 7 sin ass 090 3 Tale sign | _— 080 035 i wn | Sian - o70 080 2 TralfieSigat | 3s 070 Note 2. Statue ot epi tths ype of tading “Tuble1.6-2—Farguetmpartance Categorie for MILT Harard Level Importance Category igh istangst roadway < height AMET) 1 Low (distance to oavay > halght of HMLT) w U.7FATIGUE DESIGN LOADS cus ‘To avoid large-amplitude vibrations and to preclude the development of fatigue cracks in various connection details ‘and at other critical locations, cantilevered and noncantilevered suppor structures as defined in Article 1.4 shall be designed to resist each of the following applicable limit state equivalent static wind loads acting separately. ‘These Toads shall be used to calculate nominal sess ranges near fatigue-sensitive connection details described in Article 11.5 and deflections for service limits described in Article us In Few of using the equivalent static pressures provided inthis Specification, 2 dynamic analysis ofthe structure may be performed using appropriate dynamic load functions derived from reliable data. Fatigue loading provisions for HMLTs are differentiated from those associated with other structures. HMLTs shall be designed forthe loading given in Anicle 11.7.2. sey CCantilevered and noncantilevered support structures are ‘exposed to several wind phenomena that can produce eyclie loads. Vibrations associated with these cyclic forces can become significant. NCHRP Report 412 identified galloping, vortex shedding, natural wind gusts, and truck-induced gusts as wind-loading mechanisms that can induce large-amplitude vibrations and/or fatigue damage in cantilevered traffic signal, sign, and light suppor structures, NCHRP Report 494 identtied natural wind gusts and truck-indueed gusts as wind-loading mechanisms that can induce large-amplitude vibrations and/or fatigue damage in noneantilevered tafe signal and sign support strictures ‘The anypliuige of vibration and resulting stress ranges se increased by the low levels of stifness and damping passesset! by imny of these strctures, In some eases, the ibe is any serviceability problem because motorists ccamngt clear sé the mast arm attachments or are concemed bout passing uder the structures. In other cases, where deflections may or may not be considered excessive, the ‘magnitudes of stress ranges induced have resulted in the evelopment of fatigue cracks at various connection details including the anchor bol ‘The provisions for fatigue loading of HMLTs are based research conducted as part of NCHRP Report 718 developed a loading spectrum inelusive ofall applicable oad effects due to natural wind, Amerien Assocation of State Highy and Transporation Oc Allegis reserved. Delain sa vnaton of apical av.SECTION HI: Fant DESIGN Wa 11,7.4—Sign and Traffic Signal Structures Equivalent static wind loads forthe fatigue design of sign and traf signals structures shall be determined from Articles 11.7.1. through 1.7.13 as applicable. The structures included in tis section are defined in Article 11.4 ‘and the associated commentary. 11.7.1.1—Gallopi (Overhead cantilevered sign and trafic signal support sructures shall be designed for galloping-induced cyclic loads by applying an equivalent static shear pressure vertically to the surface area, as viewed in normal elevation, ‘ofall sign panels and/or traffie signal heads and back plates rigidly mounted tothe cantilevered horizontal support. The vertical shear pressure range shall be equal the fallowing: Pa = 2lir(pst) (zat) ‘where Je = fatigue importance factor 21 = pressure (ps!) In licu of designing to resist periodic galloping forces, cantilevered sign and waftic signal structures may be erected ‘with effective vibration mitigation devices. Vibration ntigation devices should be nppraved by the Ousmer, and approval should be based on historical or research verification of device vibration damping characteristics Alternatively, for talc signal strictures, the Owner _may choose to install approved vibration mitigation devices if structures exhibita galloping problem. The mitigation devices should be installed as quickly as possible after the galloping problem appears ‘The Owner may choose to exclude galloping fonds for the fatigue design of overhead cantilevered sign support structures with quadei-cord (Le, four-choed) horizontal ‘The wind-loading phenomena specified inthis section possess the greatest potential for creating large-amplitude vibrations in cantilevered support structures, In particular, ealloping and vortex shedding are aeroelastic instabilities that typically induce vibrations atthe natural frequency ofthe structure (Le, resonance). These conditions ean lead t0 fatigue failures in a relatively short period of time. Design pressures forfour fatigue wind-loading, ‘mechanisms are presented as an equivalent static wind pressure range, ora shar sress range inthe ease of galloping. These pressure (or shear stress) ranges should be applied as prescribed by static analysis to determine stress raniges near fatigue-sensitive details. In lieu of designing for galloping or vortex-shedding limit state fatigue wind load elfects, mitigation devices may be used as approved by the Owner, Mitigation devices are discussed in NCHRP Reports $12, 469, and 718, cust Galloping or Den arog instability, result in large- amplitude, resonant oscillations ina plane normal othe direction of wind flow. Is usally limited to structures with ‘nonsyinmetial cross-section, such as sign and trafic signal sSrutures with atachments to the horizontal cantilevered ‘aim, Structures without attachments tothe cantilevered horizontal arm suppor are not susceptible to galloping induced wind load effects “The resus of wind tunel (Kacrinsk ta, 1998) and wate tank (MeDonald eta, 1995) esting, a8 well a the excitons observed on canilevered suppor stactures the field, are consistent wih the characteris of the zalloping phenomena. These characteristics include the sudden enset of large-amplitude aross-wind vibrations that increase with increases in wind velocity. Galloping is typically not caused by wind applied to the support structure, but rather applied tothe altachments to the horizontal cantilevered arm, such as signs and affic signals The geometry and orientation ofthese attachments, as well asthe wind diecton, dcety influence the suscepiblity of cantileeted support structures to galloping Traffic signals are more susceptible to galloping When contig with a backplate. ln particular, afc signal aitachments configured with or without backplate ae more susceptible w galloping when subject wo flow rom the reat Galloping of sign attachments is independent oF aspect ratio and is more prevalent with wind flows from the fron of the steucture (©2015 by the Amaican Association of Sine Highway a! TranspoationOficias All its eared: Dupin aviation fap1 LLRED SPreIPICATIONS FoR STAUCHUIAL SUPVORTS FOK THGAIWAY SIGNS, LUMIINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS ‘By conducting wind tunnel tests and analytical calibrations o field data and wind tunnel test ests, an equivalent static vical shear of 2 ps was determined for the galloping phenomenon, This vertical shear range should be applied tothe entire fomtal area of each ofthe sian and traffic signal attachments ina static analysis to determine stress ranges aerial connection details. For example, if 8. 10 flsign panel is mounted toa horizontal mast arm, a static Force of 1,680 * J, kins should be spplid vertically at the area centro ofthe sian panel. A study (Flore et a, 2007) has shown that the equivalent stati free that an sttchment experiences depends on the location along the ‘arm where itis attached. Equivalent late pressures or ‘vertical shear ranges applied to the foal area of each sign traffic signa attachment are greater owas the tip ofthe mast am. The specification docs not consider the eect of {he atachment location when calculating the galloping force Further testing is necessary to Verify this and 1 suzgest location specific ranges. A pole with multiple horas cantilevered arms may be designed for galloping londs applied separately to ‘each individual arm, and need not consider galloping simultaneously oscurting on multiple arms. Overhead cantilevered sgn support structures with quadi-chord horizontal trusses do not appear tobe susceptible to galloping because other inberen stfines. ‘Two possible means exist 1 mitigate galloping-induced cillatons in cantilevered support structures. The dynamic properties ofthe structure or the aerodynamis properties af the attachments ean be adequately altered to mitigate galloping or the installation ofa device praviding positive aerodynamic damping can be used alter the structure's response from the aerodynamic effects onthe attachments ‘A method of proving postive aerodynamic damping toattaffic signal stetueivol¥es installing a sign blank ‘mounted horizontally and directly above the tafe signal attachment closest to te tip ofthe mast arm. This method has been shown o be effective in mitigating galloping- induced vibrations on irate signal support sruetires with horizontally mounted wali signal atactunents (MeDonald al, 1995). For vertically mounted wai signal attachments, a sign blank mounted horizontally near the ip ofthe mast rm as mitigated large-amplitude galloping vibrations occuring in wai signal support structures This sion blank is placed adjacent vo a afi signal tachment anda separation exits between he sgn blank andthe top oF the mast arm. In bh cases, he sign hlanks are required 10 provide a sufficient surface area for mitigation to oxen However, the instalation a sign blanks may influence the design of structures for trck-induced wind gusts by increasing the projected aea on 9 hetizontal plane. NCHRP Reports 412 and 469 provide additional discussion on this possible mitigation device and on galloping susepsbility nd mitigation, {©2015 ty the American Associaton of Sine Highnay and Tranepration Ocal ‘Allg reserved. Dopliatio sa vicki of apeble a.20(7 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THELRED. FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES,, cE DESIGN 11,741.2—Natural Wind Gust Cantilevered and noncantlevered overhead sign and ‘overhead traffic signal supports shall be designed to resist an ‘equivalent static natural wind gus pressure range of: Puy = 5.2 (pst au712.1) where Je fatigue importance factor 52. = pressure (pst) Ca = the appropriate dra coeffcint based on the yearly ‘mean wind velocity of 11.2 mph specified in Scetion 3, “Loads,” forthe considered clement to ‘which he pressure range isto be applied, If Eq, C1.7.1.2-1 is used in place of Fg 11.7.1.2-1, Cy ‘may be based on the location-specic yearly mean wind Lelocity Fae. The natural wind gust pressure range shall be applied in the horizontal direction tothe exposed area ofall Support siructure memers, signs, talc signals, and/or ‘miscellaneous attachments. Designs for natural wind gusts shall consider the application of wind gusts for any direction of wind. ‘The design natural wind gust pressive range is based on yearly mean wind speed of 11.2 mph For locations with more detailed wind records, particularly sites with higher ‘wind speeds, the natural wind gust pressure may be modified tthe discretion of the Own: 1.7.1.3 —Truck-Indueed Gust Cantilevered and noncantilevered overhead sign support structures shall be designed to resist an equivalent slate truck gust pressure range of Pro = 18.8Caltos (i713 where Ip = fatigue importance factor 188 = presse (ps Ci = ‘theo coelfcien based on the tek speed oF 65 _mph from Section 3 forthe considered element to ‘hich the pressure range isto be applied If Eg. C11.7.1.3+1 is used in place of Eq. 11.7.1.3-1, Cy should be based on the considered truck speed V7 The pressure range shall be applied inthe vertical direction tothe horizontal support as well a the area ofall signs, Attachments, walkways, and/or lighting fixtures projected on ‘horizontal plane. This pressure range shal be applied along 2eft length to create the maximum stress range, 2016 w RUCTURAL SUPPORTS, AND TRAFFICSIGNALS. 119 e142 Because ofthe inherent variability in the velocity and direction, natural wind gusts ae the most basic wind phenomena that may induce vibrations in wind-loaded sinvctures. The equivalent static natural wind gust pressure range specified for design was developed with data obtained from an analytical study ofthe response of cantilevered support structures subject to random gust loads (Kaczinskl et al, 1998), Because Van is relatively low, the largest values of Ca for the support may be used, ‘This parametric study was based on the 0.01 percent exceedance fora yearly mean Wind velocity of 11.2 mph, ‘which isa reasonable upper bound of yearly mean wind ‘elocities for most locations in the county, There are Jocations, however, where the yearly mean wind velocity i= larger than 11.2 mph, For installation sites with more detailed information regarding yearly mean wind speeds (patticularly sites wth higher wind speeds, the following equivalent stati natural wind gust pressure range shall be used for design: Por =520,( Ha) The larest natural wind gust loading for an arm or pole witha single arm is from a wind gust direction perpendicular’ to the aim. For a pole with multiple arms, such as two perpendicular arms, the etitieal direction forthe natural wind ‘gusts usually not normal to elther atm, The design natural ‘wind gust pressure range should be applied to the exposed surface areas seen in an elevation view orientated perpendicular to the assumed wind gust direction 1. (pst) (clr) cuts The passage of trucks beneath support structures may. ‘induce gust loads on the attachments mounted tothe horizontal support ofthese structures. Although loads ate applied in both horizontal and vertical directions, horizontal support vibrations caused by forces inthe vertical direction ‘are most critical. Therefore, truck gust pressures are applied only tothe exposed horizontal surface ofthe attachment and horizontal support. ‘X pole with multiple horizontal cantilever arms tay be sdesigned for truck gust loads applied separately to each individual arm and need not consider tuck gust loads applied simultaneously to multiple arms. Recent vibration problems on sign strictures with large projected areas inthe horizontal plane, such as variable message sign (VMS) enclosures, have focused attention on ‘vertical gust pressures created by the passage of trucks beneath thes The design pressure calculated ftom Fa, 11.7.1.3-1 is based on a truck speed! of 65 mph. For structures installed at locations where the posted specd limit is mach less than 63 American Association of Stats Highway and Transportation Ota “Alrgisesered Dupleation a voluion of applicable aw2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED FOR HIGHWA} i110 ‘exchding any portion ofthe structure not located directly above a traffic Lane. The equivalent statie ruck pressure range may be reduced for locations where vehicle speeds are fess than 65 mph The magnitude of applied pressure range may be varied depending on the height of the horizontal support and the attachments above the traffic lane. Full pressure shall be applied for heights up to and including 20 t, and then the pressure may be linearly rediced for heights above 20 ft 1 a ‘alue of zero a 33 ft ‘The truc-induced gust loading shall be excluded unless required by the Owner fo the fatigue design of overhead ttalfic signal support structures 11.72High-Mast ighting Towers Fatigue High-mastfihting towers shall be designed for fatigue ‘resist the combined wind effect using the eqnivalent static pressure range of Por= Pasta a7 where Pris = the fitigue-limit-sate static pressure ange presented in Table 11.7.2-1, HIMLTs are defined as being 55 for taller structures. Luminaires ess than $5 f tall donot need tobe designed for “antique, ofthe structurale nent considered, is the appropriate drag coefficient specified in Section 3 and shall be based on the yearly mean wind Velocity ng The ‘comiined wind effect pressure range shall be applied inthe horizontal drcetion othe exposed area ofall high-mast lighting tower components, Designs for combined wind shall consider the application of Wind from any direction The yearly mean wind velocity nsed in determining Pays shall be as given in Figure 11,72-1, For all islands adjacent to the Alaska mainland and west coast Alaska mainland, use Ranges-G-and-H C (11 mph). For Alaska inlands, use Ranges F-and-® B (9-11 mphi. For all Hawaii islands use Range Ranges-and-F B (9-11 mph). Designers are cautioned ofthe effets of topography ‘when considering location-specific mean wind velocity in their design. These effects ean cause considerable variation RUCTURAL SUPPORTS SIGNS, LUMINATRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS. mph, the design pressure may be recalculated based on this lower truck speed. The following equation may be used! Fe (Ear! Tr (psf) where Vi truck speed (mph) ‘The given truck-induced gust loading should be excluded unless required by the Owner for the fatigue design of overhead trafic signal structures. Many tafe signal structures are installed on roadways with negligible tuck traffic. In addition, the typical response of watfe signal siruetures ftom truck-induced gusts is significantly overestimated by the design pressures prescribed inthis article, Ths has been confirmed in a study (Albert tal, 2007) involving fullescale field tests whete strains were ‘moniiored on cantilevered traffic signal structures. Over 400) tick events were recorded covering a variety of truck types and vehicle speeds; only 18 trucks produced even a dlteciable effect on the cantilevered trafic signal structures and the strains were very smal relative to those associated with the design pressures inthis Article cua NCHRP Report 718 isthe bass for fatigue loads identified in this Setion, Prior 2012, these Speciiatons mad no distneton between high-mast Bling tviers and other signol orsign support srctues. Failzesresuling fiom vnd-inddce fatigue led eld esting, iboratory ‘wind tunnel testing, and analytical studies to determine appropriate oats forthe fatigue design of FIMILTS This combined win load specified for HMILTs was derived from the effets ofthe entire wind-oad spectrum and therefor nelues all ranges of wind sped. tis recocognized thatthe drag coefficient varies with wind speed The value of Ps intended to produce the same fatjgue damage venerated bythe variable amplitude speceum using a single equivalent constant amplitude load (Pe). Pars dvas derived using constant values of Cy (using Section 3) and the values of Py measured at each pole (NCHRP 718) to simply the approach: Hence use of values other than those in Section 3 will esul in eroncous estimates of Pe The inservice performance of HMLTs shore than $5 appeass io suggest tat agus not a erica limit stale Cracking hasbeen primarily observed in HMLTs greater than 100 fal, The limit of 55 ft was selected somowhat arbitrarily to be well helow the 100 ft height. However, although these specifications do not require HMILTs shorter than $5 ft be designed for fatigue, fitgneresistace details shouldbe selected and cael instalation practices followed Ifthe Engineer suspects thatthe HML-T wil be subjected to high yearly mean wind speeds, the HMILT is placed ina location where local wind effects may be ateat (eg. ona blu), or previous performance of similar HMLTS (©2016 by th American ASocaion of State Highway nd Transpeation Ocal Allg eseeved. Dupizaton i vison of spc2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORI FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, Secrios #1: Paricue Desie in wind speed. For locations with more detailed wind records, the yeatly mean wind velocity may be modified at ‘the diserelion ofthe Owner. Table 11,7.2-1—Fatigue-LimitState Pres Range for HMLT Desig has been poor, consideration should be given to designing the structure for fatigue using the provisions contained herein. For normal installations, the height shall be defined as the distance fiom the bottom of the baseplate tothe tip of the pole, not including the distance the lighting fixture may extend beyond the top. ‘The fatigue-limit-state static pressure range values listed in Table 11.7.2-1 account for fatigue importance factors and ‘variation in mean wind speed. The combined wind pressure range includes the cumulative fat vortex shedding, Figure 11:72-1 servesas a broad guide for determining regional mean wind speed. Local conditions are known to vary and may not necessarily be represented by the map. ‘NCHRP Reports 412 and 718 found the design method to be conservative in most cases: however, designers are encouraged to check local wine records andor consider topographical effets in choosing a yearly mean wind speed for dosign ifthe local wind conditions are suspected to be ‘more severe than suggested by Pigure 1L.72-1. Itis not recommended to use design pressure ranges fess than suggested by Figure 11,721: Pas Importance Category Fatigue Design Case 1 T Vas=29.mph op 3.8 pst mph Venn = Ui mph | 65 ps 65 pat Yen = 1 mph Taps 7apst Figure 11.721 Vearlv Mean Wind Speed moh, [No separate load is specified to account for vortex shedding since its incorporated inthe equivalent static combined wind pressure range, Pa-used for fatigue design in Article 11.72, High-mast lighting towers are highly susceptible to vibrations induced by vortex shedding, leading tothe rapid accumulation of potentially damaging stess cycles that lead to fatigue failure. NCHRP Report 718 studied the response. (©2016 by she Amrican Assocation of Ste Highay and Transporation Offical. -Alleights eteve Dipicston 9 soiton of applicable20. INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS 1112 Where serviceability and maintenance requirements dus Yo vortex. shedding induced vibrations are an issue, ‘devices suet as stakes shrouds, mechanical dampers, ete. may be used to mitigate the effect, 11.3 DEFLECTION, Galloping and truck gustinduced vertical dffeetions of cantilevered single-arm sizn supports and trafic signal arms and noo-cantilevered supports should nat be excessive. Excessive deflections ean prevent motorists from clearly seeing the attachments, and may cause concern about passing: under the strictures 11.9_FATIGUE RESISTANCE 11.9.1—Detail Class tion All fatigue sensitive details in he connections and ‘components in support structures shall be designed in accordance with their respective detail clasiffetions, Detail classifications for typical components, mechanical fasteners, and welded details in support structures are tabulated in Table 11.93.1-1 Al connections shall be detailed as required in Article 5.6, OR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMIN AIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS cof these strctures inthe field and determined thatthe previous edition did not properly quantify vortex shedding. Rather than separate the effect of vortex shedding from all other wind phenomena, a loading spectrum was developed to encompass all possible wind load effects, The fatigue-Iinit- Sate static wind pressures listed in Table 11.7.2-1 represent this combined wind load effect. Maintenance and serviceability issues resulting from ‘vortex shedding may have a detrimental effect on the petformanice of HMLTS.Tssues with anchor bots loosening and rattling of the luminaire have been known to occur ‘Where latigue-prone details exist which may shorten the life ‘of HMLTS due toa lower faligue resistance than initially considered, orin eases where the service life ofan HIMLT initially designed for a inte lifetime may wish to be extended, mitigation devices have proved reliable in reducing, the number of damaging stress cycles. Information pertaining to the performace and sizing of stakes and shrouds on HMLTs is presented in NCHRP Report 718 and FLWac WY-10/02E Report Reduction of Wind-nduced Vibrations in igh-masi Light Poles (Abearm and Puckett, 2010), Durability ofthe mitigation technique and the impacts on luminary lowering mechanisms should be considered. ons Because ofthe low levels of sifness and damping inherent in cantilevered single mast arm sign and traffic signal support structures, even structures that are adequate designed to resist fatigue damage may experience excessive Vertical deflections at the free end of the horizontal mast arm, ‘The primary objective ofthis provision is to minimize the number of motorist complains, NCHRP Report 412 recommends that the total deflection atthe fice end of single-arm sign supports and all talc Signal ams be limited to 8 in. vertically, when the equivalent stati design wind effect from galloping and truck-induced. gusts are applied fo the siucture. NCHRP Report 494 recommends applying the § in. vertical limit to rnoneantileyered support structures, Double-member or truss= ype cantilevered horizontal sign supports were not requires to have vertical deflections checked because oftheir inherent stiffness, There are no provisions fora displacement limitation inthe horizontal direction cusd Classification of components, mechanical fasteners; and ‘welded details in typical support structures that are susceptible to fatigne cracking is provided in Table 11.9.3. The detail classes ace consistent withthe detail categories inthe fa provisions ofthe AASHTO LRED Bridge Design Spevficatioas (LRED Design) ‘The details shown in Table 11.93.1-1 are developed based on areview of state departments of tansporttion standard dravvings and manufacturers’ literature, and are grouped into six sections Based on application. The lists not (©2016 bythe American Association of St High and Transportation OMT, "AM Bias racived. Dapetion sa volaion of lie aw.2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL UuppoRts, FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS SECTIONT: FATiGuE DESIGN 11.92—Stress Range ‘Nominal stress range shall be used when fatigue design ‘of conection details is carried cut using Table 11.93.1+1 And shall be calculated atthe ste of potential fatigue tacking. ‘The detail categories in Table 11.93.1-1 were developed based! on nominal siess to be calculated as discussed below: ‘= Forunreinforced holes and cutouts in tubes, the nominal sfress shall be calculated considering the net section property of the tue and magnified by a stress toncenlration factor of 4.0, where the width of the pening is limited to 40 pereent of the ube diameter. + Forreinforced holes and cutouts in tubes, the nominal stress for design agains fatigue racking atthe toe of the reinforcement-o-fube weld shall be calculated ‘considering the net section property of the tube and the reinforcement ‘© Fordesign against fatigue cracking ftom the root, the above nominal stress shal be magnified by a stess ‘eonieentration fatter of 4.0, where the width of the ‘opening is limited to 40 percent of the tube diamctr. + Infull-penetation, groove-welded, tube-to-transverse plate connections, the nominal stress shall be calculated fn the gross section of the tube at the groove-weld toe on the tube irespestive ofa backing ring welded to the tube or not ‘+ For partial penetration, groove-welded, mast column pass-through connections, the nominal stress shall be calculated on the gross section of the column at the base ofthe connection For fillt-welded tube-to-ransverse plate connoctions (socket connections), nominal stress shal be calculated ‘on the gross section ofthe tube at the fillet-weld toe on the tube, His complete set ofall possible connection details; rather its ‘intended to include the most commonly used connection Aetals in support structures. Any’ detail that isnot listed in Table 11.93.1-1 may be classified based on alternate methodologies provided in Appendix C, ‘Appropriate details ean improve the fatigue resistance of these siruetures, and can help in producing a cost-effective design by reducing the member size required for fatigue resistant details, Siffened and unstffened tube-to-ransverse plate connections, reinforced and unreinforced handholes, and ‘anchor rods are the most fatigue critical details in the support strictures. Most fatigue cracking inservice and in laboratory {esis under NCHRP Project 10-70 on fill size specimens has ‘occurred a these details, The details of specimens tested under NCHRP Project 10-70 are shovin in Table C11.9.3.1-1 cng [Nominal stress stress in a component that can be derived using simple strength of material calculations based ‘mapped loading and nominal section properties. The ‘nominal stress should be calculated considering gross geometric changes atthe section, eg. tapers, handholes, stiffeners, welded backing rings el, Which locally magni Or decrease the nominal stress, (©2016 bythe American Assocation of Ste Highway and Transgonstion Oo, Allrigis resevet, Duplication a lation of applica at2017 INTERIM REVISIONS 10 THE LRFD STRUCTURAL FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 14 ‘+ Instiffened tube-to-iransverse plate connections, the nominal stress a the termination ofthe stiffener shall be calculated based on the gross section of the be ata section through the toe ofthe wrap-around-weld on the Ibe, ‘© _Insliffened tube-to-transverse plate connections, th ‘nominal stress at the weld toe on the the ofthe tbe-to- ‘transverse plate filled shall be calculated based on the aross section of only the tube atthe section, + Insfiffened tube-to-transverse plate connections, the ‘nominal stress at the stifener-loplate weld shall be calculated based on the gross section ofthe tube and the stiffeners atthe section 11.93—Fatigue Resistance Support siruturs shall be proportioned suc that the ‘wind loa induced sees is below the CAPT providing infinite ite Fr infinite ie, nominal fatigue resistance shall betaken as: 14), = 0(OF), 94D. The remaining fatigue life of existing steel structures may be assessed base on a finite life. For finite life nominal fave resistance shal be taken as $(ar), = 193-2) where (AA, = the nominal fatigue resistance os specified in Table 1.93.11 (Phin =the CAPT} isthe finite life constant N= the number of wind load induced stress cycles expected during the life ime ofthe structures. ‘The values of (AF)irand A for stel structure details are specified in Table 11.933.1-1. The values fory are specified in Table 3.41, and the value for @ is 1.0 ‘Aluminum siructites shall be designed to provide infinite life. The value of (AF)qoFaliminum structure details shall be determinod by dividing the respective threshold values ofstel with 2.6, Fatigue resistance of typical fatigue-sensitive connection dltals in support structures for finite and infinite life designs shall be determined from Table 11.9.3.1-1, The fatigue stress ceoneentration factors as functions of connection geomety in ‘tubular structures shall be determined as given in Article 1.93.1. The potential location of cracking in each detail is Identified inthe table. “Longitudinal” implies thatthe UPPORIS, For computing nominal stess atthe tubetonransyerse plate fillet-weld in a stifened connection, only the gross section ofthe tube without the stffencts should be considered. The fatigue resistance for these connections in Table 11.9.3.1-1 has been accordingly defined, The effect of| the stiffeners is implicitly included inthe computation of fatigue stress concentration factor in Eq. 11.93.1-4in Table 11.9.3.1-2. For computing nominal stress atthe stffenersto= leansverse plate weld, the gross section including the tube ‘and the stiffeners at the section should he considered. cuss ‘When the wind load induced maximum stress range (determined as static load effects per Article 11.7) experienced by a component or a details ess than the AFT, the component or detail ean be assumed to havea ‘theoretically infinite fatigue life. Using Eq, 11.9.3-1 10 establish (AF), in Fg, 115.1-1 should ensite infinite ite performance Tn the finite life regime at stress ranges above the CAFT, the fatigue life is inversely proportional fo the cube ofthe stress range. For examples ifthe stress range is reduced by a factor of 2, the fatigue life increases by a factor of 2°= 8 This result reflected in Eq, 11.93-2, When assessing the finite life ofan existing stricture, the number of wind load induced sitess oycles expected during the lifetime of the structure should be estimated from analysis based on historical wind records oF directly by field measurements on similar structures, as decided by the owner. ‘The constant A and the constant amplitude fatigue thresliold (A}py for the detail clases specified in Table 11.93.1-1 are consistent with sec! detail categories in LRED Design. Figure C11.9.3-1 isa graphical representation ‘ofthe nominal fatigue resistance for detail categories as per LRED Design, {©2016 bythe American Asosistion of Sate Highony and Transporation OM Allah eszived. Duplication isa viakston of apleblSECTION HI: Fanta DesicN direction of applied sess is parallel to the Jongitucinal axis ‘of the detail, and “tranisverse” implies that he direction of applied sitess is perpendicular tothe longiinal axis of the etal. & Stress Range (ksi) (©2016 y the American Asocition ofS ‘Alla reserved. Dolan 7 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS its 10 6 Number of eycles . Figure C11.9.3-1—Stress Range vs, Number of Cycles ‘The fatigue resistance of support structures was established based on laboratory fatigue tests of ullscale ‘cantilevered structures and substantiated by analytical ‘stuies. The resistance is based on elastic section analysis. ‘and nominal stesses|on the cross-section, The resistance includes effects of residual stresses due to fabrication aad anchor bolt prefersion, which are not to be considered explicitly in the nominal stress computations, Fatigue resistance of tube-to-ransverse plate connections are classified in Table 11.9.3, 1-1 in terms of separate fatigue stress concentration factors for nite and. infinite life desiuns, which explicitly incorporate the effets of'stress concentration due tothe connection geometry and the weld foe notch. The effects of weld toe micto= discontinuities ae implicitly cansidered in the experimental results forall connections. Research (Ray etal, 2011)shovs that the Infinite life fatigue resistance of conncetion details in support structures does not always correspond to thele respective finite life detail categories in LRFD Design. To assist designers, the details of ful size suppott suture specimens that were tested in the Jaboratory under NCHRP Project 10-70 (Roy ct al, 2011) are tabulated in Table C11.9.3.1- along with thei fatigue resistance, Designers are encouraged to directly employ these details in sorviee, wherever applicable, with nominal stress range calculated as per Article 11.92. ‘The faigue resistance of handholes or cutouts i defined in terms of the magnified nominal stress as defined earlier. Fatigue resistance of the fille-welded T-, Y=, and K- tube-to-tube, angle-to-tube, and plate-to-ube eonnections as not established by laboratory testing, Fatigue resistance ‘of these connections in Table 11.9.3.1-1 has heen retained fiom the previous edition of the specification, which ite Highvay and Transportation Otic, a visltion o aplieabl a stress Range (Pa)2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR 1116 11.9.3.1—Stress Concentration Factors For finite life evalualio# of tabilar connections, fatigue stress concentration factors in Table 11,933.1-I shall be Caleulated as pet equations given in Table 119.3.1-2 For infinite lite design of tubular connections, the fatigue stress concentration faetor in Table 11.0.3 1-1 shall, be calculated as K=[Or6+183,)=a76x02"] x, 19. ‘where Kes caleulated from Table 11 9.3.1-2 for the respective details ‘The parameters used in the expressions for stese concentration factors are Die = diameter of circle through the fasteners inthe transverse plate (for connections with two of more fastener cifeles, use the outer most circle diameter) Doo = diameter of eancenric opening inthe transverse plate Gn) Dr = external diameter ofa round tbe or outer fatto~ fat distanee of a multisided tube a op of eansvers> plate Gn) fer ~ height of longitudinal atachment (stitfenes) in.) Na = number of fastener inthe transverse pate Ns = umber of sides jHWAY SIGNS, LUMINATRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS, corresponds tothe classification for cycle punching shear stress in tubular members specified by the AIS Sructural Welding Code D1.1-Sieet based on research in the offshore industry on connections of thicker and larger diameter tubes. Stresses in tubular connections are strongly dependent on their geometric parameters and therefore, extrapolation ofthe fatigue design provisions from the AWS specification may hot be consistent withthe performance ofthe pass-through connections in service. Until further research can provide a better estimate ofthe fatigue resistance of these connections, they should be classified as indicated in Table 11.9.3 1-1 Stool-type stiffened filleewelded tube-o-transverse slate connections, similar to those in service in Towa, were {ested inthe laboratory (Roy ct a.,201 1), but on thinnes tubes (see Table C11.9.3.1-1). These stiffened connections employ a pair of rectangular vertial stiffeners welded to the tube wall and transverse plate and connected by a plate atthe top. The top plate serves as un anchorage for the anchor rods, and is not welded to the tube, These connection details have performied extremely wel in Towa, where no cracking were Dbserved during 40 years of scrvice. In laboratory tess, however, these comnections didnot perform well. This detail may provide better fatigue performance in thicker and larget dlameter tubes as was used forthe structures in service. Until further research can provide a better estimate ofthe fatigue resistance ofthese stfTened connections, the fatigne performance of the welds teminating a the end of vertical stiffeners in the stool type stiffened tube-to-end plate ‘connections shouldbe classified as indicated in Table 11.93.11 19.3.1 ue resistance of tubular connections in support structures depends on the relative stiffness of the components ata connection or the connection geometry. Geometric stresses arise from the need to maintain compatibility between the tubes and other components at the connections ‘This geometric stress concentration affects the fatigue resistauce ofthe connections for both finite and infinite ite performance. In addition, the resistance ofthe connections gains any fatigue crack growth for infinite life is also affected by the local stress concentration related to local ‘geometry of the weld. The effects of elobal and local geometric stress concentrations on the fatigue resistance of Various connections inthe support strustures were determined experimentally and agalyteally under NCHRP Project 10-70 (Roy etal, 2011). Traffic arm-to-pole connections oflen contain more than ‘one bolt circle having two rows of 3 or 4 connecting bolls, a8 shown in the Figure C11.9.3.1+1, Table C11.9.3.1+I provides the Kyrequation for the tube-fo-ransverse plat connections that contain the bolt circle variable, Dsc. The bol circle chosen influences the CAFT value, Finite element analysis shows that the internal bolts have litle influence on the fatigue stresses in the tube. Therefore, the outer most bolt circle should be used in the Ke equation from Table C11.9.3.1-1, which will result in the more conservative {©2016 bythe American Assocation of Ste Highsay and Tarsporasion Otic. ‘Allegis reserved Dolton ss volo of apical aw.2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRBS, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS Stoves Ht; Fanicue Dasien tt Nor = number of longitudinal attachment (stiffener) ‘gr = thickness of longitidinal attachment (stiffener) plate (in.) fr = thickness of tube (in) ‘ip = thickness of transverse plate (in.) D, ee >, D, Cop = D, Figure C11.9..1-1-—Holt Circle Example Equations for fatigue stress concentration factors were determined based on parametric finite element analyses and were verified by test results. The ranges ofthe parameters describing the connection geometry inthe studies covered the ranges determined from state departments of transportation’s drawings and manufacturer's literate Fatigue resistance was determined based on the local siress- based methodology presented in Appendix C. Based on these rests the fatigue resistance af te tube-to-transverse plate ‘connection details were classified in terms of separate fatigue sess concentration factors Kj and A; fr finite and infinite life regimes respectively, While the fatigue stress ‘concentration factor for fnite lite design incorporates the effect of eonnection geometry, the fatigue stress Concentration factor for infinite life design also elles the ‘geometric elTect ofthe weld toe notch et Experimental and analytical studies demonstrated that the fatigne resistance of tlbe-to-transverse plate conneetions isa function ofthe relative lexblity ofthe tube and the transverse plate, Reducing the relative flexibility ofthe transverse plate can significantly increase the fatigue resistanee ofthe connection. The relative flexibility of the transverse plate depends on: 1. the thickness of te transverse plate; 2. the opening inthe transverse plate (in grcove-welded. connections}; 3. the number of fasteners; 4. the bot circle ratio, defined asthe ratio ofthe bol cirele diameter fo the tube diameter. Inaddition, the diameter and thickness ofthe tube affects the relative stiffness. Reducing the opening size and/or increasing the plate thickness are the most cost= effective means of reducing the flexibility of tie transverse fatigue resistance. Fatigue performance ofa stiffened tube-o-transverse plate, fille-welded connection isa function of 1. the thickness ofthe transverse plate; the thickness ofthe tubs; 3. the stiffener shape an size (thickness, height, and angle), and 4. the numberof stiffeners (or stiffener spacing). {©2016 bythe American Association of Sate Highway and Transperttion Oficial All ngs reserved Dupheaton is violtion of apple ln©2016 y ihe Aner 2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRFD STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FORH WAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS, Optimized, stiffened, tube-to-transverse plate, fllete ‘Welded connections can provide a cost-effective solution in support structures employing larger diameter and thicker tubes, Por stiffened, filet-welded, tube-o-transverse plate connestions, the finite life fatigue stress concentration factor atthe filet-Wveld toe on the tbe (Table 11.9.3.1-2) is ‘obtained by modifying the fnite life stress concentration factor for the fille-welded tube-o-transvorse plate connection detail Compared fo round tube of similar size, welded tube- {o-transverse plate connections in multisided sections exhibit less fatioue resistance with decreasing toundness. The deviation in fatigue performance of multisided seetions from round shapes depends on: the oute flat-fo-flat dimension of a multisided tube: the thickness of the thes the number of sides in te multsided section; and the intemal bend radius, ‘The fatigue stress concentration factors for fibe-o= ‘uansyerse plate connections in multisided cross seetions should he obtained by mmtipiving Eq, 11.9.3.1-6 hy the fatigue stress concentration factors ofthe respective details for round sections, except forthe stiffener termination on the tbe ofa stiffened fille-welded tube-o-transverse-plate ‘connection, Parametric studies show that the fatigue stress concentration factor for finite lie atthe stiffener termination. fn the tube remains same for round and multsided sections inrespective of the number of sides and bend radius. 2m Ascocation of State Highway and Transporation Oia Allright reserved. Dupeation i ilabon of pieSecnioy H1: Raricure Desiew u ‘Vable 11.933.1-1—Fatigue Details of Cantileered and Noncantilevered Support Structures Finite Life Constant, ‘Threshold, | Potential Axle (Amn Crack Deseription ks? ksi Location Example E SECTION —7TAINMATERIAE = 1.1 Wit lled or cleaned sues. 3300 740 “Away om Flane-cut edges with all welds or ANSTAASHTO“AWS DIS (Anicle srocural 3.2.2) smooiness of 1000 jin. or ceomections iss Ac T2Slipjiataplioe where Le Tao 160 Tiasecion | Fighevelighing pols ester dha or equal o 1.5 atthe edge of = state | ‘ eer" (©2015 bythe Amicon Assocation of Sale Highway and Transporation Oia Al igh exe ved: Duplin sa vain of applica la11-20 LRED SprciricaTioNs #oR Stat/CTURAL SUPPORTS HOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMNAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SiGNALS ‘Table 11.93.1-1—Fatigue Details of Cantilevered and Noncantlevered Support Structures (continued) 3 Anchor bois or her fteners | 220 7 ‘AttherootaF | Anchor bors intension; stress rmge based en the thetheads | Bolted mast-amto-coumn tensile stress area Misalignment of cexending | comecions. es than 1-40 wi firm conte. int the «existing betwen anchor bolt nuts, tense stress washers and baseplate sea 24 Connection oFmenars oF Bo 7 ‘ANS Foto attachment of miscellaneous sans, the threads tri ina, te. ih lamps or exten Uebolts in the tensile sess = ‘SECTION 3 HOLES AND CUTOUTS = SH Net section of unrinforeed 2500 240 Tntuhe wall Wire out hoes. holes and ews (Scenotee) | atedgeot | Drains holes, tuneinfoeed | Unreiaforced handhoes handhole. aa} {©2015 by ne American Associaton of State Highmay and Tranporaon Oia All gis escved Dilation a vlan of applica2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR IIGHW AY SIGNS, LUMINATRES, AND TRAFIC SIGNALS Soe eee re AoA ew Me tiered a aniicced sop cine 3.2 Reinforced holes and cutouts, Tntube wall | Reinforced handioles, ae or Sen freee tr, ere ae a filbe/iaenreesset Es a ee ae Geneeise | mite aoe iF Meas eee oe SECON = uUOTEVELDEDCOMME TIONS re aan en euaeeres aa pues a ae oe aca mee a ages eo enn Bae =e Sain iecieieees ay eee ae ae ae aoe Daujatapeeee | 1s (ees ES eee sy Boal easimer ii a | a | | (©2016 bythe American Auction ofS eh a Transportation OTs Volo of appa a2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS 12 POR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFICSIGNALS ‘Table 11.93.1-1Fatigue Dea of Canteyered and Noncantleyerd Support Structures Continued) a Fulkpenaion woovewsad | Kr=UR 10 | R230:100 | Wate wall” Colunarto ase plas comealnn tnbedodanwers plateeonmeatnns |16 (ord in. when <1 ins 11.0 ‘62 Tube-to-ransverse ple Kes2E110 Ta tube wall ‘connections stiffened by atthe toe oF Jongtudinal attachments with the partial o fll penetration groove alichment ‘welds or fille-welds in which the | (See detail 54) | (Seedetsil 5.4) | tobe weld ‘ube i subjected to fongitodinal atthe loading ene the welds are wrapped termination ‘around the attachment termination, of attachment, nubs wall scthe toe of | tube-to- plate weld, (63 Transverse Toalearing partial ao Tao Tnnbase metal | ~Loogitodinal sieners welded to joint penetration gmove-welded or atthe weld base plates fillet-welded attachments where ts or {tS 05 in. and te main member is ‘hroneh weld Aa Be Subjected to minimal axial andor ‘hoa. flexural loads (When t> 05 in, ee ate 5 | ., | ee ‘6a Tubeto-tangvere plate 710 26 Ta tbe wall ‘connections sified by atthe toe oF AG) Jongitudinal stool type attachments the ‘with paral or fl penctration attachment s300ve-weld, or illetvelds in tothe weld ‘which the tube is subjected to at Jongittina ong and the wekls ‘enminacion ‘te wrapped around the attachment of termination, atachment, {©2015 by he American Assoctton oF Sale Highway and Transporation Os ‘Alloa esewed. Depletion ra oat of ape i,2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMIINATRES, AND FRAFEIC SIGNALS. 16 ey Secrion 11: Fans@ue Ds ‘Table 1.93 |Fatgue Details of Cantleered and Noncantilevered Support Structures (continued) Notes: Ima branching member wih espect to the sires inthe ranching member: (AF Jpg 12 5 hon t= 24 foe the chord member (ar e128 2 ts Yn 2 ri tnt te Ina chord member with respet to tne tres inthe chord member: (AP)iy= 45k Ina ranching member wi respect othe sre i the branching member: (AP 1.2 ksi Inman member with espet to the stress in the main member (column) (AF) =10 hs when 124 for the hor menber (AP) =HOx| 2) isis when 2 24 forte chord member Ab wheres The nominal tess range inthe main member equals (Se) msn = (SH) texng ean (0) 0 where isthe wal thickness of the branching member, cs tho wal thickness ofthe main member (column) and ais the ovaliing Parameter fr the nin mernber equal to 0.67 for in-plane bending and equal to 1.5 for out-of-plane bending in the main member (Ss wnd the calculated nominal ress age inthe bran hing member indnced by ftgne design lols (See Article C1193.) The man member sl also be designe fo (\FFnw= 4 ks sing the elastic section oF he main member and moment just below te connection ofthe brains member © When 0'5in, (APJ shal bethe lesser of 10.0 ks or the Following owssvan lt (Fy 100 ei shes inne ti ae Tiere ofcetin tat be gn! nc tee poet ie orice enti These tld peeshox egsitectbn ots WARS lee ml Te ae ae rail Telnet asi ese de Peete kote ar eee {©2016 by he American Assocition of State Highway and Transposon Oi ‘Allvigh reserved. Dosleaton sa volt of apple2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS 1128 EOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS Table C1193. Fatigue Details of Support Structures Tested inthe Laboratory Life Constant, | ‘Threshold, ‘Tube Detail | Avg AR Deseription Configuration | Parameters | ksi i Tillevelded tube Round | a=0rin | 39) tosransvere plate in | (Ke 28 connections a | eee 233i. Round | = 023915, 39 5 de-i8in (k= 62) Dyce Din. Nand Mulisided | @= iets 30 26 Dre Win =! (Ke=32)"| ~ (Ki= 6.6) Maltisided 6 (He=35) | (Ki=76) | Multisided 39 45 (kr=29) | (K-65) .© 2016 by ha American Associaton of Stat igh an Transponaton OTs Ailsights reserved Dopletion isa Walton af aplable la‘SecrioY 11: Faricurr Destew Table C11.93.1-L—Fatigue Details of Support Structures Tested i the Laboratory (continued) 1ay Trlk- penetration roovewelded fbedo-tansverso plats comectons ‘sith backing ing, attached tothe plat wih fl Penetration veld, crwth ‘oni ‘weld arn ineror ice of| hocking ing, ane the backing rng ot weld tie tate Round To (K-38) Round 100 (K=2.7) Round 100 & Fulk-penctration sroove- welded ‘ubetortransverse plate connections ‘withthe backing ring not attached to the plate, andthe backing ring welded tothe tobe ‘witha continuous filled atop fice of baking ring. Round as 43) Round Mulsided 39) (Ke= 19) Patil penetration fpoovenelded coh es ‘veh ‘Round (ke=2.1) 45 (K=24) {© 2015 bythe AmesicanAsseition of Stake High and Trnspartation Oficial, ‘Alig reserved. Dupeation fa vation of applieabeawn30 LRED Srecincatios ox SriucrURAL SUPPORTS FOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUAMIVAMRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS ‘Table C11.9.3.1-1—Fatigue Details of Support Structures ested inthe Laboratory (conti Tubetotansvene ‘Multisided plate connections sito by lonaiudinal ahs with pata fil penetration gronve- ‘wel ofl ‘wel in whieh the lube i subjected loagiudinal loading nd he wel te wrapped rund the stant Cracking attop of stiffener no 10 (&e=24) | (Ki 53) Cracking atend plate let-weld tocon tube wall 39 K Tuhewoaranmene plate conection siffned by Fongitainal toot ‘ype atachments \withpatal-r fal ‘penetration groove ‘wel, fillet ‘wel which the tubes subjected to longindinal Toaiing and the ‘weld re wrapped round the satachent termintion, Malisided tro (ke=23) (©2015 6 the American Asisition of State Highs an Trnepenaion Oto ‘Allg sewed. Duplication a vation of apical2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS POR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRE, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1: Fxnieue Desien 1131 sect ‘Table 11.9.3.1-2—Patigue Stress Concentration Factors, Me Section Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor for Finite Life, Section ‘Tyne Detail Location Kr Type Tilecoveked ber Filetweld toe on to-tnnever plate | tube wall Kp =22+46x(15xt +2)x(D/!*—10) Cras | somos (Cat tp Valid fe 0.179 in< tr < OS: in. < Dr = 50 ins USin- tr <4 ing 125 < Cc <2 Gowwelied | Grooweweld ine 5-164 (8x7, +1)=(D; = T9313) tubororinasene | on te wal septs lltetrtl)a (Pr 28) Pine eons reeei= pees sepa a Valid fr: 0.179 in. < ty < 0.625in; 8in. < Dr = 5Ding Sins tr $4ins 125 < Cre < 25,03 < Cr <09 Tiletsveldel abe | Weld os on tube 331) tostmavese plate | Wal atthe end of i | cemectins adie ae aid 028 in ur <078ins SN Mchnenis O28ine< tr <0462Sin; 24n = Dr <50in Filescdcinbe | Flee uece Gia) tertansese ple _ | (be al silent zs é onto XK, us per Eg, 1.9.3.2 ache al for 12 hr <4 ins 025 in hor: 24 in as aie ‘Assbowe | Mutiny espetve Krabove by (U9s.-5) i [earn] Volt for n= Br {©2016 by he Amica Associaton of Sao Highuay and Transporation Ora Allis reserved, Dupaton a voltion of plicable aw2017 INTERIM REVISIONS TO THE LRED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS 32 KOR HIGHWAY SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 11.10-REFEREN AASHTO, 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 170s Edition. American Association of State Highviay and ‘Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2013. Standard Specifications for Siructaral Supports for Highway Slens, Luminaives, and Traffic Signals, Sixth Euition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Aheam, E-B.,and J. A-Packett.2010. Reduevion of Wind-Induced Vibrations in High-Mast Light Poles, Report No. FHWA- WY-1002F, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Albert M,N... Manuel, X. H. Frank, and S. L. Wood. 2007. Feld Testing of Canillevered Trafic Signal Structures under Truck-induced Gust Loads, Report No. FAWA/TX-07/4586-2, Center for Transportation Research, Texas Departinent of ‘Transportation, Austin, TX. Ami G, and A, Whisker, 2000, “Faigue-Life Evaluation of Stel Post Stuctres I: Experimentation," Jounal of Schaal Engineering. American Society of Civil Fagineers, New York, NY. Vol. 126,No, 3, Val.2 (Match 2000), pp. 331340 ASTM. 2012, Standard Specification for Structural Boll, Steel, Heat Treated, 120/105 ksi Minimum Tensile Strength,” 4325-12, Anmual Book of ASTM Standards. American Society for Testing Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. ‘ASTM, 2014, “Standard Specification for Strotural Bolts, Alloy Stoel, Heat Treated, 150 ksi Minimum Tensile Strength,” Ad90-Ida, Arvmal Hook of ASEM Standards. American Society for Testing Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. AWS, 2010, Siraeniral Welding Code-s fel, DI.1/DI.1M. American Welding Society, Miami, Fl. Connor, RJ, 8.H. Collicott, A. M. DeSchepper, R J. Sherman, and J, A. Ocampo. 2012, Development of Fatigne Loading and Design Methodology for High-Mast Lighting Towers, NCHRP Report 718, Transportation Research Board, National ‘esearch Council, Washington, DC. Cook, R.A. D. Bloomauis, A. M. Agosta, and K.F. Tayler 1996. Wind Load Data for Variable Message Sign, Report No. FLIDOTRMCIO728-9488, University of Florida, ainesvile, FL Report prepared for Florida Deparment of Transportation. Creamer, B. Mi, KG. Frank, and R. E. Klingner. 1979, Fatigue Loading of Cantilever Sign Siructures from Truck Wind Gusts, Report No. FHWA/TX-79/10+209-1F, Center for Transportation Research, Texas State Department of Highways and Publis Transportation, Austin, TX. Dexter, RJ, and K. W. Johns. 1998. Fanigue-Refated Wind Loads on Highway Support Structures: Advanced Techmology for Large Structural Systems, Report No. 98-03, Lehigh Univesity; Bethlehem, PA. Dexter, Re anid Mi Ricker, 2002, Furigne-Restsiant Design of Cantlevered Signal, Sign, and Light Supports, NCHRP Report 469, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Fisher, J. W., A, Nussbaumer, P, B. Keating and B. T. Yen. 1993. Resisiance of Welded Details Under Variable Amplitude Long: Life Fatigue Loading, NCHRP Report 354. Transporation Research Foard, Natonal Research Coueil, Washington, DC. Florea M. J, L. Mantel, K. H. Frank, and 8. L. Wood. 2007. Field Tests and Anelytcal Studies ofthe Dynamic Behevior and the Onset of Galloping in Traffic Signal Structures, Report No, FHWAITX-07/4586e1. Center for Transportation Research, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX. Found, FH. J. $ Davison, N. Delatte, E. A. Calvert, S.E.Chen, E, Nunez, and R. Abdalla, 2003, “Stestural Supports for Highvvay Signs, Luminaites, and Traffic Signals,” NCHRP Report 494, Transportation Research Board, National Research ‘Council, Washington, DC. Kacainski, M.R., R. J. Dexter, and J.P. Van Dien. 1998. Fatigue Resistant Desig of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light ‘Supports, NCHRP Report 412. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC: Koenigs, M.T., 7. A. Botios, D, Freytag, and K. H, Frank. 2003, Fatigue Strength of Signal Mast Arm Connections, Report No, FHWA/TX-04/4178-2, Center for Transportation Research, Texas Department of Trinsportation, Austin, TX. (©2016 bythe American Association of State High and Trasporation Oficial ‘Allie reserved. Duplication fa vison of applicable iswont ‘anue Desc 1133 MeDonald, J. R., K.C. Mehta, W. Oler, and N. Pulipaka, 1995. Wind Load Effets on Signals, Lminaires and Trafic Signa Structures, Report No. 1303-1F. Wind Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. NOAA. 2010. Comparative Climatie Data forthe United States through 2010, National Climatic Data Cente, Asheville, NC. Roy, S., ¥-C. Park, R. Sans, J. W. Fisher, and E.K. Kaufimana, 2011. Cost fective Connection Details for Highway Sign. Luminaire and Traffic Signal Siructures. NCHRP Web Only Document 176 Final Report for NCHRP Project 10-70) ‘Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. ‘Stam, A... N. Richman, C. Pool, C. Rios, T- Anderson, and K. Frank. 2011. Fatigue Life of Stee! Base Plate-o-Pole Connections for Traffic Sructures. Report No. FHWA/TX-11/9-1536-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX. 102015 by the American Asotin of St Highvay an Transporation Oia. Allies reserved Duplication sa volton of applica ln,