AP-G95-21 Design and Construction Guideline For Large Cantilever and Gantry Structures

Design and Construction Guidelines for the Delivery of Large Cantilever and Gantry Structures
Prepared by Publisher
Claire Jager, Sally Farquhar, Catherine Robinson, Torill Pape, Tony Austroads Ltd.
Polec, Fatima Hammad, Phil Blundy Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Andrew Wong www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

Over recent years there have been a number of incidents of Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
structural failures of sign and high mast lighting structures across transport and traffic agencies.
Australia and New Zealand, primarily due to poor design and
construction practices. In addition to the obvious unacceptable safety Austroads’ purpose is to support our member organisations
risks and property damage caused by such incidents, these failures to deliver an improved Australasian road transport network.
create substantial unforeseen operational costs to repair and modify To succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road
these assets. This often results in significant traffic delays and and transport research which underpins our input to policy
imparts reputational damage to the governing road authority and development and published guidance on the design,
other parties involved. construction and management of the road network and its
associated infrastructure.
An extensive literature review and stakeholder engagement process
formed the basis of this project. It identified gaps in guidance in the Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers
delivery of cantilever and gantry structures, as well as examples of value for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
good practice in their design and construction and lessons learnt consistency for road users.
from past failures. The objective of this guideline is to document Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
consistent advice for the design and construction of large cantilever executive representatives from each of its eleven member
and gantry structures that is aligned with national and international organisations:
best practice.
• Transport for New South Wales
This guidance document should be read alongside relevant • Department of Transport Victoria
standards and is intended for use by all stakeholders involved in the
• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
delivery of cantilever and gantry structures including:
• Main Roads Western Australia
• state road agencies
• Department for Infrastructure and Transport South
• local government agencies Australia
• designers, contractors and fabricators. • Department of State Growth Tasmania
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics
Keywords Northern Territory
sign, cantilever, gantry, design, construction • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Australian Capital Territory
ISBN 978-1-922382-46-7 • Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Development and Communications
Austroads Project No. ABT 6196
• Australian Local Government Association
Austroads Publication No. AP-G95-21 • New Zealand Transport Agency.
Publication date January 2021
Pages 47
© Austroads 2021 | This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
This Guideline is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road authorities may vary their practice
according to local circumstances and policies. Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not
accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and
judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Acknowledgements
The development of this Guideline would not have been possible without the voluntary participation, knowledge exchange, reviews and
contributions of various people and organisations.
The authors acknowledge the oversight and review from the project working group: Andrew Wong (Queensland Department of
Transport and Main Roads), Linda Ziebell (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads), Andy Ng (Department of Transport
Victoria), Yew Chin Loay (Department of Transport Victoria), Vincent Tang (Department of State Growth Tasmania), Evan Lo
(Transurban Queensland) and Glen Brewster (Transurban Victoria).
The following people and organisations are gratefully acknowledged for their engagement and information sharing during the
consultation phase of the project: Adam Lim, Mahes Rajakaruna, Mark Watkins (Main Roads Western Australia), Jeff Wang, Parvez
Shah (Transport for New South Wales), Andy Ng, Yew Chin Koay, Georgia Stylianos (Department of Transport Victoria), Paul Adams,
Lawrence Hu, Jayaratna Mahagamage, Stuart Rothwell, Andrew Wong, Benjamin Zhang, Linda Ziebell (Queensland Department of
Transport and Main Roads), Phil Molloy (Department of Infrastructure and Transport South Australia), Glenn Brewster, Evan Lo
(Transurban), Neil Tincknell, Cuong Chu (KBR), Stephen Salim (BECA), Geoff Hamilton (GHCE), Andrew Wood (Arup), Daniel Ash,
Darren Leeson (Jacobs), Tom Harris (WSP New Zealand), Greg Vanrooyen, Nicholas Kitis, Asrar peer, Peter Masterson, Siu Ling
(BG&E), Wolfganag Konn, Tahmina Hossain (Arcadis), David Evans (Fero), Paolo Corronca, Sasanka Sinha (Weld Australia), Peter
Key (Australian Steel Institute), David Harrison, Peter Golding (Galvanising Association Australia), Daniel Lovisa, Kent Kieseker, Tim
Hann (Seymour Whyte), Darren Wagstaff, Tuck Fui Tsen, Julyan Boyle (Lendlease), Jem Gilbert and Peter Sparkes (AECOM UK),
Barry Colford and Simon Lewis (AECOM USA), Martin Hewitt, Oscar Duyvestyn, Phil Blundy, Brian Finegan (AECOM Australia).
The long-term contributions of Catherine Robinson, Sally Farquhar, Fatima Hammad, Tony Polec, Torill Pape and Phil Blundy from the
AECOM project delivery team is gratefully acknowledged.
Content cited and/or reproduced from AS 5100.2 Supp 1:2007 Cl C23.2.2 ©Standards Australia Limited. Copied by Aecom on behalf of
Austroads with the permission of Standards Australia under Licence CL1120aus.
Content cited and/or reproduced from Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, and Traffic Signals, 5th
edition, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Used with permission.
Content cited and/or reproduced from Department of Transport Victoria is reproduced with permission from Department of Transport
Victoria as the copyright owner.
Cited content reproduced in this Guideline has been included for illustrative purposes for conveying key principles and may at times be
based on superseded publications.
Summary
Over recent years there have been a number of incidents of structural failures of sign and high mast lighting
structures across Australia and New Zealand, primarily due to poor design and construction practices. In
addition to the obvious unacceptable safety risks and property damage caused by such incidents, these
failures create substantial unforeseen operational costs to repair and modify these assets. This often results
in significant traffic delays and imparts reputational damage to the governing road authority and other parties
involved.
An extensive literature review and stakeholder engagement process formed the basis of this project. It
identified gaps in guidance in the delivery of cantilever and gantry structures, as well as examples of good
practice in their design and construction and lessons learnt from past failures. The objective of this guideline
is to document consistent advice for the design and construction of large cantilever and gantry structures that
is aligned with national and international best practice.
The guidance document should be read alongside relevant standards and is intended for use by all
stakeholders included in the delivery of cantilever and gantry structures including:

• local government agencies
• designers, contractors and fabricators.
Austroads 2021 | page i

Definitions
Term Meaning Source

Cantilever A sign support structure supported at one end Transport Infrastructure Ireland
only. Portal and Cantilever Sign/Signal
Gantries (2014)
Gantry A single or multiple portal structure supporting Transport Infrastructure Ireland
signs, signals, Variable Message Signs (VMS) Portal and Cantilever Sign/Signal
or other equipment. Gantries (2014)
High Mast Lighting Tower Truss type or pole type tower that provides AASHTO LRFDLTS (1st edition
lighting at heights greater than 55ft, typically 2015 revised 2019)
using four to twelve luminaires
Mast arm A member used to hold a sign, signal head, or AASHTO LRFDLTS (1st edition
luminaire in an approximately horizontal 2015 revised 2019)
position
Outreach of cantilever Length of cantilever from traffic face of support CD365 (Revision 0 2019)
to tip
Overhead Sign A sign mounted over a roadway or near, and AASHTO LRFDLTS (1st edition
elevated with respect to, a travel way 2015 revised 2019)
Sign A device carrying directional or other CD365 (Revision 0 2019)
informational message, e.g. route information
at the approach to a junction
Signal A device that uses lights to give advisory or CD365 (Revision 0 2019)
mandatory instructions, e.g. stop, or 30 miles/h
speed restriction
Solidity Ratio The ratio of solid area to total area of structure AS 1170.2 (2011)
Competent Engineer A competent engineer is deemed to
demonstrate the relevant experience to
undertake the role. Examples of evidence of
experience could be:
• track record on similar projects
• chartered professional engineer
• registration through professional engineers
registration acts such as RPEQ
• years of experience.
Variable message sign Sign capable of displaying a variety of text, CD365 (Revision 0 2019)
(VMS) messages and/or symbols
Design Life The period assumed in design for which a AS 5100.5 (2017)
structure or a structural element required to
perform its intended purpose with minimal
maintenance and without replacement or major
structural repairs.
Relevant authority An agency authorised by legislation or AS 5100.1 (2017)
regulation to issue determinations, orders, or
other instructions in respect of any subject
covered by this guideline. The relevant
authority could be the asset manager, relevant
authority, state road authority or other party.
Austroads 2021 | page ii

Abbreviations
Acronym Meaning
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
AASHTO LRFD LTS American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Load and
Resistance Factor Design Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals (1st Edition 2015 revised 2019)
ACRS Australasian Certification Authority for Reinforcing and Structural Steels
ASI Australian Steel Institute
AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association
ARI Average Recurrence Interval
CC Construction Category
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CHS Circular Hollow Section
CIDECT Committee for International Development and Education on Construction of Tubular
Structures
CPEng Chartered Professional Engineer
D&C Design and Construct
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (UK)
DoT Department of Transport Victoria
DPTI Department for Infrastructure and Transport South Australia (formerly Department of
Planning, Transport, and Infrastructure)
ECI Early Contractor Involvement
FE Finite Element
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FLS Fatigue Limit State
GAA Galvanizers Association of Australia
IFC Issue for Construction
IIW International Institute of Welding
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
ITS Intelligent Transport Systems
MRWA Main Roads Western Australia
NSSCS National Structural Steelwork Compliance (Australia)
NYDOT New York Department of Transport
NZTA New Zealand Transport Authority
OSS Overhead Sign Structure
PWG Project Working Group
RFI Request for Information
RHS Rectangular Hollow Section
RPEQ Registered Professional Engineer Queensland
SCA Steel Compliance Australia
SHS Square Hollow Section
SLS Serviceability Limit State
Austroads 2021 | page iii

Acronym Meaning
SRA State Road Authority
TF Friction type bolt
TfNSW Transport for New South Wales
TMR Department of Transport and Main Roads QLD
ULS Ultimate Limit State
VMS Variable Message Sign
WHS Work Health and Safety
Austroads 2021 | page iv

Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ iii
1. Introduction to the Guideline ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3.1 Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Guideline Structure ........................................................................................................................... 3
2. Delivery Approach ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Design General Principles ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Standards and Guidance Documents .............................................................................................. 4
2.3 Matters for Resolution ...................................................................................................................... 6
3. Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Design Life ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Clearances ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Horizontal Clearance ........................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Vertical Clearance ............................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Deflection Limits ............................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Wind Loading ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4.1 Terrain Category.................................................................................................................. 9
3.4.2 Solidity Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.4.3 Shielding Factor ................................................................................................................. 10
3.4.4 Drag Coefficient ................................................................................................................. 10
3.4.5 Critical Wind Loading for Wind-Induced Vibrations ........................................................... 11
3.4.6 Wind Loading for Fatigue .................................................................................................. 11
3.5 Dynamic Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.5.1 Dynamic Interaction Between a Bridge and an Attached Gantry ...................................... 13
3.6 Fatigue............................................................................................................................................ 13
3.7 Detailing.......................................................................................................................................... 17
3.7.1 Connections ....................................................................................................................... 17
3.7.2 Bolting ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.7.3 Welding .............................................................................................................................. 22
3.7.4 Holes for Drainage and Electrical Conduits ...................................................................... 23
3.7.5 Useful References ............................................................................................................. 23
3.8 Safety in Design ............................................................................................................................. 24
3.8.1 Responsibilities of the Design Engineer ............................................................................ 24
3.8.2 Other Responsibilities ....................................................................................................... 26
3.8.3 Safety in Design Workshop ............................................................................................... 27
Austroads 2021 | page v

4. Construction ......................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Protective Coatings ........................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.1 Considerations at the Design Stage .................................................................................. 28
4.1.2 Considerations During Application .................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Fabrication / installation/ storage considerations: ............................................................. 31
4.1.4 Common Issues Impacting Durability and Function .......................................................... 31
4.2 Importation of Steel ........................................................................................................................ 32
4.2.1 Steel Compliance .............................................................................................................. 32
4.2.2 High Strength Bolt Compliance ......................................................................................... 34
4.2.3 Availability and Lead Time ................................................................................................ 35
4.3 Common Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1 Weld Distortion of Base / Splice Plates ............................................................................. 36
4.3.2 Distortion During Galvanisation ......................................................................................... 36
4.3.3 Connection Constructability ............................................................................................... 37
4.3.4 Tensioning of Bolts ............................................................................................................ 37
4.3.5 Installation of Lock Nuts .................................................................................................... 38
4.3.6 Gaps Between Splice Plates ............................................................................................. 39
4.3.7 Grouting Under Base Plates .............................................................................................. 39
4.3.8 Orientation and Installation of Anchor Bolts ...................................................................... 40
5. Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 41
5.1 Design Phase ................................................................................................................................. 41
5.2 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................................ 43
References ................................................................................................................................................... 44
Tables
Table 1.1: Consultation paricipants .............................................................................................................. 3

Table 2.1: Common references .................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2.2: Standards and design guidelines ................................................................................................ 5
Table 3.1: Design life.................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3.2: Vertical clearance requirements.................................................................................................. 8
Table 3.3: Drag coefficients ....................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3.4: Natural frequency limit .............................................................................................................. 12
Figures
Figure 3.1: Double nut anchorage connection ............................................................................................ 18

Figure 3.2: Single nut anchorage connection .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.3: Preferred structural member connection locations ................................................................... 20
Figure 3.4: Common bolting arrangements in structural members ............................................................. 22
Figure 3.5: Fatigue resistant connection detail ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 4.1: Steelwork standards framework ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 4.2: Bolt tensioning sequence (circular arrangement) ..................................................................... 38
Figure 4.3: Lock nut installation ................................................................................................................... 38
Austroads 2021 | page vi

Introduction to the Guideline
Introduction
Over recent years there have been a number of incidents of structural failures of sign structures across
Australia and New Zealand, primarily due to poor design and construction practices. In addition to the
obvious unacceptable safety risks and property damage caused by such incidents, these failures create
substantial unforeseen operational costs to replace or repair and modify these assets. This often results in
significant traffic delays and imparts reputational damage to the governing road authority and other parties
involved.
This Guideline presents principles for sound design and construction of cantilever and gantry structures
based upon a review of current national and international practices. Improved design and construction
practices reduces the risk to the relevant authorities, road users and general public arising from failures.
Purpose
The purpose of this guidance document is to provide consistent advice for the design and construction of
large cantilever and gantry structures that is aligned with national and international best practice. Through
improved design and construction advice it aims to reduce the risk to to the relevant authorities, road users
and community arising from failures.
Scope
This guidance document applies to structural design and construction cantilever and gantry sign support
structures that extend over any portion of the roadway, including the shoulders and median. Generally, the
failure of these structures could result in fatalities, injuries, asset damage or significant disruption to road
users.
Limitations
The principles included in this guidance document can generally be applied to similar over-road structures,
such as traffic signals and high mast lighting structures. However, these structures do serve different
purposes and have therefore been omitted from specific inclusion in this guide. The following list highlights
some of the differences between sign support structures and other support structures.
• Design of high mast lighting structures often differs in terms of design life, deflection limits, fatigue
performance and connection detailing requirements.
• Traffic signals have different functional requirements (including maintenance access), behave differently
dynamically and often have different design lives.
• Tolling gantries can be very similar; however, may have more stringent requirements for access and
electrical provisions.
• Supports for other electrical equipment, such as speed cameras or CCTV, can be very similar, but may
require different design lives or deflection limits.
For a list of some useful references for design and construction requirements specific to high mast light
structures, traffic signals and tolling gantries, refer to the References section.
Austroads 2021 | page 1

The following areas are not covered by this guidance document:

• High mast light structures and traffic signal structures
• Signs, traffic signals, lighting, tolling equipment or ITS equipment mounted directly to bridge barriers or
piers
• Foundations
• Operational and maintenance requirements
• Decommissioning requirements
• Non-steel structures
• Traffic Control Device such as sign face and VMS unit
• Retrofitting/modfication of existing gantry and cantilever structures
• Fire design
• Electrical design
• Lighting protection and design
• Aesthetics
Methodology
To determine the most appropriate design and construction methodologies for inclusion in this guide, the
following approach was taken:
• Literature Review – a targeted literature review of national and international standards, technical papers,
reports and guidelines was undertaken to capture documented best practice
• Consultation and Review of Current Practice – a stakeholder engagement phase consisting of a
survey questionnaire and interviews was undertaken to determine the following
– Define the structural forms of large cantilever and gantry structures;
– Document current practice related to the design, construction and management of large cantilever and
gantry structures;
– Identify industry examples of poor practice causing defects and failures;
– Identify what is deemed to be ‘good practice’;
– Identify current challenges in the delivery of large cantilever and gantry structures.
Table 1.1 summarises the stakeholders who participated in the consultation phase of the project.

Table 1.1: Consultation paricipants
Stakeholders
State Road Authorities/Asset Owner Consultants

Main Roads Western Australia KBR
Transport and Main Roads (QLD) BECA
New Zealand Transport Agency GHCE
Department of Transport (VIC) Arup
Department of State Growth (TAS) Jacobs
Department for Infrastructure and Transport South Australia WSP (NZ)
Roads and Maritime Services (NSW) BG&E
Transurban (Vic & QLD) Arcadis
Industry/Fabricators Contractors
Fero Seymour Whyte
Infrabuild Lendlease
Weld Australia Roadtek
Australian Steel Institute International
Galvanising Association Australia New York Department of Transport
Highways England
The literature review and consultation and review of current practice phases of the project were used to form
the content of the guide.
Guideline Structure
This guideline has been structured to reflect the different phases and key aspects of the delivery process for
cantilever and gantry sign support structures.
• Part 1: Introduction
• Part 2: Delivery Approach
• Part 3: Design
• Part 4: Construction
• Part 5: Quality.
Intended users of the document include:

• local government agencies
• designers, contractors and fabricators.
Strong communication between the various delivery phases promotes good quality outcomes and therefore it
is recommended that users review all sections of the document to develop an appreciation for key principles
and challenges that are commonly faced.

Delivery Approach
The following sections outlines items for consideration to successfully deliver the design and construction
of sign support structures. It covers the key issues that should be discussed and agreed by all
stakeholders involved in the delivery process including the asset owner, asset manager, designer,
contractor and inspectors.
Design General Principles

General principles for the design of large cantilever and gantry structures are outlined in AS 5100.1:2017
Bridge design Part 1: Scope and general principles. Clause 8 of AS 5100.1:2017 specifically outlines the
design philosophy that should be adopted and emphasizes that the design shall consider all aspects of the
structure’s life cycle (including areas such as constructability, maintainability, safety in design and
sustainability). It also highlights that all structures shall be designed and detailed to fail in a ductile manner
after they reach the ultimate limit state and robust design practices including alternative load paths to ensure
the stability of the structure should be considered. Specifically for overhead sign structures, the consequence
of failure could include blockage of the road, damage to vehicles and property or loss of life should be
considered. For additional design principles refer to AS 5100.1:2017 and relevant state road authority
guidelines.
Standards and Guidance Documents

Table 2.1 identifies the common reference used throughout the guideline.
Table 2.1: Common references
Document Abbreviation used in Document Reference

American Association of State Highway and Transportation AASHTO LRFD LTS AASHTO, 2015
Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifications
for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals, First Edition.
All other documents are referenced as they occur in the text.
Table 2.2 lists Australian and International standards and guidance documents that are commonly used in
the delivery of cantilever and gantry sign support structures. The list is not exhaustive and covers commonly
used documents only. State Road Authorities often have additional design, quality and installation guidance
documents that should be incorporated during the delivery of cantilever and gantry sign support structures.
Standards and guidelines should be agreed and specified at the beginning of the delivery phase.

Table 2.2: Standards and design guidelines
Standards Name
Australian Standards
AS/NZS 1163:2016 Cold- formed structural steel hollow sections
AS/NZS 1170:2007 Structural design action set
AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 Structural design actions - Wind actions
AS 1397:2011 Continuous hot-dip metallic coated steel sheet and strip - Coatings of zinc and zinc alloyed with
aluminium and magnesium
AS/NZS 1554.1:2014 Structural steel welding - Part 1: Welding of steel structures
AS/NZS 1554.2:2003 Structural steel welding - Part 2: Stud welding (steel studs to steel)
AS/NZS 1554.5:2014 Structural steel welding - Part 5: Welding of steel structures subject to high levels of fatigue loading
AS 1657:2018 Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders - Design, construction and installation
AS/NZS 1891:2007 Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices
AS/NZS 2312.1:2014 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use of protective
coatings – Part 1: Paint Coatings
AS/NZS 2312.2:2014 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use of protective
coatings - Part 2: Hot dip galvanizing
AS 2812:2005 Welding, brazing and cutting of metals - Glossary of terms
AS/NZS ISO 3834 Quality requirements for fusion welding of metallic materials
AS 3990:1993 Mechanical equipment- Steelwork
AS 4100:2020 Steel structures
AS/NZS 4680:2006 Hot-dip galvanized (zinc) coatings on fabricated ferrous articles
AS 5100:2017 Bridge design set
AS/NZS 5131:2016 Structural steel – Fabrication and erection
AS 5216:2018 Design of post-installed and cast-in fastenings in concrete
International Standards
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
ISO 1461:2009 Hot dip galvanized coatings on fabricated iron and steel articles — Specifications and test methods
NCHRP Report 469 Fatigue – resistant design of cantilevered signal, sign, and light supports (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program)
EN 1090-2 Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures. Technical requirements for steel
structures
NZS 3403:1978 Specification for hot-dip galvanized corrugated steel sheet for building purposes
CD 365 Portal and cantilever signs/signals gantries (2019)
API 5L Specification for line pipe- American Petroleum Institute
IIW Guideline International welding inspection personnel
Guidance Documents
Design Guide for Hot Dip Galvanizing- best https://gaa.com.au/basic-design-guidelines/
practice for venting and draining - GAA
https://weldaustralia.com.au/publications/wtia-technical-notes-and-
Weld Australia Technical Notes
other-publications/
https://www.scacompliance.com.au/wp-
Practical guide to planning the safe erection
content/uploads/2017/03/Practical_Guide_to_Planning_the_Safe_Erecti
of steel structures - ASI
on_of_Steel_Structures_v3_FINAL.pdf
https://www.scnz.org/site/scnz/images/Documents/Publications/NZ%20
SCNZ 111- 2018 New Zealand guide to the
Guide%20to%20the%20Sourcing%20of%20Compliant%20Structural%
sourcing of compliant structural steels
20Steels%202018.pdf
Practical guide to railway engineering - AREMA https://www.arema.org/AREMA_MBRR/Store/Practical_Guide_TOC.aspx

Matters for Resolution

Matters for resolution before the design commences are specified in AS 5100.1:2017 Bridge design Part 1:
Scope and general principles Clause 6. Specifically related to sign support structures, it states that approval
of the design life should be resolved prior to design commencing.
The following items should also be considered for resolution when developing the contract documents
Contract type. The contract type can impact the approach to delivery. For example, an Early Contractor
Involvement (ECI) contract enables the input of the contractor into design decisions that may impact the
fabrication and installation process. Alternatively, a Design and Construct contract may not enable significant
communication and collaboration between the designer and contractor. Consideration could also be given to
specifying an onsite role for the designer during the construction phase to encourage communication
regarding design decisions and developing robust construction processes. This role could cover handover
inspections and/or witnessing of hold points. Contract types and additional design and/or construction
requirements should be considered by the relevant authority early in the project procurement process. It is
recommended that all relevant legal, commercial and procurement representatives provide relevant inputs
prior to the finalisation of contract documents.
• Documentation requirements. The design and construction documentation requirements should be
noted in the contract documents. For example, consideration should be given as to whether the shop
drawings are to be included with as-built documentation and specific handover documents required for
ongoing operation and maintenance.
• Review requirements. All review requirements should be specified in the contract documents. These
could include:
– Design review requirements such as qualification and level of review. Refer to Section 5.1 for further
information.
– Inspection or hold points during construction.
The following items should be discussed and agreed with the relevant authority prior to the commencement
of the design.
• Design Life. The period assumed in design for which a structure or a structural element required to
perform its intended purpose with minimal maintenance and without replacement or major structural
repairs.
• Section geometry. The use of open sections versus closed sections or fabricated sections and the
impact on availability, lead time and design.
• Supply availability. There can sometimes be significant lead times associated with some section and
bolt types. This should be considered prior to the selection of section geometry.
• Approach to fatigue assessment. In Section 3.6 there are a variety of approaches that can be taken for
the fatigue assessment based on the section geometry.
• Number of fatigue cycles. The number of fatigue cycles is dependent on the structures purpose and
design life.
• Safety in Design. Safety in design requirements, such as maintenance access, can impact the design
concept.
• Protective Coating Availability. The type of protective coating and application can influence the design
concept and detailing.

Design
The design requirements for gantry and cantilever structures are specified in the Australian Standard AS
5100.1:2017 Bridge Design Part 1: Scope and general principles Clause 23 and AS 5100.2:2017 Bridge
Design Part 2: Design loads (Clause 24) with additional requirements provided in State Road Authority codes
and manuals. When designing cantilever and gantry structures, the following should be considered in the
design concept:
• ultimate limit state (ULS) (e.g. strength limit state, stability limit state)
• serviceability limit state (SLS) (e.g. deformation, permanent damage due to corrosion, cracking or
fatigue, vibration)
• connection detailing
• design life
• geometry/location (clear zone, vertical and horizontal clearance)
• safety in design
• operational and maintenance requirements
• future replacement / repurposing of support structure
• construction and installation
• durability
• inspectability
• maintainability
• existing services such as stormwater drainage.
The following sections provide a summary of guidance to cover various aspects for a successful and
robust design of sign support structures.
Design Life
Overhead sign support structures require an increased design life compared with other sign structures due to
the increased consequence of failure. Table 3.1 summarises the varying design life requirements for gantry
and cantilever structures specified by Australian and New Zealand standards. State Road Authority guidance
documents may provide additional advice on the appropriate design life and should be reviewed.
Table 3.1: Design life
Standard Criteria Design Life (years)

AS 5100.1:2017 Light and sign structure 50 (or as approved by the relevant authority)
Anchoring system on bridges 100
Anchoring system elsewhere 50
NZTA Highway Signs, supports and foundations for overhead 50
Structures Design signs (importance level 2)
Guide (2016)
Signs mounted on other structures that are not Design life of supporting structure
easily replaceable

Clearances
The following sections outline the geometric requirements for the design of sign support structures.
Geometric requirements are usually designated in the relevant authority’s design guidelines or standards.
Horizontal Clearance
Overhead sign and high-level lighting supports are considered fixed-base support systems that do not yield
or break away on impact. The large mass of these support systems and the potential safety consequences of
falling to the ground necessitate a fixed-base design (AASHTO 2019). The literature (TMR 2020, AASHTO
2019, The Highways Agency 1998, NZTA 2016) agrees that fixed-base systems are rigid obstacles and
should not be used in the clear zone area unless shielded by a barrier. The TMR Design Criteria (2020)
specifies that, “the barrier shall have sufficient clearance to the gantry to allow for barrier deflection and
provide access for maintenance”.
The Department of Transport (DoT) published a Road Design Note (RDN 06-13) in 2019 that provides
guidance on a risk-based approach to the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports. The Road
Design Note indicates that gantry and cantilever sign supports are a potentially greater hazard than other
roadside hazards given their value to the network and consequence (or severity) in the event of a collapse. It
covers additional risks specific to Gantry and Cantilever supports including:
• consequence of collapse
• provision of a safe workplace
• potential disruption to the network due to collapse
• asset value / repair cost.
Based on the site-specific risks, a risk category is assigned that specifies a minimum risk scenario and
barrier criteria. A copy of the Road Design Note (RDN 06-13) can be found online
(https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/technical-publications/road-design)
Vertical Clearance
The vertical clearance for overhead signs is dependent on the relevant authority and road category type. Table
3.2 the varying vertical clearance requirements for gantry and cantilever structures specified by Australian and
New Zealand standards. State Road Authority guidance documents may provide additional advice on the
appropriate design life and should be reviewed. Appropriate provision for overlays and foundation settlement
(typically 100 mm) should be included in the vertical clearance requirements (NZTA 2016).
Table 3.2: Vertical clearance requirements
Standard Criteria Design Life (years)

AS 5100.1:2017 Beneath major overhead sign structures • 5.4 above any moving traffic lane to the
(extract from Table 13.7) (the vertical clearances stated include an lowest edge of the sign, supporting
allowance of 100mm for the combined structure or lighting mounted below the
effect of settlement and road surfacing) sign
• 5.9 for high clearance routes
• 6.0 where future lighting is considered
NZTA Highway Structures All signs mounted above carriageways • 6.0 with appropriate provision for
Design Guide (2016) overlays and settlement (typically
100mm)
• 6.2 to primary structural elements of
sign support structures

Deflection Limits
The vertical and horizontal serviceability deflection (both static and dynamic) shall consider the self-weight,
superimposed dead loads, live loads, serviceability wind loads and long-term creep deflections resulting from
foundation movement (TMR 2020). The deflection under load should not impose on the clearance limits
(refer to Section 3.2). Countering the structural deformation due to self-weight and superimposed dead load
with an appropriate pre-camber is sometimes a specified requirement of the relevant authority. (Highways
Agency UK 1998). Refer to the following standards for deflection limit criteria:
• NZTA Highway Structures Design Guide (2016)

• AS 5100.2: 2017 Bridge Design – Design Loads.
The relevant State Road Authority guidance documents should also be referenced.
Wind Loading
For large gantry and cantilever structures, wind loading can cause large amplitude vibration and/or fatigue
damage due to effects such as galloping, vortex shedding, natural wind gusts and truck-induced gusts. Wind
actions, in combination with other load effects, generally govern the design of these structures.
Wind loading should be determined in accordance with AS 5100.2:2017 Bridge design Part 2 design loads
(Section 24) and AS/NZS 1170.2:2011, Structural design actions – Wind actions’ and should consider wind
perpendicular to the sign face as well as wind at 45 degrees. Regional wind speed is to be used to determine
the design wind pressure and is dependent on the Average Recurrence Interval (ARI), which is typically
specified in AS 5100.2:2017.
The updated DR AS/NZS 1170.2:2017 draft for public comment provides more specific guidance on
determination of the dynamic response factor (Cdyn) for potentially wind-sensitive structures through the
following Clauses:
• Clause 6.2.3 Dynamic response factor for towers, poles and masts with head frames (Cdyn)
• Clause 6.2.4 Dynamic response factor for horizontal slender structures (Cdyn).
However, more broadly, AS/NZS 1170.2 does not specifically address wind loading for sign support
structures. Further guidance pertaining to specific aspects of wind loading determination for such structures
is provided within the following subsections as well as references to additional resources which may be
applicable for specific scenarios.
Terrain Category
When considering the Terrain Category in accordance with AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 Clause 4.4, it is important
to consider both directions – along the highway and across to the highway. Given the typical arrangement of
highways relative to surrounding landscape, other infrastructure or built environment, the terrain category
‘along the highway’ is likely to be lower (smoother) than across the highway. If both directions are not
considered then the effective wind velocity could be underestimated. This is particularly relevant for
cantilever and gantry structures when considering wind at an angle to the sign face (i.e. 45 degrees).

Solidity Ratio
For frame structures, AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 makes allowance for determination of the aerodynamic shape
factor (Cfig) based on the whole frame or based on summation of the effects on the individual members.
When determining the solidity ratio, consideration should be given to the type of sign as well as any potential
removal, addition or change in the sign type. For example: where mesh (solidity ratio between 0.3 – 0.6) is
used to enclose a 3D truss, the drag coefficient could be worse than for a solid body because a solid body
might have better laminar flow over the body whereas a mesh may create more drag. There is limited
research available on this issue.
Shielding Factor
AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 Appendix E2.3 comments that for multiple open frames (e.g. 3D truss) a shielding
factor can be considered for subsequent (leeward) frames. However, for the design of sign support
structures AASHTO LRFDLTS (2019) suggests that the shielding factor should be ignored. It is
recommended that for the design of sign support structures, the beneficial effect of shielding is ignored or
consideration for scenarios involving removal, addition or change of a sign type should be considered when
determining the shielding factor.
Drag Coefficient
Appendix E of AS/NZS 1170.2 (Aerodynamic Shape Factors for Exposed Structural Members, Frame and
Lattice Towers) states that drag coefficients for RHS/SHS members can be as low as 0.6 (refer Table E3).
The testing used to determine the drag coefficients in Table E3 was based on sections with a radius-to-
breadth ratio of 1/3 (0.33). However, RHS and SHS sections typically produced in Australia may have a
radius-to-breadth ratio of less than 0.10. It is noted that the corner radius is usually a function of material
thickness rather than section breadth.
Testing undertaken by Delany (1953) indicated that, for sections with tighter radii, drag coefficients of up to
2.0 could be exhibited. Drag coefficients presented for RHS/SHS sections in AASHTO LRFDLTS (2019)
Section 3 are more conservative than those presented in AS/NZ 1170.2:2011. A selection of drag
coefficients are presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Drag coefficients
Drag Coefficient Radius Source

0.6 0.33 AS1170.2:2011 Table E3
2.2 0 AS1170.2:2011 Table E4
2.0-6rs <0.125 AASHTO LRFD LTS 2015 Table 3.8.7-1
1.25 ≥0.125 AASHTO LRFD LTS 2015 Table 3.8.7-1
Note: rs is the ratio of corner radius to depth of square member
Design values for the drag coefficient (Cd) may vary substantially depending on the assumption of radius-to-
breadth ratio, so designers are encouraged to confirm the value of Cd is appropriate for the radius of the
section considered.
Static sign faces can be treated as ‘hoarding’ and the wind effects and net drag coefficient can be assessed
in accordance with Appendix D AS1170.2:2011.

Critical Wind Loading for Wind-Induced Vibrations
In addition to wind loading considerations for Ultimate, Serviceability and Fatigue limit states, consideration
should also be made for the critical SLS loading for wind-induced vibrations. The predominant range and
directions of local wind speeds at a gantry/cantilever site should be considered with respect to the wind
speed for resonant frequency and dynamic behaviour of the structure. AS 5100.2 Supp1:2007 provides an
approach to precluding resonant response of cantilever structures by determining the critical wind velocity
(Vcr). Further commentary on this approach is provided in Section 3.5 of this Guideline.
Wind Loading for Fatigue
For the fatigue assessment, AS/NZS 5100.2:2017–Design Loads and AS/NZS AS5100.6:2017- Steel and
composite construction directs designers to the AASHTO LRFDLTS (2015). The natural wind gust provisions
in the AASHTO Specification are based on a site with a 0.01% exceedance for a yearly mean wind velocity
of 5m/s. If concern is raised regarding the adoption of wind loading from American standard for use in the
Australian environment, a check of the loading can be undertaken using a combination of Australian
standards and local meteorological records.
For fatigue sensitive structures, Clause 2.5.5 of AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 provides information on the number of
times that a stress level (range) is exceeded due to wind loading during a defined time period (lifetime).
However, no clear or direct link to cumulative fatigue damage or design fatigue life is made.
Section 13 of AS 5100.6:2017 provides the relationships between allowable stress ranges of constant
amplitude and the number of cycles to failure, using a series of S-N curves pertaining to detail categories.
By combining the wind load / cycle count relationship in Clause 2.5.5 of AS 1170.2 with the fatigue strength
assessment in Clause 13.10.1 of AS 5100.6, a relationship between fatigue damage and stress range can
be established and expected fatigue life can be calculated. Further insight into this correlation and the
resulting simplified approach to fatigue design life assessment can be found in the following Australian Steel
Institute publication:
• “Wind-induced Fatigue of Steel Structures: a Simplified Design Approach to AS4100,” Steel
Construction, Journal of the Australian Steel Institute: Volume 45, Number 2 – August 2012;
Dynamic Analysis
Dynamic analysis of large sign support structures is required to determine if a structure is likely to vibrate
under wind loading. Excessive vibrations can impact the serviceability of the sign by causing:
• ITS equipment mounted to the sign structure to exceed manufacturer’s limits rendering it ineffective
• road users to feel unsafe or making signs illegible
• inspectors/workers accessing maintenance access platforms to feel unsafe
• fatigue failure
Sign support structures should be designed to have adequate structural stiffness that will result in acceptable
serviceability performance. The deflection limits detailed in AS 5100.2:2017 clause 24.3 or relevant authority
design specifications are provided to ensure an aesthetically pleasing structure under dead load conditions
and to provide adequate structural stiffness that will result in acceptable performance under applied loads,
such as wind induced vibration.

Wind sensitive structures may be susceptible to a resonant response if the structure is too flexible. The draft
version of AS/NZS 1170.2:2020 defines the following structures as wind sensitive:
• poles, masts and chimneys of circular cross-section with height to average diameter aspect ratio greater
than 5
• horizontal slender structures (such as gantries) with a first mode natural frequency between 1 Hz and 0.5
Hz
• other structures, such as a lighting pole even if the first mode of frequency exceeds 1 Hz
A dynamic analysis should be undertaken to determine the natural frequency of the structure. The higher the
natural frequency of the structure the less susceptible the structure becomes to wind induced fatigue loads.
Table 3.4 summarises suggested natural frequency limits to limit vibrations for various structure types. Finite
Element (FE) modelling of the structure can be undertaken to determine the structures dynamic response to
vibrations in more detail. If a resonant response is possible, it should be mitigated in the design (for example
by the installation of impact dampers or wind flow spoilers) (BTN 014: 2019).
When walking along an access platform, human induced vibrations can cause vibration levels that exceed
human comfort levels. There is no specific guidance documented in relation to acceptable vibration levels for
human comfort when accessing maintenance access platforms and walkways. Studies have shown that
human induced vibrations can range from 1.6-2.2 Hz. To minimise the vibration effects of walking on the
maintenance access platform, the natural frequency of the structure should be greater than the range of
human induced vibrations. Alternatively, Finite Element Modelling of the structure can be undertaken to
determine the structures dynamic response to vibrations in more detail.
Table 3.4: Natural frequency limit
Structure type Natural frequency limit Reference

Gantry Draft AS 1170.2:2020
Structure >1 Hz
DoT BTN 014 2019
Cantilever AS5100.2:2017 Clause 24.4
Structure Not applicable. Refer to
AS5100.2 Supp 1:2007 Clause 23.2.2
section below
DoT BTN 014 2019
Maintenance Steel Construction Information (SCI)
Access https://www.steelconstruction.info/Floor_vibrations#Regulations_and_
Walkway >2.2 Hz*Note 1 design_rules
Mohammed et al, 2018
Shahabpoor, E et al, 2016
Gantry and Q Free product documentation
Cantilever Highways Agency. TR 2130, 'Environmental Tests for Motorway
Structures with >5 Hz
Communications Equipment and Portable and Permanent Road
ITS equipment Traffic Control Equipment, 5.2 Vibration, Random, Operational'
*Note 1 Studies have shown that human induced vibrations can range from 1.6-2.2 Hz
AS5100.2 Clause 24.4 states that, ‘the potential for a resonant response of the cantilever arm of cantilever
sign structures to vortex shedding originating from the column shall be assessed, including designs in which
steel box-sections are used for the principal members. AS5100.2 Supp1:2007 outlines one approach to
assessing the resonant response of cantilever structures by determining the critical velocity (Vcr). This
method is outlined below.
Calculating Critical Velocity (extracted from AS5100.2 Supp1:2007 clause 23.2.2)

The designer should attempt to preclude resonance due to vortex shedding within normal or common wind
speeds up to and including the serviceability wind speed, as this can constitute a failure to meet the
serviceability limit state requirements. Resonance occurs where the frequency of vortex shedding (ne) equals
a structure resonance frequency (ni).

The critical wind speed (Vcr), is calculated as follows:
𝒅𝒅𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒊
𝑽𝑽𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 = 1
𝑺𝑺
where
d = diameter of a circular member or the frontal width of a prismatic member
S = Strouhal number, which is a function of the cross-sectional shape
If Vcr falls within the design wind speed range, then the design engineer should investigate the
consequences. The value of ni may be increased by increasing the structural stiffness, thereby increasing Vcr
to a value greater than the maximum design wind speed.
Clause 23.2.2 of AS5100.2 Supp1:2007 also includes empirical criteria which is suggested to result in
satisfactory design for controlling vibrations.
Dynamic Interaction Between a Bridge and an Attached Gantry
If a sign support structure is to be attached to a bridge, the combined dynamic behaviour of both structures
needs to be considered. Developing an analysis model of both structures is one approach to investigating
the combined dynamic behaviour. To mitigate the risk of the dynamic behaviour of the bridge impacting the
sign support structure, consideration could be given to attaching the sign support structure directly to the
bridge piers/supports rather than the bridge superstructure.
Fatigue
The Australian Standard AS5100.2:2017 clause 24.4 states that fatigue limit state design shall be in
accordance with the AASHTO LRFD publication ‘Standard Specifications of Structural Supports for Highway
Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals’. It goes on further to state that all aspects of the fatigue design shall
be based on the AASHTO publication including:
• drag coefficients
• fatigue importance factors
• fatigue stress categories
• constant-amplitude fatigue limits.
All sign structures that are covered within the scope of this guidance document (refer to Section 1) should be
treated in accordance with AASHTO requirements for Fatigue Category I.
AS/NZS1170.2:2011 Structural Design Actions: Wind Loading currently does not cover wind loading
specifically for sign support structures. It is understood that the Australian Standard AS5100.2:2017 refers
fatigue limit state design of road signs and lighting structures to the AASHTO Standard Specifications of
Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals because it covers fatigue specific wind
loading for sign support structures (including galloping, natural wind gust, truck induced wind gusts). Refer to
Section 3.4.6 for additional discussion on the application of AASHTO LRFD LTS wind loading for fatigue
assessment in Australia and New Zealand.

In the 2019 revision of AASHTO LRFD LTS, clause 5.6.2 states that the minimum number of sides for
tubular (hollow) structures is eight. The commentary summarizes research by Roy et al., (2011) that
concluded increasing the number of sides and/or increasing the internal bend radius can improve fatigue
performance of multi-sided sections. The commentary further states that hollow square or rectangular
sections are susceptible to early fatigue cracking leading to poor fatigue performance. These sections should
not be used for highway sign, signal, and high-level luminaire support structures (Dexter and Ricker 2002).
This clause has impacted the fatigue details of cantilevered and non-cantilevered support structures from
Table 11.9.3.1 in AASHTO LRFD LTS which is now limited to circular hollow sections, open sections and
fabricated plate sections.
In Australia and New Zealand it is still common practice to use SHS, RHS and fabricated plate sections
(typically square or rectangular sections) in the design and fabrication of sign support structures. Therefore,
when assessing the fatigue performance of SHS and RHS in accordance with the Australian Standard
AS5100.2:2017, the joint detail is not covered in Section 11 of AASHTO LRFD LTS and designers are directed
to use Appendix C: Alternative Methods for Fatigue Design. Fabricate plate sections are only covered in two
specific connection types: 1 truss panel members connected to gusset (Item 5.2 and 5.3); and 2 gusseted box
connection (Item 5.6 and 5.7. Appendix C provides an alternate stress-based methodology for fatigue design
where local stresses are obtained from Finite Element analyses (FEA). It specifies that all FEA results should
be verified experimentally. This method becomes very time consuming and costly and is therefore not
considered a practical approach for most designs using SHS and RHS in Australia and New Zealand.
At the time of writing this guideline, there is a gap in guidance in the relevant standards on how to assess the
fatigue limit state design of square and rectangular cross sections. The following section outlines two
alternative approaches for the assessment of fatigue limit state design when square or rectangular cross
sections are to be used. The appropriate method should be assessed on a project specific basis and be
discussed and agreed upon by the relevant authority prior to the commencement of the design. At the early
stages of the project, consideration may be given to using an alternative section type such as Circular Hollow
Section (CHS) or an open section. These sections can be designed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD LTS.
Recommendation
The commentaries to AS5100.2:2017 and AS/NZS5100.6:2017 are being drafted in late 2020. This project
has recommended that the commentaries address and provide guidance on how square and rectangular
cross sections (for use in sign support structures) should be assessed for fatigue limit state design.
Method 1 – Combined AASHTO Standard Specifications of Structural Supports for Highway

Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals and AS/NZS5100.6:2017 approach
The method below is taken from the Department of Transports (Victoria) Bridge Technical Note BTN014
version 2.1 (Nov 2019).
Fatigue design loads for sign gantries, including drag coefficients, shall be calculated for
an infinite life, Fatigue Category I in accordance with the current version of AASHTO
LRFD Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and
Traffic Signals. The AASHTO publication provides values of equivalent fatigue-limit-state
static wind pressure ranges without requiring consideration of the site-specific wind
loading. The wind pressure ranges used in the AASHTO formulae were obtained
following consideration of a range of installation sites across the USA.
Notwithstanding clause 13.11.3 of AS/NZS5100.6:2017, all other aspects of steel fatigue

assessment and design shall be based upon AS/NZS5100.6:2017, unless noted below.
The fatigue requirements of AS/NZS5100.6 are largely taken from the International
Institute of Welding (IIW) recommendations as described in Recommendations for
Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components. This IIW document provides
comprehensive and thorough explanation of the fatigue requirements in
AS/NZS5100.6:2017 and designers are advised to consult it.

AS/NZS5100.6:2017 shall be amended as follows:
• Sign gantries shall be designed for an endurance of 100 million cycles i.e. NR = 1x108
cycles. Therefore;
o AS/NZS5100.6:2017 equation 13.11.1 (2) shall be replaced by:
𝑔𝑔𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 × ∆𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠
≤ 1.0
∅𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × ∆𝜎𝜎𝑅𝑅
o AS5100.6:2017 equation 13.11.1 (3) shall be replaced by:
𝑔𝑔𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 × ∆𝜏𝜏𝑠𝑠
≤ 1.0
∅𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × ∆𝜏𝜏𝑅𝑅
Where:
Design fatigue stress ranges calculated from AASHTO

∆𝝈𝝈𝒔𝒔 , ∆𝝉𝝉𝒔𝒔 =
LRFD Standard Specifications of Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals then
modified by factors kt and k1 as required by AS5100.6
Are read from AS5100.6:2017 Figures 13.10.1(A) and
∆𝜎𝜎𝑅𝑅 , ∆𝜏𝜏𝑅𝑅 =
13.10.1(B) at NR = 1 x 108 cycles or;
Are calculated from AS5100.6:2017 equations 13.10.1(3)
and 13.10.1(4) at NR = 1 x 108 cycles
Shall be modified by factor ks as required by clause
13.10.3.2 in AS5100.6:2017
𝑔𝑔𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 1
∅𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 0.75
Damage equivalent factor λ = 1
Dynamic load allowance α = 0
• If a preferred detail is not represented in the fatigue detail category tables in AS/NZS5100.6,
reference may be made to the nominal stress tables in the current AASHTO LRFD
Specification for Bridges and the current AASHTO LRFD Standard Specifications of
Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. However, when using
these standards, the design constant amplitude design fatigue strength must be determined
at 1x108 constant amplitude stress cycles for the specific detail.
• Where a preferred detail is not represented in AS/NZS5100.6 or AASHTO Standard

Specifications of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, the
detail shall be reconsidered, and the connection and/or structure reconfigured so that a
represented fatigue detail can be used.
• Where there is a small variation to a detail (that is reasonably represented in AS/NZS5100.6

or AASHTO S-N curves, the appropriate stress concentration factor to convert nominal
stress range to geometric stress (also called hot-spot stress) can be determined from
relevant literature. Alternatively, geometric stress (also called hot-spot stress) can be
calculated using an elastic Finite Element analysis. The elastic FE analysis shall be in
accordance with DNVGL-CG-0127 Class Guideline on Finite Element Analysis and
Recommended Practice. The hot spot stress shall be calculated in accordance with
recommended practice DNVGL-RP-C203 or IIW Recommendation for Fatigue Design of
Welded Joints and Components.

Note: The use of two different codes to assess the fatigue limit state design should be approached with
caution as it does not align with the original intent of either code. This approach should be discussed and
agreed with the relevant authority prior to the commencement of design. To mitigate the risk of
unconservative results, consideration could be given to checking the results with Method 2 presented in
Section 4.3.2 or FEA as outlined in Appendix C of AASHTO LRFD LTS. It is unlikely that both methods will
produce the same result however, the appropriateness of the results should be reviewed on a project
specific basis.
Method 2 – Superseded version of AASHTO Standard Specifications of Structural Supports

for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals
The current version of AASHTO LRFD LTS (1st Edition 2015) does not recommend the use of square or
rectangular cross sections as research (Dexter and Ricker 2002) has indicated that they are susceptible to
early fatigue cracking leading to poor fatigue performance. However, prior to the 6th version of AASHTO
LRFD LTS, this recommendation was not included. Therefore, square or rectangular sections could be
assessed to AASHTO LRFD LTS (5th Edition 2009). AS 5100.2:2017 clause 24.4 does not specify the
version of AASHTO Standard Specifications of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and
Traffic Signals to be used to assess the fatigue limit state design.
Note: Using a superseeded code should be adopted with caution and should be discussed and agreed
with the relevant authority prior to commencement of the design. To mitigate the risk of unconservative
results, consideration could be given to checking the results using Method 1 or FEA as outlined in
Appendix C of AASHTO LRFD LTS. It is unlikely that both methods will produce the same result however,
the appropriateness of the results should be reviewed on a project specific basis.
Method 3 – AASHTO Standard Specifications of Structural Supports for Highway Signs,

Luminaires and Traffic Signals Appendix C with independent proof check
Appendix C of AASHTO LRFD LTS provides an alternate stress-based methodology for fatigue design when
the connection detail is not specified in Table 11.9.3.1-1. It specifies that all FEA results should be verified
experimentally. Experimental verification coupled with FEA analysis can become very time consuming and
costly and is therefore not considered a practical approach for most designs using SHS and RHS in Australia
and New Zealand. Where experimental verifciation is not deemed possible consideration could be given, with
prior approval by the relevant authority, to replacing this requirement with an independent proof check to
justify and provide confidence in the results.
Note: Replacing the requirement for experimental verificaiton with an independent proof check should be
discussed and agreed with the relevant authority prior to commencement of the design. To mitigate the
risk of unconservative results, consideration could be given to checking the results using Method 1 or
Method 2 outlined above. It is unlikely that both methods will produce the same result however, the
appropriateness of the results should be reviewed on a project specific basis.
Useful references
• DNVGL-CG-0127 Class guideline on finite element analysis and recommended practice
(http://www.dnvgl.com)
• DNVGL-RP-C203 Fatigue design of offshore steel structures (http://www.dnvgl.com)
• International Institute of Welding (2008) Recommendations for fatigue design of welded joints and
components.

Detailing
Structural design detailing aspects to be discussed in this section include:
• connection design
• bolting
• welding
• holes for drainage and electrical conduits.
Connections
There are three main types of connections that must be considered during the design of sign support
structures:
1. anchorage connections – connecting the support structure to the foundation
2. structural member connections – connecting the structural members after they have been transported to
site
3. sign face/its equipment connection.
When selecting the connection details for a sign support structure, the following should be considered to
improve the fatigue performance:
• Connection details must have robust and clearly defined load paths such that a smooth transfer of stress
flow from a member into a connection is achieved. There should be no sudden changes in geometry or
stiffness at load transfer zones and stress concentrations must be minimised.
• Gantries should be detailed to avoid conditions that create highly constrained joints and crack-like
geometric discontinuities that are susceptible to constraint induced fracture. Refer to AASHTO LRFD
Specification for Bridge Design Cl 6.6.1.2.4.
• Whether the joint detail is specified in Section 11 AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals or Section 13 AS/NZS 5100.6:2017 Bridge Design Part 6: Steel
and composite construction. Where a preferred detail is not represented, consideration should be given to
reconfiguring the structure or connection so that a represented fatigue detail can be used (BTN014 2019).
One area that is commonly overlooked in the design of both anchorage and structural member connections is
the prying action between connection plates. Tensile forces may cause prying due to undersized plates,
inadequately sized bolts or a combination of the two. The resulting plate deflection will likely lead to durability
issues due to moisture ingress and, depending on the size of the opening, may lead to the connection not
acting as intended. Where bolts are intended to carry tensile forces, they must be designed in accordance with
AS4100:1998 (R2016) Clause 9.1.8. In addition, attention should be given to ensuring the plate itself does not
distort through consideration of the specified plate thickness, or where appropriate the inclusion of stiffeners.
The following sections look at these three connections in more detail.
Anchorage connections
Anchorage connections must be designed to transmit loads from the sign support structure into the
foundation. This includes torsional stresses which are of particular concern for large cantilever structures
where, unlike other structure types (i.e. gantries), the maximum torsion, shear and bending stresses all occur
at the same location. As the torsional affects in the structure will be realised as a shear force at the
anchorage connection, one method for dealing with this is to reduce the shear capacity at this point by the
value of torsional stress to allow for both effects occurring at the same time and at the same location.
Generally, the use of Class 4.6 bolts is recommended in anchorage connections as they are less susceptible
to fatigue. Class 8.8 bolts are permitted by some Road Authorities provided both ultimate and fatigue limit
states are satisfied.

All anchor bolts should be designed for a ductile steel failure, for this reason pre-tensioned bolts are not
recommended for this connection type due to their non-ductile behaviour and undesirable creep.
Bolt holes in the base plate should be oversized to allow for installation tolerances. Where slotted holes are
detailed, consideration must be given to preventing slip. In all cases, careful consideration must be given to
the specification of nuts and washers. Further discussion around installation tolerances and common issues
for consideration is provided in Section 4.3.
Consideration must be given at the design stage to the protection of anchor bolts against deterioration, one
method is the use of a grout pad between the base plate and top of foundation (discussed in more detail
below). UK standard CD365 specifies the inclusion of plastic caps filled with an anti-corrosion compound to
protect the top of the anchor bolts.
AS5100.1:2017 clause 23.3 specifies a minimum base plate thickness of 40mm should be used. AASHTO
LRFD LTS specifies that a plate thickness equal or greater than 50mm is required for CHS larger than
203mm; and 38mm for other sections. This requirement is considered more stringent than AS5100.1:2017. It
is also specified that a minimum of eight bolts shall be used in the anchorage connections for sign support
structures. In addition, AASHTO LRFDLTS clause C5.16.1 suggests that using less than twelve bolts may
result in a reduction in fatigue capacity in some situations.
It is important to note that the specification of a minimum base plate thickness and number of bolts does not
preclude the requirement for the design engineer to satisfy themselves that the proposed arrangement is
adequate for ultimate (strength) and serviceability (friction and fatigue) limit states. Whilst it is recognised that
for smaller sign support structures or those with multiple supports, a 40mm thick base plate may be
excessive, it is widely accepted that the additional work required to justify the use of a smaller plate does not
usually justify the cost savings in materials. In addition, the use of a thicker base plate minimises the risk of
plate distortion due to the welding of stiffener plates. This can also be reduced through minimising the use of
stiffeners at the connection locations. If stiffeners are specified at the connection locations, consideration
must be given to the implications of large discrepancies between stiffener and base plate thicknesses during
the galvanising process, see Section 4.1 for more information.
The use of dissimilar metals in a connection should be avoided as dissimilar metals are likely to corrode one
another. If the use of dissimilar metals is inevitable, the connection detail between the dissimilar metals
needs to consider how they can be isolated.
There are two commonly used approaches for anchorage connections throughout Australia and New
Zealand. The appropriate method should be assessed on a project specific bases and be discussed and
agreed with the relevant authority prior to the commencement of the design. The following sections outline
the two approaches and highlight points for consideration when adopting each method.
Method 1 – Double nut connection
Figure 3.1: Double nut anchorage connection
Source: AASHTO 2015

This connection type assumes all load is transferred through the bolts into the foundation.
AASHTO LRFDLTS states that where the double nut connection is used it shall be assumed that all the
bearing stresses are transferred to the levelling nuts. Therefore, the nuts and washers on either side of the
base plate must be sufficiently sized to prevent any localised plate failure due to concentration of stresses.
This may be achieved using washers complying with ISO 7093.
The 2018 interim revision to AASHTO LRFDLTS Clause 5.16.3.1 infers that when the clearance between the
bottom of the levelling nuts and the top of the concrete foundation is greater than one bolt diameter, bending
stresses in the anchor bolts must be considered. Where bending effects in the anchor bolts must be
considered, it is likely to result in a significant increase in the capacity required, particularly for structures
subject to high torsional loads such as cantilever structures. Some Road Authorities (TMR & RMS) specify
the maximum unsupported length of bolt (less than one bolt diameter) to minimise the bending effects in the
bolts. Additional guidance on the application of shear load with and without a lever arm is specified in AS
5216:2018 Clauses 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4.
The Department for Infrastructure and Transport (South Australia) specifies in ST-SD-D1 Design of
Structures, clause 15.4 that where levelling nuts are used, consideration must be given to full stress reversal
in the design of the anchors.
Where this anchorage connection arrangement is used, consideration should be given to water/debris
passing through or accumulating under the base plates during operation. Drainage grooves are often found
to be ineffective in practice, therefore it the installation of screening material is recommended.
Method 2 – Single nut connection
Figure 3.2: Single nut anchorage connection
Source: AASHTO 2015
This connection type may assume that the bolts are restrained by the grout and that compression forces can
be transferred through the grout pad. AS 5216:2018 Clause 4.2.2.3 specifies that where the grout thickness
is equal to or less than half the bolt diameter and the grout has a minimum compressive strength of 30 MPa,
the shear load can be considered to act without a lever arm i.e. no bending effect in the bolt.
Low shrinkage grout should be used between the base plate and the top of the foundation to minimise
separation between the grout and base plate. Some Road Authorities (RMS) require a grout trial to be
undertaken before the base plate is installed. Grouts containing calcium chloride as an accelerator and
magnesium phosphate should be avoided as these can cause corrosion of the steel.
When using this anchorage connection arrangement, consideration should be given to the arrangement of
the base plate and grout pad to limit surface water collection leading to corrosion of the steel. To avoid this
RMS specifies that the plan area of the grout pad should not extend more than 50mm beyond the base plate.

For design calculation examples refer to the Australian Steel Institutes Design of Structural Steel Hollow
Section Connections – Volume 1 Design Models, First Edition 1996.
Structural member connections

All connections must be designed for the minimum design actions specified in AS 5100.6:2016 Cause
12.3.1. Reference to any additional minimum design actions specified in AS 4100:1998 Clause 9.1.4 could
be made.
When picking a structural member connection type, designers must consider the following:
• provision of a clear load path and minimisation of sharp corners
• use of welded or bolted connections
• location of connection
• durability of connection including implications to coating.
Connection details must provide robust and clearly defined load paths with no sudden changes in geometry
or stiffness should be allowed to facilitate a smooth transfer of stresses between the members and minimise
stress concentrations.
Generally, Road Authorities in Australia and New Zealand have a preference for bolted connections on site
as the quality of site welds can be more difficult to guarantee and welding may also damage the protective
coating. This should be discussed with the relevant authority in the early stages of the project. Adequate
quality of shop welded connections can often be achieved.
In instances where connections that require on-site welding are preferred, careful consideration should be
given to the quality of site welds that can be achieved and what mitigation measures should be put in place
to minimise the risk of damage to the coating.
It is recommended that structural member connections be located in the vertical columns of sign support
structures as illustrated in Figure 3.3 below.
Figure 3.3: Preferred structural member connection locations
Connections in the vertical columns improve the ease of installation, access for inspections and
maintenance. These connections rely on bearing between connection plates as well as bolt forces increasing
redundancy in the connection design. Connections in these locations also allow the direct connection
between the horizontal and vertical members to be undertaken in the controlled environment of the
fabricators yard which generally yields better quality.
Where possible, without compromising the strength of the connection, it is preferable to minimise the use of
stiffeners at connection locations in order to reduce the risk of distortion of the splice plate during welding.
One way to avoid the risk of distortion is to increase the thickness of the splice plate, however significant
differences in plate thicknesses can cause problems during the galvanisation process. In addition, the
stiffener weld details are fatigue sensitive, therefore reducing the number of stiffeners reduces this risk.
Having less stiffeners also keeps the connection area ‘cleaner’ reducing the likelihood of trapping moisture
and debris which can lead to durability issues.

The Australian Standard for Steel Structures (AS 4100:1998 (R2016)) and AS 5100.6:2017 Clause 12.3.4,
specify that, where slip can occur in the joint, high-strength bolts in a friction-type joint (bolting category
8.8/TF), fitted bolts or welds shall be used. Where a joint is subject to impact or vibration, high-strength bolts
in a friction-type joint (bolting category 8.8/TF), locking devices or welds should be used.
It is important for designers to consider the buildability and maintainability of the connections they specify.
Advice should be sought from fabricators in the early stages of the process.
The use of dissimilar metals in a connection should be avoided as dissimilar metals are likely to corrode the
less noble metal. If the use of dissimilar metals is inevitable, the connection detail between the dissimilar
metals needs to consider how they can be isolated.
For design calculation examples refer to the Australian Steel Institutes Design of Structural Steel Hollow
Section Connections – Volume 1 Design Models, First Edition 1996.
Sign Face/ITS Equipment Connection

The connection between the sign face, ITS equipment or other item being supported by the sign structure is
usually dictated by the item being attached. Standard connection details are often provided relevant authority
or manufacturer. The following should be considered when detailing the sign face/ITS equipment connection:
• Redundancy. Consideration should be given to providing at least two connection load paths when there
is a high consequence of failure i.e. the sign/equipment is located over the carriageway.
• Scheduling. The connection detail should be considered early in the design in case several design
iterations are required with the stakeholder providing the sign or equipment to be supported.
Bolting
Consideration of the installation methodology in terms of bolts should be incorporated at the design stage.
This includes understanding the requirements for tensioning of bolts and the use of other structural
components. Common bolting arrangements in structural members are illustrated in Figure 3.4.
Some of the common detailing issues that should be considered during the design of bolted connections in
sign support structures include:
• Ensuring adequate access during installation and maintenance, including access for balance bolts,
wrench, locking nuts and load indicating washers. Typical dimensions of wrenches are detailed in Part 10
of ASI Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel – Volume 1: Open Sections 3rd Edition.
• Bolt holes in base plate or flange plates may be oversized to accommodate installation tolerances. Where
oversized or slotted holes are detailed, oversized washers are required. Refer to Clause 14.3.5.2 of AS
4100:2020 for guidance on hole sizes and washer requirements. However, Class 4.6/S (snug) or Class
8.8/TB bolts may allow slip at SLS (and this will be exacerbated with oversized holes) - thus consideration
should be given to the implications of slip. One potential method (to avoid slip) is to use dynamic set
washers which enable infilling of the annular gap with an epoxy (for standard sized holes). It may be
possible to infill the annulus of oversize holes (particularly horizontal plates) with a suitable epoxy.
• Detailing of locking nuts for structural member connections to minimise the risk of the nut loosening under
vibrations and torque. Refer to Section 4.3.5 for common installation issues.

Figure 3.4: Common bolting arrangements in structural members
Welding
Welding should be considered thoroughly during design to ensure that the correct welding design is specified
and can be achieved during the fabrication stage with enough access for welding equipment. This is
particularly critical for connections with tight spaces and where stiffener plates are located closely together.
Weld detail considerations should also to be considered for the galvanising stage.
The following aspects should be considered when detailing for welding:

• Weld size. The designer should specify all weld sizes and types on the design drawings.
• Heat distortion. This particularly applies to the welding of stiffeners where the application of continuous
welding to attach thick stiffener plates can cause the distortion of the connection plate. Stitch welding is
not recommended to reduce heat during welding as it can create other issues such as crevice corrosion
resulting from the galvanising process. Refer to Section 4.3.1 for suggestions on how to reduce head
distortion.
• Welding constructability. Some weld designs can be hard to achieve due to lack of access. Good
communication with the fabricator early on can prevent or minimise the risk of this issue occurring. The
designer should consider if the welding design is achievable and ensure this is reflected in the detailing of
welding.
• Weld testing. Non-destructive testing is often specified during construction to increase confidence of the
strength of the weld. Consideration should be given to capturing and documenting fatigue critical welds to
ensure these welds are included in the testing sample if non-destructive testing is specified. Weld testing
requirements are usually specified by the relevant authority.
• Additional detailing for fatigue resistant welds. For fatigue resistant weld detailing consideration
should be given to documentation of additional detailing requirements (if required). Refer to AS/NZS
5131:2016 Structural steelwork – fabrication and erection and AS 1554.5 Structural steel welding Part 5:
Welding of steel structures subject to high levels of fatigue loading.
For additional details on weld design for connection detailing refer to the Australian Steel Institute
Connection Handbook series.

In 2008, NYDOT updated their standard design drawings to incorporate more fatigue-resistant weld details.
The tube-to-tube welding details for the diagonal connections to chords and posts of trusses were replaced
by tube-to-tube connections with split-tube gusset plate connections, intended to increase fatigue resistance
by simplifying the connection, making it more flexible and increasing the overall length of weld (Figure 3.5).
The weld of the gusset plate to the chord has been detailed as an all around weld, to avoid the quality issues
associated with starting and stopping the welding process and to provide a seal at the ends of the gusset
plates as shown in the figure below. However tube to tube connections can still be adopted provided stress
limits as set out in AASHTO LRFD LTS are complied with.
Figure 3.5: Fatigue resistant connection detail
Source: NYSDOT (2008)
Holes for Drainage and Electrical Conduits
The designer should consider detailing and documenting drainage and electrical conduit holes if required as
they usually occur in areas of high stress. Particular care should be given when detailing service
opening/cabling holes as these are normally larger than drainage holes. The following details should be
considered and documented:
• size and location of holes
• if the holes require filling or covering
• fatigue requirements in AASHTO LRFD LTS Clause 5.6.6.
Useful References
• AS 4100:2016 Steel structures
• AS 5100.1:2017 Bridge design part 1: scope and general principles
• AS 5100.2: Bridge design part 2: design loads
• AS 5100.6: Steel and composite construction
• AS 5216:2018 Design of post-installed and cast-fastenings in concrete
• AS/NZS 5131:2016 Structural steelwork – fabrication and erection
• MRTS 61 2018 Gantries and Support Structures for Road Signs, Tolling Systems and ITS Devices

• AASHTO LRFD Specifications for structural supports for highway Signs, luminaires and traffic signals
• CIDECT Design Guide for Structural Hollow Section Column Connections
• ASI Design of Structural Steel Hollow Section Connections: Volume 1: Design Models First Edition
• ASI Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel Volume 1: Open Sections third edition
Safety in Design
Responsibilities of the Design Engineer
It is a legislative requirement (Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act)) for engineers to incorporate
safety in design. Each state and territory are responsible for implementing the WHS Act which is based on
national model WHS Act. Some jurisdictions have made minor variations to ensure the legislation is
consistent with their relevant drafting protocols and other laws and processes. In New Zealand, the Health
and Safety at Work Act 2015 governs safety in design requirements. Considering the potential
consequences of failure of sign support structures, safety in design needs to be a priority action for design
engineers, rather than a compliance check in the final stages of design. This should satisfy safety
requirements of the asset throughout its useful life from design to decommissioning.
Some safety in design considerations are included in guidance documents for sign support structures
published by state road authorities. The level of detail covered by these documents varies but is generally
not very specific.
On top of any requirements set by state road authorities, these key factors should allow designers to
effectively address safety in design:
• Understand the applicable code requirements and industry best-practice.
• Understand the requirements and priorities set by the relevant authority, with the interests of all future
stakeholders in mind.
• Treat safety provisions as key design elements, integrated with the rest of the structural design.
• Collaborate with stakeholders throughout the design and ensure agreement between all parties is
reached.
The following considerations are most critical to ensuring fabrication, construction, inspection, maintenance
and dismantling works can be conducted safely.
1. Design all structural elements, particularly critical connections, such that they can be accessed safely by
relevant personnel and equipment. This includes access during fabrication, coating, construction,
operation and dismantling.
a. The physical ability of inspectors and maintenance personnel needs to be considered. When armed
with tools and equipment, access ladders may be difficult to navigate and therefore may not be an
appropriate means of access for some structures.
b. Equipment required for maintenance can often be heavy and bulky. Maintenance personnel should be
consulted so that any relevant provisions for equipment can be made at the design phase. This may
include the need for an equipment hoist or for wider access ways.
c. Splice plate connections between horizontal and vertical gantry members can be difficult to inspect
when there is no access walkway. Where possible, designers should locate these connections within
the vertical member, instead of the horizontal member, to enable easier access, potentially preventing
the need for traffic control during inspections.

d. Bolts can come loose at splice plate connections over time. Fully tensioned bolts are less likely to
loosen over time. These bolts can be tightened using a torque wrench to control the amount of tension
in each bolt. When designing these connections, ensure that walkways, stiffeners or other items are
not obstructing the space required to tighten the bolts using a torque wrench. The ASI Design
Capacity Tables for Structural Steel – Volume 1: open Sections 3rd Edition provides torque wrench
details that can be referenced to ensure adequate access provisions are allowed for.
e. Connections should be designed in a way that allows them to be constructed safely and effectively.
The presence of a welding symbol on a structural drawing does not necessarily mean that the weld
can be achieved. Equipment access issues can restrict whether connections with tight spaces can be
welded, such as where stiffener plates are located closely together. These same details can cause
issues with galvanising. The coating can be compromised because the right tools cannot access the
areas sufficiently to remove weld spatter and imperfections before galvanising. Ideally a gap of at least
of 300 mm should be allowed between stiffener plates and the number of corners and sharp edges at
connections should be minimised.
f. AS 1657:2018 stipulates the need for fall arrest restraint systems in some instances. Where required,
the designer should design for and specify the preferred locations of the fall arrest attachment points,
load criteria of anchor points and any inspection/maintenance requirements on the structural drawings,
which should be agreed with the relevant authority.
g. Identify the relevant authority’s appetite for road closures and/or the use of traffic control for inspection
and maintenance work. If there is no appetite for closures, then fixed access platforms may be the
most appropriate option to allow access.
h. Eliminate hidden structural elements via design or ensure they can be inspected. Structural steel
hollow sections are typically used for large gantry and cantilever structures. These sections are
completely sealed, making it difficult to inspect the interior surface, presenting an unknown risk of
internal corrosion and other issues. Any residual risks like this need to be communicated with the
relevant authority. It is also preferable to eliminate the need for any internal stiffener plates. If
elimination is not feasible, a small hole can be provided near the plate to allow a small camera or
piece of wire inside to enable inspection.
2. Identify and discuss any specific future maintenance requirements with the relevant authority at the time
of design.
a. Any specific monitoring or maintenance required to ensure the design intent remains valid for the life
of the structure needs to be documented and communicated to the relevant authority during the
design phase. Where implementation of a standard maintenance regime is sufficient, no specific
details are required.
b. Where necessary, provisions for future fatigue monitoring should be included on the design drawings.
This may reduce the need for further structural engineering assessments to be conducted later in the
life of the asset.
c. Where there is high potential for protective coatings to be damaged, the design drawings should
stipulate that any damage needs to be repaired based on the requirements outlined in AS/NZS
4680:2006 Hot-dip galvanized (zinc) coatings on fabricated ferrous articles. The same advice applies
for any coatings damaged during installation, site modifications or through other means over the life of
the structure.
3. Design structures for potential future requirements or changes of use.
a. Any changes in loading or changes in the structural behaviour of existing structures can be costly to
relevant authority’s as an engineering review would be required. This may include retrofitting items
such as fall arrest restraint systems, equipment hoists or additional signage, or installing new openings
within the structural members. This should be raised with the relevant authority during the design
phase to ensure any potential future provisions are accounted for.
b. Discuss any known future changes of use with the relevant authority at the design stage. For example,
if there are known route changes in the area that will require a change in directional signage within the
first 5-10 years of the structures life, then the designer should consider whether the sign face can be
easily removed and replaced with a different directional advice.

4. Design structures with sufficient redundancy to avoid sudden failures.

a. Designs should be robust such that the failure of one part of a connection will not cause the structure
to collapse.
b. Sign faces and other elements supported over a roadway should be connected to the support
structure at more than one location.
5. Structures should be designed to fail in a ductile manner so that warning of failure can be observed.
6. Design structures to prevent access by unauthorised personnel.
a. Access to structures by unauthorised personnel can place themselves, road users and the structure at
risk. Designers should ensure that measures are implemented to deter access by unauthorised
personnel.
7. Design structures so that they can be lifted, transported and stored safely.
a. Provision for lifting the various elements of the structure is generally required as part of the permanent
design. Any lifting points should be designed and included on the structural drawings. Any other
potential temporary loading scenarios should also be considered and discussed with the relevant
authority.
b. Designers should consider the maximum lengths of structure able to be transported, stored and
installed safely.
8. Design structures according to the relevant standards, along with engineering judgement and the advice
of the relevant authority.
a. Designers should be aware of all code requirements and industry best-practice prior to commencing
design work. Standards should not be consulted at the last-minute to check for compliance, but rather
integrated into the design from early stages.
b. In some instances, the generic access provisions provided in AS 1657:2018 are not practically
applicable. For example, AS 1657:2018 specifies that a landing is required for access to structures
over 6 m in height, meaning that ladder access would not comply. This poses space, cost and
aesthetic implications, with no obvious risk reductions or other benefits in some instances. In these
cases, a risk assessment should be undertaken with the relevant authority to determine the
appropriate approach.
c. The annual certification requirements specified in AS 1891.4:2009 for fall arrest restraint systems are
not practically applicable where the systems are rarely used. In these circumstances, it may be
reasonable to discuss this requirement with the relevant authority and any future users who need to
feel comfortable with the safety provisions in place. A testing and compliance plan could be developed
that aligns with scheduled inspections so that equipment is always certified when used.
d. Engineering judgement in consultation with the relevant authority should be the basis of all decisions.
The relevant authority should be consulted throughout the design phase when any contentious issues
arise. Non-compliance with any standards should only be accepted in the following circumstances:
i. It is not practical or physically possible to comply with the standard.
ii. The risks of not complying with the standard have been duly developed and assessed by all
relevant parties, including future inspection and maintenance personnel.
iii. All departures from the standard have been accepted by all relevant stakeholders.
iv. Certification has been provided by the engineer.
v. Certification has been provided from a safety representative to acknowledge an appropriate risk
assessment and control process has been followed.
Other Responsibilities
The relevant authority has an initial responsibility to scope the project with the desired safe access provisions
to be verified by the designer.

Other stakeholders, such as fabricators and contractors, hold a responsibility to ensure the safety in design
elements are implemented on site as per the designer’s intent.
To improve the likelihood of safety in design being implemented in practice, the designer can be engaged
throughout the construction process. Although often restricted by contractual arrangements, this can add
accountability to both the designer and contractor.
Safety in Design Workshop
A safety in design workshop can be an effective measure to ensure the designer has adequately addressed
any safety concerns in the design phase of a project. These workshops should be mandatory in
circumstances where the design does not meet all code requirements. They are most effectively led by the
design consultant, explaining how they have incorporated safety into the design. The workshop should be
attended by all relevant stakeholders, which may include:
• relevant authority
• contractor
• fabricator
• welder
• galvaniser
• inspector
• maintenance personnel
• storage and transportation personnel.
If the above parties cannot be present, the relevant authority or contractor may represent them to understand
and pass on the relevant risks and challenges involved with these activities.
Useful References
• AS 1657:2018 Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders – design, construction and installation
• AS 1891.4:2009 Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices Selection, use and maintenance
• ASI design capacity tables for structural steel volume 1: open sections third edition.

Construction
The construction phase includes areas such as planning, procurement of materials, installation, quality
and project close out/handover. The following section provides guidance on the following key areas that
were identified as key during the stakeholder engagement phase of the project:
1. protective coatings
2. importation of steel
3. common challenges.
Protective Coatings
Protective coatings are applied to the steel structures to protect from corrosion and deterioration as specified
by the designer and/or relevant authority. Protective coatings commonly used on gantry and cantilever
structures in Australia and New Zealand are:
1. Galvanising. Galvanising is applied by hot-dipping steel elements into a zinc bath coating the element
(including the insides of hollow sections). Galvanising has a design life that can extend to 50 years
subject to the surrounding environment. Galvanising is not intended to be a cosmetic or architectural
finish and can have inconsistencies in the colour and finish which may not indicate a defect.
2. Paint coating system. Paint coating systems are commonly applied for long or large sections that do not
fit into the galvanising baths. Paint coating systems usually have a shorter design life compared to
galvanising.
3. Coating system consisting of galvanising and paint coating. Where the environment is particularly
aggressive a combined coating system of galvanising and painting can be used to achieve an extended
coating life. Essentially, once the paint coat system has reached its design life the galvanised coating
begins to act thereby extending the coating life.
The type of protective coating to be used should be discussed and approved by the relevant authority in the
early stages of the project.
This section covers:

1. protective coating considerations at the design stage
2. protective coating considerations during application
3. protective coating considerations during fabrication, installation and storage
4. common issues that impact coating durability and functionality.
Considerations at the Design Stage
Decisions during the design stage, such as connection detailing, can impact the effectiveness of the
protective coating system. This section summarises the items for consideration during the design phase to
ensure the desired durability and functionality of the protective coating is achieved.
1. Communicate with fabricator/galvaniser. Early discussions with the fabricator and galvaniser (if
known) can aid in identify detailing requirements specific to the protective coating system to be included
during the design phase.

2. Safety in Design. The detailing needs to consider whether the coating system can be applied and
inspected safely.
3. Inspection and maintenance methodology. The frequency and access of inspection and maintenance
requirements needs to be considered when choosing a protective coating.
4. Completely sealed hollow sections. Sections that are completely sealed (i.e. with welded steel end
plates) should be clearly marked and inspected following fabrication and prior to application of the
protective coating. When considering a completely sealed section, it should be considered that if the seal
is compromised there is an increased risk that the durability of the section will be compromised. The ends
of galvanised steel tube sections could be capped to minimise the ingress of water and other matter,
which could prematurely corrode the steel. Connections can also be sealed to stop the ingress of water
and galvanising acids which cause corrosion.
5. Accessibility is required to apply, inspect and maintain the protective coating. Items to consider include
stiffener spacing and hidden elements.
6. Weld detailing. Weld spatter should be prevented from landing on coated components as it causes
damage to the protective coating.
7. Sharp edges and corners should be minimised as it can be difficult to ensure the coating thickness
remains even in these areas during application. Suitable edge radii should be specified along element
edges for the adherence of paint and or galvanising.
8. Environment. Understanding the surrounding environment is key to choosing the right coating system
and ensuring the design accommodates good detailing, sufficient access, and durable solutions.
Microclimates can occur for individual components and can reduce the durability or life of the protective
coatings. Microclimates can occur in areas such as where water ponding occurs, mating surfaces don’t
meet, crevice corrosion occurs etc. These elements should be considered during the detailing of the
design and protective coating.
9. Durability Considerations. The protection provided by the coating systems is usually shorter than the
expected service life of the structure and consideration should be given to maintenance or renewal
requirements during the design phase. Any components of the structure which are not accessible after
assembly should be provided with a corrosion protection system that will remain effective for the service
life (design life refer to Section 3.1) of the structure. If this cannot be achieved by means of a protective
coating system, other measures, such as manufacturing from a corrosion-resistant material, designing for
replacement or specification of a corrosion allowance, should be taken (AS 2312.1:2014).
Galvanising
1. Vent and drainage holes. The designer is responsible for detailing vent and drainage holes for
galvanising. These details are important to ensure the preparatory pre-galvanising solution is fully drained
prior to galvanising, and to also ensure a safe galvanising process. The absence of adequate detailing of
vent and drainage holes could lead to consequences that vary from corrosion to explosion of hot zinc in
the bath during the dipping process. The designer should assess the structural performance of any
connection, including vent and drainage holes.
For more information refer to The Design Guide for Hot Dip Galvanising – best practice for venting and
draining published by GAA (https://gaa.com.au/venting-draining-guide/).
2. Onsite welding should be prohibited as it can compromise galvanising.
3. Grouting under base plates. Grout should not extend more than 50mm beyond the base plate to limit
the collection of water in contact with galvanised elements.
4. Lifting lugs for galvanising should be considered for inclusion in the design so slings/straps, which could
compromise the coating, are not used. The lifting lugs can also be used during transportation and
installation.
5. Bath size. The location of connections and size of steel element designs should consider the available
galvanising bath sizes. Where possible, double dipping of elements should be avoided. The GAA lists
galvanisers and their facilities bath sizes on their website https://gaa.com.au/find-a-galvanizers/. Thermal
Zinc Spray is sometimes used as an alternative to galvanising when the structure is too large to fit into the
galvanising bath. This process provides protective coating thickness of up to 250μm which protects steel
against corrosion.

6. Steel specifications to ensure that steel characteristics do not impact the effectiveness of galvanising
e.g. high silicon phosphorous content can compromise galvanising quality.
7. Standards. Designers should familiarise themselves with AS 2312.2:2002 Guide to the protection of
structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use of protective coatings – Part 2: Hot dip
galvanising, particularly Section 8 and Appendix A, prior to submitting their design.
8. Filling of drainage and vent holes should be specified on the design documentation if required. Welding
of holes is undesirable as it may affect the galvanising quality. Plastic plugs do work however expansion
and contraction of the air inside the hollow sections tends to pop them off, potentially allowing water or
vermin to enter. Steel cover plates can also be specified that may be more likely to stay in place. If plugs
are required, the plugs should be monitored during programmed inspections and replaced if required. In
low corrosivity environments, consideration can be given to leaving the holes unplugged. This should be
discussed and agreed with the asset manager at the time of design.
9. High tensile steel bolts. There is a risk of hydrogen embrittlement when galvanising high tensile steel
bolts. AASHTO (2015) commentary to Clause 5.16.2 corroborates this, stating, “galvanised steel with tensile
strengths greater than 160 ksi (1103 MPa) are more susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.” However, bolts
with tensile strength greater than 830 MPa (Grade 8.8) are not widely used, “there is limited use of higher
grade 10.9 bolt assemblies in both the Australian and New Zealand markets” (ASI 2019).
Considerations During Application
Galvanising Application
Galvanising is applied by hot-dipping steel elements into a hot zinc bath with temperatures reaching 445° -
465°C. Galvanising is preferred to paint coating system because:
• Requires less maintenance resulting in lower life cycle costs
• Provides resistance to potential damage caused during transport, erection and service
• Every surface is coated, which is particularly important for hollow sections generally used in gantry and
cantilever structures, as the internal surface cannot be accessed for painting
During the application of galvanising it is important to keep in mind the following aspects which can impact
durability and functionality of the protective coating.
1. Weld detailing. The removal of weld splatter should be undertaken prior to application of the galvanising
as it can compromise the protective coating system.
2. Inspection and repairs. Following galvanising and before leaving the galvanising facility, the steelwork
should be inspected for coating defects. If any defects are noted, repairs to galvanised coatings, where
necessary, should be carried out strictly in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 4680.
Paint System Application

Paint systems are generally applied by cleaning and preparing the surface to provide the appropriate surface
profile prior to the application of paint system. Paint can be used for long or large sections when there are no
appropriate galvanising baths.
The following are also some considerations when applying paint systems to large gantry and cantilever
structures:
1. Repainting can be costly and difficult to manage; the gantries cannot usually be removed to be repainted,
even for short periods of time, and access for painting while over the road is often not possible or requires
road closures.
2. The dew point and humidity could be an issue for using paint systems in places like Queensland.
3. Excessive paint on mating surfaces can impact the installation of TF bolts. The quality of the paint
application on mating surfaces should be checked prior to the installation of the bolts. The protection
coating surrounding the bolt should be inspected for damage post-installation as damage can occur
during installation.

4. Application of paint to the required thickness at connections can be difficult and lead to excessive paint
being applied. This can lead to durability issues as the bond strength of the paint is reduced due to the
increased thickness.
5. An inspection of the paint system should be undertaken after application to confirm the coating thickness
has been achieved and there are no defects that require repair.
6. Timing of painting – typically coatings are applied at night during maintenance which could impact curing
times and quality of application.
Protective Coating System (Galvanising and Paint System)

A galvanised and painted coating system is specified to enhance the durability of the protective coating or to
achieve desired aesthetic outcomes. This coating system is generally applied by hot dip galvanising and then
preparing the surface profile and coating with paint as specified. This coating system is popular in aggressive
and corrosive environments or to increase design life and improve aesthetics.
Considerations associated with the use of this type of system include:

1. Painting over galvanising can be very effective to increase the life of the structure when applied
effectively; however, it can be quite complicated logistically and therefore very costly.
2. If the etching of the surface is undertaken by a separate supplier to that who applies the galvanising
coating, the warranty of the galvanising my become void.
3. When applying paint systems on top of galvanised steel, preparation is extremely important. Poor
preparation can lead to paint not adhering to the galvanised surface or damage to the galvanised surface
rendering it ineffective
4. It is recommended to engage a suitably qualified inspector to ensure that the coating system is applied as
per specifications.
Fabrication / installation/ storage considerations:

1. Structural elements should be fabricated in lengths suitable for transport, storage and ease of installation,
and then transported, stored and installed in such a way to prevent damage to the structural members
and their protective coatings.
2. Storage and transportation of structural elements between fabrication, coating and installation can affect
the quality of the coating. Design life may be prematurely compromised if they are not stored and
transported with care to prevent damage to the protective coating.
3. Site welding should be avoided to prevent damage to the galvanising and maintain the intended durability
of the structure.
Common Issues Impacting Durability and Function

These are common defects that occur in galvanising and/ or coating systems, their direct causes and
mitigation measures:
• Inadequate galvanising of steel hollow sections. This defect is often caused by lack of preflux in the
galvanising process, which results in ineffective galvanising on the inside of the hollow sections. This can
be checked for during the galvanising inspection.
• Base plate grout can contain chemicals such as magnesium phosphate or calcium chloride, which directly
causes the etching of the galvanising coating and therefore the corrosion of steel. Ensuring that grouting
does not extend greater than 50mm beyond the base plate to limit surface water collection (RMS 2009)
and corrosion.
• Welding after galvanising may cause steel corrosion. Bolting is preferable to welding, however if welding
is required, it needs to be done prior to galvanising. Welding onsite should be prohibited for galvanised
structures as it will impact the structures durability.

• Distortion of members during the galvanising process - when steel sections or fabrications are immersed
in molten zinc, their temperature is raised to that of the molten zinc, which is typically 445° - 465°C. The
rate at which the steel reaches this temperature across its entire surface will depend on:
– The thickness of the individual sections making up the item,
– The total mass of the item,
– The dimension of the item, and
– The speed of immersion.
• Damage to protective coatings is often found around holes, bolts and other inaccessible areas. This
leaves the material susceptible to weathering damage and corrosion.
Useful References
• AS/NZS 4680:2006 Hot-dip galvanized (zinc) coatings on fabricated ferrous articles
• AS/NZS 2312.2:2014 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use
of protective coatings- part 2: hot dip galvanizing
• ISO 1461:2009 Hot dip galvanized coatings on fabricated iron and steel articles — specifications and test
methods
• NZS 3403:1978 Specification for hot-dip galvanized corrugated steel sheet for building purpose
• Galvanizers Associations of Australia (GAA) Design guide for hot dip galvanizing- best practice for
venting and draining
• Galvanizers Associations of Australia website https://gaa.com.au/
• TMR MRTS78 Fabrication of structural steelwork
• DPTI ST-SD-D1 design of structures
• RMS/ B220 Protective treatment of bridge steel work
• AASHTO LRFD Specifications for structural supports for highway Signs, luminaires and traffic signals
• NZTA Protective coatings for steel bridges: a guide for bridge and maintenance engineers.
Importation of Steel
When importing steel for use in the manufacture of sign support structures, it is important to ensure that the
material is compliant with project requirements. The Work Health and Safety WHS Act (2011) states that a
duty of care is the legal responsibility of all parties involved in the design and construction of structures and
this includes relevant authorities. It is all parties’ legal duty to take reasonable care so that others are not
harmed. This duty of care extends to obligate all parties involved to ensure the compliance of materials used
in the delivery of large cantilever and gantry signs.
Steel Compliance
Figure 4.1 illustrates the steelwork standards framework that specifies the requirements for imported steel.
The material standards have been calibrated against guaranteed values for chemical composition,
mechanical properties, tolerances on dimension, method of manufacture and quality control provisions for all
material used in the steel structure. Material standards define these properties based on known Australian
steels, testing statistics and work practices.

Figure 4.1: Steelwork standards framework
Source: Australian Steel Institute https://www.steel.org.au/focus-areas/steel-and-design/standards-and-design/
Any imported steel must be checked for compliance against the required standards specified in the design
documentation (usually the Australian Standards). Compliance checks can be undertaken by:
• third party accreditation schemes
• relevant authority specified compliance procedures.
Third party accreditation is one means of ensuring that imported steel meets the Australian Standards for
steelwork. Third party accreditation schemes are conducted by an independent entity that carries out audits
to certify the mill or fabricator facilities have the capabilities to produce steelwork that meets Australian
Standards.

The following third party accreditation schemes are commonly used:

• ACRS Certification: ACRS is the Australasian Certification Authority for Reinforcing and Structural
Steels. It was formed in 2001 to provide third party independent certification of steel construction material
manufactured to Australian Standards. ACRS Scheme is based upon well-established and widely
accepted overseas practice. For more information visit https://www.steelcertification.com/
• The National Structural Steelwork Compliance Scheme (NSSCS): The ASI NSSCS is an independent
third-party quality compliance and certification system for the supply, fabrication and erection of structural
steelwork in Australia. The technical basis for the NSSCS is founded on AS/NZS 5131 Structural
steelwork – Fabrication and Erection and is applicable to structures designed to AS 4100 (structural
steelwork), AS 5100.6 (bridges) and supporting Australian Standards, including those for welding, bolting
and corrosion protection. NSSCS is offered through Steel Compliance Australia (SCA). For more
information visit http://www.scacompliance.com.au/
To confirm that the steel/fabrication meets the required standards (AS/NZS 1163, AS/NZS 3678, AS/NZS
3679.1 and AS/NZS 3679.2), the ASI (2020) recommends that test certificates be checked to comply with the
following minimum requirements:
• written in English alphanumeric characters
• issued by the steel manufacturer
• contain the manufacturers and suppliers and testing authorities’ names
• test certificate number and date
• product test specification and grade of steel
• product designation and all relevant dimensions
• product steel making process
• length, bundle or pack or unique identifier to which the certificate applies
• heat number (from casting)
• mechanical properties from tensile tests (all values cited in AS/NZS Standards
• whether each measured mechanical property complies with AS/NZS Standards
• chemical analysis results and type of analysis undertaken.
Additional information and reference to common frequently asked questions on Compliance in Construction
Steelwork from the Australian Steel Institute Seminar “Implications of the new Work Health and Safety WHS
Act 2011 on Compliance in Construction Steelwork” held in Brisbane, 26 November 2012 can be found at
https://www.steel.org.au/focus-areas/quality-and-compliance/safety-in-design-and-procurement/.
High Strength Bolt Compliance
Currently all high strength structural bolts manufactured to AS/NZS 1252 are imported into Australia by a
number of importers/distributors. Market pressure to reduce the cost of steel packages has resulted in global
sourcing from regions with varying levels of quality assurance for the manufacture of structural bolt
assemblies. Consequently, there has been a demonstrable issue with the quality and compliance of
structural bolt assemblies in Australia over recent years.
The 2016 revision to AS/NZS 1252 addresses some of these issues with the aim of facilitating improved
compliance outcomes for high strength bolts for the Australian marketplace. The standard has been
published in two parts:
• AS/NZS 1252 High-strength steel fastener assemblies for structural engineering – Bolts, nuts and
washers: Part 1 – Technical requirements
• AS/NZS 1252 High-strength steel fastener assemblies for structural engineering – Bolts, nuts and
washers: Part 2 – Verification testing for bolt assemblies.

The Australian Steel Institute (2019a) suggests that the Customer/Fabricator/Contractor should insist in their
Quality Assurance program that the following documentation be provided for each batch of bolts supplied by
the importer/distributor:
• identification and address of the supplier
• identification and address of the test laboratory and accreditation details of the test laboratory, details of
laboratory accreditation
• date of issue, page number on each page
• test certificate number
• batch and heat identification number for each lot
• product identification for each lot
• customer purchase order number and heat number for each lot
• any other system reference numbers (these make sure that the product is fully traceable from the
customer purchase order to the original steel used for its production)
• test, test specification, measured values in comparison to specification
• statement of full compliance referring to Australian Standard AS/NZS 1252:2016 for each lot
• signature of authorised officer/position/name/date/accreditation
• any further information or tests that may be requested or as agreed with the supplier but may incur extra cost.
For additional information refer to ASI Technical Note TN001 (2019) High Strength Structural Bolt
Assemblies to AS/NZS 1252:2016 (https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-items/tn001-high-
strength-structural-bolt-assemblies-to/tech-note-tn001-v5_web.pdf/)
Availability and Lead Time
The availability and lead time of imported steel can vary significantly depending on the mill, fabricator and member
size and quantity required. To minimise the impact of lead time on the construction program, the availability and
lead time should be checked prior to confirmation member selection during the design concept phase.
Useful References
For further information refer to:

• Australian Steel Institute, Steelwork Quality and Compliance https://www.steel.org.au/focus-areas/quality-
and-compliance/
• Australian Steel Institute, Mandating Compliance in Procurement
https://www.steel.org.au/advocacy/quality,-productivity-and-safety/
• Australian Steel Institute, Australian Standards and Design https://www.steel.org.au/focus-areas/steel-
and-design/standards-and-design/
• Australian Steel Institute, Technical Note TN007, V2 https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-
items/tn007-compliance-issues-and-steel-structures/download-pdf.pdf/
• Steelwork Compliance Australia http://www.scacompliance.com.au/
• Guide to The Model Work Health and Safety Act, Safe Work Australia- (March 2016)
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/guide-to-the-whs-act-at-21-march-2016.pdf
• Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice 2013 PN11580, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland
• ASI Technical Note TN001 (2019) High strength structural bolt assemblies to AS/NZS 1252:2016
• Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, AS/NZS 1252:2016, ‘High-strength steel fastener
assemblies for structural engineering – bolts, nuts and washers’.

Common Challenges
The following section identifies a number of common challenges that are faced during the fabrication and
installation of large gantry and cantilever sign support structures. In each case, a number of possible
solutions / points of consideration are provided in an effort to mitigate any potential issues.
Weld Distortion of Base / Splice Plates
Distortion of base or splice plates is a common issue noted during fabrication and installation phases.
Distortion is caused by stresses generated during the welding process when significant heat is created to
produce continuous welds to attach stiffener plates. There are a number of ways in which this issue can be
managed, as outlined below. The preferred approach should be discussed with the contractor, fabricator and
relevant authority.
• Without compromising the strength of the connection, it is preferable to minimise the number of stiffeners
required at connection locations in order to reduce welds and therefore reduce the risk of distortion of the
base or splice plate during the welding process.
• The use of thicker base or splice plates is likely to reduce the stresses generated during the welding
process due to the greater cross-sectional area therefore minimising the risk of distortion. Care must be
taken when specifying thicker connection plates as they also require larger welds and therefore the heat
generated by the welding process will produce increased stresses when compared with the welding of
thinner plates.
• Clamping plates together during the welding process in order to hold them in the desired position is a
commonly utilised practice across Australia and New Zealand and is generally found to be effective. If
adopted, the impact of this methodology on the project program should be considered.
• Machining plates flat - this process removes any distortion once the welding is complete. It is an effective
methodology but not commonly undertaken in Australia and New Zealand due to limited availability of the
required machinery. It can also be time consuming and therefore may have implications on the program.
• Preheating the base or splice plate to reduce the risk of hydrogen cracking, hardness of the weld heat
affected zone and shrinkage stresses during cooling.
Distortion During Galvanisation
Distortion of steel fabrications can occur during the galvanisation process due to the high temperatures
involved (approximately 445 to 465°C). The rate at which the steel reaches these temperatures across its
entire surface will be affected by the following:
• thickness of the individual sections forming the fabricated item
• total mass of the fabricated item
• dimensions of the item
• speed of immersion into the galvanisation bath.
At these high temperatures the yield strength of steel is temporarily lowered by up to 50%, if the individual
sections forming the fabricated item do not reach the same temperatures, the weaker area will be subject to
movement by the stronger area, thus causing distortion. The following points may be considered in order to
minimise the risk of distortion:
• Maximise the uniformity of heat transfer:
– Minimise the variation in section thicknesses wherever possible.
– Ensure adequate provisions for venting and drainage are made to allow the fabricated element to be
immersed and withdrawn from the galvanisation bath as quickly as possible, thus minimising the
introduction of thermal stresses.

• Minimise the effect of stresses during the galvanisation process through minimising the presence of
unbalanced stresses. This can be achieved via:
– The use of symmetrical sections over angle or channel sections.
– Ensure balanced assembly and welding techniques are used when making up fabricated items.
• Avoid the requirement for double dipping to facilitate quick immersion and uniform thermal expansion and
contraction of the item to minimise the introduction of thermal stresses. The requirement for double
dipping is governed by the bath size available. Information on available bath sizes is available on the
Galvanizers Association of Australia website (https://gaa.com.au/)
• Design the structural system to be adequate for the temporary case of supporting its own self weight at a
reduced yield strength of 50%.
• Avoid the use of large areas of thin (<8mm) unbraced flat plate.
• Consider the use of temporary bracing or reinforcing for thin walled or asymmetrical designs to mitigate
against unbalanced stresses within the item.
Connection Constructability
The constructability of welded and bolted connections should be considered at the design stage with
particular attention paid to access required to fabricate the connection, bearing in mind any equipment that
may be required. This should also be an area of focus for the fabricators when they receive the design
drawings. If these issues are not identified and addressed early, they can cause significant program delays.
Tensioning of Bolts
Bolted connections between structural members rely on bolt tension, therefore it is critical that the correct
level of tensioning is achieved during installation. Calibration of equipment used to tension the bolts should
be undertaken prior to installation. There are three common methods for tensioning bolts:
1. Part Turn Method – this method involves tightening the bolts to a ‘snug fit’ and then tightening the bolts by
a further half turn or as specified by the manufacturer. This methodology can yield varying results as it
relies on the interpretation of ‘snug fit’ by the individual installing the bolts. This method is not permitted
by some authorities
2. Load Indicator Washers – this method involves the use of load indicator washers or squirter washers that
visually indicate, through compression of indents or appearance of silicone, when subjected to the
specified tension in the bolt.
3. Calibrated torque wrench – the bolt is tensioned to a pre-determined pressure based on the fastener
manufacturer’s recommendations (based on nut/bolt size). The torque wrench must be calibrated prior to
use.
Most relevant authorities have a preferred method, and in some cases, specify methods that are not to be
used on their infrastructure. Therefore, it is important to discuss the tensioning method with the relevant
authority prior to specification.
In all cases, the provision of adequate access to the connections to facilitate the tensioning of bolts must be
considered during the design phase.
The sequencing of bolt tensioning should also be considered because the effect of tightening one bolt in a
group has an effect on the preload in other previously tightened bolts. Figure 4.2 illustrates a possible bolt
tensioning sequence to minimise these effects.

Figure 4.2: Bolt tensioning sequence (circular arrangement)
Source: Advanced Bolting Solutions (2020)
Installation of Lock Nuts
Lock nuts are used to minimise the risk or nut self-loosening or thread stripping. The thin nut essentially
provides the locking mechanism whilst the total strength is generated through the larger bolt (Figure 4.3).
The correct installation of lock nuts with the thin nut adjacent to the joint is essential to ensure the
effectiveness of the connection (AS/NZS 5131:2016). Detailing of locking nuts could be considered for
connections where nut loosening due to vibrations or torque is identified.
Figure 4.3: Lock nut installation
Source: Hobson (2013)
The following installation method (Hobson 2013) can be used as guidance on the installation of lock nuts.
Reference should be made to the manufacturer’s specifications:
1. Install lock nut above the structural washer and finger tighten.
2. Install the full nut after the lock nut.
3. Tighten the nut while holding the lock nut with an appropriate thin spanner.
4. Continue tightening until deformation in the lock nut is achieved in such a way that the lock nut thread is
bearing on the lower flank of the bolt thread while the full nut is bearing on the upper flank.

Gaps Between Splice Plates
Gaps between splice plates are a common issue for sign support structures, they are often identified post
installation or can develop over the operational life of the structure. Structural member connections rely on
bearing or friction between the mating surfaces, and whilst there is technically no defined area that renders
the connection inadequate, provided the bearing stress of the two plates is not exceeded, it is important for
relevant authorities to know when is appropriate to intervene to achieve a balance of managing the risk of
failure and the cost of unnecessary intervention.
AS/NZS 5131:2016 Amd 1:2019 gives guidance on permitted gaps, however it should be noted that some
SRAs have their own requirements which will take precedence over AS/NZS 5131 where applicable.
It is important to understand whether the gap is a result of the fabrication and installation of the structure or
whether it has developed over time, and if so, if it is still opening. If a gap is opening over time, this could be
an indication of inadequate tensioning in the bolts or bolt failure.
Good fabrication and installation practices, as outlined in this guideline, can minimise the chances of splice
plate gaps resulting from weld distortion, distortion during galvanisation and for inadequate tensioning of
bolts. In addition, the planarity and squareness of splice sections should be a point of focus for steelwork
inspections post fabrication to minimise issues due to ill-fitting sections, and care must be taken during
installation to ensure the spliced member is not loaded until the connection is fully formed.
When gaps are identified that require intervention measures, the following may be considered:
• Tightening of bolts – where gaps are caused by the loosening of bolts over time, often the re-tensioning of
the bolts can close the gap, particularly when the splice plates are relatively thin.
• Provision of shim plates – shim plates can be installed to pack the gap, this methodology can be effective
in restoring contact around bolts however it cannot ‘close’ the gap entirely as uniform thickness of the
shim will not fit fully into the tapered gap.
• Detailed engineering analysis – consideration may be given to undertaking engineering analysis to
ascertain whether the splice connection is still structurally adequate and if so, an application made to
accept the non-conformance. Despite the lack of physical work, the cost implications of this methodology
must be carefully considered - a cost benefit analysis may be of use when deciding whether this is an
appropriate solution.
As well as the potential impact on the structural performance of the connection, gaps between splice plates
can also have durability implications. Even very small gaps, that fall within the allowable deviations specified
in the Australian Standard or applicable SRA guidelines, can be subject to crevice corrosion. This should be
a point of focus for structural inspections and if identified as an issue, consideration may be given to injecting
sealant into the gap, or running a bead of sealant around the outside of the splice. If either of these
methodologies are employed, care must be taken to ensure future inspections of the element are not
inhibited, to allow any ongoing deterioration to be identified and monitored.
Grouting Under Base Plates
The seating of the base plate impacts the final position of the sign itself and is therefore important in meeting
the required deflection criteria. All Australian SRAs specify the use of grout under base plates. The preferred
construction methodology used to achieve this varies between SRAs. Consideration should be given to the
requirement for the grout to provide restraint to the hold down bolts and load transfer of compressive forces
between the structure and the foundation when deciding on a construction methodology. A number of
common construction methodologies are given below.
• Use of wedges to temporarily prop the base plate in position.
• Use of sacrificial screw jacks (threaded rod / threaded hole in base plate). Load transfer through the grout is
required when using this method. Unloading of the screw jacks must be undertaken prior to the grout setting.

• Use of double nut connections. This methodology will not allow for load transfer through the grout, all load
must be assumed to be transferred through the bolts.
In all cases, low shrinkage, flowable grout should be specified for use under the base plate to minimise the
risk of cracking. If cracking does occur post construction, water ingress may occur which can lead to
corrosion of the anchor bolts.
Orientation and Installation of Anchor Bolts
The orientation and verticality of the anchor bolts is critical to ensure that the sign support structure can be
installed as intended, significant program delays and additional cost implications can be seen where
problems occur on site due to issues with anchor bolt installation. A number of methodologies have been
identified to improve the chances for the successful installation of anchor bolts as follows:
• Ensuring the bolting arrangement and orientation is specified clearly on both the structural (steelwork and
foundation drawings) and civil drawing sets.
• Use of a template for bolt installation and fabrication of the base plates to ensure the bolt holes in the
base plates are in the correct location to receive the bolts once they’re cast in on site.
• Use of a 3D ridged template or double template system during the installation of the anchor bolts to
ensure they are installed vertically. The base, or bottom template is cast in at the lower end of the anchor
bolts with a removable top template at the upper end of the anchor bolts which can also be used in the
fabrication of the base plates as described above.
• Surveying of the bolt position after installation and prior to the fabrication of the base plate, in order to
inform this process. The bolts should be surveyed both before and after the concreting of the foundation
has occurred as some movement of the anchors may occur during this process. If the fabrication of the
base plate is undertaken once this survey has been undertaken, the impact of this on the program should
be considered.
Useful References
• TMR TN62 Assembly and tensioning of high strength bolts and nuts
• TMR MRTS 61 Gantries and Support Structures for Road Signs, tolling systems and ITS Devices (2018)
• DoT BTN14 Sign gantries and lighting masts
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 469: fatigue-resistant design of
cantilevered signal, sign, and light supports
• Galvanizers Association of Australia: https://gaa.com.au/
• TMR Structures Inspection Manual
• AS/NZS 5131:2016 Amd 1:2019
• Galvanizers Association of Australia Advisory Note #13 Distortion of hot dip galvanized articles.

Quality
Design Phase
During the design phase, the following items should be considered to ensure the quality of design
documentation is adequate.
• Communication between key stakeholders. Communication between key stakeholders is important

throughout the delivery period to ensure important decisions that could affect the quality of the completed
structure are appropriately addressed. The following methods are ways of ensuring that communication
across the delivery phase is maximised:
– Contract Type. The contract type can influence the way in which stakeholders communicate. A
Design and Construct (D&C) contract limits the communication between the designer and contractor
during the design phase whereas an ECI contract allows the contractor to be involved in design
decisions that may impact the fabrication, installation, and operation and maintenance of the structure.
– Key construction processes on drawings. Where construction procedures are identified during the
design phase as critical to the behaviour of the structure, these should be identified in the design
documentation. Items such as critical weld locations and specific weld preparation should also be
clearly marked.
– Galvaniser/Fabricator/Contractor/Designer. It is preferable that the designer develop a good
relationship with a galvaniser, fabricator and contractor. These may not be the specific stakeholders
involved in the project, as depending on the contract type (i.e. D&C) the galvaniser, fabricator,
contractor may not have been identified during the design phase. By developing a good relationship
with these stakeholders, the risk of the design not being constructable (as per the design drawings) is
minimised. The following questions that require response should be considered in consultation with
the galvaniser/fabricator/contractor during the design phase:
- Will the sections fit in the available galvanising bath?
- How will the section be lifted into the bath?
- Are the proposed welds possible?
- How will heat distortion of the base plates be minimised?
- Is there sufficient access to the bolts at the connections?
- Are the lifting lugs in appropriate locations for installation of the structure?
- How will the structure be supported during the temporary installation state?
- How will the sections be transported and stored?
- Have the appropriate drainage holes and vent holes been incorporated?
• Competent designer. The design should be undertaken by a competent engineer. The engineering
design team should have relevant experience designing similar structures and be able to demonstrate
appropriate qualifications (e.g. RPEQ, CPEng, years of experience).
• Independent design review procedure. All designs should be subject to a design review procedure.
When specifying the requirements of the procedure consideration should be given to the complexity of the
sign support structure and the risk of failure. In general, the following points should be considered:
– Level of independence required – in Australia and New Zealand, reviews must be undertaken by a
third party.

– Experience of the reviewer – the majority of State Road Authorities specify minimum requirements for
independent reviewers, some have pre-qualification schemes in place. Where these are not applicable
consideration should be given to the reviewer’s qualifications (e.g. RPEQ, CPEng), number of years’
experience and applicability of that experience to the structure(s) in question.
– Timing of review – it is preferable to engage the reviewer as early in the design phase as possible.
Again, some State Road Authorities specify the stages of involvement required, however, as a
minimum it is recommended that the reviewer is initially involved at preliminary design stage to agree
on design philosophy and at the detailed design stage to undertake a detailed review and to provide
final sign off.
– Detail of review – this will vary depending on the design stage being reviewed, for example, early on in
the design process the review may be high level. Prior to issuing the design review certificate the
reviewer must satisfy themselves that the design is structurally sound and buildable and consideration
has been given to the following:
- safety
- maintainability and maintenance access
- durability
- sustainability
- future change of use
- demolition
- aesthetics
- environmental impact
- whole of life cost.
• Typical/standard details. Where typical/standard details are used, their applicability should be checked
specific to the project requirements. The IFC drawings should clearly document the applicability of the
standard detail as well as detailing such as stiffener plates and weld details, etc.
• Safety in Design. In accordance with safety in design legislation, the designer should consider how the
sign support structure will be constructed, fabricated, transported and stored, operated and maintained,
and decommissioned. Where items (such as the choice of protective coating) influence all stages of
delivery, these should be discussed and agreed upon with the relevant authority and documented prior to
the commencement of the design. Documentation of residual risks (including ownership) should also be
undertaken prior to the commencement of the design. Refer to Section 2.3 for additional considerations
that should be discussed and agreed upon prior to the design commencing and to Section 3.8 for
additional discussion on Safety in Design considerations.
• Design Documentation. Sufficient documentation of the design is required in order to capture,
communicate and highlight key design considerations. Design documentation requirements are usually
mandated for review at different stages throughout the project such as preliminary design, detailed design
and issue for construction. Design documentation can include:
– design report
– safety in design report
– drawings
– works procedures
– specifications.

Construction Phase
During the construction phase, the following items should be considered to ensure the quality of the installed
sign structure is adequate.
• Management of changes between IFC and as-built documentation. A formalised process, which is
likely dependent on the contract type, should be followed to review and approve all changes to the design
between the issue of IFC drawings and documenting the as-built structure. One way this could be
implemented is through a formal Request for Information (RFI) of Design Change Request (DCR) process
that requires the designer’s approval.
• On site checks. During the fabrication and installation phases, a quality process should be implemented
to document that the structure is fabricated and installed as per the design documentation including
specifications. These processes could include:
– Hold points and witness points as outlined in the project specifications.
– Specifying an on-site independent quality review role in the contract documents that could be
undertaken by the designer, relevant authority or an independent, competent engineer. Consideration
should be given to specifying the extent of the role and could include the inspection of the whole
structure or just the structural critical areas.
• Shop drawing review
– Review The shop drawings should be reviewed by a competent engineer (e.g. proof engineer, RPEQ,
designer) prior to fabrication to ensure they appropriately reflect the design drawings. This will
minimise rework on the shop floor and could prevent installation or operational issues once on site.
– Documentation Consideration should be given to including the shop drawings as a requirement in the
As-Built documentation. This will inform any investigations or assessments that need to occur during
the operation and maintenance phase of the structure’s lifecycle.
• Handover documentation. Handover documentation requirements should be detailed in the contract
documents and could include:
– as-built drawings (including shop drawings and any changes made during construction)
– handover inspection record
– change record
– request for information (RFI)
– non-conformance record (NCR).
• Durability. The quality procedures for the construction phase should ensure the durability objectives of
the specified protective coating are met. Any amendments which may affect the durability and/or original
design intent should be reviewed and recertified by a competent engineer. For example, site welds should
not be undertaken on galvanised sections as they can damage the coating. Refer to Section 4.1 for
further durability considerations.
• Prequalification requirements for suppliers. Project specifications or contract documents may
specifically address prequalification requirements for fabricators or suppliers. Adhering to these
requirements can improve the quality of material or product used on a project. For further information on
compliance requirements for suppliers and fabricators refer to Section 4.2.1.

References
Advanced Bolting Solutions (2020), What needs to be considered while using a torque wrench on a flange?,
Advanced Bolting Solutions, viewed 14 March 2020, https://absgroup.in/what-needs-to-be-considered-
while-using-a-torque-wrench-on-a-flange/
Australian Steel Institute 2020 Technical Note TN007 Compliance Issues and Steel Structures, Australian
Steel Institute, viewed 23 October 2020, https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-
items/tn007-compliance-issues-and-steel-structures/tn007_v3.pdf/
Australian Steel Institute, Technical Note TN-001 ‘High Strength Structural Bolt Assemblies to AS/NZS
1252:2016, April, 2019.
Australian Steel Institute (n.d.), Australian Standards and Design, Australian Steel Institute, viewed 7
December 2019, https://www.steel.org.au/focus-areas/steel-and-design/standards-and-design/
Australian Steel Institute 2019a Technical Note TN001 (2019) High Strength Structural Bolt Assemblies to
AS/NZS 1252:2016, Australian Steel Institute, viewed 14 November 2019,
https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-items/tn001-high-strength-structural-bolt-
assemblies-to/tech-note-tn001-v5_web.pdf/
Australian Steel Institute 2019b, Road Signage Collapse Necessitates Stricter Enforcement of Steelwork
Compliance, media release, 17 January 2019, Australian Steel Institute, viewed 12 December 2019,
https://www.steel.org.au/news/news/road-signage-collapse-necessitates-stricter-enforc/
Australian Steel Institute. 2012. Wind-induced Fatigue of Steel Structures: A Simplified Design Approach to
AS4100, Steel Construction, Journal of the Australian Steel Institute: Volume 45, Number 2
Australian Steel Institutes, 1996. Design of Structural Steel Hollow Section Connections – Volume 1 Design
Models. First Edition.
Australian Steel Institute, 2013. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel Volume 1: Open Sections.
Australian Steel Institute, 2013. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel Volume 1: Hollow Sections.
Delany, N.K. and Sorensen, N.E., 1953. Low-speed drag of cylinders of various shapes.
Department of Transport 2019, Code of Practice – Sign gantries and lighting masts (BTN 014:2019), Version
2.1
Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) 2020, Design Criteria for Bridges and Other Structures.
Issue 7
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2019, Traffic and Road Use Management (TRUM)
Dexter, R., and M. Ricker. 2002. Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilever Signal, Sign, and Light Supports,
NCHRP Report 469. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Hobson Technical. 2013. Thin Nuts (Lock-nuts) Advice on Lock-nuts for AS1252 Structural Bolt Assemblies.
HobSpec Bulletin, Viewed on 14 June 2020 https://www.hobson.com.au/files/technical/hsq-thin-lock-
nut.pdf

International Institute of Welding. 2019. IIW Guideline – International Welding Inspection Personnel Minimum
Requirements for the Education, Examination and Qualification, WEF / I AB IIW Management Team,
Porto Salvo, Portugal.
Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) 2009, Structures Engineering Design Manual, Doc No. 3912/03/13
Chapter 13
Mohammed, A. Pavic, A. Racic, V. 2018. Improved model for human induced vibrations of high frequency
floors. Engineering Structures, Volume 168, August 2018 pages 950-956
New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) 2016, Highway structures design guide, First edition.
Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2009, Bridge Technical Direction BTD2009/01 Design of Sign
Structures, Revision 1
Roy, S., Y. C. Park, R. Sause, J. W. Fisher, and E.K. Kaufmann. 2011. Cost Effective Connection Details for
Highway Sign, Luminaire, and Traffic Signal Structures. NCHRP Web Only Document 176 (Final Report
for NCHRP Project 10-70). Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Shahabpoor, E. Pavic, A. Racic, V. 2016. Interaction between Walking Humans and Structures in Vertical
Direction: A Literature Review. Shock and Vibration, Volume 2016, Article ID 3430285
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sv/2016/3430285/
Transport and Main Roads, 2020. Design Criteria for Bridges and Other Structures.
VicRoads, 2019. Road Design Note Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports. RDN
06-13 Version 1.1
Australian and New Zealand Standards
AS 1397:2011 ‘Continuous hot-dip metallic coated steel sheet and strip – Coatings of zinc and zinc alloyed
with aluminium and magnesium’
AS 1742.14-1996, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 14: traffic signals.
AS 1657:2018 ‘Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders – Design, construction and installation’.
AS 2812:2005, ‘Welding, brazing and cutting of metals – Glossary of terms
AS 3990:1993, ‘Mechanical equipment - Steelwork
AS 4100-2016 ‘Steel structures’.
AS 4291.1:2000, ‘Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy steel, Part 1: Bolts,
screws and studs’.
AS 5100.2 Supplement 1: 2007, Bridge design – Design loads – Commentary (Supplement to AS 5100.2 –
2004)
AS 5100-2017 ‘Bridge design set’
AS 5216:2018 Design of post-installed and cast-in fastenings in concrete’
AS/NZS ISO 3834, ‘Quality requirements for fusion welding of metallic materials’
AS/NZS 1163:2009 ‘Cold-formed structural steel hollow sections’
AS/NZS 1170-2007 ‘Structural design actions Set’
AS/NZS 1170.2-2011 ‘Structural design actions Wind actions’
AS/NZS 1252:2016, ‘High-strength steel fastener assemblies for structural engineering – Bolts, nuts and
washers’.
AS/NZS 1554.1:2014, ‘Structural steel welding – Part 1: Welding of steel structures’

AS/NZS 1554.2:2003, ‘Structural steel welding – Part 2: Stud welding (steel studs to steel)’
AS/NZS 1554.5:2014, ‘Structural steel welding – Part 5: Welding of steel structures subject to high levels of
fatigue loading’
AS/NZS 1891.4:2009 ‘Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices Selection, use and maintenance’.
AS/NZS 2312.1:2014 ‘Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use of
protective coatings Paint Coatings.’
AS/NZS 2312.2:2014 ‘Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use of
protective coatings Hot dip galvanising
AS/NZS 3678:2016 ‘Structural steel - Hot-rolled plates, floorplates and slabs’.
AS/NZS 3679.1:2016 ‘Structural steel. Part 1: Hot-rolled bars and sections’.
AS/NZS 3679.2:2016 ‘Structural steel Part 2: Welded I sections’.
AS/NZS 4291.1:2015 ‘Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy steel - Bolts,
screws and studs’.
AS/NZS 4291.2:1995, ‘Mechanical properties of fasteners, Part 2: Nuts with specified proof load values—
Coarse thread
AS/NZS 4291.2:2015 ‘Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy steel - Nuts with
specified property classes - Coarse thread and fine pitch thread’
AS/NZS 4680:2006, ‘Hot-dip galvanised (zinc) coatings on fabricated ferrous articles’
AS/NZS 5131:2016 ‘Structural steelwork – Fabrication and erection’.
DR AS/NZS 1170.2:2020, ‘Structural design actions – wind actions Draft for Public Comment’
The Highways Agency et al 1998, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – Portal and Cantilever
Signs/Signal Gantries, Volume 2 Section 2 BD51/98
International Standards
AASHTO 2015, LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports of Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic
Signals (LRFDLTS), 5th Edition
AASHTO 2017, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition
Comite European de Normalisation EN1090-2:2018, ‘Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures
– Part 2: Technical requirements for steel structures’
Highways Agency. TR 2130, 'Environmental Tests for Motorway Communications Equipment and Portable
and Permanent Road Traffic Control Equipment, 5.2 Vibration, Random, Operational'
Highways England 2019, CD365 Portal and cantilever signs/signals gantries
International Standards Organisation, ISO 3269:2000 ‘Fasteners—Acceptance inspection’.
International Standards Organisation, ISO 1461:2009 ‘Hot dip galvanised coatings on fabricated iron and
steel articles – specifications and test methods.
International Standards Organisation, ISO 7093: 2000, ‘Plain washers – large series set’
International Standards Organisation, ISO/IEC Guide 28:2004 ‘Conformity assessment – Guidance on a
third-party certification system for products‘
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 2008. Overhead Sign Structure Design Manual.
Viewed on 25 June 2020 https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/manuals/man-oss-
design
NZS 3403:1978, ‘Specification for hot-dip galvanised corrugated steel sheet for building purposes’

High Mast Light Structures, Tolling Gantries, Traffic Signals and Gantries
AASHTO 2019, LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports of Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic
Signals (LRFDLTS), 5th Edition
Connor, R.J., 2012. Fatigue loading and design methodology for high-mast lighting towers (Vol. 718).
Transportation Research Board.
Highways England. 2020. CD 354 Design of minor structures (formerly BD 94/17). Revision 1
NZTA. 2011. ITS Specification Support Structures and foundations. ITS-01-05.
NZTA. 2016. Highway Structures Design Guide. Version 1.
Sinh, H.N., Riedman, M., Letchford, C. and O'Rourke, M., 2014. Full-scale investigation of wind-induced
vibrations of mast-arm traffic signal structures (No. C-10-07). New York (State). Dept. of Transportation.
Transport and Main Roads (TMR), 2017. Transport and Main Roads Specifications MRTS97 Mounting
Structures for Roadside Equipment.
Transport and Main Roads (TMR), 2018. Transport and Main Roads Specifications MRTS61 Gantries and
Support Structures for Roads Signs, Tolling Systems and ITS Devices
Transport Infrastructure Ireland, 2014. Design of Support Structures for Roadside Furniture. DN-STR-0.018
Transport Roads and Maritime Services. 2017. Specification no. TSI-SP-054 Traffic Signal Mast Arms. Issue
1.0.
Transport Roads and Maritime Services. 2018. Traffic Signal Design Section 9 Posts. Issue 1.7
VicRoads. 2005. Specification for Traffic Signal Mast Arms, Joint use Mast Arms, Joint Use Poles & Rigid
Street Lighting Poles. TCS 001-2-2005


AP-G95-21 Design and Construction Guideline For Large Cantilever and Gantry Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

AP-G95-21 Design and Construction Guideline For Large Cantilever and Gantry Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Construction Guidelines for the Delivery of Large Cantilever and Gantry Structures

Abstract About Austroads

• state road agencies

Austroads 2021 | page i

Term Meaning Source

Austroads 2021 | page ii

Austroads 2021 | page iii

Austroads 2021 | page iv

Austroads 2021 | page v

Table 1.1: Consultation paricipants .............................................................................................................. 3

Figure 3.1: Double nut anchorage connection ............................................................................................ 18

Austroads 2021 | page vi

Introduction to the Guideline

Austroads 2021 | page 1

The following areas are not covered by this guidance document:

Austroads 2021 | page 2

Table 1.1: Consultation paricipants

State Road Authorities/Asset Owner Consultants

Intended users of the document include:

Austroads 2021 | page 3

Design General Principles

Standards and Guidance Documents

Table 2.1: Common references

Document Abbreviation used in Document Reference

All other documents are referenced as they occur in the text.

Austroads 2021 | page 4

Table 2.2: Standards and design guidelines

Austroads 2021 | page 5

Matters for Resolution

Austroads 2021 | page 6

Table 3.1: Design life

Standard Criteria Design Life (years)

Austroads 2021 | page 7

Table 3.2: Vertical clearance requirements

Standard Criteria Design Life (years)

Austroads 2021 | page 8

• NZTA Highway Structures Design Guide (2016)

Austroads 2021 | page 9

Table 3.3: Drag coefficients

Drag Coefficient Radius Source

Note: rs is the ratio of corner radius to depth of square member

Austroads 2021 | page 10

Critical Wind Loading for Wind-Induced Vibrations

Wind Loading for Fatigue

Austroads 2021 | page 11

Table 3.4: Natural frequency limit

Structure type Natural frequency limit Reference

Calculating Critical Velocity (extracted from AS5100.2 Supp1:2007 clause 23.2.2)

Austroads 2021 | page 12

The critical wind speed (Vcr), is calculated as follows:

d = diameter of a circular member or the frontal width of a prismatic member

S = Strouhal number, which is a function of the cross-sectional shape

Dynamic Interaction Between a Bridge and an Attached Gantry

Austroads 2021 | page 13

Method 1 – Combined AASHTO Standard Specifications of Structural Supports for Highway

Notwithstanding clause 13.11.3 of AS/NZS5100.6:2017, all other aspects of steel fatigue

Austroads 2021 | page 14

AS/NZS5100.6:2017 shall be amended as follows:

o AS/NZS5100.6:2017 equation 13.11.1 (2) shall be replaced by:

Design fatigue stress ranges calculated from AASHTO

Dynamic load allowance α = 0

• Where a preferred detail is not represented in AS/NZS5100.6 or AASHTO Standard

• Where there is a small variation to a detail (that is reasonably represented in AS/NZS5100.6