07 Ballot Items 41-60

2007 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 60 (REV 1)
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 11, Table 11.5.6-1

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-15 Foundations
REVISION ADDITION NEWDOCUMENT
DESIGN SPEC CONSTRUCTION SPEC MOVABLE SPEC
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE PREPARED: 2/5/07
DATE REVISED: 7/10/07
AGENDA ITEM:
In Table 11.5.6-1, 11
th
row, 3
rd
column, regarding the resistance factor for bearing:
Delete Article 10.5 applies and using both the 2
nd
and 3
rd
columns in the table in the 11
th
row, replace it with the
following:
Gravity and semi-gravity walls with stiff footings 0.55
Walls with flexible footings (e.g., MSE walls) 0.65
In Table 11.5.6-1, 10
th
row, revise the table subheading as follows:
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls, Gravity Walls and Semi-Gravity Walls
In Table 11.5.6-1, first row below the subheading Prefabricated Modular Walls, 3
rd
column, regarding the
resistance factor for bearing, delete Article 10.5 applies and replace it with 0.55.
OTHER AFFECTED ARTICLES:
None
BACKGROUND:
The resistance factor for bearing capacity for walls is referenced to the resistance factor provided in Section 10,
which specifies a resistance factor of 0.45 to 0.50. The load group used to calibrate that resistance factor in Section
10 does not directly apply to walls, as for walls, the dominant load source is from earth pressure, not structure dead
and live load. Furthermore, for walls that are very flexible, such as reinforced soil walls, traditionally, an overall
safety factor for bearing resistance of 2.0 has been used. The bearing resistance factors in Chapter 10 were targeted
to a safety factor of at least 2.5 to 3.0. For example, for bearing for walls with a flexible footing such as MSE
walls, the resistance factor determined through calibration by fitting, for FS = 2.0, is calculated as:

67 . 0
0 . 2 1 23 . 0
3 . 1 23 . 0 5 . 1
1

FS
EV
EH
EV
EH
EV EH

, rounded to 0.65.
For gravity walls with concrete footings (i.e., not flexible), a FS = 2.5 is typically used for bearing resistance. In
this case, becomes:

55 . 0
5 . 2 1 23 . 0
3 . 1 23 . 0 5 . 1
1

FS
EV
EH
EV
EH
EV EH

.
The proposed changes to this resistance factor will make the design of walls consistent with past practice as
specified in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 2002, and FHWA design manuals.
ANTICIPATED EFFECT ON BRIDGES:
Footing size for walls should be reduced relative to what would be required in the current LRFD specifications due
to the higher resistance factors, but will be consistent with what was obtained in previous allowable stress design
practice (i.e., the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 2002).
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
2007 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 41 (REVISION 1)
SUBJECT: Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and
Traffic Signals: Revisions to Section 11
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-12 - Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and
Traffic Signals
REVISION ADDITION NEW DOCUMENT
LRFR MANUAL OTHER AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals
AGENDA ITEM:
Replace Section 11 in its entirety. See Attachment C for proposed Section 11.
The majority of changes made in this section are editorial in nature such as corrections to grammar, defining terms
to be consistent with the LRFD Specifications, the rounding of coefficients to two decimal places, and minor
clarifications to various articles.
The following technical changes are made.
Section 11.4 The provisions to fatigue are expanded to include non-cantilevered structures. NCHRP 494 is the
basis for the fatigue design provisions for non-cantilevered support structures.
Table 11-1 Fatigue importance factors are included for non-cantilevered structures based on the work of NCHRP
494.
Section 11.6 Additional guidance is provided as commentary for the selection of the fatigue category.
Section 11.7.2 Tapered poles are required to be investigated for vortex shedding. Vortex shedding has been
observed in tapered lighting poles, and studies have shown that tapered poles can experience vortex shedding in
second or third mode vibrations. Those vibrations can lead to fatigue problems.
Section 11.7.2 The drag coefficient to be used in the calculation of the equivalent static pressure for vortex
shedding is clarified to be based on the critical wind velocity.
Section 11.7.3 The drag coefficient to be used in the calculation of the equivalent static pressure for natural wind
gust is clarified to be based on the yearly mean wind velocity of 5 m/s or (11.2 mph).
Section 11.7.4 The drag coefficient to be used in the calculation of the equivalent static pressure for truck induced
gust is clarified to be based on a truck speed of 30 m/s or (65 mph).
Section 11.8 Guidance on the allowable deflection for non-cantilevered structures is provided in the commentary
based on the work of NCHRP 494.
None
BACKGROUND:
The revised section is the result of work completed under NCHRP 20-07 Task 209.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
1
ATTACHMENT C 2007 AGENDA ITEM 41 T-12 (REVISION 1)
Section 11:
Fatigue Design
SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY
11.1 SCOPE
This section contains provisions for the fa-
tigue design of cantilevered and non-cantilevered
steel and aluminum structural supports for high-
way signs, luminaires, and traffic signals.
This section focuses on fatigue, which is de-
fined herein as the damage that may result in frac-
ture after a sufficient number of stress fluctuations.
It is based on NCHRP Report 412, Fatigue Resis-
tant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light
Supports (Kaczinski et al. 1998), NCHRP Report
469, Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilever Signal,
Sign, and Light Supports (Dexter and Ricker 2002)
and NCHRP Report 494, Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traf fic Signals
(Fouad et al 2003). The study focused on critical
support structures that show susceptibly to fatigue
failures. A continuation of the project is underway
to further refine the proposed design criteria.
11.2 DEFINITIONS
Constant-amplitude fatigue limit (CAFL) a stress range below which a fatigue life appears to be infi-
nite, also known as an endurance limit nominal stress range below which a particular fatigue detail can
withstand an infinite number of repetitions without fatigue failure.
Fatiguedamage resulting in fracture caused by stress fluctuations.
In-plane bendingbending in-plane for the main member (column). At the connection of an arm or arms
built-up box to a vertical column, the in-plane bending stress range in the column is a result of galloping or
truck-induced gust loads on the arm and/or arms attachments.
Limit state wind load effecta specifically defined load criteria.
Load bearing attachmentattachment to main member where there is a transverse load range in the at-
tachment itself in addition to any primary stress range in the main member.
Non-load bearing attachmentattachment to main member where the only significant stress range is the
primary stress in the main member.
Out-of-plane bendingbending out-of-plane for the main member (column). At the connection of an arm
or arms built-up box to a vertical column, the out -of-plane bending stress range in the column is a result of
natural wind gust loads on the arm and the arms attachments.
StandardSpecificationsfor Structural Supportsfor HighwaySigns, LuminairesandTrafficSignals
2
Pressure rangemagnitude of force, in terms of pressure, due to of a limit state wind load effect that pro-
duces a stress range.
Stress range magnitude of stress fluctuations. the algebraic difference between extreme stresses used
in fatigue design.
Yearly mean wind velocitylong-term average of the wind speed for a given area.
11.3 NOTATIONS
b = flat-to-flat width of a multisided section (m, ft)
Cd = appropriate drag coefficient from Section 3, Loads, for given attachment or member
d = diameter of a circular sect ion (m, ft)
D = inside diameter of exposed end of female section for slip-joint splice (mm, in)
E = modulus of elasticity (MPa, ksi)
fn = first natural frequency of the structure (cps)
f
n1
= first modal frequency (cps)
(F)n = fatigue strength (CAFL) (MPa, ksi)
g = acceleration of gravity (9810 mm/s
2
, 386 in/s
2
)
H = effective weld throat (mm, in)
I = moment of inertia (mm
4
, in
4
)
Iavg = average moment of inertia for a tapered pole (mm
4
, in
4
)
Itop = moment of inertia at top of tapered pole (mm
4
, in
4
)
Ibottom = moment of inertia at bottom of tapered pole (mm
4
, in
4
)
I
F
= importance factors applied to limit state wind load effects to adjust for the desired level of
structural reliability
L = length of the pole (Article 11.7.2) (mm, in)
L = slip-splice overlap length (example 1 of Figure 111) (mm, in)
L = length of reinforcement at handhole (example 13 of Figure 111) (mm, in)
L = length of longitudinal attachment (examples 12, 14 and 15 of Figure 111) (mm, in)
PG = galloping-induced vertical shear pressure range (Pa, psf)
PNW = natural wind gust pressure range (Pa, psf)
PTG = truck-induced gust pressure range (Pa, psf)
P
VS
= vortex shedding-induced pressure range (Pa, psf)
r = radius of chord or column (mm, in)
R = transition radius of longitudinal attachment (mm, in)
Sn = Strouhal number
SR = nominal stress range of the main member or branching member (MPa, ksi)
t = thickness (mm, in)
tb = wall thickness of branching member (mm, in)
tc = wall thickness of main member (column) (mm, in)
t
p
= plate thickness of attachment (mm, in)
Vc = critical wind velocity for vortex shedding (m/s, ft/smph)
Vmean = yearly mean wind velocity for a given area (m/s, mph)
V
T
= truck speed for truck induced wind gusts (m/s, mph)
W = weight of the luminaire (N, k)
w = weight of the pole per unit length (N/mm, k/in)
| = damping ratio
o = angle of transition taper of longitudinal attachment (example 14 of Figure 111) (deg)
o = ovalizing parameter for bending in the main member (note b of Table 112)
AF = constant amplitude fatigue limit stress range (MPa, ksi)
Ao = indication of stress range in member resulting from applicable axial loadings or moments
Section11: FatigueDesign
3
11.4 APPLICABLE STRUCTURE TYPES
Design for fatigue shall be required for the
following type structures:
a) overhead cantilevered sign structures,
b) overhead cantilevered traffic signal
structures,
c) high-level, high-mast lighting structures,
d) overhead non-cantilevered sign structures,
and
e) overhead non-cantilevered traffic signal
structures.
NCHRP Report 412 is the basis for the fa-
tigue design provisions for cantilevered structures.
NCHRP Report 494 is the basis for the fatigue de-
sign provisions for non-cantilevered support struc-
tures. The fatigue design procedures outlined in
this section may be applicable to steel and alumi-
num structures in general. However, only specific
types of structures are identified for fatigue design
in this article. Common light ing poles and roadside
signs are not included because since they are
smaller structures and normally have not exhibited
fatigue problems. An exception would be square
lighting poles, as they have exhibited poor fatigue
performance. Square cross-sections have been
much more prone to fatigue problems than round
cross-sections. Caution should be exercised re-
garding the use of square lighting poles even when
a fatigue design is performed. The provisions of
this section are not applicable for the design of
span-wire (strain) poles.
In general, overhead cantilevered sign and
traffic signal structures should be designed for fa-
tigue due to individual loadings from galloping,
natural wind gusts, and truck-induced wind gusts.
High-level lighting structures should be designed
for fatigue for loadings from natural wind gusts.
Vortex shedding should be considered for single-
member cantilevered members that have tapers
less than 0.0117 m/m (0.14 in/ft), such as lighting
structures or mast arms without attachments.
NCHRP Report 412, Fatigue Resistant Design
of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light Supports
(Kaczinski et al. 1998) is the basis for the fatigue
design provisions for cantilevered structures. Other
structures, including overhead bridge support
structures for signs and signals, are also suscepti-
ble to fatigue damage. Some of the design provi-
sions of this section can also be applicable to non-
cantilevered structures. A research project is cur-
rently underway to develop complete fatigue de-
sign provisions for noncantilevered support struc-
tures.
4
11.5 DESIGN CRITERIA
Cantilevered and non-cantilevered support
structures shall be designed for fatigue to resist
each of the applicable equivalent static wind load
effects specified in Article 11.7, and modified by
the appropriate importance factors given in Article
11.6. Stresses due to these loads on all compo-
nents, mechanical fasteners, and weld details
shall be limited designed to satisfy the require-
ments of their respective detail categories within
the constant-amplitude fatigue limits (CAFL) pro-
vided in Article 11.9. Table 113. A summary of
typical fatigue-sensitive cantilevered support
structure connection details is presented in Table
112 and illustrated in Figure 111.
Accurate load spectra and life prediction tech-
niques for defining fatigue loadings are generally
not available. The assessment of stress fluctua-
tions and the corresponding number of cycles for
all wind-induced events (lifetime loading histogram)
is practically impossible. With this uncertainty, the
design of cantilevered sign, luminaire, and traffic
signal supports for a finite fatigue life becomes im-
practical. Therefore, an infinite life fatigue design
approach is recommended and is considered
sound practice. Fatigue stress limits are It is gen-
erally based on the constant-amplitude fatigue limit
(CAFL). The CAFL values provided in Table 113
are approximately the same as those given in Ta-
ble 10.3.1.A of the Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges (AASHTO 1996).
An infinite-life fatigue approach was devel-
oped in an experimental study that considered
several critical welded details (Fisher et al. 1993).
The infinite-life fatigue approach can be used when
the number of wind load cycles expected during
the lifetime of the structures is greater than the
number of cycles at the CAFL. This is particularly
the case for structural supports where the wind
load cycles in 25 years or greater lifetimes are ex-
pected to exceed 100 million cycles, whereas typi-
cal weld details reach the CAFL at 10 to 20 million
cycles.
Fatigue critical details should be are designed
with nominal stress ranges that are below the ap-
propriate CAFL. To assist designers, a categoriza-
tion of typical cantilevered support structure details
to based on the existing AASHTO and American
Welding Society (AWS) fatigue design categories
is are provided in Table 112 and Figure 111.
The above referenced details were produced
bBased on a review of state departments of trans-
portation standard drawings and manufacturers
literature, the above referenced list of typical canti-
levered support structure connection details was
produced. This list should not be considered as a
complete set of all possible connection details, but
rather it is intended to remove the uncertainty as-
sociated with applying the provisions of the Stan-
dard Specifications for Highway Bridges to the fa-
tigue design of cantilevered support structures.
Choice of details improves the fatigue resistance of
these structures, and it can eliminate or reduce
increases in member size required for less fat igue-
resistant details.
5
This detailed categorization of f atigue-
sensitive connection details can be used by de-
signers and fabricators to produce more fatigue-
resistant cantilevered support structures. Proper
detailing will improve the fatigue resistance of
these structures, and it can eliminate or reduce
increases in member size required for less fatigue-
resistant details.
The notes for Table 112 specify the use of
Stress Category K
2
. This stress category corre-
sponds to the category for cyclic punching shear
stress in tubular members specified by the AWS
Structural Welding Code D1.1Steel. Fatigue de-
sign for the columns wall under this condition may
require sizes of the built-up box connection or col-
umn wall thicknesses that are excessive for practi-
cal use. For this occurrence, an adequate fatigue-
resistant connection other than the built-up box
shown in Figure 111 should be considered.
Fatigue testing has shown the advantage of
ring-stiffeners that completely encircle a pole rela-
tive to a built-up box connection. For built-up box
connections, it is recommended that the width of
the box be the same as the diameter of the column
(i.e., the sides of the box are tangent to the sides
of the column).
Regarding full -penetration groove-welded
tube-to-transverse plate connections, NCHRP Re-
port 412 did not fully investigate the effects from
the possible use of additional reinforcing fillet
welds. Additional research and testing of these
types of detail configurations are needed to sup-
port future updates of this section.
Stress categories in Table 11-2 for weld ter-
minations at the end of longitudinal stiffeners were
based, in part, on assigned categories for attach-
ments in the AASHTO Bridge Specifications. Re-
cent Ff atigue testing of many fillet-welded tube-to-
longitudinal stiffener connections indicate that the
angle of intersection (A), the transitional radius to
the pole wall (R), the length of the stiffener (L), and
the ratio of the stiffener thickness to pole wall
thickness, for example, all have effects on the fa-
tigue life of the detail. Some tube-to-stiffener con-
nections have a potential to develop very high
stress concentrations in the tube wall in the vicinity
of the weld termination at the end of longitudinal
stiffeners. Testing on poles having wall thickness
less than 6 mm () indicates that longitudinal stif-
feners yielded little or no improvement of the fa-
tigue performance of the connection (Koenigs et al.
2003). Until further research can give reliable es-
6
timates of the effects of stiffeners, all welds termi-
nating at the end of longitudinal stiffeners shall be
classified as stress category E.
Equal leg welds in socket connections have
been shown by fatigue testing to have a fatigue
strength less than stress category E. The fatigue
strength of a socket-welded connection can be im-
proved by using an unequal leg fillet weld.
11.6 FATIGUE IMPORTANCE FACTORS
7
An importance factor, IF, that accounts for
the risk degree of hazard to traffic and damage to
property shall be applied to the limit state wind
load effects specified in Article 11.7. Importance
factors for cantilevered traffic signal, sign, and
luminaire support structures exposed to the four
wind load effects are presented in Table 111.
Importance factors are introduced into the
Specifications to adjust the level of structural reli-
ability of cantilevered and non-cantilevered support
structures. Importance factors should be deter-
mined by the owner. For combined structures,
such aswhere traffic signal s and luminaires are
combined joined structures, the use of the more
conservative importance factor is recommended.
Three categories of cantilevered support
structures are presented in Table 111. Structures
classified as category I present a hi gh hazard in
the event of failure and should be designed to re-
sist rarely occurring wind loading and vibration
phenomena. It is intended that only the most criti-
cal cantilevered support structures be classified as
category I. Some examples of structures that
should be considered for category I classification
include the following: large sign structures (includ-
ing variable message signs [VMS]), traffic signal
structures with long mast arms, and high-level
lighting poles in excess of 30 m (98 ft) that are in-
stalled on highways where the vehicle speed is
such that the consequences of excessive deflec-
tion or a collision with a fallen structure is intoler-
able. Category II and III structures are not less
likely to experience the full limit state wind loads
associated with category I. If category II or III canti-
levered support structures experience the limit
state loads over a period of time, they would be
expected to experience fatigue damage. Sound
engineering judgment shall be used in the classifi-
cation process.
The importance categories and importance
factors (rounded to the nearest 0.05) are results
from NCHRP Reports 469 and 494. Three catego-
ries of support structures are presented in Table
111. Structures classified as Category I present a
high hazard in the event of failure and should be
designed to resist rarely occurring wind loading
and vibration phenomenon. It is recommended
that all structures without effective mitigation de-
vices on roadways with a speed limit in excess of
60 km/hr (35 mph) and average daily traffic (ADT)
exceeding 10,000 or average daily truck traffic
(ADTT) exceeding 1000 should be classified as
Category I structures. ADT and ADTT are for one
direction regardless of the number of lanes.
Structures without mitigation devices should
may be classified as Category I if any of the follow-
ing apply:
1. Cantilevered sign structures with a span in ex-
8
cess of 16 m (50 ft) or high-mast towers in
excess of 30 m (100 ft).
2. Large sign structures, both cantilevered and
non-cantilevered, including variable message
signs.
23. Structures lLocated in an area that is known to
have wind conditions that are conducive to
vibration.
Structures should be classified as Cat egory III
if they are located on roads with speed limits of 60
km/hr (35 mph) or less. Structures that are located
such that a failure will not affect traffic may be
classified as Category III.
All structures not explicitly meeting the Cat e-
gory I or Category III criteria should be classified
as Category II.
Maintenance and inspection programs should be
considered integral to the selection of the fatigue
importance category.
There are many factors that affect the selection of
the fatigue category and engineering judgment is
required.
9
Table 111. Fatigue Importance Factors, IF
Fatigue Category Importance Factor, IF
Galloping Vortex Shedding Natural Wind Gusts Truck-Induced Gusts
I Sign
Traffic Signal
Lighting
1.0
1.0
x
x*
x*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
x
II Sign
Traffic Signal
Lighting
0.70 . 65
0.65
x
x*
x*
0.65
0.85 .75
0.80
0.75 .72
0.90 .89
0.85 .84
x
C
a
n
t
il
e
v
e
r
e
d
III Sign
Traffic Signal
Lighting
0.40 . 31
0.30
x
x*
x*
0.30
0.70 .49
0.55 .59
0.50 .44
0.80 .77
0.70 .68
x
I Sign
Traffic Signal
x
x
x*
x*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
II Sign
Traffic Signal
x
x
x*
x*
0.85
0.80
0.90
0.85
N
o
n
-
C
a
n
t
i
le
v
e
r
e
d
III Sign
Traffic Signal
x
x
x*
x*
0.70
0.55
0.80
0.70
Note:
x - Structure is not susceptible to this type of loading.
* - Overhead cantilevered and non-cantilevered sign and traffic signal components are susceptible to vortex shed-
ding prior to placement of the signs and traffic signal heads, i.e., during construction.
11.7 FATIGUE DESIGN LOADS
To avoid large-amplitude vibrations and to
preclude the development of fatigue cracks in
various connection details and at other critical
locations, cantilevered and non-cantilevered sup-
port structures shall be designed to resist each of
the following applicable limit state equivalent stat-
ic wind loads acting separately. These loads shall
be used to calculate nominal stress ranges at
near fatigue-sensitive connection details, as de-
scribed in Article 11.5 and deflections for service
limits described in Article 11.8. The calculated
nominal stress range shall not exceed the CAFL
values given in Table 113 for a particular con-
nection detail.
In lieu of using the equivalent static pres-
sures provided in this specification, a dynamic
analysis of the structure may be performed using
appropriate dynamic load functions derived from
reliable data.
Cantilevered and non-cantilevered support
structures are exposed to several wind phenomena
that can produce cyclic loads. Vibrations associ-
ated with these cyclic forces can become signifi-
cant. NCHRP Report 412 has identified galloping,
vortex shedding, natural wind gusts, and truck-
induced gusts as wind-loading mechanisms that
can induce large amplitude vibrations and/or fa-
tigue damage in cantilevered traffic signal, sign,
and light support structures. NCHRP Report 494
identified natural wind gusts and truck-induced
gusts as wind-loading mechanisms that can induce
large amplitude vibrations and/or fatigue damage
in non-cantilevered traffic signal and sign support
structures. The amplitude of vibration and resulting
stress ranges are increased by the low levels of
stiffness and damping possessed by many of these
structures. In some cases, the vibration is only a
serviceability problem because motorists cannot
clearly see the mast arm attachments or are con-
cerned about passing under the structures. In other
cases, where deflections may or may not be con-
sidered excessive, the magnitudes of stress
ranges induced in these structures have resulted in
the development of fatigue cracks at various con-
nection details including the anchor bolts.
10
The wind-loading phenomena specified in this
section possess the greatest potential for creating
large amplitude vibrations in cantilevered support
structures. In particular, galloping and vortex shed-
ding are aeroelastic instabilities that will typically
induce vibrations at the natural frequency of the
structure (i.e., resonance). These conditions can
lead to fatigue failures in a relatively short period of
time.
Design pressures for each of the four possible
fatigue wind-loading mechanisms are presented as
an equivalent static wind pressure range, or a
shear stress range in the case of galloping. These
pressure (or shear stress) ranges should be ap-
plied to the structure as prescribed by this section
in a simple static analysis to determine stress
ranges at near fatigue-sensitive details. In lieu of
designing for galloping or vortex-shedding limit
state fatigue wind load effects, mitigation devices
may be used as approved by the owner. Mitigation
devices are discussed in NCHRP Reports 412 and
469.
11.7.1 Galloping
Overhead cantilevered sign and traffic signal
support structures shall be designed for gallop-
ing-induced cyclic loads by applying an equiva-
lent static shear pressure vertically to the surface
area, as viewed in normal elevation of all sign
panels and/or traffic signal heads and backplates
rigidly mounted to the cantilevered horizontal
support. The magnitude of this vertical shear
pressure range shall be equal to the following:
F G
I P =1000 (Pa) Eq. 111
P I
G F
= 21 (psf)
In lieu of designing to resist periodic gallop-
ing forces, cantilevered sign and traffic signal
structures may be erected with approved effective
vibration mitigation devices. Vibration mitigation
devices should be approved by the owner, and
they should be based on historical or research
verification of its vibration damping characteris-
tics.
Alternatively, for traffic signal structures,
the owner may choose to install approved vibra-
tion mitigation devices if structures exhibit display
a galloping problem. The mitigation devices
should must be installed as quickly as possible
after the galloping problem appears.
Galloping, or Den Hartog instability, results in
large amplitude, resonant oscillations in a plane
normal to the direction of wind flow. It is usually
limited to structures with nonsymmetrical cross-
sections, such as sign and traffic signal structures
with attachments to the horizontal cantilevered
arm. Structures without attachments to the cantile-
vered horizontal support are not susceptible to gal-
loping-induced wind load effects.
The results of wind tunnel (Kaczinski et al.
1998) and water tank (McDonald et al. 1995) test-
ing, as well as the oscillations observed on cantile-
vered support structures in the field, are consistent
with the characteristics of the galloping phenom-
ena. These characteristics include the sudden on-
set of large-amplitude, across-wind vibrations that
increase with increases in wind velocity. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that gGalloping is typically
not caused by wind applied to the support structure
members, but rather applied by to the attachments
to the horizontal cantilevered arm, such as signs
and traffic signals.
The geometry and orientation of these at-
tachments, as well as the wind direction, directly
influence the susceptibility of cantilevered support
structures to galloping. Traffic signals are more
susceptible to galloping when configured with a
11
The owner may choose to exclude gal-
loping loads for the fatigue design of overhead
cantilevered sign support structures with quadri-
chord (i.e., four-chord) horizontal trusses.
backplate. In particular, traffic signal attachments
configured with or without a backplate are more
susceptible to galloping when subject to flow from
the rear. Galloping of sign attachments is inde-
pendent of aspect ratio and is more prevalent with
wind flows from the front of the structure.
By conducting wind tunnel tests and analytical
calibrations to field data and wind tunnel test re-
sults, an equivalent static vertical shear of 1000 Pa
(21 psf) was determined for the galloping phe-
nomenona. This vertical shear range should be
applied to the entire frontal area of each of the sign
and traffic signal attachments in a static analysis to
determine stress ranges at critical connection de-
tails. For example, if a 2.5 m by 3.0 m (8 ft by 10 ft)
sign panel is mounted to a horizontal mast arm, a
static force of 7500 x IF, N (1680 x IF , lb) should be
applied vertically to the structure at the area cen-
troid center of gravity of the sign panel.
A pole with multiple horizontal cantilevered
arms may be designed for galloping loads applied
separately to each individual arm, and need not
consider galloping simultaneously occurring on
multiple arms.
Overhead cantilevered sign support struc-
tures with quadri-chord horizontal trusses do not
appear to be susceptible to galloping because of
their inherent high degree of three-dimensional
stiffness.
Two possible means exist to mitigate gallop-
ing-induced oscillations in cantilevered support
structures. The dynamic properties of the structure
or the aerodynamic properties of the attachments
can be adequately altered to mitigate galloping.
The installation of a device providing positive aero-
dynamic damping can be used to alter the struc-
tures response from the aerodynamic effects on
the attachments.
A method of providing positive aerodynamic
damping to a traffic signal structure involves install-
ing a sign blank mounted horizontally and directly
above the traffic signal attachment closest to the
tip of the mast arm. This method has been shown
to be effective in mitigating galloping-induced vi-
brations on traffic signal support structures with
horizontally-mounted traffic signal attachments
(McDonald et al. 1995). For vertically-mounted traf-
fic signal attachments, a sign blank mounted hori-
zontally near the tip of the mast arm has mitigated
large amplitude galloping vibrations occurring in
traffic signal support structures. This sign blank is
12
placed adjacent to a traffic signal attachment, and
a separation exists between the sign blank and the
top of the mast arm. In both cases, the sign blanks
are required to provide a sufficient surface area for
mitigation to occur. However, the installation of
sign blanks may infl uence the design of structures
for truck-induced wind gusts by increasing the pro-
jected area on a horizontal plane. NCHRP Reports
412 and 469 provides additional discussion on this
possible mitigation device, and on galloping sus-
ceptibility and mitigation.
11.7.2 Vortex Shedding
Nontapered High-level, high-mast lighting
structures shall be designed to resist vortex
shedding-induced loads for critical wind velocities
less than approximately 20 m/s (65 fps; 45 mph).
High-level, high-mast lighting structures that have
tapers less than 0.0117 m/m (0.14 in/ft) shall be
required to resist vortex shedding-induced loads.
The critical wind velocity, Vc (m/s, mph), at
which vortex shedding lock-in can occur may be
calculated as follows:
for circular sections
n
n
c
S
d f
V = (m/s) Eq. 112
n
n
c
S
d f
. V 68 0 = (mph)
for multisided sections
V
f b
S
c
n
n
= (m/s) Eq. 113
n
n
c
S
b f
. V 68 0 = (mph)
where fn is the first a natural frequency of the
structure (cps); d and b are the diameter and flat-
to-flat width of the horizontal mast arm or pole
shaft for circular and multi-sided sections (m, ft),
respectively; and Sn is the Strouhal number. The
Strouhal number shall be taken as 0.18 for circu-
lar sections, 0.15 for multisided sections, and
0.11 for square or rectangular sections. For a ta-
pered pole, d and b are the average diameter
and width.
The equivalent static pressure range to be
used for the design of vortex shedding-induced
The shedding of vortices on alternate sides of
a member may result in resonant oscillations in a
plane normal to the direction of wind flow. Typical
natural frequencies and member dimensions pre-
clude the possibility of most cantilevered sign and
traffic signal support structures from being suscep-
tible to vortex shedding-induced vibrations.
Cantilevered mast arms and lighting struc-
tures that have tapers less than 0.0117 m/m (0.14
in/ft) may be required by the owner or designer to
resist vortex shedding-induced loads.
NCHRP Report 469 shows that poles with
tapers exceeding 0.0117 m/m (0.14 in/ft) can also
experience vortex shedding in lighting structures.
Observations and studies indicate that tapered
poles can experience vortex shedding in second or
third mode vibrations and that those vibrations can
lead to fatigue problems. Procedures to consider
higher mode vortex shedding on tapered poles are
demonstrated in NCHRP Report 469.
Structural elements exposed to steady, uni-
form wind flows will shed vortices in the wake be-
hind the element in a pattern commonly referred to
as a von Karmen vortex street. When the fre-
quency of vortex shedding approaches one of the
natural frequencies of the structure, usually the first
mode (or higher modes as demonstrated in
NCHRP Report 469), significant amplitudes of vi-
bration can be caused by a condition termed lock-
in. The critical velocity at which lock-in will occur s
is defined by the Strouhal relationship:
n
n
c
S
d f
V = Eq. C 111
For the first mode of vibration, a lower-bound
wind speed can be established for traffic signal and
13
loads shall be:
P
V C I
vs
c d F
=
0 613
2
2
.
|
(Pa) Eq. 114
| 2
00256 0
2
F d c
vs
I C V .
P = (psf)
where Vc is expressed in m/s (ft/smph); Cd is the
drag coefficient as specified in Section 3, Loads,
which is based on the critical wind velocity Vc;
and | is the damping ratio, which is may be
conservatively estimated as 0.005.
The equivalent static pressure range PVS
shall be applied transversely to poles (i.e., hori-
zontal direction) and horizontal mast arms (i.e.,
vertical direction).
In lieu of designing to resist periodic vortex
shedding forces, effective approved vibration mi-
tigation devices may be used.
sign structures. Although vortices are shed at low
wind velocities for wind speeds less than 5 m/s (16
fps, 11 mph), the vortices do not impart sufficient
energy to excite most structures. Typical natural
frequencies and member diameters for sign and
traffic signal support structures result in critical
wind velocities well below the 5 m/s (16 fps, 11 mph)
threshold for the occurrence of vortex shedding.
Because of extremely low levels of damping inher-
ent in many nontapered support structures, vortex
shedding may significantly excite resonant vibra-
tion. At wind speeds greater than about 20 m/s (65
fps, 45 mph) enough natural turbulence is gener-
ated to disturb the formation of vortices. Because Vc is
relatively low, the largest values of Cd for the support
components may be conservatively used.
Horizontal arms may be susceptible to vortex
shedding before sign and signal heads are at-
tached, i.e., during construction. Although possi-
ble, recent tests (Kaczinski et al. 1998, McDonald
et al. 1995) have indicated that the occurrence of
vortex shedding from attachments to cantilevered
sign and traffic signal support structures is not criti-
cal. In fact, t These attachments are more suscepti-
ble to galloping-induced vibrations. Finally, support
structures composed of tapered members do not
appear susceptible to vortex-induced vibrations
when tapered at least 0.0117 m/m (0.14 in/ft). The
dimensions of most tapered members result in crit-
ical wind velocities below the threshold velocity;
and, furthermore, any vortices that may form are
correlated over a short length of the member, and
they consequently generate insignificant vortex-
shedding forces.
Calculation of the first modal frequency for
simple pole structures (i.e., without mast arms) can
be computed accomplished using the following
equations:
4
1
75 . 1
wL
EI g
f
n
t
= Eq. C 112
(without luminaire mass)
=
+
n1 3 4
1.732 EIg
f
2 WL 0.236wL t
Eq. C 113
(with luminaire mass)
where W is the weight of the luminaire (N, k), w is
the weight of the pole per unit length (N/mm, k/in),
g is the acceleration of gravity (9810 mm/s
2
, 386
in/s
2
), L is the length of the pole (mm, in), and I is
the moment of inertia of the pole (mm
4
, in
4
). For
tapered poles, Iavg is substituted for I, where:
14
I
I I
avg
top bottom
=
+
2
Eq. C 114
Itop is the moment of inertia at the tip of the pole
and Ibottom is the moment of inertia at the bottom of
the pole.
Determining tThe first modal frequency for
poles with mast arms, however, is best accom-
plished by a finite element based modal analysis.
The mass of the luminaire/mast arm attachments
shall be included in the analysis to determine the
first mode of vibration transverse to the wind direc-
tion. Poles that may not have the attachments in-
stalled immediately shall be designed for this
worst-case condition. Because the natural fre-
quency of a structure without an attached mass is
typically higher than those with an attachment, the
resulting critical wind speed and vortex shedding
pressure range are will also be higher for this situa-
tion.
11.7.3 Natural Wind Gust
Cantilevered and non-cantilevered overhead
sign, overhead traffic signal, and high-level light-
ing supports shall be designed to resist an equiv-
alent static natural wind gust pressure range of:
=
NW d F
P 250C I (Pa) Eq. 115
=
NW d F
P 5.2C I (psf)
where Cd is the appropriate drag coefficient
based on the yearly mean wind velocity of 5 m/s
(11.2 mph) specified in Section 3, Loads, for the
considered element to which the pressure range
is to be applied. If Eq. C11-5 is used in place of
Eq. 11-5, C
d
may be based on the location spe-
cific yearly mean wind velocity Vmean. The natural
wind gust pressure range shall be applied in the
horizontal direction to the exposed area of all
support structure members, signs, traffic signals,
and/or miscellaneous attachments. Designs for
natural wind gusts shall consider the application
of wind gusts for any direction of wind.
The design natural wind gust pressure range
is based on a yearly mean wind speed of 5 m/s
(11.2 mph). For locations with more detailed wind
records, particularly sites with higher wind
speeds, the natural wind gust pressure may be
modified at the discretion of the owner.
Because of the inherent variability in the ve-
locity and direction of air flow, natural wind gusts
are the most basic wind phenomena that may in-
duce vibrations in wind-loaded structures. The
equivalent static natural wind gust pressure range
specified for design was developed with data ob-
tained from an analytical study of the response of
cantilevered support structures subject to random
gust loads (Kaczinski et al. 1998).
Because Vc Vmean is relatively low, the largest val-
ues of C
d
for the support components may be conser-
vatively used.
This parametric study was based on the 0.01
percent exceedance for a yearly mean wind veloc-
ity of 5 m/s (11.2 mph), which is a reasonable up-
per-bound of yearly mean wind velocities for most
locations in the country. There are locations, how-
ever, where the yearly mean wind velocity is larger
than 5 m/s (11.2 mph). For installation sites with
more detailed information regarding yearly mean
wind speeds (particularly sites with higher wind
speeds), the following equivalent static natural
wind gust pressure range shall be used for design:
F
mean
d NW
I
s / m
V
C P
2
5
250 |
.
|
\
|
= (Pa) Eq. C 115
15
F
mean
d NW
I
mph .
V
C . P
2
2 11
2 5
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (psf)
The largest natural wind gust loading for an
arm or pole with a single arm is from a wind gust
direction perpendicular to the arm. For a pole with
multiple arms, such as two perpendicular arms, the
critical direction for the natural wind gust is will
usually not be normal to either arm. The design
natural wind gust pressure range shall be applied
to the exposed surface areas seen in an elevation
view orientated perpendicular to the assumed wind
gust direction.
11.7.4 Truck-Induced Gust
Cantilevered and non-cantilevered Oover-
head sign and traffic signal support structures
shall be designed to resist an equivalent static
truck gust pressure range of:
TG d F
P =900C I (Pa) Eq. 116
TG d F
P =18.8C I (psf)
where C
d
is the appropriate drag coefficient
based on the truck speed of 30 m/s (65 mph)
from Section 3, Loads, for the considered ele-
ment to which the pressure range is to be ap-
plied. If Eq. C11-6 is used in place of Eq. 11-6, Cd
should be based on the considered truck speed
VT. The pressure range shall be applied in the
vertical direction to the cantilevered horizontal
support as well as the area of all signs, attach-
ments, walkways, and/or lighting fixtures pro-
jected on a horizontal plane. This pressure range
shall be applied along any 3.7 m (12 ft) length to
create the maximum stress range, excluding any
portion of the structure not located directly above
a traffic lane. The equivalent static truck pressure
range may be reduced for locations where vehicle
speeds are less than 30 m/s (65 mph).
The magnitude of applied pressure range
may be varied depending on the height of the
horizontal support and the attachments above the
traffic lane. Full pressure shall be applied for
heights up to and including 6 m (20 19.7 ft) , and
then the pressure may be linearly reduced for
heights above 6 m (20 19.7 ft) to a value of zero
at 10 m (33 32.8 ft).
The truck-induced gust loading may be ex-
cluded for the fatigue design of overhead cantile-
vered traffic signal support structures, as allowed
The passage of trucks beneath cantilevered
support structures may induce gust loads on the
attachments mounted to the horizontal support of
these structures. Although loads are applied in
both the horizontal and vertical direction, horizontal
support vibrations caused by forces in the vertical
direction are most critical. Therefore, truck gust
pressures are applied only to the exposed horizon-
tal surface of the attachment and horizontal sup-
port.
A pole with multiple horizontal cantilever arms
may be designed for truck gust loads applied sepa-
rately to each individual arm and need not consider
truck gust loads applied simultaneously to multiple
arms.
Recent vibration problems on sign structures
with large projected areas in the horizontal plane,
such as variable message signs ( VMS) enclosures,
have focused attention on vertical gust pressures
created by the passage of trucks beneath the sign.
The design pressure calculated from Eq. 11-6
is based on a truck speed of 30 m/s (65 mph). For
structures installed at locations where the posted
speed limit is much less than 30 m/s (65 mph), the
design pressure may be recalculated based on this
lower truck speed. The following equation may be
used:
F
T
d TG
I
s m
V
C P
2
/ 30
900 |
.
|
\
|
= (Pa) Eq. C 116
F
T
d TG
I
mph
V
C P
2
65
8 . 18
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (psf)
16
by the owner.
where VT is the truck speed in m/s (mph).
t and to any attachments located within this length.
A drag coefficient value of 1.20 was used
by DeSantis and Haig (1996) to determine an
equivalent static truck gust pressure range on
VMS.
The given truck-induced gust loading may be
excluded for the fatigue design of overhead canti-
levered traffic signal structures, as allowed by the
owner. Many traffic signal structures are installed
on roadways with negligible truck traffic. In addi-
tion, the typical response of cantilevered traffic sig-
nal structures from truck-induced gusts can be sig-
nificantly overestimated by the design pressures
prescribed in this article (NCHRP Report 469).
However, some cantilever traffic signal structures
have experienced large-amplitude vibrations from
truck-induced gusts applied under the right specific
conditions.
17
11.8 DEFLECTION
Galloping and truckgust induced vertical
deflections of cantilevered single-arm sign sup-
ports and traffic signal arms and non-cantilevered
supports should not be excessive so as to result
in a serviceability problem, because motorists
cannot clearly see the arms attachments or are
concerned about passing under the structures.
11.9 FATIGUE RESISTANCE
The allowable constant amplitude fatigue lim-
its (CAFL), are provided in Table 11-3. A sum-
mary of the typical fatigue sensitive connection
details are presented in Table 11-2 and illustrated
in Figure 11-1. Wind loads of Article 11.7 shall be
considered in computing the fatigue stress range.
Unless noted in Table 11-2, the member
cross section adjacent to the weld toe shall be
used to compute the nominal stress range.
Because of the low levels of stiffness and
damping inherent in cantilevered single mast arm
sign and traffic signal support structures, even
structures that are adequately designed to resist
fatigue damage may experience excessive verti-
cal deflections at the free end of the horizontal
mast arm. The primary objective of this provision
is to minimize the number of motorist complaints.
NCHRP Report 412 recommended that the
total deflection at the free end of single-arm sign
supports and all traffic signal arms be limited to
200 mm (8 in) vertically, when the equivalent stat-
ic design wind effect from galloping and truck-
induced gusts are applied to the structure.
NCHRP Report 494 recommends applying the
200 mm (8 in) vertical limit to non-cantilevered
support structures. Double-member or truss-type
cantilevered horizontal sign supports were not
required to have vertical deflections checked be-
cause of their inherent stiffness. There are were
no provisions for a displacement limitation in the
horizontal direction.
The CAFL were established based on fatigue
testing and the resistances were computed based
on elastic section analysis, i.e., nominal values in
the cross section. Therefore, it is assumed that
these resistances include effects of residual
stresses due to fabrication, out-of-plane distor-
tions, etc. At this time, only stress range due to
wind is used; therefore, dead load effects may be
neglected.
Residual stresses and anchor bolt pretension are
generally not considered in the computations.
18
Table 112. Fatigue Details of Cantilevered and Noncantilevered Support Structures
Construction Detail Stress
Category
Application Example
Plain Members 1. With rolled or cleaned surfaces. Flame-cut
edges with ANSI/AASHTO/AWS D5.1 (Ar-
ticle 3.2.2) smoothness of 1,000 micro-in.
or less.
A - -
2. Slip-joint splice where L is greater than or
equal to 1.5 diameters.
B High-level lighting
poles.
1
3. Net section of fully-tightened, high-strength
(ASTM A325, A490) bolted connections.
B Bolted joints. 2 Mechanically
Fastened
Connections 4. Net section of other mechanically fastened
connections:
Steel:
Aluminum:
D
E
- 3
5. Anchor bolts or other fasteners in tension;
stress range based on the tensile stress
area. Misalignments of less than 1:40 with
firm contact existing between anchor bolt
nuts, washers, and base plate.
D Anchor bolts.
Bolted mast-arm-to-
column connections.
8, 16
6. Connection of members or attachment of
miscellaneous signs, traffic signals, etc.
with clamps or U-bolts.
D - -
Holes and Cutouts 7. Net section of holes and cutouts. D Wire outlet holes.
Drainage holes.
Unreinforced hand-
holes.
5
8. Tubes with continuous full- or partial-
penetration groove welds parallel to the di-
rection of the applied stress.
B' Longitudinal seam
welds.
6
9. Full-penetration groove-welded splices with
welds ground to provide a smooth transi-
tion between members (with or without
backing ring removed).
D Column or mast arm
butt-splices.
4
10. Full-penetration groove-welded splices with
weld reinforcement not removed (with or
without backing ring removed).
E Column or mast arm
butt-splices.
4
11. Full-penetration groove-welded tube-to-
transverse plate connections with the back-
ing ring attached to the plate with a full-
penetration weld, or with a continuous fillet
weld around interior face of backing ring.
The thickness of the backing ring shall not
exceed 10 mm (0.375 in) when a with fillet
weld attachment to plate is used. Full pe-
netration groove-welded tube-to-transverse
plate connections welded from both sides
with backgouging (without backing ring).
E Column-to-base-plate
connections.
Mast-arm-to-flange-
plate connections.
5
Groove Welded
Connections
12. Full-penetration groove-welded tube-to-
transverse plate connections with the back-
ing ring not attached to the plate with a
continuous full-penetration weld, or with a
continuous interior fillet weld.
E' Column-to-base-plate
connections.
Mast-arm-to-flange-
plate connections.
5
19
Table 112. Fatigue Details of Cantilevered and Noncantilevered Support Structures (continued)
Category
Application Example
13. Fillet-welded lap splices. E Column or mast arm lap
splices.
3
14. Members with axial and bending loads
with fillet-welded end connections wit h-
out notches perpendicular to the ap-
plied stress. Welds distributed around
the axis of the member so as to bal-
ance welds stresses.
E Angle-to-gusset connec-
tions with welds termi-
nated short of plate
edge.
Slotted tube-to-gusset
connections with coped
holes (see note e).
2, 6
Fillet-Welded
Connections
15. Members with axial and bending loads
with fillet-welded end connections with
notches perpendicular to the applied
stress. Welds distributed around the
axis of the member so as to balance
weld stresses.
E' Angle-to-gusset connec-
tions.
Slotted tube-to-gusset
connections without
coped holes.
2, 6
16. Fillet-welded tube-to-transverse plate
connections (see note j).
E' Column-to-base-plate or
mast-arm-to-flange-
plate socket connec-
tions.
7, 8, 16
17. Fillet-welded connections with one-
sided welds normal to the direction of
the applied stress.
E' Built -up box mast-arm-
to-column connections.
8, 16
18. Fillet-welded mast-arm-to-column pass-
through connections.
E'
(See note f)
Mast-arm-to-column pass-
through connections.
9
19. Fillet-welded T-, Y-, and K-tube-to-tube,
angle-to-tube, or plate-to-tube connec-
tions.
(See
notes
a and b)
Chord-to-vertical or
chord-to-diagonal
truss connections
(see note a).
Mast -arm directly welded
to column (see note b).
Built -up box connection
(see note b).
8, 10, 11
25. Fillet-welded ring-stiffened box-to-
tube connection.
(See note g) Ring-stiffened built-up
box connections.
16
20. Longitudinal attachments with partial -
or full-penetration groove welds, or fil-
let welds, in which the main member
is subjected to longitudinal loading:
s s
s
):
) ):
):
L 51mm(2in
51mm(2in L 12t 102mm(4in
L 12t or 102mm(4in) t 25 mm(1in
<
>
and
when
C
D
E
Reinforcement at hand-
holes.
13 Attachments
21. Longitudinal attachments with partial-
or full-penetration groove welds, or fil-
let welds in which the main member is
subjected to longitudinal loading.
E' Weld terminations at
ends of longitudinal
stiffeners (see notes h
and i).
12, 14
22. Detail 22 has been intentionally re-
moved.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
20
Category
Application Example
Attachments
(continued)
23. Transverse load-bearing fillet -welded
attachments where t mm s 13 (0.5
in) and the main member is subjected
to minimal axial and/or flexural loads.
[When t mm > 13 (0.5 in), see note
d].
C Longitudinal stiffeners
welded to base plates.
12, 14
24. Transverse load-bearing longitudinal
attachments with partial- or full-
penetration groove welds or fillet
welds, in which the nontubular main
member is subjected to longitudinal
loading and the weld termination em-
bodies a transition radius that is
ground smooth:
>
s
:
:
R 51 mm(2 in)
R 51 mm(2 in)
D
E
(Seenotec)
Gusset -plate-to-chord
attachments.
15
Notes:
a) Stress category ET with respect to stress in branching member provided that
r
24
t
s for the chord member. When
r
24
t
> , then the fatigue strength equals: ( ) ( ) =
| |
|
|
\ .
0.7
ET
n n
24
F F
r
t
A x , where ( )
ET
n
F A is the CAFL for category ET.
Stress category E with respect to stress in chord.
b) Stress category ET with respect to stress in branching member.
Stress category K2 with respect to stress in main member (column) provided that s
r
24
t
c
for the main member.
When
c
r
24
t
> , then the fatigue strength equals: ( ) ( ) =
| |
|
|
|
\ .
2
0.7
K
n n
c
24
F F
r
t
A x , where ( )
2 K
n
F A is the CAFL for category
K2.
The nominal stress range in the main member equals: ( )
R
S main member = ( )
R
S branching member
| |
|
\ .
b
c
t
t
o
Where tb is the wall thickness of the branching member, tc is the wall thickness of the main member (column), and
o is the ovalizing parameter for the main member equal to 0.67 for in-plane bending, and equal to 1.5 for out-of-
plane bending in the main member.
( ) R
S branching member is the calculated nominal stress range in the branching
member induced by fatigue design loads. (See commentary of Article 11.5.)
The main member shall also be designed for stress category E using the elastic section modulus of the main mem-
ber and moment just below the connection of the branching member.
c) First check with respect to the longitudinal stress range in the main member per the requirements for longitudinal
attachments. The attachment must then be separately checked with respect to the transverse stress range in the
attachment per the requirements for transverse load-bearing longitudinal attachments.
21
Notes (continued):
d) When t >13mm(0.5 in), the fatigue strength shall be the lesser of category C or the following:
( ) ( ) ( ) x =
| |
|
|
|
\ .
1
6
c
p
n
p
H
0.094 +1.23
t
F F
t
A A MPa
( ) ( ) ( ) x =
| |
|
|
|
\ .
c
p
1
n
6
p
H
0.055 +0.72
t
F F
t
A A ksi
where ( )
c
n
F A is the CAFL for category C, H is the effective weld throat (mm, in), and tp is the attachment plate thick-
ness (mm, in).
e) The diameter of coped holes shall be the greater of 25 mm (1 in), twice the gusset plate thickness, or twice the
tube thickness.
f) In addition to checking the branching member (mast arm), the main member (column) shall be designed for stress
category E using the elastic section modulus of the main member and moment just below the connection of the
branching member (mast arm).
g) Stress category E with respect to stress in branching member (ring-stiffened built-up box connection). The main
member shall be designed for stress category E using the elastic section modulus of the main member and mo-
ment just below the connection of the branching member.
h) Only longitudinal stiffeners with lengths greater than 102 mm (4 in) are applicable for Detail 21. On column-to-
base-plate or mast-arm-to-flange plate socket connections having a wall thickness greater than 6 mm () which
have exhibited satisfactory field performance, the use of stiffeners having a transition radius or taper with the weld
termination ground smooth may be designed at a higher stress category with the approval of the owner. Under
this exception, the owner shall establish the stress category to which the detail shall be designed. See commen-
tary for Article 11.5.
i) Nondestructive weld inspection should be used in the vicinity of the weld termination of longitudinal stiffeners.
Grinding of weld terminations to a smooth transition with the tube face is not allowed in areas with fillet welds or
partial-penetration welds connecting the stiffener to the tube. Full-penetration welds shall be used in areas where
grinding may occur. See commentary for Article 11.5.
j) Fillet welds for socket connections (Detail 16) shall be unequal leg welds, with the long leg of the fillet weld along
the column or mast arm. The termination of the longer weld leg should contact the shafts surface at approxi-
mately a 30-degree angle.
22
This page intentionally left blank.
23
Table 113. Constant-Amplitude Fatigue Limits
Detail
Category
Steel
Limit
Aluminum
Limit
MPa ksi MPa ksi
A 165 24 70 10.2
B 110 16 41 6.0
B' 83 12 32 4.6
C 69 10 28 4.0
D 48 7 17 2.5
E 31 4.5 13 1.9
E' 18 2.6 7 1.0
ET 8 1.2 3 0.44
K
2
7 1.0 2.7 0.38
24
Figure 111 (a). Illustrative Examples
25
Figure 111 (b). Illustrative Examples
26
Figure 111 (c). Illustrative Examples
27
Figure 111 (d). Illustrative Examples
28
Figure 111 (e). Illustrative Examples
29
Figure 111 (f). Illustrative Examples
30
11.910 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges. Seventeenth Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1996 2002.
Amir Gilani and Andrew Whittaker (2000). Fatigue-Life Evaluation of Steel Post Structures II: Experimenta-
tion. Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 126, Issue 3 Vol.
2, March 2000, New York, NY. pp. 331-340.
Cook, R. A., D. Bloomquist, A. M. Agosta, and K. F. Taylor. Wind Load Data for Variable Message Signs.
Report no. FL/DOT/RMC/07289488. City, Fla.: University of Florida, Florida Department of Trans-
portation, 1996.
Creamer, B. M., K. G. Frank, and R. E. Klingner. Fatigue Loading of Cantilever Sign Structures from Truck
Wind Gusts. Report no. FHWA/TX-79/10+2091F. Austin, Texas: Center for Highway Research,
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 1979.
DeSantis, P. V. and P. Haig. "Unanticipated Loading Causes Highway Sign Failure." Proceedings of
ANSYS Convention, 1996.
Dexter, R. J. and K. W. Johns. Fatigue-Related Wind Loads on Highway Support Structures. Advanced
Technology for Large Structural Systems, report no. 9803. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh University,
1998.
Dexter, R., and Ricker, M. Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilever Signal, Sign, and Light Supports. Na-
tional Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 469, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., 2002.
Fisher, J. W., A. Nussbaumer, P. B. Keating, and B. T. Yen. NCHRP Report 354: Resistance of Welded
Details Under Variable Amplitude Long-Life Fatigue Loading. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
Fouad, F. et al. Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic Signals. National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 494, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.,
2003.
Kaczinski, M. R.; R. J. Dexter, and J. P. Van Dien. NCHRP Report 412: Fatigue Resistant Design of Canti-
levered Signal, Sign and Light Supports. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1998.
Koenigs, M. T., T. A. Botros, D. Freytag, K. H. Frank, Fatigue Strength of Signal Mast Arm Connections.
Report No. FHWA/TX-04/4178-2. Austin, Texas: Center for Transportation Research, Texas De-
partment of Transportation, 2003.
McDonald, J. R.; et al. Wind Load Effects on Signals, Luminaires and Traffic Signal Structures. Report no.
1303-1F. Lubbock, Texas: Wind Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, 1995.
NCHRP Project 10-38(2). TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 4, Articles 4.6.2.6.1 and 4.6.2.6.5
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-14 Steel
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
AGENDA ITEM:
Item # 1
Revise Article 4.6.2.6.1 as follows:
Unless specified otherwise in this article or in Articles 4.6.2.6.2, 4.6.2.6.3 or 4.6.2.6.5, the effective flange
width of a concrete deck slab in composite or monolithic construction may be taken as the tributary width
perpendicular to the axis of the member for determining cross-section stiffnesses for analysis and for determining
flexural resistances. The effective flange width of orthotropic steel decks shall be as specified in Article 4.6.2.6.4.
For the calculation of live load deflections, where required, the provisions of Article 2.5.2.6.2 shall apply.
Where a structurally continuous concrete barrier is present and is included in the structural analysis as
permitted in Article 4.5.1, the deck slab overhang width used for the analysis as well as for checking the composite
girder resistance may be extended by:
s
t
b
A
w
2
(4.6.2.6.1-1)
where:
A
b
= cross-sectional area of the barrier (in.
2
)
t
s
= thickness of deck slab (in.)
The slab effective flange width in composite girder and/or stringer systems or in the chords of composite deck
trusses may be taken as one-half the distance to the adjacent stringer or girder on each side of the component, or
one-half the distance to the adjacent stringer or girder plus the full overhang width. Otherwise, the slab effective
flange width should be determined by a refined analysis when:
The composite or monolithic member cross-section is subjected to significant combined axial force and
bending, with the exception that forces induced by restraint of thermal expansion may be determined in beam-
slab systems using the slab tributary width,
The largest skew angle in the bridge system is greater than 75
o
, where is the angle of a bearing line
measured relative to a normal to the centerline of a longitudinal component,
The slab spans longitudinally between transverse floorbeams, or
The slab is designed for two-way action.
In the absence of a more refined analysis and/or unless otherwise specified, limits of the width of a concrete
deck slab, taken as effective in composite action for determining resistance for all limit states, shall be as specified
herein. The calculation of deflections should be based on the full flange width. For the calculation of live load
deflections, where required, the provisions of Article 2.5.2.6.2 shall apply.
The effective span length used in calculating effective flange width may be taken as the actual span for simply
supported spans and the distance between points of permanent load inflection for continuous spans, as appropriate
for either positive or negative moments.
For interior beams, the effective flange width may be taken as the least of:
One-quarter of the effective span length;
12.0 times the average depth of the slab, plus the greater of web thickness or one-half the width of the top
flange of the girder; or
The average spacing of adjacent beams.
For exterior beams, the effective flange width may be taken as one-half the effective width of the adjacent
interior beam, plus the least of:
One-eighth of the effective span length;
6.0 times the average depth of the slab, plus the greater of one-half the web thickness or one-quarter of the
width of the top flange of the basic girder; or
The width of the overhang.
Item # 2
Revise Article C4.6.2.6.1 as follows:
Longitudinal stresses are distributed across the deck of composite and monolithic flexural members by in-plane
shear stresses. Due to the corresponding shear deformations, plane sections do not remain plane and the
longitudinal stresses across the deck are not uniform. This phenomenon is referred to as shear lag. The effective
flange width is the width of the deck over which the assumed uniformly distributed longitudinal stresses result
approximately in the same deck force and member moments calculated from elementary beam theory assuming
plane sections remain plane, as are produced by the nonuniform stress distribution.
The provisions of Article 4.6.2.6.1 apply to all longitudinal flexural members composite or monolithic with a
deck slab, including girders and stringers. They are based on finite element studies of various bridge types and
configurations, corroborated by experimental tests, and sensitivity analysis of various candidate regression
equations (Chen et al. 2005). Chen et al. (2005) found that bridges with larger L/S (ratio of span length to girder
spacing) consistently exhibited an effective width be equal to the tributary width b. Nonskewed bridges with L/S =
3.1, the smallest value of L/S considered in the Chen et al. (2005) study, exhibited b
e
= b in the maximum positive
bending regions and approximately be = 0.9b in the maximum negative bending regions under service limit state
conditions. However, they exhibited b
e
= b in these regions in all cases at the strength limit state. Bridges with
large skew angles often exhibited be < b in both the maximum positive and negative moment regions, particularly
in cases with small L/S. However, when various potential provisions were assessed using the Rating Factor (RF) as
a measure of impact, the influence of using full width (be = b) was found to be minimal. Therefore, the use of the
tributary width is justified in all cases within the limits specified in this article. The Chen et al. (2005) study
demonstrated that there is no significant relationship between the slab effective width and the slab thickness, as
implied by previous Specifications.
These provisions are considered applicable for skew angles less than or equal to 75
o
, L/S greater than or equal
to 2.0 and overhang widths less than or equal to 0.5S based on the Chen et al. (2005) study and complementary
studies by Nassif et al. (2006). In unusual cases where these limits are violated, a refined analysis should be used to
determine the slab effective width. Furthermore, these provisions are considered applicable for slab-beam bridges
with unequal skew angles of the bearing lines, splayed girders, horizontally curved girders, cantilever spans and
various unequal span lengths of continuous spans although these parameters have not been investigated extensively
in studies to date. These recommendations are based on the fact that the participation of the slab in these broader
parametric cases is fundamentally similar to the participation of the slab in the specific parametric cases that have
been studied.
The use of one-half the distance to the adjacent stringer or girder in calculating the effective width of the main
girders in composite girder and/or stringer systems or the truss chords in composite deck trusses is a conservative
assumption for the main structural components, since typically a larger width of the slab can be expected to
participate with the main girders or truss chords. However, this tributary width assumption may lead to an
underestimation of the shear connector requirements and a lack of consideration of axial forces and bending
moments in the composite stringers or girders due to the global effects. To utilize a larger slab width for the main
girders or truss chords, a refined analysis should be considered.
The specific cases in which a refined analysis is recommended are so listed because they are significantly
beyond the conventional application of the concept of a slab effective width. These cases include tied arches where
the deck slab is designed to contribute to the resistance of the tie girders and cable stayed bridges with a composite
deck slab. Chen et al. (2005) provide guidance for selection of a few case study results for simplified lower-bound
slab effective widths in composite deck systems of cable stayed bridges with certain specific characteristics.
Longitudinal stresses in the flanges are spread across the flange and the composite deck slab by in-plane shear
stresses. Therefore, the longitudinal stresses are not uniform. The effective flange width is a reduced width over
which the longitudinal stresses are assumed to be uniformly distributed and yet result in the same force as the
nonuniform stress distribution would integrated over the whole width.
In calculating the effective flange width for closed steel and precast concrete boxes, the distance between the
outside of webs at their tops will be used in lieu of the web thickness, and the spacing will be taken as the spacing
between the centerlines of boxes.
For open boxes, the effective flange width over each web should be determined as though each web was an
individual supporting element.
For filled grid, partially filled grid, and for unfilled grid composite with reinforced concrete slab, the slab
depth used should be the full depth of grid and concrete slab, minus a sacrificial depth for grinding, grooving and
wear (typically 0.5 in.).
Where a structurally continuous concrete barrier is present and is included in the models used for structural
analysis as permitted in Article 4.5.1, the width of overhang for the purpose of this article may be extended by:
s
t
b
A
w
2
(C4.6.2.6.1-23)
where:
Ab = cross-sectional area of the barrier (in.
2
)
t
s
= depth of deck slab (in.)
Item #3
Add the following references to the Section 4 reference list:
Chen, S.S., A.J. Aref, I.-S. Ahn, M. Chiewanichakorn, J.A. Carpenter, A. Nottis, and I. Kalpakidis. 2005.
Effective Slab Width for Composite Steel Bridge Members. NCHRP Report 543, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 153 pp.
Nassif, H., Talat, A.-A., and El-Tawil, S. 2006. Effective Flange Width Criteria for Composite Steel Girder
Bridges, Annual Meeting CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 29 pp.
Item # 4
Add the following article after Article 4.6.2.6.4:
4.6.2.6.5 Transverse Floorbeams and Integral Bent Caps
For transverse floorbeams and for integral bent caps designed with a composite concrete deck slab, the
effective flange width overhanging each side of the transverse floorbeam or bent cap web shall not exceed six times
the least slab thickness or 1/10 of the span length. For cantilevered transverse floorbeams or integral bent caps, t he
span length shall be taken as two times the length of the cantilever span.
Item # 5
Add the following article after Article C4.6.2.6.4:
C4.6.2.6.5
The provisions for the effective flange width for transverse floorbeams and integral bent caps are based on past
successful practice, specified by Article 8.10.1.4 of the 2002 AASHTO Standard Specifications.
None
BACKGROUND:
In composite girders, the shear lag phenomenon can potentially result in underestimation of the deflections and
flexural stresses in calculations based on line-girder analysis and the elementary theory of bending, which assume
that plane cross sections remain plane. It is traditional to obtain estimates of maximum deflection or stress from
elementary theory by utilizing an effective slab width concept in which the actual width of each flange is replaced
by an appropriate effective width (Garcia and Daniels 1971, Moffatt and Dowling 1978, ASCE 1979, Ahn et al.
2004). The slab effective width directly affects the computed moments, shears, torques, and deflections for the
composite section and also affects the proportions of the cross-section and the number of shear connectors that are
required. The effective slab width is thought to be particularly important for serviceability checks (e.g., fatigue and
overload), which can often govern the design.
Chiewanichakorn et al. (2004, 2005) and Aref et al. (2007) explained the need for and the prescription of a new
definition for effective width that accounts for the variation of bending stresses through the deck thickness. A finite
element modeling approach was developed, corroborated with experimental data, and applied to a suite of bridges
designed according to industry guidelines. Effective widths according to the new definition were extracted from
this finite element parametric study. Principal findings from the parametric study were (Chen et al. 2005a, 2007):
(i) Full width was typically acting at cross sections where it is most needed, i.e., where moments and hence
performance ratios would be highest, and
(ii) Where the effective width was less than full width, the corresponding cross sections had considerable
excess flexural capacity.
The proposed revisions for effective width criteria are developed based on regression analyses (NCHRP 2003),
accounting for different subsets of parameters varied in an extensive parametric study of bridge finite element
models. Impacts of various potential provisions were assessed, using the Rating Factor (RF) as the measure of
impact. Based on the impact assessment, the proposed provisions utilizing the full tributary slab width are
recommended for both positive and negative moment regions, unless specified otherwise for cases significantly
outside the scope of the parametric study.
Item # 1
The Chen et al. (2005a) study has resulted in the recommendation that the full width tributary to each girder or web
may be used for the effective deck slab width in monolithic and composite bridge members for most situations of
practical interest. This recommendation was determined to be suitable for service as well as the strength limit
states, for exterior as well as interior girders, for negative as well as positive moment regions, and for skewed as
well as right alignments.
The simplicity of this recommendation results from an extensive set of analyses on a variety of bridge
configurations. An extensive impact analysis based on NCHRP (2003) principles revealed that more cumbersome
curve-fit expressions for effective width, although more accurate, were not significantly so in terms of the
governing rating factor (RF) of the bridges investigated.
The (Chen et al. 2005a) parametric study finite element models were validated against a suite of experimental tests.
The parametric study bridges were selected by design of experiment (DOE) concepts and included:
Simple-span cases as well as three-span continuous cases with span length ratios of 1.0 and 1.5,
L/S ranging from 3.1 to 25, where S is the girder spacing and L is the span length for a simple span, or the
shortest span length for continuous spans,
Equal skew angles of the bearing lines ranging from zero to 60 degrees, and
S/t
s
ranging up to 20, where t
s
is the slab thickness.
All the bridges were straight and had solid deck thicknesses that met or exceeded the minimum depth of 7.0 in.
specified in Article 9.7.1.1. Also, a number of additional bridges were analyzed to evaluate the influence of the
proposed provisions. These cases included:
Two-span continuous steel I-girder bridges with two girders in the cross-section having zero skew, a small L/S
= 3.18 and large S/ts values of 27.4 and 32.0, with transverse prestressing in the slab for the case with the larger
S/t
s
,
Simple-span and two-span continuous steel tub-girder bridges with L/S = 16.7 and 12.5, zero skew and S/t
s
=
18,
Simple-span and two-span continuous concrete bulb-tee girder bridges with L/S = 5.6, zero skew and S/t
s
= 18.
Eq. 1 and the corresponding text are moved from the commentary to the specification provisions. This groups the
rules for determining the effective concrete width in the Specification provisions and shortens the commentary
discussion.
Item # 2
In the first paragraph, the first sentence is revised to make it more specific. Also, the phrase a reduced widt h is
replaced by the width, which refers to the reduced or unreduced width. The term and member moments is
added to reflect the fact that the Chen et al. (2005a) study determined the flange effective width based on the
consideration of both force and moment equilibrium.
The second through the fifth paragraphs of the revised Article C4.6.2.6.1 provide guidance on the basis for and
usage of the new provisions of Article 4.6.2.6.1. Paragraph 6 discusses cases that are strictly beyond the scope of
Articl e 4.6.2.6.1.
The second through the fifth paragraphs of the current Article C4.6.2.6.1 are removed since they are no longer
applicable in the context of the new provisions.
A slightly modified version of the sixth paragraph of the current Article C4.6.2.6.1 is moved to the Specification
provisions.
The proposed provisions simplify the computation of the effective flange width for the concrete deck and result in
more efficient bridge designs. As demonstrated in the research studies and example design calculations (Chen et
al. 2005a, Chen et al. 2005b), the proposed revisions provide a better representation of the structural performance
and, for most of the limit -state calculations, lead to improved design economy in terms of materials for bridges with
wider girder spacings. Note that for such bridges, a slightly smaller shear connector spacing may be required.
Also, particularly if the concrete is taken to be fully effective in negative bending in the application of Eq.
(6.10.4.2.2-4), slightly larger web thicknesses may be required in steel-girder bridges. In such cases, the larger
effective slab width increases the susceptibility of the web to bend buckling in these regions at the Service II limit
state. Thus, in these instances, it is imperative that the depth of web in compression Dc be calculated considering
the effect of the noncomposite dead load stress on the location of the neutral axis, as specified in Article D6.3.1,
when the deck is considered to be effective in tension at the service limit state.
It should be noted that a potential downside of the proposed provisions discussed in Chen et al. (2005a) for
checking of composite sections in negative bending has been eliminated by the unified flexural resistance equations
implemented in Article 6.10 of the AASHTO 3
rd
Edition LRFD Specifications. Chen et al. (2005a) notes that, for
composite sections in negative flexure, the increase in the depth of the web in compression D
c
due to an increased
slab effective widt h may change the cross-section classification from compact to noncompact. As such, Chen et al.
(2005a) indicate that the cross-section resistance would be reduced from the full plastic moment M
p
to a value less
than or equal to the yield moment My. This statement is correct in the context of the AASHTO LRFD provisions
prior to the 2004 3
rd
Edition. However, the provisions of Appendix A to Section 6 implemented in the 2004 3
rd
Edition now provide a smooth linear reduction from the maximum potential resistance of M
p
for cases where the
web slenderness exceeds the compact limit. In the AASHTO 3
rd
Edition LRFD Specifications, the maximum
potential resistance for noncompact-web cross-sections can be significantly larger than M
y
.
REFERENCES:
Ahn, I. -S., M. Chiewanichakorn, S.S. Chen, and A.J. Aref. 2004. Effective flange width provisions for composite
steel bridges," Engineering Structures, 26, pp. 1843-1851.
American Society of Civil Engineers 1979. Structural Design of Tall Steel Buildings, New York.
Aref, A. J., M. Chiewanichakorn, S. S. Chen, and I.-S. Ahn 2007 Effective Slab Width Definition for Negative
Moment Regions of Composite Bridges, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, May 2007.
CEN 2004. Eurocode 4, EN:1994-1-1:2004.
Chen, S.S., A.J. Aref,, I.-S. Ahn, M. Chiewanichakorn, J.A. Carpenter, A. Nottis, I. Kalpakidis 2005a. Effective
Slab Width for Composite Steel Bridge Members, NCHRP Report 543, Transportation Research Board.
Chen, S.S., A.J. Aref, I.-S. Ahn, and M. Chiewanichakorn. 2005b. Effective Flange Width Provisions for
Composite Steel Bridges, Proceedings of the 22nd International Bridge Conference, Engineers Society of
Western Pennsylvania, IBC Paper 05-23, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2005, 8 pp.
Chen, S. S., A. J. Aref, M. Chiewanichakorn, and I.-S. Ahn. 2007 Proposed Effective Width Criteria for
Composite Bridge Girders, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, May 2007.
Chiewanichakorn, M., A.J. Aref, S.S. Chen, and I.-S. Ahn 2004,. "Effective Flange Width Definition for Steel-
Concrete Composite Bridge Girder," ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 12, December
2004, pp. 2016-2031.
Chiewanichakorn, M., A.J. Aref, S.S. Chen, and I.-S. Ahn. 2005. Methodologies for Evaluation of Effective Slab
Width, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Paper No. 05-2608, Transportation Research Record
No. 1928, 2005, pp. 13-26.
Chiewanichakorn, M., A.J. Aref, S.S. Chen, I.-S. Ahn, and J.A. Carpenter. 2005. Effective Flange Width of
Composite Girders in Negative Moment Region, Proceedings of the 6
th
International Bridge Engineering
Conference: Reliability, Security, and Sustainability in Bridge Engineering (6IBEC), Transportation Research
Board, Boston, MA, July 2005.
Garcia, I., and J.H. Daniels 1971. Negative Moment Behavior of Composite Beams, Fritz Laboratory Report No.
359.4, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Moffatt, K.R., and P.J. Dowling 1978. British Shear Lag Rules for Composite Girders, Journal of Structural
Division, ASCE, 104[7], pp.1123-1130.
NCHRP 2003. Bridge Software-Validation Guidelines and Examples, NCHRP Report 485, Transportation
Research Board.
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 6, Various Articles
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
AGENDA ITEM:
Item # 1
Revise Article 6.7.4.3 to read as follows:
Diaphragms or cross-frames shall be provided within box sections at each support to resist transverse rotation,
displacement, and cross-section distortion of the box and shall be designed to transmit resist torsional moments and
transmit vertical and lateral forces from the box to the bearings.
For cross-sections consisting of two or more boxes, external cross-frames or diaphragms shall be used between
the boxes at end supports. External cross-frames or diaphragms may be used between the boxes at interior supports
and at intermediate locations. Where box or tub girders are supported on only one bearing, the need for Eexternal
cross-frames or diaphragms shall be provided between girder lines at interior supports, unless analysis indicates that
the boxes areshould be evaluated through consideration of torsionally stable without these membersstability,
particularly during erection. Internal cross-frames or diaphragms shall be provided aAt locations of external cross-
frames or diaphragms., there shall be bracing inside the boxes at those locations to receive balance the forces from
the external bracing.
If an internal plate diaphragm is provided for continuity or to resist torsional forces generated by structural
members, it shall be connected to the webs and flanges of the box section. An aAccess holes at least 18.0 in. wide
and 24.0 in. high should be provided within each internal intermediate diaphragms and should be as large as
practical. Design of the diaphragm shall consider tThe effect of the access holes on the stresses in the diaphragms
should be investigated to determine if reinforcement is required. Reinforcement around the hole may be required.
Intermediate internal diaphragms or cross-frames shall be provided. For all single box sections, horizontally
curved sections and multiple box sections in cross-sections of bridges not satisfying the requirements of Article
6.11.2.3 or with box flanges that are not fully effective according to the provisions of Article 6.11.1.1, the spacing
of the internal diaphragms or cross-framesbracing shall be spaced to control cross-section distortion, with the
spacing not to shall not exceed 40.030.0 ft. For all single box sections, horizontally curved sections, and multiple
box sections in bridges not satisfying the requirements of Article 6.11.2.3 or with box flanges that are not fully
effective according to the provisions of Article 6.11.1.1, the need for a bottom transverse member within the
internal bracing shall be considered. Where provided, the transverse member shall be attached to the box flange
unless longitudinal flange stiffeners are used, in which case the transverse member shall be attached to the
longitudinal stiffeners by bolting. The cross-sectional area and stiffness of the top and bottom internal bracing
members shall also not be less than the area and stiffness of the diagonal members.
Webs of internal and external diaphragms shall satisfy Eq. 6.10.1.10.2-2. The nominal shear resistance of
internal and external diaphragm webs shall be determined from Eq. 6.10.9.3.3-1.
Item #2
Revise Article C6.7.4.3 to read as follows:
Refined analysis of internal diaphragms at supports is usually desirable because these primary members are
necessary for the integrity of the bridge.of the number of load points and complex details, such as stiffening, around
access holes. Consideration should be given to evaluating the principal stresses in internal support diaphragms, and
also in Eexternal support diaphragms with aspect ratios, or ratios of length to depth, less than 4.0 and internal
diaphragms act as deep beams and should be evaluated by considering principal stresses rather than by simple beam
theory. The Engineer may wish to consider the magnitude of theFatigue-sensitive details on these diaphragms and
at the connection of the diaphragms to the flanges should be investigated considering the principal tensile stresses.
under the factored fatigue live load, which may preclude the use of certain fatigue sensitive details on the
diaphragm.
External bracing at locations other than support points is usually not necessary. If analysis shows that the
boxes will rotate excessively when the concrete deck is placed, temporary unpainted external bracing may be
desirable. However, the effect of removal of any temporary bracing needs to be considered. The removal of
bracing tends to cause increased stresses in the concrete deck.
Boxes may undergo excessive rotation when the concrete deck is placed when intermediate diaphragms or
cross-frames are not provided between boxes. If analysis shows that such rotations are anticipated, temporary
cross-frames may be employed. Removal of such temporary members may lead to failure of remaining bolts
creating a safety concern. The effect of the release of bracing forces on the bridge can be investigated by
considering the effect of reversal of member loads. Removal of temporary cross-frames having large forces may
cause increased deck stresses.
Until the deck on a tub section hardens, iInternal cross-frames or diaphragms bracing and lateral top flange
bracing is required to stabilize the top flanges of tub section.s in compression when the concrete deck is placed.
However, to restrain the cross-section to remain plane and provide the necessary stability, additional longitudinal
restraint must be provided to the girder from the bearings or top lateral bracing. Internal bracing also helps to retain
the shape of the box or tub. For straight boxes in cross-sections of straight bridges without skew satisfying the
requirements of Article 6.11.2.3 and with fully effective box flanges, transverse bending stresses and longitudinal
warping stresses due to cross-section distortion have been shown to often be small (Johnston and Mattock 1967)
and may beare typically neglected. Torsion may be significant, however, if the deck weight acting on the box is
unsymmetrical.Therefore, consideration may be given to reducing A reduction in the number of permanent internal
cross-frames or diaphragms bracing and/or top lateral bracing members in such boxes is permitted when checked
by proper analysis.taking into account that as a minimum, iInternal cross-frames or diaphragmsbracing members
should be placed at or near points of maximum moment within the span and at points adjacent to near both sides of
field splices. The Engineer should also consider the need for aAdditional temporary or permanent internal cross-
frames or diaphragmsbracing members, which may also be required for transportation, construction and at the
lifting points of each shipping piece.
For all horizontally curved box girder bridges, single box sections, and box sections in bridges not satisfying
the requirements of Article 6.11.2.3 or sections with box flanges that are not fully effective, Ccross-sectional
distortion stresses are best typically controlled by the introduction of internal cross-frames or diaphragms, with the
spacing of these members not to exceed 40.0 ft for the cases specified herein. In such boxes, the internal bracing
members must be spaced to limit transverse bending stresses For the specific cases listed in Article 6.11.1.1,
transverse bending stresses due to cross-section distortion are explicitly limiteddue to the factored loads to 20.0 ksi
at the strength limit state., as required in Article 6.11.1.1. In addition, Adequate internal cross-frames or
diaphragms must be introduced to meet this limit, andbracing members should also be designed to control spaced to
limit the longitudinal warping stresses due to the critical factored torsional loads. to Such stresses should not exceed
approximately 10 percent of the longitudinal stresses due to major-axis bending at the strength limit state. In cases
with widely spaced internal cross-frames or diaphragms, additional struts between the top flanges of tub sections
may be necessary in order to satisfy the constructibility provisions of Article 6.11.3.2. As indicated in Article
C6.11.3.2, struts that are part of top lateral bracing systems attached to the flanges at points where internal cross-
frames or diaphragms do not exist may be considered to act as brace points at the discretion of the Engineer., with
the spacing of these members exceed 30.0 ft. For cases where the St. Venant torques are deemed significant,
consideration should be given to providing transverse bracing members across the bottom of the box or tub as part
of the interior bracing to ensure that the cross-section shape is retained. In such cases, the bottom transverse bracing
members are to be attached to the box flange or to the longitudinal flange stiffeners to better control transverse
distortion of the box flange. For closed-box sections, the top transverse bracing members should be similarly
attached. If
Where distortion of the section is adequately controlled by the internal cross-frames or diaphragmsbracing
members, acting in conjunction with a top lateral bracing system in the case of tub sections, the St. Venant torsional
inertia, J, for a box section may be determined as:
2
4
o
A
J
b
t
(C6.7.4.3-1)
where:
A
o
= area enclosed by the box section (in.
2
)
b = width of rectangular plate element (in.)
t = thickness of plate (in.)
In tub sections with inclined webs with a slope exceeding 1 to 4 and/or where the unbraced length of the top
flanges exceeds 30.0 ft., additional intermediate internal cross-frames, diaphragms or struts may be required to
reduce increase the lateral bending in resistance of discretely braced top flanges of tub sections to lateral bending
resulting from a uniformly distributed transverse load acting on the flanges. This lateral load results from the
change in the horizontal component of the web dead load shear plus the change in the St. Venant torsional dead
load shear per unit length along the member, and is discussed further in Article C6.11.3.2.
Because of the critical nature of internal and external diaphragms, particularly at supports, any reliance on
post-buckling resistance is not advisable. Satisfaction of Eq. 6.10.1.10.2-2 ensures that theoretical bend buckling of
internal and external diaphragm webs will not occur for elastic stress levels at or below the yield stress.
Limiting the nominal shear resistance of diaphragm webs to the shear buckling or shear yield resistance
according to Eq. 6.10.9.3.3-1 prevents any reliance on post-buckling shear resistance. Bearing stiffeners on internal
diaphragms act as transverse stiffeners in computing the nominal shear resistance.
A portion of the box flange width equal to six times its thickness may be considered effective with an internal
diaphragm.
The attachment of internal cross-frame connection plates to box flanges is discussed further in Article
C6.6.1.3.1.
Item #3
In Article 6.11.1.1, revise the fourth sentence in the paragraph immediately under Eq. (6.11.1.1-1) to read as
follows:
Transverse bending and longitudinal warping stresses shall be determined by rational struct ural analysis in
conjunction with the application of strength-of-materials principles.
Item #4
Move the sixth sentence of the thirteenth paragraph of Article C6.11.1.1 to the end of the seventh paragraph of
Article C6.11.1.1 and modify as follows:
Transverse bending stresses are of particular concern in boxes that may be subject to large torques; e.g. single box
sections, sharply curved boxes and boxes resting on skewed supports. For other cases, the distortional stresses may
be ignored if it can be demonstrated that the torques are of comparable magnitude to the torques for cases where
research has shown that these stresses are small enough to be neglected (Johnston and Mattock 1967); e.g. a
straight bridge of similar proportion satisfying the requirements of Article 6.11.2.3; or if the torques are deemed
small enough in the judgment of the Owner and the Engineer. In such cases, it is recommended that all web
stiffeners be attached to both flanges to enhance fatigue performance.
Item #5
Revise the second sentence of Article 6.11.1.4 to read as follows:
The effect of access holes on the stresses in the flanges should be investigated at all limit states to determine if
reinforcement of the holes is required. At access holes in box flanges subject to compression, the nominal flexural
resistance of the remaining flange on each side of the hole at the strength limit state shall be determined according
to the provisions of Article 6.10.8.2.2, with
f
taken as the projecting width of the flange on that side of the hole
divided by the flange thickness including any reinforcement.
Add the following new first paragraph to Article C6.11.1.4
At access holes in box flanges subject to compression, the nominal flexural resistance of the remaining flange
on each side of the hole is determined using the local buckling resistance equations for I-girder compression
flanges, with the flange slenderness based on the projecting width of the flange on that side of the hole.
Item #6
Modify the language near the end of the fourth paragraph of Article 6.11.5 to read as follows:
In determining the transverse bending stress range, one cycle of stress shall be defined as 75 percent of the stress
range determined by the passage of the factored fatigue load in two different critical transverse positions. In no case
shall the stress range calculated in this manner be less than the calculated stress range due to a single the passage of
the factored fatigue load in only one lane. The need for a bottom transverse member within the internal cross-
frames to resist the transverse bending stress range in the bottom box flange at the termination of fillet welds
connecting cross-frame connection plates to the flange shall be investigated. Transverse cross-frame members
next to box flanges shall be attached to the box flange unless longitudinal flange stiffeners are used, in which case
the transverse members shall be attached to the longitudinal stiffeners by bolting. The moment of inertia of these
transverse cross-frame members shall not be less than the moment of inertia of the largest connection plate for the
internal cross-frame under consideration taken about the edge in contact with the web.
Item #7
Revise Article C6.11.5 to read as follows:
When a box sections are is subjected to eccentric a torsional loads, their its cross-section becomes distortsed
and is restored at diaphragms or cross-frames. This distortion givesing rise to secondary bending stresses. A
torsional lLoading in the opposite directionside of the bridge produces reversal of stressthese distortional secondary
bending stresses., and therefore, possible In certain cases, as defined herein, these distortional stresses are to be
considered when checking fatigue. effects. The maximum stresses and stress ranges occur in the center girder of
those bridges with an odd number of girders. Situations for which these stresses are of particular concern and for
which these stresses may potentially be ignored are discussed in Article C6.11.1.1.
Transverse bending and longitudinal warping stress ranges due to cross-section distortion can be determined
using the BEF analogy, as discussed in Article C6.11.1.1. Where lLongitudinal warping is considered, the
longitudinal stress range is to be computed as the sum of the stress ranges due to major axis bending and
longitudinal warping stresses are considered additive to the longitudinal major-axis bending stresses.
The largest transverse bending distortional stress range is usually caused by two transverse positions of the
factored fatigue load by positioning the live load on one side and then on the opposite side of a box. To cause such
a stress one cycle of the stress range so computed requires, two vehicles to traverse the bridges in separate
transverse positions, withlanes; one vehicle leading the other. To account for the unlikely event of this occurring
over millions of cycles, the These provisions account for such a cycle by determining the range of torque, and
hence the resulting transverse bending stress range, assuming two transverse positions and applying permit
application of a factor of 0.75 to account for the probability of two vehicles being located in the critical relative
position the computed range of distortionally-induced stresses, except when the maximum stress range is caused by
loading of only one lane. This 0.75 factor is distinct from the 0.75 load factor of 0.75 specified for the fatigue load
combination in Table 3.4.1-1, i.e., when applicable, both factors may be applied simultaneously.apply. In no case is
the computed range of stress to be less than the stress range due to a single passage of the factored fatigue load.
There is no provision to account for the need for two trucks to cause a single cycle of stress in this case.allowance
for the fact that two vehicles are required to cause the largest stress cycle. For cases where the nominal fatigue
resistance is calculated based on a finite lifenot governed by the constant-amplitude fatigue threshold, the Engineer
may wish to consider a reduction in the number of cycles since two cycles are required to cause a single cycle of
stress.
The most critical case for transverse bending is likely to be the base metal at the termination of fillet welds
connecting transverse elements to webs and box flanges. For this case, A stress concentration occurs at the
termination of these welds as a result of the transverse bending. The fatigue resistance of this detail when subject
to transverse bending is not currently quantified, but is anticipated to be perhaps as low as the base metal adjacent
to the welds should be checked for Category E or E, as applicable.
Should this situation be found critical in the web at transverse web stiffeners not serving as connection plates,
it become necessary to reduce the transverse bending stress range, may be reduced by welding consideration may
be given to attaching transverse web the stiffeners not serving as cross-frame connection plates to the top and
bottom flanges. Attaching transverse stiffeners to the flanges reduces the sharp through-thickness bending stresses
within the unstiffened portions of the web at the termination of the stiffener-to-web welds, which is usually the
most critical region for this check. Cross-frame connection plates alreadyare required to be attached to the top and
bottom flanges according to the provisions of Article 6.6.1.3.1 for this reason.
Should it become necessary to reduce the transverse bending stress range in the box flange adjacent to the
cross-frame connection plate welds to the flange, the provision of transverse cross-frame members across the
bottom of the box or tub as part of the internal cross-bracing significantly reduces the transverse bending stress
range at the welds and ensures that the cross-section shape is retained. Closer spacing of cross-frames also leads to
lower transverse bending stresses. Where bottom transverse cross-frame members are provided, they are to be
attached to the box flange or to the longitudinal flange stiffeners, as applicable. For closed-box sections, the top
transverse cross-frame members should be similarly attached. Where transverse bracing members are welded
directly to the box flange, the stress range due to transverse bending should also be considered in checking the
fatigue resistance of the base metal adjacent to the termination of these welds. Where transverse bracing members
are connected to longitudinal flange stiffeners, the box flange may be considered stiffened when computing the
transverse bending stresses. In such cases, the transverse connection plates must still be attached to both flanges as
specified in Article 6.6.1.3.1.
As discussed in Article C6.7.4.3, for cases where the St. Venant torques are deemed significant, consideration
should be given to providing bottom transverse bracing members as part of the internal bracing to control distortion
of the box flange. Where transverse bracing members are welded directly to the box flange, the stress range due to
transverse bending should also be considered in checking the fatigue resistance of the base metal adjacent to the
termination of these welds.
Load-induced fatigue is usually not critical for top lateral bracing in tub sections since the concrete deck is
much stiffer and resists more of the load than does the bracing. Therefore, the live-load forces in the bracing are
usually relatively small. Since the deck resists the majority of the torsional shear in these cases, it is advisable to
check the reinforcement in the deck for the additional horizontal shear. Severely skewed supports may cause
critical horizontal deck shear.
It is advisable to connect the, particularly when the lateral bracing is connected directly to the top flanges,
which is preferred to eliminate a load path through the web. Although removable deck forms are problematic in tub
girders, they are sometimes required by the Owner. In such cases, it may be necessary to lower the lateral bracing
by attaching it to the box webs. In these cases, connections to the webs must be made according to However,
where applicable, the requirements of Article 6.6.1.3.2 must still be satisfied to prevent potential problems resulting
from distortion-induced fatigue. An adequate load path, with fatigue considered, must be provided between the
bracing-to-web connections and the top flanges. Connections of the lateral bracing to the web can be avoided by
using metal stay-in-place deck forms.
Fatigue of the base metal at the net section of access holes should be considered. The fatigue resistance at the
net section of large access holes is not currently specified; however, base metal at the net section of open bolt holes
has been shown to satisfy Category D (Brown et al. 2007). This assumes a stress concentration, or ratio of the
elastic tensile stress adjacent to the hole to the average stress on the net area, of 3.0. A less severe fatigue category
might be considered if the proper stress concentration at the edges of the access hole is evaluated.
Refer to Article C6.6.2 for further discussion regarding the use of refined analyses to demonstrate that part of a
structure is not fracture-critical.
There may be exceptions where box flanges of single-box sections subject to tension need not be considered
fracture critical. For example, continuously braced top flanges in regions of negative flexure where there is
adequate deck reinforcing to act as a top flange. In such cases, adequate shear connection must also be provided.
Item #8
Revise the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of Article C6.11.8.1.1 to read as follows:
A flange width equal to 18 six times its thickness may be considered effective with the internal diaphragm, which is
similar to the portion of the web or diaphragm that is considered part of the effective column section for the design
of bearing stiffeners.
Item #9
In the fourth sentence of the fifth paragraph of Article C6.11.11.2, change Article 6.7.4.3 to Article 6.11.5.
Revise the first sentence of the last paragraph of Article C6.11.11.2 to read as follows:
As discussed For the cases specified in Article 6.11.5 where transverse bending stresses due to cross-section
distortion are to be considered for fatigue,C6.7.4.3, for cases where the St. Venant torques are deemed significant,
consideration should be given to providing it may be necessary in certain situations to consider providing bottom
transverse bracing members as part of the internal cross-framesbracing to control distortion of the box flange and
reduce the transverse bending stress ranges in the flange.
Item #10
Add the following reference to the Section 6 Reference List:
Brown, J. D., D. J. Lubitz, Y. C. Cekov, and K. H. Frank. 2007. Evaluation of Influence of Hole Making Upon
the Performance of Structural Steel Plates and Connections. Report No. FHWA/TX-07/0-4624-1, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, January.
None
BACKGROUND:
The revisions in this item are primarily editorial in nature to clarify and enhance the information given in the
subject articles related to diaphragms and cross-frames in steel box-girder bridges. Maximum spacings for internal
cross-frames and diaphragms for the specific cases specified in Article 6.7.4.3 have been increased from 30.0 feet
to 40.0 feet to reflect the additional torsional stiffness provided by box sections in relation to I-sections; spacings
less than this will likely be required in certain cases.
Language regarding the investigation of the need for a bottom transverse member within the internal cross-
frames has been clarified and moved from Article 6.7.4.3 to a more appropriate location in Article 6.11.5. This
language is moved to the article dealing with the fatigue limit state since these members, where deemed necessary,
are intended to resist the distortional transverse bending stress range in the bottom box flange at the termination of
fillet welds connecting cross-frame connection plates. A correction has also been made to state that the moment of
inertia of these transverse cross-frame members must not be less than the moment of inertia of the largest
connection plate for the internal cross-frame under consideration taken about the edge in contact with the web. The
current language in Article 6.7.4.3 regarding the required cross-sectional area and stiffness of these members is
incorrect. The consideration of cross-section distortional stresses and need for these transverse cross-frame
members must only be investigated in certain specific cases, as defined in Articles 6.11.1.1 and 6.11.5. Language
is added to Article C6.11.1.1 to provide some additional guidance as to when these stresses may be most
significant, and when these stresses perhaps may be ignored.
Language is added in Article 6.11.1.4 regarding the computation of the nominal compressive resistance of the
remaining box flange adjacent to each side of an access hole. The nominal flexural resistance of the flange on each
side of the hole is to be determined using the local buckling resistance equations for I-girder compression flanges,
with the flange slenderness based on the projecting width of the flange on that side of the hole.
Language is added in Article C6.11.5 regarding the need to consider fatigue of the base metal at the net section
of access holes, with some limited guidance provided.
Additional language is also added in Articles 6.7.4.3 and C6.7.4.3 regarding the design of internal and external
diaphragms; specifically, limits are added to prevent any reliance on post-buckling resistance due to the critical
nature of these members. A reduced effective width of box flange that may be considered acting with an internal
diaphragm is also suggested. The current suggested effective width of 18 times the bottom flange thickness
assumes that most of the shear lag effects beyond the concentrated reaction have been attenuated. This assumption
is made when the web is considered part of the column section for the design of bearing stiffeners for buckling
where shear lag effects have been mitigated.
Increasing the maximum spacing requirement for internal cross-frames or diaphragms from 30.0 to 40.0 feet may
reduce the number of these members that are required in certain cases. Fewer box-section flexural members may
potentially need to be investigated for the effects of transverse bending and longitudinal warping due to cross-
section distortion. The investigation of the need for a bottom transverse member within the internal cross-frames
has been clarified, and is unlikely to be required unless the torques are quite large.
REFERENCES:
None
2007 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 44
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 6, Various Articles
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Item # 1
Add the following new paragraph at the beginning of Article C6.13.6.1.4a:
For a flexural member, it is recommended that the smaller section at the point of splice be taken as the side of
the splice that has the flange with the smallest nominal flexural resistance.
Item # 2
In the fifth paragraph of Article 6.13.6.1.4b, replace the word flexural with the words combined flexural and
axial.
Item #3
Add the following at the end of the first paragraph of Article C6.13.6.1.4b:
The web with the smallest nominal shear resistance on either side of the splice should be used to determine the
design shear.
and add the words of the smaller section at the point of splice to the end of the definitions of the terms tw and D in
the where list underneath Eqs. C6.13.6.1.4b-1 and C6.13.6.1.4b-2.
Item #4
Revise the last two sentences of the next-to-the-last paragraph of Article C6.13.6.1.4c to read as follows:
At the strength limit state, a design torsional shear should be used, which can be taken as the torsional shear due to
the factored loads need not be multiplied by the factor, Rcf, from Eq. 3 when computing the moment for the design
of the splice. The box-flange splice plates in these cases should also be designed at the strength limit state for the
combined effects of the calculated design shear appropriate flange force and design the moment acting on the bolt
group resulting from the eccentricity of the St. Venant torsional shear due to the factored loads.
Item #5
Revise the sixth and seventh sentences of the last paragraph of Article C6.13.6.1.4c to read as follows:
At the strength limit state, a design lateral bending moment should be used, which can be taken as the lateral
bending moment due to the factored loads the flange lateral bending moment due to the factored loads need not be
multiplied by the factor, R
cf
, from Eq. 3 when computing the moment for the design of the splice. Splice plates
subject to flange lateral bending should also be designed at the strength limit state for the combined effects of the
calculated design shear appropriate flange force and design moment acting on the group the flange lateral bending
moment due to the factored loads.
Item #6
Revise the second paragraph of Article 6.13.6.1.5 to read as follows:
For slip-critical connections, the factored slip resistance of a bolt at the Service II load combination, specified
in Article 6.13.2.2, shall not be adjusted for the effect of the fillers.
Item #7
Revise the first sentence of the third paragraph of Article C6.13.6.1.5 to read as follows:
For slip-critical connections, the factored slip resistance of a bolt at the Service II load combination need not be
adjusted for the effect of the fillers.
None
BACKGROUND:
The language in Item #1 is intended to provide additional practical guidance for determining the smaller section at
the point of a bolted field splice for a flexural member. The revision in Item #2 is intended to generalize the
language for the checking of yielding of web splice plates at the strength limit state since for sections where the
neutral axis is not located at the mid-depth of the web, the splice plates are subjected to a combination of flexure
and axial force. Item #3 is intended to provide additional guidance for determining which section to use to
determine the design shear at the point of splice and to calculate the design moment and design horizontal force
resultant for the web splice. Items #4 and #5 eliminate the current recommendation to factor up the torsional shear
due to the factored loads (for the design of box flange splices) and the flange lateral bending moment due to the
factored loads (for the design of splices in discretely braced top flanges of tub sections and discretely braced
flanges of I-sections) by the factor Rcf. The factor Rcf is intended to factor up the flexural stress in the
noncontrolling flange in the same proportion as the flexural stress in the controlling flange in order to satisfy the
general requirement given by the 75 percent and average rules for the design of bolted splices at the strength limit
state in flexural members. These rules were not originally intended to apply to the torsional shear and flange
lateral bending moment; therefore, it is overly conservative to also factor up these actions along with the flexural
flange stresses. Other editorial changes are made in Items #4 and #5. The revisions in Items #6 and #7 reflect the
fact that an earlier article states that slip in bolted connections of splices for flexural members is also to be checked
for critical construction stages in addition to Load Combination Service II. The slip resistance of a bolt need not be
adjusted for the effect of fillers in those cases either.
In cases where torsional shear or flange lateral bending are considered in the design of bolted flange splices and are
significant, fewer bolts will likely be necessary in the splice as a result of the elimination of the artificial factoring
up of these actions.
REFERENCES:
None
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 6, Article 6.13.2.10.3
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
In the second paragraph of Article 6.13.2.10.3, change 60 percent to 30 percent.
None
BACKGROUND:
AASHTO LRFD Article 6.13.2.10.3 currently limits the calculated prying force to 60 percent of the externally
applied load when bolts are subject to tensile fatigue loading. In Item #1, this limit is reduced from 60 to 30
percent to be consistent with the latest recommendation given in Reference 1, where it is suggested that this limit be
reduced to 30 percent of the externally applied load based on the limited investigations of prying effects under
fatigue loading.
None
REFERENCES:
1. Research Council on Structural Connections. 2004. Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or
A490 Bolts. c/o American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, June 30.
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications: Section 11, Article 11.8.4
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: T-14 Steel / T-4 Construction
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
AGENDA ITEM:
Item # 1
Revise the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Article 11.8.4 to read as follows:
Supports shallshould be such to ensure that dynamic lateral bending stresses are controlled. Single unbraced I-
girders should be cantilevered not more than length, L
c
, in in., determined as:
0.25
43
c
L b (11.8.4-1)
where:
b = minimum flange width, in.
Temporary stiffening trusses or beams, if required to meet the requirements of this section, shall be specified in
the Transportation Plan.
Item #2
Revise the last paragraph of Article C11.8.4 to read as follows:
In lieu of any alternative criteria, for control of dynamic lateral bending stresses during shipment, the following
limit on the length, Lc, in ft, of a single unbraced curved I-girder cantilever may be considered:
25 . 0
c
w
I
0 . 36 L
(C11.8.4-1)
where:
I = moment of inertia of the I-girder cross-section about the vertical axis in the plane of the web (ft
4
)
w = I-girder weight per unit length (kip/ft)
This suggestedThe limit of the width of a single unbraced cantilever flange is provided to ensure that the first mode
of vibration of the unbraced cantilever about the vertical axis in the plane of the web is greater than 5 Hz (Young
and Budynas 2002). Critical lengths for other frequencies can may be determined by multiplying 43 times the
desired frequency divided by five changing the constant in Eq. C1 from 36.0 to 36.0(5/f)
1/2
, where f is the desired
lower-bound natural frequency in Hz.
Item #3
Add the following reference to the Section 11 Reference List:
Young, W.C., and R. G. Budynas. 2002. Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain. Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
None
BACKGROUND:
The current Eq. 11.8.4-1 for determining the recommended limiting unbraced cantilever length of a horizontally
curved I-girder during shipment is incorrect. A revised corrected Equation C11.8.4-1, derived from the equation
for the natural frequency of vibration for a cantilever beam with uniform stiffness and subject to a uniform load
(taken from Reference 1), is provided in the Commentary. The recommended limiting length is derived from this
equation to ensure that the frequency of the first mode of vibration of the unbraced cantilever about the vertical axis
in the plane of the web will exceed 5 Hz. The revised commentary language also provides guidance for
determining the critical lengt h from the revised equation for lower-bound frequencies other than 5 Hz, if desired.
The equation is moved to the Commentary to prevent its mandatory use and permit the use of any available
alternative criteria for determining the unbraced length to control the dynamic lateral bending stresses in these
girders during shipment, should it be deemed necessary to do so.
The revised equation will give much longer and more practical suggested critical unbraced cantilever lengths for
shipment of horizontally curved steel I-girders than the previous equation in cases where dynamic lateral bending
stresses during shipment of these girders are of concern.
REFERENCES:
1. Young, W.C., and R. G. Budynas. 2002. Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain. Seventh Edition, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
SUBJECT: AASHTO/NSBA Collaboration Document S 10.1
REVISION ADDITION NEW DOCUMENT
LRFR MANUAL OTHER AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
See Attachment A - Steel Bridge Erection Guide Specification
None
BACKGROUND:
This document offers, as guidance, a model specification that establishes and defines the basic minimum
requirements for the transport, handling and erection of steel bridge components to ensure safe and accurate steel
erection, as well as, quality and value in the completed bridge structure. The importance of this guide is
highlighted in the latest incidence of a girder failure during erection in a western state, resulting in the death of
three people, that was the subject of a National Transportation Safety Board Investigation.
Safer erection procedures
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
ATTACHMENT A - 2007 AGENDA ITEM 47 T-14
AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration
S10.1 - 2007
Steel Bridge Erection Guide Specification
AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration
Preface
This document is a standard developed by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. The
primary goal of the Collaboration is to achieve steel bridges of the highest quality and value
through standardization of the design, fabrication, and erection processes. Each standard
represents the consensus of a diverse group of professionals
As consensus documents, the Collaboration standards represent the best approach to the
processes they cover. It is intended that Owners adopt and implement Collaboration standards in
their entirety to facilitate the achievement of standardization, but it is understood that local
statutes or preferences may prevent full adoption for some. In such cases Owners should adopt
these documents with the exceptions they feel are necessary.
This document establishes and defines the basic, minimum requirements for the transportation,
handling and erection of steel bridge components to ensure safe and accurate steel erection as
well as quality and value in the completed bridge structure.
Copyright 2007 by National Steel Bridge Alliance. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer
All data, specifications, suggested practices presented herein, are based on the best available
information and delineated in accordance with recognized professional engineering principles
and practices, and are published for general information only. Procedures and products,
suggested or discussed, should not be used without first securing competent advice respecting
their suitability for any given application.
Publication of the material herein is not to be construed as a warranty on the part of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the National
Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) - or that of any person named herein - that these data and
suggested practices are suitable for any general or particular use, or of freedom from
infringement on any patent or patents. Further, any use of these data or suggested practices can
only be made with the understanding that neither AASHTO nor NSBA makes any warranty of
any kind respecting such use and the user assumes all liability arising therefrom.
AASHTO Document No: NSBASBE-1-OL
i
Table of Contents
Section 1 General ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Definition........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Erector Qualifications ........................................................................................................ 1
Section 2 Erection Procedures ........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Drawings ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Calculations ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Coordination Items ............................................................................................................ 5
Section 3 Transportation................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Responsibility .................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Handling ............................................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Fasteners ............................................................................................................................ 6
Section 4 Material Storage at Jobsite.............................................................................................. 7
4.1 Fabricated Material ............................................................................................................ 7
4.2 Fasteners ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.3 Welding Consumables ....................................................................................................... 7
4.4 Damage .............................................................................................................................. 7
Section 5 Bearings and Anchorages................................................................................................ 8
5.1 Survey ................................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Bridge Seats ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Temperature Adjustments.................................................................................................. 8
5.4 Tolerances .......................................................................................................................... 8
Section 6 Lifting and Assembly...................................................................................................... 9
6.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Lifting Devices .................................................................................................................. 9
6.3 Erection Stability ............................................................................................................... 9
6.4 Trusses ............................................................................................................................... 9
6.5 Falsework and Temporary Supports .................................................................................. 9
6.6 Pins .................................................................................................................................. 10
6.7 Connections ..................................................................................................................... 10
6.8 Abnormalities .................................................................................................................. 10
Section 7 Field Bolted Connections.............................................................................................. 11
7.1 Bolts ................................................................................................................................. 11
7.2 Faying Surfaces................................................................................................................ 11
7.3 Installation Method .......................................................................................................... 11
7.4 Installation ....................................................................................................................... 11
7.5 Tensioning ....................................................................................................................... 12
Section 8 Field Welded Connections............................................................................................ 13
8.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 13
ii
8.2 Weld Procedure Specifications........................................................................................ 13
8.3 Qualification .................................................................................................................... 14
8.4 Welding Requirements .................................................................................................... 14
Section 9 Inspection...................................................................................................................... 16
9.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 16
9.2 Tolerances for plate girder or rolled beam spans ............................................................. 16
9.3 Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 17
9.4 Bolting ............................................................................................................................. 17
9.5 Welding ........................................................................................................................... 18
Section 10 Repair.......................................................................................................................... 19
10.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 19
10.2 Implementation............................................................................................................. 19
10.3 Repair Procedures ........................................................................................................ 19
10.4 Welds............................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix 1 Rotational Capacity Test ........................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1A Rotational Capacity Test ........................................................................................ 22
Appendix 2 Load Indicating Washers (LIW)................................................................................ 23
Erection Procedure Checklist ........................................................................................................ 25
Erection Inspection Checklist ....................................................................................................... 26
Typical Erection Procedure, Straight Girder Bridge..................................................................... 28
Typical Erection Procedure, Curved Girder Bridge...................................................................... 31
1
Section 1
General
1.1 Definition Commentary
Steel bridge erection is the process of
transporting, handling and assembling steel
bridge components to result in a bridge structure
that meets all the geometric and structural
requirements of the contract documents.
Steel erection is complete when all field
connections are completed to the final
design condition and falsework or
temporary bracing is/can be removed.
Erection should proceed in a safe,
methodical fashion ensuring all
performance criteria are satisfied.
1.2 Erector Qualifications Commentary
Structural steel shall be erected by a qualified,
competent erection contractor. Qualification
shall be evidenced by certification acceptable to
the Owner and/or documented evidence of
previous, equivalently complex erection
projects, which may include the following (as
applicable):
A qualified, competent erection contractor
has knowledge, training and experience, and
has demonstrated the technical proficiency
and ability to complete the work specified.
The contractor should be able to resolve
common problems associated with the
complexity of work proposed. AISC
Advanced Certified Steel Erectors, or those
with similar industry based recognition,
should be considered based on the
requirements for such certifications.
Certification alone may not be sufficient
evidence of qualification for complex or
monumental bridge structure types, such as
suspension, cable stayed, tied arch,
cantilever truss or moveable bridges.
any one lift using two or more
cranes/derricks/poles,
spans over water or active railroad/rapid
transit tracks,
erection with floating equipment,
phased construction requiring lane closures
combined with active lanes,
girders with significant curvature and/or
skew,
A skew angle greater than 30 degrees may
be considered significant. For spans less
than 200', a radius of curvature less than
1100' may be considered significant; for
spans between 200' and 250', a radius of
curvature less than 1,200' may be considered
significant; for spans greater than 250', a
radius of curvature less than 1,500' may be
considered significant
2
field assembled suspension, cable-stayed,
truss or tied arch spans, or
field splicing primary members (exception:
rolled beam bridges with no more than 1
field splice per girder line)
3
Section 2
Erection Procedures
2.1 General Commentary
The Contractor shall submit a detailed erection
procedure to the Owner for each bridge
structural unit, prepared under the supervision of
a licensed Professional Engineer, qualified in
steel erection. The procedure shall address all
requirements for erection of the structural steel
into the final designed configuration and satisfy
all written Owner comments prior to the start of
erection. The procedure, as a minimum, shall
include the following information:
The qualifications of the engineer preparing
the erection plan are evidenced by
knowledge, training and experience in steel
erection and having demonstrated the ability
to resolve problems related to steel bridge
erection. Complex or monumental structures
(see commentary to Section 1.2) should have
specific erection requirements noted in the
Contract. The erection procedure should be
submitted as soon as possible after contract
award. Erectors are encouraged to attend
prebid and preconstruction meetings.
Projects that involve complex erection or
multi-agency review can be expected to
require additional time for review of
submitted erection procedure.
2.2 Drawings Commentary
a) plan of the work area showing
permanent support structures (piers and
abutments), roads, railroad tracks,
waterways (including navigational
channel), overhead and underground
utilities and other information pertinent
to erection
Other parameters may also need to be shown
on the plan of the work area, such as right of
way.
b) erection sequence for all members noting
any temporary support conditions, such
as holding crane positions, temporary
supports, falsework, etc. Member
reference marks, when reflected on the
erection plan, should be the same as used
on shop detail drawings
Erection sequence should indicate specific
cross frames or lateral bracing required by
stability calculations
c) primary member delivery location and
orientation
d) location of each crane for each primary
member pick, showing radius, crane
support (barges, mats, etc)
For operations on navigable waterways, the
configuration of the barge(s), loading
sequence, stability provisions (tie downs,
piles, etc) and calculations.
e) capacity chart for each crane
configuration and boom length used in
the work
f) center of gravity locations for primary
4
members
g) detail, weight, capacity and arrangement
of all rigging for primary member picks
h) lifting weight of primary member picks,
including all rigging and pre-attached
elements
i) details of any temporary lifting devices
to be bolted or welded to permanent
members, including method and time
(shop or field) of attachment, capacity
and method, time and responsibility for
removal.
j) bolted splice assembly requirements per
Section 6.7
k) lifting/handling procedure for any
primary member that has a lifted length
divided by width (L/b) greater than 85
Slender members, traditionally defined as
those having a length to width ratio (L/b)
greater than 85, are prone to lateral buckling
and require particular attention when
lifting/handling.
l) blocking details for bridge bearings Bridge bearings may allow
movement/rotation in all planes and axes.
During erection of a single girder, in
addition to other stability provisions, the
bearings may require blocking to limit
movement and/or rotation.
2.3 Calculations Commentary
a) design calculations indicating the load
capacity and verifying the stability of
temporary supports for structure and
crane(s) for each pick and release
Design criteria to be established or approved
by the Owner.
b) calculations to substantiate structural
adequacy and stability of girders for each
step of bridge assembly
Complex erection projects may require input
from the structural designer in addition to
the original design calculations such that the
contractor can confirm constructability of
the structure during various erection stages.
The Owner should ensure that the structural
designer is available to consult with the
Contractor in these cases.
c) calculations to verify adequate capacity
of Contractor fabricated rigging such as
lift beams, welded lugs, spreader beams,
beam clamps, etc. Submit
manufacturers' certification or catalog
cuts for pre-engineered devices
5
2.4 Coordination Items Commentary
a) review/approval by other agencies as
required, e.g., railroads, Coast Guard,
local jurisdictions.
The Contractor should coordinate activities
with the Owner/Engineer, Fabricator, and
Erector. Special coordination requirements
may be included in the Contract. Examples
would be maintenance and protection of
traffic, waterway navigation, school bus
routes, and emergency vehicle routes. Safety
measures (emergency boat, notification
plans), coordination plan for regulatory
agencies and other water traffic, and the
details and anticipated schedules of
obstructing the navigable channel should be
shown.
b) construction activities which occur
concurrently with steel erection, such as
setting forms, or concrete deck pours.
6
Section 3
Transportation
3.1 Responsibility
The Contractor is responsible for coordinating
delivery from the fabricator to the jobsite and
for providing adequate site access.
3.1.1 Shipping Plan Commentary
The Contractor is responsible for preparing a
shipping plan indicating support, lateral bracing
and tie-down points for primary members during
transportation to the job site.
Complex or monumental structures may
require a more detailed shipping plan.
3.2 Handling Commentary
Ship primary members upright, unless otherwise
approved by the Owner. Load, support, and
unload primary members in a manner that will
not damage, excessively stress, or permanently
deform the steel, and not cause repeated stress
reversals.
Care should be exercised to avoid coatings
damage from slings, chokers, clamps, etc.
Also, limiting the length of members
overhanging the rear wheels of a trailer may
reduce the range of stress reversals and
potential damage from ground strikes.
3.3 Fasteners Commentary
Ship all fastener components in sealed,
watertight containers, with contents clearly
listed on external tags.
High strength steel fastener thread
lubrication requires protection from the
elements. This does not apply to anchor
rods or end welded shear studs.
7
Section 4
Material Storage at Jobsite
4.1 Fabricated Material
Store fabricated material on blocking above the
ground. Properly drain the ground and keep
material clean. Store primary members upright
and shored or braced for stability. Support all
members to prevent permanent distortion or
damage.
4.2 Fasteners
Store fasteners and machine finished parts
inside covered structures or otherwise protect
them from the weather. Fasteners removed from
storage should be installed by the end of the
work shift. Return unused fasteners to storage at
the end of a work shift or otherwise protect them
from the weather.
4.3 Welding Consumables
Store and handle welding consumables in
accordance with the AASHTO/AWS D1.5
Bridge Welding Code.
4.4 Damage
Report any damaged structural steel to the
Owner, including a description of the damage
and proposed Contractor disposition (repair or
replace).
8
Section 5
Bearings and Anchorages
5.1 Survey
Document all substructure locations (lateral and
longitudinal), existing anchor rod locations,
bearing seat elevations, and other pertinent
information in a Contractor survey, conducted
prior to start of associated erection. Notify the
Owner prior to this survey, so that they may
participate. Document and report any
discrepancies between the survey findings and
the Contract plans to the Owner.
5.2 Bridge Seats Commentary
Place bearing devices on properly finished
bridge seat bearing areas. Notify the Owner if
seats are not level or at incorrect elevations, and
propose corrective actions.
Bridge bearings may allow
movement/rotation in all planes and axes.
During erection of a single girder, in
addition to other stability provisions, the
bearings may require blocking to limit
movement and/or rotation.
5.3 Temperature Adjustments Commentary
When setting bearings, make appropriate
corrections for ambient temperature and/or
anticipated rotation due to dead load deflection
of the supported member. Position high load,
multi-rotational bearings such that the initial
position, including corrections for temperature
and dead load rotation, is within manufacturers
requirements. Notify the Owner if anchor bolt
locations do not permit proper positioning, and
propose corrective actions.
See recommendations in AASHTO/NSBA
Steel Bridge Collaboration G9.1, Steel
Bridge Bearing Design and Detailing
Guidelines for thermal movement
calculations.
5.4 Tolerances
In addition to the dimensional tolerances in the
AASHTO/AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code for
steel bearing contact areas, members shall seat
on bearing devices with no final gaps exceeding
1/16 inch.
9
Section 6
Lifting and Assembly
Lift position and assemble all members in
accordance with the procedures satisfying
Section 3. The proposed crane location(s) and
member delivery location(s) may require
modification in the field to suit changing jobsite
conditions. However, cranes and material must
be located such that the lift is safe and within
the crane manufacturers rated capacity for all
required positions.
Jobsite conditions vary on a daily basis and
are often not as they were anticipated to be
when the erection procedure was conceived
and submitted to the Owner. Consequently,
the need to deviate from the submitted
erection procedure may arise during the
course of a bridge project. It is the
Contractors responsibility to erect the steel
in a safe and efficient manner. The Owner's
review and disposition of erection procedure
changes to suit jobsite conditions should be
handled in an expeditious fashion and avoid
delaying the work.
6.2 Lifting Devices
Install lifting devices, including welded lugs and
bolted assemblies using existing bolt holes
(splices, cross frame connection plates, etc.), in
accordance with Sections 7 or 8 and use Owner
approved details.
6.3 Erection Stability Commentary
Girders shall be stabilized with falsework,
temporary bracing, and/or holding cranes until a
sufficient number of adjacent girders are erected
with diaphragms and/or crossframes connected
to provide the necessary lateral stability, and
make the structure self supporting.
Removal of falsework, temporary bracing or
holding cranes shall be in accordance with
stability calculations provided in the erection
procedure
6.4 Trusses
All trusses shall be erected on falsework unless
approved by the Owner. When erecting trusses
on falsework, the falsework shall remain in
place until all connections are completed and the
truss is self supporting.
6.5 Falsework and Temporary Supports Commentary
Falsework and temporary supports shall be
detailed to insure that the temporary elevation of
supported steel accommodates the deflections
expected to occur as the structure is completed.
If dead load, beyond the steel dead load, is to
be applied to the structure while temporary
supports remain in place, they must have
provision to be lowered, or jacked down.
10
6.6 Pins Commentary
Pins are normally used to align holes for bolted
field connections. Field reaming to facilitate fit-
up will only be allowed with the Owner's prior
approval. Any abnormal distortion of the
member or of the holes during the alignment
process shall be immediately reported to the
Owner.
Examples of abnormal member distortion
would include strain exceeding yield and
perceptible web distortion. Abnormal hole
distortion may include holes that are non-
cylindrical, not perpendicular to the faying
surface, or out of round by more than 1/16".
6.7 Connections Commentary
For splice connections of primary members, as
well as connections of diaphragms or cross-
frames designed to brace curved girders; fill at
least 50% of the holes prior to crane release. The
50% may be either erection bolts in a snug tight
condition or full size erection pins, but at least
half (25% of all holes) shall be bolts, and
sufficient pins shall be used near outside corners
of splice plates and at member ends near splice
plate edges to ensure alignment. Uniformly
distribute the filled holes.
The 50% requirement may be waived if a
reduced percentage is calculated as sufficient
and shown on the approved erection procedure
Permanent bolts may be used as erection bolts,
provided they are installed in accordance with
Section 7.4. For complex structures (arches,
trusses, etc.), install bolts and pins in accordance
with erection procedures.
Filled holes should be distributed between
the web and flange connections for primary
members such that approximately 50% of
the web connections are filled and
approximately 50% of the flange
connections are filled. For diaphragms or
cross frames, the filled holes should be
uniformly distributed between all the bolt
groups connecting the diaphragm or cross
frame to the primary member.
Primary member splice connections that are
made up on the ground (prior to erection) shall
be 100% complete, in the no-load condition,
prior to any lifting operation
Achieving the no-load condition on the
ground will require blocking.
6.8 Abnormalities
Any abnormal member deformation or brace
deflection after crane release or temporary
support removal shall be immediately reported
to the Owner, seeking immediate resolution.
Further work affecting the area, except for
restoring support or adding bracing, shall be
stopped until the deformation/deflection is
resolved.
11
Section 7
Field Bolted Connections
7.1 Bolts
Use bolts meeting the requirements of ASTM A
325, ASTM A 490, or ASTM F 1852, as
specified in the contract documents
7.2 Faying Surfaces Commentary
No loose mill scale, dirt, metal shavings or other
foreign material that would preclude solid
seating of the parts or frictional transfer of load
is allowed on faying surfaces of bolted
connections.
The steel erector is generally not responsible
for faying surface preparation, unless
required by the contract. The erectors only
responsibility is only to keep the faying
surfaces clean from contamination during
erection.
7.3 Installation Method
Verify bolt installation method prior to bolt
installation, in accordance with the Specification
for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or
A490 Bolts by the Research Council on
Structural Connections (referred hereafter as
the Bolt Specification and available at
http://www.boltcouncil.org/). Additionally,
perform fastener assembly rotational capacity
test per Appendix 1 or 1A. Verify load
indicating washers (LIW) per Appendix 2.
7.4 Installation Commentary
Install and tighten bolts using any of the
methods allowed per the Bolt Specification.
Tighten bolts to the minimum tension shown in
the Bolt Specification.
All bolts in a connection are installed in the
snug tight condition prior to fully tightening.
However, it may be difficult to achieve the
snug tight condition for large primary
member connections, which have many bolts
and/or plies of thick material. In this case,
the Owner may permit a portion of each
connection be filled with fully tightened
temporary bolts prior to installing permanent
bolts in the remaining holes to the snug tight
condition. Snug tight permanent bolts can
then replace the temporary bolts, resulting in
a connection completely filled with snug
tight bolts. Final tightening can then
proceed in accordance with the Bolt
Specification.
12
7.5 Tensioning
Fully tighten all bolts in the bridge by
completion of steel erection (unless otherwise
specified) in accordance with the Bolt
Specification. Fully tighten bolts before
exposure to the elements affects their rotational
capacity test characteristics.
13
Section 8
Field Welded Connections
Field welding and nondestructive testing shall
be performed in accordance with the
AASHTO/AWS D1.5, Bridge Welding Code
(referred hereafter in this section as D1.5) or
other code(s) as specified in the contract
documents. Field welding on permanent
material is not allowed unless shown on the
plans or approved by the Owner.
D1.5 is written mostly for the use of shop
fabricating structural steel members. Field
welding structural steel members presents
environmental and geometric conditions that
exceed those in the shop. Rain, humidity,
temperature, and wind are examples of
conditions that can not be controlled in the
field but can be controlled in the shop.
Difficulty in steel fit-up, access to the joint
by the welder and welding position are
geometric constraints that can adversely
affect the quality of the weld.
However, despite the environmental and
geometric challenges, experience on
numerous bridges over the past 50-plus
years has shown that field welding can
readily be accomplished successfully and
provides a useful tool for experienced
contractors.
Because bridge field welding is not
customary in many states, the contract
documents should make it clear whether or
not field welding is allowed.
8.2 Weld Procedure Specifications Commentary
All structural field welding shall be done, using
Owner-approved weld procedure specifications
(WPSs), by the shielded metal arc welding
(SMAW) process, self-shielding flux cored arc
welding (FCAW-S) and/or submerged arc
welding (SAW). Gas metal arc welding
(GMAW) and gas-shielded flux core arc
welding (FCAW-G) processes are prohibited
unless the Owner specifically approves WPSs
including appropriate wind shelters.
Low hydrogen practices are required for
field welding and can produce good quality
welds when done in accordance with D1.5.
When wind speeds exceed 20 mph, the
granular flux required for SAW may blow
away if precautions are not taken to block
strong winds. Welding with gas shielded
processes has been prohibited because of
potential loss of shielding gases by drafts
from nearby moving objects or when wind
speeds exceed 5 mph (barely perceptible).
Automatic stud welding is an approved
welding process. Because of production
proof testing, written WPSs are not required.
14
8.3 Qualification
8.3.1 Welder Qualification Commentary
Qualify welders in accordance with D1.5, and
any additional Owner requirements, for the
position(s) and process(es) approved for field
welding.
Unlike shop welding, workers welding in the
field for contractors move from project to
project and keeping track of welders that are
qualified can be difficult. Some owners have
programs that address qualification of field
welders.
8.3.2 Weld Procedure Qualification Commentary
Field welding shall be performed in accordance
with weld procedure specifications (WPSs)
approved by the Owner for the specific
application and location. Welding procedures
that do not satisfy D1.5 requirements for
prequalification shall be qualified by test per
D1.5
Qualification tests for non-standard joints or
primary member WPSs should be performed
prior to arrival at the jobsite. Variations in
consumables or geometry are governed by
D1.5.
8.4 Welding Requirements
8.4.1 Welders
Welders shall have a written copy of the
approved WPS.
8.4.2 Contact Surfaces
Prior to welding, the contact surfaces and joints
to be field welded and the surrounding area (3
inches on either side of the joint) shall be
cleaned of contaminants by solvent wiping,
blasting, grinding or wire brushing in
accordance with D1.5.
8.4.3 Joined Parts
The parts to be joined shall be aligned in
accordance with D1.5, and joint faces shall
comply with the geometric tolerances of D1.5.
8.4.4 Environmental Conditions Commentary
Field welding shall not be allowed when the
ambient air temperature is below 0
o
F or during
periods of precipitation unless the welder is
housed in a heated and/or protected area in a
manner approved by the Owner.
When the ambient air temperature is below
0
o
F, when surfaces are wet or exposed to
rain or snow, and/or the welders ability to
make sound welds are a concern, heating
and/or housing should be used. See D1.5
Commentary for a detailed explanation of
the effect of environmental conditions on
weld.
15
8.4.5 Consumables Commentary
Electrodes and flux shall be purchased, stored,
dried and used in accordance with D1.5.
It is required that electrodes and flux be kept
dry at all times. Electrodes should be
purchased in hermetically sealed containers.
If electrodes are not stored according to the
requirements of D1.5 they will absorb
moisture and produce poor quality welds
during production welding. Electrode drying
ovens should be at the project site located
near the welders work station at all times.
Once the electrode container is opened,
electrodes should be placed in the ovens and
stored at temperatures meeting the
requirements of D1.5.
8.4.6 Preheat
Surfaces to be welded shall satisfy preheat
requirements of D1.5 for 3 inches in all
directions from the weld. Higher preheat and/or
post-weld heating may be required for fracture
critical welds, for welds in areas with high
restraint, or to avoid defects. Preheating
methods shall avoid damage to adjacent coated
surfaces, neoprene bearings and other heat
sensitive components. Damage caused by
heating shall be corrected at the Contractors
expense.
16
Section 9
Inspection
Inspect and test repaired welds, coatings, and/or
base metal in accordance with this Section.
Verify the alignment, profile and fastening of
the erected steel conforms to the contract
requirements.
Material quality, damage repair and
conformance to plan dimensions and
assembly requirements are subject to the
verification inspection of the Owner
9.2 Tolerances for plate girder or rolled
beam spans
Commentary
Geometric tolerances for other structures
(arches, trusses, etc.) should be established
by the contract or mutually agreed between
the Owner and erector.
9.2.1 Deviation from theoretical horizontal
alignment
1/8 inch x (total length along girder, in feet,
between supports)/10.
Erected horizontal alignment shall be measured
under steel dead load at the centerline of the top
flange or other location mutually acceptable to
the Owner and Contractor and shall not deviate
from the theoretical horizontal alignment by
more than the value computed above. The
theoretical horizontal alignment is to be
provided by the Owner and calculated under the
steel dead load only condition.
9.2.2 Deviation from theoretical erected
web position
Commentary
1/8 inch x (web depth, in feet)
Erected web position shall be measured under
steel dead load and is the differential in
horizontal displacement between the top and
bottom of the web. The erected web position
shall not deviate from the theoretical erected
web position by more than the value computed
above. The theoretical erected web position is to
be provided by the Owner and calculated under
the steel dead load only condition.
The location of the measurement for
deviation from theoretical web position will
vary depending on bridge type. Webs of
straight girders should assume their
specified position at all locations under steel
dead load; but in highly skewed structures,
webs may deform laterally under the weight
of the deck. If bracing connections are
detailed for the steel dead load only
condition, curved girder webs should also be
in their specified position under steel dead
load, but will deviate increasingly
approaching midspan under deck load. For
other bridge types, measurement locations
17
should be provided by the Owner.
Web position can be affected in the field by
conditions not considered by the designer
and/or beyond the control of the Contractor.
Web positions within the tolerance noted
here are considered acceptable. Web
positions beyond the tolerance noted here
may be acceptable; however they must be
evaluated regarding cause, and impact on
bridge service, and approved by the Owner.
9.2.3 Deviation from theoretical vertical
alignment (elevation)
Commentary
- 0, + 1/4 inch x (total length, in feet, from
nearest support)/10
Erected vertical alignment shall be measured under
steel dead load at the centerline of the top flange or
other location mutually acceptable to the Owner and
Contractor shall not deviate from the theoretical
erected vertical alignment by more than the value
computed above. Maximum deviation is 3/4 inch in
cantilever sections or 1 1/2 inches between supports.
The theoretical vertical alignment is to be provided
by the Owner and calculated under the steel dead
load only condition.
Tolerance in the negative direction, i.e.
vertical alignment lower than theoretical,
has been prohibited to ensure that the
distance between top of flange and top of
deck can be maintained, thereby avoiding
thickening the haunch (or deck) to suit.
Installed locations lower than theoretical
may be acceptable upon review by the
Owner. For a typical girder bridge, some
agencies may choose to control only the
elevation of the girder splices and accept
vertical alignment between splices (within
the tolerance on shop camber). Some of the
tolerance on vertical alignment may be
'consumed' by the tolerance on shop camber
of the fabricated girder.
9.3 Surveys
It is the Contractors responsibility to survey
steel profile and alignment during and after
completion of steel erection, with verification by
the Owner. Surveys during erection must
consider support conditions and anticipate
deflections from subsequent steel placement or
support release.
9.4 Bolting
Bolting inspection shall conform to the
requirements of the Bolt Specification.
18
9.5 Welding
Unless the Owner requires otherwise, visual
inspection and nondestructive testing (NDT)
shall be performed on field welds in accordance
with D1.5. Welds shall be evaluated for
acceptance in accordance with D1.5.
9.5.1 Magnetic Particle Testing
Magnetic particle testing (MT) shall be applied
to all fillet and partial penetration groove welds
on primary, load-carrying members and 10% of
field fillet welds on non-primary members
(railings, utility supports, etc.). Field slot welds
specified by the contract and areas where
welded erection aids were removed shall be
100% MT inspected.
9.5.2 Ultrasonic Testing
Ultrasonic testing (UT) shall be applied to all
complete joint penetration groove welds.
9.5.3 Radiographic Testing Commentary
In addition to UT, radiographic testing (RT)
shall be applied to complete penetration groove
welds in butt joints subjected to tension and
when specified by the contract plans. Field plug
welds shall be 100% UT and RT inspected, even
in compression areas.
Contract documents should show all
locations where RT will be required.
19
Section 10
Repair
10.1 Documentation Commentary
The Contractor is responsible for documenting
damage due to handling, removal of erection
aids, aligning members and other actions,
uncorrected misfits at connections or
misalignments exceeding tolerances in erected
members, and as-received damage attributable
to transport or fabrication.
Damage such as minor arc strikes or
handling damage to paint may not need
extensive documentation, unless they are a
recurring problem. Widespread problems
such as paint damage throughout several
girders, especially if the cause is not
apparent, or multiple misaligned girders may
require the services of outside expertise.
10.2 Implementation
The Contractor shall propose a method of repair
and basis for acceptance for the Owners review.
10.3 Repair Procedures
Submit repair procedures for damaged or
misaligned steel in the form of sketches and/or
written procedures as applicable. Information
must provide sufficient detail for the Owner to
adequately review the repair application. After
repairs are complete, the contractor shall
provide as-built detailed drawings, NDT results
and procedures/materials used to the Owner for
inclusion in the project file.
10.4 Welds
Field or shop welds that are unacceptable must
be repaired in accordance with D1.5.
Responsibility for the cost of the repair, and
subsequent inspection shall be based on the
cause.
20
Appendix 1
Rotational Capacity Test
(Long Bolts in Tension Calibrator)
from FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-91-031, dated May 1991, Appendix A1, revised April 1994,
Procedure for Performing Rotational Capacity Test, Long Bolts in Tension Calibrator
EQUIPMENT REQUIRED:
1. Calibrated bolt tension measuring device of size required for bolts to be tested. Mark off a vertical
line and line 1/3 of a turn, 120 degrees; and 2/3 of a turn, 240 degrees, from vertical in a clockwise
direction on the face plate of the calibrator.
2. Calibrated torque wrench.
3. Spacers and/or washers with hole size no larger than 1/16 in. greater than bolt to be tested.
4. Steel section to mount calibrator. Flange of girder or cross frame accessible from the ground is
satisfactory.
PROCEDURE:
1. Install nut on bolt and measure stick out of bolt when 3 to 5 full threads of the bolt are located
between the bearing face of the nut and bolt head. Measure the bolt length, the distance from the end
of the threaded shank to the underside of the bolt head.
2. Install the bolt into the tension calibrator and install the required number of shim plates and/or
washer (one washer under the nut must always be used) to produce the thread stickout measure in
Step 1.
3. Tighten bolt using a hand wrench to the initial tension listed below 0 kips, +2 kips
Bolt Dia. (in.) 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 1-1/8 1-1/4 1-3/8 1-1/2
Snug Tension
(kips)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
4. Match mark the nut to the vertical stripe on the face plate of the bolt calibrator.
5. Using the calibrated manual torque wrench, tighten the bolt to at least the tension listed below and
record the torque required to reach the tension and the value of the bolt tension. Torque must be
measured with the nut in motion.
Bolt Dia. (in.) 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 1-1/8 1-1/4 1-3/8 1-1/2
Tension (kips) 12 19 28 39 51 56 71 85 103
6. Further tighten the bolt to the rotation listed below. The rotation is measured from the initial marking
in Step 4. Record the bolt tension. Assemblies which fail prior to this rotation either by stripping or
fracture fail the test.
Bolt Length
(measured in Step 1)
4 x bolt dia. or less Greater than 4 but no
more than 8 x bolt dia.
Greater than 8 x bolt
dia.
Required Rotation 2/3 1 1-1/3
7. The bolt tension measured in Step 6 after the required rotation must equal or exceed the values in the
table shown below. Assemblies that do not meet this tension have failed the test.
Bolt Dia. (in.) 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 1-1/8 1-1/4 1-3/8 1-1/2
Tension (kips) 14 22 32 45 59 64 82 98 118
21
8. Loosen and remove nut, and examine the threads on the nut and bolt. No signs of thread shear failure,
stripping, or torsional failure of the bolt should be evident. Assemblies that have evidence of
stripping have failed the test.
9. Calculate and record the value of 0.25x the tension (pounds = kips x 1000) measured in Step 5 x the
bolt diameter in feet. The torque measured and recorded in Step 5 must be equal to or less than this
calculated value. Assemblies with torque values exceeding this calculated value failed the test.
22
Appendix 1A
Rotational Capacity Test
(Bolts Too Short to Fit In Tension Calibrator)
from FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-91-031, dated May 1991, Appendix A1, Procedure for Performing
Rotational Capacity Test, Bolts Too Short to Fit Tension Calibrator
EQUIPMENT REQUIRED:
1. Calibrated torque wrench and a spud wrench or equivalent
2. Spacers and/or washers with hole size no larger than 1/16 in. greater than bolt to be tested.
3. Steel section with normal size hole to install bolt. Any available splice hole can be used with a plate
thickness that will provide the number of threads under the nut required in Step 1 below. Mark off a
vertical hole and lines 1/3 of a turn, 120 degrees; 1/2 of a turn, 180 degrees; and 2/3 of a turn, 240
degrees, from vertical in a clockwise direction on the plate.
PROCEDURE:
1. Install nut on bolt and measure stick out of bolt when 3 to 5 full threads of the bolt are located
between the bearing face of the nut and bolt head. Measure the bolt length, the distance from the end
of the threaded shank to the underside of the bolt head.
2. Install the bolt into the hole and install the required number of shim plates and/or washer (one washer
under the nut must always be used) to produce the thread stickout measure in Step 1.
3. Snug the bolt using a hand wrench. The snug condition should be the normal effort applied to a 12
inch long wrench. The applied torque should not exceed 20% of the torque determined in Step 5.
4. Match mark the nut to the vertical stripe on the plate.
5. Tighten the bolt by turning the nut using the torque wrench to the rotation listed below. A second
wrench must be used to prevent rotation of the bolt head during tightening. Record the torque to
reach this rotation. Torque must be measured with the nut in motion.
Bolt Length
dia.
Required Rotation 1/3 1/2 2/3
The measured torque should not exceed the values listed below. Assemblies that exceed the listed
torque have failed the test.
Bolt Dia. (in.) 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 1-1/8 1-1/4 1-3/8 1-1/2
Torque (ft-lbs) 150 290 500 820 1230 1500 1500 2810 3690
6. Tighten the bolt further to the rotation listed below. The rotation is measured from the initial marking
in Step 4. Assemblies which fail prior to this rotation either by stripping or fracture fail the test.
Bolt Length
dia.
Required Rotation 2/3 1 1-1/3
7. Loosen and remove nut, and examine the threads on the nut and bolt. No signs of thread shear failure,
stripping, or torsional failure of the bolt should be evident. Assemblies that have evidence of
stripping have failed the test.
23
Appendix 2
Load Indicating Washers (LIW)
(Verification Test Procedure)
from FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-91-031, dated May 1991, Appendix A6, revised April 1994,
Procedure for Verification of High Strength Bolts with Load Indicating Washers (LIWs)
EQUIPMENT REQUIRED:
1. Calibrated bolt tension measuring device with a special flat insert in place of the normal bolt head
holding insert. Special insert required to allow access to measure LIW gap.
2. Tapered leaf thickness (feeler) gage 0.005 inch. Same gage as to be used to inspect the bolts after
installation.
3. Bolts, nuts and standard washers to be used in the work with the LIWs.
4. Impact and manual wrench to tighten bolts. Equipment should be the same as to be used in the work.
PROCEDURE:
1. Install bolt, nut, LIW and standard washer (if used) into bolt tension measuring device. Assembly
should match that to be used in the work.
2. Use another wrench on the bolt head to prevent rotation of the head against the LIW if the LIW is
against the turned element.
3. Tighten bolt to tensions listed below (1.05 times the minimum installation tension). Use another
wrench on the bolt head to prevent rotation of the head against the LIW if the LIW is against the
turned element. If an impact wrench is used, tighten to a load slightly below the required load and
use a manual wrench to attain the required tension. The load indicating needle of the tension
measuring device cannot be read accurately when only an impact wrench is used.
Bolt Tension (kips)
Bolt Dia. (inch) 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 1 1/8 1 1/4 1 3/8 1 1/2
ASTM A 325 Bolt
13 20 29 41 54 59 75 89 108
ASTM A 490 Bolt
na na 37 51 67 84 107 127 na
4. Determine and record the number of spaces between the protrusions on the LIW that a 0.005 in.
thickness gage is refused. The total number of spaces in the various sizes and grades of LIWs is
shown below.
Number of Spaces
Bolt Dia. (inch) 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 1 1/8 1 1/4 1 3/8 1 1/2
ASTM A 325 Bolt
4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8
ASTM A 490 Bolt
Na Na 6 6 7 7 8 8 na
24
5. The number of spaces which the 0.005 in. gage is refused should not exceed the number given in the
table below. If the number of spaces exceeds the number in the table, the LIW fails the verification
test.
Number of spaces in washer 4 5 6 7 8
Maximum Number of spaces gage is refused 1 2 2 3 3
* If the test is a coated LIW under the turned element, the maximum number of spaces the gage is
refused is the number of spaces on the washer minus one
6. The bolt should be further tightened to the smallest gap allowed in the work. Normally, this smallest
gap condition is achieved when the gaps at all the spaces are less than 0.005 in. (or a gap size as
approved by the Engineer) and not all gaps completely closed. When such a condition is achieved the
0.005 in. gage is refused at all spaces but a visible gap exists in at least one space. Note the load in
the bolt at this smallest gap. The bolts in this verification test and in the actual installation should
not be tightened to a no visible gap condition, i.e. a condition when all the gaps are completely
closed. The load in the bolt becomes indeterminate when no gap exists. It is possible to cause bolt
failure by tightening beyond complete crushing of the washer.
7. Remove the bolt from the calibrator and turn the nut on the threads of the bolt by hand. The nut
should be able to be turned on the complete length of the threads, excluding the thread run-out.
Alternatively, if the nut is unable to go the full thread length, but the load at the minimum LIW gap
(measured in step 6 above) is less than 95% of the maximum load achieved in step 6 of the
Rotational Capacity test, the assembly, including the LIW, is deemed to have passed this test. If the
nut cannot be run the full thread length, and if the load at the smallest gap condition is greater than
the 95% of the maximum strength of the bolts from the Rotational Capacity test, the load required for
the smallest gap in step 6, is too large. If approved by the Engineer, the test could be repeated with a
larger minimum gap, for example one space that will accept a 0.005 in. feeler gage, or the LIWs
could be replaced.
SHORT BOLTS:
Bolts from Rotational Capacity lots that are too short to fit in the tension measuring device shall be
tested by tightening to the minimum gap in step 6 above and checked in accordance with step 7 above.
The 95% alternative cannot be used since short bolts are not tested in the tension measuring device for
rotational capacity. The LIW used with the short bolt should be checked in accordance with steps 1
through 5 above using longer bolt in the tension measuring device.
25
ERECTION PROCEDURE CHECKLIST
PART 1 Drawing
PLAN: To scale plan of work area showing supporting structures, roads, railroads, waterways,
overhead & underground utilities, adjacent structures, etc.; and framing plan with member
shipping marks <match those used on shop drawings> and field splice locations if applicable
Location of temporary supports, falsework, holding cranes
Location of crane positions on plan showing pick radii
Elevation view of crane and member Included Not Applicable
Crane Support Method: barges, mats Included Not Applicable
Member delivery location and orientation
DETAILS: Detail and arrangement of member rigging: show sizes, capacities, and location of center of
gravity of each pick
Falsework and temporary support details: show sizes and capacities
Crane capacity chart indicating crane type, lifting capacity at given radius and orientation,
counterweight requirements, and boom length
Pick weight chart indicating weight of member, plus rigging and any attachments
Written procedure indicating erection sequence for primary and secondary members
(crossframes, diaphragms, etc.), including the following: method of tie down of individual pieces,
time and method of connections of diaphragms and lateral bracing and field splices
PART 2 Calculations
Calculations for load capacity and stability of temporary supports for structure: falsework, tie
downs, lifting beams, spreader beams, etc.
Calculations indicating capacity of temporary crane supports: Included Not Applicable
Calculations to substantiate structural integrity and stability of members prior to completion of
bridge assembly
Calculations indicating structural integrity of any partially bolted primary splice after release of
external support system
Calculations to substantiate structural integrity of abutments and retaining walls affected by
surcharge from crane
PART 3 Associated Data
Manufacturers cut sheets for rigging devices: beam clamps, slings, wire rope, shackles,
turnbuckles, chains, straps, etc., and pre-engineered falsework, if applicable
Statement as to status of coordination with parallel entities requiring review: railroads, Coast
Guard, Corps. Of Engineers, etc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION __________________________________________________________________________
COMPLETED BY _________________________________________________________________________________
<ERECTOR COMPANY NAME> <QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL NAME>
26
ERECTION INSPECTION CHECKLIST
Sheet 1 of 2
PART 1 Pre - Erection
Erection Procedure - approved
Site preparation access roads, crane pads, bearing pedestals, finish & elevation, anchor bolts
survey, falsework foundation pads, all obstacles noted
Personnel
- foreman - competent person
- crane operators qualified, licensed, training, medical
- welders - certification current, qualified for positions
- any required training & instruction complete
Lifting Equipment
- crane inspection current, schedule during project
- lifting devices & rigging certification, inspection
Bolted Connections
- check bolt quality, size & lengths, certifications
- installation procedure, method of tensioning
- Skidmore machine calibration, certification
- impact wrenches condition proper size & capacity
- torque wrenches - calibration
Welded Connections
- weld procedure specifications (WPS) approved
- welding equipment sufficient capacity, grounding
- welding consumables proper storage, drying ovens
Safety/fall protection nets, life line lanyards, platforms, scaffolds, manlifts, floats, emergency
boat
Coordination Items railroads, local agencies, Coast Guard, emergency services, etc.
PART 2 Erector Responsibility
Provide for Inspector prior to erection
- framing plan, erection procedure
- crane operator qualifications
- welder certifications
- crane inspection certifications
- Skidmore and torque wrench calibration certifications
- bolt manufacturer certifications
- weld procedure specifications
Provide for Inspector during erection
- access to work ladders, manlift, scaffold or platform
- torque wrench
- Skidmore
- temperature indication crayons
27
ERECTION INSPECTION CHECKLIST
Sheet 2 of 2
PART 3 Inspector Responsibility
Check all personnel certifications crane operator, welders, etc.
Check all equipment certifications cranes, etc.
Check fall protection requirements, installation
Check crane radii.
Check temporary supports installed per erection procedure
Check assembly marks proper location and orientation
Check minimum number of bolts and pins installed before release of crane / temporary supports
Monitor bolt installation procedure
Check field weld size/geometry, consumables, and variables per WPS, and NDT results
Check bearing alignment/adjustment
28
29
30
31
AASHTO Document No: NSBASBE-1-OL
Printed XX, 2007
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Item #1
Revise the 2
nd
row, 2
nd
column of Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 as follows:
Driving criteria established by static load test(s) in combination with dynamic testing or wave equation analyses;
quality control by dynamic testing and/or calibrated wave equation, or minimum driving resistance combined with
minimum delivered hammer energy from the load test(s). For the last case, the hammer used for the test pile(s)
shall be used for the production piles.
Item #2
Revise the 3
rd
row, 2
nd
column of Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 as follows:
Driving criteria established by dynamic test with signal matching at beginning of redrive (BOR) conditions only of
at least one production pile per pier, but no less than the number of tests per site provided in Table 3. Quality
control of remaining piles by calibrated wave equation and/or dynamic testing.
None
BACKGROUND:
The current wording used in the table attempts to summarize what is covered in more detail in other related articles
and references. The wording in the table was too detailed and was causing confusion. The wording in the table has
been simplified and made to be consistent with the wording changes in Articles 10.8.3.8.2 and 10.8.3.8.3 covered in
other proposed agenda items.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 10, Article C10.5.5.2.3
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Make the following editorial changes in the 12
th
paragraph in Article C10.5.5.2.3:
The resistance factors for the dynamic pile formulaeformulas, i.e., FHWA modified Gates and ENR, in Table
1 have been specifically developed for end of driving (EOD) conditions. Since pile load test data, which include
the effects of soil setup or relaxation (for the database used, primarily soil setup), were used to develop the
resistance factors for these formulaeformulas, the resistance factors reflect soil setup occurring after the driving
resistance blow count is measured and the nominal pile resistance calculated from the formulaeformulas. At
beginning of redrive (BOR) the driving resistance blow count obtained already includes the soil setup. Therefore, a
lower resistance factor for the driving formulaeformulas should be used for BOR conditions than the ones shown in
Table 1 for EOD conditions. The reduction in the resistance factor required is in general less than 0.05, based on
data provided by Paikowsky, et al. (2004). Rounding the resistance factor to the nearest 0.05, a resistance factor of
0.40 can still be used for FHWA Gates at BOR. For ENR, however, the resistance factor required becomes too
low, and furthermore, the value of the resistance factor from reliability theory becomes somewhat unstable because
of the extreme scatter in the data. Therefore, it is not recommended to use ENR at BOR conditions. In general,
dynamic testing should be conducted to verify nominal pile resistance at BOR in lieu of the use of driving
formulase.
None
BACKGROUND:
These changes shown were made to reduce unnecessary detail that could confuse the user of these specifications
and reduce confusion between the terms driving resistance and nominal resistance.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Add the following after the 2
nd
paragraph in Article 10.5.5.2.4:
The number of static load tests to be conducted to justify the resistance factors provided in Tables 1 and 10.5.5.2.3-
2 shall be based on the variability in the properties and geologic stratification of the site to which the test results are
to be applied. A site, for the purpose of assessing variability, shall be defined in accordance with Article 10.5.5.2.3.
None
BACKGROUND:
In the current specifications, site variability as applied to drilled shaft load tests is only discussed in the
commentary of Article 10.5.5.2.4. For driven piles, the site variability issue is discussed in the specifications.
Since site variability is at least just as important for shafts as it is for piles, the recommended wording to be added
to the specifications in Article 10.5.5.2.4 emphasizes the importance of addressing site variability for static load
tests of shafts and is consistent with similar provisions for piles in Article 10.5.5.2.3.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Delete the 3
rd
paragraph in Article C10.5.5.2.4 as follows:
For shaft groups of five or more, greater redundancy than what has been assumed for the development of the
shaft resistance factors provided in Table 1 is present. For these larger shaft groups, the resistance factors provided
for shafts in Table 1 may be increased by up to 20 percent to achieve a reliability index of 2.3.
None
BACKGROUND:
The adjustment of resistance factors based on load sharing is only applicable if the resistance factors are determined
from statistical data using reliability theory. Considering that:
the calibration was done for an older version of t he design method for shaft axial nominal resistance
cited in the AASHTO specifications,
the determination of resistance factors for shaft foundations heavily rely on past practice to establish
final resistance factors (Allen 2005),
the lack of shaft design experience using higher resistance factors, and
the small percentage of shafts tested.
The allowance to increase the resistance factor for larger groups of shafts in the current article is too aggressive.
However, for the specific case of a single large diameter shaft, a 20 percent reduction in the resistance factor to
account for lack of ability within the foundation to share load among the individual foundation elements is still
justified. Therefore, the paragraph in the subject article that recommends increasing the resistance factors by 20
percent for larger shaft groups that have ability to share load among the individual foundation elements is proposed
to be deleted. However, if only a single shaft supports the foundation unit, the recommendation to decrease the
resistance factor remains.
None
REFERENCES:
Allen, T. M., 2005, Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD
Foundation Strength Limit State Design, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-052, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, 41 pp.
OTHER:
None
2007 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 52 (REV 1)
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 10, Articles 10.7.3.1 and C10.7.3.1
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
AGENDA ITEM:
Item #1
th
bullet in Article 10.7.3.1:
The maximum driving resistance expected in order to reach the minimum pile penetration required (if
applicable), including any soil/pile skin frictionshaft resistance that will not contribute to the long-term
nominal axial resistance of the pile, e.g., soil contributing to downdrag, or soil that will be removed by
scour scoured away;
Item #2
nd
paragraph in Article C10.7.3.1:
Anominal resistance measured during driving resistance exceeding the compressive nominal bearing, i.e., in
compression, resistance required by the contract may be needed in order to reach a minimum pile penetration
elevation specified in the contract.
None
BACKGROUND:
This change was made to reduce confusion between the terms driving resistance and nominal resistance and to
make other minor editorial changes.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 10, Article C10.7.3.3
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Item #1
Revise the 3
rd
paragraph in Article C10.7.3.3 as follows:
In lieu of local pile driving experience, if a static analysis method is used to estimate the pile length required to
achieve the desired nominal bearingresistance for establishment of contract pile quantities, the factored resistance
used to determine the size ofnumber of piles required in the pile group required may should be conservatively
equated to the factored resistance estimated using the static analysis method as follows:
Item #2
Revise the 4
th
paragraph in Article C10.7.3.3 as follows:
The resistance factor for the static analysis method inherently accounts for the bias and uncertainty in the static
analysis method. However, local experience may dictate that the penetration depth estimated using this approach
be adjusted to reflect that experience. Where piles are driven to a well defined firm bearing stratum, the location of
the top of bearing stratum will dictate the pile length needed, and Equation C1 is likely not applicable.
None
BACKGROUND:
Regarding the third paragraph, there has been some confusion regarding what type of local experience is
needed to justify not using Equation C1. The proposed correction clarifies this. Furthermore, it needs to be
recognized that Equation C1 will produce conservative results, as there will be a rather low probability that the pile
length will be longer than calculated from that equation. The proposed corrections help to emphasize this.
Regarding the fourth paragraph addition, the added statement clarifies that Equation C1 should not be used in
the situation described in the addition.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Replace the second paragraph and associated bullets in Article 10.7.3.8.2 with the following:
Driving criteria should be established in consideration of the static load test results.
None
BACKGROUND:
These specifications as written have created confusion within the pile industry and among the state DOTs,
appearing to not reflect past pile design and construction practice. The confusing specifications have therefore
been removed.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Delete the 5
th
through the 8
th
paragraphs in Article C10.7.3.8.2, and replace them with the following.
Development of driving criteria in consideration of static load test results is described in Hannigan, et al.
(2006).
None
BACKGROUND:
These specifications and associated commentary as written have created confusion within the pile industry
and among the state DOTs, appearing to not reflect past pile design and construction practice. The confusing
specifications and commentary have therefore been removed.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Delete the 2
nd
through the 5
th
paragraphs in Article 10.7.3.8.3.
None
BACKGROUND:
These specifications as written have created confusion within the pile industry and among the state DOTs,
appearing to not reflect past pile design and construction practice. The confusing specifications have therefore
been removed.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
Add the following paragraphs after the first paragraph in Article C10.7.3.8.3:
For example, note that it may not be possible to adjust the dynamic measurements with signal matching
analysis to match the static load test results if the driving resistance at the time the dynamic measurement is taken is
too large, i.e., the pile set per hammer blow is too small. In this case, adequate hammer energy is not reaching the
pile tip to assess end bearing and produce an accurate match, though in such cases, the prediction will usually be
very conservative. In general, a tip movement (pile set) of 0.10 to 0.15 in. is needed to provide an accurate signal
matching analysis. See Hannigan, et al. (2006) for additional guidance on this issue.
In cases where a significant amount of soil setup occurs and the set at the beginning of redrive (BOR) is less
than 0.10 inch per blow, a more accurate nominal resistance may be obtained by combining the end bearing
determined using the signal matching analysis obtained for the end of driving (EOD) with the signal matching
analysis for the shaft resistance at the beginning of redrive.
None
BACKGROUND:
The added paragraphs were moved from Article C10.7.3.8.2, as these paragraphs pertain more to dynamic testing in
general than to interpretation of pile load test results. Some clarifications to these paragraphs were also made.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
In Article 10.7.3.8.5, change the units for E
d
in the where list under Eq. 2 as follows:
E
d
= developed hammer energy. This is the kinetic energy in the ram at impact for a given blow. If ram
velocity is not measured, it may be assumed equal to the potential energy of the ram at the height of the
stroke, taken as the ram weight times the stroke (ft.-kipstons)
None
BACKGROUND:
Since the parameters in the denominator are specified to be in inches and the hammer energy term in the numerator
is specified to be in feet, to make units consistent, the numerator is multiplied by 12 to convert feet to inches.
Furthermore, to make units consistent in this formula, the units for the energy term must be the same as the units
for the resultant pile resistance, currently specified as kips. Therefore, the energy term must also be in kips, not
tons as currently specified.
None
REFERENCES:
None
OTHER:
None
SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 10, Article 10.7.8
LRFR MANUAL OTHER
DATE REVISED:
AGENDA ITEM:
In Article 10.7.8, remove 3 from Equation 10.7.8-7 as shown and revise its description as follows:
Timber piles, in compression and tension:
dr
=
da
(3F
co
) (10.7.8-7)
where:
F
co
= base resistance of wood in compression parallel to the grain as specified in Article 8.4.1.3 (ksi)
None
BACKGROUND:
Equation 10.7.8-7 was developed based on the requirements in Articles 8.4.1.3 and 8.5.2.2. The 3 multiplier for
F
co
is actually the value of F
co
in KSI for fir as specified in Article 8.4.1.3 and was not intended to be a multiplier
for F
co
. With Equation 10.7.8-7 revised as shown above, the value of
dr
is approximately equal to maximum
allowed stress during driving for timber piling (3.6 KSI for fir) as specified in Hannigan, et al. (2005) and the
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (2002).
None
REFERENCES:
AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, HB-17. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Hannigan, P. J., G. G.Goble, G. Thendean, G. E. Likins, and F. Rausche. 2005. Design and Construction of Driven
Pile Foundations, FHWA-HI-05, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C, Vols. I and II.
OTHER:
None

07 Ballot Items 41-60

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

07 Ballot Items 41-60

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2007 AASHTO BRIDGE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 60 (REV 1)

SUBJECT: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Section 11, Table 11.5.6-1

Вам также может понравиться