NCHRP Project 10-70:

Cost-Effective Connection Details for

Highway Sign, Luminaire and Traffic
Signal Structures
- Research Implementation

Sougata Roy, Yeun Chul Park

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
 NCHRP Project 10-70 @ Lehigh (2006-11)
Fritz Lab ATLSS Lab

 Analytical and experimental evaluation

 80 full size specimens, 158 tests
 Parametric FEA using 30,000+ models
 Revisions to the AASHTO Specification 2013 LTS6
Roy et al. (2011). “Cost Effective Connection Details for Highway Sign, Luminaire and Traffic Signal Structures,” NCHRP web-only Document 176, TRB.
http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/165469.aspx

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Critical Details
 Tube-to-transverse plate connections
– Mast arm-to-transverse plate
– Pole-to-base plate
 Handhole
– Reinforced
– Unreinforced
 Mast arm-to-pole connection
– Gusseted box
– Ring stiffened
 Mast arm-to-pole pass-through connection
Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center
Lehigh University
Tube-to-Transverse Plate Connection
 Displacement Induced Fatigue
– Relative stiffness of components important
 Fatigue resistance of connections depends on
– Member cross section
• Round vs. Multisided
– Connection Geometry
• Tube diameter and thickness (relative to plate)
• Plate thickness (use minimum 2 in.)
• Number of fasteners and bolt circle ratio
• Opening in end plate (groove welded connections only)
• Stiffened vs. Unstiffened
– Detail Configuration
• Fillet (socket), Groove welded etc.
– Weld Geometry
• Weld shape and size (Weld termination angle)
Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center
Lehigh University
Connections in Tubular Structures
 Geometric Stress: Extrapolated local stress
– Also called Hot Spot Stress (HSS)
 DNV HSS: local stress @ 0.1 𝑟𝑡 from weld toe
Pulled by
𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 transverse plate
𝐺𝑆𝐶𝐹 =
𝑁𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠

Advanced
Advanced Technology
Technology for
for Large
Large Structural
Structural Systems
Systems Center
Center
Lehigh
Lehigh University
University
Local Stress – Finite vs. Infinite Life
Finite Life Infinite Life

Why is the difference?

• Finite life defined by crack propagation
– calibrated against geometric stress
• Infinite life defined by crack growth
threshold – notch stress controls

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Effect of Transverse Plate Thickness

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Geometric Parameters
tT

DT

DBC
tTP

DOP NB

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
 AASHTO LTS 6 - What’s New?
 2 level specification
– Nominal stress-based design for most cases
– Local stress and experiment-based design for new innovative
details (Appendix D)
 Includes both finite and infinite life provisions
– Infinite life : new design
– Finite life : assessment
 Format similar to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specification
 Fatigue resistance defined as function of geometric
parameters
Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center
Lehigh University
Design Criteria
 Fatigue Resistance, ∆𝐹 𝑛

– For Infinite Life

(Df ) : wind load induced stress
range

(DF ) : fatigue resistance

– For Finite Life

( )n : nominal stress-based
design

( ) l : local stress-based design

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Fatigue Resistance in LTS 6
 Three choices for tube-to-plate connections
– Use Table 11.9.3.1-2
• Tested details in NCHRP 10-70 for infinite life
– Use Table 11.9.3.1-1 and equations in Table 11.9.3.1-3 for
tubular structures
– Appendix D
• Only for innovative details
 Arm-to-Pole connections
– Standard tested details in NCHRP 10-70 for infinite life
 Other connections
– Same as LTS 5 (with addition and deletion)

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Stress Concentration Factors – KF , KI
 Tube-to-Transverse Plate Connections
 Base equations for round section geometries
– Geometric SCF (finite life - KF)
– Socket and groove welded connections have different
equations
 Modification multiplier for infinite life (KI)
 For multisided cross sections modify SCF equations
for round section
 For stiffened connections modify SCF equations for
unstiffened connections
Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center
Lehigh University
Infinite Life SCF, KI
 Includes local notch effect

KI
 (1.76  1.83tT )  4.76  0.22 K F
KF

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
KF Equations - Table 11.9.3.1-3
Section
Type Connection Details Fatigue Stress Concentration Factors, KF
Round Round fillet-welded
K F  2.2  4.6  1  CBC 0.03    2  15  tT   10  DT 1.2   tTP 2.5
connections

Round groove-welded  CBC 0.02  1 

K F  1.35  16  1  15  tT    5  DT      tTP
2
connections 0.7
 4  COP  3 

Stiffened connections  tST 0.4   DT 0.8 

K F   0.3  0.7    0.9  0.4 
at stiffener end  tT   N ST 1.2 

Stiffened connections  DT 0.15   0.13   6.5  

at fillet-weld toe on tube 130  1        1  
K F   N ST 1.5   hST  7   tST 0.5  
wall  K for unstiffened round fillet-welded connection 
 F 
Multi- As above Multiply respective K F above by:
sided 1   DT  rb   N S 2 
 

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Table C11.9.3.1-2 — Typical Example
Description Identification of Parameters Tube Detail Parameters Finite Life Threshold,
Configuration Constant, DFTH
A×108 (MPa (ksi))
(MPa3 (ksi3))
Fillet-welded tube-to-transverse plate connections Round tT = 4.5 mm (0.179 in) 1330 (3.9) 31 (4.5)
DT = 254 mm (10 in) (KF = 2.8) (KI = 5.6)
tT
tTP = 51 mm (2 in)
DBC = 592 mm (23.3 in)
NB = 4
DT
Round tT = 6.1 mm (0.239 in) 1330 (3.9) 31 (4.5)
DT = 330 mm (13 in) (KF = 2.9) (KI = 6.2)
tTP = 51 mm (2 in)
DBC = 508 mm (20 in)
NB = 4
DBC
Multi-sided tT = 4.8 mm (3/16 in) 1330 (3.9) 18 (2.6)
DT = 254 mm (10 in) (KF = 3.2) (KI = 6.6)
tTP tTP = 51 mm (2 in)
DBC = 592 mm (23.3 in)
NB = 4
NS = 8
rb = 13 mm (0.5 in)

Multi-sided tT = 6.4 mm (1/4 in) 18 (2.6)

DT = 330 mm (13 in) (KF = 3.5) (KI = 7.6)
tTP = 51 mm (2 in)
DBC = 508 mm (20 in)
NB = 4
NS = 8
rb = 13 mm (0.5 in)

Multi-sided tT = 7.9 mm (5/16 in) 1330 (3.9) 31 (4.5)

DT = 610 mm (24 in) (KF = 2.9) (KI = 6.5)
tTP = 76 mm (3 in)
DBC = 762 mm (30 in)
NB = 16
NS = 16
rb = 102 mm (4 in)

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Table 11.9.3.1-1 Typical Example
Description Finite Life Constant, Thresholdf, Potential Crack Location Example
A×108 (DF)TH
(MPa3 (ksi3)) (MPa (ksi))
SECTION 1 — GROOVE-WELDED CONNECTIONS
4.4 Full-penetration groove-welded tube-to- KF ≤ 1.6: 3750 (11.0) KI ≤ 3.0: 69 (10.0) In tube wall along groove-weld toe Column-to-base plate connections.
transverse plate connections with backing ring 1.6 < KF ≤ 2.3: 1330 (3.9) 3.0 < KI ≤ 4.0: 48 (7.0) or backing ring top weld toe. Mast-arm-to-flange-plate connections.
attached to the plate with a full penetration weld, or 4.0 < KI ≤ 6.5: 31 (4.5)
with a continuous fillet-weld around interior face of
backing ring, and the backing ring welded to the
tube with a continuous fillet-weld at top face of
Ds
backing ring.

SECTION 5 - FILLET-WELDED CONNECTIONS

5.4 Fillet-welded tube-to-transverse plate KF ≤ 3.2: 1330 (3.9) KI ≤ 4.0: 48 (7.0) In tube wall along fillet-weld toe. Column-to-base-plate or mast-arm-to-
connections 4.0 < KI ≤ 6.5: 31 (4.5) flange-plate socket connections.
6.5 < KI ≤ 7.7: 18 (2.6)

Ds

SECTION 6 - ATTACHMENTS
6.2 Tube-to-transverse plate connections stiffened KF ≤ 2.5: 3750 (11.0) KI ≤ 5.5: 48 (7.0) In tube wall at the toe of the
by longitudinal attachments with partial- or full attachment to tube weld at the Ds
penetration groove-welds, or fillet-welds in which termination of attachment.
the tube is subjected to longitudinal loading and the
welds are wrapped around the attachment (See detail 5.4) (See detail 5.4) In tube wall at the toe of tube-to-
termination. transverse plate weld.

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Fillet vs. Groove Welded Connection

CAFT (Groove)

CAFT (Fillet)
Multi-side Tube

Multi-side Tube

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Unstiffened Tube-to-Plate Connections
 Reducing base plate flexibility is the most cost-effective means of
increasing fatigue performance
– Increase plate thickness (minimum 2 in. for DT > 8in.; 1.5 in. up to 8 in. )
– Reduce bolt circle ratio (increasing number of bolts not as effective)
 Groove welded connection with smaller opening in the end plate
provides better fatigue performance than fillet welded connection
– Requires thinner plate and lesser fasteners
– End plate with small opening reduces plate flexibility
– Weld quality of backing ring to tube weld must be ensured
 Resistance of multi-sided tube depends on roundness
– Increase bend radius (minimum 1 in)
– Increase number of sides
• Recommend 12 or more, preferably minimum 16 in larger diameter tubes (DT ≥ 16 in.)
• Should not use less than 8 sides

 Use minimum 8 bolts

– Recommend 12 bolts for high mast structures

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Cracking in Multi-sided Sections

Eight sided tube with Crack Growth Direction

<1/2 in bend radius

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Fatigue Test Results

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Minimum Number of Sides (NS)
D
Specimen Geometry D (in)
R
 DT = 10 in; NS = 8 0.391

DT = 13 in; NS = 8 0.508

DT = 24 in; NS = 8 0.234
2
2 
NS
Maximum D tested  0.5 in (DT =13 in; NS =8)
DT D
 N S 2  2.5  2.5 T  5 DT
D 0.5
R or, N S  5DT
D  R R(sec   1)
cos 
  2 5 4 61 6 
 R 1        1 Outer Flat-to-Flat Distance Minimum NS
 2 24 720 
2 2 DT < 13 in 8
2 R    DT   
R   
  
2 2  NS  4  NS  13 in < DT ≤ 24 in 12
D
 2.5 T2 24 in < DT ≤ 50 in 16
NS

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Stiffened Connections - Note
 Optimized stiffened socket connections can provide cost
effective solutions for (high mast) structures with larger
diameters and thicker tubes (DT≥ 36 in; tT ≥ ½ in)

 Recommendations:
– Tapered stiffeners with termination angle of 15o on the tube wall
– At least 8 stiffeners be used equally spaced around the tube wall
– Stiffener height ≈ 1.6 × stiffener spacing
– Stiffener thickness ≈ 1.25 × tube thickness
– Tube thickness ≥ ¼ in
– Weld wrap around stiffener termination on tube wall
– No grinding of weld termination to smooth transition with tube face

 CAFT of optimized stiffened socket connection: 7 ksi

(Category D) Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center
Lehigh University
Hand Hole Cracking
Reinforced Unreinforced
Handhole Handhole

Frame

This failure mode has not

been reported in field
Pole Wall

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Hand Hole Detail

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Mast-arm-to-column Connection

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Nominal Stress Calculation (2)
 Stiffened connections
– Section at stiffener top weld toe on tube wall
– Section at fillet weld toe on tube wall
• Ignore stiffener section (Implicitly considered in SCF
equations)
– Section at stiffener base
• Include stiffener section (use with Frank-Fisher equation)

 Reinforced holes and cutouts in tubes

– For cracking from weld toe and weld root:
• Consider net section property of the tube including the
hole and the reinforcement
– For root cracking:
• Stress calculated above shall be magnified by SCF of 4.0
where width of opening limited to 40% of tube diameter
– For unreinforced hole same as root cracking
Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center
Lehigh University
Acknowledgements
Sponsors Others
AASHTO / FHWA State Departments of Transportation
TRB – NRC, National Academies Mr. Reilly Thompson, Mr. Nirab Manandhar,
NCHRP Project Panel Dr. Eric Kaufmann, Dr. John W. Fisher,
Dr. Richard Sause, Dr. Karl Frank
Mr. Carl Macchietto
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Valmont, NE; Millerbernd, MN;
Technology Alliance Union Metal, OH
Research support at Lehigh University
Disclaimer
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the presentation are
those of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual
states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems Center

Lehigh University
Thank You