ABSTRACT

The analysis and design of all the components of even the Double deck Bridge
type can be a fairly laborious and cumbersome job especially with respect to the
various elements of the bridge substructure. For bridges located on major
perennial rivers, resort will have to be made to deep foundations like wells or
pile foundations, the design of which involves lengthy computational effort. The
bridge engineer should be equipped with a handy computational tool with the
help of which he can quickly and reliably determine the suitability of various
layouts and configuration of the sub-structure before finalizing the most
optimum design of the substructure. In this thesis and attempt has been made to
develop a P.C. based software on VB.Net platform for the analysis and design of
substructure for bridges with simply-supported spans. The computer programme
includes the analysis and of wall-type and circular piers and includes the option
for the complete analysis and design of two-types of deep foundations on the
basis of the relevant IS Codes of Practice: Well foundations and pile
foundations. The pile foundations can be analyzed and designed for both river
and non-river bridge crossings and the user is presented the option of two types
of piles for use in the foundations: under-reamed piles particularly for non-river
bridge foundations and bored cast-in-situ circular piles. A noteworthy feature of
the program is that lateral load analysis of both free and fixed-head piles can be
carried out by the user in line with the recommendations of the relevant IS
Codes. The user friendly and interactive program assists the user in the selection
of preliminary dimensions of the well foundation, the safety of which is
checked of the elastic state of the soil surrounding the well and at ultimate
loads. Structural design of the critical well components like well curb, steining
and well cap is incorporated in the software. The results for foundation design
obtained from the program have been validated with long-hand calculations
present in the Appendix.

CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
Preconstruction planning at the beginning of a project will ensure that the deck
Bridge is constructed in accordance with the Standard Specifications and also
can help detect problems that might arise during construction. Preconstruction
planning
includes:
(1) Discussions and a conference with the Contractor,
(2) Review of our responsibilities
(3) Familiarization with the plans and specifications that relate to the planned
work.
The subject of bridge deck construction may be introduced at the
preconstruction conference especially if there are any unusual conditions. The
deck construction conference with the Contractor should be scheduled prior to
stem and soffit construction. The discussion at the preconstruction conference
might include such items as scheduling, grade control, access and operational
considerations, false work requirements, sequence of concrete placement, and
concrete quality control and strength requirements.
OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS
Development of an interactive user-friendly software for the analysis and design
of substructures of RCC bridges with simply supported spans for river as well
as non-river bridge crossings.
SCOPE OF THE WORK

The analysis of the simply supported super-structure has been carried out for
only two loading classes: Class AA and Class A. Two type of piers are included
in the software: walltype and hammer-head type with a circular shaft. Besides
gravity loads, lateral loads due to wind, earthquake and hydro-dynamic effect
are considered in the analysis. The well foundation analysis is performed at both
elastic and ultimate state. The analysis and design of pile foundation is restricted
to under-reamed and bored cast-in-situ piles in both cohesionless and cohesive
soils for vertical as well as lateral loads. Structural design of piles and pile-cap
is included in the software. The software does not have the option of generating
detailing and working drawings of the bridge sub-structure.
FOUNDATIONS
The selection of the foundation system for a particular site depends on many
considerations, including the nature of subsoil, location where a bridge is
proposed to be constructed i.e. over a river, road, or a valley, etc. & the scour
depth. A bridge may have either have the following types of foundations:
1. Well foundations:
It is the most common type of foundation in India for both road & railway
bridges. Such foundation can be sunk to great depths and can carry very heavy
vertical and lateral loads. Well foundations can also be installed in a boulder
stratum. It is a massive structure and is relatively rigid in its structural behavior.
2. Pile foundations:
It consist of relatively long and slender members, called piles which are used to
transfer loads through weak soil or water to deeper soil or rock strata having a
high bearing capacity. They are also used in normal ground conditions for
elevated road ways.

The analysis and the design of all the components of a bridge particularly with
reference to the bridge substructure can become a very lengthy and laborious
task if the calculations are attempted manually. A design engineer would like to
try various configurations, shapes and sizes of the principal components of a
bridge before finalizing the most optimum combination on the basis of safety,
economics and aesthetics of the elements of the super-structure and the substructure. At the same time, in spite of the best efforts during sub-soil
investigations, many uncertainties always exist with respect to the sub-soil
conditions which may be encountered at pier and foundation locations.
Unexpected sub-soil conditions may require a significant redesign of the
foundation or in extreme cases the foundation type may have to be changed
from for example an open-footing to a pile or a well foundation. For the above
eventualities, it is desirable that a quick, handy and reliable computational tool
should be available to the design engineer for the analyses and design of bridge
sub-structure in general and well and pile foundations in particular.
In this thesis an attempt has been made to develop P.C. software package in the
VB.Net platform for the analysis and design of sub-structures for concrete
bridges with simply supported spans.
Analysis of the super-structure for loads transferred to the sub-structure is
included in the software. Two IRC loading categories: Class AA and Class A are
considered for superstructure analysis. The option for single lane and two lanes
of traffic is included. The user is provided with the option of two types of
concrete piers: wall-type and hammer-head type with a circular shaft. The
analysis and design of both these types of piers is included in the software. In
the software, the option is provided for two types of deep foundations: well and
piles. Well foundations are essentially meant for river-bridge crossings where as
the option for pile foundations take care of pile analysis and design for both
non-river and river bridge crossings. The analysis of the well foundation is

carried out as per the relevant IRC code for the resultant axial, lateral loads and
moments transferred from the super-structure for the following two conditions:
(1) The soil surrounding the well is in an elastic state (2) At ultimate load
conditions. The program includes check on thickness of the bottom plug and the
analysis and design of the critical components of a well viz. well curb, well
steining and well cap. Practical considerations related to construction of wells
are examined through a check on the sinking effort developed in the well. Two
types of piles are available for design of pile foundations: (1) Under-reamed
piles and (2) Bored cast-in-situ circular piles. Under-reamed piles are essentially
meant for non-river bridge crossings and their design for vertical and lateral
loads has been carried out as per recommendations of IS: 2911. The software
includes the analysis and design of both free-head and fixed-head bored cast-insitu circular piles in cohesion less as well as cohesive soils. A noteworthy
feature of the software is the lateral load analysis of the pile as per the relevant
IS Code. The design of the pile foundation concludes with check on group
behavior including settlement analysis and structural design of the pile and the
pile cap.
TYPES OF PIERS
Typical shapes of piers commonly used in practice are as shown in Fig. 2.1.
They can be solid, cellular, trestle or hammer-head types. Solid and cellular
piers for river bridges are provided with semicircular cut-waters to facilitate and
streamlined flow and to reduce the scour. Solid piers can be of mass concrete or
of masonry for heights of up to 6 m and spans up to about 20 m. Hammer-head
type piers are increasingly used in urban elevated highway applications, as it
provides slender substructure with open and free-flowing perception to the
motorists using the road below. It is also used for river crossings with skew
alignment, which will result in least obstruction to passage of flood below the
bridge. Cellular, trestle, hammerhead types are suitable for heights above 6 m

and spans over 20 m. In trestle type piers, concrete hinges have been recently
introduced between the top of column and the bent cap in order to avoid
moment being transferred from deck to the columns. Reinforced concrete
framed types of piers as shown in Fig. 2.1 (e) have also been used in recent
years. Such piers lead to economy in cost of superstructure as it reduces the
span length of girders on either side of pier, but at the same time it will
accumulate debris and floating trees from the stream flow. Two expansion joints
formed on each pier will result in riding discomfort.

Typical Shapes of Piers

Minimum top width of pier is kept 600 mm more than the out-to-out dimension
of the bearing plates, measured along the longitudinal axis of the superstructure.
Length of pier should not be less than 1200 mm in excess of the out-to-out
dimension of the bearing plates measured perpendicular to the axis of the
superstructure. The bottom width of pier is usually larger than the top width so
as to restrict the net stresses within the permissible values. It is normally
sufficient to provide a batter of 1 in 25 on all sides for the portion of pier
between the bottom of the pier cap and the top of the well or pile cap, as the
case may be.
PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF PIER
Analysis of pier is carried out considering various forces and loads transmitted
from the superstructure and forces acting directly on the pier. Following are the
loads and forces to be resisted by a pier:
1. Dead load: Dead load of superstructure and substructure above the base level
of pier.

2. Live load: This consists of Live load of traffic passing over the bridge. Effect
of eccentric loading due to live load should also be considered.
3. Buoyancy:
Buoyancy has the influence of reducing weight. In masonry or concrete
structure, the buoyancy effect through pore pressure may be limited to 15
percent of full buoyancy on the submerged portion.
4. Wind load:
Wind load is considered on the live load, superstructure and the part of the
substructure above the base of pier or water level, whichever is higher. It acts on
the area of the bridge in elevation and is thus always taken to be acting laterally
to the bridge only. This force could be considered as per recommendations of
IS:8752.
CONCRETE MIX AND MATERIALS
A complete discussion of concrete mixes and materials can be found in the
"Concrete Technology Manual". The following is an abbreviated list of
pertinent items:
AGGREGATES
1. Source
2. Natural. or manufactured
3. Testing and gradation
4. Quantity available
5. Moisture control
6. Lightweight concrete

WATER CEMENT RATIO

1. Aggregate particle size and configuration
2. Admixtures
3. Strength requirements (contract plans)
ADMIXTUROES
1. Type(s) specified
2. Type(S) permitted (Bridge Construction Records & Procedures 100-4)
3. Compatibility of types
4. Effect on strength, shrinkage and workability
5. Testing and approval (prior to incorporating in work)
6. Dispensing and calibration
MIX DESIGNS AND TRIAL BATCHES
1. Mix designs submitted by the Contractor and approved by the Structure
Representative Cement content and strength requirements (bridge decks 7- sack
min.)
Admixture(s) Combined grading of aggregates
Type of cement
Workability, placing and finishing characteristics Scheduling of-trial batches
Uniformity (Using the same concrete mixes as other projects supplied by the
same plant).
BATCH PLANTS

A field review of the Contractor's proposed batch plant should be made at an

early stage in the contract for specification compliance. This review is usually
made by District personnel, using forms HC-12 & HC-14, .
It is a good idea for Structure's personnel to be aware of what the review
involves, and to also check the following items:
Aggregate storage and handling (intermingling, contamination, moisture
control, etc.)
Cement storage (protection, weighing, venting, sampling, quantity available,
etc.)
Admixture(s) (introduction and measurement)
Water (adjustment for aggregate moisture content variation)
Plant equipment and measuring devices (compliance with specifications,
condition and maintenance)
Transit-mix trucks (compliance with specifications, capacity, condition and
maintenance)
Hot and/or cold weather provisions
Production capacity and haul time
Inspection facilities provided
Delivery ticket format and information
DECK CONSTRUCTIONS CONFERENCE
Prior to stem and soffit forming, a meeting should be held with the Contractor to
discuss the particular features of the deck being constructed. It is important that
the Engineer understand the Contractor's proposed methods so that he can

determine if these methods are compatible with the specifications and

requirements of the contract. This is the time that any differences should be
resolved. The Engineer should also discuss any contingency plan that the
Contractor has for problems that may arise. The following is a general outline of
what this meeting might entail but the particulars of each job are the
responsibility of the Engineer to determine and bring out in discussion:
SEQUENCE AND LIMITS OF PLACEMENT
1. Do the plans and specifications require certain sequences?
2. Does the Contractor plan on any wide pours?
3. Will the Contractor place any longitudinal or transverse

CHAPTER - 2
CONSTRUCTION
TYPES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
1. Stay-in-place or lost-deck forming
The most common stay in place forms are "lost deck forms" used for box girder
construction. Although there are variations in forming methods and construction
details, the general system of forming a typical box girder bridge is shown at the
end of this section. Low velocity powder driven nails used to attach wood
ledgers to concrete in lost deck forming systems have been recently approved
for use.
Lost-deck- sheathing can be an exterior or interior grade plywood, or particle
board (large chip). Metal is sometimes used for corner and fillet forms or as
reinforcement. Metal and precast concrete stay-in place forms, some having a
structural significance in the final product, have been permitted on some
projects (usually detailed on the contract plans or by CCO).
2. Exposed surface forms
In deck construction this would include the soffit forms for slab bridges, the
deck forms for T-beam, steel and precast concrete girder bridges and the deck
slab overhang for all bridge Types. Soffit forms for slab bridges being
comprised of plywood sheeting attached directly to and supported by the false
work joists or stringers are usually considered an integral part of the false work
system.
Deck slab forms for T-beam, steel and precast concrete girder bridges and
overhangs are usually of conventional plywood and joist construction. The
method of supporting the forms is usually dictated by the type of superstructure.

Although there are deviations and refinements, the forming systems shown at
the end of this section illustrate the basic methods used for each type.
STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY
The adequacy of all deck forming systems must be checked by stress analysis;1
however,- form behaviour cannot always be predicted or determined by
analytical proof of its load carrying capacity. Theoretical deflections can be
calculated if the physical properties and condition of the material are known,
but in the case of "lost deck forms", the sheathing is frequently a material or
grade of material whose modulus of elasticity is questionable particularly when
the moisture content approaches the saturation point.2 Consequently, deflections
may and probably do exceed some arbitrary value commonly accepted and
known as a "negligible amount".
There is also evidence that deflections and settlement of the forms is not
instantaneous but continues, in some cases, during the initial set period of the
concrete.
What effect, if any, concrete shrinkage has on prolonged form deflection and
settlement is debatable. The important point is that deflection and settlement can
and do occur after concrete placement. Normally, yielding of the forms is not
structurally detrimental to the deck slab as long as it does not continue after the
initial set period. Attaining a uniform riding surface may be impaired if the
concrete subsides after form deflection and settlement. The joists supporting the
deck slabs of steel and precast concrete girder bridges and deck overhangs are
considered as false work and the sheathing deflections or undulations between
joists, constituting forms for exposed concrete surfaces, are covered by the
Standard Specifications.
The structural adequacy and deflection of timber joists can be determined by
stress analysis. Patented joists should be load tested to determine the dead load

deflection for the actual condition of loading if the manufacturer's loading data
is in question.
Normally patented or timber joists for steel and precast concrete girder bridges
are supported by ledgers which are either underpinned by posts to the bottom
flanges of the girders or suspended from the girders by hangers. Custom or
homemade hangers made of steel bar stock bent to form a "U" which fits over
the top of the girders should only be used after they have been satisfactorily
load tested.
This method of fabrication induces high stress points at the bends, and use of
this type of hanger has resulted in total failure under relatively light loads.
Many types of patented hangers are available for deck forming systems on
either steel or concrete girder bridges. The safe working loads recommended by
most manufacturers are based on and are subject to certain conditions and any
modification of the units themselves or deviation from their intended use will
affect their capacity.
One common stipulation is that the hanger bolts be either flush with or a
specified distance from the edges of the girder flange. The rated capacity of
some hangers may also depend on whether they are used on steel or concrete
girders. Hangers must be investigated for potential uplift and subsequent
rotation due to unbalanced loading.
Restraint may be provided by the forming system or the hangers may be welded
to the girders subject to the conditional requirements set forth in the Standard
Specifications.3 On conventional steel girder bridges, restraint is provided by
the extension of the haunch or deck forms under the girder flanges.
Overhang forms for box girder, T-beam and slab bridges are usually supported
directly by the false work system by underpinning with posts to the soffit forms.

On steel and precast concrete girder bridges the forms are supported by
overhang brackets or jacks attached to the exterior girders.4 either system is
considered false work and analyzed as such.
Deflection and settlement must be minimal for appearance and satisfactory
grade control when screeds are located in the overhang area. Determination of
deflection and settlement is difficult, particularly when bracket or jacks with
cantilevered joists or outriggers are used. A load test would be justified if form
behaviour and subsequent deflection and settlement cannot be. ascertained by
stress analysis or precedent.
Patented overhang brackets and jacks, such as those manufactured by Superior
Concrete Accessories, Inc., Waco
Scaffold and Shoring Company and Burke Concrete Accessories, Inc., are in
general use. Design information, including deflection data, for these units are
available from the manufacturer and should be requested from the Contractor to
check these products for contract compliance.
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND GRADING
This is another area where good preconstruction planning will pay off. A
discussion with the Contractor should determine the proposed framing system,
types of material to be used, whether screeds will be located on the edge of deck
forms, and how the forms will be adjusted. You should also discuss your
grading requirements and procedures at this time.
Control for lost deck forms in box girder bridges is usually established the next
working day after the soffit and stem pour. Deck grades should not be
established in the field until adequate safety features have been installed.
Providing a cut from the top of a rebar dowel cast in the girders at
predetermined points will give adequate control for deck forming. If cuts are

given by the Engineer, all cuts should be to top of deck and then let the
Contractor determine the elevations of form supports.
Grades should be provided at all breaks in grade and at intervals not closer than
8 feet longitudinally and 24 feet transversely to the centreline of bridge. The
amount of vertical curve and camber must be considered when determining
these intervals, so that string-lining between these points will not cut out camber
or vertical curve. Refer to the False work Manual for more discussion on
camber. Right after deck grades have been established; a check should be made
at random locations to see how these grades correlate with what is already
poured.
Do the stirrup heights fit? (The length of the stirrup should have been checked
before the stem pour). Is the structural depth correct? Now is the time to
consider any necessary grade adjustments, not when you find out that the deck
steel isn't quite right after it has been placed.
Grade for the deck overhangs will require extra attention since these grades.
Produce one of the more obvious lines of the structure. First, all grades should
be picked at the locations where the grade adjustment is to be made. This means
field measuring the locations of the overhang supports and plotting these on the
4-scale drawing or edge of deck profile line.
Before grading the overhangs, enough load should be on the forms to tighten up
the joints. Usually this is accomplished when the major portion of the deck
rebar is in place.
Many different schemes have been proposed for grading overhangs (i.e., grade
every other support, grade it all l/4 inch low the first time then bring it up, etc.).
Until you have proven the Contractor's system on your job, you should be
prepared to check each location@ Your final check is the "eye ball, but make

sure all final wedging and adjustments at the face of girders have been
completed.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
The horizontal alignment of the structure will generally dictate the tools
necessary to provide this line. Before the horizontal line is set on the edge of
deck forms, the grade of these forms must be close. This rough grading can
usually be accomplished by the Contractor with the use of templates and the lost
deck grade dowels.
Straight lines are usually established with a transit and/or string line. Curved
lines can be established with a transit and standard chord offset procedures
using the centreline of abutments and bents as control points. On complex
projects it would be wise to get District Surveys involved.
No matter what method of establishing line is used, always check the following
two items:
1) Check into known points at each end of the structure, and
2) Check the overall width at several locations throughout the length of thestructure.
STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY, MORTAR TIGHTNESS AND CONDITION
OF SURFACE
Obviously, the structural adequacy of the forming system, as with false work, is
not determined solely on the basis of stress analysis. Inspection of the forms is
necessary to ensure their stability

DEPTH OF STRUCTURAL SECTIONS

Deck slab thickness, including the effective depth(s) and coverage of
reinforcing steel, must be checked to insure structural adequacy. This is usually
done by measuring from a string line pulled between the screeds or bulkheads
prior to the finishing machine adjustment, and from the strike off or rollers of
the finishing machine during the adjustment of the machine. The depths should
again be checked during the pour by stabbing the plastic concrete following
strike off. (A snap tie with the correct deck thickness marked on it is a good tool
for this). Effective depth and clearance of reinforcement is discussed in Section

CHAPTER -3
REINFORCING STEEL
GENERAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW FOR DECK REINFORCING
Standard Specifications require that all reinforcing for bridges conform to the
specifications of ASTM Designation: A 615, Grade 60 or low alloy steel
deformed bars conforming to ASTM Designation: A 706. Welded wire fabric
may be used in lieu of uncoated reinforcing for overlays only. If the plans show
that the deck reinforcing is epoxy coated, then all the requirements of Section
5201.02A must be met plus the epoxy coating must meet the requirements of the
Standard Specifications.
STANDARD DETAILS
These items will be included in the Standard Plans. Check page B0-5 for
transverse and longitudinal reinforcing spacing requirements, location of deck
construction joints and deck reinforcing placement notes. If there are Access
Openings in the deck, check page B7-11 for reinforcing details. For placement
of deck drains and barrier rail reinforcing details.
DETAILING AND FABRICATION
In order to reduce the probability of errors due to detailing, the deck contours
(4-scales) should be made available to the prime contractor for the reinforcing
steel fabricator's use. Special details of the deck reinforcing and any change
orders affecting reinforcement should be brought to the contractor's attention.
Errors in detailing or fabrication are more likely to occur on bridges with the
following characteristics:
varying girder spacing
varying deck thickness

Large skew
varying skew
Wide curved bridges with small radius of curvature
Widening and future widening

Typical errors to watch out for on these bridges include incorrect reinforcing in
the corners; truss bars not cantered over the girders, incorrect termination
location (endow), omission of bars at the overhangs at the bent cap, etc. Also
omission of reinforcing shown on the Standard Details, especially around
barrier rail mounted utilities is not uncommon. Fabrication is seldom a problem
unless the standard industry practices for fabrication tolerances are ignored.
PLACEMENT
Reinforcing must be placed as shown on the contract plans, the Standard Plans,
or any applicable change orders, Accurate reinforcing steel placement is very
important. Included in the Appendix is a memo with calculations showing that
the moment carrying capacity of a bridge deck varies greatly when the effective
depth of the section is only slightly changed.
Correct placement is covered in Section 52-1.07 of the Standard Specifications.
For specific problems in placement not covered in the Standard Specifications,
check with the designer to determine the tolerances or variations in placement
that are allowable.
During field inspection of the reinforcing, check the markings on the bars. The
markings identify the bar size, grade and steel mill.
Periodic and timely inspections are strongly recommended during bar
placement in order to detect and correct errors early.

CLEARANCES

Correctly placed deck reinforcing that provides the planned clearance or cover
for the bars is extremely important. Too little cover , especially in a corrosive
environment, will not adequately protect reinforcing from rusting and can
dramatically shorten the life of the deck. Spelling of deck concrete, barrier rail
or edge of deck concrete caused by corroding reinforcing with inadequate cover
creates unsightly stains and costly maintenance problems.
Be sure and check that the minimum clearance to the top deck, the boundaries
and the endo is 2 inches. In marine environments or in areas where de-icing
chemicals are used, the planned cover will probably be greater than the
minimum 2 inches. The required minimum clearance will be shown on the
plans.
SPLICES
Lap splicing, the most common method of splicing deck bars, is covered in
section 52-1.08A of the Standard Specifications. For the most common sizes of
Grade 60 deck reinforcing, the minimum lap splice length is 45 bar diameters.
Unless shown otherwise shown on the plans, the splices in adjacent bars shall be
staggered. The minimum distance between the staggered splices shall be 45
diameters or one splice length. The American Concrete Institute will permit
shorter distance between staggered splices depending upon the level of stress in
the bars. If the contractor's bar splicing plan shows the deck bar splices
staggered at less than the. Minimum distance, check with the designer to verify
the proposed spacing. During your inspection, make sure the splices are
securely tied and will not move during the deck pour. For widening and closure
pours, check the plans carefully for the type of splice required. Refer to Section
52-1.08 B thru E of the Standard Specifications and Bridge Construction Memo
165-7.0 located in the Bridge Construction Records and Procedures for the
correct procedures to follow for welded or mechanically spliced reinforcing.

BLOCKING AND TYING

All deck reinforcing must be securely tied and blocked up off the lost deck
forms to prevent any movement during placement of the deck concrete. The
Standard Specifications do not permit the use of wooden, plastic or aluminum
supports. If ferrous metal chairs are used, they must also have at least 1" of
clearance. The plastic coatings on the chair feet are not considered to be
effective and are not counted to be part of the 1" clearance. The Specifications
also do not permit placing reinforcing into wet concrete during the pour.
Between the girders, "ducked" or buried bars are shown on the plans to support
the bottom mat. They are #4 bars spaced at about 2 ft on center. Truss bars and
concrete blocks support the top mat. Truss bars must be securely tied to prevent
any rotation. If they rotate, the top mat will be out of position and a reduction in
deck strength will be the result. If truss bars are not used, the contractor will use
concrete spacer blocks to support the top mat.
At or near the girders, some contractors will attempt to support the top deck mat
on the stirrup tails. This can be aneffective method of support provided that the
tails are correctly positioned to do this task and the bars are securely tied to the
tails to prevent movement before or during the pour. In general, mats of
reinforcing steel must be tied so that individual bars cannot move during the
pour. The American Concrete Institute recommends that bars be tied at every
other intersection.
This is adequate in most cases. At corners, over bent caps and other special
locations, more frequent tying may be necessary.

CHAPTER - 4
CONCRETE PLACEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION

TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT
Section 90-6.03 of the Standard Specifications in effect allows the Contractor to
transport concrete by any means of conveyance, providing the consistency and
workability of the mixed concrete upon discharge at the delivery point is
suitable for adequate placement and consolidation, and providing the mixed
concrete, after hauling, conforms to the requirements of Section 90-6.01
"General". This section establishes tests and criteria for mixed concrete suitable
for placement.
Usually, concrete is delivered to the job site via truck transit-mixers. Due to
their infrequent use, other methods of transportation such as truck agitators,
open top vehicles, barges, etc., will not be discussed. These methods are used
for special cases and should be individually investigated.
DELIVERY RATE
Since the rate of concrete placement affects the finishing operation, the
Contractor's proposed or stipulated delivery rate warrants consideration.
Let's assume that the contractor plans to place 600 C.Y. at 45 C.Y./hr. This
means that your pour will take a minimum of 13 hours plus. So if you start at
7:00 a.m., you'll finish placement and strike off around 8:30 p.m. The contractor
tells you that he has asked for 5 trucks, but can only get 4. However, he has
been assured by the supplier that this will be more than ample as each truck
carries 10 C.Y. of concrete. During previous pours, you have noticed that it
takes roughly 5 minutes to discharge a 10 C.Y. truck, haul time to and from the
plant is roughly 30 minutes each way, and it takes another 10 minutes to charge
the mixer. Considering just the pour rate of 45 C.Y./hr., you need 4.5 trucks/hour
or one every 13+, say 14 minutes. However, in order to keep up a steady rate of

pour, one must consider the complete cycle a truck would make which is 75
minutes. Therefore, if we divide the 75-minute cycle by the 140 minute pour
rate, we find 75/14 = 5.4 trucks or 6 trucks are needed. Inform the contractor,
according to the figures he has supplied, that at least 6 trucks would be required
to maintain 45 C.Y./hr. and that lights may be needed, a double shift worked,
etc.
The secret of a successful pour is getting a good start and maintaining a constant
delivery rate. Increased mechanization and decreased use of manual methods
have allowed deck pours to proceed at a rate governed by the capacity of the
finishing equipment and the rate of delivery and rarely by the physical
limitations of the crew. Therefore, it is evident that generally, pour rates can be
reduced to mathematical calculations.
MIX CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY
Variations in consistency of the mix should be avoided. Changes in penetration,
gradings, etc,, have a cumulative effect on the ease of finishing, and are
reflected in the finished surface.
INSPECTION AND TESTS
Methods and frequency of sampling and testing concrete are covered in the
Concrete Technology Manual and the Construction Manual. Uniformity of
mixed concrete is checked by differences in penetration (California Test 533)
and variations in the proportion of coarse aggregate (California Test 529). The
difference in penetration of two samples from the same batch or truck shall not
exceed 1/2". Concrete tickets, particularly those for the first loads should be
checked for conformance with specification requirements. Section 90-6.03 of
the Standard Specifications states that "Each load of ready-mixed concrete
delivered at the jobsite, except loads used for pavement, shall be accompanied
by a ticket showing volume of concrete, the concrete mix identification number,

and the total amount of water added to the load. The ticket shall also show the
time of day at which materials were batched and for transit-mixed concrete, the
reading of the revolution counter at the time the truck mixer is charged."
Construction Memo 100-3.0 outlines the procedure to be
The Specifications also states that "Noadditional mixing water shall be
incorporated into the concreteduring hauling or after arrival at the delivery
point, unlessauthorized by the Engineer." water that can be incorporated into
the concrete and also regulates the consistency of the concrete based on nominal
penetration requirements. Currently, the Contractor designs and proposes the
use of a concrete mix based on the desired workability of the mix, the local
resources available, and the requirements of the Standard Specifications (and
Special Provisions). This mix may contain mineral and/or chemical admixtures
to enhance the performance of the concrete so long as the use of these
admixtures is approved by our Translab. The Engineer reviews the proposed
concrete mix designs and approves the mixes that comply with the
specifications.
After the concrete is delivered to the point of discharge, the Engineer usually
allows the Contractor to regulate the amount of water that is added to the mix in
order to maintain proper consistency and uniformity of the concrete. This places
the responsibility on the Contractor, eliminating the need for constant inspection
at the point of discharge. The Contractor knows not to exceed the maximum
allowable water per the mix

CHAPTER - 5
BRIDGE DECK SAFETY

Frequently the Contractor will want to remove the safety railings along the edge
of deck if they conflict with his deck finishing machine. Deck finishing
machines usually come in sections approximately 10 feet. If the width of the
bridge deck is say 32 feet, then the machine must be made up of 4 sections or 40
feet. This meansthat 8 feet must hang over one side of the bridge or the other.
Since the machine may not be high enough to pass over the top of the railings,
the Contractor may want to remove a portion of the safety rail. See Figure 1.

One solution to this problem is shown in Figure 2. The legs of these machines
are adjustable and will allow the machine to be elevated high enough to pass
over the top safety railings eliminating the need to remove the railings. The
strike off float must be lowered to make up the difference. This can be
accomplished on most modern Bidwell machines without any modifications or
problems.
The next problem we encounter is with the deck finishing bridges. These are the
bridges which span the freshly placed concrete immediately behind the deck
finishing machine. Older finishing bridges come in 10 feet sections that cannot
be raised to clear the safety railings. This problem can be solved by having
shorter sections made up, say a five footer and a two or three footer, as shown in
Figure 3.

Most modern finishing bridges are internally telescopic which allows them to be
adjusted to almost any width. Another problem with finishing bridges is that the
safety railings are no longer 42 inches high to the men on the finishing bridges.
It is probably more like 16 inches from the top of the finishing bridge to the top
of the safety railings. This means that the
Contractor needs to make up metal brackets which will hold a 42 inches high
safety rail to the ends of the finishing bridge.

DOUBLE DECK BRIDGE

CHAPTER - 6
CREATING THE BRIDGE GEOMETRY/STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
STAAD.Pro can make your bridge design and analysis task easier. The bridge
geometry in STAAD.Pro
can be constructed in many ways:
1. STAAD.Pro user interface
2. Structure Wizard
3. Using a DXF import (importing a dxf MicroStation or AutoCAD drawing)
4. Structural Modeler
5. ProSteel 3D
In this case part of the bridge geometry will be created using Structure Wizard.
The bridge geometry is shown in Figure 1.

(a) Bridge Geometry Discussed

(b) Property Assignment

Reinforcement details of Pile Cap

BRIDGE LOADING
Loading Type

L=0 ft VLT
PRELOAD
L=0 ft VLT STEP 1
L=0 ft VLT STEP 2

Components
Self weight of the structure
Distributed Load as shown below:

VLT PRELOAD
Left Side:
0.2 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.017 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042 k/ft load on each
member.

VLT STEP 1:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042k/ft load on each member.

VLT STEP 2:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.7 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0058k/ft load on each member.

L=3 ft VLT
PRELOAD
L=3 ft VLT STEP 1
L=3 ft VLT STEP 2

Self weight of the structure

Distributed Load as shown below:

VLT PRELOAD
Left Side:
0.2 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.017 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042 k/ft load on each
member.

VLT STEP 1:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042k/ft load on each member.

VLT STEP 2:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.7 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0058k/ft load on each member.

L=6 ft VLT
PRELOAD

Self weight of the structure

Distributed Load as shown below:

L=6 ft VLT STEP 1

L=6 ft VLT STEP 2

VLT PRELOAD
Left Side:
0.2 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.017 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042 k/ft load on each
member.

VLT STEP 1:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042k/ft load on each member.

VLT STEP 2:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.7 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0058k/ft load on each member.

L=7 ft VLT
PRELOAD
L=7 ft VLT STEP 1
L=7 ft VLT STEP 2

Self weight of the structure

Distributed Load as shown below:

VLT PRELOAD
Left Side:
0.2 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.017 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042 k/ft load on each
member.

VLT STEP 1:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042k/ft load on each member.

VLT STEP 2:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.7 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0058k/ft load on each member.

L=9 ft VLT
PRELOAD
L=9 ft VLT STEP 1
L=9 ft VLT STEP 2

Self weight of the structure

Distributed Load as shown below:

VLT PRELOAD
Left Side:
0.2 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.017 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042 k/ft load on each
member.

VLT STEP 1:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042k/ft load on each member.

VLT STEP 2:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.7 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0058k/ft load on each member.

L=12 ft VLT
PRELOAD
L=12 ft VLT STEP 1
L=12 ft VLT STEP 2

Self weight of the structure

Distributed Load as shown below:

VLT PRELOAD
Left Side:
0.2 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.017 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042 k/ft load on each
member.

VLT STEP 1:
Left Side:

1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.05 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0042k/ft load on each member.

VLT STEP 2:
Left Side:
1.8 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.15 k/ft load on each member.
Right Side:
0.7 kip/(4 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0058k/ft load on each member

Weight of the structure

Lateral Load

Self weight of the structure

Self weight of the structure
Distributed Load as shown below:
0.075 kip/(2 beams * 3ft deck) = 0.0125 k/ft load on each
member.
0.075 kip point Load as shown below

Bridge geometry in STAAD.Pro interface

Select the segmented member

3D illustration of member offset

Select the members

3D Rendered View of the structure

Combined axial and bending stress distribution diagram

Moment, shear, and axial force diagram

Force Limits

Combined axial and bending stress contour

Design results

STAAD.Pro Model Exported to Structural Modeler

STAAD.Pro ANALYSIS RESULT

START JOB INFORMATION

ENGINEER DATE 10-Sep-09
END JOB INFORMATION
INPUT WIDTH 79
UNIT FEET KIP
JOINT COORDINATES
1 0 0 0; 2 5.25 0 0; 3 10.5 0 0; 4 15.75 0 0; 5 21 0 0; 6 5.25 -1.67 0;
9 0 0 5; 10 5.25 0 5; 11 10.5 0 5; 12 15.75 0 5; 13 21 0 5; 14 5.25 -1.67 5;
21 0 -0.5 0; 22 15 -0.5 0; 23 0 -0.5 5; 24 15 -0.5 5; 25 0.25 -2.667 5.25;
26 0.0833333 -1.22233 5.08333; 27 0.166667 -1.94467 5.16667;
28 0.25 -2.667 4.75; 29 0.0833333 -1.22233 4.91667;
30 0.166667 -1.94467 4.83333; 31 -0.25 -2.667 4.75;
32 -0.0833333 -1.22233 4.91667; 33 -0.166667 -1.94467 4.83333;
34 -0.25 -2.667 5.25; 35 -0.0833333 -1.22233 5.08333;
36 -0.166667 -1.94467 5.16667; 37 0.0833333 -1.22233 0.0833333;
38 0.166667 -1.94467 0.166667; 39 0.25 -2.667 0.25; 40 0.25 -2.667 -0.25;
41 0.0833333 -1.22233 -0.0833333; 42 0.166667 -1.94467 -0.166667;
43 -0.25 -2.667 -0.25; 44 -0.0833333 -1.22233 -0.0833333;
45 -0.166667 -1.94467 -0.166667; 46 -0.25 -2.667 0.25;
47 -0.0833333 -1.22233 0.0833333; 48 -0.166667 -1.94467 0.166667;
49 15.0833 -1.22233 0.0833333; 50 15.1667 -1.94467 0.166667;
51 15.25 -2.667 0.25; 52 15.25 -2.667 -0.25; 53 15.0833 -1.22233 -0.0833333;
54 15.1667 -1.94467 -0.166667; 55 14.75 -2.667 -0.25;
56 14.9167 -1.22233 -0.0833333; 57 14.8333 -1.94467 -0.166667;
58 14.75 -2.667 0.25; 59 14.9167 -1.22233 0.0833333;
60 14.8333 -1.94467 0.166667; 61 15.0833 -1.22233 5.08333;
62 15.1667 -1.94467 5.16667; 63 15.25 -2.667 5.25; 64 15.25 -2.667 4.75;

65 15.0833 -1.22233 4.91667; 66 15.1667 -1.94467 4.83333; 67 14.75 -2.667

4.75;
68 14.9167 -1.22233 4.91667; 69 14.8333 -1.94467 4.83333; 70 14.75 -2.667
5.25;
71 14.9167 -1.22233 5.08333; 72 14.8333 -1.94467 5.16667; 73 1.57186 -0.5 5;
74 8.92814 -0.5 5; 75 12.0719 -0.5 5; 76 19.4281 -0.5 5; 77 5.25 -0.5 5;
78 15.75 -0.5 5; 79 10.5 -0.5 5; 80 2.625 0 5; 81 0.5 0 5; 82 2 0 5;
83 2.955 0 5; 84 3.605 0 5; 85 4.265 0 5; 86 4.925 0 5; 87 2.62186 -0.5 5;
88 3.27186 -0.5 5; 89 3.94186 -0.5 5; 90 4.59186 -0.5 5; 91 5.86 0 5;
92 7.09 0 5; 93 8.32 0 5; 94 8.93 0 5; 95 6.48 -0.5 5; 96 7.7 -0.5 5;
97 18.375 0 5; 98 19 0 5; 99 18.045 0 5; 100 17.395 0 5; 101 16.735 0 5;
102 16.075 0 5; 103 18.3781 -0.5 5; 104 17.7281 -0.5 5; 105 17.0581 -0.5 5;
106 16.4081 -0.5 5; 107 15 0 5; 108 13.91 0 5; 109 12.68 0 5; 110 12.07 0 5;
111 14.52 -0.5 5; 112 13.3 -0.5 5; 113 20.5 0 5; 114 1.57186 -0.500001 0;
115 8.92814 -0.500001 0; 116 12.0719 -0.500013 0; 117 19.4281 -0.500012 0;
118 5.25 -0.5 0; 119 15.75 -0.5 0; 120 10.5 -0.5 0; 121 2.625 0 0; 122 0.5 0 0;
123 2 0 0; 124 2.955 0 0; 125 3.605 0 0; 126 4.265 0 0; 127 4.925 0 0;
128 2.62186 -0.5 0; 129 3.27186 -0.5 0; 130 3.94186 -0.5 0; 131 4.59186 -0.5 0;
132 5.86 0 0; 133 7.09 0 0; 134 8.32 0 0; 135 8.93 0 0; 136 6.48 -0.5 0;
137 7.7 -0.5 0; 138 18.375 0 0; 139 19 0 0; 140 18.045 0 0; 141 17.395 0 0;
142 16.735 0 0; 143 16.075 0 0; 144 18.3781 -0.5 0; 145 17.7281 -0.5 0;
146 17.0581 -0.5 0; 147 16.4081 -0.5 0; 148 15 0 0; 149 13.91 0 0;
150 12.68 0 0; 151 12.07 0 0; 152 14.52 -0.5 0; 153 13.3 -0.5 0; 154 20.5 0 0;
155 0 0 2.5; 156 21 0 2.5; 157 0 0 0.5; 158 5.25 0 0.493827; 159 10.5 0 0.5;
160 15.75 0 0.5; 161 21 0 0.5; 162 0 0 4.5; 163 5.25 0 4.50617; 164 10.5 0 4.5;
165 15.75 0 4.5; 166 21 0 4.5; 167 15 0 0.5; 169 15 0 2.5; 171 15 0 4.5;
172 10.5 -1.67 5; 173 10.5 -1.67 0;
MEMBER INCIDENCES

5 6 173; 7 1 114; 8 6 115; 9 3 116; 11 2 118; 12 4 119; 13 3 120; 14 9 81;

15 10 91; 16 11 110; 17 12 102; 18 14 172; 20 9 73; 21 14 74; 22 11 75;
24 10 77; 25 12 78; 26 11 79; 27 1 157; 28 2 158; 29 3 159; 30 4 160; 31 5 161;
35 1 21; 36 148 22; 37 9 23; 38 107 24; 43 23 26; 44 26 27; 45 27 25; 46 25 28;
47 26 29; 48 27 30; 49 23 29; 50 29 30; 51 30 28; 52 28 31; 53 29 32; 54 30 33;
55 23 32; 56 32 33; 57 33 31; 58 31 34; 59 32 35; 60 33 36; 61 23 35; 62 35 36;
63 36 34; 64 34 25; 65 35 26; 66 36 27; 67 21 37; 68 37 38; 69 38 39; 70 39 40;
71 37 41; 72 38 42; 73 21 41; 74 41 42; 75 42 40; 76 40 43; 77 41 44; 78 42 45;
79 21 44; 80 44 45; 81 45 43; 82 43 46; 83 44 47; 84 45 48; 85 21 47; 86 47 48;
87 48 46; 88 46 39; 89 47 37; 90 48 38; 91 22 49; 92 49 50; 93 50 51; 94 51 52;
95 49 53; 96 50 54; 97 22 53; 98 53 54; 99 54 52; 100 52 55; 101 53 56;
102 54 57; 103 22 56; 104 56 57; 105 57 55; 106 55 58; 107 56 59; 108 57 60;
109 22 59; 110 59 60; 111 60 58; 112 58 51; 113 59 49; 114 60 50; 115 24 61;
116 61 62; 117 62 63; 118 63 64; 119 61 65; 120 62 66; 121 24 65; 122 65 66;
123 66 64; 124 64 67; 125 65 68; 126 66 69; 127 24 68; 128 68 69; 129 69 67;
130 67 70; 131 68 71; 132 69 72; 133 24 71; 134 71 72; 135 72 70; 136 70 63;
137 71 61; 138 72 62; 140 73 14; 141 74 11; 143 76 13; 144 77 14; 148 78 106;
149 75 112; 150 79 75; 151 74 79; 152 77 95; 153 73 87; 154 80 83; 155 81 82;
156 82 80; 157 83 84; 158 84 85; 159 85 86; 160 86 10; 161 87 88; 162 88 89;
163 89 90; 164 90 77; 165 73 82; 166 82 87; 167 87 83; 168 83 88; 169 88 84;
170 84 89; 171 89 85; 172 85 90; 173 90 86; 174 86 77; 175 80 87; 176 91 92;
177 92 93; 178 93 94; 179 94 11; 180 95 96; 181 96 74; 182 77 91; 183 91 95;
184 95 92; 185 92 96; 186 96 93; 187 93 74; 188 74 94; 189 97 98; 190 98 113;
191 99 97; 192 100 99; 193 101 100; 194 102 101; 195 103 76; 196 104 103;
197 105 104; 198 106 105; 199 107 12; 200 108 107; 201 109 108; 202 110
109;
203 111 24; 204 112 111; 205 76 98; 206 98 103; 207 103 99; 208 99 104;

209 104 100; 210 100 105; 211 105 101; 212 101 106; 213 106 102; 214 102
78;
215 97 103; 216 78 107; 218 111 108; 219 108 112; 220 112 109; 221 109 75;
222 75 110; 223 113 13; 224 9 81; 225 10 91; 226 11 110; 227 12 102; 228 80
83;
229 81 82; 230 82 80; 231 83 84; 232 84 85; 233 85 86; 234 86 10; 235 91 92;
236 92 93; 237 93 94; 238 94 11; 239 97 98; 240 98 113; 241 99 97; 242 100
99;
243 101 100; 244 102 101; 245 107 12; 246 108 107; 247 109 108; 248 110
109;
249 113 13; 250 114 6; 251 115 3; 253 117 5; 254 118 6; 257 1 122; 258 2 132;
259 3 151; 260 4 143; 261 119 147; 262 116 153; 263 120 116; 264 115 120;
265 118 136; 266 114 128; 267 121 124; 268 122 123; 269 123 121; 270 124
125;
271 125 126; 272 126 127; 273 127 2; 274 128 129; 275 129 130; 276 130 131;
277 131 118; 278 114 123; 279 123 128; 280 128 124; 281 124 129; 282 129
125;
283 125 130; 284 130 126; 285 126 131; 286 131 127; 287 127 118; 288 121
128;
289 132 133; 290 133 134; 291 134 135; 292 135 3; 293 136 137; 294 137 115;
295 118 132; 296 132 136; 297 136 133; 298 133 137; 299 137 134; 300 134
115;
301 115 135; 302 138 139; 303 139 154; 304 140 138; 305 141 140; 306 142
141;
307 143 142; 308 144 117; 309 145 144; 310 146 145; 311 147 146; 312 148 4;
313 149 148; 314 150 149; 315 151 150; 316 152 22; 317 153 152; 318 117
139;

319 139 144; 320 144 140; 321 140 145; 322 145 141; 323 141 146; 324 146
142;
325 142 147; 326 147 143; 327 143 119; 328 138 144; 329 119 148; 331 152
149;
332 149 153; 333 153 150; 334 150 116; 335 116 151; 336 154 5; 337 121 124;
338 122 123; 339 123 121; 340 124 125; 341 125 126; 342 126 127; 343 132
133;
344 133 134; 345 134 135; 346 138 139; 347 139 154; 348 140 138; 349 141
140;
350 142 141; 351 143 142; 352 149 148; 353 150 149; 354 151 150; 355 1 122;
356 127 2; 357 2 132; 358 135 3; 359 3 151; 360 154 5; 361 148 4; 362 4 143;
363 21 23; 364 122 81; 365 154 113; 366 22 24; 367 155 162; 368 156 166;
369 122 155; 370 155 81; 371 23 155; 372 155 21; 373 154 156; 374 156 113;
375 24 169; 376 169 22; 377 118 77; 378 120 79; 379 119 78; 380 157 155;
381 122 157; 382 21 157; 383 158 163; 384 118 158; 385 159 164; 386 160
165;
387 161 156; 388 120 159; 389 119 160; 390 22 167; 391 154 161; 392 162 9;
393 163 10; 394 164 11; 395 165 12; 396 166 13; 397 81 162; 398 23 162;
399 77 163; 400 79 164; 401 78 165; 402 24 171; 403 113 166; 405 107 111;
407 148 152; 408 22 119; 409 24 78; 411 79 172; 413 120 173; 414 172 24;
415 173 22; 416 148 167; 417 167 169; 418 169 171; 419 171 107; 420 4 169;
421 169 12;
DEFINE PMEMBER
14 155 156 154 157 TO 160 15 176 TO 179 16 202 201 200 199 17 194 193
192 191 189 190 223 PMEMBER 1
224 229 230 228 231 TO 234 225 235 TO 238 226 248 247 246 245 227 244
243 242 241 239 240 249 PMEMBER 2

355 268 269 267 270 TO 272 356 357 289 TO 291 358 359 315 314 313 361
362
307 306 305 304 302 303 360 PMEMBER 3
257 338 339 337 340 TO 342 273 258 343 TO 345 292 259 354 353 352 312
260 351 350 349 348 346 347 336 PMEMBER 4
START GROUP DEFINITION
MEMBER
_RIGHT_SUPPORT 36 38 91 TO 138 366 375 376 390 402
_CANTILIVER 12 17 25 30 31 143 148 189 TO 199 205 TO 216 223 227 239
TO 245 249 253 260 261 302 TO 312 318 TO 329 336 346 TO 351 360 TO 362 365 368
373 374 379 386 387 389 391 395 396 401 403 408 409 420 421
JOINT
END GROUP DEFINITION
MEMBER OFFSET
14 TO 17 154 TO 160 176 TO 179 189 TO 194 199 TO 202 223 267 TO 272 289 TO 291 302 TO 307 313 TO 315 355 TO 362 START 0 0 0.0625
14 TO 17 154 TO 160 176 TO 179 189 TO 194 199 TO 202 223 267 TO 272 289 TO 291 302 TO 307 313 TO 315 355 TO 362 END 0 0 0.0625
28 224 TO 249 257 TO 260 273 292 312 336 TO 354 START 0 0 -0.0625
224 TO 249 257 TO 260 273 292 312 336 TO 354 END 0 0 -0.0625
28 END 0 0 -0.0563272
383 START 0 0 -0.0563272
DEFINE MATERIAL START
ISOTROPIC STEEL
E 4.176e+006

POISSON 0.3
DENSITY 0.489024
ALPHA 6e-006
DAMP 0.03
ISOTROPIC CONCRETE
E 453600
POISSON 0.17
DENSITY 0.150336
ALPHA 5e-006
DAMP 0.05
END DEFINE MATERIAL
MEMBER PROPERTY AMERICAN
9 11 TO 17 22 24 TO 26 141 148 TO 216 218 TO 249 251 257 TO 329 331 TO
362 369 TO 376 381 382 384 388 TO 391 397 TO 403 405 407 TO 409 420 421 TABLE ST TUBE TH 0.002917 WT 0.041667 DT 0.041667
5 8 18 21 27 TO 31 43 TO 138 140 144 250 254 363 TO 368 377 TO 380 383
385 386 TO 387 392 TO 396 411 413 TO 418 419 TABLE ST TUBE TH 0.002917 WT 0.083333 DT 0.083333
7 20 143 253 TABLE ST TUBE TH 0.002917 WT 0.125 DT 0.125
35 TO 38 TABLE ST PIPS20
CONSTANTS
MATERIAL STEEL ALL
SUPPORTS
25 28 31 34 39 40 43 46 51 52 55 58 63 64 67 70 PINNED
MEMBER RELEASE
7 TO 9 13 20 TO 22 26 140 141 143 144 250 251 253 -

254 START MPX 0.99 MPY 0.99 MPZ 0.99

7 TO 9 13 20 TO 22 26 140 141 143 144 250 251 253 254 END MPX 0.99 MPY 0.99 MPZ 0.99
LOAD 1 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=0 VLT PRELOAD
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.017 0 3
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
LOAD 2 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=0 VLT STEP 1
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 0 3
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 3 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=0 VLT STEP 2
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 0 3
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0058 18 21
***
LOAD 4 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=3 VLT PRELOAD
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.104166 3 6
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 5 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=3 VLT STEP 1
SELFWEIGHT Y -1

PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 3 6
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 6 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=3 VLT STEP 2
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 3 6
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0058 18 21
***
LOAD 7 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=6 VLT PRELOAD
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.104166 6 9
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 8 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=6 VLT STEP 1
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 6 9
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 9 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=6 VLT STEP 2
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 6 9
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0058 18 21
***

LOAD 10 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=7 VLT PRELOAD

SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.104166 7 10
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 11 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=7 VLT STEP 1
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 7 10
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 12 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=7 VLT STEP 2
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 7 10
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0058 18 21
***
LOAD 13 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=9 VLT PRELOAD
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.104166 7 10
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 14 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=9 VLT STEP 1
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 9 12

1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 15 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=9 VLT STEP 2
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 9 12
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0058 18 21
***
LOAD 16 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=12 VLT PRELOAD
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.104166 12 15
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 17 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=12 VLT STEP 1
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 12 15
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0042 18 21
***
LOAD 18 LOADTYPE None TITLE L=12 VLT STEP 2
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.15 12 15
1 TO 4 UNI GY -0.0058 18 21
***
LOAD 19 LOADTYPE None TITLE WEIGHT
SELFWEIGHT Y -1

***
LOAD 20 LOADTYPE None TITLE LATERAL LOAD
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
PMEMBER LOAD
3 4 UNI GY -0.0125 6.5 9.5
1 CON GZ 0.075 8
PERFORM ANALYSIS PRINT ALL
PARAMETER 1
CODE AISC UNIFIED
FYLD 7200 ALL
METHOD LRFD
CHECK CODE ALL
FINISH

Steel tubes (Identical Members) attached to a steel frame

Code Check results

Slenderness lengths can be specified in STAAD.Pro as Design Parameters

Ly or Slenderness length about local y axis (in the plane of the slope)

Updated Code Check results

Formation of Physical Members in STAAD.Pro

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

There are some general conclusions that can be made regarding the results of
this study. Of course, some must be refined with future research to solidify
thinking, but the statements will hopefully provide direction for new research
into these structures resulting in greater understanding of their behavior, greater
understanding with regard to their design (e.g. required loading conditions),
greater economy in their design, greater economy in their construction, and a
reduced need for inspection leading to greater fiscal efficiency with public
funding.
The bending of anchor rods in base plates with stand-off heights of both
HML and sign support structures needs further study. It would be very useful
to have experimental work done on anchors with significant bending in them
(beyond the 1:40 out-of-plumb currently assumed). Furthermore, having
statistical information regarding the fatigue life of these anchor conditions
would also go a long way to improving design methodologies.
It appears that the fatigue design loading of 5.2 psf (assuming Cd=1.0 and IF
=1.0 ) found in (AASHTO 2001) is satisfactory for the metro-Milwaukee area.
There is only a 1% chance that the wind speed will exceed a 50-mph mean
wind (5-second averaging time) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Using
equation (3-1) in the specifications (AASHTO 2001), the 50-mph mean wind
equates to an approximate pressure of 6.4 psf with Cd = Kz = Ir = 1.0 .
Considering this loading magnitude as that required for infinite life with
allowable stress ranges less than 12CAFL for category ET and E details, may
result in details being very difficult to successfully design. A more detailed
study of the infinite life fatigue design

approach for sign and luminaire support structures needs to be undertaken.

The research team strongly believes that if a structure is inspected with
great detail during fabrication (e.g. immediately after galvanizing) and
immediately after erection with no flaws being found, the structure can likely be
put into service with inspection intervals much longer than 2-year cycles. This
statement holds for both full-span and high-mast luminaire support structures. If
galvanizing of anchor rods is conducted with every structure and the bending
stresses in the anchor rods are minimized, degradation of cross-section through
corrosion would be minimized and attaining and inspection-free structure is
truly possible. The tri-chord configuration has been shown to have a reduced
fatigue life when compared to the four-chord configuration and therefore, it
should be utilized with less sign area that that of S-40-156 considered in this
study.
One could likely tailor a standard design to more closely match the
intended 50-year service life rather than arbitrarily designing for infinite life.
This would likely lead to more economy and greater 191 efficiency. Of
course this would require statistical information specific to the details used in
these structures rather than the blanket AASHTO (one-size-fits-all) detail
categories.
In general, a better understanding of the statistical variability in the fatigue
life of typical details found in sign and luminaire support structures would go a
long way to more fully understanding why these structures have had
questionable in-service performance and more importantly, why others have had
stellar in-service performance records.
Last, but certainly not least, a better understanding of the galvanizing
process and its effect on high-strength steels, welded connections, and the
impact of partial dip galvanizing on welded truss structures is required. This wil

help in understanding exactly why poor in-service performance has been

obtained for some structures and the apparent link to the galvanizing process
and fabrication. 192

REFERENCES
1.) AASHTO. (1985). Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals, American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.
2.) AASHTO. (1994). Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
3.) AASHTO. (1996). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
4.) AASHTO. (1998). LRFD Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
5.) AASHTO. (2000). Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
6.) AASHTO. (2001). Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
7.) AGA. (2000a). The Design of Products to be Hot-Dip Galvanized After Fabrication,
American Galvanizers Association, Englewood, CO.
8.) AGA. (2000b). Hot-Dip Galvanizing for Corrosion Protection of Steel Products,
American Galvanizers Association, Englewood, CO.
9.) AGA. (2001). The Inspection of Products to be Hot-Dip Galvanized After Fabrication:
Including a New Section on Touch-Up and Repair, American Galvanizers Association,
Englewood, CO.
10.) ASCE. (1998). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-98),
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 194

11.) ASTM. (1998). Standard Practice for Verification fo Constant Amplitude Dynamic
Forces in Axial Fatigue Testing System - ASTM Standard E 467-98a., ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 10.
12.) ASTM. (1999). Standard Practice for Verification of Specimen Alignment Under
Tensile Loading - ASTM Standard E 1012-99., ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 8.
13.) ASTM. (2002). Standard Practice for Conducting Force Controlled Constant Amplitude
Axial Fatigue Testing of Metallic Materials - ASTM Standard E 466-06., ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 8.
14.) AWS. (1999). Structural Welding Code - Steel, 17th Edition (ANSI/AWS D1.1-98),
American Welding Society, Miami, FL.
15.) Bannantine, J.A., Comer, J.J., and Handrock, J.L. (1990). Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue
Analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
16.) Bigot, R., and Iost, A. (1999). Residual Stresses in Galvanizing. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes, 14 (3), Marcel Dekker, Inc., 413-426.
17.) Blevins, R. (1990). Flow Induced Vibrations, 2nd Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY.
18.) Buchholdt, H. (1997). Structural Dynamics for Engineers, Thomas Telford Publications,
London, U.K.
19.) Chavez, J.W., Gilani, A.S., and Whittaker, A.S. (1997). Fatigue-Life Evaluation of
Changeable Message Sign Structures, Volume 2 - Retrofitted Structures. Report No.
UCB/EERC-97/10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
20.) Cook, R.A., Bloomquist, D., Agosta, A.M., and Taylor, K.F. (1996). Wind Load Data for
Variable Message Signs. FL/DOT/RMC/0728-9488, Florida Department of
Transportation.
21.) Creamer, B.M., Frank, K.H., and Klingner, R.E. (1979). Fatigue Loading of Cantilever Sign
Structures from Truck Wind Gusts. FHWA/TX-79/10+209-1F, Center for Highway
Research, University of Texas - Austin, Austin, TX. 195

22.) Cresdee, R.B., Edwards, W.J., Thomas, P.J., and Voss, G.F. (1993). Analysis of Beam
Distortion During Hot Dip Galvanizing. Materials Science and Technology, 9
(February), Institute of Metals, London, 161-167.
23.) Davenport, A.G. (1961a). Applications of Statistical Concepts to the Wind Loading of
Structures. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 19, 449-472.
24.) Davenport, A.G. (1961b). The Spectrum of Horizontal Gustiness Near the Ground in
High Winds. Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 87, 194-211.
25.) Den Hartog, J.P. (1956). Mechanical Vibrations, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. (now
Dover Publications 1985), New York, NY.
26.) DeSantis, P.V., and Haig, P.E. (1996) Unanticipated Loading Causes Highway Sign
Failure. ANSYS Convention, ANSYS Inc., 3.99-3.108.
27.) Dexter, R.J., and Ricker, M.J. (2002). Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign,
and Light Supports, NCHRP Report 469, Transportation Research Board - National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
28.) Durst, C.S. (1960). Wind Speeds Over Short Periods of Time. The Meteorological
Magazine (608), 181-186.
29.) Dusel, J.P. (1984). Determination of Fatigue Characteristics of Hot-Dipped Galvanized
A307 and A449 Anchor Bars and A325 Cap Screws., State of California Department of
Transportation Division of Engineering Services, Sacramento.
30.) Dyrbye, C., and Hansen, S.O. (1997). Wind Loads on Structures, John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester.
31.) Edwards, J.A., and Bingham, W.L. (1984). Deflection Criteria for Wind Induced Vibrations
in Cantilever Highway Sign Structures. North Carolina Department of Transporation
FHWA/NC/84-001, Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North Carolina State
University, Rayleigh, NC.
32.) Engtsrom, M. 2003. Cracking in Coped Beam Flange Region, (personal communication
with) Foley, C.M.
33.) Fish, P.E. (1994) NDT Applications in a Successful Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection
Program. Structural Materials Technology - An NDT Conference, 219-227. 196

34.) Fish, P.E. (1995) NDT Applications in a Successful Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection
Program and Anchor Bolt Inspection Program. Proceedings of the SPIE, Society PhotoOptical and Instrumentation Engineering, 149-165.
35.) Fish, P.E. (1997a). Inspection Report: S-40-189., Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, Madison, WI.
36.) Fish, P.E. (1997b). Sign Bridge Inspection Report: S-18-44., Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, Madison, WI.
37.) Fish, P.E. (1998). Evaluation of Cor-Ten Steel Lightpoles with Addendum A.,
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI.
38.) Fish, P.E. (1999). NDT Applications in a Successful Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection
Program., Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
39.) Fisher, J. 2003. Sign Support Cracking in Connecticut, (personal communication with)
Foley, C.M.
40.) Fisher, J.W. (1981). Fatigue Behavior of Steel Light Poles. FHWA/CA/SD-81-82,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
41.) Fisher, J.W., Kulak, G.W., and Smith, I.F.C. (1998). A Fatigue Primer for Structural
Engineers, American Institute of Steel Constrution, National Steel Bridge Alliance,
Chicago, IL.
42.) Fisher, J.W., Miki, C., Slutter, R.G., Mertz, D.R., and Frank, W. (1983). Fatigue Strength of
Steel Pipe-Base Plate Connections. Engineering Structures, 5 (April), 90-96.
43.) Fouad, F.H., Calvert, E.A., and Nunez, E. (1998). Structural Supports for Highway
Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Report 411, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
44.) Frank, K.H. (1980). Fatigue Strength of Anchor Bolts. Journal of Structural Division,
ASCE, 106 (ST6).
45.) Fuchs, H.O., and Stephens, R.I. (1980). Metal Fatigue in Engineering, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 197

46.) Gilani, A., and Whittaker, A. (2000a). Fatigue-Life Evaluation of Steel Post Structures.
I: Background and Analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (3), 322-330.
47.) Gilani, A., and Whittaker, A. (2000b). Fatigue-Life Evaluation of Steel Post Structures.
II: Experimentation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (3), 331-340.
48.) Gilani, A.S., Chavez, J.W., and Whittaker, A.S. (1997). Fatigue-Life Evaluation of
Changeable Message Sign Structures, Volume 1 - As Built Structures. Report No.
UCB/EERC-97/10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
49.) Ginal, S.J. (2003). Fatigue Performance of Full-Span Sign Support Structures
Considering Truck-Induced Gust and Natural Wind Pressures, MS Thesis, Marquette
University, Milwaukee, WI.
50.) Iannuzzi, A., and Spinelli, P. (1987). Artificial Wind Generation and Structural
Response. Journal of Structural Engineering, 113 (12), ASCE, 2382-2398.
51.) Irvine, T. (1999a). Schock and Vibration Response Spectra Course: Unit 6A - The
Fourier Transform., Vibration Data Publications.
52.) Irvine, T. (1999b). Schock and Vibration Response Spectra Course: Unit 7A - Power
Spectral Density Function., Vibration Data Publications.
53.) Irvine, T. (1999c). Schock and Vibration Response Spectra Course: Unit 12
-Synthesizing a Time History to Satisfy a Power Spectral Density Using Sinusoids.,
Vibration Data Publications.
54.) Irwin, H.P., and Peeters, M. (1980). An Investigation of the Aerodynamic Stability of
Slender Sign Bridges, Calgary. LTR-LA-246, National Research Council Canada
-Aeronautical Establishment.
55.) Johns, K., and Dexter, R. (1998a). Fatigue Testing and Failure Analysis of Aluminum
Luminaire Support Structures. 98-06, Center for Advanced Technology for Large
Structural Systems, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
56.) Johns, K., and Dexter, R.J. (1998b). Fatigue Related Wind Loads on Highway Support
Structures. 98-03, Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. 198

57.) Johns, K.W., and Dexter, R.J. (1998c). The Development of Fatigue Design Load
Ranges for Cantilevered Sign and Signal Support Structures. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77 & 78 (Sep-Dec), 315-326.
58.) Johns, K.W., and Dexter, R.J. (1999) Truck Induced Wind Loads on Highway Sign Support
Structures. Structural Engineering in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 1999
Structures Congress, Avent, R.R. and Alawady, M.,Ed., New Orleans, LA, April 18-21,
American Society of Civil Engineers - Structural Engineering Institute, 1103-1106.
59.) Kaczinski, M.R., Dexter, R.J., and Van Dien, J.P. (1998). Fatigue Resistance Design of
Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light Supports. (NCHRP Report 412 - Project 10-38),
ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Bethlehem, PA.
60.) Kaimal, J.C. (1972). Spectral Characteristics of Surface-Layer Turbulence. Journal of the
Royal Meteorological Society, 98, 563-589.
61.) Kashar, L., Nester, M.R., Johns, J.W., Hariri, M., and Freizner, S. (1999) Analysis of the
Catastrophic Failure of the Support Structure of a Changeable Message Sign. Structural
Engineering in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 1999 Structures Congress, Avent,
R.R. and Alawady, M.,Ed., New Orleans, LA, April 18-21, American Society of Civil
Engineers - Structural Engineering Institute, 1115-1118.
62.) Keating, P.B., and Fisher, J.W. (1986a). Evaluation of Fatigue Tests and Design Criteria on
Welded Details. NCHRP Report 286, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Washington, DC.
63.) Keating, P.B., and Fisher, J.W. (1986b). Fatigue Resistance Design of Cantilevered
Signal, Sign and Light Supports. (NCHRP Report 286 - Project xx-xx), ATLSS
Engineering Research Center, Bethlehem, PA.
64.) Kwok, K.C.S. (1985). Dynamics of a Freestanding Steel Lighting Tower. Engineering
Structures, 7 (Jan.), 46-50.
65.) Levy, R. (1996). Structural Engineering of Microwave Antennas, Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers, Inc., New York, NY.
66.) Liu, H. (1991). Wind Engineering: A Handbook for Structural Engineers, Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 199

67.) McDonald, J.R., Mehta, K.C., Oler, W., and Pulipaka, N. (1995). Wind Load Effects on
Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signal Structures. Texas Department of Transportation
Report No. 1303-1F, Wind Engineering Research Center - Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX.
68.) Milford, R.V. (1989). Gust Loading Factors for Lighting Masts. Engineering
Structures, 11 (April), 62-67.
69.) Miner, M.A. (1945). Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. Transaction of the ASME,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 67, A159-A164.
70.) Moses, F., Schilling, C.G., and Raju, K.S. (1987). Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for Steel
Bridges. NCHRP Report 299, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Washington, DC.
71.) Novak, M. (1969). Aeroelastic Galloping of Prismatic Bodies. Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, 95 (EM1), ASCE, 115-142.
72.) Novak, M. (1972). Galloping Oscillations of Prismatic Structures. Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, 98 (EM1), ASCE, 27-46.
73.) Novak, M., and Davenport, A.G. (1970). Aeroelastic Instability of Prisms in Turbulent
Flow. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 96 (EM1), ASCE, 17-39.
74.) Novak, M., and Tanaka, H. (1974). Effect of Turbulence on Galloping Instability.
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 100 (EM1), ASCE, 27-47.
75.) Nowak, A.S., and Collins, K.R. (2000). Reliability of Structures, McGraw-Hill.
76.) ONT. (1992). Ontario Bridge Design Code, Ottawa.
77.) Peronto, J.L. (2003). High-Cycle Constant Amplitude Fatigue Life Variability of
Welded Round HSS Y-Joints, MS Thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
78.) Rahimian, A., and Sifre, P. (1993) Vortex Shedding Induced Fatigue Fracture of Mast
Tower. Structural Engineering in Natural Hazards Mitigation, Ang, A.H.-S. and
Villaverde, R.,Ed., Irvine, CA, April 19-21, American Society of Civil Engineers, 585
597.
79.) Repetto, M.P., and Solari, G. (2001). Dynamic Alongwind Fatigue of Slender Vertical
Structures. Engineering Structures, 23, 1622-1633. 200

80.) SAS. (2003a). ANSYS 7.0 Element Library & Theory Reference., SAS IP, Inc. 81.)
SAS. (2003b). ANSYS 7.0 Structural Analysis Guide, SAS IP, Inc., Houston, PA. 82.)
Shinozuka, M., and Jan, C. (1972). Digital Simulation of Random Processes and Its
Applications. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 25 (1), 111-128.
83.) Simiu, E., and Scanlon, R.H. (1996). Wind Effects on Structures: Fundamentals and
Applications to Design - 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
84.) South, J. (1994). Fatigue Analysis of Overhead Sign and Signal Structures.
FHWA/IL/PR-115, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL.
85.) Thomson, W.T., and Dahleh, M.D. (1998). Theory of Vibration with Applications, 5th
Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
86.) Van Dien, J.P., Kaczinski, M.R., and Dexter, R.J. (1996) Fatigue Testing of Anchor
Bolts. Structures Congress XIVChicago, IL, American Society of Civil Engineers.
87.) Zettlemoyer, N., and Fisher, J.W. (1977). Stress Gradient Correction
Factor for Stress Intensity at Welded Stiffeners and Cover Plates. Welding
Journal, 56 (12), James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, 3938-3985.