7
such as galloping and vortex shedding is unresolved. A pre-
sentation of the different wind loading phenomena and why
they occur, along with a discussion of the susceptibility issue,
is provided in Appendix C, where it is pointed out that labo-
ratory testing and further field evaluation are needed to deter-
mine susceptibility. Such testing was not included in the scope
of this project. However, the research continued with the task
of establishing equivalent static fatigue loads by assuming
that noncantilevered structures were susceptible to the same
vibration phenomena as cantilevered support structures and
by using the finite element methods as an analysis tool. As a
result of communication with researchers, manufacturers,
and state DOT engineers regarding susceptibility issues, gal-
loping loads were excluded for truss support structures while
the loads for other types of noncantilevered support struc-
tures were adjusted using importance factors that are similar
to the factors used for cantilevered structures.
2.3.2 Establishing Equivalent Static Fatigue
Loads for Noncantilevered Support
Structures
Finite element analyses were conducted using six sup-
port structure models to determine the applicability of the
fatigue loads for cantilevered support structures recom-
mended by NCHRP Project 10-38 to noncantilevered sup-
port structures. The analytical study, which is presented in
Appendix C, resulted in the following load recommenda-
tions for noncantilevered support structures:
• Galloping. Apply 21-psf shear pressure vertically to the
projected area of the signs mounted to monotube sup-
port structures as viewed in the normal elevation (same
as cantilevered support structures). Galloping will only
apply to horizontal monotubes; noncantilever structures
and truss-type supports are excluded.
• Vortex shedding. Apply the static load model for vor-
tex shedding of a cantilevered nontapered element in
the support specifications suggested by NCHRP Proj-
ect 17-10 to the nontapered element in the noncan-
tilevered support structure. This model involves the trans-
verse application of the equivalent static pressure range
to a nontapered horizontal member (vertical direction) of
the monotube structures. This design requirement may
be disregarded as long as the signs or sign blanks are
used during construction.
• Natural wind loads. Use the value of 5.2 psf multiplied
by the drag coefficient, which is the same value as that
used for cantilevered structures. The natural wind gust
pressure range shall be applied in the horizontal direc-
tion to the exposed area of all support structure mem-
bers, signs, and attachments.
• Truck-induced loads. Use 7.5 psf for the horizontal
pressure applied to the area of the sign and the area of
the support structures and 10.2 psf for vertical pressure
applied to the area of the support structure and the pro-
jected area of the sign. These pressures should be applied
along the entire span of the structure or along 24 feet of
the span, whichever is smaller.
• Deflection. Use the limits as provided in the current
specifications of L/150 for deflection due to dead load
and ice load and not excessive for vertical deflection due
to galloping and vertical truck-induced fatigue loads.
It should be pointed out that the recommendations were
based on the analysis of selected support structures. Exper-
imental work is needed to verify the susceptibility of these
structures to the vibration phenomenon. Because of the lack
of such experimental work and fatigue case documentation,
the research team used fatigue design loads developed from
the analytical study as a basis to correlate the loads for non-
cantilevered support structures with the loads used for can-
tilevered structures and applied importance factors to adjust
these load values. Importance factors for noncantilevered
support structures were based on discussions with other
researchers and NCHRP Project 17-10(2) panel comments.
These factors are similar to the factors for cantilevered sign
support structures. Galloping was excluded as a loading case
for truss support structures because other researchers indi-
cated that noncantilevered truss support structures are not
susceptible to galloping. Section 2.3.6 introduces impor-
tance factors for vibration and fatigue design for noncan-
tilevered sign support structures.
2.3.3 Fatigue Categorization of Connection
Details for Noncantilevered Support
Structures
The research team reviewed sign support structure draw-
ings and specifications provided by state DOTs. The research
team also studied NCHRP reports dealing with fatigue in
bridge connections that provided the basis for categorization
in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (7).
Details for noncantilevered support structures were com-
pared with the cantilevered structure details and were cate-
gorized. The various types of connections, the factors that
affect the fatigue resistance of welded connections, and the
fatigue resistance of bolted connections were synthesized.
Categorization of details was suggested. Ten examples of
these connection details are presented in Appendix C. The
connections included the typical beam column connections
in monotube support structures, splice joints in monotube
support structures, and U-bolts used in the chord to the
upright connection in truss structures.