Fouad H.

Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

Impact Of The New Wind Load Provisions On The Design Of Structural Supports
Submission date: November 15, 2002
Word count: 6725 words (2975+250*15)
By
Fouad H. Fouad, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
Alabama at Birmingham, 1075 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294, ph. 205-934-8430, ffouad@eng.uab.edu.
Elizabeth Calvert, P.E., Consulting Engineer, P.O. Box 1849, West Point, MS 39773, ph. 662-495-2448,
bcalvert@bellsouth.net.
Abstract: The AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and
Traffic Signals (Supports Specifications) have been revised in its entirety through a major research project conducted
under the auspices of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Project 17-10). The new
document was approved in 1999 by all state DOTs for adoption by AASHTO and was recently published in 2001.
A major part of the revisions included new provisions and criteria for wind loads. These provisions differ
considerably from those in previous editions of the specifications. The impact of the new wind load provisions on
the design of structural supports from the standpoint of safety and economy has not been studied and was the main
goal of this work.
Differences in design wind loads as a result of using different wind speed maps and calculation methods
were compared for selected sites in the United States in an effort to ascertain the effect of the new wind provisions
on the design of structural supports. Wind load calculations and design examples for various types of structural
supports were also performed using both the newly published 2001 AASHTO specifications and the 1994 edition of
the specifications. The results are compared and the impact of the 2001 specifications on design of support
structures is illustrated.

INTRODUCTION
An examination of the 1994 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals (1) (hereafter referred to as the Supports Specifications) reveals that the wind
loading criteria are based primarily on information and procedures that were first advanced in the early 1960s and
1970s. Through the work of NCHRP Project 17-10 (2), significant changes have been introduced in the 2001
Supports Specifications (3), which affect the presentation, terminology, and calculated wind loads. The major
changes in the 2001 Supports Specifications are primarily due to an updated wind map. These changes may result in
increase or decrease in the magnitude of calculated wind pressure depending on site location. The 2001 Supports
Specifications were approved by all state DOTs in 1999 and were published in 2001.
The changes in the wind loading criteria provided by the 2001 AASHTO specifications represent a major
and fundamental update to the wind loading criteria of 1994 Supports Specifications. These changes, representing
over 20 years of progress in the wind technology, update the Supports Specifications to the most current wind
methodology. The effects of changing the wind loading criteria and wind map were also reviewed.
Wind load calculations in the 2001 Supports Specifications have been revised to be based on a 3-second
gust wind speed, rather than a fastest-mile wind speed. The number of maps, representing 10, 25, and 50-year mean
recurrence intervals, have been reduced to one 50-year mean recurrence interval map with importance factors used
to adjust the intervals. Height factors have also been adjusted for the 3-second gust wind speed. The drag
coefficients have been slightly modified. The increase or reduction in calculated wind pressures, which result from
the use of the 2001 Supports Specifications, is primarily due to the differences in the 1994 and 2001 wind speed
maps.
The 2001 Supports Specifications have been updated to reflect currently accepted design procedures to
calculate wind loads. The wind loads portion of the 2001 specifications is based on the 1995 version of ASCE 7 (4),
and modified specifically for structural supports for highway signs, luminaries, and traffic signals. ASCE 7
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures is considered the most authoritative standard on wind

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

loading in the United States, and most design codes and specifications have generally adopted or referenced ASCE
7.
OBJECTIVE
A major change that was noted in the newly published 2001 Supports Specifications is the use of a new wind map
and wind provisions that may result in significant changes in the applied loads on structural supports. As a result,
the structures sizes may increase or decrease based on their geographic location. Wind pressures and loads on
structures have been studied in NCHRP Project 17-10(2) (5). To this date no studies have been published to
investigate the impact of the new 2001 Supports Specifications on the design of structural supports.
The main objective of this paper is to report on a study (6) that was performed to evaluate the safety and
economy of structural supports for highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals in the United States that are
designed in accordance with the new wind load provisions adopted by AASHTO. Changes in the wind map were
identified. These comparisons illustrate the differences between both specifications as related to the wind speeds,
height coefficients, gust factors, and mean recurrence intervals (or importance factors). The impact of the new wind
provision on design of structural supports was also investigated. Analysis and design were performed on three types
of support structures located in selected cities across the United States. Comparisons of structure weights, ground
line moments, and shear forces were made between the 1994 and 2001 specifications. Main member sizes and
weights were provided to illustrate the magnitude of changes in safety margins and economy of structural supports
designed in accordance with the new wind load provisions.
WIND SPEED MAPS
The 1994 Supports Specifications provide three wind maps for the 50, 25, and 10-year mean recurrence intervals.
The 50-year mean recurrence interval is generally used for high mast lighting poles and overhead sign structures.
For structure types such as street lighting poles and traffic signal poles, the 25-year mean recurrence interval map is
normally used. The 10-year mean recurrence interval map is typically used for roadside signs. In the 2001 Supports
Specifications, only one map is provided depicting the basic wind speeds for the United States, and importance
factors are specified to vary the mean recurrence interval (MRI) depending on structure type.
The new wind map as presented in the 2001 Supports Specifications can be divided into five wind speed
regions: 1) 90 mph for most of the United States, 2) 100 mph to 150 mph in the hurricane region on the east coast,
3) 85 mph for the west coast, 4) 90 mph to 130 mph for Alaska, and 5) 105 mph for Hawaii. These regions
correspond to fastest-mile wind speeds ranging from 50 to 110 mph depending on the site location and the mean
recurrence interval as depicted by the three AASHTO 1994 Supports Specifications wind maps. Comparisons to
illustrate the differences in wind loads computed according to the two specifications take into consideration the type
of structure and wind speeds specified for selected locations in the United States.
DESIGN COMPARISONS FOR 1994 VS. 2001 AASHTO SUPPORTS SPECIFICATIONS
Three structure types were selected so that structure weights, ground line moments, and shear forces could be
compared between the 1994 and 2001 specifications. The structure types were a high mast lighting pole, a street
lighting pole, and a roadside sign structure, which are recommended to be designed for 50, 25, and 10-year mean
recurrence intervals as provided in Section 3.8.3 and Table 3-3 of the 2001 specifications and in Section 1.2.4 of the
1994 specifications. Several cities were selected in order to illustrate the impact of the changes in the specifications
on the design of structural supports.
High Mast Lighting Pole
A 160-foot high mast lighting pole was designed for a 50-year mean recurrence interval. The configuration is
shown in Figure 1. The structure was designed based on an effective projected area of 50 square feet at the top of
the pole and a light fixture dead weight of 1000 pounds. The pole is a hollow tapered steel pole with a hexdecagonal
cross section. The yield stress for the steel is 65 ksi. The poles were designed for sites in Birmingham, AL, Atlanta,
GA, Lander, WY, and Hartford, CT for wind speeds as shown in Table 1.
For the 1994 specifications, group load combination II (dead load plus wind) was applied per Section 2
with an increase in allowable stresses of 1.4. Design considerations for the 1994 specifications include meeting the
allowable stresses of Section 4 for a hexdecagonal steel shape. Second-order moments were calculated using the

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

alternative method of Section 1.3.3.A(2). Deflections were limited to 15%, as recommended in the commentary of
Section 1.9.1(B).
For the 2001 specifications, group load combination II (dead load plus wind) was applied per Section 3
with an increase in allowable stress of 1.33. Design consideration for the 2001 specifications included meeting the
allowable stresses of Section 5 for a hexdecagonal steel shape. Second-order moments were calculated using the
detailed method of Section 4.8.2. Deflections were limited to 15%, as required by Section 10.4.2.1.
In general, limits on allowable stresses and deflection controlled the design for the 1994 and 2001
specifications. Pole sizes and reactions are provided in Table 2 for the 1994 specifications and in Table 3 for the
2001 specifications. Percent difference in weight, ground line moments, and shear forces are provided in Figure 2.
The sites Birmingham, AL, Atlanta, GA, Lander, WY, and Hartford, CT show 8% increase, 7% decrease,
20% decrease, and 33% increase in pole weight, while showing 0% increase, 23% decrease, 41% decrease, and 59%
increase in wind loads on the structures, respectively. The sites Birmingham, AL (1994: 70 mph, 2001: 90 mph)
and Atlanta, GA (1994: 80 mph, 2001: 90 mph) have wind speeds that are commonly found in the interior region
of the United States. The designs indicate that changes in the specifications that are unrelated to wind loads could
also influence the design. For the high mast lighting pole, these changes include the following
1. changes in allowable stress equations for hexdecagonal steel sections.
2. changes in the method of calculating the second-order moments (i.e., factor in the detailed method was changed
from 1.38 to 1.45).
3. changes in the increase in allowable stresses under dead load plus wind from 1.4 to 1.33.
Street Lighting Pole Example
The configuration for street lighting pole example is shown in Figure 3. The structure was designed for a double 10foot mast arm and luminaire. The weight is 75 pounds per mast arm and 50 pounds per luminaire. The effective
projected area is 4.4 square feet for each mast arm and 1.4 square feet for each luminaire. The 40-foot pole is a
hollow tapered steel pole with a round cross section. The yield stress for the steel is 65 ksi. The poles were
designed for sites in Ft. Worth, TX, Dodge City, KS, Mobile, AL, and Wilmington, NC for wind speeds as shown in
Table 4.
For the 1994 specifications, group load combination II (dead load plus wind) was applied per Section 2
with an increase in allowable stresses of 1.4. Design considerations for the 1994 specifications include meeting the
allowable stresses of Section 4 for a round steel shape. Second-order moments were calculated using the alternative
method of Section 1.3.3.A(2). Deflections were limited to 15%, as recommended in the commentary of Section
1.9.1(B). Slope limit under dead load as provided in Section 9 is not applicable, since the balanced twin mast arm
configuration eliminates the dead load moment at the tip of the pole.
For the 2001 specifications, group load combination II (dead load plus wind) was applied per Section 3
with an increase in allowable stress of 1.33. Design consideration for the 2001 specifications included meeting the
allowable stresses of Section 5 for a round steel shape. Second-order moments were calculated using the detailed
method of Section 4.8.2. Deflections were limited to 15%, as required by Section 10.4.2.1.
In general, limits on allowable bending stresses and deflection controlled the design for the 1994 and 2001
specifications. Pole sizes and reactions are provided in Table 5 for the 1994 specifications and in Table 6 for the
2001 specifications. Percent difference in weight, ground line moments, and shear forces are provided in Figure 4.
The sites Ft. Worth, TX, Dodge City KS, Mobile, AL, and Wilmington, NC show 1% decrease, 10%
decrease, 36% increase, and 6% decrease in pole weight, while showing 7% decrease, 27% decrease, 64% increase,
and 11% decrease in wind loads on the structures, respectively. The sites Ft. Worth, TX (1994: 70 mph, 2001: 90
mph) and Dodge City KS (1994: 80 mph, 2001: 90 mph) have wind speeds that are commonly found in the interior
region of the United States. The designs indicate that other changes in the specifications that are unrelated to wind
loads are influencing the design. For the street lighting pole example, these changes include the following
1. changes in allowable stress equations for round steel sections.
2. changes in the method of calculating the second-order moments (i.e., factor in the detailed method was changed
from 1.38 to 1.45).
3. changes in the increase in allowable stresses for the dead load plus wind load case from 1.4 to 1.33.
Roadside Sign Example
The roadside sign structure shown in Figure 5 was designed for the 10-year mean recurrence interval. The sign had
dimensions of 8 feet tall by 16 feet wide and was supported by two steel wide flange posts with yield stress of 36

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

ksi. The poles were designed for sites in St. Louis MO, Indianapolis, IN, Charleston, SC, and Orlando, FL for wind
speeds as shown in Table 7.
For the 1994 specifications, group load combination II (dead load plus wind) was applied per Section 2
with an increase in allowable stresses of 1.4. Design considerations for the 1994 specifications include meeting the
allowable stresses of Section 4 for a wide-flange steel shape.
For the 2001 specifications, group load combination II (dead load plus wind) was applied per Section 3
with an increase in allowable stress of 1.33. Design consideration for the 2001 specifications included meeting the
allowable stresses of Section 5 for a wide flange steel shape.
The limits on allowable bending stresses controlled the design for the 1994 and 2001 specifications. Post
sizes and reactions are provided in Table 8 for the 1994 specifications and in Table 9 for the 2001 specifications.
Percent difference in weight, ground line moments, and shear forces are provided in Figure 6.
The sites St. Louis, MO, Indianapolis, IN, Charleston, SC, and Orlando, FL show 11% increase, 0%
increase, 0% increase, and 67% increase in post weight, while showing 14% increase, 16% decrease, 13% decrease,
and 82% increase in wind loads on the structures, respectively. The sites St. Louis, MO (1994: 60 mph, 2001: 90
mph) and Indianapolis, IN (1994: 70 mph, 2001: 90 mph) have wind speeds that are commonly found in the
interior region of the United States. Designs were influenced by the fact that the greatest increase for all sites
occurred for wind elevations that are less than 15 feet. A significant number of roadside sign structures are in this
category. The design modification where the increase in allowable stresses under dead load plus wind changed from
1.4 to 1.33 also influenced the design.
CONCLUSION
In comparing the 1994 versus 2001 wind specifications, it is apparent that changes in wind pressure, either
decreasing or increasing, are highly site-specific. Changes are also dependent on wind elevation and structure type
(i.e., mean recurrence interval). An increase in wind load of up to 82% was shown for a selected coastal area,
whereas a decrease of about 41% was shown for a selected location in an interior region of the United States.
However, changes in wind loads for typical locations in the interior United States will range from an increase of
14% to a decrease of 27%. These changes in wind loads will obviously impact the design of the structure, including
member weight and size, although albeit to a lesser degree.
It should also be pointed out that several other changes in the 2001 specifications, which are not directly
related to the wind map, may influence the design. These changes are related to the allowable stress equations for
steel, the increase in allowable stress for Group II loading, and the calculation of second-order effects. Changes in
wind loads applied on the structures varied considerably with site location, along with a slightly less corresponding
change in structure weight.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project was sponsored by The University Transportation Center for Alabama, which is supported by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the Alabama Department of Transportation. Matching funds for the project were
provided by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Alabama at Birmingham.
REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals.
Third Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (1994)
78 pp.
Fouad, Fouad H.; Calvert, Elizabeth A.; and Nunez, Edgar, Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. NCHRP Report 411, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
(1998) 114 pp.
AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals.
Fourth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (2001)
270 pp.
ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 7-95, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA (1995) 214 pp.
Fouad, Fouad H.; Mehta, Kishor C.; and Calvert, Elizabeth A., Wind Loads Report: Final Draft. NCHRP
Project 17-10(2), Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

6.

Board, National Research Council, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (Sept. 1999)
168 pp.
Fouad, Fouad H.; and Calvert, Elizabeth A., Evaluating the Design Safety of Highway Structural Supports,
UTCA Report Number 00218, University Transportation Center for Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (July 2001) 65
pp., http://utca.eng.ua.edu/projects/final_reports/00218report.htm, Accessed June 15, 2002.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Sites and Wind Speeds for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example
TABLE 2 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 1994 for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example
TABLE 3 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 2001 for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example
TABLE 4 Sites and Wind Speeds for the Street Lighting Pole Example
TABLE 5 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 1994 for the Street Lighting Pole Example
TABLE 6 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 2001 for the Street Lighting Pole Example
TABLE 7 Sites and Wind Speeds for the Roadside Sign Example
TABLE 8 Post Sizes Using AASHTO 1994 for the Roadside Sign Example
TABLE 9 Post Sizes Using AASHTO 2001 for the Roadside Sign Example

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

TABLE 1 Sites and Wind Speeds for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example
AASHTO 1994

Site

Birmingham, AL
Atlanta, GA
Lander, WY
Hartford, CT

Wind
Speed
50-year
(mph)
70
80
90
70

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

AASHTO 2001

Wind
Speed
(mph)
90
90
90
110

Imp.
Factor
50-year
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

TABLE 2 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 1994 for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example
AASHTO 1994
Wall
Fy = 65 ksi
Tip
Base
Thickness
Shaft
Diameter Diameter
GL
Weight
(in)
(in)
(in)
(lb)
Birmingham, AL 7.40
29.80
0.2500
7,955
Atlanta, GA
7.60
30.00
0.3125
9,233
Lander, WY
8.30
30.70
0.3750
10,799
Hartford, CT
7.40
29.80
0.2500
7,955
Site

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

G.L.
G.L.
Moment Moment
(I)
(II)
(lb-ft)
(lb-ft)
595,102 681,739
774,444 871,157
1,002,455 1,107,184
595,102 681,739

G.L. Defl.
Shear (% of
(lb) Height)
6,393 14%
8,362 15%
10,874 15%
6,393 14%

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

TABLE 3 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 2001 for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example
AASHTO 2001
Wall
Fy = 65 ksi
Tip
Base
Thickness
Shaft
Diameter Diameter
GL
Weight
(in)
(in)
(in)
(lb)
Birmingham, AL 6.30
28.70
0.3125
8,599
Atlanta, GA
6.30
28.70
0.3125
8,599
Lander, WY
6.30
28.70
0.3125
8,599
Hartford, CT
7.90
30.30
0.3750
10,583
Site

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

G.L.
Moment
(I)
(lb-ft)
596,375
596,375
596,375
932,641

G.L.
Moment
(II)
(lb-ft)
689,466
689,466
689,466
1,040,237

G.L.
Shear
(lb)
6,417
6,417
6,417
10,172

Defl.
(% of
Height)
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
14.9%

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

10

TABLE 4 Sites and Wind Speeds for the Street Lighting Pole Example
AASHTO 1994

Site

Ft. Worth, TX
Dodge City, KS
Mobile, AL
Wilmington, NC

Wind
Speed
25-year
(mph)
70
80
70
100

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

AASHTO 2001

Wind
Speed
(mph)
90
90
130
130

Imp.
Factor
25-year
0.87
0.87
0.8
0.8

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

11

TABLE 5 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 1994 for the Street Lighting Pole Example
AASHTO 1994
Wall
Fy = 65 ksi
Tip
G.L.
Thickness
Shaft
Diameter Diameter
GL
Weight
(in)
(in)
(in)
(lb)
Ft. Worth, TX
2.1
7.7
0.1196
242
Dodge City, KS
2.5
8.1
0.1196
265
Mobile, AL
2.1
7.7
0.1196
242
Wilmington, NC
4.2
9.79
0.1196
351
Site

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

G.L.
Moment
(I)
(lb-ft)
16,933
22,439
16,933
33,688

G.L.
Moment G.L.
(II)
Shear
(lb-ft)
(lb)
19,431 584
24,944 749
19,431 584
35,491 1,074

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

12

TABLE 6 Pole Sizes Using AASHTO 2001 for the Street Lighting Pole Example
AASHTO 2001
Wall
Fy = 65 ksi
Tip
G.L.
Thickness
Shaft
Diameter Diameter
GL
Weight
(in)
(in)
(in)
(lb)
Ft. Worth, TX
2.0
7.6
0.1196
239
Dodge City, KS
2.0
7.6
0.1196
239
Mobile, AL
3.8
9.38
0.1196
330
Wilmington, NC
3.8
9.38
0.1196
330
Site

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

G.L.
Moment
(I)
(lb-ft)
15,523
15,523
29,855
29,855

G.L.
Moment G.L.
(II)
Shear
(lb-ft)
(lb)
18,050 545
18,050 545
31,821 961
31,821 961

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

13

TABLE 7 Sites and Wind Speeds for the Roadside Sign Example
AASHTO 1994

Site

St. Louis, MO
Indianapolis, IN
Charleston, SC
Orlando, FL

Wind
Speed
10-year
(mph)
60
70
80
60

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

AASHTO 2001

Wind
Speed
(mph)
90
90
120
130

Imp.
Factor
10-year
0.71
0.71
0.54
0.54

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

14

TABLE 8 Post Sizes Using AASHTO 1994 for the Roadside Sign Example
AASHTO 1994

Site

Wide Flange
Size

St. Louis, MO
Indianapolis, IN
Charleston, SC
Orlando, FL

W6x9
W8x10
W8x13
W6x9

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Support
Weight
for 2 ea. Posts
(lb)
320
355
462
320

G.L.
Moment
for 2 ea. Posts
(lb-ft)
26,757
36,420
47,587
26,757

G.L.
Shear
for 2 ea. Posts
(lb)
2,034
2,768
3,619
2,034

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

15

TABLE 9 Post Sizes Using AASHTO 2001 for the Roadside Sign Example
AASHTO 2001

Site

Wide Flange
Size

St. Louis, MO
Indianapolis, IN
Charleston, SC
Orlando, FL

W8x10
W8x10
W8x13
W8x15

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Support
Weight
for 2 ea. Posts
(lb)
355
355
462
533

G.L.
Moment
for 2 ea. Posts
(lb-ft)
30,596
30,596
41,385
48,574

G.L.
Shear
for 2 ea. Posts
(lb)
2,325
2,325
3,147
3,695

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

16

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 High Mast Lighting Pole Example.
FIGURE 2 Change in Weight, Moment, and Shear for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example.
FIGURE 3 Street Lighting Pole Example.
FIGURE 4 Change in Weight, Moment, and Shear for the Street Lighting Pole Example.
FIGURE 5 Roadside Sign Example.
FIGURE 6 Change in Weight, Moment, and Shear for the Roadside Sign Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

17

Luminaire
EPA: 50 ft^2
Weight: 1000 lbs

160'-0"

FIGURE 1 High Mast Lighting Pole Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

18

100%
80%
57%

60%
40%
20%

59%
53%

33%

8%
0% 1% 0%

Atlanta, GA

Lander, WY

0%
Birmingham, AL

Hartford, CT

-7%

-20%
-23%-21%-23%

-40%

-20%
-41%-38%-41%

-60%
Weight

GL Moment (I)

GL Moment (II)

GL Shear

FIGURE 2 Change in Weight, Moment, and Shear for the High Mast Lighting Pole Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

19

10'-0"

Luminaire
EPA: 1.4 ft^2
Weight: 50 lbs
Mast Arm
EPA: 4.4 ft^2
Weight: 75 lbs

40'-0"

FIGURE 3 Street Lighting Pole Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

20

100%
76%

80%

64% 64%

60%
36%

40%
20%
Ft. Worth, TX

Dodge City, KS

Wilmington, NC

0%
-1%

-20%

-8% -7% -7%

Mobile, AL
-10%

-6%

-11%-10%-11%

-31%-28%-27%

-40%
-60%
Weight

GL Moment (I)

GL Moment (II)

GL Shear

FIGURE 4 Change in Weight, Moment, and Shear for the Street Lighting Pole Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

21

16'-0"

8'-0"

17'-9"

9'-9"

FIGURE 5 Roadside Sign Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Fouad H. Fouad and Elizabeth Calvert

22

100%
82% 82%

80%

67%

60%
40%
20%

11% 14% 14%

Indianapolis, IN
0%

Charleston, SC
0%

0%
St. Louis, MO
-20%

Orlando, FL
-16% -16%

-13% -13%

-40%
-60%
Weight

GL Moment

GL Shear

FIGURE 6 Change in Weight, Moment, and Shear for the Roadside Sign Example.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.