Safety Eligibility Letter SS-05

Hardware Type:

Sign Supports, Mailboxes, and Delineator Posts

Code:

SS-05

Date:

06/15/1987

Testing Criteria:

NCHRP 350

Device Description:

a. Perforated square steel tube - 2 x 2 in. x 0.105 wall thick. max size.**

b. Single 3 lb/ft steel U-post. **

c. Dual 3 lb/ft steel U-post. **

d. Ariz. dual legged slip base S4x7.7 post

e. Texas dual leg slip base, W12x45 post

f. to g. repeated SS-1 to SS-4 above

View PDF:

ss05.pdf (2.41 MB)

June 15, 1987

Refer to: HNG-14/SS-05

Regional Federal Highway Administrators
Direct Federal program Administrator

By notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published November 11, 1986, the FHWA proposed to adopt for application on Federal-aid highway projects the AASHTO's revised "Standard Specification for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 1985." The comment period on the NPRM closed on May 11.

It is expected that a final rule will be issued to adopt all of the 1985 AASHTO specification except for Section 7, Breakaway Supports. Any decisions on Section 7 will be delayed until completion and analysis of the on-going crash testing program of existing luminaire hardware at FHWA's Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory (FOIL). When done, the results will be published in the Federal Register and additional time will be provided for public comment. A final rule on Section 7 would not be issued until after that time.

In the interim, FHWA's requirements for breakaway sign and luminaire supports on Federal-aid projects will remain to be those found in Section 7 of the previously FHWA adopted 1975 AASHTO Specification for Sign and Luminaire Supports. However, a State has the option to begin applying on Federal-aid highway projects the more stringent 1985 AASHTO specification if it so chooses.

The FHWA's capability testing of several luminaire support systems should be completed by mid-1987. However, several significant additions/modifications to the FOIL testing facilities are necessary before we will be in a position to begin testing direct-burial sign supports or multiple breakaway sign supports for larger signs. We are now investigating possible additions/modifications to the testing facility and are hopeful they will be implemented in about a year.

In the meantime, we have received several inquiries seeking information on sign support systems which may have already been tested in accordance with the 1985 AASHTO specification. Bases on a review of our files and other information provided to us, we have assembled the attached listing of sign support systems which have been crash tested with an 1,800-pound vehicle and have satisfied the breakaway requirements of the 1985 AASHTO specification.

When using the attached listing, careful attention should be paid to the descriptions of the tested systems and the soil conditions used. Demonstration of satisfactory breakaway performance is limited to the system tested and soil conditions noted. We have encouraged testing several of the sign support systems in both strong (S-1) and weak (S-2) soils as defined in NCHRP 230.

However, in many cases the support was tested in only the strong soil. When this occurs, the crash test then only demonstrates satisfactory breakaway performance if the support is placed in a strong soil.

The attached listing is not intended to be all inclusive. If you are aware of additional sign support systems that have been tested by a State or others in accordance with the new AASHTO requirements, we would appreciate being advised of the test results. As additional information is provided to us, we anticipate that the attached listing will be updated.

For sign support systems of comparable design to ones for which crash test data are available (as shown on the attached listing) and having support post sizes and/or weight equal to or less than the crash tested system, it is our opinion that these sign support systems can be accepted as having satisfied the breakaway requirements of the 1985 AASHTO specification subject to the same limitations as the crash tested system.

Additional information you have available or questions you have on this subject should be directed to Jim Overton (FTS 366-1331) of my staff.

Sincerely yours,

L. A. Staron, Chief
Federal-Aid and Design Division

Attachment

Sign Support Systems

Compliance with 1985 AASHTO Specification

June 1987

The following listing covers sign support systems which have been crash tested and meet the breakaway performance requirements of the AASHTO's "Standard Specifications for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 1985." The listing is based on information available to Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Engineering as of the date assembled and is not intended to be all inclusive. Updates are planned as additional information becomes available.

When using this listing careful attention should be paid to the description of the tested system and the soil conditions used. Demonstration of satisfactory performance is limited to the system tested for the soil conditions noted.

The FHWA does not endorse any specific product or system listed herein. Rather this listing is presented for informational purposes to show systems crash tested in accordance with the test parameters in the new 1985 AASHTO specification.

Sign Support System	Test	Test Car Weight	Impact Speed (mph)	Change in Velocity (fps)	Stub Height	Comments

Perforated Square Steel Tube (single support)	TTI 7024-3 (5/85 – Ariz. DOT	1770#	20.0	3.5	OK	Tested in strong soil (S-1) only
(See attached Ariz. DOT Dr. 4-s-4.16 – Fig. 1)	TTI 7024-4 (5/85 – Ariz. DOT	1770#	56.8	8.5	OK	Reference: Ariz. DOT Research project HPR-RL-1 (31).
Single 3 lb. High Carbon Billet Steel U-Post.	TTUI 7024-8 (11/84 0 Ariz. DOT	1800#	19.9	6.0	OK	Tested in strong soil (S-1) only. Reference: Same as Item 1 above.
(See attached Figure 2)	TTI 7024-7 (11/84 – Ariz. DOT	1800#	60.5	3.1	OK	Also see Note No. 1 below.
3. Dual 3 lb. High Carbon Bilet Steel U-Post. 3'-7' post spacing – both posts hit	TTI 7024-22 9/85 – Ariz. DOT	1833#	20.0	9.4	OK	Tested in strong soil (S-1) only. Reference: Same as Item 1 above.
(See attached Figure 3)	TTI 7024-23 (9/85 – Ariz. DOT)	1833#	62.8	11.7	OK	Also see Note No. 1 below.
4. Arizona Dual Legged Slip Base S4x7.7 (hinge at midheight of panel). One post hit.	TTI 7024-1 (11/84 – Ariz. DOT)	1820#	19.6	5.0	- - -	Reference: Same as Item 1 above.
(See attached Ariz. DOT DR. 4-s-4.01 & 4-s-4.05 as modified – Fig. 4 & 4A)	TTI 7024-2 (11/84 – Ariz. DOT	1820#	59.3	3.0	- - -	Also see Note No. 2 below.
Dual Legged Slip Base – 12WF45 12' x 24' sign panel	ENSCO 1147-1010 (6/79)	1617#	20.6	9.9 (See Note No. 3)	- - -	Reference Rept No. FHWA-RD-79-140.
One Post hit. (See attached Figure 5)	ENSCO 1147-1009 (6/79)	1516#	61.0	8.8	- - -	Utilized Texas Type slip base with 1' dia. Bolts tightened to 5000 lb and a slotted fuse plate at the joint. (See Note No. 4)
6. Minute Man breakaway device for use with steel flanged channel sign supports	Reference Mr. Staron's 1/29/87 letter to Minute Man Anchors, Inc.

7. QWIK-PUNCH tube system	Reference Mr. Staron's 10/3/86 letter to Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.
8. MICRO=LAM laminated veneer lumber breakaway sign post	Reference Mr. Staron's 8/19/96 letter to Trus Joist Corp.

9. POZ-LOC anchor system	Reference Mr. Van Ness 7/14/86 and 5/13/86 letters to Southwestern Pipe, Inc.
Note No. 1 – The tested U-post supports included splices with the upper lap going approximately 5 feet above ground. The spliced supports appear to perform satisfactorily in these tests. However, we are concerned that environmental effects over time could cause the fasteners in the splice to weaken allowing the splice to open under impact. Because of this we have recommended that a splice should not extend more than 24 inches above the ground and that the ground portion of the splice should be in front of the upper post.

Note No. 2 – The tested dual legged support system included inclined slip bases. For multiple legged supports with hinges, we have suggested use of horizontal slip bases.

Note No. 3 – Performance of this system during the 20 mph test was considered marginal as the hinge failed to activate and the entire support leg ended resting on top of the vehicle, causing deformation on the roof. The 20-foot long support leg weighed approximately 800 lbs. We would suggest this is the maximum weight of a support leg to be used in these circumstances and recommend use of lesser weights to improve performance.

Note No. 4 – The current recommended torque values for slip base bolt sizes are:


Post Size (lb./ft)	Slip Base Bolt Diameter (inches)	Suggested Clamping Force (lb.)	Slip Base Torque (lb. –in.)

0.8	½	920-1380	95-142
9-20	5/8	1740-2660	226-345
21-30	¾	2400-3600	369-554
30+	1	2400-3600	490-735