<%BANNER%>

Anchor Embedment Requirements for Signal/Sign Structures

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101209_AAAAAK INGEST_TIME 2010-12-09T06:33:00Z PACKAGE UFE0019645_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 34936 DFID F20101209_AAAFQQ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH halcovage_k_Page_093.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
afc12958c71212c0be2dedf72fde097c
SHA-1
f5688aa290a7f9a79b6546424e0d9dc6918ccf45
55811 F20101209_AAAFRE halcovage_k_Page_107.jpg
0b8d842056874ee64b2ec576dc7c7119
176d8e18fe19f5fb6c0e55712fb036a6e5024fc0
55336 F20101209_AAAFQR halcovage_k_Page_094.jpg
019d514d234504f3cbe3358ce143b7b3
85e343bcc798571c07ea0f407520ac7e6751557f
40571 F20101209_AAAFRF halcovage_k_Page_108.jpg
b3475c98677124796f717c7465194442
b68153c5973e6646dd188e948f71212e602ba73b
50509 F20101209_AAAFQS halcovage_k_Page_095.jpg
fb693ddd01c454edf095558102eef34f
1aaa8ba9ba2d6630b37cf7aaf5a93be7743a4589
28907 F20101209_AAAFRG halcovage_k_Page_109.jpg
eb8fbf2ee5c44b3dc44b4e8d67353dfc
6c63649ad81b8c42bdbfccdad0a853c6e65f2312
30707 F20101209_AAAFQT halcovage_k_Page_096.jpg
bd51d43c728f24bb594fb7b626434302
a6b82cd44d6c237ba390e91a1d370dd77c3820aa
26801 F20101209_AAAFRH halcovage_k_Page_110.jpg
19b2d2d2f85f21000c445d48f371e009
2939879d1e4072ba1f86611c91e819f571ea82c7
45246 F20101209_AAAFQU halcovage_k_Page_097.jpg
6ac65619ca4020dfbda7cd2f89fc02a7
74067f27adaa69ffba86927b6785adc918468251
26606 F20101209_AAAFRI halcovage_k_Page_111.jpg
c23af2879c5a73a12e77d8ef1cb73684
71dbf4477f9afd7b881c64b3d15beb79cfaa1807
38412 F20101209_AAAFQV halcovage_k_Page_098.jpg
49ed68af08e0455fdf0c1132a8be1fe9
298b71c6e612e442ce907e139d5eae37223f7f89
26948 F20101209_AAAFRJ halcovage_k_Page_112.jpg
defc06d8e3ab5b4a145a780b531e227a
19387ba89bc340df1d2efadeb3f859f0eae699a4
46335 F20101209_AAAFQW halcovage_k_Page_099.jpg
0c5406f47b4781ef8f7c40392301f4c2
3b529a239d82de50cb374a6ab005d72d6db416af
27121 F20101209_AAAFRK halcovage_k_Page_113.jpg
786e8a36e8dfccb37aedd9479501410c
9d0f3a09386c0212b30f865f0a1746c1daa3ec2a
22745 F20101209_AAAFQX halcovage_k_Page_100.jpg
e40c325d792337531840a16696a270e6
05cb1677a2fd1b791e0cfdf58fa8cf9b3cbe3e04
27899 F20101209_AAAFRL halcovage_k_Page_114.jpg
e00d96745ea9cecc9282f2e35bfdb8d3
3f244fbb13e48c7cc814d8112cb07c23c23e8bfd
48080 F20101209_AAAFQY halcovage_k_Page_101.jpg
0e81007eb38854d1682911efb3911411
94633ed816fdd197ec43efa495f2458d10aad75e
1051968 F20101209_AAAFSA halcovage_k_Page_006.jp2
416276337e21e21a678d7b31355d90e7
c42d01c9142e0f29a40b2cd8383ddf52a497bbf7
45298 F20101209_AAAFRM halcovage_k_Page_115.jpg
9a830fe52da1708966fae44c3d99a278
3d3fd45ba84cf008da809bc77f2c93763b852ae7
179259 F20101209_AAAFSB halcovage_k_Page_007.jp2
8b892849c9b113f9815811be2f8b7178
533e32190d51d279bcf20b4f118a2a2987658b02
32897 F20101209_AAAFRN halcovage_k_Page_116.jpg
acd1a6759dce3f7c712e1fbf31fe3112
3b898c4e63f804d119b9dbc954b4066fd95fc419
52892 F20101209_AAAFQZ halcovage_k_Page_102.jpg
586cf17fd21f376b878efdac311daa09
9a89f3481dc232b921c86f1e2d37283fd5216d58
1051971 F20101209_AAAFSC halcovage_k_Page_008.jp2
8c740ff38f1dedca5640e70470965c63
c4502c1ade49ab8f94a38dbbdb6fe3c70d65f977
31907 F20101209_AAAFRO halcovage_k_Page_117.jpg
cebedd74b251f5e822a00f206c7bae8e
91c047d10fa847cab1ba90b28666ba47b082168c
1051981 F20101209_AAAFSD halcovage_k_Page_009.jp2
b47c086e2b6a21b35de3305b538dbdce
57bd744b3d93daeae9c4dd323a56266e16b8fb2c
31774 F20101209_AAAFRP halcovage_k_Page_118.jpg
4eaab61d8232837223d99b30a66b96e9
211e02c6399d317714a1942877549f5568390670
1051982 F20101209_AAAFSE halcovage_k_Page_010.jp2
b2acce6f969fb6413987923257630a9a
45a14d20f4d0c2236609d477f77e692436e9324d
31876 F20101209_AAAFRQ halcovage_k_Page_119.jpg
0ecd4af9d3d397a82d299a70a9fb4280
3db2dc2aba906dacecb7f33f00abe578c4ca133f
101794 F20101209_AAAFSF halcovage_k_Page_011.jp2
ffcc1b79a3dab6eaa2eb1670aafd5f28
35e49bbc93d0a8a10147e864e91acaea5bfb8fc4
32224 F20101209_AAAFRR halcovage_k_Page_120.jpg
3268fd268a08b8797a6fbcf3e20a2602
b85c7dce7e5b9f33ae8f09179a06efde28758435
43797 F20101209_AAAFSG halcovage_k_Page_012.jp2
0780c04f41aaa916a596ac85a040052f
ed2b2b4ecc54319fdbc6dbf0ebbbc816a11914d3
32156 F20101209_AAAFRS halcovage_k_Page_121.jpg
a1afaade74f375dc4a854371dec061db
30f0a2e7a028cf520fd9242b3044643d2ba60de4
59888 F20101209_AAAFSH halcovage_k_Page_013.jp2
5acf1cd8e2acb4937efc8404a4dfaac0
4561529972c489c5494e15312654348331daa5ae
81704 F20101209_AAAFRT halcovage_k_Page_122.jpg
f653ae76db730e90094c8f4bf5f83f67
75ab86ed910c5bab51377b89656ae2831be27d33
904390 F20101209_AAAFSI halcovage_k_Page_014.jp2
082dba999bdc20af1433b0e9cba2eae4
e0ffc517cf5d222a794621c724244d2c36231423
84093 F20101209_AAAFRU halcovage_k_Page_123.jpg
d05150b8aed222f4344c73b8bf2eb37e
fd17a586e5ce6c8ce6565da919f9ba2b9bc9ecea
111976 F20101209_AAAFSJ halcovage_k_Page_015.jp2
6e1a75f850251a8044f7f83a4ecee0bb
14c955b66c9834704fbf37603d706199afe3a5d6
66408 F20101209_AAAFRV halcovage_k_Page_124.jpg
8dac7b6d235821004c4ad05a0282fec7
38533af3b6cb5ac59e45e92424a5a3d209f16b35
120117 F20101209_AAAFSK halcovage_k_Page_016.jp2
5f7830d3325eeaa3b99285fc21dfc99e
29c226732c788188913257d6ccf85abbcf31bc18
24338 F20101209_AAAFRW halcovage_k_Page_001.jp2
ec7156d657c2e557cac2f425294ecf6f
bdba148e6bb67cd613db8dc1ee4295165d3ca062
107817 F20101209_AAAFSL halcovage_k_Page_017.jp2
26a56654e035b53c8397c46cc9e9c81a
745b97db8a42d49d37fbb24421773f04ca3dccff
5844 F20101209_AAAFRX halcovage_k_Page_002.jp2
e215fbcd3e13c54d2ce3d7b83c39a2a1
c7ed8009fc623c5ed78e0f26d36138b777122bc7
350184 F20101209_AAAFTA halcovage_k_Page_032.jp2
385f8bbfaf5e2dc2daf93079a8e96569
91ef7cb7c2a0e2672fe9f3ff60f5492a56b5fd67
119570 F20101209_AAAFSM halcovage_k_Page_018.jp2
5fc9d44ffe28ed048e96070ba6b4cda2
99da045cf205fa3caa228b5753d7c1261930b100
31079 F20101209_AAAFRY halcovage_k_Page_004.jp2
d7422de4fd5c18c701f0eebd2f8bd494
305b1c45ead14f00098c6f42e13bb0262ba757bd
115826 F20101209_AAAFTB halcovage_k_Page_033.jp2
0e6a5e87850017c3401dcf4649f35abe
75bc9766d33ba9c8cf951f1a1176850d97e8cce6
123214 F20101209_AAAFSN halcovage_k_Page_019.jp2
33f82171a0132985db85e11ccb8edb3d
b80765586858bd81aef6acd4b6e66c7f2886e560
1051973 F20101209_AAAFRZ halcovage_k_Page_005.jp2
7c6c4aefabe4f8a44e94300b21e96ba5
0f956bd1461f69cf9b9a31c8a6d7d6456caf92dc
110683 F20101209_AAAFTC halcovage_k_Page_034.jp2
ac5b3f4ec65308558a0fe65abc1dc077
4fde84357fc4f38c1bb476195146db1e8ebfaddc
86994 F20101209_AAAFSO halcovage_k_Page_020.jp2
8a5119e79134b43dd4a792d59749742d
560c982654811262d9ba86d039f3a22e0b4c39f3
112577 F20101209_AAAFTD halcovage_k_Page_035.jp2
4f9495b85aa3ccc6989584f063f72df8
8467c1677d14640ac84818917b82de50f247808a
85624 F20101209_AAAFSP halcovage_k_Page_021.jp2
a29c0461807060f86d625c02a14ac6f7
3599d08865b5a1b518bb3a0b6a9ad99f0d58439b
95465 F20101209_AAAFTE halcovage_k_Page_037.jp2
fb77971078a5ee3336da7e63ca152ec3
314cc63c463c2ca82bbdccbaa3eecc5a38acd189
100736 F20101209_AAAFSQ halcovage_k_Page_022.jp2
ba08acaa45ff6b5e0fd0a52b5afb6def
f4de28785d355b7d5db4502a51289c1349c0e55e
113870 F20101209_AAAFTF halcovage_k_Page_038.jp2
34b7b66f6f7db511a526fc5c942af692
032c17dff6afc821d282e884783ffbfc70ffc305
91321 F20101209_AAAFSR halcovage_k_Page_023.jp2
dfab16ca6df165c239a04de297edaa18
73aa4538e3721763d9e062e3be57cc41538550df
114121 F20101209_AAAFTG halcovage_k_Page_039.jp2
17475db6a0041c7344fa1f4c680759a8
d607ae8d232421dddea1ea7bd9e7ed8e40500844
95282 F20101209_AAAFSS halcovage_k_Page_024.jp2
d8b16f64af9921a4d03b0d8757d79ee8
9db9011c8242f5d0d7a4d0be36cc781fab33b2f4
113702 F20101209_AAAFTH halcovage_k_Page_040.jp2
62ea681c7ea144fa1b33f31d21a29a71
9a90edcf65fe2511907c8f58b70988eea8c0fc20
111735 F20101209_AAAFST halcovage_k_Page_025.jp2
218f9f576fa1683df72aedd3f097d386
6415da0bd822fbdb147d4489e94aeea716dc6343
119197 F20101209_AAAFTI halcovage_k_Page_041.jp2
11c9fe02dc890342460ca57a865859e7
bf3a76673605a29e5b8672097915c56cd1b70501
93402 F20101209_AAAFSU halcovage_k_Page_026.jp2
ef093e343c14e47d1176cd186219db25
759be4dfb1f2299d979ae64a51bfb99d6a68c021
110353 F20101209_AAAFTJ halcovage_k_Page_042.jp2
2b554d60f1aef4e275679018fb439122
7c67a1c4d5b35ff88d2362a3ee653b2064d63396
109820 F20101209_AAAFSV halcovage_k_Page_027.jp2
c52fa7cc1ba739a158f4dabe7486387e
f6f3093313e9f4f814f9a6d70e7c201ead896201
11879 F20101209_AAAFTK halcovage_k_Page_043.jp2
38baa69ad456380e667e5c40951def11
bd084a745d28341e650946de8f097d8a59ef1417
84611 F20101209_AAAFSW halcovage_k_Page_028.jp2
57c04b840516dd15ff14aa6b02c3ac97
a74a734ee10d08932a9de399c79a6340b09ed71e
600563 F20101209_AAAFTL halcovage_k_Page_044.jp2
7a88f7780fd158faa0a62e69ba54dde9
4c5b721d73faef1a39a04f565ebf5d92269125d6
1051961 F20101209_AAAFSX halcovage_k_Page_029.jp2
67f83a9b5c7c41c9b4a1f0e58c7e1999
88dd83c676421293f19b3111d6d900160ccea24b
487770 F20101209_AAAFTM halcovage_k_Page_045.jp2
9f5eff00bf027350a09785a6cc18931e
989403fcf85d0af9ca472ebe147191967b19cb6c
1051924 F20101209_AAAFSY halcovage_k_Page_030.jp2
b6e4118253202607b2f72165d30bd523
b7079e347bd20dac348f1d301eee2af8303057c5
117300 F20101209_AAAFUA halcovage_k_Page_061.jp2
bf3e20df1d9158ce8ccdc54bf29eff8a
52996a58685f27cd203da2a5e5844b70d8fa45a9
409773 F20101209_AAAFTN halcovage_k_Page_046.jp2
fbb9194f371354b010d592ba39af9a03
7f4a8c1a2e80230b0721dd673319a1de40b5d2fc
672903 F20101209_AAAFSZ halcovage_k_Page_031.jp2
4c700178ec2a4ac6ca1f234de9d7b957
dd11861bebe05a72226d491d72cf9d153b4ebb9c
110540 F20101209_AAAFUB halcovage_k_Page_062.jp2
25c2fb082b0c34ec85f76f6b90f68f9e
8afb57eca5bdc90140c411c49810d913f00fbfb1
476527 F20101209_AAAFTO halcovage_k_Page_047.jp2
d41f6a15af16c0e6d4d72202f4dcf9d8
d5cfec65657ffbb6607f9d41713075867b079a78
120546 F20101209_AAAFUC halcovage_k_Page_063.jp2
2fc6b0636e4f8b3d14d0918d0130dae4
f8c3fc778509ef5014a88bd6b9997947ba95515b
344499 F20101209_AAAFTP halcovage_k_Page_048.jp2
f02edca6f638a298710b6f4080d81a27
5ad714777d88785793d4378b8c0a9761ff06c30e
109028 F20101209_AAAFUD halcovage_k_Page_064.jp2
f678e54d8ca5686d2af0626c744e98f5
565586cd85781a9f0004225124f1920a5b0bff2e
1051972 F20101209_AAAFTQ halcovage_k_Page_049.jp2
c0605440c25dc04912caaafe98db9363
8bf8f531799e84af811e3b9252ac63e6a9094f37
21886 F20101209_AAAFUE halcovage_k_Page_065.jp2
51c86ee21d3e7316fdead9a27f0cec67
e585ba67c6d6eded944a89670dd0db07c3fee9e1
45901 F20101209_AAAFTR halcovage_k_Page_050.jp2
e141906b5d3d1dbc87f2b6caa1215bd9
ca1e7d5a62c47788ce8f459abc4c48f53222a9a7
25271604 F20101209_AAAGAA halcovage_k_Page_104.tif
5a67dadc75310b302ee76ac77fe7d919
796c0d2a1947d6c7004bae2668b7650b614b66af
1051881 F20101209_AAAFUF halcovage_k_Page_066.jp2
a012d35f99969f0498bd736e1411f7ba
fdb68f9117b4c70c869462b53f7e058cf885519e
102448 F20101209_AAAFTS halcovage_k_Page_051.jp2
5fb07915a3e1b3d97524efe2a135045c
b159cf2bce7a4e017551830118c3bd48be0e9306
F20101209_AAAGAB halcovage_k_Page_106.tif
33ec38dcf4c15997d15620d0a12eb453
3f74d28a11ddf80751829bd420b567e229117fd4
1051979 F20101209_AAAFUG halcovage_k_Page_067.jp2
80337bc6ba273acda1b6fe28e863fa60
47e242e1ca757ada6b203c30e65f325eff13ab07
F20101209_AAAGAC halcovage_k_Page_107.tif
73a88db68276d983aa78550a4e8e55c8
9ef59d7236854a79a8384fab934ea012e35d55f5
303655 F20101209_AAAFUH halcovage_k_Page_068.jp2
e516e1ad3aabd6d680344ca2d2a11e70
1498d4bbce48e5f83580d08c9464032596332e14
96793 F20101209_AAAFTT halcovage_k_Page_053.jp2
734a32c704cb36fad0845df43cade78d
a07c7439469d3840d7638fe1d0b28b860a89c621
F20101209_AAAGAD halcovage_k_Page_109.tif
e096b883337adebcd15019c217638fcd
131132d27861036e469bd970d60dc2a424cc0560
726152 F20101209_AAAFUI halcovage_k_Page_069.jp2
7268afa4eef9765230dea53b47e9a147
6f0e8a2706c24693633780d5e8f9ae374a78c08f
59205 F20101209_AAAFTU halcovage_k_Page_054.jp2
7de02619557e9ee2825acea9c6e5e872
c0d97a5eb5d7b90a54d0139e9f7cc27cbc841bab
F20101209_AAAGAE halcovage_k_Page_110.tif
0e7823bc748d6c316e14aff647eeb6b1
10fb3cfceebca104694fbfc29d502b7c254ed450
F20101209_AAAFUJ halcovage_k_Page_070.jp2
db4e808d0cc2408616f68ebe74db5132
7dd7170492454b18b3a73791cefb34182c181169
502974 F20101209_AAAFTV halcovage_k_Page_055.jp2
47e826e279e8bbdd3f5773593351d3b1
7d2e1f51872db0ed9fb3aa56db19642aa0843d49
F20101209_AAAGAF halcovage_k_Page_111.tif
11fb3b64cd9f9343a588288a083e001b
b470c914e5046738074e2568bb51c64ca44b8da1
F20101209_AAAFUK halcovage_k_Page_071.jp2
dfd35df34d9b0b8566dd524f53be92d0
b1baa4beff832bd6ac8dc0f55aac2c52344e421c
1051926 F20101209_AAAFTW halcovage_k_Page_056.jp2
ccf235a59a7c141b1de2794cf247f2ff
555dcd132e6a1b5f38b78a74775b47b17fab98cf
F20101209_AAAGAG halcovage_k_Page_112.tif
46ae5bf244d2a16455c5fb3a6775f4ad
4faca483e4a66c37cc3c4e31f15d5a31ba5b70c3
787972 F20101209_AAAFUL halcovage_k_Page_072.jp2
e9f5ac229aa2efa8f90eb10322e2b5ff
c4ad98d4317d6741e8a29bf4e212f37a3a91801f
1051798 F20101209_AAAFTX halcovage_k_Page_057.jp2
ed0196022c0e597d0c94fd740a63cff6
281f78ab15831b4259932b6774d89ceb097af28b
F20101209_AAAGAH halcovage_k_Page_113.tif
532037f8c96dfc57f382ea0569e08b5f
30bfe06fe8d83756c1d0d781745eb9fc73db4a5b
1051984 F20101209_AAAFVA halcovage_k_Page_089.jp2
a9e4704a262c579e8c3962eeaa7078fe
209d5d94309145cd58ba22d1f6634b1068dc3840
721676 F20101209_AAAFUM halcovage_k_Page_073.jp2
050686e4b06abef6536ddd2cd75be679
a7072925096bd96858b237307c0d4185900b1f14
1051975 F20101209_AAAFTY halcovage_k_Page_058.jp2
43fec55c95c8f8627de2012ff8faf7c9
03084b16f40143e5a71d25eee6796fcb73d7a42f
572236 F20101209_AAAFVB halcovage_k_Page_090.jp2
c29ce869efa14f30e1e85e3a85c1d65f
0925c1b0dd3003985e04836c8a73516f45cb4b10
1051964 F20101209_AAAFUN halcovage_k_Page_074.jp2
e7fde532dc2095b2120dc5844d5dd4d1
d2e4906f0ca48a2eeb2a773231914994b027b532
465254 F20101209_AAAFTZ halcovage_k_Page_059.jp2
522bfea658b14978e9950de4a4df33d8
c15bc15a723e66ad211c4d50028fb3deb9dbc9cd
F20101209_AAAGAI halcovage_k_Page_114.tif
4cee22abff170b52dc4aa95038f83ecf
86544ad6d0d5da5b9020b5768fc3559c714933d9
1040192 F20101209_AAAFVC halcovage_k_Page_091.jp2
2da4779b5cdacca6c59d292429d00480
0df6534f18a3d09621456a87532e2a47604a3764
50581 F20101209_AAAFUO halcovage_k_Page_076.jp2
7603011cb59f6b3a5cb65cac1d2de008
1f7965851739dfa7d4e35f2099b0cb9009fbd0aa
F20101209_AAAGAJ halcovage_k_Page_116.tif
be7a7490758380160b86a35a2c405037
bb64b7b8a3c5535b1756c264f33b563c09c06b51
F20101209_AAAFVD halcovage_k_Page_092.jp2
1cd1aedd2c8d635b17b65a2303d67ff7
4f62d177bcbf2816bf21b50bf0ae2fe6301d0f1d
1051941 F20101209_AAAFUP halcovage_k_Page_077.jp2
cf8203486020f088ad5bd5703be8b1d2
f3c8580baac5547deb399c2d8892c2e8855a8e06
F20101209_AAAGAK halcovage_k_Page_117.tif
5d0d9d5e6b5a1a5795bec57108ef777d
a6d1c920262ee29c6ca3c45046ad54856f80dfc1
824081 F20101209_AAAFVE halcovage_k_Page_093.jp2
353fc147506ffb2c4eb11ffd5fdc990f
bd49e71a637f68598c53dc8c32f1301247dfad9c
272411 F20101209_AAAFUQ halcovage_k_Page_078.jp2
9883963904c74ad8e5c0001f33ad8090
f351489dbe19dbd29cccd43524b048da887e11c8
F20101209_AAAGAL halcovage_k_Page_118.tif
47b2a8eb04e63677275c9a97b366bd1b
f31ca72a8959494dcf9fc1e51548338929f54e18
1051938 F20101209_AAAFVF halcovage_k_Page_094.jp2
e16ee66366ffd56011732d19495175c4
d95df16509a5a9d4760e7a42ece386044ee0ffc7
970606 F20101209_AAAFUR halcovage_k_Page_079.jp2
e7d9016db7aa3c90d29ee3da98875b22
f4981e8b72fe5432f760e1cb7cddceaa04f0a5f0
46336 F20101209_AAAGBA halcovage_k_Page_010.pro
2ff1b3c5664002fc4fdb5eaf16e531e6
f82b80bbe579a006bc1f28a9d4a2046475b6972d
F20101209_AAAGAM halcovage_k_Page_119.tif
3b23e3b83686e72e64b7e4fd337db21d
9964f7580060100ae30cc372b2f5e94e24c14291
1051974 F20101209_AAAFVG halcovage_k_Page_095.jp2
4ca36dae8fd84d9868fc28154e7a9786
2f5af67e5e8e1e0ccb990608bc0e7e416f232a3e
329606 F20101209_AAAFUS halcovage_k_Page_080.jp2
7cc4fb021851bd0ba79e334534727be4
b970a0f2b9f9c9a0e427cfa8172814f2fc268b2a
47295 F20101209_AAAGBB halcovage_k_Page_011.pro
25291fd43bf0714272961a3ad3baa5b3
9646b910523b02b721fd59b935388d077292bc67
F20101209_AAAGAN halcovage_k_Page_120.tif
e5b99cc82fe509a1c2cdf5501f0cc500
24065fd7d11373611ce5d1f95d6ed46ffbbbf2a5
618264 F20101209_AAAFVH halcovage_k_Page_096.jp2
a19293b8b95cd2f00ee61fba374bf7ef
10f1d3c96710e255a697ef12edd5d9fbc57cfd18
169236 F20101209_AAAFUT halcovage_k_Page_081.jp2
e2e82112b262b0d43418e30d655b29c8
f93c279a020b7d8145ef6cf8d5e2530ff87ef354
19401 F20101209_AAAGBC halcovage_k_Page_012.pro
a530b7903d9212a1ffa0617ad604f4aa
f5df40a6199d56389980ca1393ffc6c2bd34f349
F20101209_AAAGAO halcovage_k_Page_121.tif
db967461cb405bebeff349a5d4e04609
98750dcfff5760decfd8404b78bdafda61648c72
1051977 F20101209_AAAFVI halcovage_k_Page_097.jp2
85c6b3571911b75ba843a831c5bcf3dd
c20a4d7a61734c3024aab106b9ba87dfe8fdd737
841914 F20101209_AAAFUU halcovage_k_Page_082.jp2
06aacd1a96fd162de5f779d1d22e6a7e
5173c6b2ca4852dd3e4846dfc82de36010226238
26627 F20101209_AAAGBD halcovage_k_Page_013.pro
21caf243c579c9f3f9f1f7866e20ac31
8b29c86cfdf9f082a482ecbd83bbaffea2b21e44
1053954 F20101209_AAAGAP halcovage_k_Page_122.tif
dd54ca17f6b797fbbf812fbccc37f712
325a2129a12c3bc2b40f956b0447f21d6d9aeef5
968206 F20101209_AAAFVJ halcovage_k_Page_098.jp2
ebc5928af655e73f894cf14c5c229030
942682f7bfd251bed4f88264d68e201fcbda5563
789326 F20101209_AAAFUV halcovage_k_Page_083.jp2
59e646e0a9d4c17ba000a188ee251377
2a0db30d2e89ff3fabffc01f22951a84ef602f0f
1434 F20101209_AAAGBE halcovage_k_Page_014.pro
d4bb5fef6a0d471d57969d22fa84c854
299dc0f8e3021bf604d02defbf67681b19da5ee1
1051986 F20101209_AAAFVK halcovage_k_Page_099.jp2
714bc490be3b16a22b507dbc06dbcb85
8a48284979eaa0cabd51e4c84bf014b427e9c2cc
608960 F20101209_AAAFUW halcovage_k_Page_084.jp2
43f64674edf4f3838bf0be0bb5139452
dead1110477ad2d0ac6d0ce5b47637b5a4a568da
49903 F20101209_AAAGBF halcovage_k_Page_015.pro
7f798e33f2c7b1f82e8fc27d4d792cea
4075bdca098f72e24e5e89e53f25d6232720d1ac
F20101209_AAAGAQ halcovage_k_Page_123.tif
31d4512ff70e3432d0e19846843dc829
3c08e4f2cb1762607926f8dca8a09e508bb8c8e3
470049 F20101209_AAAFVL halcovage_k_Page_100.jp2
ac56d23fbf3900e3e52eb036da56447c
a8e7718268a0966e3371c99f0b6517af342368ca
900403 F20101209_AAAFUX halcovage_k_Page_085.jp2
3306a486154505650a2d99334b8dab64
6f3a6046d9b167032c73c2149cf6fb2a47179ef3
54340 F20101209_AAAGBG halcovage_k_Page_016.pro
4077ee5fc646dc22f406649dce3db490
9bcc6646e4f7b7afa0356f11d2933f0b241feb6e
F20101209_AAAGAR halcovage_k_Page_124.tif
d7757fb0fcbb8a1dbbdc3e4d8b806fb8
cbd18ba6497ea8503b2a04e2228dadfd218967ce
1018713 F20101209_AAAFVM halcovage_k_Page_101.jp2
b57f5f37ca8921bdd3cec0264312119b
a8af053adb75aca762d6d6f7f29c60ec635aa3d7
1051958 F20101209_AAAFUY halcovage_k_Page_087.jp2
44d606f8edbf3d0aafd4e6ac0eac18b9
b0480b5f09b434da93e86feaecb3808659dd7154
49096 F20101209_AAAGBH halcovage_k_Page_017.pro
c3966969d70b390f3871be260f065bd1
4f946f5205f006206aea961b17555482a6023402
747720 F20101209_AAAFWA halcovage_k_Page_115.jp2
7634717d410ad50c662c702955e1c546
913caac76fbfb4cafc398e37c28418ce9f11c4b3
7348 F20101209_AAAGAS halcovage_k_Page_001.pro
7b47d16ed585963dd5537e75ed3800bc
7e77ecb52132f96b589247d5e9008421397d8f87
1051823 F20101209_AAAFVN halcovage_k_Page_102.jp2
9668a7001e1446690968a58505761c20
f4d0d41f85d74aabbed9e4ed4fb31d711494c44d
843698 F20101209_AAAFUZ halcovage_k_Page_088.jp2
d70d7f2bd0f79b7bf449648762b337c2
e2504942b6c4dd4e839fac48ff5e1da9622a00b2
55433 F20101209_AAAGBI halcovage_k_Page_018.pro
65d61d74983ebe75f45cd434d4a2e689
3de65573ff791688ff8b90adf707ff272a962113
464526 F20101209_AAAFWB halcovage_k_Page_116.jp2
acc55e4e65fc07ba2465936d5412589b
2490772169669da57a6cff71ad1b663251597af1
1020 F20101209_AAAGAT halcovage_k_Page_002.pro
f7e2612157c79ed586beb4771c571c31
61efae4b41edfcf8c1be4fd94217bfa90b0cba55
F20101209_AAAFVO halcovage_k_Page_103.jp2
ebc8f418e3b13fe7b9651ff4009bdc8d
40f8ab061d0340132ab4429fd37d4ba0a0fb5789
450483 F20101209_AAAFWC halcovage_k_Page_117.jp2
a0c03ad1e894f7654e7cbc6f60a3a159
7999f083b2690f7316b35a8a3645f9c6cf6c748d
12336 F20101209_AAAGAU halcovage_k_Page_003.pro
3b249128cf32ae22e504cf4d6fe566d0
5fe2154bedc5e0609fb1b02c7fde14e9d81df766
F20101209_AAAFVP halcovage_k_Page_104.jp2
34ae71f0c6cfe3c8ef5f839583c441fa
3fd269c57c097302a79e3eae3adf7054cc4d7202
60105 F20101209_AAAGBJ halcovage_k_Page_019.pro
03ccf9f1448e9c06c05d1fc79aa47a2b
e69f65fcb852383d28287f7e8cfe67f3f9405d0f
444889 F20101209_AAAFWD halcovage_k_Page_118.jp2
41df5b2d3aa4042cb2263e3b13de6a11
bd3736e8a50b2593a0a91c13ea881643288031a2
12730 F20101209_AAAGAV halcovage_k_Page_004.pro
6340de6d2d20bbf91621dfd3d30cc2b7
7f032040a10ad3bf48d2b930f7306f30c91dbf79
894180 F20101209_AAAFVQ halcovage_k_Page_105.jp2
9e30addac7005d7e70078655f03b2e24
6570e1f2d9b8b955379c95e9ae6229cba18c9022
43110 F20101209_AAAGBK halcovage_k_Page_020.pro
ae95297502fc22a84f6ef5d685d8753c
e32eab5dd03d38f6294b7b3f9df496a05a87dae7
452482 F20101209_AAAFWE halcovage_k_Page_119.jp2
b23154afd8c51aa91a58e178cd969c2c
7cae4182c8c8184f795e4117d829138ea4a8d630
84849 F20101209_AAAGAW halcovage_k_Page_005.pro
1eec442bd8e27cdd9ced43a7f25f4ce1
64cc883e1cb39714277fbefbcb1be642aef37c42
949312 F20101209_AAAFVR halcovage_k_Page_106.jp2
e4baccf98685d5971b670dd36552dc44
b709df791e9594cdf238fe679b58ca8953063184
46232 F20101209_AAAGCA halcovage_k_Page_037.pro
98394f8fe19f1c84ea19559dfd6e8926
0e6f4134c5b303804c6cce3e674ab4da56d98967
40196 F20101209_AAAGBL halcovage_k_Page_021.pro
9462f20869f7281f8f66b07f11fa24a0
affaee09e89586dc13155ec791bab5f0f7c93db6
450111 F20101209_AAAFWF halcovage_k_Page_120.jp2
788833df540214525e2f15725adaa61b
ca165408f73ae727e80b19a725845e445c691043
69103 F20101209_AAAGAX halcovage_k_Page_006.pro
25d06df5df751ae3d232bfcd22f65393
bc7ff470e88926f21b5e9a27d5fd8fdc1eaf236a
1051978 F20101209_AAAFVS halcovage_k_Page_107.jp2
0efd9628eb20968b9b463b9c4761c6e6
bd5c9cb5d95e1a42dc29c3262474382d26dfc84b
56094 F20101209_AAAGCB halcovage_k_Page_038.pro
82c04a103e0c91d2499dd81fcc186444
1f293d17107c574614c6182806ad3351451615d2
49895 F20101209_AAAGBM halcovage_k_Page_022.pro
a827ee7193be452eebb3391a8c9dfb6d
5c442c6953666685f6bf1cd717321de7267017ff
454636 F20101209_AAAFWG halcovage_k_Page_121.jp2
4bd85fefdb4195a0af0af4affc470242
d3ddb567aad944ad25e8e4a21355ad58d2f42297
75044 F20101209_AAAGAY halcovage_k_Page_008.pro
fd273f0190098c3a58ddd6578fceccc3
6d94f752112bf2ac4627de2b436f15759458c3af
677749 F20101209_AAAFVT halcovage_k_Page_108.jp2
d5f2a25de3f2d76ec8a2b74d9eba91a1
42a4d83ff05e7c65b2b0a1e8791b81c24e9bb2f9
54048 F20101209_AAAGCC halcovage_k_Page_039.pro
58f7150dfd13f13c544642d944bcb03e
c32be67c5ea462d58f8db2b019f7c6bbac8db5a5
42168 F20101209_AAAGBN halcovage_k_Page_023.pro
4e02162200957a385ef57ae22cad045f
ffc4654857238813bf84356a475fbb855068ff38
134913 F20101209_AAAFWH halcovage_k_Page_122.jp2
88b3cd9cf731643e39f7ebf193df3648
be2633d22c5263a91d6056aaf1b68a31b689e257
77998 F20101209_AAAGAZ halcovage_k_Page_009.pro
d43badae14e5f1e7fd3963a9cd5a0a44
835f4190790838babb696b42e48e1fada0d53868
385886 F20101209_AAAFVU halcovage_k_Page_109.jp2
67fbe6b5feaabe507bf187a80c432306
147bb05d723c71e8a79038acc3eebd4680d38c0b
53584 F20101209_AAAGCD halcovage_k_Page_040.pro
0f4cd19ee9efc1b984d06d4de7f1fd61
8becd920f104e663c301d283ea55540a03d4ed03
45351 F20101209_AAAGBO halcovage_k_Page_024.pro
a29060682d859641aab0f3fc650f456e
1ab4253dfa22f354dec44335ffd6b2dac2d55816
120770 F20101209_AAAFWI halcovage_k_Page_123.jp2
39a5c39647e0883c72cdada3bbfb4288
17e79b54d1e64065163134212a896906c2b57201
358075 F20101209_AAAFVV halcovage_k_Page_110.jp2
28cc4c3289a4ecce021732bc183507e7
d9e68a0d227fb6eb9941aceedb36d6ac1cb82048
56195 F20101209_AAAGCE halcovage_k_Page_041.pro
5e98c9121fc6210ef7d4df1ca551a4af
561b1b80ae7403f5a0b52e94931f70e754ea669c
54181 F20101209_AAAGBP halcovage_k_Page_025.pro
dcbfca3cbcd6fc6ac6abf54d7ea38bdc
5d075fedc38464b12addc970803fb92f34f68dba
96094 F20101209_AAAFWJ halcovage_k_Page_124.jp2
636ef50e03b27dfc69dd60739f7a034c
3bf7b3376ac1fb5d6730e8ed41235e85d120dfa9
351572 F20101209_AAAFVW halcovage_k_Page_111.jp2
f864d3623c90dc36f0686363bb2ec0cc
54c5cd1a647978f8231946b2c6f31f64e78c7143
52655 F20101209_AAAGCF halcovage_k_Page_042.pro
61786f838f60592da2776da9371283f8
5e7ea29d73919ddedbfac9fd79c22aeac045b45e
43743 F20101209_AAAGBQ halcovage_k_Page_026.pro
8ae4bf9570e8701e665c546e340498d7
c3a4f28895cdf06885c2ab952104422404071801
F20101209_AAAFWK halcovage_k_Page_001.tif
96755fb22522bacaedf35d1ba1799be2
e87528ac81cc1a977d8284be4f5b8526e3a91453
359727 F20101209_AAAFVX halcovage_k_Page_112.jp2
e8ca1de7aea5c04bc43155d2c7362f45
307cdacfff81904abcca2b41ad379b2e685c389c
3893 F20101209_AAAGCG halcovage_k_Page_043.pro
c2ae41981ac0bb0ababba54467c46952
022f9d28a57a9db954f5059419f7bb43126f0ece
52926 F20101209_AAAGBR halcovage_k_Page_027.pro
fb9483e383a2030eaf8e95d6e51a9aa8
51c4c9f3bbba05b5668a3f9dc884dbc615a8b028
F20101209_AAAFWL halcovage_k_Page_003.tif
b15394e159d8e4d99c07ac4d851f754a
9d45a031be1552e2cdce57f627e3e93af8e803f1
364762 F20101209_AAAFVY halcovage_k_Page_113.jp2
791ead9fc952d0286117cf46df8c28da
2cbc811126e97fa68083ca4658e769a1f93245ff
4723 F20101209_AAAGCH halcovage_k_Page_044.pro
82ff5b60602c3ef2f094f4e5d93147d6
c70a059106c379b48b6f0a797253ecf6be3a3915
F20101209_AAAFXA halcovage_k_Page_019.tif
a383a56eb19fc78be31e28a505736280
1e914929814b71a56b512e896db176eed64d2009
39230 F20101209_AAAGBS halcovage_k_Page_028.pro
6768ad8e4769fea7e388e064020e3a66
d50ab5b3f079d734a1b85a787afedaa8ab113b3d
F20101209_AAAFWM halcovage_k_Page_004.tif
de4bfdaf4d83193623dad43a93645737
fcd805e556db1e4e41c32725216c034c4d6370b2
378439 F20101209_AAAFVZ halcovage_k_Page_114.jp2
1bca0bb3ad7e67bbf500bd1de65e61b3
c5b2e7ff22938e912835c3e4f8b1d88ce576fe42
2644 F20101209_AAAGCI halcovage_k_Page_045.pro
cd66a6a322c280fa31097cf708faa5cd
fcbdabc9788babcad2a895cce8b3e6d1ca586ef9
F20101209_AAAFXB halcovage_k_Page_020.tif
72572391bd8b9da2667a0cb99d7c1bb5
75c74e1c1999a375252a734f5900902f990b6e7b
3692 F20101209_AAAGBT halcovage_k_Page_029.pro
dff30fbb48046dc5359a45d8ccc34a62
655ac0b9bf6fb7710469ff5d6c3204a2c4a96d06
F20101209_AAAFWN halcovage_k_Page_005.tif
4d9b5544984c800cd969afd7a56071fb
49046e4a0235265be80ab3c8c9581bb0c71ed7e9
4494 F20101209_AAAGCJ halcovage_k_Page_046.pro
3b0beb8c732ed88a18f9c1ce3cd80566
c676b46f481c24686c43c487dfef9fa37d109c1c
F20101209_AAAFXC halcovage_k_Page_021.tif
adabd586d9647a960700471506153773
7abc46da5dfef4a341d5af32576b3323f9cdc80f
4933 F20101209_AAAGBU halcovage_k_Page_030.pro
f265719c62f52b2573a1c40f74ba131f
7e36c7197af25f78828dce8e0d00b9fb4cc68ce7
F20101209_AAAFWO halcovage_k_Page_006.tif
ea705c10e61862f8c1778627db4103a1
c23a16b39668348cc03907db58cef7aa6a1c4888
F20101209_AAAFXD halcovage_k_Page_022.tif
9e2de73ee7950f2d522295a4edff6d9e
0eb2da88744e0caa7e154698718714de1f47a52f
44282 F20101209_AAAGBV halcovage_k_Page_031.pro
bbf18afd1a6d2b2025f512dc8f5a758d
bbab02d978bf46a38a0601f42a603929b15fc79d
F20101209_AAAFWP halcovage_k_Page_007.tif
ad6538c360968ea95901885575e95491
43768bb6ec3bcbd80e03851fc182cbd9ca0980a0
10040 F20101209_AAAGCK halcovage_k_Page_047.pro
3926c150395c65a4dc83cbaa4ae48455
88a618a3b40ec1c99853303f046de2bf0c3a648c
F20101209_AAAFXE halcovage_k_Page_023.tif
551b643c1484a731162ae3ffb058a95e
de6c36ec48334935764d6b2f6251401e70b7f538
40183 F20101209_AAAGBW halcovage_k_Page_032.pro
dc7dda59396fe1da1b28cfecd8edc5e6
4d8af7b50bccb94174130f67da083c308dd885fc
F20101209_AAAFWQ halcovage_k_Page_008.tif
dea972604d459af3884135cfa97d0d6f
f78cae6f0b9921acdb485d2f1c9cbc5d7e73303a
7184 F20101209_AAAGCL halcovage_k_Page_048.pro
92a2addd407fbdea57f092a626cac188
7df4152d77a1edcf9a366ac40293421dba04dc45
F20101209_AAAFXF halcovage_k_Page_024.tif
f5bb5f7f6848fa9d59e9c7bb649bbeaf
c01a7ac446923437cf9e32071c445fe714efb9f5
54372 F20101209_AAAGBX halcovage_k_Page_033.pro
f41b5fef8062d66e3388fc07483425d5
7b86fdc4254f362ab1a2134056e08d9ea47e8a83
F20101209_AAAFWR halcovage_k_Page_009.tif
9237755e59fe866c2d962f64f5284a2a
7970de3a08563a6420b00468be97d6dd62e6cc82
56241 F20101209_AAAGDA halcovage_k_Page_063.pro
e50e9534355a509498aeb5631cbec5d2
309bd4aad980f7bfe2369f918b506c95ca8aff4f
3770 F20101209_AAAGCM halcovage_k_Page_049.pro
687f127c8151300cff24add6e1f04515
676f3096b7309ba81244f31018de6103029a7da6
F20101209_AAAFXG halcovage_k_Page_025.tif
67fc23736931383ad3877eed93a68c92
e85ac2c8b1e30536207c048878c2cc3d5f5a23b5
51190 F20101209_AAAGBY halcovage_k_Page_034.pro
10a84ee9de14fcce998c55a136426ab9
eede299407480668c6891f3ff0e0255a69261d54
F20101209_AAAFWS halcovage_k_Page_010.tif
1ea835d6d807241bc9cd6c377047e380
b760fcb0eac63d33a2729cf0aa7b3d821736d978
51700 F20101209_AAAGDB halcovage_k_Page_064.pro
1258435013f2fee2f11bc490da3123f3
85a558a46c5bbd3484151b38056166c41d153f83
21471 F20101209_AAAGCN halcovage_k_Page_050.pro
f0f3f69621e47ee8caedf1fbdf07de6b
2c2584682482565ea3479990b2954ed6978e6dca
F20101209_AAAFXH halcovage_k_Page_027.tif
60e97a48dcfcb2a0490c46aa26f47472
373675acfef30524b707cadf2382ab6bb34f65c3
52641 F20101209_AAAGBZ halcovage_k_Page_035.pro
d1c66697293c67ca107088ab94198550
8f01e4d634e5ca0bb81779c261259fbe81d09f06
F20101209_AAAFWT halcovage_k_Page_011.tif
e89b71ae8130e4c74f1d73090ea1b66c
6d87dd7d8fa08d3117dd9b209851674c300d20ba
8785 F20101209_AAAGDC halcovage_k_Page_065.pro
09206542c31c2274a0bc57583be53447
698a8da3ad546816db864389e92685daacbc8bb0
47143 F20101209_AAAGCO halcovage_k_Page_051.pro
fb8543003c45e079097afc522ddd9605
a98ae1db30f5becb5e78a191597b4ad4b9040416
F20101209_AAAFXI halcovage_k_Page_028.tif
d02eccd77491072a21942e4e22853f6d
0f696d8f939b25851997fe35f88476747eae2960
F20101209_AAAFWU halcovage_k_Page_012.tif
0512c586ff1e4c8656547a7e404d047f
aeb3e9ad5879f819a56556a4afdf9b395a3f0d3e
5079 F20101209_AAAGDD halcovage_k_Page_066.pro
f568f875c2940499e807505d4e7878ea
211f822153593dd608a56edaf64d2fb08ce8a3a1
51850 F20101209_AAAGCP halcovage_k_Page_052.pro
1ec7f7615e66f1f954ae3457ccee4662
bc91dc2f059950c52ee153e5bdc25d75cd5c7932
F20101209_AAAFXJ halcovage_k_Page_029.tif
ac7587f6eb10d3d7757163ce5d2fac95
a0750d5d30ecdc75dd6b7be447629a35356b4296
F20101209_AAAFWV halcovage_k_Page_013.tif
981429b671c0011f0d5a65c31d50ee9b
e84dfbc6ff8074b08412fb6e10783d186fc5c1af
7100 F20101209_AAAGDE halcovage_k_Page_067.pro
8e8bdf27a079b1ed6f4f24e7af21203b
bdbf1640bfffa6f3e3d587974534594d63f8c894
46876 F20101209_AAAGCQ halcovage_k_Page_053.pro
8be3b718086b5148c9f7e0471ff2eb13
cbad7b7e3263159f72d34036dca445345fd074ea
F20101209_AAAFXK halcovage_k_Page_031.tif
5b4597f9796901d80b0788d54f4f0808
aa8a3804c027bf107452875da736a0ba4f38bf92
F20101209_AAAFWW halcovage_k_Page_014.tif
84947a8ed9b6f23401dd30c932a5263e
f84d390a6143562d982baff7e527abb9ec522391
5416 F20101209_AAAGDF halcovage_k_Page_069.pro
c91c1e6c04bbeca23e019308c1bf5b37
7725001d9c1a5c26ad3e49948940c9eb54961978
F20101209_AAAFYA halcovage_k_Page_049.tif
550a0b411aebc47d90ecf1dc12de69c8
b17f1cf3ce08422ce12918de738a51904603892a
26560 F20101209_AAAGCR halcovage_k_Page_054.pro
a5c34b5b6844d75048efa3750c8fc670
14125cf768656b8d59a9690df779fa89abc72572
F20101209_AAAFXL halcovage_k_Page_032.tif
9602ca527597c6e386ab88bbc0c86783
2b2b8ad4b26252e205517a8c67321282e9164270
F20101209_AAAFWX halcovage_k_Page_015.tif
e5b4621b204037fcc8795240609f5758
fd64f3405ed335d390aa6b112cedb86eb3ef84cb
11941 F20101209_AAAGDG halcovage_k_Page_070.pro
0c939e549f238a013fbae87bc9046ba7
61656103fd08d03bf1f331ea909e3078aebbbd5f
4367 F20101209_AAAGCS halcovage_k_Page_055.pro
461adc4870e2c82a45fe24d61bbf4f55
4e8749f00f460fd59c5bbf0b2b6d57c0d5920435
F20101209_AAAFXM halcovage_k_Page_033.tif
b2d30c3eb0db5b4f3a693b5638a66547
2163cab0ef024555e853082fd82c95d8578dc113
F20101209_AAAFWY halcovage_k_Page_016.tif
4b90c1594f75034c80b0bbdbd86ad797
fd8d377782f1e4ddaadff74ea8e58ff2ed46a329
7015 F20101209_AAAGDH halcovage_k_Page_071.pro
16170a8266c9ec280a6bb4eea392814f
b8e2d48bb9a26072fd6f40b1a9cf522da4e52e5d
F20101209_AAAFYB halcovage_k_Page_050.tif
be276f6cac6fd60fd44d544a1f061427
cc15dccd60fa97436b80eaccc5cb77c9cd9042fc
3583 F20101209_AAAGCT halcovage_k_Page_056.pro
1069b7a5cba8b1a27a953c02d32d077e
7ba89db14e721e7f2421725cd9620412dc56c1e5
F20101209_AAAFXN halcovage_k_Page_034.tif
871125dc511fe97cd7d731ebd44bd564
2deafa808ca7d7cee407b70aa9a05ba55621adce
F20101209_AAAFWZ halcovage_k_Page_018.tif
46b6fbbf343242330e672620605dc348
638de83a605a0d3cd535f7f23add781248804c70
8497 F20101209_AAAGDI halcovage_k_Page_072.pro
b5d547291165cd5cb01c718fd382ca67
b9746ae2ae29793866007c74b4e74cbc0ab0059a
F20101209_AAAFYC halcovage_k_Page_051.tif
cc9abd82161a4a48853a97a4586791b6
158dfe26c78aeaba4e039261eea78aeb421eac58
4343 F20101209_AAAGCU halcovage_k_Page_057.pro
fe673d1c724a5010e59cb5d61a5db17d
46bf6dbaf44c76512fdfbe6d3658f0fedb3fc90e
F20101209_AAAFXO halcovage_k_Page_035.tif
553f1fd702e3b0e1cc41dce8c3e975cc
22ba1aca67a54deff486e255d454c94c3720c7ad
11393 F20101209_AAAGDJ halcovage_k_Page_073.pro
88a4abb3ef76eabc58d1a4e4053db94d
772b55e35692c9d5542b2f5d822a3e1f39e18208
F20101209_AAAFYD halcovage_k_Page_052.tif
97951a13b25c08ffb93ec27082244de1
70f460164dd1b3f816e828045191c4182762c4a8
3612 F20101209_AAAGCV halcovage_k_Page_058.pro
5319fe7e3b32fccb754be93c23380f44
6af200644703e58c9c4f7dd7217923341359c5b5
F20101209_AAAFXP halcovage_k_Page_036.tif
c79f3219da210fa31f307ea4f21c86c1
f368d22d6b04174965a4fd21f7c1d1eb2c7e9d33
6191 F20101209_AAAGDK halcovage_k_Page_074.pro
6aba0b20f5111c5e2d67937af4cf823b
f4b7cfdd738c447df774b8766ba64785fbf07a63
F20101209_AAAFYE halcovage_k_Page_053.tif
51974026bd221d45d536284d17c77220
23f14e889c096b782f380736671468e6531dddb6
3085 F20101209_AAAGCW halcovage_k_Page_059.pro
cf9c32684adc25fe1409d50af9cdc8fa
cccbcb20d73d9787eda0cdbd414a6e3d1eec87b4
F20101209_AAAFXQ halcovage_k_Page_037.tif
1f95eb03c1ceaebd037c963a6bb3e923
b21563d2488eeb6ca581b51962ee8175758609b5
F20101209_AAAFYF halcovage_k_Page_054.tif
a25861fb987724702a968d75f6d07399
4ac687f030fc51d1982c7585e5ebdce8d8ede408
51117 F20101209_AAAGCX halcovage_k_Page_060.pro
fd1ab6bc99c62f3b01a5e0907098cb3e
f7eeb4bee237f43821fea45404958b6948c99330
F20101209_AAAFXR halcovage_k_Page_038.tif
9b4039008a02f327ccd56876240e3254
9a2903c0dbaac73fcc3380b48bcc023f5285191a
24921 F20101209_AAAGEA halcovage_k_Page_091.pro
a9f57bf7e2a600f0ac44133858e61361
64d1864dce09c7fc41d5dedc4d69b40d3281220c
55022 F20101209_AAAGDL halcovage_k_Page_075.pro
f51007ae43fce609e57fb7f7ceb9d6d1
4196dbcc2263c60b8df9be1deaf9dad4fdaa6042
F20101209_AAAFYG halcovage_k_Page_055.tif
eded5f71b4ef60a6d4d0233c8a4da6eb
4744cf53a8ae06055cb62c6f203efaf6c1d17c61
56542 F20101209_AAAGCY halcovage_k_Page_061.pro
39fc3b9afc2234749562de56f2eb6e09
e853b6e743fc735a401923c2c768b212a8256f14
F20101209_AAAFXS halcovage_k_Page_041.tif
431c45c009002e3939938b5e6a84f271
56240a4050c9d43702d79827a32827b436af849c
30727 F20101209_AAAGEB halcovage_k_Page_092.pro
a30487cc892a555dc0420ad7480a19d4
96189a5c2993ffc9d3d4a5f5ea8abd54ff55374c
23005 F20101209_AAAGDM halcovage_k_Page_076.pro
3447b94e3c8331575d80e236c05291a1
d99d5352208a075113d42477064fb2c63ea1259f
F20101209_AAAFYH halcovage_k_Page_056.tif
eed34cda35265e63799acaa6564fc95d
ea36a35b92867de4860e4ef70d9f4598dcbec94d
52559 F20101209_AAAGCZ halcovage_k_Page_062.pro
bd633ce2c2536b49e6cc601831f8cce2
5619a88390de7eff7fbf375264838a70a67b8766
F20101209_AAAFXT halcovage_k_Page_042.tif
8eaa7a2055cff1b374722b344ee86875
78ce6beb17a66261c490d22d41afc82b91d71da4
21368 F20101209_AAAGEC halcovage_k_Page_093.pro
efa4adfac8d25b549af56c8951e677a4
86277e8c63d481a1f43e076a733d6078b00ed435
5750 F20101209_AAAGDN halcovage_k_Page_077.pro
9c07235f2e107fbf496a1707f7522f91
91eba67b5ca2fd0ea9038eb0d5f5287ac28b8594
F20101209_AAAFYI halcovage_k_Page_057.tif
8c42b9516b33d49e93254394050504a1
0c4607afc0592dfcdf30c74ae5dcb1846802bb66
F20101209_AAAFXU halcovage_k_Page_043.tif
f33a7a2389fb5aec49613f11e1b91655
6ae482c5ef7b2c8cd15c483064e664e255b13db6
36774 F20101209_AAAGED halcovage_k_Page_094.pro
a73ce5a9983535400b99c7cbb16b31f3
4641bce18d04840f7ab49fad71b85aa325827950
2158 F20101209_AAAGDO halcovage_k_Page_078.pro
7c5b2d88ec5b6405845ba45d2f387040
a286e4cc099e0460bb9c8e307d5ceeea8ba73ba5
F20101209_AAAFYJ halcovage_k_Page_058.tif
26b23c74c870c0b4ac123a057412faa5
ea994dac44a6f230a32dba5af79afe83dacac89a
F20101209_AAAFXV halcovage_k_Page_044.tif
d4e44232a44029b72bb5d29bd5ed2f73
064811a1fa139b5f227dc74575e6b3ab0763ca79
33895 F20101209_AAAGEE halcovage_k_Page_095.pro
959f7814a623716a05158a30c11ee57e
09e29ea2a81e32e5a45ddb2aa82ff80fef671b55
6942 F20101209_AAAGDP halcovage_k_Page_079.pro
a746d13449aac2c3754a2ecca4aeedd2
b45a118847254ff1d96d3a6c94f6214defcc8aca
F20101209_AAAFYK halcovage_k_Page_059.tif
ed7a423882018b459f11fa5d6b8e35aa
4c7b0611e99f194f1f45e42539c986416cd16418
F20101209_AAAFXW halcovage_k_Page_045.tif
8fafdcab63344a3b1aa20a846cb22235
5d9f51215a892712e7647b6ae1d14b3e1070cfed
17805 F20101209_AAAGEF halcovage_k_Page_096.pro
87e0819834673d9bf8295dd1c12eb60c
096c42673805291a97971d6e5769ca3bc3b4bfe5
2000 F20101209_AAAGDQ halcovage_k_Page_080.pro
ca3c3264d37eb28874de9a9d0984655c
426e54ffbb8f53c33135b7154dfe75e4592e8f21
F20101209_AAAFYL halcovage_k_Page_060.tif
daa823503327e8a036f707aabeb8c30b
4afe0efc661d13e68e47c2f24ea82e973b782c5f
F20101209_AAAFXX halcovage_k_Page_046.tif
2a7aebeffc71838cc69a594f7c7ff0d1
07df8d849dce5f159274096338e2706de4a06493
11580 F20101209_AAAGEG halcovage_k_Page_097.pro
eb9dbc1c355a08c6098046115f183b17
2d59167c4e21ff04e0b7424072ddb0f35d604db0
F20101209_AAAFZA halcovage_k_Page_076.tif
80dff53fc80fd6f2bda1b8b582045939
4bbfd928fb7ea1415d8532effe0bd04ee1186e5a
343 F20101209_AAAGDR halcovage_k_Page_081.pro
df6b80759551af32c85b2ca9d13d276a
e2bb6c74171a80933de86845ba3ad2ae875720fa
F20101209_AAAFYM halcovage_k_Page_061.tif
7c0a092f1952b2dbc6b97523d9f69fbc
5528a8f90bbf3044922537fbba208b76b7bbbdef
F20101209_AAAFXY halcovage_k_Page_047.tif
5eece12d09dfb1211c8a75d043104938
824a25f0d0fa63505fd5634424977ecf63bb9ada
19962 F20101209_AAAGEH halcovage_k_Page_098.pro
05a384ada1716bd6d9596729c798d80f
bbd915ce2121a0ab2bef41f026345dd65168067a
F20101209_AAAFZB halcovage_k_Page_077.tif
f9ad339caac7aea99942c073e2aa8269
93405171eec04aa11e20da1e371480c21ad86052
20073 F20101209_AAAGDS halcovage_k_Page_082.pro
8fca9f847a38e95cd8f8f0bebf303781
093e566055b9fdfb6a01f1395a1d0a57b3af6f27
F20101209_AAAFYN halcovage_k_Page_062.tif
08b11637db1d1b443c8fefe738925ca8
bf8017dd4fcb23caccfd1ad43d8c17e64438bcc9
F20101209_AAAFXZ halcovage_k_Page_048.tif
e2d1732585c3a1833bfa538e4cbb44d6
a48aebcf561cadbf819180fc0054e479fecac46d
25835 F20101209_AAAGEI halcovage_k_Page_099.pro
79eb8ba9143f925a014d1042a9a62a8a
20164f188012d38e77fdde01d1398223fd477962
17621 F20101209_AAAGDT halcovage_k_Page_083.pro
d50f4e6043e440f04c38dce9bf3adbba
9c4126598de882870c36d5251ad6f54966eef19a
F20101209_AAAFYO halcovage_k_Page_063.tif
4e0b241b4b151c5d85841cd63600bf9d
2b141e50a0c03865ea74182add0644023740fc73
10318 F20101209_AAAGEJ halcovage_k_Page_100.pro
c4744a7c571f6a07712bbdfe0a96c3e4
db61d57e7a1d847d11ada93981e23481614779e6
F20101209_AAAFZC halcovage_k_Page_078.tif
254bc96142190260a255016412768bb7
cf2a532d43c8594361cc3bcc95a5c2974bf9b1c4
15367 F20101209_AAAGDU halcovage_k_Page_085.pro
83e4615b411b6122a10c2f02116b6389
cef6eebea4c1fcd30a9f467e65776d245186556c
F20101209_AAAFYP halcovage_k_Page_065.tif
02a27f5e7892979cc6450ef1693d995c
4a5aac52e8a526b8ecaba3265c54f8b8afcd831b
30247 F20101209_AAAGEK halcovage_k_Page_101.pro
3f5dd0e636d5336ade0c9c6e9f6663dd
3cb5bd33d7108b8781f3706f42c968ba2cdae8b4
F20101209_AAAFZD halcovage_k_Page_079.tif
696ad0a4ad8f86e2fbe4d51751f6a620
6844ef52262d0c4d547b190488cb8985a7c76cb7
24802 F20101209_AAAGDV halcovage_k_Page_086.pro
e24dd756fb61253fcab7957a5e3cb6e1
68fd7428fffab8202dbdf80939d5f306b599095b
23143 F20101209_AAAGEL halcovage_k_Page_102.pro
5402410b7201945f17a9dab1b2d2d070
82cf099830e14e2eae31ced231b3012fb5dc4afb
F20101209_AAAFZE halcovage_k_Page_080.tif
68e54a1f7d0f5bf2cf946cbaedcc69c8
bded3e6d29b3c17482873a56411f49bc4d750182
30268 F20101209_AAAGDW halcovage_k_Page_087.pro
2491391b2e029cf0f0689dc2e6bbbc3e
236feb3e92f57818ad830ec978ab71c44fbfe34c
F20101209_AAAFYQ halcovage_k_Page_066.tif
fae7a09973ea6047502fd3944d227c40
397ae23d69548a41ca887ad841ca4c7b857ed17d
9696 F20101209_AAAGFA halcovage_k_Page_118.pro
0ccf93af4a2cb2bc312b4ee865498376
ea84fa50675f50488b2d0dd0a997ae3ac083be1c
F20101209_AAAFZF halcovage_k_Page_081.tif
d7f0db1e21d92e1784d28f8011a97aa6
ad718f374e99de1142c6a1cf1c9593b8de4d8abd
17834 F20101209_AAAGDX halcovage_k_Page_088.pro
29aca8a95cf6b61668a93e321abb78fe
85ff65ed7b76db00727b31fb75013527ece1dbcd
F20101209_AAAFYR halcovage_k_Page_067.tif
4ad5d2c2c3fc8e8df13f535308b44ece
7b0c1027bbb6ee748224fbcaa10bcf3a8e53e62c
9998 F20101209_AAAGFB halcovage_k_Page_119.pro
1f1ca31fdca0f707d3b339e5e993085e
df1fa730459f7d78c964eac11033c8c8cc5b72c7
30883 F20101209_AAAGEM halcovage_k_Page_103.pro
26316244e4795c68d40d6d6c2fa64e5a
3fa71c3a69b3f97ad8eb34e42677051857321ab6
F20101209_AAAFZG halcovage_k_Page_082.tif
c55eb0436b35af77fb0d5d82d8826589
47a2efe0de439e702cb5615027ff767222426f77
32693 F20101209_AAAGDY halcovage_k_Page_089.pro
6ff6c86cd19303ae726daaf5f30c164b
0fb959d6d736aa475e63930564276c1db3109564
F20101209_AAAFYS halcovage_k_Page_068.tif
d3afb090381a22e6dbe82fceccd0c51f
953046103ce06d9a6972ce15523af8ffadd6fe0a
9688 F20101209_AAAGFC halcovage_k_Page_120.pro
e7e7d78d31c0285a44828a4db93c1128
0830c0bac2285c9c4a8de128b8206e9c24eb6357
40537 F20101209_AAAGEN halcovage_k_Page_104.pro
f9dcbb5188f7bb60c3241d4e0d9f7486
9baeb753ea66ba108e9791381c515c5367b72b29
F20101209_AAAFZH halcovage_k_Page_083.tif
41832e0cad87db010534fcb808a76a72
67bb94821d7bdc42b62ace47da234857a22a8b56
18271 F20101209_AAAGDZ halcovage_k_Page_090.pro
625c1eba35fc644483b9bf06eada5cb6
c9410246dba7af191261d0f1d8e0f4f01705a827
F20101209_AAAFYT halcovage_k_Page_069.tif
172095f4b731c368f824e192fec0ba52
d049497bf2269c55c39c4382553ba512c4d9f3f5
60794 F20101209_AAAGFD halcovage_k_Page_122.pro
03bb60288a6b76a5cd61eae1f74a8ef2
865aa1b3fa08e80544fae563e9affb0245c49a42
14145 F20101209_AAAGEO halcovage_k_Page_105.pro
c805bb62adf205dddfd63406a9142c1a
8c948d0958bffa971c55f3380846d608e1ddc1ff
F20101209_AAAFZI halcovage_k_Page_084.tif
59d62e179094e0c13ecccbd6442761cf
8eb784b20c5e7706761e1d4d7244430e052850bd
F20101209_AAAFYU halcovage_k_Page_070.tif
b360e152204197da97a21548c19b7e48
701be196a85f6f4ce092d140c015ac691795f326
56285 F20101209_AAAGFE halcovage_k_Page_123.pro
b97cb845d72fee2f1bed26200ce717f1
6d819f1ee3da32d0db6d15cb5b86c60e6bc53dfd
23829 F20101209_AAAGEP halcovage_k_Page_106.pro
56927df85eb89f9f12158727fae5a9aa
f9ee66c80aa47b7b45197891b6ff5943c21fcbab
F20101209_AAAFZJ halcovage_k_Page_085.tif
7080edf1d503cd166437de54c1c70bc0
ee5082752820d310aaa4bc07dc3f713674dd8ae2
F20101209_AAAFYV halcovage_k_Page_071.tif
0957439ba23da0c7a5c1cf21687097c0
fd959c53975b6ba13df9e120aad0a6d62e825f90
42646 F20101209_AAAGFF halcovage_k_Page_124.pro
d78006b3e257b346623ed4f09853a255
3c3ef7b219dfc7fac9deb165d9f7c0d1601ba6a4
36599 F20101209_AAAGEQ halcovage_k_Page_107.pro
d00c69ede690c80fa75c2b160cb81837
7828e5cc62eebd5a52c161f155cffcbf2a33328f
F20101209_AAAFZK halcovage_k_Page_086.tif
52fbe4be00394492f686ffda4aa19ed3
910ba6096af6d2da58739ac7a94f46a6dbdf1c2a
F20101209_AAAFYW halcovage_k_Page_072.tif
c34d09cd4805bd3d71f28dacfd78c3da
9bf564e571a417fcc368667d3b7a10d984ddfc14
414 F20101209_AAAGFG halcovage_k_Page_001.txt
540c9906b3775e72c8d60f1cbe439703
84093c18d4aa3f5c515f3784f7a0f342951e028e
11693 F20101209_AAAGER halcovage_k_Page_108.pro
5327085206a7e9642cfcd6cd4fb4e095
27cc51de7c9094750b95e564eebb3feb9ba4f4d7
F20101209_AAAFZL halcovage_k_Page_087.tif
1dcfdb6b9c52180cec871bae384e99f9
f2d3e64e9917a0944ab8ccaeae78f3f38e99b977
F20101209_AAAFYX halcovage_k_Page_073.tif
27c598d24294985188aaa28a36ca153d
4e4d8022674fcdcd0a42e6ab119fe5e8b6a67f09
95 F20101209_AAAGFH halcovage_k_Page_002.txt
d6fff25ec1da1257530e91f5e04dcc6a
533e1e271f57b47356273505f807ff4601fcfa49
8778 F20101209_AAAGES halcovage_k_Page_109.pro
4dfe9c9d6e46ca82feafa6d47df8fd43
e589d2d4a977b041411e14e20b594f4a914bb2c4
F20101209_AAAFZM halcovage_k_Page_088.tif
04eb7f6c535fda9e14fa11ec3bb495bd
ce83ccce55525f3c66209ce607283151a62d3a5a
F20101209_AAAFYY halcovage_k_Page_074.tif
97accb1aa5f513b69e24b4e33d4a215c
61945bf7b88e18f4915932b1e0fdc110e0eab57a
533 F20101209_AAAGFI halcovage_k_Page_003.txt
bec7f7d1b0185eb6d5fcc2c5d4503533
5b188beea0ed5848ebf86592ac78462b9fa47f60
7530 F20101209_AAAGET halcovage_k_Page_110.pro
4dbcadbd49814ad855938218bad25a36
d8b254d5225279de35b2393ae629937546c059cd
F20101209_AAAFZN halcovage_k_Page_091.tif
50decae459b744e6270d46822b3989e5
5acf913e254b68931cf7c57c725ce17de08bad5d
F20101209_AAAFYZ halcovage_k_Page_075.tif
31698e71845d97e12f4dac73904218e3
df86871ff97139239435bad799677c711c331e69
549 F20101209_AAAGFJ halcovage_k_Page_004.txt
0233960687863e465425b6351729c3d2
3d990f4be3e5dbed8b68ba18691e9a6fb9c48c09
7630 F20101209_AAAGEU halcovage_k_Page_112.pro
83680bb82948efcd8288d10bf3d59b34
216aafa437e6cd11a403af2bac70948ea5ab4b53
F20101209_AAAFZO halcovage_k_Page_092.tif
a4c94370cafafcbfced92d429291b3ac
9e2bc018e5b4f29fbdd2b0a2b1c2c3ca169bee4c
3509 F20101209_AAAGFK halcovage_k_Page_005.txt
ecaa1447ed31ec42b1245029230dedab
96e2bb88aa0a133cd9a4594d2073707df3ad8081
8312 F20101209_AAAGEV halcovage_k_Page_113.pro
6c5c4e6cda75e1e3234ba33fa73d2a16
7428f45619cd756185be6a6fe796fe7ea1e8969a
F20101209_AAAFZP halcovage_k_Page_093.tif
6d003c9b2944b2541d1ac7be08827553
74479b1334e2c0e31daebaba3ebed688a7f9da20
2851 F20101209_AAAGFL halcovage_k_Page_006.txt
4634d6fb1e489a27be735ed896c15d66
82858656153f60113864a6019a06538202614816
9618 F20101209_AAAGEW halcovage_k_Page_114.pro
5f5bdd2478887568c72b915e34ec7634
b0ac30acd612742a1ebc0bd7b5c5c697daf611bd
F20101209_AAAFZQ halcovage_k_Page_094.tif
e05d3d29e8ee99f621bf08c02b6d9e4a
663d3f5628f205c2f5701bbfa9b66bc1689a090a
399 F20101209_AAAGFM halcovage_k_Page_007.txt
4446fd73b8b3115dd7638d5301cf8d62
21dc095cae61f10b3eedd9053ef805883d476c53
14830 F20101209_AAAGEX halcovage_k_Page_115.pro
4a5ee5156ca03177b2e77eb1f61779d6
2b4d7739fe9053212f76eee20ef91ad99e6efd3d
F20101209_AAAFZR halcovage_k_Page_095.tif
de68d767eee3bc7d367ea6e39227d275
7ed725b4009f2e5ea7ef9468ea6230dbe19ba900
1788 F20101209_AAAGGA halcovage_k_Page_021.txt
6b2c32b1fa47f26ccddd94388d490f69
4895d4807ddba9b13bcd09e187ed918bfc8b268b
11172 F20101209_AAAGEY halcovage_k_Page_116.pro
077b17c4732699c44c4fa6849cc7547d
d597e68e53bb38fbf26c772e967d805d42e8c40c
F20101209_AAAFZS halcovage_k_Page_096.tif
5e14fbc3d1060ecb681ae83e7fd4b7c8
43d644b3204d77f0873973c5af855489f1723444
2178 F20101209_AAAGGB halcovage_k_Page_022.txt
aa2fc52094b1f0a366de2f809d3870a9
2267de29a6bb137f0b380a04dcbd9f649c8f4271
10469 F20101209_AAAGEZ halcovage_k_Page_117.pro
8dc411a0150ba4fe8daf0fc34c41f941
f1c55161cc1a249187c6a14dae0bfcc3f9e729b6
F20101209_AAAFZT halcovage_k_Page_097.tif
9bab8f9d79a8f7b57de2ff92f520332d
8b82066e487b2ac3f231c3e2c2c63cd882b6b0b7
1776 F20101209_AAAGGC halcovage_k_Page_023.txt
2c99bd21f0342686ec33f919bc6b2175
8e3d7ac39a3c317bf0ed8deb7cb806eac2e39e30
2992 F20101209_AAAGFN halcovage_k_Page_008.txt
e1fec4be400def940b5927ecac50af28
1790a1dcd802ae36716e4630993e6cc1697992ac
F20101209_AAAFZU halcovage_k_Page_098.tif
44faee47d038dccec7e7b2286ca10420
4d3232e95ab7e594d8a1b0ee2fd8d124a6c1ff06
1935 F20101209_AAAGGD halcovage_k_Page_024.txt
c7584ac0d58e801be58449b599b592e7
4ca4672ded8dbdfaac05311aa90fe86a79195640
3105 F20101209_AAAGFO halcovage_k_Page_009.txt
18cd43acad4cb68565a029df6f1476b9
fce97cacde8ae580b2c3074974b4530083a4b15c
F20101209_AAAFZV halcovage_k_Page_099.tif
8378fc94705735ea394c8597bc61e0c7
40a1f1308ee948de4ee3f882ee6f499feb709bcd
2345 F20101209_AAAGGE halcovage_k_Page_025.txt
affbd54cf72ce04d1faf59d005b02707
b27d94e21f6fa2790bc85777bc53abc7562492d3
1840 F20101209_AAAGFP halcovage_k_Page_010.txt
4d0986dba0becf8d16fdd1c7900cf79f
16e163cad84af5b4d9b71dbc8f39170e5ab8f159
F20101209_AAAFZW halcovage_k_Page_100.tif
f81dd7b19f72c4e6fc8ef86ffc1a4cd2
46c283291cbbffda48e002fac593815a94879165
1923 F20101209_AAAGGF halcovage_k_Page_026.txt
56ccd7f00d0b66c80e9c00adab56c4ed
617aadd12b60dc405f24a94b35d7a742a6bc1742
2087 F20101209_AAAGFQ halcovage_k_Page_011.txt
7fd53d607eef87fa7fac3887379a16e5
87dac449d84fd774c2280bb6fcc444dae2231723
F20101209_AAAFZX halcovage_k_Page_101.tif
b23210e134063a828e48eb946bd04f29
f58644af187b28cbeb85123026a2ddd06aec276f
2211 F20101209_AAAGGG halcovage_k_Page_027.txt
c6f4bb035beca5569f5f41de3b3abbf5
f27438e80acc01a7255d7daa03b25ed63b8527a7
775 F20101209_AAAGFR halcovage_k_Page_012.txt
31bf1f19c13ca49f7fcd9d0f65e50d4b
d26918277e1bc451d2301662ab5b2200aa21f248
F20101209_AAAFZY halcovage_k_Page_102.tif
1e23d6762701010d08e219b24b161bd2
a471a06a907da9a61e08cb18b26ad11184ca3cc3
1706 F20101209_AAAGGH halcovage_k_Page_028.txt
0b7f75633c010b32d9a6bb41f0a80cb8
07b7b2de94e87f8f44094b317e73deb8ceebd3f0
1152 F20101209_AAAGFS halcovage_k_Page_013.txt
6ca86e98f158c2726a162339124077f6
43dbbc2320c63e9557f4f42b67967ed5e20daf52
F20101209_AAAFZZ halcovage_k_Page_103.tif
4bdbdcb4b3119b9a03f6c2a0af47c615
19ccf5e986cf2dc92ff0bd376caa5c1802aaf923
188 F20101209_AAAGGI halcovage_k_Page_029.txt
6415ffc17fd2b5cfce953686f371ce3e
e7f42425a42e3130a71abeaffd5fa39cd4a999cc
109 F20101209_AAAGFT halcovage_k_Page_014.txt
e63f4b5f581e45e83d0eeddbb6f94ae2
28ce14eacbd94f6580d49b2e9652123c9dfea81f
251 F20101209_AAAGGJ halcovage_k_Page_030.txt
621fa925d3b2ae24666a94c985a2c8f5
882acb3efe53377c4232e2561b62f6cf000f9893
2078 F20101209_AAAGFU halcovage_k_Page_015.txt
215d1132d04a55c6438e88980dbed400
b25aa4d8327e3e6bd5503e755cb154dd80d4cc64
1903 F20101209_AAAGGK halcovage_k_Page_031.txt
17a93961c68106a4f5d18aff9eb59843
cba364696ffaf9d0aa32db09579ba9cb89640aef
2133 F20101209_AAAGFV halcovage_k_Page_016.txt
08d5b8128fbb28c401d318ca356ced2c
5ee29757828ec4749c3945a37822650675499c00
1810 F20101209_AAAGGL halcovage_k_Page_032.txt
3fcf24c2d88123ee65e9e43b784f84b8
3e7c78a536a84a88898cf4aaf471600963762f2c
1943 F20101209_AAAGFW halcovage_k_Page_017.txt
305cabc9b05f135c621caf4059814564
192245b32b14d135c035f9f78c734b6ece835683
550 F20101209_AAAGHA halcovage_k_Page_047.txt
8e31c668e1ceef0e26bb8aaad3e1cb98
bfe48da05ff461e5f33fd8d49ff9da39286a1f43
2248 F20101209_AAAGGM halcovage_k_Page_033.txt
f905cc91baa24539df4546207518930e
1bc9d396b038bd3aa720f5034e9ebf4e45960dc3
2177 F20101209_AAAGFX halcovage_k_Page_018.txt
48e80a872bd4126939145c4baed74073
58fa1808471cf643c09602b1aba3db31458658ba
440 F20101209_AAAGHB halcovage_k_Page_048.txt
c16d5502cb9e0df33a8a5747c5b4e4d2
ef74c353fa253e231654ed6c6327b2bfea614d78
2063 F20101209_AAAGGN halcovage_k_Page_034.txt
2fee14b1a9951fa40f09122fb18242ff
796fc1b87b6def320e62b338ba380131135981bf
2478 F20101209_AAAGFY halcovage_k_Page_019.txt
89781124da8b39b9f285509ed90cdc58
1dc08135fef01c2841233bac47f612092305ee78
1206 F20101209_AAAGHC halcovage_k_Page_050.txt
0bedd570d9aacc229bf32342977e32fd
43215a1dead2fc1ba1cbbc87e8143a7f7b78b696
1896 F20101209_AAAGFZ halcovage_k_Page_020.txt
9b6a2855a9884ce23da3d27b0fb4447c
0006e4421733ef74df0f8d9e22df9dfa975cdea0
1967 F20101209_AAAGHD halcovage_k_Page_051.txt
5299e003dba4573a71721f31b5dc6839
26747f8d621581a42e4b737a2c88264360b3af3a
2071 F20101209_AAAGGO halcovage_k_Page_035.txt
01d83d296c866f10f34c861ad6d75525
4512ff80219e2c681fc91eb59745e3281a84f4bb
2046 F20101209_AAAGHE halcovage_k_Page_052.txt
10171e51f9bbb1b085ac84b9794659bc
ad3035f3c1cd5790cc0b157f8bd37167b4e467ca
1929 F20101209_AAAGGP halcovage_k_Page_036.txt
b82f46f6c700d8278c8f633830b01040
f1d48fe73084854c637ffb078363404482bb9384
F20101209_AAAGHF halcovage_k_Page_053.txt
d8eed6ee5ffef1283536509c8dd55f5d
c6f6d3559d262bf4fcf9ce2902ab6306a5e037ac
2022 F20101209_AAAGGQ halcovage_k_Page_037.txt
fda960fa81934718d1c2c2cd5e05dd9e
ba737e2f610d6a4e4f50ac67a71613ab564bc2a1
1060 F20101209_AAAGHG halcovage_k_Page_054.txt
83c2d672164e422be1877143c36111d9
7fea9c893d0902d83ced736891c09799a74ce4de
2319 F20101209_AAAGGR halcovage_k_Page_038.txt
7069f77f5e3008c751069fc4994afbaa
ab7f56f0e0783cc40210aa3eb9c37a94d41d50b8
296 F20101209_AAAGHH halcovage_k_Page_055.txt
ccd290b60d7ac4d485b0e78b8e39859d
0547f40471d8d67500998847283da54dd3009967
2162 F20101209_AAAGGS halcovage_k_Page_039.txt
18d5ee0cbd7cbaa730f24173bb4a9fca
237b459599d5f9e0f2a20f3b2c000dd395085af1
232 F20101209_AAAGHI halcovage_k_Page_056.txt
1059c8d6de32cf5c6c233cb128f0b592
5e049eb03e51d2314bc6beb41c057d92f9fcca85
2116 F20101209_AAAGGT halcovage_k_Page_040.txt
e48be1456f3679404362bc3545098a75
f757077d739e526bcf0f3783bb5b7e8a76e306fd
172 F20101209_AAAGHJ halcovage_k_Page_057.txt
482a4ca37ba62b33517e6890605078e8
b9375ccb827f5b668e7566a2e8a296aca2e120bf
2232 F20101209_AAAGGU halcovage_k_Page_041.txt
2714a173d9fc2d071cc35663cc2dfcb9
b3c0cd441c71720add45414c8b9e9eb3c1caba12
274 F20101209_AAAGHK halcovage_k_Page_058.txt
35ba177cf7d8c614a012fe38ef104eea
f49980854daf930cd3dc4557374875cdd5a391c5
2146 F20101209_AAAGGV halcovage_k_Page_042.txt
77dec0b13a9ca2c80c7e958f52047932
a4e389e561cb6494e7b7bbe53d3632e181bb36f2
171 F20101209_AAAGHL halcovage_k_Page_059.txt
fa46425fa7634bcc19836cff183e81e4
5bef6b86240c5bf59a1770f749bd7d963676f16d
164 F20101209_AAAGGW halcovage_k_Page_043.txt
c45e113ad33ada71a673ccb5f46b17f0
1c5687db3f672fd85238e294a45cdbe64ef247be
2129 F20101209_AAAGHM halcovage_k_Page_060.txt
50d28d314f437a206d15436932ed21cf
478fcbb4bdb277e44096c37b823199c4323bf21a
267 F20101209_AAAGGX halcovage_k_Page_044.txt
935be7243605689b6fe92b9005e1fce7
48956efd966978b0013095ddaaa52986cf73d535
298 F20101209_AAAGIA halcovage_k_Page_074.txt
a606b43d638b2346fde3c3d40a9d0bb7
24c63ec635f69d1588e746fb81a922c91fec5b28
2224 F20101209_AAAGHN halcovage_k_Page_061.txt
b75793acaaf2f58d20796342259b734a
f173209ecd0cfc403c026ad4069fed7064da2f53
160 F20101209_AAAGGY halcovage_k_Page_045.txt
4d87692513b908c015f7e5e1a62d7e4a
c62959818326211574edf972723419708d72e456
2238 F20101209_AAAGIB halcovage_k_Page_075.txt
3860f10dc4b90d9e73c71df6b738ff35
42fb4a382b8bfd46f6ef1eb409c3fc40311c5469
2106 F20101209_AAAGHO halcovage_k_Page_062.txt
793a2c319af639a6e343a77d1798f659
56ffa5f9a52dc42e5cc7d2ed94cd16f7a394a5e0
198 F20101209_AAAGGZ halcovage_k_Page_046.txt
2d182a21e181ff4eb83a51af53279d65
90a7a984263912ffd4b4afaabf960ae40e30886f
940 F20101209_AAAGIC halcovage_k_Page_076.txt
57ac657ed570683c30b02993fc79b0bc
850b56025c3a0b36e9a91971b2688a4afc17c58c
276 F20101209_AAAGID halcovage_k_Page_077.txt
c7e6243c0c35d18f4dc0d7794390d508
7f9eea811e54089fa115dbbccba158393d0d7fc3
2212 F20101209_AAAGHP halcovage_k_Page_063.txt
323dd03272b1fbc12c1c27fcf921a5af
458e4d763b3b8fecb08b66e79477152c26a819ac
334 F20101209_AAAGIE halcovage_k_Page_078.txt
a8fee9d18f0b140042be4e3f764fde62
d6ea5b5907a2efe48196b9bc649c0cb05f861910
2037 F20101209_AAAGHQ halcovage_k_Page_064.txt
40a67c37a4eb7bc786e7c8bb93df0a67
37cbc706bcbcdfe8818491f0f9e675ed709d0e0c
857 F20101209_AAAGIF halcovage_k_Page_079.txt
c38b4ddce80ba0c6d113a004339838be
a68254035c1fa5b6e1132dd5f9e80ab4a2d590de
351 F20101209_AAAGHR halcovage_k_Page_065.txt
8d15f51be9a935bd3c78031fc94941e2
3d42a46f1caa6e6add9726ce1be4f62af12a1b56
159 F20101209_AAAGIG halcovage_k_Page_080.txt
908b51fb752ad1a1e7a907e7456ed22e
a628c32f0473c92e8af954e289f963adda9a79fe
234 F20101209_AAAGHS halcovage_k_Page_066.txt
46169c2864013e8fceb8f968f6bb0aab
57b25c8664bb0c5f982221f41162e09b7d9a67b4
39 F20101209_AAAGIH halcovage_k_Page_081.txt
c7f0b7750cdc3f16dda3c4f10689aa0b
e2137f2da8c91fb744c658cf06453dbfd47720b9
339 F20101209_AAAGHT halcovage_k_Page_067.txt
fd67dc144aade706a7f47c26dd6def37
f78e522a605b49899b2c55dafec1de3e6c7698c2
937 F20101209_AAAGII halcovage_k_Page_082.txt
8ac074efc90b3c368f04f8631c45b5ae
155ae95519161f1fca743af02497098e776fcd78
804 F20101209_AAAGHU halcovage_k_Page_068.txt
545488346dfee43cb25b96a7c6c57b97
0ff4c9fe3607a225b92f3e598a3598db31600a44
999 F20101209_AAAGIJ halcovage_k_Page_083.txt
013f1058fa18d517234b29bd05be72a8
49819fcf56d592cdc0eadbbd9c9800d5a40923d4
303 F20101209_AAAGHV halcovage_k_Page_069.txt
8f9a0fe3e7b84a9dbd28712dc43a0c97
67196ce5bc3b42b55251d02b8d713c452e794e6c
569 F20101209_AAAGIK halcovage_k_Page_084.txt
50f53744c6d44ae3ca8f1f49a51e8a6c
b0cd496ebf899c964c20995aebb3dbc62eabb7be
867 F20101209_AAAGHW halcovage_k_Page_070.txt
323e1a1a31296c72f69eb26d7069b497
2be1d10c13e3686489e72e01113683df242bfad8
774 F20101209_AAAGIL halcovage_k_Page_085.txt
2ad984ec70c1b12bc72419dbc825f9da
482f96711e76f99fcf6be97abd777a2439444876
368 F20101209_AAAGHX halcovage_k_Page_071.txt
feaa96b0c9b2c49f2157519a8ef593a4
ce6f50bbd3bacd540b146c8ad8108339b4a361c0
452 F20101209_AAAGJA halcovage_k_Page_100.txt
87ad010f720544a0173abe69fc699d6e
fcba7bcabb9b2ea8478a74c7fe705d7b8e9e07ce
1153 F20101209_AAAGIM halcovage_k_Page_086.txt
3b311910d792c013c485a7febd1b6a2a
3e42e975f38e75b1e93037cc8dc82f8cf514af67
542 F20101209_AAAGHY halcovage_k_Page_072.txt
78e5f08e8ee4a11904ea688c2c2ac446
4741360f772fab7e710ef89a9d23af0bcd34e802
1684 F20101209_AAAGJB halcovage_k_Page_101.txt
46e0a5b6a21e66e18bf0eaff32c53fd3
0c4c41d91440ccf2c587ba4f0fe506b5d8bcafd6
1513 F20101209_AAAGIN halcovage_k_Page_087.txt
92a05060a94d0a7dc13304657698d0a2
16ca86d5629c34654b3e62325757d054391f9dec
800 F20101209_AAAGHZ halcovage_k_Page_073.txt
3961d7e83291c3cf95e313db4f46fd16
d3ab67c0326e6cf0ba985be18efecaae560c69e3
1098 F20101209_AAAGJC halcovage_k_Page_102.txt
50ea71c2b8626938e458ff6589253373
da9d6014cbfd9e7e682bb1216227dc424b81a51f
874 F20101209_AAAGIO halcovage_k_Page_088.txt
bdb2abb09d61ddcffe94deffe3023fc1
1623dfb6032992d68387ed9de801ced4ccb25ad9
1469 F20101209_AAAGJD halcovage_k_Page_103.txt
d00c67cd4cc6e00bb5587e0b00b8143b
fb05f52c69282c5d6a77c2c001084f9594f39572
1605 F20101209_AAAGIP halcovage_k_Page_089.txt
ef0a41849f5fb46c365459450b510a91
d631b11aa093ca2492efd7df44a8a437e4528a1a
2052 F20101209_AAAGJE halcovage_k_Page_104.txt
808dc1eb080bbd29f10276ba1974ecb7
ebd4380a10ee3cacf927661c45e54d4226d631a0
672 F20101209_AAAGJF halcovage_k_Page_105.txt
15eaf08eac353047375fdae1cc80105f
d8c6ce078787b16960fdadd0476956d98f9f949b
744 F20101209_AAAGIQ halcovage_k_Page_090.txt
296c5822a7166abf852d52eed88396f9
fc2c23cfec1e137dc7468d34966dd65deea53d68
1166 F20101209_AAAGJG halcovage_k_Page_106.txt
1c1f979a529558cb836aa4e260647b3d
a22ba230ff799899640e74bda2de88d45789242c
1380 F20101209_AAAGIR halcovage_k_Page_091.txt
e8a07a56a6a9a4d6cc5972fd258e6426
e233858e30cbf854a80ed6661822ff4f8befe7ff
1770 F20101209_AAAGJH halcovage_k_Page_107.txt
60f7a46225b411b14ca69cae2305a56d
3a33964202fc5377498ba1715a2384aa7dbf369b
1538 F20101209_AAAGIS halcovage_k_Page_092.txt
6edfb841abab0dd29e3ac09d248e43bc
8e5f91f789a016f4ce1e922eb0611d568fefa1dd
924 F20101209_AAAGJI halcovage_k_Page_108.txt
a23dfb27623c0eda623a46e7dee5e217
ffd3d7cd6424ef3f0690dce7aaf989e08b2130fb
1131 F20101209_AAAGIT halcovage_k_Page_093.txt
e5a84cf710fa7a8552604b10420808d7
4bd4a182de7187fe46eb49305a98a3df7ade3be5
708 F20101209_AAAGJJ halcovage_k_Page_109.txt
e39b96e0b046afc1105332b7558cf2ee
81c7f4437e305835267c69357778bf14353c8c07
1917 F20101209_AAAGIU halcovage_k_Page_094.txt
e1d0a774c8ca4fb90659b4c4f061af99
4ef7c8c9b35c1dfc0606a1cc6abe74fecc5c0005
698 F20101209_AAAGJK halcovage_k_Page_110.txt
54aea14bc702e806b105c2e6d17fc6c7
9fefe58cc5469fe9d5cf6b24768466190c7363df
1658 F20101209_AAAGIV halcovage_k_Page_095.txt
3aa13cd57e2c4445f583b4be500fb807
412c5271e971b801d098837a57d42ffd46508cde
922 F20101209_AAAGJL halcovage_k_Page_111.txt
32c078d73aba907fa3c574f2b482840d
9f451523dde6a346c8e1aa7d182b5f54c25e8e48
1093 F20101209_AAAGIW halcovage_k_Page_096.txt
648dfa9af792932fd99984cee21e60ce
5ee8d9f011b1145c39aa19dc11095b139675371f
5646193 F20101209_AAAGKA halcovage_k.pdf
409f199c1734e9fb8891efb637404691
fdc38fc7790d83d975a5fce64ecaab3d97da9c74
682 F20101209_AAAGJM halcovage_k_Page_112.txt
49103a9a1d43bdf3a51bbbd040e97778
f52ddf57125a4b3ad5a348fcbe46e51478dc54f8
706 F20101209_AAAGIX halcovage_k_Page_097.txt
ffec1206c096ec1b69aca74ad03516e1
3181e096aa08563685e4ef202b5962881f13ee6e
3711 F20101209_AAAGKB halcovage_k_Page_117thm.jpg
b283f42f5826401de54b4d6d52d0680c
a575202033409c896e79ce6b80f3531ad65bafc3
751 F20101209_AAAGJN halcovage_k_Page_113.txt
ed18d5373203a68f05ab4c456a48c7ac
83048d515f00bf267cb71312bc5ad0fdd358008b
1103 F20101209_AAAGIY halcovage_k_Page_098.txt
01f521211ebc43c2fd9b057b3fd85e93
af41392a898d8e53942033d7ef18455c8657164c
5004 F20101209_AAAGKC halcovage_k_Page_074thm.jpg
1f628eb8fde293233cd5eed2eccbb92d
15b23372d679379901dff69da39c24088ea5540d
779 F20101209_AAAGJO halcovage_k_Page_114.txt
30f02fc938d42784d74d71868156e1f8
38b2adc136c6337b8df06d744ad1aeeef25429ef
1226 F20101209_AAAGIZ halcovage_k_Page_099.txt
b4e7eb4a191496c2bd847b33fd18a25c
38ec9558d538ba227f1c58505d6cb74905388c60
3703 F20101209_AAAGKD halcovage_k_Page_106thm.jpg
4d04d0a0ba885509e11fb6129fa0da23
f187921c990d4d7b1bb6208059f6b7a8f791901b
991 F20101209_AAAGJP halcovage_k_Page_115.txt
425a18eb4dc438b8711d947a8ab8fb01
3cf27611ec14c018e8316177dd25a98e4874d0ed
188493 F20101209_AAAGKE UFE0019645_00001.xml FULL
c5a105a05a35b86ff724536b5ba6d164
880628bed5cec795b835b545df2d77ab070b9c1c
748 F20101209_AAAGJQ halcovage_k_Page_116.txt
a382fb03b44fd413eeffb63e51a06604
92608ec8202965280f79ea80a152d4cc66015e2d
7132 F20101209_AAAGKF halcovage_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
ad41376a14ac6b54cc8399b46e6bdd6d
9ef9a1b6e408a5ee4e52195b476bb2ba300f3a9a
3137 F20101209_AAAGKG halcovage_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
6598e52403a554c07c16bb45f5b16571
5b80ba4917e0df3438e845377b16f1ae88bd301a
669 F20101209_AAAGJR halcovage_k_Page_117.txt
a4ff54f4726f087e1f07fe5bb3375322
95833976e672f34d7a5b21b8f776ed71cb03f12e
6959 F20101209_AAAGKH halcovage_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
ee59b3c6726442b59e01ad3242668546
e7d155a7af1775ed71693b707cb70b09abef9375
653 F20101209_AAAGJS halcovage_k_Page_118.txt
d377ffd3769d928c86c125757ebb444f
467931223e02181ce9dad3b19649cff2de17e681
2262 F20101209_AAAGKI halcovage_k_Page_003thm.jpg
7167cbad7625eb798c7b55e26451c605
d39b52a60c3172c0bacccce146d205b6248258f7
539 F20101209_AAAGJT halcovage_k_Page_119.txt
0dbc3bd768223a65b259a7b3a0d29b38
fe1f6abcd7a3ce8e835bbdebbb5d46f07a191ac2
8348 F20101209_AAAGKJ halcovage_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
ae6f8c01c53dfea9faa2c0b4005050e7
bddd0e16afa5754f2b9db9e61a56180270b51bf6
583 F20101209_AAAGJU halcovage_k_Page_120.txt
7ceb75feb5b8d6dbf9ad30e0dd0ae301
45a8672b36403141dfdaf2758aa3e818530350ca
2549 F20101209_AAAGKK halcovage_k_Page_004thm.jpg
2aeeffc0dc66b98f7b6a637aa31d5f93
31e0fe1ec398c1dda78b1a21ba4ee4adeed6227a
F20101209_AAAGJV halcovage_k_Page_121.txt
7ebab3514265268679165679ded499f9
2c1a4663524d38bab1475c8216df86273f38504c
2454 F20101209_AAAGJW halcovage_k_Page_122.txt
c58caf73f4241fb23e38d18cdaebe510
2aeb209a3f4f036e4440bd2d9a4f2fbc46dea32a
20201 F20101209_AAAGKL halcovage_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
a8d0e61923673204b706d8d9bac782ea
67905586a345e1680f0eedc4422d0403532ecd51
2290 F20101209_AAAGJX halcovage_k_Page_123.txt
a1ab83c6c01904a37ca60ddac2ffc970
1d13a32246e4b33eecee9276e9c8fc6c66dafc30
9631 F20101209_AAAGLA halcovage_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
fe9eb56d0b2e5aec47fce82aeefd6d7a
a3d568b22cb8c453ff5108e818bbf446880573d9
5005 F20101209_AAAGKM halcovage_k_Page_005thm.jpg
4ebf41f7e3307c0bc1a78f37c5bbc05e
744d3e5d3297b7ffc677399bc44adce9237c1ac9
1734 F20101209_AAAGJY halcovage_k_Page_124.txt
05004dee837506af2e79a19f34179422
48fc2bcb91828041f1b4f37e47766cf886f1c637
3241 F20101209_AAAGLB halcovage_k_Page_014thm.jpg
296793d404adcaff700a1aa6bb4886d9
bfc679375c4bcc1d2293e44b76b2dcd872e4ea9c
18090 F20101209_AAAGKN halcovage_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
65009cded81f989a41a0ff56513d5f59
7662dd640b9fc26f14133d5331a7e3000590ca56
2191 F20101209_AAAGJZ halcovage_k_Page_001thm.jpg
326b6f69228db22036163334a8097c6c
fc7a6884923a4c0f476b9afbe2f381ac4311fcdd
23927 F20101209_AAAGLC halcovage_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
3013d19d4dda11087dd071da1751a767
5ee6f0892a61ca1ee0ed51011e8bcc7ced6e6005
4704 F20101209_AAAGKO halcovage_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
6bce8c47e3a5bbd9187d4acb4c1e7745
700aaac4a7ea52e818457b2b73c1c55ef39da541
6642 F20101209_AAAGLD halcovage_k_Page_015thm.jpg
ac56c69a90e7cf4a45d19d2ce91753f3
7be81f6ec6c0498d2080e217bff6786a4f24193e
23163 F20101209_AAAGKP halcovage_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
130210046b703676f49aaa37708cb5cf
5baa96cb772db206dd3107958a3fcf6115ce92eb
25969 F20101209_AAAGLE halcovage_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
f7c1ad4ae48805326193d26cba5b0657
fbcd178bc89e8643edeff07ee47603d5c0836301
26124 F20101209_AAAGKQ halcovage_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
c133bff763bc32d2191200440ff0373f
cdddab63cd653f3ad0cd4ee4e5d54b362390946c
7004 F20101209_AAAGLF halcovage_k_Page_016thm.jpg
74b77111e53c257d41cff6646b261e84
8d93aac6a85b4db164542dcbdf47dacb377b9230
6812 F20101209_AAAGKR halcovage_k_Page_009thm.jpg
c646ae3964b1604c3a5b5033ae68639d
7c6254038ba7c030a11a7fab24aa0e691a40926a
23319 F20101209_AAAGLG halcovage_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
8b956e8d7e7c9439c0ed38135e8923bb
ed8dd89b6e9676575b8f452dd042a592b0051dc7
6223 F20101209_AAAGLH halcovage_k_Page_017thm.jpg
ac36dcc5f8f5676fc755c73b9381f506
2d3710dde084088ba6cb95d1dcbcd20783cd63ed
15347 F20101209_AAAGKS halcovage_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
c9d3c90f83ee76438d668dfe472458bd
e35785e4850c0c211d2f64c8a845b4c476ca6294
25802 F20101209_AAAGLI halcovage_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
f625c35460abbaabb9172214bcfebd60
254ad2a22e9ba02f150070a31960a4f79a7765bd
4201 F20101209_AAAGKT halcovage_k_Page_010thm.jpg
e2f0bb7a42732a6589d46d28abf4b1c5
c5b1f72a3d76f7ed646451ad68ea66ec48277ab4
25393 F20101209_AAAGLJ halcovage_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
bd89861836001ab0f6631026c9954b17
d7c781718c0ff5b38e1e21603485737143c57827
21947 F20101209_AAAGKU halcovage_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
12fc21096040934b07f3af9c155351d4
1569cb0c49d738e69e127428c8ade29629d455a1
6821 F20101209_AAAGLK halcovage_k_Page_019thm.jpg
0927a8d58ed5c48ee1b25f4d1b8110cb
79b7db391072167c23bc23e545acf2849972b4f2
6245 F20101209_AAAGKV halcovage_k_Page_011thm.jpg
9aef33ddb2ab3fb7667e6b7299f7cbc1
4f36c4c8bd08333984e383fc45e4dca522534bb2
19452 F20101209_AAAGLL halcovage_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
a78df4b0fadd95f660f0c1dd6d0e2e6e
362216d762f83c40937806a02bcc9d8925e2735f
10628 F20101209_AAAGKW halcovage_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
7d4148c4b64c2e91f51e304822a29059
0efcaefce9a63a70e96ce39bd5efffdf78fa3333
6378 F20101209_AAAGMA halcovage_k_Page_027thm.jpg
41449e30d978c1410392c4e6be7a0d89
6132dbbf0bd9811d7b4954a5b74f9b144c822e9d
5301 F20101209_AAAGLM halcovage_k_Page_020thm.jpg
294773dde428e66e4adcaf93a7acb788
ee6fed6d0dcd445de12bd7f8cea8cb612217605b
3197 F20101209_AAAGKX halcovage_k_Page_012thm.jpg
6b32066159f4b340358c5037497f951c
fc8ec342c4155aa992cac396566a3fa535d60d56
18340 F20101209_AAAGMB halcovage_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
0bbf54e88c3ac4a38a26c9442da3a904
15df83f2a21d51ee73d179f242435a9f8b2411a1
18596 F20101209_AAAGLN halcovage_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
69f2ce8c8461a110dae45cb0ce2567fa
a7aed163c43816649f5bee00a9d27bf6531ef234
13519 F20101209_AAAGKY halcovage_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
2a7db6ba16cb40e2e6e2818e11880bbe
5c9159bfbb280c8ae9e4b2c33dc6ba61311ed468
5105 F20101209_AAAGMC halcovage_k_Page_028thm.jpg
da22d80571dbf6d1bcf2d8ffbf7121ee
843cc4c45eb618169c63380865312206200aa82f
5440 F20101209_AAAGLO halcovage_k_Page_021thm.jpg
47920b03d43fd7be6891fc37463ae5bf
b00bd784d54c840ebd6129b746d390ee10350336
4110 F20101209_AAAGKZ halcovage_k_Page_013thm.jpg
9698d8863682e991ff7b484defad45df
d07f25c63361b432eb07a98f13ba35f70a751611
16605 F20101209_AAAGMD halcovage_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
3ddb17b09615e1e27a85406051484008
7e28b1fe601de255ed13190b8b1d56ffbfcf6319
21031 F20101209_AAAGLP halcovage_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
1106d0e9ffd49d0a50617c58bc3b6b6a
c7b516bcca42557a39bf95b61e66d7e32fe8a347
15804 F20101209_AAAGME halcovage_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
bdbe18f923503bd4d77ad3ad3bd9e824
71a577b9bf64d561561ee1835948f762ae3ff1a8
5824 F20101209_AAAGLQ halcovage_k_Page_022thm.jpg
401fcaaae01fa9b4f7f639d9dca988fa
734b24cd607dee5c1ff5cb557e5ffbf0a07d714e
4741 F20101209_AAAGMF halcovage_k_Page_030thm.jpg
8e75ba9c1f676961a073a3fe3f5e4558
bd007445cfc196609996373a5cd574aaed58d46d
20331 F20101209_AAAGLR halcovage_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
6a12f81603efc363368e2803b1ea06f3
b619147bede02678eb77fdbbd3845bc1b2dcfbd2
13850 F20101209_AAAGMG halcovage_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
7634fbbdbe855ac8964968b94a51161e
8b27e7dec6cb6ba35929408742a19ea38494e200
5575 F20101209_AAAGLS halcovage_k_Page_023thm.jpg
d5444a291e491d087d818f3b28bb77b7
8bd28b1c014b93b673bd869c1e42a3c470cfd501
4179 F20101209_AAAGMH halcovage_k_Page_031thm.jpg
e1174ab7d8ed439ae38641efd747fa6f
2e889a38087273d0105793ea9cd59df690090cb5
7585 F20101209_AAAGMI halcovage_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
92eb085141cf2f57c219bb4f3f00847e
e0cd7933b7a3f317515d4a148f22978f700ab33a
20188 F20101209_AAAGLT halcovage_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
cf6c2797d29285984daa22f2d24a675d
8eb00589a3821dc619ec46a9be1ffadee753d41e
2475 F20101209_AAAGMJ halcovage_k_Page_032thm.jpg
3160bbdfab7adeda3578a5067ea178b1
5e8ef826dbf3aa221470dcc289e51e08b8a5898e
5838 F20101209_AAAGLU halcovage_k_Page_024thm.jpg
8441760ec41a4e85eb9b6defb50f0260
354f0bb49ce416175cc33211c984f516894c024f
23586 F20101209_AAAGMK halcovage_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
c9c09de0cf45ad7cb55f7c123f81a7f2
4e203adb42d1497e00d82abc4a6f6c71ef21a834
22143 F20101209_AAAGLV halcovage_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
73d9643cedf2d7f82be6135a1fbbc537
c9092f92c796d85283a7d8cd8230109da4f43400
6900 F20101209_AAAGML halcovage_k_Page_033thm.jpg
ca2ebccf5c91277eb3b25a4a3846e808
0b6b3200eb164f3491678d77de0333121599602e
6071 F20101209_AAAGLW halcovage_k_Page_025thm.jpg
abaff8ef57eb618a948471f501fd657e
a4d02f05a60737f2673f5fa1d6145f947b6e881d
24426 F20101209_AAAGMM halcovage_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
c104d21df7321dcb2bd5cbc264419ce6
2136beb39ffafb92779ae84ddeeca75564ddb392
19466 F20101209_AAAGLX halcovage_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
aea954bed41498882379c7d135aa6703
36bf3c3fb31a5e347012f5bb13d5788e590587bd
7286 F20101209_AAAGNA halcovage_k_Page_041thm.jpg
14f3da5b71e36627d61049243b8aa228
5dc0031ffe3e92f1342ba0698ee36761a4109ee7
6770 F20101209_AAAGMN halcovage_k_Page_034thm.jpg
2ec7050f13f5a9fe43aad07982413cdc
fd5d86f5225bf2000cf6d2c760da9f5d1f7d70aa
5478 F20101209_AAAGLY halcovage_k_Page_026thm.jpg
41253239b117350416a2916b045321d2
3d69a884b3e16f7a3e5a42dd46dd9f2a608ccb66
23946 F20101209_AAAGNB halcovage_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
35501f5adb22a0ccc574ecf19466811b
32f5bb6ddd0b33b5c763727ffe5107129a944ec5
24699 F20101209_AAAGMO halcovage_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
88e9a1daa838d86fbe5f3737d9f341a5
b9f93d9b482bf80e15b5fbaf4d9c7c92ffc75eed
23787 F20101209_AAAGLZ halcovage_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
d9f68b25ac9d8c5b43bb05c2b4e8a074
0c80fa21662c692496644aabfb01597d45bbab62
6500 F20101209_AAAGNC halcovage_k_Page_042thm.jpg
6db03f3dc3a2b074ebebe3ed74a79bd8
cbbe62c8c5b2bc0b28d3dc47b1f343ce32a27fcd
6730 F20101209_AAAGMP halcovage_k_Page_035thm.jpg
0ee29dcb822e1355b7ea568b2f23c015
1bb0bbdd7eee3454f483f667f09e0378d3947772
4727 F20101209_AAAGND halcovage_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
3f007ce4208e62519209bd34cc1160ea
d6f373b24ed64788790d887d1c5f9ada92816bd3
21324 F20101209_AAAGMQ halcovage_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
ff4b97f3c152696666965447a3e1ecbe
909eb91f60c291df1aeabf87996b618710cec3f5
1695 F20101209_AAAGNE halcovage_k_Page_043thm.jpg
2db6f147697f5369c2c257ef78128eba
ca86e63c3b51d11f56ec26a49c1c7e51f1748d48
5955 F20101209_AAAGMR halcovage_k_Page_036thm.jpg
421d59767f6d28a21343013222617e79
89dd8c74f10fc418e44313b45eebd9a044c3d9b2
12861 F20101209_AAAGNF halcovage_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
f4671348a51a9b0f6c1807b23d5c730b
738e68e863567ba9b6957c5354d08560dea04417
21261 F20101209_AAAGMS halcovage_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
5c56487a162057134db3f936fc35788e
f6f2b086cc215e553852ed8401c909c39c357b34
4535 F20101209_AAAGNG halcovage_k_Page_044thm.jpg
4d22b3ff25218202697bc45a84f17e54
51317e7af4337a2d04f5f49e20913654cc604287
5897 F20101209_AAAGMT halcovage_k_Page_037thm.jpg
bb17f1c08c72fd5e74c7749bb63fb1c4
c4e560a9eaf467fe37789ffc7738db55deec06b3
3585 F20101209_AAAGNH halcovage_k_Page_045thm.jpg
32471f49f9bc2332213d861ab91c3045
b3edd29e4710d8032b80eb95fb709cc83029ca8d
11267 F20101209_AAAGNI halcovage_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
9bdb606eb91550883ed4459788aa000c
ca6488fc9d50192a28d754aafbd9c7dbbc480972
24109 F20101209_AAAGMU halcovage_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
875c657fe921829a124070dabf67a6b9
5eb9922de02f78289a941afb9a2d084067aed119
3888 F20101209_AAAGNJ halcovage_k_Page_046thm.jpg
bff8465790124743de73471cda0c9faf
694966afe379d95da69e3b17542bf44a01fdd87c
6645 F20101209_AAAGMV halcovage_k_Page_038thm.jpg
2793b2bfa3522550cdce1012dc505d32
816bdae2f51e12f2184353eecea210062f5ee824
14031 F20101209_AAAGNK halcovage_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
f59ee336108b194a07625642cfec7513
c5491c82e44e549a1c84b554be9989bb5c527b53
25724 F20101209_AAAGMW halcovage_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
a7e2f0886bc8d5809de3c52ea1da3bb1
ac2c74a3d5da4d069d8be40bfaacb712ac20867e
4586 F20101209_AAAGNL halcovage_k_Page_047thm.jpg
ea063d85fe8cf5baf5449d14dc40a633
d1d1cae4c0d3d1655aa4e194d1fd85b51aac4846
7073 F20101209_AAAGMX halcovage_k_Page_039thm.jpg
5d425abe55431a1055fbfe9c09a67c9f
abfbc9a4fb2ea2ebe7d6b4437fbc2acde5c8bfff
12314 F20101209_AAAGOA halcovage_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
6673ec538a7c9207ac830684f615d7da
26af752d2dd103f512f3918a107c703cbc7b1eba
10758 F20101209_AAAGNM halcovage_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
cae142c4f7c9a55cd3484dd4ea104d33
505d9f7f785ce4fe29fd60c4629dd273ae8d0ea9
25006 F20101209_AAAGMY halcovage_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
8eca405f56193652a5a7ff6b3af3d723
c7bcd5213872a658d7e1280361ee395eb14306cb
4167 F20101209_AAAGOB halcovage_k_Page_055thm.jpg
8c22346e1ec137a71703a91233c8cc1f
2537cba387e52c69faed534ecbfe1d031fd6de10
3729 F20101209_AAAGNN halcovage_k_Page_048thm.jpg
4b9b7e70f939c0173c9e7fe43fef00fd
6f83166097a1c71c1157782eeb295e17feb5ccd6
26420 F20101209_AAAGMZ halcovage_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
b1c76ff9d94897db6beace3990534abc
b5c852a787e874b30d74b4ea7ccfba32fbb493d3
13214 F20101209_AAAGOC halcovage_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
603d9f320a21b82df73ec6f4e3526c56
aab18d4e8ee2a66272b70b736e71115c60fcbbb3
16933 F20101209_AAAGNO halcovage_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
89a0fd608660dc5b003ac99597a45919
3b009550e8ec36aa9029d49d520b89e98efac989
3792 F20101209_AAAGOD halcovage_k_Page_056thm.jpg
e6d3f8111f856d454fa9669c850df059
d59e7b33410fe5e79fa58e906966faf3935b87ce
5571 F20101209_AAAGNP halcovage_k_Page_049thm.jpg
e6a5cc786c0b3af75a68e824f3722ebd
adf50a2b0685953d06cd2cc933fe404e3d2d8201
13477 F20101209_AAAGOE halcovage_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
be4c6b4547214445044027273bd4aba3
58259b8afc620ac5e899676dd1bfa4421477fb7a
11505 F20101209_AAAGNQ halcovage_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
15c90fbc0fa1f0e85d4721b4e0ae07ae
38bd50d40bcb8ff898352f71062a35e1f4ea4c81
4002 F20101209_AAAGOF halcovage_k_Page_057thm.jpg
f51e69bf219106a54bbe62a772617ea5
b58c9d50828737034bc0980af00dd8fa451117f4
3532 F20101209_AAAGNR halcovage_k_Page_050thm.jpg
c550464f0f8286797d7419d2f6fad681
311a52751684953a7bd06445e226498b26ce2f37
14890 F20101209_AAAGOG halcovage_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
a375f8b9d563ecf6db4e49ceebbb6d85
97328c6471d02e28ab3d4d0744ced4df805c3cf8
22358 F20101209_AAAGNS halcovage_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
2aeb15f0f27b6173b896ff7d5b2908ef
11c24d82061f6533b176e3788b425e9c7311b24c
5139 F20101209_AAAGOH halcovage_k_Page_058thm.jpg
b5d6afc042c9516eb2de1a3f285131ac
3e872137ab47853ce698e04b58942ee35a32220a
6314 F20101209_AAAGNT halcovage_k_Page_051thm.jpg
7d5554cd13530c4b7ff24513d11d816e
8308e6e5ccd3af1c87f8ec99ba9f8b0096ed2fb3
7631 F20101209_AAAGOI halcovage_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
5aace03c6d07dfe802e89fda0b7c8635
28044f85837e67de458319d75baa394db6e43bd6
24149 F20101209_AAAGNU halcovage_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
fb79935e2a91e0b8cae45b76a4602c94
b35acfddbddb90742a9e42479fcb70eed834d778
2692 F20101209_AAAGOJ halcovage_k_Page_059thm.jpg
190ec9e30f86f8f08356fece90863c36
6b69e7c52916652b1ea64ce762cc2d5eb212b649
23896 F20101209_AAAGOK halcovage_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
0301502b143e225ce8130162a2eca9ae
ad1f2b980272eae60f12270a1a5f024f357abf99
6646 F20101209_AAAGNV halcovage_k_Page_052thm.jpg
23e7a2e110c2c489483c62db14afaf5f
481ce7d8a9fc81a91523652dc6858a9720e0f65f
6517 F20101209_AAAGOL halcovage_k_Page_060thm.jpg
8cee233ab6ab2e4617778f76cb553fec
8cfd989724231eb55468ec3ed32561a422423213
22205 F20101209_AAAGNW halcovage_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
c23ca2ca7f1433237b3ca57990d29df0
58f5998695bb315340a8117025df36134a68c82f
3053 F20101209_AAAGPA halcovage_k_Page_068thm.jpg
1e007b4c79d990e84402d06311bc3830
0e79d0b1a820c8caaf5023228c1af887c7aa4f63
25677 F20101209_AAAGOM halcovage_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
dcf6d16d992ac0eaec86135c6625962e
017c18e2278ce0efbf3b618191edc9bd8775711d
6132 F20101209_AAAGNX halcovage_k_Page_053thm.jpg
d1a54bd64c479d19b21816ac368fd46d
a8dc163ead957c8de91ccd6419cf57215a817a7f
14042 F20101209_AAAGPB halcovage_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
18ea763eb286d05d4c8124cb755489f2
2bc44ceae7c5d01445f2a4b9928db480c0fd1c82
53150 F20101209_AAAFLL halcovage_k_Page_049.jpg
f245c97f757c6adad6827a93f874cbe9
53d959fe3101575f87bda4eeadb4e7da8fd73869
7189 F20101209_AAAGON halcovage_k_Page_061thm.jpg
873a73cf5da1b816f09f7547958db6ab
9c5902daec487cc78232c5650f66f1a8f9183753
13871 F20101209_AAAGNY halcovage_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
fad7ffd516423a3423adae818a2d50ab
73a97931c96b070a134d8a36b46339a496d9cf4c
17029 F20101209_AAAGPC halcovage_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
c3595f0e1e2c51f3959aeb85f8cbd240
9a18bbf0e10322fd395d0d9e4e68299b57fd7299
F20101209_AAAFLM halcovage_k_Page_108.tif
39a3fd104f449169ee6fc046c12b0327
6195d202eb875da1689da0cca4f9e60d02b21f82
24569 F20101209_AAAGOO halcovage_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
d0192f97915c19df1ded5d7faf7e3676
85564a0faba605668ebf5db0c58629c7c7e80df7
3933 F20101209_AAAGNZ halcovage_k_Page_054thm.jpg
e6aa090d1bc73c3131b6f1067525796a
e8573ff33596e17731f050ee54a66c2b2686d25b
F20101209_AAAFMA halcovage_k_Page_105.tif
06a740346b340c8c906d957623e5a319
920089f5f8c90f67a303f5723b0a842133cca274
5251 F20101209_AAAGPD halcovage_k_Page_070thm.jpg
ac2686b2a9619c1281b1b998fcea68b3
236d82d738edfc64ce2d8f1aa946ed1120c271aa
2938 F20101209_AAAFLN halcovage_k_Page_080thm.jpg
dc378e15d6b5c36b4983836c8a3f7492
a401b6bdd32984913ba7d68bb8224a94f0818084
6672 F20101209_AAAGOP halcovage_k_Page_062thm.jpg
98126baac42e374e9f9ec05a356065da
8eff34c44d6805e546ccf996976bdfc6cd531698
3717 F20101209_AAAFMB halcovage_k_Page_118thm.jpg
657042de711d454eca7c4da664c0afb5
fa52e12b08c1d4aaaefb7d3300a422b6ef7572ab
15131 F20101209_AAAGPE halcovage_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
f09909fd7aa44a608993f4c189ae6104
ba6cbae4b4fec93df32eef2518812c6257f41a10
10797 F20101209_AAAFLO halcovage_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
58eb896e67726921123b88a777b65f00
323a9bb7f9680b090eaaa640fe0e345800b8fe20
26724 F20101209_AAAGOQ halcovage_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
c4a39d086168a8002a79dc45e4d0bdf5
719c611c396469b144d903ca1c6012493ff090b8
22066 F20101209_AAAFMC halcovage_k_Page_001.jpg
d70e795dcca1d7b6bb9a67d1e83fead9
428e7464521a51398757387f98d8325a6537a8f3
5097 F20101209_AAAGPF halcovage_k_Page_071thm.jpg
f9cd03563edb1e5f188bf7cb4c773702
371642742a73e118354174e8f384db2fcb539ac6
8143 F20101209_AAAFLP halcovage_k_Page_007.pro
707a8652a392993434f3c489dcc3483a
1c20bb5303eac58130acb52b2a702ee704b4ed12
7092 F20101209_AAAGOR halcovage_k_Page_063thm.jpg
fb35d283051827d5bc26206c18d17ea5
1bba777a45086815b662c4afa15940c0a1d549af
F20101209_AAAFMD halcovage_k_Page_040.tif
4e821101e3d1e459267ac0b12868ffdd
c5795281c262d2e61c870131e37ecac914a4dc1a
15046 F20101209_AAAGPG halcovage_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
b555cd7ec4dc34d371b1a6d5c4e84a41
a112ec659e1832819fdc820bbf86f394f85d9a54
63565 F20101209_AAAFLQ halcovage_k_Page_023.jpg
cf1eb9bbb2f167ab4da21f8d175bd3d2
adcb2cbb564fc3e89a331c353237e40f360d474f
24546 F20101209_AAAGOS halcovage_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
26a8e5c82fc4541d2f7980be1b031ba3
d43848bf4e13766d00e7cca5e3e9856892acf2d5
57570 F20101209_AAAFME halcovage_k_Page_028.jpg
14e2375f14fcb850f96552390c3ebbeb
d9c2ba5be47ed62e25de7a539ab9abd94f402ae4
4189 F20101209_AAAGPH halcovage_k_Page_072thm.jpg
92b7ae4a184e83dd4e08836f77be2ace
0aefe600595975c89b4ead63b3a7f6bdda2bb61c
7021 F20101209_AAAFLR halcovage_k_Page_018thm.jpg
9b8cd4b429fb5f61474c4ad4e5d83ee7
7cd06b92bd1e105238f3cc26a198eb0943aae431
6724 F20101209_AAAGOT halcovage_k_Page_064thm.jpg
0db885d729b8f6bd3d069f8fcfb9afce
a938f8c80ddead9ed581e52eeb746cc59fb38af3
F20101209_AAAFMF halcovage_k_Page_026.tif
d40738b1578b47f3b34b5928f9c7dd55
11aaef4ab5ff0e605064ec5a3961e441ac4535b2
F20101209_AAAFLS halcovage_k_Page_017.tif
e15ffdf2d187dd38417466173dfe58d9
bd45898830ef7bb3e84edcdfe7dde16934284b61
2213 F20101209_AAAGOU halcovage_k_Page_065thm.jpg
9ed2533f8b0e17bebb3725d881333e32
bf604510a9aec338dcd573bbaf37110a09fa4871
9653 F20101209_AAAFMG halcovage_k_Page_121.pro
972a6fd4332a92afdff5373c4c0e9b07
2e8483b61e4482f7410ccda6f11d549d7c3cb021
12917 F20101209_AAAGPI halcovage_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
e8284691768390b8ed968675cc1f08d5
ff410d401a6bcf3a77c50e865869a64f01add3e7
F20101209_AAAFLT halcovage_k_Page_090.tif
94244cf89a9378d835e7d13f9fb7223b
c59dc941aa5164b0c9b791513e78afc88c7c9f02
15084 F20101209_AAAGOV halcovage_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
a5d7b5f546d7b49ac6f570d72965056f
6644541b590b445eff493d15bf64fc4fdd9d48d0
12152 F20101209_AAAFMH halcovage_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
98a42e50c580dbff91c39b3270bd6a7e
8853dbf6e2bf55d53735e83d1b8905d526cd0a3b
4194 F20101209_AAAGPJ halcovage_k_Page_073thm.jpg
f82d9665f517d2c3271f0e4d90e1383c
27e07b36d18baf8778297aef99243158d1aa3e73
6945 F20101209_AAAFMI halcovage_k_Page_068.pro
ce0789976dea4abb5c6a3f6425fe9d78
388448ccf3a6bdc341eb3171df3dcd4c3e0e1f88
15654 F20101209_AAAGPK halcovage_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
bdbba30e2e179c9abab42ffc0670a2d4
ffc81233e9fae2fdc0c1657e802bbeffa2d2a3e4
1337 F20101209_AAAFLU halcovage_k_Page_002thm.jpg
932d342506e4a2830fbb7174c5a94dd4
8d074d2fb03f9ffea8c1cc13d33f45fecbb201d6
5148 F20101209_AAAGOW halcovage_k_Page_066thm.jpg
0d942a52b2025e0ba03a2759fcbf85e2
cde59794db0e6ce6722693dcf3a2e12018ad0a8d
31698 F20101209_AAAFMJ halcovage_k_Page_078.jpg
1b1fa9f1939b42cbb7245ec289ea6ee3
97a3a19220f92372a4275427aa8850924af25e45
25061 F20101209_AAAGPL halcovage_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
99588f2612b2d5141e4de81aa57eb820
c8f01325e7a7032e1159d44cdca7cfa5f2014aca
10863 F20101209_AAAGQA halcovage_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
d4bf13cfec555c112820d8b322945c64
9e021b667f14909fde3e02f808d6a32a11aa9092
97429 F20101209_AAAFLV halcovage_k_Page_036.jp2
57da464ed62f51d9bd640ded26a4deec
0a9e925e205bcfaf654804b894919cf9a162c71c
17365 F20101209_AAAGOX halcovage_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
58c2fb85cd0f545b045fdbe30c02624c
4e2ca5fcc5e72cc96383aa962d6847a3ab8963d7
4084 F20101209_AAAFMK halcovage_k_Page_069thm.jpg
edc0a7e113171e4d879a32765b7bd0e2
14ace55bce0cd0a4e1badcc0d6843ad624deedce
6726 F20101209_AAAGPM halcovage_k_Page_075thm.jpg
1f85fa3d0af3b6d159ddb79f298b505f
2ff5f35ce3f5f13021d6cb120fc7954c2ed0e64d
3825 F20101209_AAAGQB halcovage_k_Page_083thm.jpg
c0f1ed990db928b09b9d9893af31894e
4275cc0f50ab6f8699c6f0b5723d30e46c57cf5b
28057 F20101209_AAAFLW halcovage_k_Page_003.jp2
371385a4beeab0ff689ae92e6d030d24
718695f14558bb2aa8fcf49880c0f8df47a5e5a0
5632 F20101209_AAAGOY halcovage_k_Page_067thm.jpg
a854fe8655faf98a51139359f142b649
e8ee41eccb188c8ab1911fe4de98ce00f1def331
1661 F20101209_AAAFML halcovage_k_Page_007thm.jpg
babf47d0a645d12db35efc8efad4b9c4
98afc5cd9907786007386142b5e39511d81793bb
11927 F20101209_AAAGPN halcovage_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
dbb1ba5c08e1527ec9ea41d2d622f91c
c562a75d7229dfc1bc73e30bb5d823888fdc835d
8555 F20101209_AAAGQC halcovage_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
47567bc1c0d830462f747df2deb9ce28
789952d1da5d8c17d3a1af3bb9a66dfd5d4bde5f
111154 F20101209_AAAFLX halcovage_k_Page_052.jp2
5cdedc06c964ae72e9dbe139577f6053
16bd05e6450836fd0745c7ec176a785d6120ec64
8393 F20101209_AAAGOZ halcovage_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
9cd720832608dc30237fa9b80dffd5fe
0de0d16afad09b9af82ad33db6892ea4072fea86
4674 F20101209_AAAFNA halcovage_k_Page_006thm.jpg
5142982ae2017194c553d5aeabcf9d77
681597e64a7bdf6633bbdd65a3d56998b9bf37c0
46855 F20101209_AAAFMM halcovage_k_Page_036.pro
2e1cba183424a63c2ebd973feedc5a0e
10afb6bc789f5a0482040d235dbbfa78a3baf49f
3451 F20101209_AAAGPO halcovage_k_Page_076thm.jpg
68b9576d00c550abc30567edab5fdf9a
681008e372e2ce012a0379239074635c0e2562ae
2928 F20101209_AAAGQD halcovage_k_Page_084thm.jpg
e0a06a8e974b82ba60097d741f179838
0995fec6b4f51a8155de5529225cefbc0e4e139a
5036 F20101209_AAAFLY halcovage_k_Page_029thm.jpg
919e8f3a7c6074d91b8c89c00a79d434
446472af5166ae0384af6b57940edc82923f63f4
6202 F20101209_AAAFNB halcovage_k_Page_008thm.jpg
9627d6021c4ff0bb16f3fde12242d3f1
9db31cf71a98cb2ed7e36dee13099d0f3e56ea4a
11907 F20101209_AAAFMN halcovage_k_Page_084.pro
fa8e52c007c7f3ea6de86cc8ec4fe651
9752806e9b855d07bc5f8052df33163bb1dfe5f3
17810 F20101209_AAAGPP halcovage_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
9c7876462c77735cd4aa713826b75826
6cca04ecac22049bc85daa1bcd09abb786d8cbed
13419 F20101209_AAAGQE halcovage_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
788771de768b583198459fcb26a9d69d
1ab65624abc9d67a295c3d704d83158361ce8821
54618 F20101209_AAAFLZ halcovage_k_Page_092.jpg
a633dd427cf38b090d0be8a345e7592d
272f3e3ad1218202bfe4c47d33974f2b7e20d0db
76658 F20101209_AAAFNC halcovage_k_Page_005.jpg
4eb9fa403f99c23243c105189dc1b4c4
7638c29eb15f9976b7011d3af0d7a9deb32b55cf
F20101209_AAAFMO halcovage_k_Page_030.tif
fb654e3d9fbc36a1de92938ec6115a9b
0e4427d3850299c35bf1b9e57419e1e6caa97c8d
4889 F20101209_AAAGPQ halcovage_k_Page_077thm.jpg
be89c0732922cef51e4814025d4a8a66
dc82978c0d0dce28f62c1b2d51dc430487df4d52
4244 F20101209_AAAGQF halcovage_k_Page_085thm.jpg
e39500fe998b72b3f37c57710f697d8c
4d86d618e3bc7110c2a71b4d6a6482a4e4b08916
10067 F20101209_AAAGPR halcovage_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
784a15f2f069638927a5ba0d91f359d5
0e8ebad5092a2579a6b21389e324d801211a75e3
3695 F20101209_AAAFND halcovage_k_Page_119thm.jpg
10708777497e2d4423fcdfa11d23eb3f
17920a7a83367ace4b7c17e982ca39cd66573d0a
117169 F20101209_AAAFMP halcovage_k_Page_075.jp2
ad9d1647b8b16e204e9158ba0a587d13
74b28c894ddbebbec726635558e6021d4abdc893
11836 F20101209_AAAGQG halcovage_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
83f1b0d260b0df8768917e45ca4c9cdc
fa4e68a19072d094778e2ea7da3abcc7d967b842
F20101209_AAAGPS halcovage_k_Page_078thm.jpg
e6a8429c4ce460d2651186586866f268
ee318e60807d3422a22cee0ca1c671c55aef8900
F20101209_AAAFNE halcovage_k_Page_064.tif
e19ec3f4f02402a0508699bbd5fcc77e
1c90552048b4effc1b2170e807017c0ca1ed367b
11125 F20101209_AAAFMQ halcovage_k_Page_111.pro
33d5faeaec3feb91fbce6d384e8b85f6
346d7ca162e3cd76c88cda83ea8f9b6001f9ac1e
3738 F20101209_AAAGQH halcovage_k_Page_086thm.jpg
57a5ff943f89ce48170a4988a147db80
b528d06291068bc0afa97948c47c1e4f29479a08
15665 F20101209_AAAGPT halcovage_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
8ccdc021607b3ee00334dccbd82ec8f5
034eb738d6d109dc0c2b00e80780d58f448c957c
F20101209_AAAFNF halcovage_k_Page_115.tif
566c2752dfaa3f137b2a82cdab63b73f
732e10a741c2b67ee71343be44e8751ba19dc6ef
4019 F20101209_AAAFMR halcovage_k_Page_098thm.jpg
a5730a8880b0533f2043f1645a305a9c
9e65c0eefb7027556e1ba3926cb3cc5b97bb2d07
14842 F20101209_AAAGQI halcovage_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
b1149bc9e33c4a407af45a3139da23b3
f5bbff74d2ad53d7930c82b7e8a4e6aa0cbb6d60
4728 F20101209_AAAGPU halcovage_k_Page_079thm.jpg
8dbb71f3b0ddddb49cc87dcf419ada4f
21d4f7a98d14267864e6b8f320de5ca346137ceb
63782 F20101209_AAAFNG halcovage_k_Page_006.jpg
953955407d3beef51805c7c6aaaafe9e
d3c7df9a4143546ae4f6ccfefc81738ca7e8b48c
192 F20101209_AAAFMS halcovage_k_Page_049.txt
823c9455f7b504a128cc7ad701634629
297c74d6db140f09d9d59a11db4169ad24d6e2d0
4567 F20101209_AAAGQJ halcovage_k_Page_087thm.jpg
8b202dde9ca70cc3afd8483fef683a05
7596f262effbda927a49a3a15c1f7b7d565df4b4
8621 F20101209_AAAGPV halcovage_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
5e5e4395b484f1c101d35b465a69d216
88537a87bdc181397188f369c3d92e40b79a06ce
6782 F20101209_AAAFNH halcovage_k_Page_040thm.jpg
b2f0be9f97aa9e6241cac3d8f1af299a
f5cb83560e2e1ce908d5e1ebf3f20425d35c507e
108634 F20101209_AAAFMT halcovage_k_Page_060.jp2
6ac5e9d3b680af57901881852cd8ce6b
4d389cf9105c6cf9d9042f4c59dd5911eeecc9ce
12379 F20101209_AAAGQK halcovage_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
0e677c313145680bb5a18117cb8ccf86
2122b93762a7661c748b31bccd8cba2511bac271
7238 F20101209_AAAGPW halcovage_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
cf7eead058d3789ee892bfa7925f853a
3ce394edc21f89c8610c4c5778d4fc3ed2191249
145448 F20101209_AAAFNI UFE0019645_00001.mets
768bd49f40688906746a21e1d3930e8c
85977624135b767f2cb289dab47cc096d2bb496c
F20101209_AAAFMU halcovage_k_Page_002.tif
71375bc6c60fcf6532b8f6a8c16856ad
57a5e6ebb3c23ea8f2ab00759dafe6d32b6bf839
4020 F20101209_AAAGQL halcovage_k_Page_088thm.jpg
0a0b2b4d544d1e932abf4f9bba450099
19d87f1d968aa181610f9a3e144abb4a9255dc03
2914 F20101209_AAAGRA halcovage_k_Page_096thm.jpg
1fe0df64445a2f6436952ea7bf2bd6c3
1b425ea499b1d46b71a44bd6a2aa934d81e1aade
15014 F20101209_AAAGQM halcovage_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
a2177ef7528fce336678aa600fe86b22
2fc3ed16ab65d8d4f83b11e1bf48ab26c5be57b3
2779 F20101209_AAAGPX halcovage_k_Page_081thm.jpg
571f321769f1d663866a3fdbcfeeb161
961df82446256c5f5805eff70402036e5d4935aa
F20101209_AAAFMV halcovage_k_Page_089.tif
0f9904ded832e8399494cabbea03e468
c043b796d0321600aaf4d9b639ce7cddc78e9ad2
13548 F20101209_AAAGRB halcovage_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
7c9d9594b4c1797c3a9703472d9af0b0
6b435bf0eb7506308ac0f4d58746e6e71e84fc2d
4686 F20101209_AAAGQN halcovage_k_Page_089thm.jpg
322f55bb979117593a50edf035b262e9
19cfe7ac983aba5e60a0da0c147181ec3c376f7f
11281 F20101209_AAAGPY halcovage_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
3332d440b208a69769844ed20c2f1208
b5e70cd2f4604257b1bb0fec66fdab7549394b08
10173 F20101209_AAAFNL halcovage_k_Page_002.jpg
50476a57b8f376944d20f4b7baf16464
112d6b400d666066bedd14174d51aff4ff07e318
21904 F20101209_AAAFMW halcovage_k_Page_081.jpg
2e571a5a2857de7b2fa4f6d925263146
ae4a3a7ff035fab80126e43e26348959aa259ba8
4311 F20101209_AAAGRC halcovage_k_Page_097thm.jpg
3ebd1cbc4c88c547bb4ddd6b5f212445
c3160e6062863a9d6095d0bee7e3e8f00b9db85b
8377 F20101209_AAAGQO halcovage_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
3cce4c87021bcf95ffad57bb98b3cfe0
4c6d0a0edd345ef6f4fd81badb04c66c6e5983b6
3610 F20101209_AAAGPZ halcovage_k_Page_082thm.jpg
03824d9708c7d39bf4b9a5afe14e32b8
19bf6c5a52bc297cd7af835aee7501b3c30d0545
80375 F20101209_AAAFOA halcovage_k_Page_019.jpg
d3bf166db55184a4fdba92baa9682a58
04f06786d411b8e02eba95651ecd8db8d939b40e
24222 F20101209_AAAFNM halcovage_k_Page_003.jpg
4df01ca8f9933ad59693c892e46c3d5c
15041136791014e3dd936fbeb41d06e9d1f2c3dc
F20101209_AAAFMX halcovage_k_Page_039.tif
2466308da89e3b0a9d37c76f519017d2
1cd5d9e4b9573296cb8307118528f9d5daf7d96a
11487 F20101209_AAAGRD halcovage_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
d639832c0fe5d8b31a6d4c70a19c32e5
3039fdc2885e9f960151a0b92ff653631e349733
2778 F20101209_AAAGQP halcovage_k_Page_090thm.jpg
01ca9e7358d28b815356f0b745622e22
726806c52505e163cc73a3954035382b85391ae4
60252 F20101209_AAAFOB halcovage_k_Page_020.jpg
77ff5c294f15e1593a2b61da825a53ba
bf7aad21fafa1ae4ba7d6f86b5b5c06e7e217cf5
25769 F20101209_AAAFNN halcovage_k_Page_004.jpg
e9753f5997d6ca851964eb2031866e18
e7cd996b26e7001cd8bae03d21715ed6434f521f
949063 F20101209_AAAFMY halcovage_k_Page_086.jp2
2c003c61ad55bd3be12ad55bf17aaefe
0b9a9cf3785f43c5a6230001494870bc26e78066
15214 F20101209_AAAGRE halcovage_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
68d9612d435529625242f1344fd432d6
ceec60cd9dadee448453e17d51a7d1cb8732e039
3986 F20101209_AAAGQQ halcovage_k_Page_091thm.jpg
32702d041532c58ae182830559b6159f
cdfa9dda1b3a2a00fd3a39c018cb26c41f74929d
57146 F20101209_AAAFOC halcovage_k_Page_021.jpg
397251f9fcb07d4732255989696b961c
8a365f67bbb70bd366105f99c1fe117349a2b673
14518 F20101209_AAAFNO halcovage_k_Page_007.jpg
23070ee2fca7e833db56a1447073744a
bb7630d0a975f5b700dbbec4fa32f5ae3ab1965d
6406 F20101209_AAAFMZ halcovage_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
f7b3324db77441798302bab1d476b7db
37370b1c7d404d0ef0ea9759486586f15466cf27
4592 F20101209_AAAGRF halcovage_k_Page_099thm.jpg
d1eaa64d43bf921d638847cb0f2182c7
cea7352c97eb3fdf36425c2631c6fcefca9690ca
16453 F20101209_AAAGQR halcovage_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
150419ed73e2f1dfad4ddc64112327e2
ed03639e3e9b3e845ee6d83ad4f15bbd45d4df81
67917 F20101209_AAAFOD halcovage_k_Page_022.jpg
8abcdbdb0824f6b918382ba1f28e62bb
475e2857918eddbe135a6fea678a79eee1111b92
78277 F20101209_AAAFNP halcovage_k_Page_008.jpg
93e54f6293a17c4ddb5f1afafb953a6c
387e4c3ab2a8228d142f91519a8e605277c8980b
6862 F20101209_AAAGRG halcovage_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
d8af571aa82e8537eedca8c456435ab0
f9cfcf3d69456a79cc1915096415fb947db293d6
5330 F20101209_AAAGQS halcovage_k_Page_092thm.jpg
b6518be974025afef027fe314fb40f7f
0211532a201f6de8fb1b436a4dec3ee5cc9543ff
63907 F20101209_AAAFOE halcovage_k_Page_024.jpg
86bfb96a4e0d72eac08c7c267eab9c59
04d489930ce7839c7068751164188a6aa1748d23
88205 F20101209_AAAFNQ halcovage_k_Page_009.jpg
3fd6a195e39be573a22e3631d137e2ae
d9b5ac4449fdffc6f6478fe6dd411fdcbfce811c
2409 F20101209_AAAGRH halcovage_k_Page_100thm.jpg
3203b78e6678efe157ee96338442dea7
2154379babb083d0f11beb31c57a28d7be706eca
10903 F20101209_AAAGQT halcovage_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
3bca237b0e89225da12f65916960a603
1f83558e5c2563127396d91a177b110715f4287b
74152 F20101209_AAAFOF halcovage_k_Page_025.jpg
1f4adbaeecdb1e9a3062c59707ce94f0
49a16e15e172dea9c658d286b951ca99bbd4b409
54212 F20101209_AAAFNR halcovage_k_Page_010.jpg
3ecdd777f4296f9f14b0c5c68fc1cf2d
b3583b3d73a155111b9cf54af18d0972e8d45585
14778 F20101209_AAAGRI halcovage_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
c5594bab0c26aff8bfd22de802d5236c
7ea0c947d183ec8f4ebb359049415dee2c5adf86
3697 F20101209_AAAGQU halcovage_k_Page_093thm.jpg
c410293127cfeaced22fdd49f09e68da
bdd4e7182078aa0f3052d807205ca94b26bf251f
62122 F20101209_AAAFOG halcovage_k_Page_026.jpg
04441f85d66c4059232ff16ca3ee29c8
37b1ea25ab00a9596daf1dacce6b44de8d236a2f
70284 F20101209_AAAFNS halcovage_k_Page_011.jpg
422ba20f6c4fc4f1b1ef2628eb856642
b7fff0d8633374cda9dd59913921111e722b85d6
4405 F20101209_AAAGRJ halcovage_k_Page_101thm.jpg
66e7adb5fcbfe4a8a6921f4d93ced682
ec990ab67b1571d4715953e69585d3e822f82c50
17271 F20101209_AAAGQV halcovage_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
3660c1684b4395691380e2a9495225fa
20f3d27a2b188f40d3aac43f6e9f9cfc3cf3e50f
73379 F20101209_AAAFOH halcovage_k_Page_027.jpg
d5b9731b0226416550345df848a47e8d
6f18b58ebf85c39334df1081188bcb75a5efde9a
32116 F20101209_AAAFNT halcovage_k_Page_012.jpg
fb0c5bbdbe75fe9246437f48086bb58c
cbe1c99a60948cebe357aa740ab8523439514ca0
16547 F20101209_AAAGRK halcovage_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
4d00b4d4eb456c3d2ac9f3c9b259a170
bf5c44d130fd189b638a7cb843770dcd578dc287
5340 F20101209_AAAGQW halcovage_k_Page_094thm.jpg
6e623876eec160e242f2f3752b19ea8f
1bdf74240f86488cd3317795c6ea98f1dc09762a
56064 F20101209_AAAFOI halcovage_k_Page_029.jpg
e2e3557fd2c9c97600ae11ec30ed4ff8
400de72413b1920b5890316e5bf3ab9eb1c54e64
42799 F20101209_AAAFNU halcovage_k_Page_013.jpg
25a3e6930d3b289d26d319d99df23e6a
a551d147707251fde06edcad9ea6a77ad54531a1
4985 F20101209_AAAGRL halcovage_k_Page_102thm.jpg
d5a997914db4aae66626e379d04fbb07
b85c4429c0be73a11fde8829af156a5dc79d00e0
15955 F20101209_AAAGQX halcovage_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
02573b9c28136493a39587296c7c9880
2fc7c10cd8aa01f1e187b9d400b50e6deb4f7ced
53073 F20101209_AAAFOJ halcovage_k_Page_030.jpg
7b1f6b3701b2f28cbb7d508dba6a4afd
8135df98b0eba8f80616ab82fdbe92d24664c20a
32894 F20101209_AAAFNV halcovage_k_Page_014.jpg
0c53e96ce768ec2ea0b5f53722dc6374
9e154804040af836ae8f8bd0001bbb6fdfa77fab
3519 F20101209_AAAGSA halcovage_k_Page_110thm.jpg
798e5780e38c09c3f2db66a404c76d0c
08202bc76f3d1258a2489e317c8ca5e3256bb8a0
17782 F20101209_AAAGRM halcovage_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
35c772dfc05512371c5a7eaf1dcf3d01
ee7c031bd63ccc9bb95383fe446889670974848a
51879 F20101209_AAAFOK halcovage_k_Page_031.jpg
6a9defe0e207695a7e70e50d16bd0db3
1808c529d1ac4eaf1799500ed7928eb6e9fad272
10101 F20101209_AAAGSB halcovage_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
009a697354f88bef0b2c3f38b6d4164d
5107c52fc728699e89a6ee1815806de748c885d4
5508 F20101209_AAAGRN halcovage_k_Page_103thm.jpg
7ce59ddf6c04dc358a00a37bc4d3c7e2
0bd72f9d266e3a157ebff531064983a2238b0c19
F20101209_AAAGQY halcovage_k_Page_095thm.jpg
e4af1aa493298be2d36659a8ed11f654
566f52a11a71f2d678a1a96c0eac03caec6d57ef
31135 F20101209_AAAFOL halcovage_k_Page_032.jpg
f0826ebe0f7265f26d6f7d7f5e983837
0b1233da90f8140ef3993e75f7056176cf451c5a
72926 F20101209_AAAFNW halcovage_k_Page_015.jpg
516846c817badd366df115b1c280b6f1
d8afea69aadaedc2ccfc51712f8046dbc002b672
3478 F20101209_AAAGSC halcovage_k_Page_111thm.jpg
8d8f8e1f575b32d5c607b03925711539
472b5f1f82b6b9277d12c44aad000f13856ba6ef
17771 F20101209_AAAGRO halcovage_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
6875babb658e8fb55ae3d167d9f993fe
bdc421a5d7953f4d52bfdae4de1c9891d7583707
9484 F20101209_AAAGQZ halcovage_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
25b63214cec3b3335a0b371fad00943a
30726ccf410e23080c2eb11692eb3371d878b53e
76548 F20101209_AAAFOM halcovage_k_Page_033.jpg
ca2da0889b3ebd01b70042fcfc0b5ebe
be951dd0bb6549d09c6359b374ffdec1fb73a619
78950 F20101209_AAAFNX halcovage_k_Page_016.jpg
8c90edf733519e5cbabd652f6906fde0
5ba81bf2cf35826353c1fca2430eddfec80f4b0c
44677 F20101209_AAAFPA halcovage_k_Page_047.jpg
db3dd74b2b4d1fc13f1d910dae0214cc
1156bd5a9b4f9b00a5ac5c8b1ed999721338fa2e
10214 F20101209_AAAGSD halcovage_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
24badbad5d58b86e83cdef33ad3fdb96
6427a35f6fceec075f29881d013cf3093aadc1d9
5412 F20101209_AAAGRP halcovage_k_Page_104thm.jpg
68370d6f89ba8e932a98208b2f36b452
cea1eee17d30e4c0ac1470b03b8d94ba31f84727
72041 F20101209_AAAFON halcovage_k_Page_034.jpg
fb80418c732a7936b9a90d03502c77a1
fa3d088f3e9a5ab8ef704466a69963968780137e
70901 F20101209_AAAFNY halcovage_k_Page_017.jpg
668dfd9e0166f370569debd5825b8ec1
2e6cb6652cf59bf27c140933ee63ceac72d481d8
34149 F20101209_AAAFPB halcovage_k_Page_048.jpg
04cdc37d488cd6b8d0c5a40ab7143d07
60d3ca76acf3b5f9d294511e2e7181a26fc5f9cf
3529 F20101209_AAAGSE halcovage_k_Page_112thm.jpg
f9a4d3a749785c676b1533fb5de33d50
35d7cf9546dfebf01e81fefb76afd04a93ba6b1b
13581 F20101209_AAAGRQ halcovage_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
e1c8877121c261b7b08b06efd33f4588
653e1dcd6f244307a9ee073f18dda55fe89a930c
74473 F20101209_AAAFOO halcovage_k_Page_035.jpg
7e02f68bf243a72715623bc3ca4e2cfe
5247b3422995eefbfe0a5956e2b6961334c0ea86
78494 F20101209_AAAFNZ halcovage_k_Page_018.jpg
b08842d2eeaa44abb0c6a72b53c59b83
3494bb402f1d39b6c3d52ea83463746fdbc1d180
37261 F20101209_AAAFPC halcovage_k_Page_050.jpg
5ca41703fae4cefc75bfb77265786ca9
8f9901fba43a0f0c6465c9712a7a079b933589c9
10283 F20101209_AAAGSF halcovage_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
1e5ec2f0087661a9d1ab9144ff55d8d3
3c89e275eca8bc6696e432ab78dd56ebeae346f5
4203 F20101209_AAAGRR halcovage_k_Page_105thm.jpg
e5c5e3030328db443805c1324740b79e
18c338eae1abda87957fc5ba84dd735d3462adf0
66086 F20101209_AAAFOP halcovage_k_Page_036.jpg
ff6a8cd7662952f60cebdc16bc09a9f4
edd974bbe4f3c5a7dca9d887eba058d3ae7d106e
68147 F20101209_AAAFPD halcovage_k_Page_051.jpg
150ee03e70237027edfa22328964a0f1
fa9875aa286dfb1a56940825440653ec42fe13b6
3477 F20101209_AAAGSG halcovage_k_Page_113thm.jpg
dea1b5e227c22fc3464a9fa60969bb81
0a12b2fe2f96932ebafebeca0907ffc71e9e6d6e
11495 F20101209_AAAGRS halcovage_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
6ecf46edc28562fcf467ba23269b17ea
da8f5d95a623ec4c6fb6cb9e6f9d648ae2f563af
64490 F20101209_AAAFOQ halcovage_k_Page_037.jpg
0780877120fb209178d0cb724c2f89d2
eaffdb82559a33b290f3a009892fa2034462d435
73758 F20101209_AAAFPE halcovage_k_Page_052.jpg
d5e3729db1e4b50b373c29e2ffb37ff4
b26cadef9b13a25f0a7aaa121ec4098ac30bd9d9
10676 F20101209_AAAGSH halcovage_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
f67a6b86ff700f634a694f442d21b79e
8bc66821bce8d995272bbd4af3766f18c0959269
16691 F20101209_AAAGRT halcovage_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
a16a0820f6b62db7eef98e1009d12aae
8806e629be5e939c6a4e07742d5f49fce102ac35
77178 F20101209_AAAFOR halcovage_k_Page_038.jpg
e8bafa6c2465fcacd48d5f6099dcd939
ed6eafbf0f035d375d9a8abdc835bb0727f9de9b
66381 F20101209_AAAFPF halcovage_k_Page_053.jpg
82d4c7ab348434e15352e09f615a7e6a
bcb0be9bcc61cb7014107c4a663d7a20b31c7c3d
3621 F20101209_AAAGSI halcovage_k_Page_114thm.jpg
f75007ada2670b7f870614c85dcedb64
20d19864faba7e87adaeae5d6cc8001a90bdca96
5085 F20101209_AAAGRU halcovage_k_Page_107thm.jpg
4882c2ebf1229ed2d3f87ce1255f11f4
5abbeb83e34cfc8cfdcd581220c02616c9fca116
75101 F20101209_AAAFOS halcovage_k_Page_039.jpg
85eeb3c640031c3b7c4067ee4e9f7043
bbb3a4bf76e327929bcdedb66683dbc956864956
41795 F20101209_AAAFPG halcovage_k_Page_054.jpg
29cc42843f67f3d0ac43644ed87c810a
86cb0729954d3b006065712de61ab7403cff90bf
14128 F20101209_AAAGSJ halcovage_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
48f273e33c9829e86f1fdfdad55352a9
57ea78991da3af8eaa16cf57e56d714689b6c009
12596 F20101209_AAAGRV halcovage_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
8a587c284c14b535a4b26839349edb8b
25de77c6be0e21795a489c9e30f72f278855dc98
75320 F20101209_AAAFOT halcovage_k_Page_040.jpg
e9d597b15a7a3ae504858d5f6c5f7604
10b8a591938f6a669ae0fe4490d9cfa6cda51155
37344 F20101209_AAAFPH halcovage_k_Page_055.jpg
e63276a3f1ddf61638d7cb5cfe7d982c
acd2d03a5378b384e12f0c00da87ed4d00f31ac0
4490 F20101209_AAAGSK halcovage_k_Page_115thm.jpg
c579423f2a811e24d6e235e1cecf6eca
cf292fa836c50b78ec497e405966fc81c93c4ba1
4104 F20101209_AAAGRW halcovage_k_Page_108thm.jpg
44504b78ea19c41528e3ff626a112d4e
965a19fd5208308c78d4d2c52de7881c1274bd31
79215 F20101209_AAAFOU halcovage_k_Page_041.jpg
898e8b0b7b54555dd7718b95105d07ab
9e57a74c7046891a19863de0cfa7aa2e597465ab
62376 F20101209_AAAFPI halcovage_k_Page_056.jpg
395f85ec31305f67740b0698190ee17f
3ed7afdd2215c56e20b27983103bc8a39085254c
11252 F20101209_AAAGSL halcovage_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
6ad238f33e6dfed2e205cd5b380ebb5f
21cdd2be1b4deee3538ce6dd6d87ac41a01c3572
11097 F20101209_AAAGRX halcovage_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
569c4e9f899d86668b0097d0dc6361b3
61bfa68721e60768ea4e1db6c7e0732cc56b5f10
73716 F20101209_AAAFOV halcovage_k_Page_042.jpg
c90cc60f1405d732fbd4ab74bc60bba1
0d2b1194855f856fc2daae9350d4326933eff221
60204 F20101209_AAAFPJ halcovage_k_Page_057.jpg
b14f571c5039c54c29b22ce3638cab3f
8e1ea3d53b2d55e132331640d68bda471f3ddc17
3780 F20101209_AAAGSM halcovage_k_Page_116thm.jpg
96c2c16b555f810b9866d61d83160e83
bb945bf8a8d0834cf2fd7be121c06c8152d31143
F20101209_AAAGRY halcovage_k_Page_109thm.jpg
3bedd23f3eaf690778e2f3f0712ef3d0
55e7b23ecdebc8b237f7666a7460f9ceb9646136
47812 F20101209_AAAFPK halcovage_k_Page_058.jpg
7ffd1de743162d210526609ce623c50e
ffea063b0d619f30fa69a08071a0f1223da1a1d0
13690 F20101209_AAAFOW halcovage_k_Page_043.jpg
03c7d3a4cc0b12ae49133507c8168648
cb5803c7648f2104593a58d4b07a7897b158c068
10857 F20101209_AAAGSN halcovage_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
548f0fb3c9ed862296a71a07ca243b5a
7d94dbd06e1f33d0541410840b2519287596e3da
23648 F20101209_AAAFPL halcovage_k_Page_059.jpg
a53ae7dc56af5a4d97038ff65657abf6
fec56feee1ca1ce7069fef5bd597d8313d206765
10829 F20101209_AAAGSO halcovage_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
88fe5f2fedc2a7ebb4e88003c76211a6
1917e4dca7a8591ff04257ea0391bf41cf5c1af5
10179 F20101209_AAAGRZ halcovage_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
e77bda91cd793c2a98b5ec16722bd09d
562ef835bd5d069cd547df6a3512680eeb2c7647
52859 F20101209_AAAFQA halcovage_k_Page_074.jpg
1e51584f6ee6733f380f42986ec29979
87fd47a7c917611bd4be25b95298e022ca95b8bd
73305 F20101209_AAAFPM halcovage_k_Page_060.jpg
d111a8d041f08400cc33100a77fe9613
84410c892130e360889bbb3c30fec622d1e1e4b4
43016 F20101209_AAAFOX halcovage_k_Page_044.jpg
803d4a67a83c54beb45fec740d5919af
46485c93dfef33db10d268487e6afe55ce4146f2
10866 F20101209_AAAGSP halcovage_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
e0bd5a30f3b2d6bedae1e7f2e665768b
9fbfc0bdf772c54d2a06a4bfb083db6448e47105
78524 F20101209_AAAFQB halcovage_k_Page_075.jpg
c29217ebee7602fbdd5d7c17d55b9f70
fd4fe1967826ec0f55edcf27568ad4de9cffb399
77974 F20101209_AAAFPN halcovage_k_Page_061.jpg
67960006536d0310f1aa293183d6e757
13351e635e19c94446d55a0abf82ca963fc77959
38103 F20101209_AAAFOY halcovage_k_Page_045.jpg
354c3680a6e3d68f2c48499feaeced38
764fe7c8fb251785c0a1df5dd83d196707f50d2a
10945 F20101209_AAAGSQ halcovage_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
17d1b23d24db52b08d214062ed18b702
7750c5931a7d2e04865d3624ff148c29919ebeae
37356 F20101209_AAAFQC halcovage_k_Page_076.jpg
a214655250fb615ca21a721b242da70e
54fd02acf3421f94b689b31041de96a8ddf0b6b0
72984 F20101209_AAAFPO halcovage_k_Page_062.jpg
e2f1b6367a92df653bd644b0c418c84e
251dd1b1cb5862860496191743f9dfc6b245b1f3
36808 F20101209_AAAFOZ halcovage_k_Page_046.jpg
f7beaa42c129674e48ff10355c15ed38
ffbac06fe1521bbbdd4a8b8f62e897f04e4d9871
3747 F20101209_AAAGSR halcovage_k_Page_120thm.jpg
1a7860e71113cec27f4b130e2637f9bc
3ec87d044839122587b4e82664ab7f32fba80819
59517 F20101209_AAAFQD halcovage_k_Page_077.jpg
3eeb11e8b469f50add7e4c0e92afa3e3
1dfc48bc68582103f2479842be240d27ae955dbe
79548 F20101209_AAAFPP halcovage_k_Page_063.jpg
0ebe0ca3034f31e5f80d8c82e7f60eb7
cec69c48ecc44161c31b506e8f4ec08247578178
11226 F20101209_AAAGSS halcovage_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
feb1aa8a68717a5c90933a90bb9c6a34
4dca749f98f6c6fda2956bb6ee2922527e680cb2
57004 F20101209_AAAFQE halcovage_k_Page_079.jpg
4a1a23ce45ca7cf18ca115f2312f2613
3477fefb5064c1c44a9b745b80941af88a1c6c8a
72855 F20101209_AAAFPQ halcovage_k_Page_064.jpg
b6c5a470c51f7dcbe1c3b275cfc5d0e9
03ba2019e29030c53110b996fa4a9b31ae11144e
3938 F20101209_AAAGST halcovage_k_Page_121thm.jpg
d44879d70244549e6a0318d1280664da
aeee0dbc6921c84e3296a5aeb62a161cf2550a86
25362 F20101209_AAAFQF halcovage_k_Page_080.jpg
50060b254ab9c3379addeb965a522ef2
eb66584f6bfe0998ec83fd8ef2a86cdfa361b3ac
19050 F20101209_AAAFPR halcovage_k_Page_065.jpg
cce8757aee933c51b066f32f5462665e
1a09601255af89055866bb3e9636573c3f1767e2
25746 F20101209_AAAGSU halcovage_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
2b364b23ed1f4035b2d160e613f0559f
1c2b5181846bbc299029e0feb1fae2d2c90fa5cd
34685 F20101209_AAAFQG halcovage_k_Page_082.jpg
15ea69e1b6257c7c92ede3b2b36f15da
0e292e6f0dbf039a61e82ba9a14dd2611634697e
45827 F20101209_AAAFPS halcovage_k_Page_066.jpg
553412b44ae3d88aa70daaa841716aea
9641f284553f6f7d49ccd3dab5fbe2202ad64d21
6995 F20101209_AAAGSV halcovage_k_Page_122thm.jpg
3fb8bc85def2172c8ac4efb43f2f843c
f58cd43ac3243208eb63fcdc5acc9c47d83b5ae6
33211 F20101209_AAAFQH halcovage_k_Page_083.jpg
777b9821541619c75bf2ed740ab7c0dc
1f1c2c84eb2e7679671f2cb50e128bc46260395c
59289 F20101209_AAAFPT halcovage_k_Page_067.jpg
a6acb10dd5e68175c40b1a9e574292e1
07fbbb7b43ec6a8d9f4219ba450c25c3a0bb5ef0
23969 F20101209_AAAGSW halcovage_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
538f899ae6233db9b7b2b018df61e826
87b1e12495a0bf411a7285493fdce2732bfe9b2e
27689 F20101209_AAAFQI halcovage_k_Page_084.jpg
b558affe6532be2dfa67e095519eae1c
624829395ee0c7e56a5ede5398e5d63363a768c0
26230 F20101209_AAAFPU halcovage_k_Page_068.jpg
71b7f5440f98c77284ca178b8d817645
6af4721a3372fb623fee411daa957daeac835240
6534 F20101209_AAAGSX halcovage_k_Page_123thm.jpg
47ab2501dde2c6c826d1e42beb77a498
08c57b02784bd5b96210a585d6cc7fad0805b1c4
42683 F20101209_AAAFQJ halcovage_k_Page_085.jpg
391dd5a88c11ba0765fc805afc5f25b5
796034138156ba078ab052a8da1000a398807e9e
47296 F20101209_AAAFPV halcovage_k_Page_069.jpg
e0fb84882c12e64a475ee7cf51b7fee1
bb885474d10e7c594fcd43b18dd335a5f38a4c14
22058 F20101209_AAAGSY halcovage_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
9edb09f8b1881404f77a220c6d34047d
1678c45471da4a1eeb756cf538ac39fd1f3e462a
37292 F20101209_AAAFQK halcovage_k_Page_086.jpg
f960ae2ebd3f7d8f06550fdee5e53a1c
e4bab70cad1cacadd37ad069902980fd5f83e3e7
53389 F20101209_AAAFPW halcovage_k_Page_070.jpg
9a1789f974fe24c49557f0873cc1e84b
99fbe8025fd4a5312570644d75ac9bb33483b458
6094 F20101209_AAAGSZ halcovage_k_Page_124thm.jpg
844192a0941f3ca26436c18566afedc7
81c9063c1f00b736f357a9b3671c12c5813a7363
49264 F20101209_AAAFQL halcovage_k_Page_087.jpg
7b512b3872e0af0a2d83165694fd813e
91b3c54073595bbc8f786541c3c41c71e5d90c8d
49317 F20101209_AAAFPX halcovage_k_Page_071.jpg
38d2697fde185414c2383f742f0b440f
62d1e97b2bda9f16bedff6c2a4b61995f7fb2e3c
39247 F20101209_AAAFQM halcovage_k_Page_088.jpg
f49af862d2bab9f7d5d4ddd258310759
b23010474980477ef66f71134c526e5223393e4b
52662 F20101209_AAAFRA halcovage_k_Page_103.jpg
35b36005335301788f23456b8299321d
599d1396c9ba5d1974272d8d37af9e7e2d207300
49164 F20101209_AAAFQN halcovage_k_Page_089.jpg
fe661c7cf2cbeb21db0f039b3f90ecf0
e500ab621c6e702bf231c6fd1af814fd86763faf
49181 F20101209_AAAFPY halcovage_k_Page_072.jpg
339884c2c6c011644a3df3244d76ec08
0a9bf7aae9c026dbf16fd5575dbb1d2ce405ca1d
55562 F20101209_AAAFRB halcovage_k_Page_104.jpg
1f95a514f7a5f10c530d58061a6898c4
91d417e38715c57ecfc93b4ce57dfb9e1aaff6c2
28055 F20101209_AAAFQO halcovage_k_Page_090.jpg
95bd40476590bdf85e3c161a812aee7a
a05589f85799ff461ff3ff404a232d26e23e9e15
41490 F20101209_AAAFPZ halcovage_k_Page_073.jpg
370179859847c317ee106b2a49a62591
a781aa78cf2c9d6400c6dce00691108ee356f8c9
42906 F20101209_AAAFRC halcovage_k_Page_105.jpg
0d89575ef13f5096da09ecb0679ac17e
9baed83b07cc0251039708baabe154bb8f7d038c
38124 F20101209_AAAFQP halcovage_k_Page_091.jpg
6b54b38cff5fc455b34ce40c764a4dc8
e02f4d7dc7c4c1f4b4d2e9e9722b016832e0de42
37052 F20101209_AAAFRD halcovage_k_Page_106.jpg
5aeb6d180187de7b431c97ee72d17cfa
72414c63871996784c68aa74a1c7372aadbfa2ba



PAGE 1

1 ANCHOR EMBEDMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAL/SIGN STRUCTURES By KATHLEEN M. HALCOVAGE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Kathleen M. Halcovage

PAGE 3

3 To my family, for your constant love and support throughout my lif e. To my parents, Barbara and George, your dedication to providing me with th e best education availa ble has been a pivotal part of my success. To my siblings, Barbara, George, Sarah, and Christ opher, you have always encouraged me and challenged me to be the very best that I can be. To my niece and nephew, Grace and Aidan, you light up my life and always remind me of what is important in life.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my advisor, Dr. Ronald A. Cook, fo r his guidance throughout the course of my research and tenure at the University of Flor ida, the Florida Department of Transportation Structures Research Center Staff for their ha rd work in building my test apparatus and orchestrating the testing of the specimen, and my supervisory committee for their assistance in the preparation of this thesis I also thank my family for their constant support and encouragement.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 2 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................15 2.1 Literature Review.......................................................................................................... ...15 2.2 Site Investigation......................................................................................................... .....19 2.3 Applicable Code Provisions.............................................................................................19 2.3.1 Cracking and Threshold Torsion............................................................................20 2.3.2 Nominal Torsional Strength...................................................................................22 2.3.3 Combined Shear and Torsion.................................................................................23 2.3.4 ACI Concrete Breakout Strength for Anchors.......................................................24 2.3.5 Alternate Concrete Brea kout Strength Provisions..................................................26 2.3.6 ACI 318-05 vs. AASHTO LRFD Br idge Design Specifications...........................28 3 DEVELOPMENT OF EXPE RIMENTAL PROGRAM........................................................33 3.1 Description of Test Apparatus..........................................................................................33 3.2 Shaft Design............................................................................................................... .......34 3.2.1 Torsion Design.......................................................................................................34 3.2.2 Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement.........................................................35 3.2.3 Flexure.................................................................................................................. ..35 3.3 Anchor Design.............................................................................................................. ....36 3.3.1 Diameter of Anchor Bolts......................................................................................36 3.3.2 Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear Parallel to a Free Edge..............37 3.3.3 Development Length of the Bolts...........................................................................39 3.4 Steel Pipe Apparatus Design............................................................................................39 3.5 Concrete Block Design.....................................................................................................41 3.6 Combined Shear and Torsion...........................................................................................42 3.7 Overview................................................................................................................... ........42

PAGE 6

6 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF TESTING PROGRAM................................................................51 4.1 Materials.................................................................................................................. .........51 4.1.1 Concrete Strength...................................................................................................51 4.1.2 Bolt Strength...........................................................................................................51 4.1.3 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrap................................................................51 4.2 Instrumentation............................................................................................................ .....53 4.2.1 Linear Variable Disp lacement Transducers...........................................................53 4.2.2 Strain Gages............................................................................................................54 5 TEST RESULTS................................................................................................................... .60 5.1 Initial Test............................................................................................................... ..........60 5.1.1 Behavior of Specimen During Testing...................................................................60 5.1.2 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing..............................................................61 5.1.3 Summary of Initial Test Results.............................................................................62 5.2 CFRP Retrofit Test......................................................................................................... ..62 5.2.1 Behavior of Specimen with CFRP Wrap During Testing......................................63 5.2.3 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing..............................................................64 5.2.4 Summary of Test Results........................................................................................64 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................75 APPENDIX A TEST APPARATUS DRAWINGS........................................................................................77 B DESIGN CALCULATIONS..................................................................................................82 C INITIAL TEST DATA.........................................................................................................108 D RETROFIT TEST DATA.....................................................................................................115 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................124

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Field dimensions........................................................................................................... .....50 3-2 Summary of design calculations........................................................................................50

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Failed cantileve r sign structure..........................................................................................14 2-1 Cantilever sign structure at Ex it 79 on Interstate 4 in Orlando..........................................29 2-2 New foundation installed at the site...................................................................................29 2-3 Failed foundation during post-failure excavation..............................................................30 2-4 Concrete breakout of an anchor caused by shear directed paralle l to the edge for a circular foundation............................................................................................................ .30 2-5 Concrete breakout failure for an anchor loaded in shear...................................................31 2-6 Determination of AVco based on the 35 failure cone.........................................................31 2-7 Shear load oriented (a) perpendicular to the edge and (b) parallel to the edge.................32 3-1 Schematic of test apparatus................................................................................................44 3-2 Front elevation of test apparatus........................................................................................44 3-3 Plan view of test apparatus................................................................................................45 3-4 Side elevation of test apparatus..........................................................................................45 3-5 Lever arm for the calculation of bolt flexure.....................................................................46 3-6 Adjusted cover based on a si ngle anchor and 35 failure cone..........................................46 3-7 Development of the projected failure ar ea for the group of anchors around a circular foundation..................................................................................................................... .....47 3-8 Two anchor arrangement displays the mi nimum spacing such that no overlap of the failure cones occurs........................................................................................................... .47 3-9 Overlap of failure cones................................................................................................... ..47 3-10 The contribution of the legs of the failure cone to AVc along a straight edge decreases as the number of bolts increases........................................................................48 3-11 Overlap of failure cone s for a circular foundation.............................................................48 3-12 Assembled test specimen...................................................................................................49 3-13 Shaft with pipe apparatus attached prior to instrumentation being attached.....................49

PAGE 9

9 4-1 Method for the determination of the tension, TCFRP, that must be resisted by the CFRP wrap...................................................................................................................... ...55 4-2 Instrumentation layout on the base plate...........................................................................56 4-3 Instrumentation layout on face of shaft.............................................................................56 4-4 Instrumentation layout on rear of shaft/face of concrete block.........................................57 4-5 Instrumentation layout of pipe at load location.................................................................57 4-6 Location of LVDTs D1V, D4, and D7 on the test specimen.............................................58 4-7 Strain gage layout on base plate.........................................................................................58 4-8 Strain gage on base plate of test specimen.........................................................................59 5-1 Initial cracks on face of shaft............................................................................................ .66 5-2 Initial cracks on face and side of sh aft (alternate view of Figure 5-1)..............................66 5-3 Face of test specimen afte r testing exhibits cracks be tween the bolts along with the characteristic concre te breakout cracks.............................................................................67 5-4 Crack pattern on face of sh aft after testing depicts char acteristic concrete breakout failure cracks................................................................................................................. .....67 5-5 Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation PlotInitial Test.........................................................68 5-6 Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain Plots fo r each bolt at the appropriate location on the base plate with Applied Torsi on vs. Plate Rotation plot in center (full size plots in Appendix C).................................................................................................................... ...69 5-7 Bolt Strain Comparison Plot for Initial Test exhibits the redistribution of the load coinciding with crack formations.......................................................................................70 5-8 Shaft with the CFRP wrap applied prior to testing............................................................70 5-9 Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation PlotRetrofit Test......................................................71 5-10 Shaft exhibiting characte ristic torsion cracks from face to base of shaft..........................71 5-11 Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain plots fo r the Retrofit Test at the appropriate bolt location around the base plate with Applied Torsion vs. Pl ate Rotation plot in center (full size plots in Appendix D)...........................................................................................72 5-12 Bolt bearing on the bottom of the base plate during loading.............................................73

PAGE 10

10 5-13 Bolt Strain Comparison plot for the retrofit test exhibits slope changes at milestone loads.......................................................................................................................... .........73 5-14 Face of shaft after test illustrates yielding of bolts, concrete breakout cracks around the perimeter, and torsion cracks in the center..................................................................74 5-15 Torsion cracks along length of the shaft after the test.......................................................74 A-1 Dimensioned front elevation drawing of test apparatus....................................................77 A-2 Dimensioned plan drawing test apparatus.........................................................................78 A-3 Dimensioned side elevation drawing of test apparatus......................................................79 A-4 Dimensioned pipe apparatus drawing................................................................................80 A-5 Dimensioned channel tie-down drawing...........................................................................81 C-1 Applied Torsion vs. Rotation Plot...................................................................................108 C-2 Bolt Strain Comparison Plot............................................................................................108 C-3 Applied Torsion vs. Strain Plots for each bolt location...................................................109 D-1 Applied Torsion vs. Rotation Plot...................................................................................115 D-2 Bolt Strain Comparison Plot............................................................................................115 D-3 Applied Torsion vs. Strain Plots for each bolt location...................................................116

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering ANCHOR EMBEDMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAL/SIGN STRUCTURES By Kathleen M. Halcovage May 2007 Chair: Ronald A. Cook Major: Civil Engineering During the 2004 hurricane season, several anchor embedment failures of the foundations of cantilever sign structures occurred. The purpose of this research program was to determine the cause of the failure of those f oundations. After a thorough literature review, in conjunction with site investigation, and testing, it was determined that the failure or iginated from the shear load on the anchors directed parallel to the edge of the foundation. Th e shear load resulted from the torsion loading on the anchor gr oup that occurred during the hurrica ne. Investigation of this failure mode, based on the ACI 318-05 Appendix D pr ovisions for concrete breakout of anchors, indicated that this is a failure mode not consid ered in the current design procedures for these types of foundations. Furthermore, it was determin ed that it very well describes the type of failure noted in the field investigation. A test specimen was designed to preclude other possible failur e modes not exhibited in the field (e.g. steel failure of the anchors, bending of the anchors, and torsional failure of the foundation). The results of the testing indicate d the failure of the foundations was caused by concrete breakout due to shear on the anchors dir ected parallel to the fr ee edge of the foundation. The test specimen failed at the torsion pr edicted by the ACI 318-05 Appendix D provisions based on the expected mean strength of the anch ors for concrete breakout with shear directed

PAGE 12

12 parallel to the free edge. Additi onally, the cracks that formed were the same type as those noted in the field investigation, and matched the e xpected pattern for concrete breakout failure. After failure, additional testing was performed to determine a viable repair/retrofit option. The repair/retrofit option used a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap around the top of the foundation. The results of this testing indicated that this repair/retrofit technique strengthens the foundation such that it not only meets its initial capacity for concrete breakout, but, also, can exceed this capacity. The results of this test led to the development of guidelines for the evaluation and repair/retro fit of existing foundations.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION During the 2004 hurricane season, the failure of foundations of cantilever sign structures occurred along Florida highways (Figure 1-1). These failures necessitated a review of the current design and construction procedures for the foundations of cantilever sign structures. The main objective of this research program was two-fold: to determine the cause of the failure of the cantileve r sign structures; and, to propose a re trofit option for the foundation. In order to fulfill this objective, a thorough liter ature review, site inve stigation of a failed foundation, and experimental program were conducted. The findings of the literatu re review and site investigation were used to develop the experimental program. The findings of the experimental program were applied in th e development of the retrofit guidelines. Furthermore, this project tested whethe r or not the ACI 318-05, ACI (2005), Appendix D provisions for anchorage to concrete are applicable for circular foundations.

PAGE 14

14 Figure 1-1. Failed cant ilever sign structure

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND While there have not been published repor ts detailing failures of sign structure foundations, such as those being investigated in this study, information on the behavior of anchor installations under various load conditions was found. The main subjects of much of the literature were the effects of fatigue and wind load on overhead sign structures. Additionally, there have been studies conducted on the failure modes of anchor installati ons, but these findings were not based on circular foundations. In later sections, one of these anchorage failure modes will be introduced for application in this research program. This chapter presents the findings of the lite rature review, the conclusions drawn based on a site investigation of a failed foundation, and ap plicable design equations for the determination of the failure mode. The information presented in the chapter served as the base upon which the experimental program was developed. 2.1 Literature Review Keshavarzian (2003) explores the wind design requirements and safety factors for utility poles and antenna monopoles from various sp ecification manuals. It was found that the procedure outlined in ASCE (1991), ASCE 74Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading resulted in the smallest factor of safety for the design. AASHTO (2001), Standard Specifications for Stru ctural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals was used as a part of the comparison fo r the design of the antenna monopole. The design from this specification was compar ed to that from ASCE (2000), ASCE 7-98Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ; TIA/EIA (1996), Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures ; and, ASCE 74. The wind forces at the base were the same for ASCE 74, AASHTO, and ASCE 7-98. The forces using TIA/EIA

PAGE 16

16 were higher because it requires that a 1.69 gust response factor be applied to the design. Therefore, the pole designed using TIA/EIA would have be tween 30 and 40 percent extra capacity. ASCE 7-98 and AASHTO resulted in the same margin of safety. The paper did not include findings that were completely relative to this project, but it pr ovided additional sources for design of structures for comparative purposes. Keshavarzian and Priebe (2002) compares th e design standards specified in ASCE (2000), ASCE 7-98, and IEEE (1997), NESCNational Electrical Safety Code The NESC does not require that utility poles measuring less than 60 feet in height be designed for extreme wind conditions. Short utility pol es were designed to satisfy NE SC specifications (i.e. without extreme wind conditions). The poles were then evaluated according to th e ASCE 7-98 wind load requirements. It was found that the poles did not meet the ASCE 7-98 requirements. Therefore, it was recommended that the exclusion for short u tility poles in the NESC be reevaluated. The paper also mentioned AASHTO (1994), Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals It outlined that in the AASHTO specification, support structures exceeding 50 feet and overhead sign structures mu st be designed for a 50-year mean recurrence interval, or extreme wind loading condition. MacGregor and Ghoneim (1995) presents the background information for the formulation of the thin-walled tube space truss analogy design method for torsion that was first adopted into ACI (1995), ACI 318-95. The design methodology was adopted because it was simpler to use than the previous method and was equally accura te. The basis for the derivation of the new method was based on tests that were conducted in Switzerland. Both solid and hollow beams were tested during that researc h. In comparing the data from both tests, it was discovered that after cracking the concrete in the center had littl e effect on the torsional strength of the beam.

PAGE 17

17 Therefore, the center of the cros s-section could be ignored, and th e beam could be idealized as a hollow tube. A space truss was formed by longitudinal bars in the corners, the vertical closed stirrups, and compression diagonals. The compression dia gonals were spiraled around the member and extended between the torsion cracks. The paper also explained the shear stresses created by torsion on the member. In addition to the derivation of the equations for torsion and shear, the authors discussed the limits for when torsion should be consider ed and the requirements for minimal torsional reinforcement. The tests, conducted on both reinfo rced and prestressed concrete beams, showed that there was acceptable agreement between th e predicted strengths, as determined by the derived equations, and the test results. This agreement was comparable to the design equations from the ACI Code. In addition to these papers, other reports re viewed include Lee and Breen (1966), Jirsa et al. (1984), Hasselwander et al. (1977), and Br een (1964). These four studies focused on important information regarding an chor bolt installations. Other re ports that were examined for relevance were from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). These are: Fouad et al. (1998), NCHR P Report 411; Kaczinski et al (1998), NCHRP Report 412; and, Fouad et al. (2003), NCHRP Report 494. Fouad et al. (2003) details the findings of NCHRP Project 17 -10(2). The authors stated that AASHTO (2001) does not detail design requirements for anc horage to concrete. The ACI anchor bolt design procedure was also reviewe d. Based on their finding s, they developed a simplified design procedure. This procedure was based on the assumptions that the anchor bolts are hooked or headed, both longitudinal steel and hoop steel are presen t in the foundation, the

PAGE 18

18 anchor bolts are cast inside of the reinforcement, the reinforc ement is uncoated, and, in the case of hooked bolts, the length of the hook is at least 4.5 times the an chor bolt diameter. If these assumptions did not apply, then the simplified pr ocedure was invalid. Th e anchor bolt diameter was determined based on the tensile force on the bolt, and the required length was based on fully developing the longitudinal reinforcement betw een the embedded head of the anchor. The authors further stated that shea r loads were assumed to be neg ligible, and concrete breakout and concrete side face blowout were controlled by adequate longitudinal a nd hoop steel. The design procedure was developed based on tensile loadin g, and did not address the shear load on the anchors directed parallel to th e edge resulting from torsion. Additionally, the authors presented the freque ncy of use of differ ent foundation types by the state Departments of Transportation, expresse d in percentages of st ates reporting use. According to the survey the most common f oundation type used fo r overhead cantilever structures was reinforced cast-in-place drilled shafts (67-100%) followed by spread footings (3466%) and steel screw-in foundations (1-33%). None of the states reported the use of directly embedded poles or unreinforced cast-in-place drilled shafts. ASCE (2006), ASCE/SEI 48-05, entitled Design of Steel Trans mission Pole Structures was obtained to gather information on the foundation design for transmission poles structures. The intent was to determine whether or not the desi gn of such foundations was relevant to the evaluation of the foundations under examination in this research. In .0 of the standard, the provisions for the structural members and connec tions used in foundations was presented. Early in the section, the standard stated that the in formation in the section was not meant to be a foundation design guide. The pr oper design of the foundation mu st be ensured by the owner based on geotechnical principles. The section co mmented on the design of the anchor bolts. The

PAGE 19

19 standard focused on the structural stability of th e bolts in the foundation; it looked at bolts in tension, bolts in shear, bolts in combined tensi on and shear, and the develo pment length of such bolts. The standard did not present provi sions for failure of the concrete. 2.2 Site Investigation A site investigation was conducted at the site of one failed overhead cantilever signal/sign structure located at Exit 79 on Interstate 4 in Orlando (Figure 2-1). Figure 2-2 is the newly installed foundation at the site. The faile d foundation had the same anchor and spacing specifications as the new foundation. This site visit coincided w ith the excavation of the failed anchor embedment. During the course of the excavation the following information was collected: The anchor bolts themselves did not fail. Rather, they were leaning in the foundation, which was indicative of a torsional load on the foundation. While th e integrity of the anchor bolts held up during the wind loadi ng, the concrete between the bolts and the surface of the foundation was cr acked extensively (Figure 2-3). The concrete was gravelized between the anchors and the hoop st eel. It should be noted that upon the removal and study of one anchor bolt, it was ev ident that there was no deformation of the bolt itself. The hoop steel did not start at the top of the foundation. It started approximately 15 in. (381 mm) into the foundation. The concrete was not evenly dispersed ar ound the foundation. The hoop steel was exposed at approximately three to four feet below grade. On the opposite side of the foundation there was excess concrete. It was assumed that during the constr uction of the foundation, there was soil failure allowing a portion of the side wall to displace the concrete. 2.3 Applicable Code Provisions The initial failure mode that was focused on in the background review was torsion. However, based on the results of the site invest igation, it was determined that the most likely cause of failure was concrete breakout of an anchor (Figure 2-4). The equations for torsion are presented in this section as they were used during the design of the experimental program to prove that the concrete breakout failure wi ll occur before the torsional failure.

PAGE 20

20 2.3.1 Cracking and Threshold Torsion Torsion is the force resulting from an applied torque. In a circular section, such as the foundation under review, the resultin g torsion is oriented perpendicu lar to the radius or tangent to the edge. ACI (2005), ACI 318-05, details the equation for the cracking torsion of a nonprestressed member. In R11.6.1, the equation for the cracking torsion, Tcr, is given (Equation 2-1). The equation was developed by assuming that the concrete will crack at a stress of 4 fc. cp cp c crp A f T24 (2-1) Where Tcr = cracking torsion (lb.-in.) fc = specified compressive streng th of the concrete (psi) Acp = area enclosed by the outside perimete r of the concrete cross-section (in.2) = r2, for a circular section with radius r (in.) pcp = outside perimeter of the c oncrete cross-section (in.) = 2 r for a circular section with radius r (in.) This equation, when applied to a circular se ction, results in an equivalent value when compared to the basic equation (Equation 2-2) for torsion noted in Roark and Young (1975). The equality is a result of taking the shear stress as 4 fc. 23r T (2-2) Where T = torsional moment (lb.-in.) = shear stress, 4 fc, (psi) r = radius of concrete cross-section (in.) ACI 318-05 .6.1(a) provides the threshold torsion for a nonprestressed member (Equation 2-3). This is taken as one-quarter of the cracking torsion. If the factored ultimate torsional moment, Tu, exceeds this threshold torsion, then the effect of torsion on the member must be considered in the design.

PAGE 21

21 cp cp cp A f T2 (2-3) Where = strength reduction factor AASHTO (2004), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications also presents equations for cracking torsion (Equation 2-4) and threshold torsion (E quation 2-5). Equation 2-4 corresponds with the AASHTO (2004) equation for cracking torsion with the exception of the components of the equation related to prestressing. That portion of the equation was omitted since the foundation was not prestre ssed. It must be noted that th ese equations are the same as the ACI 318-05 equations. c cp c crp A f T2125 0 (2-4) Where Tcr = torsional cracking moment (kip-in.) Acp = total area enclosed by outside perimete r of the concrete cross-section (in.2) pc = the length of the outside perimete r of the concrete section (in.) AASHTO (2004) also specifies the same provision as ACI 31805 regarding the threshold torsion. In .8.2.1, it characterizes the threshold torsion as one-qua rter of the cracking torsion multiplied by the reduction factor. Equation 25 corresponds with the threshold torsion portion of AASHTO (2004) equation. crT T 25 0 (2-5) The above referenced equations considered the properties and dimensions of the concrete. They did not take into cons ideration the added strength provided by the presence of reinforcement in the member. For the purposes of this research, it was im portant to consider the impact of the reinforcement on the strength of the concrete shaft.

PAGE 22

22 2.3.2 Nominal Torsional Strength ACI 318-05 .6.3.5 states that if the ultimate factored design torsion exceeds the threshold torsion, then the design of the section mu st be based on the nominal torsional strength. The nominal torsional strength (Equation 2-6) takes into account the contribution of the reinforcement in the shaft. cot 2 s f A A Tyt t o n (2-6) Where Tn = nominal torsional moment strength (in.-lb.) Ao = gross area enclosed by shear flow path (in.2) At = area of one leg of a closed stirr up resisting torsion with spacing s (in.2) fyt = specified yield strength fy of transverse reinforcement (psi) s = center-to-center spac ing of transverse reinforcement (in.) = angle between axis of strut, compre ssion diagonal, or compression field and the tension chord of the member The angle, is taken as 45, if the member under consideration is nonprestressed. This equation, rather than taking into account the properties of the concrete, ta kes into account the properties of the reinforcement in the member. These inputs include the area enclosed by the reinforcement, the area of the reinforcement, th e yield strength of the reinforcement, and the spacing of the reinforcement. For the purpos e of this research, the reinforcement under consideration was the hoop steel. AASHTO (2004) also outlines provisions for the nominal torsional resistance in .8.3.6.2. Equation 2-7 is the same equation that ACI 31805 presents. The only difference is in the presentation of the equations. The vari ables are represented by different notation. s f A A Ty t o n cot 2 (2-7) Where Tn = nominal torsional moment (kip-in.) Ao = area enclosed by the shear flow path, including any area of holes therein (in.2) At = area of one leg of closed transverse torsion reinforcement (in.2) = angle of crack

PAGE 23

23 As the above referenced equation evidences, the ACI 318-05 and the AASHTO (2004) provisions for nominal torsional strength are the same. Based on the code provisions, the nominal torsional strength represents the torsional strength of the cross-section. 2.3.3 Combined Shear and Torsion Another area that had to be considered in th is research was the effect of combined shear and torsion. Both ACI 318-05 and AASHTO (2004) outline equations for the combined shear and torsion. Since the foundation ha d a shear load applied to it, it had to be determined whether or not the shear load was large enough to n ecessitate consideration. The ACI 318-05 equation (Equation 2-8) and the AASHTO (2004) equation (Equation 2-9) are presented hereafter. The ACI 318-05 equation is located in .6.3.1 of ACI 318-05, and the AASHTO (2004) equation is presented in .8.3.6.2 of that specification. The ACI 318-05 equation is presented with Vu substituted on the left-hand side. 2 2 27 1 oh h u w u uA p T d b V V (2-8) Where Vu = factored shear force at section (lb.) bwd = area of section resi sting shear, taken as Aoh (in.2) Tu = factored torsional mome nt at section (in.-lb.) ph = perimeter of centerline of outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement (in.) Aoh = area enclosed by centerline of the outer most closed transverse torsional reinforcement (in.2) The AASHTO (2004) equation that is presen ted (Equation 2-9) is intended for the calculation of the factored shear fo rce. For the purpose of this proj ect, the right-hand side of the equation was considered.

PAGE 24

24 2 22 9 0 o u h u uA T p V V (2-9) Where Vu = factored shear force (kip) ph = perimeter of the centerline of the closed transverse reinforcement (in.) Tu = factored torsiona l moment (kip-in.) The determination of whether or not shear had to be considered was made based on a comparison of the magnitudes of the coefficients of these terms. This is investigated further in Chapter 3. 2.3.4 ACI Concrete Breakout Strength for Anchors In ACI 318-05 Appendix D, the concrete breakou t strength is defined as, the strength corresponding to a volume of concrete surroundi ng the anchor or group of anchors separating from the member. A concrete breakout failure can result from either an applied tension or an applied shear. In this report, the concrete break out strength of an anchor in shear, D.6.2, will be studied. The breakout strength for one anchor loaded by a shear for ce directed perpendicular to a free edge (Figure 2-5) is given in Equation 2-10. 5 1 1 2 07a c o o e bc f d d V (2-10) Where Vb = basic concrete breakout stre ngth in shear of a single anch or in cracked concrete (lb.) e = load bearing length of anchor for shear (in.) do = outside diameter of anchor (in.) ca1 = distance from the center of an anchor sh aft to the edge of concrete in one direction; taken in the di rection of the applied shear (in.) The term e is limited to 8 do according to D.6.2.2. The equations in ACI 318-05 were developed based on a 5% fractile and with the stre ngth in uncracked concrete equal to 1.4 times the strength in cracked concrete. The mean conc rete breakout strength in uncracked concrete is provided in Fuchs et al. (1995) and given in Equation 2-11.

PAGE 25

25 5 1 1 2 013a c o o e bc f d d V (2-11) For a group of anchors, Equation 2-12 applies. This equation is the nominal concrete breakout strength for a group of anchors load ed perpendicular to the edge in shear. b V c V ed V ec Vco Vc cbgV A A V, , (2-12) Where Vcbg = nominal concrete breakout strength in shear of a group of anchors (lb.) AVc = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor or group of anchors, for calculation of strength in shear (in.2) AVco = projected concrete failure area of a singl e anchor, for calculati on of strength in shear, if not limited by corner influences, spacing, or member thickness (in.2) = 4.5(ca1)2, based on a 35 failure cone (Figure 2-6) ec,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on eccentricity of applied loads, ACI 318-05 D.6.2.5 ed,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on proximity to edges of concrete member, ACI 318-05 D.6.2.6 c,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on presence or absence of cracks in concrete and presence or absence of supplementary reinforcement, ACI 318-05 D.6.2.7, accounted for in Equation 2-11 The resultant breakout strength is for a shear load directed perpendicular to the edge of the concrete. Therefore, an adjustment had to be ma de to account for the shear load acting parallel to the edge since this was the type of loading th at resulted from the torsion on the anchor group. In D.5.2.1(c) a multiplication factor of two is pres cribed to convert the va lue to a shear directed parallel to the edge (Figure 2-7). Fuchs et al. (1995) notes that the multiplier is based on tests, which indicated that the shear load that can be resisted when applied parallel to the edge is approximately two times a shear load applied perpendicular to the edge. In order to convert the breakout strength to a torsion, the dimensions of the test specimen were considered to calculate what was calle d the nominal torsional moment based on the concrete breakout strength, Tn,breakout.

PAGE 26

26 2.3.5 Alternate Concrete Breakout Strength Provisions In the book Anchorage in Concrete Construction Eligehausen et al. (2006), the authors presented a series of equations fo r the determination of the concrete strength based on a concrete edge failure. These equations are presented in Ch apter 4, .1.2.4 of the text. Equation 2-13 is the average concrete breakout streng th of a single anchor loaded in shear. It must be noted that this equation is for uncracked concrete. 5 1 1 5 0 200 0 ,0 3a cc e o c uc f d V (2-13) Where V0 u,c = concrete failure load of a n ear-edge shear loaded anchor (N) do = outside diameter of anchor (mm) e = effective load transfer length (mm) fcc200 = specified concrete compressive st rength based on cube tests (N/mm2) 1.18fc ca1 = edge distance, measured from the longitudinal axis of the anchor (mm) = 5 0 11 0 a ec = 5 0 11 0 a oc d As was the case for the ACI 318-05 equations, the term e is limited to 8do. Equation 2-14 accounts for the group effect of the anchors loaded concentrically. The authors stated that cases where more than two anchors are present have not been extensively studied. They did, however, state that the equation should be a pplicable as long as there is no slip between the anchor and the base plate. 0 , c u Vco Vc c uV A A V (2-14) Where AVc = projected area of failure surface for the anchorage as defined by the overlap of individual idealized failu re surfaces of adjacent anchors (mm2) AVco = projected area of the fully develope d failure surface for a single anchor idealized as a half-pyramid with height ca1 and base lengths 1.5ca1 and 3ca1 (mm2)

PAGE 27

27 ACI 318-05 specifies that, in orde r to convert the failure shear directed perpendicular to the edge to the shear directed parallel to the ed ge, a multiplier of two be applied to the resultant load. The provisions outlined in this text take a more in-depth approach to determining this multiplier. The method for calculati ng this multiplier is detailed in .1.2.5 of Eligehausen et al. (2006). The authors stated that, based on previous research, the concrete edge breakout capacity for loading parallel to an edge is approximately two times the capacity for loading perpendicular to the edge if the edge distance is constant. The authors further moved to outline equations to calculate the multiplier based on the angle of load ing. The first equation (Equation 2-15) that is presented in the text is a generalized approach for calculating the multiplier when the angle of loading is between 55 and 90 of the axis perpendicular to the edge. For loading parallel to the edge the angle is classified as 90 (Figure 2-7). sin 5 0 cos 1, V (2-15) Where ,V = factor to account for the angle between the shea r load applied and the direction perpendicular to th e free edge of the concrete member = angle of the shear load with re spect to the perpendicular load This equation results in a f actor of two for loading parall el to the edge. Equation 2-16 provides the concrete breakout strength for shear directed paralle l to the edge using ,V. c u V V ucV V, , (2-16) Where Vuc, V= concrete failure load for shear dire cted parallel to an edge based on ,V (N) An alternate equation for calculating this factor is also presented in the Eligehausen et al. (2006) text. This equation is only valid for loadi ng parallel to the edge. This equation is based on research proposing that the multiplier to calcul ate the concrete breakout capacity for loading parallel to the edge based on the capacity for load ing perpendicular to the edge is not constant.

PAGE 28

28 Rather, it suggested that it is based on the conc rete pressure generated by the anchor. The base equation for the application of this factor is Equation 2-17. c u parallel parallel c uV V, , (2-17) Where Vu,c,parallel = concrete failure load in the case of shear parallel to the edge (N) parallel = factor to account for shear parallel to the edge Vu,c = concrete failure load in the case of shear perpendicula r to the edge (N) Equation 2-18 is used for the determ ination of the conversion factor parallel. 5 0 2 44 c u cc o parallelV f d n k (2-18) Where k4 = 1.0 for fastenings without hole clearance 0.75 for fastenings with hole clearance n = number of anchors loaded in shear fcc = specified compressive streng th of the concrete (N/mm2) conversion to fc as specified for Equation 2-13 The results of Equation 2-13 through Equa tion 2-18 are presented alongside the ACI 31805 equation results in Chapter 3. These are presented for comparative purposes only. 2.3.6 ACI 318-05 vs. AASHTO LRFD Br idge Design Specifications In Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.3, both the applicable design equa tions in ACI 318-05 and AASHTO (2004) were presented. As was shown, the ACI and AASHTO equations were the same. Additionally, the provisions for the conc rete breakout failure capacity are only provided in ACI 318-05. AASHTO does not provide design guidelines for this failure. Therefore, the ACI 318-05 equations were used throughout the course of this research program.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2-1. Cantilever sign structure at Exit 79 on Interstate 4 in Orlando Figure 2-2. New foundation installed at the site

PAGE 30

30 Figure 2-3. Failed foundation during post-failure excavation Figure 2-4. Concrete breakout of an anchor caused by shear direct ed parallel to the edge for a circular foundation

PAGE 31

31 Vb ca1 Vb Concrete Edge Figure 2-5. Concrete breakout failure for an anchor loaded in shear Vb ca1 35 1.5ca1 1.5ca1 Vb 35 1.5ca1 AVco 1.5ca1 1.5ca1 1.5ca1 AVco=1.5ca1(1.5ca1) =4.5(ca1)2 Figure 2-6. Determination of AVco based on the 35 failure cone

PAGE 32

32 Vb a Vb Perpendicular Axis 90 b Figure 2-7. Shear load oriented (a) perpendicula r to the edge and (b) parallel to the edge

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM After a thorough background investigation, it was determined that the most likely cause of the failure was the concrete breakout of an anchor loaded by a shear force directed parallel to a free edge. The shear force on the individual anc hors was caused by torsi on applied to the bolt group from the sign post. Based on this determina tion, an experimental program was formulated to determine if this was in fact the failure m ode of the foundation. Therefore, it was of the utmost importance to design the test apparatus to preclude other failure modes. This chapter focuses on the development of the experimental program. 3.1 Description of Test Apparatus The test apparatus was designed such that the field conditions could be closely modeled for testing at the Florida Departme nt of Transportation (FDOT) Structures Research Center. A schematic of the test apparatus is shown in Figure 3-1. The test apparatus consisted of: A 30 (762 mm) diameter concrete shaft that extended 3-0 (914 mm ) outward from the concrete block Twelve 37 (940 mm), 1.5 (38.1 mm) diam eter F1554 Grade 105 anchor bolts embedded into the concrete around a 20 (508 mm) diameter A 16 (406 mm) diameter steel pipe assembly welded to a 24 (610 mm) diameter, 1 (25.4 mm) thick steel base plate with holes drilled for the anchor bolts to provide the connection between the bolts and pipe assembly A 6-0 x 10-0 x 2-6 (1830 mm x 3050 mm x 762 mm) reinforced concrete block to provide a fixed support at the base of the shaft Two assemblies of C12x30 steel channels and pl ates to attach the block to the floor The base for the design of the various component s of the test apparatu s was one half of the size of the failed foundation invest igated during the site visit. The dimensions of the field foundation are presented in Table 3-1. From that point, the elements of the test apparatus were designed to preclude all failure modes other than the concrete breakout failure of the anchors.

PAGE 34

34 Information pertaining to the design of the comp onents of the apparatus is presented in the following sections. Figures 3-2 through 3-4 are drawings of the test apparatus. For large scale dimensioned drawings, reference Appendix A. Complete design calculations are located in Appendix B. 3.2 Shaft Design The starting point for the design of the conc rete shaft was based on developing a test specimen approximately one half of the size of the foundation that was in vestigated during the site visit. From there, the various components of the shaft we re designed the meet the ACI 31805 requirements, and to prevent failure before the concrete br eakout strength was reached and exceeded. All of the strengths were calculated us ing a concrete strength of 5500 psi (37.9 MPa), which was the strength indicated on the FDOT standard drawings. 3.2.1 Torsion Design The basic threshold torsional st rength of the shaft, 24.6 kipft (33.4 kN-m) was calculated using the ACI 318-05 torsional strength equation (Equation 2-3). This strength, however, did not take into account the rein forcement in the shaft. Therefore, it was assumed that the threshold torsion would be exceeded. As a result, the to rsional strength of the shaft was based on the nominal torsional strength. In order to calculate the tors ional strength that the shaft w ould exhibit during testing, the ACI nominal torsional strength equation was applie d. Before the strength was calculated, the minimum requirements for the shaft reinforcement were followed as outlined in ACI 318-05 .10.5.6 and .6.5.1. The nominal torsional st rength (Equation 2-6) was then calculated for the specimen. This value, 253 kip-ft (343 kN -m), was compared to the concrete breakout strength. The spacing of the hoop steel in the shaft was altered until the nominal torsional strength exceeded the concrete br eakout strength. Hence, if the concrete breakout failure was the

PAGE 35

35 correct failure mode, it would occur before th e torsional capacity of the shaft was exceeded during testing. 3.2.2 Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement As was outlined in the previous section, the required amount of hoop steel to meet the ACI 318-05 specifications was determined using guidelin es from Chapters 7 and 11 in the code. The resultant hoop steel layout was twenty-four #4 bars spaced evenly around a 27 in. (686 mm) diameter circle. The transverse hoops were co mprised of #3 bars at 2.5 in. (635 mm) totaling fourteen #3 bar hoops. The re quired splice for the #3 bar was 12 in. (305 mm), and the development length required for the #4 bar into the c oncrete block was 8 in. (203 mm) with a 6 in. (152 mm) hook. In the test setup, the #4 bars extended 27 in. (686 mm) into the block, which exceeded the required length. This length was us ed for simplicity in design and construction of the test setup. The #4 bars were tied into one of the cages of reinforcement in the concrete block. 3.2.3 Flexure Due to the eccentric loading of the bolts, the flexural capacity of the shaft had to be calculated. It had to be determ ined that the shaft would not fail in flexure under the load applied during testing. The flexural reinforcement in th e shaft was the longitudinal reinforcement, the #4 bars. The first step to determine the capacity wa s to assume the number of bars that would have yielded at the time of failure. From that point, the neutral axis of the shaft was located following the ACI 318-05 concrete stress bl ock methodology presented in Chap ter 10 of the code. It was then checked if the number of bars that ha d yielded was a good assumption. Once this was verified, the nominal moment capacity of the shaf t was calculated, and, then, compared to the maximum flexural moment based on the concrete br eakout capacity. The fle xural capacity of the shaft, 262 kip-ft (355 kN-m), exceeded the maximu m flexural moment on the shaft, 60.6 kip-ft (95.2 kN-m).

PAGE 36

36 3.3 Anchor Design 3.3.1 Diameter of Anchor Bolts The starting point for the diameter of the F 1554 Grade 105 anchor bolts to be used in the test apparatus was based on half the diameter of those in the field specimen. The size determined using that methodology was 1 in. (25.4 mm). On ce the concrete breakout strength capacity of the anchors was determined, the corresponding shear load on each of the bolts was calculated. The anchor bolt diameter had to be increased to 1. 5 in. (38.1 mm) in order to ensure that the bolts would not experience steel failure in flexure or shear. Th e maximum flexure on the bolts was calculated by taking the maximum shear applie d to each bolt and calculating the corresponding maximum flexural moment (Figure 3-5). The lever arm (Equation 3-1) for the calculation of the capacity was defined in Eligehausen et al. (2006) Section 4.1.2.2 b. 3 1a e l (3-1) Where: l = lever arm for the shear load (in.) e1 = distance between the shear load and surface of concrete (in.) a3 = 0.5do, without presence of a nut on surface of concrete, Figure 3-5 (in.) 0, with a nut on surface of concrete The base plate was restrained against rotati on, and translation wa s only possible in the direction of the applied shear load. The maxi mum applied moment for each bolt was calculated based on these support conditions and the lever arm calculation. Full fixity occurred a distance a3 into the shaft. Using the section modulus of the bolts, the stre ss was then calculated and compared to the yield strength of the bolts, 105 ksi (724 MPa). The shear strength of the bolts was calculated using the provisions in Appendix D of ACI 318-05. In both cases it was determined that the bolts had sufficient strength.

PAGE 37

37 3.3.2 Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear Parallel to a Free Edge The breakout strength provisions outlined in ACI 318-05 Appendix D and the breakout provisions introduced in Eligehause n et al. (2006) were applied to the design of the shaft. Equation 2-11, from ACI 318-05, was used as th e primary equation for the calculation of the breakout strength. In order to apply the ACI prov isions to the circular foundation a section of the concrete was ignored (Figure 3-6). If the full cover, c, was used in the calculation, the failure region would have included area outside of the circ le. Rather than extending beyond the edge of the concrete, the 35 degree failure cone (Figure 2-6) was extended to the edge of the shaft as shown in Figure 3-6. Equation 3-2 was deve loped to determine the adjusted cover, ca1. 25 3 25 32 2 2 1 b b b ar r r r c (3-2) Where rb = radius measured from the centerline of the bolt to the center of the foundation (in.) (Figure 3-6) r = radius of circular foundation (in.) As presented in Section 2.3.4, the projected concrete failure area for a single anchor, AVco, is equivalent to 4.5(ca1)2. Figure 3-7 illustrates the development of the projected concrete failure area for a group of anchors, AVc, as a function of the number of bolts, n the radius of the shaft, r and the adjusted cover. The resultant concrete breakout stre ngth using the adjusted cover approach was conservative relative to assuming the full cover. Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4 are used to calculate the concrete breakout torsion, Tn,breakout, and are based on the ACI provisions fo r shear parallel to the free edge. For b ar c A1 15 1 sin b b Vco Vc breakout nr V A A T 2, (3-3)

PAGE 38

38 For b ar c A1 15 1 sin (i.e. no overlap of failure cones) b b breakout nr V n T 2, (3-4) Where A = angle of circular sector fo r each bolt (deg) (Figure 3-7) ca1 = adjusted cover (in.) (Equation 3-2) rb = radius measured from the centerline of the bolt to the center of the foundation (in.) (Figure 3-6) AVc = projected concrete failure area of a group of anchors (in.2) (Figure 3-7) AVco = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor (in.2) (Figure 3-6) Vb = concrete breakout strength in shear for a single anchor calculat ed using Equation 211 with ca1 as calculated in Equation 3-2 (lb.) n = number of bolts Using Equation 3-3, the ACI concrete brea kout torsion for the test specimen was determined to be 182 kip-ft (247 kN-m), whic h was less than the nominal torsional capacity. During the analysis of the design equations, an issue arose regarding the calculation of the Eligehausen et al. (2006) factor parallel. The result of Equation 2-18 was 4.06 compared to the ACI 318-05 factor and ,V of 2.0. This prompted an inve stigation of the application of the multiplier to the circular founda tion in this research program. The majority of the tests for the determination of Vu,c (Equation 2-14) were for groups of two bolts. Therefore, it was investigated how the AVc/AVco term is affected by the spacing between the bolts and the numb er of bolts. Figure 3-8 shows that for spacing, s, of 3.0ca1 or greater there is no overlap of the breakout cones. In those cases the strength is the sum of the single anchor strengths. Figur e 3-9 illustrates the overlap of the breakout cones. The AVc/AVco term is used to calculate the breakout strength for the case where the failure cones overlap. AVc/AVco can be normalized by dividing by the number of bolts. An increase in the number of bolts at the same spacing along a straight edge leads to a reduction in the normalized AVc/AVco term. This reduction is illustrated in Figure 3-10. The contribution of the failure cone outstanding legs at the ends of the group area, AVc, decreases as the number of bolts increases.

PAGE 39

39 For a circular foundation, with s<3.0ca1, there is a constant overlap of the failure cones with no outstanding legs (Figure 3-11). The equivalent number of bolts along a straight edge is taken as infinity in order to represen t a circular foundation (i.e. no outsta nding legs). Therefore, the normalized AVc/AVco term for this case was calculated for an infinite number of bolts at the prescribed spacing for the foundation. To convert these ratios into a multiplier for parallel, the ratio of the normalized AVc/AVco for an infinite number of bolts to the normalized term for two bolts was calculated. That multiplier, 0.52, was applied to the parallel term resulting in an adjusted parallel of 2.1. This result ing value agreed with th e ACI 318-05 factor and the Eligehausen et al. (2006) factor ,V of 2.0. The resultant concrete breakout torsions, base d on the Eligehausen et al. (2006) concrete breakout strength (Equation 2-13), were 167 kip-ft (227 kN-m) using parallel of 2.1 in Equation 2-17, and 159 kip-ft (216 kN-m) using ,V of 2.0 in Equation 2-16. These torsions were calculated using the same moment arm, rb, used in Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4. These results and the results of the other calcula tions are summarized in Table 3-2. 3.3.3 Development Length of the Bolts Another key aspect of the shaft design was to ensure that the anchor bolts were fully developed. In order to meet the code require ments, the splice length between the #4 bars and anchor bolts was calculated us ing the development length eq uations presented in ACI 318-05 Chapter 12. The bolts needed overlap the #4 bars across 26.7 in. (678 mm), and in the test setup the overlap was 29 in. (737 mm). Therefore, this requirement was met. 3.4 Steel Pipe Apparatus Design The components of the steel pipe apparatus included the pipe, which was loaded during testing, and the base plate. The pipe desi gn was based on the inter action between torsion, flexure, and shear as presented in AISC (2001), LRFD Manual of Steel Construction-LRFD

PAGE 40

40 Specification for Steel Hollow Structural Sections. Each of the indi vidual capacities was calculated for various pipe diameters and thickne sses. The individual strengths were compared to the projected failure loads for testing, the concrete breakout failure loads. In addition to verifying that the capacity of the pipe exceeded t hose loads, the interactio n of the three capacities was verified. The purpose was to check that the su m of the squares of the ultimate loads divided by the capacities was less than one. Based on th is analysis, it was conc luded that an HSS 16.000 x 0.500 pipe would provide sufficient strength. In order to load the pipe, it needed to have a ninety degree bend in it. This was achieved by welding two portions of pipe cu t on forty-five degree angles to a steel plate. The weld size for this connection was determined such that the effective throat thickness would equal the thickness of the pipe, which was 0.50 in. (12.7 mm). The factors included in the design of the base pl ate were the diameter of the pipe, required weld size, bolt hole diameter, and the required di stance between the edge of the bolt hole and the edge of the plate. The required width of the weld between the base plate and the pipe was calculated such that the applied to rsion could be transferred to the plate without failing the weld. From that point, the bolt hole location diameter had to be checked to ensure that there was sufficient clearance between the weld and the nuts. It was important that the nuts could be fully tightened on the base plate. A 0.25 in. (6 .35 mm) oversize was specified for the bolt hole diameter. This oversize was based on the standard oversize used in the fiel d. Beyond that point, it was ensured that there would be sufficient cove r distance between the bo lt hole and the edge of the plate. The design of the components of the steel pipe apparatus was crucial because these pieces had to operate efficiently in order to correctly ap ply load to the bolts. If the apparatus were to

PAGE 41

41 fail during testing, the objective of the research could not be achie ved. The weight of the pipe apparatus was calculated in order to normalize the load during testi ng. The load applied to the anchorage would be the load cell reading less the weight of th e pipe apparatus. 3.5 Concrete Block Design The design of the concrete block was based on se veral key factors to ensure that it served its purpose as a fixed support at the base of th e shaft. The amount of reinforcement required was based on a strut-and-tie model of the block as outlined in ACI 318-05 Appendix A and, as an alternate approach, beam theory to check the shear strength and fle xural strength of the block. For the flexural capacity calculations, the ACI 318-05 concrete stress block provisions were utilized. Based on the results of both approaches it was determined that 3 #8 bars, each with a 12 in. (305 mm) hook on both ends, spaced across the top and the bottom of the block were required. Additionally, two cages of #4 bars were placed in the block on the front and back faces meeting the appropriate cover requirements to serve as supplementary reinforcement. The purpose of reinforcing the block was to ensure st ructural stability of the block throughout the testing process. Two channel apparatuses were also designed in order to tie the block to the floor of the laboratory in order to resist overt urning. The loads that had to be resisted by each tie-down were calculated such that the floor capacity of 100 kips (445 kN) per tie-down would not be exceeded. The channels were designed in accordance with the provisions set forth in AISC (2001). The welds between the channels and steel plates ha d to be sufficiently designed such that the channels would act as a singl e unit thereby transferring load from the plates through the channels. Also, the channels were spaced far en ough apart to fit 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) bolts between the channels. A 0.25 in. (6.35 mm) oversize was sp ecified for the spacing of the channels and the holes in the steel plates. The construction drawin gs for the channels are located in Appendix A.

PAGE 42

42 In addition to assuring that th e concrete block system had su fficient capacity to resist the applied load, the bearing strength of the concrete had to be calculated. This was done in order to verify that the concrete would not fail in the region that was in c ontact with the steel channels. The bearing strength was found to be sufficient. As a result, it was conc luded that the concrete block system would efficiently serve as a fixe d connection, and under the loading conditions it would not prematurely fail. 3.6 Combined Shear and Torsion As was presented in Chapter 2, a calculation had to be carried out to ensure that shear need not be considered in the design. Rather than inputting the values for the ultimate shear and ultimate torsion into Equation 2-8, the coefficients of these terms were calculated. The base for doing so was to input the torsion as a function of the shear. For the test specimen, the ultimate torsion, Tu, was taken as the moment arm multiplied by the ultimate shear, Vu. The moment arm for the load was 9 ft. (2740 mm). As an altern ate approach, the actual co ncrete breakout strength and the corresponding shear could have been inputte d into the equation rather than the generic variables. The result of the calculation to dete rmine the coefficients was that the coefficient for the shear term was 1 compared to a coefficien t of 88 for the torsion term. This calculation sufficiently verified that the shear co ntribution could be ignored in design. 3.7 Overview The previous sections detailed the design of the various components of the experimental program. It was of the utmost important to ve rify that the apparatuses not pertaining to the foundation failure would not fail during testing (i.e. concrete block system and pipe apparatus). Furthermore, all other foundation failure modes had to be precluded in the design. This ensured that if the concrete breakout failure in shear was the failure mode it would be observed during testing.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13 show the fully assembled test specimen at the Florida Department of Transportation Structures Research Center.

PAGE 44

44 LOAD LOCATION SHAFT CONCRETE BLOCK PIPE ASSEMBLY BASE PLATE Figure 3-1. Schematic of test apparatus Figure 3-2. Front elevation of test apparatus

PAGE 45

45 Figure 3-3. Plan view of test apparatus Figure 3-4. Side elevat ion of test apparatus

PAGE 46

46 a3 l e1 Leveling Nut Figure 3-5. Lever arm for the calculation of bolt flexure 1.5ca1 1.5ca1 ca1 c A rb r 2 15 4a Vcoc A Figure 3-6. Adjusted cover based on a single anchor and 35 failure cone

PAGE 47

47 r n A 360 2 sin 2 A r chord 15 1a Vcc chord n A Figure 3-7. Development of the projected failure area for the gr oup of anchors around a circular foundation ca11.5ca11.5ca11.5ca11.5ca1s=3.0ca1 ca11.5ca11.5ca11.5ca11.5ca1s=3.0ca1 Figure 3-8. Two anchor arrangement displays th e minimum spacing such that no overlap of the failure cones occurs AVc AVc Figure 3-9. Overlap of failure cones

PAGE 48

48 AVcLeg Leg AVc Leg Leg AVcLeg Leg AVcLeg Leg AVc Leg Leg AVc Leg Leg Figure 3-10. The contribution of the legs of the failure cone to AVc along a straight edge decreases as the number of bolts increases s s Figure 3-11. Overlap of failure cones for a circular foundation

PAGE 49

49 Figure 3-12. Assembled test specimen Figure 3-13. Shaft with pipe apparatus attach ed prior to instrument ation being attached

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-1. Field dimensions Component Field Dimension Shaft Diameter 60 in. Hoop Steel Diameter 46 in Hoop Steel Size #5 Longitudinal Steel Size #9 Anchor Bolt Diameter 2 in. Anchor Embedment 55 in. Bolt Spacing Diameter 36 in. Base Plate Diameter 42 in. Base Plate Thickness 1 in. Table 3-2. Summary of design calculations Component Design Type Equation Reference Result Shaft Cracking Torsion (2-1) 131 kip-ft Basic Torsion (2-2) 131 kip-ft Threshold Torsion (2-3) 24.6 kip-ft Nominal Torsion (2-4) 253 kip-ft Anchor ACI Concrete Breakout (2-12) 182 kip-ft Eligehausen et al. Concrete Breakout (2-16) 159 kip-ft Eligehausen et al. Concrete Breakout (2-17) 167 kip-ft Bolt Flexure 253 kip-ft Bolt Shear 1756 kip-ft

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF TESTING PROGRAM In order to proceed with testing the sp ecimen presented in Chapter 3, important considerations had to be made. The first area under consideration was the concrete strength. It was important to determine this to calculate the pr edicted failure mode prior to testing. Also, the flexural and shear strengths of th e bolts were calculated using th e specified yield strength. The other area that was of key importance was the instrumentation. The instrumentation was required to produce meaningful data during testing. The other sect ion of this chapter is on the carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap used in the retrofit test. 4.1 Materials 4.1.1 Concrete Strength As it was stated in Chapter 3, the initial calculations for the design of the test setup were carried out on the assumption of a concrete st rength of 5500 psi (37.9 MPa). The concrete breakout strength was recalculated ba sed on the concrete strength at the time of testing. On the date of the test, the concrete strength was 6230 ps i (43 MPa). This strength was calculated based on the average of three 6 in. (152 mm) x 12 in. (305 mm) cylinder tests. 4.1.2 Bolt Strength The yield strength of the F1554 Grade 105 anch or bolts was assumed to be 105 ksi (723.95 MPa). This was used to calculate the fle xural strength and shear strength of the bolts. 4.1.3 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrap The first test was considered concluded af ter significant cracking and when the test specimen stopped picking up additional load. The loading was ceased before the specimen completely collapsed. The reason for doing so wa s to enable a second test to be performed on the specimen after it was retrofitted with a carb on fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap. The

PAGE 52

52 second test verified whether th e CFRP wrap was an acceptable means to retrofit the failed foundation. The amount of CFRP that was applied to th e shaft was determined by calculating the amount of CFRP required to bring the shaft back to its initial concrete br eakout strength. The CFRP wrap that was used for the retrofit was SikaWrap Hex 230C. The properties of the wrap were obtained and the ultimate tensile strength wa s used to calculate the required amount that needed to be applied. The property specifica tions for the SikaWrap were based on the mean strength minus 2 standard deviations. ACI (2002), ACI 440.R-02, .3.1 specifies that the nominal strength to be used for design be based on the mean strength less 3 standard deviations. Therefore, the design strength prov ided by Sika was adjusted to ensure that the design met the ACI specifications. The method for calculating the amount of CFRP required was to convert the torsion to a shear load per bolt. The shear load, which was direct ed parallel to the edge, had to be adjusted to such that it was directed perpendicular to the ed ge. In order to do this, the ACI multiplier of 2 was divided from the load. That load per bolt di rected perpendicular to the edge was converted to a pressure around the circumference of the shaf t. The equivalent te nsion that had to be resisted by the CFRP wrap was then calculated, a nd the amount of CFRP to provide that tensile strength was determined. Figure 4-1 illustrates this method. Two layers of the wrap were prescribed to meet the ACI concrete breakout strength based on assuming that the full 12 in. (305mm) width of the CFRP wrap would not be effective. Rather, it was assumed that the depth of the c oncrete breakout failure cone based on the cover, 1.5cover, was the effective width, 7.5 in. (191 mm). Three layers of the CFRP wrap were applied to the specimen. The addition of the extr a layer exceeded the required strength, so it was

PAGE 53

53 deemed acceptable. Once the wrap was set, the retr ofit test was carried out Calculations for the design of the CFRP wrap layout are located in Appendix B. 4.2 Instrumentation 4.2.1 Linear Variable Displacement Transducers Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (L VDTs) were placed at the location of the load cell, and at various points along the shaft and base plate. A total of ten LVDTs were utilized in the project. Figure 4-2 is a schematic of the layout of the LVDTs on the base plate. Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show the location of the LVDTs on the shaft, and Figure 4-5 shows the LVDT at the load location. The denotation for each of the LVDTs is also on the drawings. These identification codes were used to denote the LVDTs during testing. The purpose of the LVDTs along the shaft and base plate was to allo w for the rotation of the base plate to be measured during the testing. The LVDTs at the fr ont and back of the shaft were to allow for the rotation to be measured relative to the rotation of the shaft. The intent in the project was such that the shaft would not rotate; only the base pl ate would rotate as the bolts were loaded. The horizontal LVDT on the base plate was intende d to indicate if there was any horizontal movement of the base plate. The rotation of the base plate was calculated using Equation 4-1. gage VD D D R3 1 1tan (4-1) Where R = base plate rotation (rad) D1V = displacement of LVDT D1V (in.) D3 = displacement of LVDT D3 (in.) Dgage = distance between LVDTs D1V and D3 (in.) Once the test apparatus was assembled, the distance Dgage was measured. This distance was 26.31 in. (668 mm). Figure 4-6 shows LVDTs D1V and D4 on the test specimen.

PAGE 54

54 4.2.2 Strain Gages Strain gages were attached to the base plat e on the outer surface ad jacent to the bolt holes in order to determine how may bolts were activel y transferring load given the 1.75 in. (44.5 mm) holes for the 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) anchors. In applying the ACI 318-05 equation for concrete breakout strength of an anchor in shear directed parallel to an e dge (Equation 2-12) it was of key importance to know how many bolts were carrying the load. For instance if two bolts were carrying the load, the concrete would fail at a lowe r load than if all twelve bolts were carrying the load. In addition to showing the placemen t of the LVDTs, Figure 4-2 also details the location of the strain gages on the base plate. Fi gure 4-7 shows the denotation of the strain gages relative to the bolt number, and Fi gure 4-8 shows a strain gage on the base plate of the test specimen. Note that the bolt numbering starts at one at the top of the pl ate and increases as you move clockwise around the base plate.

PAGE 55

55 TCFRPTCFRP Divide by 2 TCFRPTCFRP TCFRPTCFRP Divide by 2 Figure 4-1. Method for the dete rmination of the tension, TCFRP, that must be resisted by the CFRP wrap

PAGE 56

56 LVDT Strain Ga g e D1V D1H D2 D3 Figure 4-2. Instrumentation layout on the base plate D4 D5 D6 Figure 4-3. Instrumentation layout on face of shaft

PAGE 57

57 D7 D8 D9 Figure 4-4. Instrumentation layout on r ear of shaft/face of concrete block D10 6 Figure 4-5. Instrumentation layout of pipe at load location

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4-6. Location of LVDTs D1V, D4, and D7 on the test specimen S12 S11 S10 S9 S8 S7 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Figure 4-7. Strain gage layout on base plate

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4-8. Strain gage on ba se plate of test specimen

PAGE 60

60 CHAPTER 5 TEST RESULTS Two tests were performed on the test specimen. The initial test was conducted to determine whether the concrete breakout failure was the failure mode demonstrated in the field. The verification of this was based on the crack pa ttern and the failure load recorded. If the failure torsion was the concrete breakout failure torsion, then the hypot hesized failure mode would be verified. The retrofit test was perfor med on the same test specimen. This test was completed to establish whether a CFRP wrap was an acceptable retrofit for the foundation. 5.1 Initial Test 5.1.1 Behavior of Specimen During Testing The initial test on the fou ndation was carried out on 31 August 2006 at the Florida Department of Transportation Structures Resear ch Center. The test specimen was gradually loaded during the testing. Th roughout the test, the formation of cracks on the surface of the concrete was monitored (Figures 5-1 and 5-2). At 90 kip-ft (122 kN-m ), the first cracks began to form. When 108 kip-ft (146 kN-m) was reached it was observed that the cracks were not extending further down the length of the shaft. T hose cracks that had formed began to slightly widen. These cracks, Figure 5-1, were character istic of those that form during the concrete breakout failure. At 148 kip-ft (201 kN-m), cracks spanning between the bolts had formed (Figure 5-3). The foundation continued to be lo aded until the specimen stopped taking on more load. The torsion load peaked at 200 kip-ft ( 271 kN-m). Loading ceased and was released when the applied torsion fell to 190 kip-ft (258 kN-m). The predicted concrete breakout capacity of the shaft at the time of testing was calculated as 193 kip-ft (262 kN-m) (Equation 3-3). At failure, the foundation displayed the charac teristic cracks that one would see in a concrete breakout failure (Figure 5-4). As intende d, the bolts did not yield, and the shaft did not

PAGE 61

61 fail in torsion. Data was reduced to formulate applied torsion versus plate rotation and applied torsion versus bolt strain plots. The Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot (Figure 5-5) shows that the bolts ceased taking on addi tional load after the noted concre te breakout failure due to the shear parallel to the edge resulting from the applied torsion. It also exhibi ts slope changes at the loads where crack development started or the ex isting cracks were altered. The first slope change at 108 kip-ft (146 kN-m) coincided with the widening of the characteristic diagonal cracks on the front face of the shaft. The second change occurred at 148 kip-ft (201 kN-m) corresponding with the formati on of cracks between the bolts. 5.1.2 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing Figure 5-6 displays the Applied Torsion vs. Bo lt Strain plots for each bolt relative to its location on the foundation. Recall that the term bolt strain refe rs the measurement of the strain in the base plate at the bolt locat ion. The strain was a result of the bolt carrying load. The first line on the plots in Figure 5-6 is 50 kip-ft (67.8 kN-m). At this level, all of the bolts were carrying load with the exception of bolts one, six, and eight. At the next level, 100 kip-ft (136 kN-m) bolt one picked up load, but bolts six and eight remained inactive. It must be noted that, at 108 kip-ft (138 kN-m), which wa s the first slope change on the Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation Plot, a redi stribution of the loading occurred. This redistribution is illustrated in Figure 5-7. As the cracks widened, those bolts that were transferring the majority of the load were able to move more freely, a nd, therefore, the other bolts became more active in transf erring the load to the foundation. A similar redistribution to a lesser degree occurred at approximately 148 kipft (201 kN-m), which coincided with the first observation of cracks between the bolts. As the various plots illustrate, some of the st rain gages recorded ne gative strains, while others recorded positive strains. This was most likely due to the bearing location of the bolt on

PAGE 62

62 the base plate. Although this oc curred, the relative strain readi ngs were considered acceptable. To further explore this phenomenon, strain gages were placed on the bottom of the base plate in addition to those on the top for the second test. 5.1.3 Summary of Initial Test Results The results of this test indicated that the concrete breakout failure was the failure mode observed in the site investigation. The characte ristic cracks and the structural integrity of the bolts in the failed foundations, as observed during the site investigation, was the first step to arriving at this failure mode. The percent difference between the failure torsion and the predicted failure torsion (Equa tion 3-3) was 3.6%. Therefor e, it was concl uded that the foundation failed at the failure to rsion for the predicted failure mode. These results indicated that the design methodology for cantilever sign f oundations should include the concrete breakout failure due to shear directed parall el to an edge resulting from torsional loading. All plots for the first test are located in Appendix C. 5.2 CFRP Retrofit Test After the results of the first test were re viewed, the need for a method to strengthen existing foundations became apparent. Since the concrete breakout failure had not been considered in the design of the cantilever sign st ructure foundations, a system had to be put in place to evaluate whether or not those existing foundations would be susceptible to failure. One economical method of retrofitting the existing founda tions is the use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) wraps. Recall that, at the conclusion of the first test the bolts had not yiel ded, and the concrete was still intact. This enabled a second test on the failed foundati on to be carried out. The key focus of this second test was to determine if the foundation could reac h its initial concrete breakout strength again. The foundation was retr ofitted with three laye rs of 12 in. (305 mm)

PAGE 63

63 wide SikaWrap Hex 230C (Figure 5-8). This amount of CFRP exceeded the amount required to attain the concrete breakout stre ngth, 193 kip-ft (262 kN-m). The torsional strength of the shaft with the CFRP wrap was calculated. The result ant strength based on the effective width, Section 4.1.3, of 1.5cover, or 7.5 in. (191 mm), was 229 kip-ft ( 310 kN-m). Since that effective depth was an assumption for design, the strength based on the full width, 12 in. (305 mm), of the wrap, 367 kip-ft (498 kN-m), was also calculated for reference. 5.2.1 Behavior of Specimen with CFRP Wrap During Testing The second test was conducted on 13 September 2006. For this test, the concrete strength was not required to be known, since the concre te had already failed. The containment provided by the CFRP wrap, along with the anchor bolts, wa s the source of the stre ngth of the foundation. As the purpose of the second test was to learn how much load the foundation could take, and if that load met or exceeded the concrete breakout strength, the load was not held for prolonged periods at regular intervals during the test. Figure 5-9 is the Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot for the second test. The foundation was cl osely monitored for crack formation along the shaft, propagation of existing cracks, and failure of the CFRP wrap. The strength of the foundati on exceeded the predic ted concrete breakout strength of 193 kip-ft (262 kN-m). It was not until the loadi ng reached 257 kip-ft (348 kN -m) that the first pops of the carbon fibers were heard. At that torsion load, the strengt h of the CFRP wrap based on the effective depth, 229 kip-ft (310 kN-m), was exceeded Therefore, the effective depth of the wrap was a conservative assumption. At approximately 288 kip-ft (390 kN-m) more po ps were heard. However, the carbon fiber did not fail. During the course of the test, characterist ic torsion cracks began to form along the shaft (Figure 5-10) and propagated to the base of the shaft. This occurred because the ACI 31805 nominal torsional strength (Equation 2-6) of 253 kip-ft (343 kN-m) was exceeded. Although

PAGE 64

64 these cracks had formed, the foundation still had not failed. Another phenomenon that occurred was the yielding of the bolts. According to the calc ulations for the yield strength of the bolts, the bolts yielded at approximately 253 kip-ft (343 kN-m) of applied torsion. The strength was determined using the same methodology outlined in S ection 3.3.1. This wa s the within the range in which the yielding was observed (Figure 5-9). The bolts were yi elding, but they did not reach their ultimate strength. The test abruptly concluded when the conc rete block shifted out of place, causing the load cell to be dislodged from its lo cation on the pipe. This occurred at 323 kip-ft (438 kN-m). 5.2.3 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing For the retrofit test, strain gages were placed on the top and bottom of the base plate. Figure 5-11 shows each of the Applied Torsion vs. Bo lt Strain plots at the appropriate bolt locations. Note that as the loading increased, th e bottom strain gages began to behave similarly for all of the bolts. The strain was increasing at a higher rate. This illustrated that as the bolts picked up load and began to bend, they were pr imarily in contact with the bottom of the base plate (Figure 5-12). The strain s recorded by the bottom gages indicate that all of the bolts became active during the test. Similar to the behavior of the bolts throughout the initia l test, Figure 5-13 illustrates the changes in the bolt strain data for the top ga ges corresponding with m ilestone loads during the test. 5.2.4 Summary of Test Results Upon removal of the pipe apparatus, the cr ack pattern illustrated the concrete breakout failure, and torsional cracks in the center of the shaft verified that the torsional capacity was exceeded during testing (Figure 5-14). Figure 5-15 details the characteristic torsion cracks on the side of the shaft after tes ting. The test proved that the CFRP wrap was an acceptable method

PAGE 65

65 for retrofitting the foundation. It exceeded the concrete breakout strength. The success of this retrofit test led to the development of guidelin es for the evaluation of existing foundations and the guidelines for the retrofit of t hose foundations in need of repair. All plots for the retrofit test are located in Appendix D.

PAGE 66

66 Figure 5-1. Initial cr acks on face of shaft Figure 5-2. Initial cracks on face and side of shaft (alternate view of Figure 5-1)

PAGE 67

67 Figure 5-3. Face of test specimen after testing exhibits cracks between the bolts along with the characteristic concre te breakout cracks Figure 5-4. Crack pattern on face of shaft after testing depicts ch aracteristic concrete breakout failure cracks

PAGE 68

68 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.511.522.53Rotation (deg)Applied Torsion (kip-ft) Crack Formation Between Bolts Cracks Begin to Widen Peak Applied Torsion Figure 5-5. Applied Torsion vs. Pl ate Rotation PlotInitial Test

PAGE 69

69 1 12 2 3 7 4 6 5 11 10 9 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Rotation (deg) Applied Torsion (kip-ft) Figure 5-6. Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain Plot s for each bolt at the appropriate location on the base plate with Applied Torsi on vs. Plate Rotation plot in center (full size plots in Appendix C)

PAGE 70

70 0 50 100 150 200 250 -750-600-450-300-1500150300450600750MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Crack Formation Between Bolts Cracks Begin to Widen Figure 5-7. Bolt Strain Comparison Plot for Initial Test exhibits the redistribution of the load coinciding with crack formations Figure 5-8. Shaft with the CFRP wrap applied prior to testing

PAGE 71

71 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.511.522.533.544.55Rotation (deg)Applied Torsion (kip-ft) ACI Concrete Breakout Strength Bolts Yielded First "Pops" of CFRP Specimen Shifted Figure 5-9. Applied Torsion vs. Pl ate Rotation PlotRetrofit Test Figure 5-10. Shaft exhibiting characteristic torsion cracks from face to base of shaft

PAGE 72

72 1 12 2 3 7 4 6 5 11 10 9 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Rotation (deg) Applied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Figure 5-11. Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain plot s for the Retrofit Test at the appropriate bolt location around the base plate with Applied Torsion vs. Pl ate Rotation plot in center (full size plots in Appendix D)

PAGE 73

73 Bearing Location Base Plate Bolt V Figure 5-12. Bolt bearing on the bottom of the base plate during loading 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -1100-825-550-27502755508251100MicrostrainApplied Torsion(kip-ft) ACI Concrete Breakout Strength Bolts Yielded Figure 5-13. Bolt Strain Comparison plot for the retrofit test exhi bits slope changes at milestone loads

PAGE 74

74 Figure 5-14. Face of shaft after te st illustrates yielding of bolts concrete breakout cracks around the perimeter, and torsion cracks in the center. Figure 5-15. Torsion cracks along le ngth of the shaft after the test

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this research program was to determine the cause of the failure of foundations of cantilever sign structures duri ng the 2004 hurricane season. After a thorough literature review, in conjunction wi th the site investigation, and testing, it was determined that the foundations failed as a result of an applied torsion which caused a concrete breakout failure due to shear directed parallel to the edge on the anchors. This anchorage failure is detailed in ACI 318-05 Appendix D. Previous to this experi mental research, this failure mode was not considered in the design of the cantilever sign foundations. Cantilever sign foundations need to be designed for shear parallel to the edge on the anchor resulting from torsion. Test results indicate that th e failure of the foundations wa s caused by concrete breakout due to shear directed parallel to the edge on the anchors. The test specimen failed at the torsion predicted by the ACI 318-05 Appendix D design equations. Additionally the crack pattern matched the crack pattern exhibited in the field, and both foundations emul ated the characteristic crack pattern of the shea r directed parallel to an edge for concrete breakout failure. It is recommended that future tests be performed on ci rcular foundations to further investigate the concrete breakout failure for a sh ear load directed bot h parallel and perpendi cular to an edge. Additional testing was performed to determine an acceptable retrofit option. It was determined that applying a CFRP wrap to the foundation strengthens th e foundation such that it not only meets its initial concrete breakout capac ity, but, also, exceeds the capacity. The results of this test led to the development of guide lines for the evaluation and repair of existing foundations. The guidelines we re based on the following: Using either the torsional load from the desi gn or, if not available, using the ACI nominal torsional strength (ACI 318-05 .6.3.6), de termine the torsional capacity of the foundation.

PAGE 76

76 Calculate the concrete breakout strength in accordance with ACI Appendix D. If the concrete breakout strength is less than the maximum of the nominal torsional strength and design torsion, then th e foundation is susceptible to failure. The amount of the SikaWrap 230C required is calculated using the maximum of the nominal torsional strength and the design torsi on. The amount required is given in layers of the CFRP wrap. These guidelines were submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation. The guidelines will be used to evaluate and, if necessa ry, repair the existing f oundations. It is critical that such foundations be evaluated in order to determine the susceptibi lity to this type of failure. The proper use of the findings of this research program will allow for future prevention of the failures exhibited during the 2004 hurricane season.

PAGE 77

77 APPENDIX A TEST APPARATUS DRAWINGS Figure A-1. Dimensioned front elev ation drawing of test apparatus Fi g ure A-1. Dimensioned fr ont elevation drawin g of test a pp aratus

PAGE 78

78 Figure A-2. Dimensioned plan drawing test apparatus Fi g ure A-2. Dimensioned p lan drawin g test a pp aratus

PAGE 79

79 Figure A-3. Dimensioned side elev ation drawing of test apparatus Fi g ure A-3. Dimensioned side elevation drawin g of test a pp aratus

PAGE 80

80 Figure A-4. Dimensioned pipe apparatus drawing Fi g ure A-4. Dimensioned p i p e a pp aratus drawin g

PAGE 81

81 Figure A-5. Dimensioned channel tie-down drawing Fi g ure A-5. Dimensioned ch annel tie-down drawin g

PAGE 82

82 APPENDIX B DESIGN CALCULATIONS

PAGE 83

83

PAGE 84

84

PAGE 85

85

PAGE 86

86

PAGE 87

87

PAGE 88

88

PAGE 89

89

PAGE 90

90

PAGE 91

91

PAGE 92

92

PAGE 93

93

PAGE 94

94

PAGE 95

95

PAGE 96

96

PAGE 97

97

PAGE 98

98

PAGE 99

99

PAGE 100

100

PAGE 101

101

PAGE 102

102

PAGE 103

103

PAGE 104

104

PAGE 105

105

PAGE 106

106

PAGE 107

107

PAGE 108

108 APPENDIX C INITIAL TEST DATA 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.511.522.53Rotation (deg)Applied Torsion (kip-ft) Crack Formation Between Bolts Cracks Be g in to Widen Peak Applied Torsion Figure C-1. Applied Tors ion vs. Rotation Plot 0 50 100 150 200 250 -750-600-450-300-1500150300450600750MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Crack Formation Between Bolts Cracks Be g in to Widen Figure C-2. Bolt Stra in Comparison Plot

PAGE 109

109 Bolt 10 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) a Bolt 20 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) b Figure C-3. Applied Torsion vs. St rain Plots for each bolt location

PAGE 110

110 Bolt 30 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) c Bolt 40 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) d Figure C-3. Continued

PAGE 111

111 Bolt 50 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) e Bolt 60 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) f Figure C-3. Continued

PAGE 112

112 Bolt 70 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) g Bolt 80 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) h Figure C-3. Continued

PAGE 113

113 Bolt 90 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) i Bolt 100 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) j Figure C-3. Continued

PAGE 114

114 Bolt 110 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) k Bolt 120 50 100 150 200 250 -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) l Figure C-3. Continued

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX D RETROFIT TEST DATA 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.511.522.533.544.55Rotation (deg)Applied Torsion (kip-ft) ACI Concrete Breakout Strength Bolts Yielded First "Pops" of CFRP Specimen Shifted Figure D-1. Applied Tors ion vs. Rotation Plot 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -1100-825-550-27502755508251100MicrostrainApplied Tors ion(kip-ft) ACI Concrete Breakout Strength Bolts Yielded Figure D-2. Bolt Stra in Comparison Plot

PAGE 116

116 Bolt 10 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage a Bolt 20 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage b Figure D-3. Applied Torsion vs. St rain Plots for each bolt location

PAGE 117

117 Bolt 30 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage c Bolt 40 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage d Figure D-3. Continued

PAGE 118

118 Bolt 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage e Bolt 60 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage f Figure D-3. Continued

PAGE 119

119 Bolt 70 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage g Bolt 80 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage h Figure D-3. Continued

PAGE 120

120 Bolt 90 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage i Bolt 100 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage j Figure D-3. Continued

PAGE 121

121 Bolt 110 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage k Bolt 120 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000MicrostrainApplied Torsion (kip-ft) Top Gage Bottom Gage l Figure D-3. Continued

PAGE 122

122 LIST OF REFERENCES American Association of State Highway a nd Transportation Offici als (AASHTO). (1994). AASHTO standard specifications for structural supports for highway signs, luminaries, and traffic signals, 3rd Ed., Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway a nd Transportation Offici als (AASHTO). (2001). AASHTO standard specifications for structural supports for highway signs, luminaries, and traffic signals, 4th Ed., Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway a nd Transportation Offici als (AASHTO). (2004). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd Ed., Washington, DC. American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1995). Build ing code requirements fo r structural concrete (ACI 318-95) and commentary (ACI 318R-95). ACI 318-95, Farmington Hills, Mich. American Concrete Institute (AC I). (2002). Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening conc rete structures (ACI 440.2R-02). ACI 440.2R02, Farmington Hills, Mich. American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2005). Build ing code requirements fo r structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05). ACI 318-05, Farmington Hills, Mich. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2001). Manual of steel construction load and resistance factor design, 3rd Ed., Chicago, Ill. American Society of Civil E ngineers (ASCE). (1991). Guidelin es for electrical transmission line structural loading. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74, Reston, Va. American Society of Civil Engi neers (ASCE). (2000). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE 7-98). ASCE Standard No. 7-98, Reston, Va. American Society of Civil E ngineers (ASCE). (2006). Desi gn of steel transmission pole structures (ASCE/SEI 48-05). ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 72, Reston, Va. Breen, J. E. (1964). Development length for anchor bolts. Center for Transportation Research Report 55-1F, Austin, Texas. Eligehausen, R., Malle, R., Silva, J.F. (2006). Anchorage in Concrete Construction, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 108-128. 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, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 123

123 Fouad, F.H., Davidson, J.S., Delatte, N., Calver t, E.A., Chen, S., Nunez, E., and Abdalla, R. (2003). Structural supports for highway signs, luminaries, a nd traffic signals. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 494, Washington, D.C. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J.E. ( 1995). Concrete capacity design (CCD) approach for fastening to concrete. ACI Struct. J., 92(1), 73-94. Hasselwander, G. B., Jirsa, J. O., Breen, J. E ., and Lo, K. (1977). Strength and behavior of anchor bolts embedded near edges of concrete piers. Center for Transportation Research Report 29-2F, Austin, Texas. Institute of Electrical an d Electronics Engineers (IEEE). (1997) National electrical safety code (NESC). Piscataway, N.J. Jirsa, J. O., Cichy, N. T., Calzadilla, M. R., Smart, W. H., Pavluvcik, M. P., and Breen, J. E. (1984). Strength and behavior of bolt inst allations anchored in concrete piers. Center for Transportation Research Report 305-1F, Austin, Texas. Kaczinski, M. R., Dexter, R. J., and Van Dien J. P. (1998). Fatigue-resistant design of cantilevered signal, sign and light supports. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 412, Washington, D.C. Keshavarzian, M. (2003). Extreme wind design of self-supported steel struct ures: critical review of related ASCE publications. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 8(2), 102-106. Keshavarzian, M., and Priebe, C. H. (2002) Wind performance of short util ity pole structures. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 7(4), 141-146. Lee, D. W., and Breen J. E. (1966). Fact ors affecting anchor bolt development. Center for Transportation Research Report 88-1F, Austin, Texas. MacGregor, J. G., and Ghoneim, M. G. (1995). Design for torsion. ACI Struct. J., 92(2), 211218. Roark, R. J., and Young, W. C. (1975). Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th Ed., McGraw Hill, New York, 286-323. Telecommunications Industry A ssociation/Electrical Industries Associati on (TIA/EIA). (1996). Structural standards for steel antenna to wer and antenna supporting structures. ANSI/TIA/EIA 222-F, Arlington, Va.

PAGE 124

124 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kathleen M. Halcovage is the daughter of George F. Halcovage, Jr. and Barbara M. Halcovage. She was born in Pottsville, Pennsylva nia on November 10, 1983. She is the second oldest of five children. Kathleen graduate d from Nativity B.V.M. High School in 2001 where she was the class valedictorian. She received a Presidential Scholarship to continue her education at Villanova University in Villanova Pennsylvania. While attending Villanova University, she spent a semester abroad studying at the University of Sheffield in Sheffield, England. She was selected to the Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society, the Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering Honor Society, the Phi Kappa Phi A ll-Discipline Honor Society, the Delta Epsilon Sigma All-Discipline Catholic Honor Societ y, and Whos Who in American Colleges and Universities. Kathleen graduated Summa Cum Laude from Villanova University in May 2005. She received a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in civ il engineering degree with a business minor. At graduation, she was honored with the Departme nt of Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Award Medallion and the Dean Robert D. Lynch Award, which recognizes the scholastic achievements of an outstanding new graduate of the Villanova College of Engineering. Upon graduating, she entered the University of Florida in Gain esville, FL to continue her studies in structural engineeri ng. During her tenure at Florid a, she worked as a Graduate Assistant on a research project sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation. She will graduate with a Master of Engin eering (M.E.) degree in May 2007.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019645/00001

Material Information

Title: Anchor Embedment Requirements for Signal/Sign Structures
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019645:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019645/00001

Material Information

Title: Anchor Embedment Requirements for Signal/Sign Structures
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019645:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ANCHOR EMBEDMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAL/SIGN STRUCTURES


By

KATHLEEN M. HALCOVAGE













A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Kathleen M. Halcovage

































To my family, for your constant love and support throughout my life. To my parents, Barbara
and George, your dedication to providing me with the best education available has been a pivotal
part of my success. To my siblings, Barbara, George, Sarah, and Christopher, you have always
encouraged me and challenged me to be the very best that I can be. To my niece and nephew,
Grace and Aidan, you light up my life and always remind me of what is important in life.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my advisor, Dr. Ronald A. Cook, for his guidance throughout the course of my

research and tenure at the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Transportation

Structures Research Center Staff for their hard work in building my test apparatus and

orchestrating the testing of the specimen, and my supervisory committee for their assistance in

the preparation of this thesis. I also thank my family for their constant support and

encouragement.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF TABLES .............. ......... ...................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 1 1

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 13

2 B A CK G R O U N D .......................................... ................ ......................... .... 15

2.1 Literature Review ................................... .. ........... .. ............15
2.2 Site Investigation .................................................................... 19
2.3 A applicable C ode Provisions ........................................... ....................................... 19
2.3.1 Cracking and Threshold Torsion............................................................ .......... 20
2.3.2 N ominal Torsional Strength ...........................................................................22
2.3.3 C om bined Shear and T orsion ..................................................................... .. ....23
2.3.4 ACI Concrete Breakout Strength for Anchors ................................................. 24
2.3.5 Alternate Concrete Breakout Strength Provisions.................... ...............26
2.3.6 ACI 318-05 vs. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications........................28

3 DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ................................. ...............33

3.1 D description of T est A pparatu s ............................................. ......... ..............................33
3.2 Shaft D design .............. ................................. ................. ............... 34
3.2.1 Torsion D design .................... .. .............. .... ........... 34
3.2.2 Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement ............................... ................ 35
3 .2 .3 F lex u re ....................................................................................3 5
3.3 A nchor D design ....................................................................................................... ..... 36
3.3.1 D iam eter of A nchor B olts ...................................................................................36
3.3.2 Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear Parallel to a Free Edge ..............37
3.3.3 Development Length of the Bolts............... .................................. ...................39
3.4 Steel Pipe A apparatus D design ................................................. ............................... 39
3.5 Concrete Block D design ..................................................... ........ .. ............ 41
3.6 C om bined Shear and T orsion ........................................ ............................................42
3 .7 O v erv iew .......................................................................... 4 2









4 IMPLEMENTATION OF TESTING PROGRAM.....................................................51

4.1 M materials ...................................................... 51
4.1.1 Concrete Strength ..................................... ....... .............. ... .......... 51
4.1.2 Bolt Strength....................................... ..... .......... 51
4.1.3 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrap....................................................51
4.2 Instrum entation ..................... .......... ......... ............ ............ 53
4.2.1 Linear Variable Displacement Transducers ................................. ............... 53
4 .2 .2 Strain G ages.................................................................................... ........ .. ... 54

5 T E ST R E SU L T S ................................................................60

5 .1 In itia l T e st .................................................................................................................. 6 0
5.1.1 Behavior of Specimen During Testing ...................................... ...............60
5.1.2 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing ..........................................................61
5.1.3 Sum m ary of Initial Test Results ................................................................. 62
5.2 CFR P R etrofit Test .................. .................. .. .... .. ................ ............. ........ 62
5.2.1 Behavior of Specimen with CFRP Wrap During Testing ....................................63
5.2.3 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing ................................... .................64
5.2.4 Sum m ary of Test R esults............ ......................................... ............... 64

6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................75

APPENDIX

A TEST APPARATUS DRAWINGS......................................................... ...............77

B DESIGN CALCULATION S ....................................................... ......... ......82

C IN IT IA L T E ST D A T A ................................................................................... ............ 108

D R E TR O FIT TE ST D A TA ................................................................................. ........... 115

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................122

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... .. ...................... 124
















6









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3 -1 F field dim en sion s .................................................................................................... 50

3-2 Sum m ary of design calculations ......................................................... 50









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Failed cantilever sign structure ........................................................................... ...... 14

2-1 Cantilever sign structure at Exit 79 on Interstate 4 in Orlando.......................................29

2-2 N ew foundation installed at the site ...................................................................... 29

2-3 Failed foundation during post-failure excavation...........................................................30

2-4 Concrete breakout of an anchor caused by shear directed parallel to the edge for a
circular foundation ............... ................. .............. ................ ......... 30

2-5 Concrete breakout failure for an anchor loaded in shear............................................31

2-6 Determination of Avco based on the 35 failure cone ...................................................31

2-7 Shear load oriented (a) perpendicular to the edge and (b) parallel to the edge .................32

3-1 Schem atic of test apparatus........................................................................................... 44

3-2 Front elevation of test apparatus .......................................................................... ....... 44

3-3 P lan view of test apparatus s .................................................................. ...... .................. 45

3-4 Side elevation of test apparatus....................................................................... 45

3-5 Lever arm for the calculation of bolt flexure.................................................................. 46

3-6 Adjusted cover based on a single anchor and 350 failure cone.......................................46

3-7 Development of the projected failure area for the group of anchors around a circular
fou n d action .................................................................................4 7

3-8 Two anchor arrangement displays the minimum spacing such that no overlap of the
failure cones occurs............ ..................................... .... 47

3-9 O overlap of failure cones.............................................................................. ............ 47

3-10 The contribution of the "legs" of the failure cone to AV, along a straight edge
decreases as the number of bolts increases.................................................... ............. 48

3-11 Overlap of failure cones for a circular foundation........... ................................ 48

3-12 A ssem bled test specim en ............................................................ ............... 49

3-13 Shaft with pipe apparatus attached prior to instrumentation being attached ...................49









4-1 Method for the determination of the tension, TCFRP, that must be resisted by the
C FR P w rap ................ .... ........ ............... .............................55

4-2 Instrum entation layout on the base plate ........................................ ....................... 56

4-3 Instrum entation layout on face of shaft ........................................ ......................... 56

4-4 Instrumentation layout on rear of shaft/face of concrete block ......................................57

4-5 Instrumentation layout of pipe at load location ...... ........ ..........................................57

4-6 Location of LVDTs D1V, D4, and D7 on the test specimen .........................................58

4-7 Strain gage layout on base plate............................................... .............................. 58

4-8 Strain gage on base plate of test specim en............................................ .. ................59

5-1 Initial cracks on face of shaft ....................................................................... 66

5-2 Initial cracks on face and side of shaft (alternate view of Figure 5-1) ............................66

5-3 Face of test specimen after testing exhibits cracks between the bolts along with the
characteristic concrete breakout cracks ........................................ ......................... 67

5-4 Crack pattern on face of shaft after testing depicts characteristic concrete breakout
failure cracks ................ ..................................... ............................67

5-5 Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation Plot- Initial Test............................................. 68

5-6 Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain Plots for each bolt at the appropriate location on the
base plate with Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot in center (full size plots in
A pp en dix C ) .............................................................................. 69

5-7 Bolt Strain Comparison Plot for Initial Test exhibits the redistribution of the load
coinciding w ith crack form ations............................................................ .....................70

5-8 Shaft with the CFRP wrap applied prior to testing ............................... ...................70

5-9 Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation Plot- Retrofit Test................... ........................... 71

5-10 Shaft exhibiting characteristic torsion cracks from face to base of shaft ........................71

5-11 Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain plots for the Retrofit Test at the appropriate bolt
location around the base plate with Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot in center
(full size plots in A appendix D )................................................. .............................. 72

5-12 Bolt bearing on the bottom of the base plate during loading ....................................73









5-13 Bolt Strain Comparison plot for the retrofit test exhibits slope changes at milestone
lo a d s ..............................................................................................7 3

5-14 Face of shaft after test illustrates yielding of bolts, concrete breakout cracks around
the perimeter, and torsion cracks in the center. ..................................... ............... 74

5-15 Torsion cracks along length of the shaft after the test .....................................................74

A-i Dimensioned front elevation drawing of test apparatus ............... ...... ......... 77

A-2 Dim ensioned plan drawing test apparatus ........................................ ...... ............... 78

A-3 Dimensioned side elevation drawing of test apparatus.................................................79

A-4 Dim ensioned pipe apparatus drawing ..................................................... .... ........... 80

A-5 Dim ensioned channel tie-down drawing ........................................ ....................... 81

C-1 Applied Torsion vs. Rotation Plot .............................................................................108

C-2 Bolt Strain Comparison Plot ........................................................................ 108

C-3 Applied Torsion vs. Strain Plots for each bolt location............................109

D A applied Torsion vs. R rotation Plot .................................................................................115

D -2 B olt Strain C om prison Plot ............................................................................ ............ 115

D-3 Applied Torsion vs. Strain Plots for each bolt location............................116









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

ANCHOR EMBEDMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
SIGNAL/SIGN STRUCTURES

By

Kathleen M. Halcovage

May 2007

Chair: Ronald A. Cook
Major: Civil Engineering

During the 2004 hurricane season, several anchor embedment failures of the foundations of

cantilever sign structures occurred. The purpose of this research program was to determine the

cause of the failure of those foundations. After a thorough literature review, in conjunction with

site investigation, and testing, it was determined that the failure originated from the shear load on

the anchors directed parallel to the edge of the foundation. The shear load resulted from the

torsion loading on the anchor group that occurred during the hurricane. Investigation of this

failure mode, based on the ACI 318-05 Appendix D provisions for concrete breakout of anchors,

indicated that this is a failure mode not considered in the current design procedures for these

types of foundations. Furthermore, it was determined that it very well describes the type of

failure noted in the field investigation.

A test specimen was designed to preclude other possible failure modes not exhibited in the

field (e.g. steel failure of the anchors, bending of the anchors, and torsional failure of the

foundation). The results of the testing indicated the failure of the foundations was caused by

concrete breakout due to shear on the anchors directed parallel to the free edge of the foundation.

The test specimen failed at the torsion predicted by the ACI 318-05 Appendix D provisions

based on the expected mean strength of the anchors for concrete breakout with shear directed









parallel to the free edge. Additionally, the cracks that formed were the same type as those noted

in the field investigation, and matched the expected pattern for concrete breakout failure.

After failure, additional testing was performed to determine a viable repair/retrofit option.

The repair/retrofit option used a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap around the top of

the foundation. The results of this testing indicated that this repair/retrofit technique strengthens

the foundation such that it not only meets its initial capacity for concrete breakout, but, also, can

exceed this capacity. The results of this test led to the development of guidelines for the

evaluation and repair/retrofit of existing foundations.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

During the 2004 hurricane season, the failure of foundations of cantilever sign structures

occurred along Florida highways (Figure 1-1). These failures necessitated a review of the

current design and construction procedures for the foundations of cantilever sign structures.

The main objective of this research program was two-fold: to determine the cause of the

failure of the cantilever sign structures; and, to propose a retrofit option for the foundation. In

order to fulfill this objective, a thorough literature review, site investigation of a failed

foundation, and experimental program were conducted. The findings of the literature review and

site investigation were used to develop the experimental program. The findings of the

experimental program were applied in the development of the retrofit guidelines.

Furthermore, this project tested whether or not the ACI 318-05, ACI (2005), Appendix D

provisions for anchorage to concrete are applicable for circular foundations.

































Figure 1-1. Failed cantilever sign structure









CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND

While there have not been published reports detailing failures of sign structure

foundations, such as those being investigated in this study, information on the behavior of anchor

installations under various load conditions was found. The main subjects of much of the

literature were the effects of fatigue and wind load on overhead sign structures. Additionally,

there have been studies conducted on the failure modes of anchor installations, but these findings

were not based on circular foundations. In later sections, one of these anchorage failure modes

will be introduced for application in this research program.

This chapter presents the findings of the literature review, the conclusions drawn based on

a site investigation of a failed foundation, and applicable design equations for the determination

of the failure mode. The information presented in the chapter served as the base upon which the

experimental program was developed.

2.1 Literature Review

Keshavarzian (2003) explores the wind design requirements and safety factors for utility

poles and antenna monopoles from various specification manuals. It was found that the

procedure outlined in ASCE (1991), ASCE 74- Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line

Structural Loading, resulted in the smallest factor of safety for the design. AASHTO (2001),

Standard Specificationsfor Structural Supportsfor Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic

Signals, was used as a part of the comparison for the design of the antenna monopole. The

design from this specification was compared to that from ASCE (2000), ASCE 7-98-Minimum

Design Loadsfor Buildings and Other Structures; TIA/EIA (1996), Structural Standards for

Steel Antenna Towers andAntenna Supporting Structures; and, ASCE 74. The wind forces at

the base were the same for ASCE 74, AASHTO, and ASCE 7-98. The forces using TIA/EIA









were higher because it requires that a 1.69 gust response factor be applied to the design.

Therefore, the pole designed using TIA/EIA would have between 30 and 40 percent extra

capacity. ASCE 7-98 and AASHTO resulted in the same margin of safety. The paper did not

include findings that were completely relative to this project, but it provided additional sources

for design of structures for comparative purposes.

Keshavarzian and Priebe (2002) compares the design standards specified in ASCE (2000),

ASCE 7-98, and IEEE (1997), NESC- NationalElectrical Safety Code. The NESC does not

require that utility poles measuring less than 60 feet in height be designed for extreme wind

conditions. Short utility poles were designed to satisfy NESC specifications (i.e. without

extreme wind conditions). The poles were then evaluated according to the ASCE 7-98 wind load

requirements. It was found that the poles did not meet the ASCE 7-98 requirements. Therefore,

it was recommended that the exclusion for short utility poles in the NESC be reevaluated. The

paper also mentioned AASHTO (1994), Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for

Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. It outlined that in the AASHTO specification,

support structures exceeding 50 feet and overhead sign structures must be designed for a 50-year

mean recurrence interval, or extreme wind loading condition.

MacGregor and Ghoneim (1995) presents the background information for the formulation

of the thin-walled tube space truss analogy design method for torsion that was first adopted into

ACI (1995), ACI 318-95. The design methodology was adopted because it was simpler to use

than the previous method and was equally accurate. The basis for the derivation of the new

method was based on tests that were conducted in Switzerland. Both solid and hollow beams

were tested during that research. In comparing the data from both tests, it was discovered that

after cracking the concrete in the center had little effect on the torsional strength of the beam.









Therefore, the center of the cross-section could be ignored, and the beam could be idealized as a

hollow tube.

A space truss was formed by longitudinal bars in the corners, the vertical closed stirrups,

and compression diagonals. The compression diagonals were spiraled around the member and

extended between the torsion cracks. The paper also explained the shear stresses created by

torsion on the member.

In addition to the derivation of the equations for torsion and shear, the authors discussed

the limits for when torsion should be considered and the requirements for minimal torsional

reinforcement. The tests, conducted on both reinforced and prestressed concrete beams, showed

that there was acceptable agreement between the predicted strengths, as determined by the

derived equations, and the test results. This agreement was comparable to the design equations

from the ACI Code.

In addition to these papers, other reports reviewed include Lee and Breen (1966), Jirsa et

al. (1984), Hasselwander et al. (1977), and Breen (1964). These four studies focused on

important information regarding anchor bolt installations. Other reports that were examined for

relevance were from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). These

are: Fouad et al. (1998), NCHRP Report 411; Kaczinski et al. (1998), NCHRP Report 412; and,

Fouad et al. (2003), NCHRP Report 494.

Fouad et al. (2003) details the findings of NCHRP Project 17-10(2). The authors stated

that AASHTO (2001) does not detail design requirements for anchorage to concrete. The ACI

anchor bolt design procedure was also reviewed. Based on their findings, they developed a

simplified design procedure. This procedure was based on the assumptions that the anchor bolts

are hooked or headed, both longitudinal steel and hoop steel are present in the foundation, the









anchor bolts are cast inside of the reinforcement, the reinforcement is uncoated, and, in the case

of hooked bolts, the length of the hook is at least 4.5 times the anchor bolt diameter. If these

assumptions did not apply, then the simplified procedure was invalid. The anchor bolt diameter

was determined based on the tensile force on the bolt, and the required length was based on fully

developing the longitudinal reinforcement between the embedded head of the anchor. The

authors further stated that shear loads were assumed to be negligible, and concrete breakout and

concrete side face blowout were controlled by adequate longitudinal and hoop steel. The design

procedure was developed based on tensile loading, and did not address the shear load on the

anchors directed parallel to the edge resulting from torsion.

Additionally, the authors presented the frequency of use of different foundation types by

the state Departments of Transportation, expressed in percentages of states reporting use.

According to the survey the most common foundation type used for overhead cantilever

structures was reinforced cast-in-place drilled shafts (67-100%) followed by spread footings (34-

66%) and steel screw-in foundations (1-33%). None of the states reported the use of directly

embedded poles or unreinforced cast-in-place drilled shafts.

ASCE (2006), ASCE/SEI 48-05, entitled Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures was

obtained to gather information on the foundation design for transmission poles structures. The

intent was to determine whether or not the design of such foundations was relevant to the

evaluation of the foundations under examination in this research. In 9.0 of the standard, the

provisions for the structural members and connections used in foundations was presented. Early

in the section, the standard stated that the information in the section was not meant to be a

foundation design guide. The proper design of the foundation must be ensured by the owner

based on geotechnical principles. The section commented on the design of the anchor bolts. The









standard focused on the structural stability of the bolts in the foundation; it looked at bolts in

tension, bolts in shear, bolts in combined tension and shear, and the development length of such

bolts. The standard did not present provisions for failure of the concrete.

2.2 Site Investigation

A site investigation was conducted at the site of one failed overhead cantilever signal/sign

structure located at Exit 79 on Interstate 4 in Orlando (Figure 2-1). Figure 2-2 is the newly

installed foundation at the site. The failed foundation had the same anchor and spacing

specifications as the new foundation. This site visit coincided with the excavation of the failed

anchor embedment. During the course of the excavation the following information was

collected:

* The anchor bolts themselves did not fail. Rather, they were leaning in the foundation,
which was indicative of a torsional load on the foundation. While the integrity of the
anchor bolts held up during the wind loading, the concrete between the bolts and the
surface of the foundation was cracked extensively (Figure 2-3). The concrete was
gravelized between the anchors and the hoop steel. It should be noted that upon the
removal and study of one anchor bolt, it was evident that there was no deformation of the
bolt itself.

* The hoop steel did not start at the top of the foundation. It started approximately 15 in.
(381 mm) into the foundation.

* The concrete was not evenly dispersed around the foundation. The hoop steel was exposed
at approximately three to four feet below grade. On the opposite side of the foundation
there was excess concrete. It was assumed that during the construction of the foundation,
there was soil failure allowing a portion of the side wall to displace the concrete.

2.3 Applicable Code Provisions

The initial failure mode that was focused on in the background review was torsion.

However, based on the results of the site investigation, it was determined that the most likely

cause of failure was concrete breakout of an anchor (Figure 2-4). The equations for torsion are

presented in this section as they were used during the design of the experimental program to

prove that the concrete breakout failure will occur before the torsional failure.









2.3.1 Cracking and Threshold Torsion

Torsion is the force resulting from an applied torque. In a circular section, such as the

foundation under review, the resulting torsion is oriented perpendicular to the radius or tangent

to the edge. ACI (2005), ACI 318-05, details the equation for the cracking torsion of a

nonprestressed member. In R11.6.1, the equation for the cracking torsion, Tcr, is given

(Equation 2-1). The equation was developed by assuming that the concrete will crack at a stress

of 4\/f'c.

(A 2
T 4 = 4 (2-1)

Where
Tcr = cracking torsion (lb.-in.)
f'c = specified compressive strength of the concrete (psi)
Acp = area enclosed by the outside perimeter of the concrete cross-section (in.2)
= 7r2, for a circular section with radius r (in.)
epp = outside perimeter of the concrete cross-section (in.)
= 27r, for a circular section with radius r (in.)

This equation, when applied to a circular section, results in an equivalent value when

compared to the basic equation (Equation 2-2) for torsion noted in Roark and Young (1975).

The equality is a result of taking the shear stress as 4ff'c.


T = (2-2)
2
Where
T = torsional moment (lb.-in.)
r = shear stress, 4/f'c, (psi)
r = radius of concrete cross-section (in.)

ACI 318-05 11.6.1 (a) provides the threshold torsion for a nonprestressed member

(Equation 2-3). This is taken as one-quarter of the cracking torsion. If the factored ultimate

torsional moment, T, exceeds this threshold torsion, then the effect of torsion on the member

must be considered in the design.










T = AC (2-3)

Where
0 = strength reduction factor

AASHTO (2004), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, also presents equations

for cracking torsion (Equation 2-4) and threshold torsion (Equation 2-5). Equation 2-4

corresponds with the AASHTO (2004) equation for cracking torsion with the exception of the

components of the equation related to prestressing. That portion of the equation was omitted

since the foundation was not prestressed. It must be noted that these equations are the same as

the ACI 318-05 equations.

A2
TC= 0.125 -cp (2-4)
Pc
Where
Tcr = torsional cracking moment (kip-in.)
Acp = total area enclosed by outside perimeter of the concrete cross-section (in.2)
pc = the length of the outside perimeter of the concrete section (in.)

AASHTO (2004) also specifies the same provision as ACI 318-05 regarding the threshold

torsion. In 5.8.2.1, it characterizes the threshold torsion as one-quarter of the cracking torsion

multiplied by the reduction factor. Equation 2-5 corresponds with the threshold torsion portion

of AASHTO (2004) equation.

T = 0.250T1r (2-5)

The above referenced equations considered the properties and dimensions of the concrete.

They did not take into consideration the added strength provided by the presence of

reinforcement in the member. For the purposes of this research, it was important to consider the

impact of the reinforcement on the strength of the concrete shaft.









2.3.2 Nominal Torsional Strength

ACI 318-05 11.6.3.5 states that if the ultimate factored design torsion exceeds the

threshold torsion, then the design of the section must be based on the nominal torsional strength.

The nominal torsional strength (Equation 2-6) takes into account the contribution of the

reinforcement in the shaft.


T, = 2AAf cotO (2-6)
s
Where
T, = nominal torsional moment strength (in.-lb.)
Ao = gross area enclosed by shear flow path (in.2)
A, = area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion with spacing s (in.2)
fyt = specified yield strengthfy of transverse reinforcement (psi)
s = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement (in.)
0 = angle between axis of strut, compression diagonal, or compression field and
the tension chord of the member

The angle, 0, is taken as 45, if the member under consideration is nonprestressed. This

equation, rather than taking into account the properties of the concrete, takes into account the

properties of the reinforcement in the member. These inputs include the area enclosed by the

reinforcement, the area of the reinforcement, the yield strength of the reinforcement, and the

spacing of the reinforcement. For the purpose of this research, the reinforcement under

consideration was the hoop steel.

AASHTO (2004) also outlines provisions for the nominal torsional resistance in 5.8.3.6.2.

Equation 2-7 is the same equation that ACI 318-05 presents. The only difference is in the

presentation of the equations. The variables are represented by different notation.

2AoAfy cot0
Tn =- (2-7)
s
Where
T, = nominal torsional moment (kip-in.)
Ao = area enclosed by the shear flow path, including any area of holes therein (in.2)
At = area of one leg of closed transverse torsion reinforcement (in.2)
0 = angle of crack










As the above referenced equation evidences, the ACI 318-05 and the AASHTO (2004)

provisions for nominal torsional strength are the same. Based on the code provisions, the

nominal torsional strength represents the torsional strength of the cross-section.

2.3.3 Combined Shear and Torsion

Another area that had to be considered in this research was the effect of combined shear

and torsion. Both ACI 318-05 and AASHTO (2004) outline equations for the combined shear

and torsion. Since the foundation had a shear load applied to it, it had to be determined whether

or not the shear load was large enough to necessitate consideration. The ACI 318-05 equation

(Equation 2-8) and the AASHTO (2004) equation (Equation 2-9) are presented hereafter. The

ACI 318-05 equation is located in 11.6.3.1 of ACI 318-05, and the AASHTO (2004) equation is

presented in 5.8.3.6.2 of that specification. The ACI 318-05 equation is presented with V,

substituted on the left-hand side.


V < Vu + 1p7Ah (2-8)
b" d 1 .7A2 h
Where
V, = factored shear force at section (lb.)
bwd = area of section resisting shear, taken as Aoh (in.2)
T, = factored torsional moment at section (in.-lb.)
ph = perimeter of centerline of outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement (in.)
Aoh = area enclosed by centerline of the outermost closed transverse torsional
reinforcement (in.2)

The AASHTO (2004) equation that is presented (Equation 2-9) is intended for the

calculation of the factored shear force. For the purpose of this project, the right-hand side of the

equation was considered.










V V = V (.92Ao (2-9)

Where
V, = factored shear force (kip)
ph = perimeter of the centerline of the closed transverse reinforcement (in.)
T, = factored torsional moment (kip-in.)

The determination of whether or not shear had to be considered was made based on a

comparison of the magnitudes of the coefficients of these terms. This is investigated further in

Chapter 3.

2.3.4 ACI Concrete Breakout Strength for Anchors

In ACI 318-05 Appendix D, the concrete breakout strength is defined as, "the strength

corresponding to a volume of concrete surrounding the anchor or group of anchors separating

from the member." A concrete breakout failure can result from either an applied tension or an

applied shear. In this report, the concrete breakout strength of an anchor in shear, D.6.2, will be

studied. The breakout strength for one anchor loaded by a shear force directed perpendicular to a

free edge (Figure 2-5) is given in Equation 2-10.


Vb = 7 f(c)5 (2-10)

Where
Vb = basic concrete breakout strength in shear of a single anchor in cracked concrete
(lb.)
Se = load bearing length of anchor for shear (in.)
do = outside diameter of anchor (in.)
ca, = distance from the center of an anchor shaft to the edge of concrete in one
direction; taken in the direction of the applied shear (in.)

The term te is limited to 8do according to D.6.2.2. The equations in ACI 318-05 were

developed based on a 5% fractile and with the strength in uncracked concrete equal to 1.4 times

the strength in cracked concrete. The mean concrete breakout strength in uncracked concrete is

provided in Fuchs et al. (1995) and given in Equation 2-11.










Vb =13 d, J(c1)15 (2-11)


For a group of anchors, Equation 2-12 applies. This equation is the nominal concrete

breakout strength for a group of anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge in shear.

A,
Vcbg V= ,Vec,v Ved,V c Vb (2-12)

Where
Vcbg = nominal concrete breakout strength in shear of a group of anchors (lb.)
Av = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor or group of anchors, for
calculation of strength in shear (in.2)
Avco = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor, for calculation of strength in
shear, if not limited by corner influences, spacing, or member thickness (in.2)
= 4.5(ca1)2, based on a 350 failure cone (Figure 2-6)
fe, v = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on eccentricity of applied
loads, ACI 318-05 D.6.2.5
qed, v = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on proximity to edges of
concrete member, ACI 318-05 D.6.2.6
qci,v = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on presence or absence of
cracks in concrete and presence or absence of supplementary reinforcement,
ACI 318-05 D.6.2.7, accounted for in Equation 2-11

The resultant breakout strength is for a shear load directed perpendicular to the edge of the

concrete. Therefore, an adjustment had to be made to account for the shear load acting parallel

to the edge since this was the type of loading that resulted from the torsion on the anchor group.

In D.5.2. l(c) a multiplication factor of two is prescribed to convert the value to a shear directed

parallel to the edge (Figure 2-7). Fuchs et al. (1995) notes that the multiplier is based on tests,

which indicated that the shear load that can be resisted when applied parallel to the edge is

approximately two times a shear load applied perpendicular to the edge.

In order to convert the breakout strength to a torsion, the dimensions of the test specimen

were considered to calculate what was called the nominal torsional moment based on the

concrete breakout strength, Tn,breakout.









2.3.5 Alternate Concrete Breakout Strength Provisions

In the book Anchorage in Concrete Construction, Eligehausen et al. (2006), the authors

presented a series of equations for the determination of the concrete strength based on a concrete

edge failure. These equations are presented in Chapter 4, 4.1.2.4 of the text. Equation 2-13 is

the average concrete breakout strength of a single anchor loaded in shear. It must be noted that

this equation is for uncracked concrete.

Vc =3.0 -do fc c0 (2-13)
0 e c200 al
Where
oV,c = concrete failure load of a near-edge shear loaded anchor (N)
do = outside diameter of anchor (mm)
te = effective load transfer length (mm)
fcc200oo = specified concrete compressive strength based on cube tests (N/mm2)
S1.i18f'c
ca, = edge distance, measured from the longitudinal axis of the anchor (mm)

a =0.1- e
\a

S = 0.1. do
C al

As was the case for the ACI 318-05 equations, the term te is limited to 8do. Equation 2-14

accounts for the group effect of the anchors loaded concentrically. The authors stated that cases

where more than two anchors are present have not been extensively studied. They did, however,

state that the equation should be applicable as long as there is no slip between the anchor and the

base plate.


AV A V~ (2-14)

Where
Av = projected area of failure surface for the anchorage as defined by the overlap
of individual idealized failure surfaces of adjacent anchors (mm2)
Avco = projected area of the fully developed failure surface for a single anchor
idealized as a half-pyramid with height ca1 and base lengths 1.5ca1 and 3ca1 (mm2)









ACI 318-05 specifies that, in order to convert the failure shear directed perpendicular to

the edge to the shear directed parallel to the edge, a multiplier of two be applied to the resultant

load. The provisions outlined in this text take a more in-depth approach to determining this

multiplier. The method for calculating this multiplier is detailed in 4.1.2.5 of Eligehausen et al.

(2006). The authors stated that, based on previous research, the concrete edge breakout capacity

for loading parallel to an edge is approximately two times the capacity for loading perpendicular

to the edge if the edge distance is constant. The authors further moved to outline equations to

calculate the multiplier based on the angle of loading. The first equation (Equation 2-15) that is

presented in the text is a generalized approach for calculating the multiplier when the angle of

loading is between 550 and 900 of the axis perpendicular to the edge. For loading parallel to the

edge the angle is classified as 900 (Figure 2-7).

1
=aV = .(2-15)
cosa + 0.5sina
Where
Wa,v = factor to account for the angle between the shear load applied and the
direction perpendicular to the free edge of the concrete member
a = angle of the shear load with respect to the perpendicular load

This equation results in a factor of two for loading parallel to the edge. Equation 2-16

provides the concrete breakout strength for shear directed parallel to the edge using qfa,v.

VUyC = Va'V *.Vu,c (2-16)
Where
Vuc,a= concrete failure load for shear directed parallel to an edge based on qa,v (N)

An alternate equation for calculating this factor is also presented in the Eligehausen et al.

(2006) text. This equation is only valid for loading parallel to the edge. This equation is based

on research proposing that the multiplier to calculate the concrete breakout capacity for loading

parallel to the edge based on the capacity for loading perpendicular to the edge is not constant.









Rather, it suggested that it is based on the concrete pressure generated by the anchor. The base

equation for the application of this factor is Equation 2-17.

Suc, parallel = parallel V ,c (2-17)
Where
V ,= concrete failure load in the case of shear parallel to the edge (N)
parallel = factor to account for shear parallel to the edge
Vu,c = concrete failure load in the case of shear perpendicular to the edge (N)

Equation 2-18 is used for the determination of the conversion factor parallel.


=' parallel = 4- k n' cc (2-18)

Where
k4 = 1.0 for fastenings without hole clearance
0.75 for fastenings with hole clearance
n = number of anchors loaded in shear
fcc = specified compressive strength of the concrete (N/mm2)
conversion tof'c as specified for Equation 2-13

The results of Equation 2-13 through Equation 2-18 are presented alongside the ACI 318-

05 equation results in Chapter 3. These are presented for comparative purposes only.

2.3.6 ACI 318-05 vs. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

In Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.3, both the applicable design equations in ACI 318-05 and

AASHTO (2004) were presented. As was shown, the ACI and AASHTO equations were the

same. Additionally, the provisions for the concrete breakout failure capacity are only provided

in ACI 318-05. AASHTO does not provide design guidelines for this failure. Therefore, the

ACI 318-05 equations were used throughout the course of this research program.






























Figure 2-1. Cantilever sign structure at Exit 79 on Interstate 4 in Orlando


Figure 2-2. New foundation installed at the site






























Figure 2-3. Failed foundation during post-failure excavation


Figure 2-4. Concrete breakout of an anchor caused by shear directed parallel to the edge for a
circular foundation




















Vb












.. .. . . ... .
: : :. : : : : : : :


. . . . . . . . .
. '. . . . . . . . .





...............................
. . . . a






. . . . . . .


Figure 2-5. Concrete breakout failure for an anchor loaded in shear


. -.. . ..
. . . .
.'." ".'.'.'.'.'.'."
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."
.'.'-.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-".
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."




. .... . . .. .
. ... . . .. .
. .... . . .. .

. . .... -.. . ..
. . .... ... . ..


1.5cal


A vco=. 5cal 2(1.5cal)

=4.5(al)2


Figure 2-6. Determination ofAvco based on the 35 failure cone


..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
. . . . . .
...........
..............................
.............. ...............
..............................
.............. ...............
............... ..............
.............. ...............
..............................
.............. ...............
. . . . . . . .
..............
0 . . ......

.............








































::::::::::::::::::::::: ... ...Perpendicular

. . .. . .. .. . . A.i












. .4. ..:. .






.I ...


Figure 2-7. Shear load oriented (a) perpendicular to the edge and (b) parallel to the edge


................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................


.............
. . . . . . .

.............
...............
...............
...............
................
.............
.. ...............
...............




...............................
. . . . . . . . .
...............................
. . . . . .
..........
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .


. . . . . . . .
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................









CHAPTER 3
DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

After a thorough background investigation, it was determined that the most likely cause of

the failure was the concrete breakout of an anchor loaded by a shear force directed parallel to a

free edge. The shear force on the individual anchors was caused by torsion applied to the bolt

group from the sign post. Based on this determination, an experimental program was formulated

to determine if this was in fact the failure mode of the foundation. Therefore, it was of the

utmost importance to design the test apparatus to preclude other failure modes. This chapter

focuses on the development of the experimental program.

3.1 Description of Test Apparatus

The test apparatus was designed such that the field conditions could be closely modeled for

testing at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Structures Research Center. A

schematic of the test apparatus is shown in Figure 3-1. The test apparatus consisted of:

* A 30" (762 mm) diameter concrete shaft that extended 3'-0" (914 mm) outward from the
concrete block

* Twelve 37" (940 mm), 1.5" (38.1 mm) diameter F1554 Grade 105 anchor bolts embedded
into the concrete around a 20" (508 mm) diameter

* A 16" (406 mm) diameter steel pipe assembly welded to a 24" (610 mm) diameter, 1"
(25.4 mm) thick steel base plate with holes drilled for the anchor bolts to provide the
connection between the bolts and pipe assembly

* A 6'-0" x 10'-0" x 2'-6" (1830 mm x 3050 mm x 762 mm) reinforced concrete block to
provide a fixed support at the base of the shaft

* Two assemblies of C 12x30 steel channels and plates to attach the block to the floor

The base for the design of the various components of the test apparatus was one half of the

size of the failed foundation investigated during the site visit. The dimensions of the field

foundation are presented in Table 3-1. From that point, the elements of the test apparatus were

designed to preclude all failure modes other than the concrete breakout failure of the anchors.









Information pertaining to the design of the components of the apparatus is presented in the

following sections. Figures 3-2 through 3-4 are drawings of the test apparatus. For large scale

dimensioned drawings, reference Appendix A. Complete design calculations are located in

Appendix B.

3.2 Shaft Design

The starting point for the design of the concrete shaft was based on developing a test

specimen approximately one half of the size of the foundation that was investigated during the

site visit. From there, the various components of the shaft were designed the meet the ACI 318-

05 requirements, and to prevent failure before the concrete breakout strength was reached and

exceeded. All of the strengths were calculated using a concrete strength of 5500 psi (37.9 MPa),

which was the strength indicated on the FDOT standard drawings.

3.2.1 Torsion Design

The basic threshold torsional strength of the shaft, 24.6 kip-ft (33.4 kN-m) was calculated

using the ACI 318-05 torsional strength equation (Equation 2-3). This strength, however, did not

take into account the reinforcement in the shaft. Therefore, it was assumed that the threshold

torsion would be exceeded. As a result, the torsional strength of the shaft was based on the

nominal torsional strength.

In order to calculate the torsional strength that the shaft would exhibit during testing, the

ACI nominal torsional strength equation was applied. Before the strength was calculated, the

minimum requirements for the shaft reinforcement were followed as outlined in ACI 318-05

7.10.5.6 and 11.6.5.1. The nominal torsional strength (Equation 2-6) was then calculated for

the specimen. This value, 253 kip-ft (343 kN-m), was compared to the concrete breakout

strength. The spacing of the hoop steel in the shaft was altered until the nominal torsional

strength exceeded the concrete breakout strength. Hence, if the concrete breakout failure was the









correct failure mode, it would occur before the torsional capacity of the shaft was exceeded

during testing.

3.2.2 Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement

As was outlined in the previous section, the required amount of hoop steel to meet the ACI

318-05 specifications was determined using guidelines from Chapters 7 and 11 in the code. The

resultant hoop steel layout was twenty-four #4 bars spaced evenly around a 27 in. (686 mm)

diameter circle. The transverse hoops were comprised of #3 bars at 2.5 in. (635 mm) totaling

fourteen #3 bar hoops. The required splice for the #3 bar was 12 in. (305 mm), and the

development length required for the #4 bar into the concrete block was 8 in. (203 mm) with a 6

in. (152 mm) hook. In the test setup, the #4 bars extended 27 in. (686 mm) into the block, which

exceeded the required length. This length was used for simplicity in design and construction of

the test setup. The #4 bars were tied into one of the cages of reinforcement in the concrete block.

3.2.3 Flexure

Due to the eccentric loading of the bolts, the flexural capacity of the shaft had to be

calculated. It had to be determined that the shaft would not fail in flexure under the load applied

during testing. The flexural reinforcement in the shaft was the longitudinal reinforcement, the #4

bars. The first step to determine the capacity was to assume the number of bars that would have

yielded at the time of failure. From that point, the neutral axis of the shaft was located following

the ACI 318-05 concrete stress block methodology presented in Chapter 10 of the code. It was

then checked if the number of bars that had yielded was a good assumption. Once this was

verified, the nominal moment capacity of the shaft was calculated, and, then, compared to the

maximum flexural moment based on the concrete breakout capacity. The flexural capacity of the

shaft, 262 kip-ft (355 kN-m), exceeded the maximum flexural moment on the shaft, 60.6 kip-ft

(95.2 kN-m).









3.3 Anchor Design


3.3.1 Diameter of Anchor Bolts

The starting point for the diameter of the F1554 Grade 105 anchor bolts to be used in the

test apparatus was based on half the diameter of those in the field specimen. The size determined

using that methodology was 1 in. (25.4 mm). Once the concrete breakout strength capacity of

the anchors was determined, the corresponding shear load on each of the bolts was calculated.

The anchor bolt diameter had to be increased to 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) in order to ensure that the bolts

would not experience steel failure in flexure or shear. The maximum flexure on the bolts was

calculated by taking the maximum shear applied to each bolt and calculating the corresponding

maximum flexural moment (Figure 3-5). The lever arm (Equation 3-1) for the calculation of the

capacity was defined in Eligehausen et al. (2006) Section 4.1.2.2 b.

S= e1 +a3 (3-1)
Where:
/ = lever arm for the shear load (in.)
el = distance between the shear load and surface of concrete (in.)
a3 = 0.5-do, without presence of a nut on surface of concrete, Figure 3-5 (in.)
0, with a nut on surface of concrete

The base plate was restrained against rotation, and translation was only possible in the

direction of the applied shear load. The maximum applied moment for each bolt was calculated

based on these support conditions and the lever arm calculation. Full fixity occurred a distance

a3 into the shaft.

Using the section modulus of the bolts, the stress was then calculated and compared to the

yield strength of the bolts, 105 ksi (724 MPa). The shear strength of the bolts was calculated

using the provisions in Appendix D of ACI 318-05. In both cases it was determined that the

bolts had sufficient strength.









3.3.2 Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear Parallel to a Free Edge

The breakout strength provisions outlined in ACI 318-05 Appendix D and the breakout

provisions introduced in Eligehausen et al. (2006) were applied to the design of the shaft.

Equation 2-11, from ACI 318-05, was used as the primary equation for the calculation of the

breakout strength. In order to apply the ACI provisions to the circular foundation a section of the

concrete was ignored (Figure 3-6). If the full cover, c, was used in the calculation, the failure

region would have included area outside of the circle. Rather than extending beyond the edge of

the concrete, the 35 degree failure cone (Figure 2-6) was extended to the edge of the shaft as

shown in Figure 3-6. Equation 3-2 was developed to determine the adjusted cover, cal.

r2 +3.25(r2 r 2)r
a = (3-2)
3.25
Where
rb = radius measured from the centerline of the bolt to the center of the foundation (in.)
(Figure 3-6)
r = radius of circular foundation (in.)

As presented in Section 2.3.4, the projected concrete failure area for a single anchor, Avco,

is equivalent to 4.5(ca1)2. Figure 3-7 illustrates the development of the projected concrete failure

area for a group of anchors, Avc, as a function of the number of bolts, n, the radius of the shaft, r,

and the adjusted cover. The resultant concrete breakout strength using the adjusted cover

approach was conservative relative to assuming the full cover.

Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4 are used to calculate the concrete breakout torsion,

Tn,breakout, and are based on the ACI provisions for shear parallel to the free edge.


For A_ < sin-' 1 5c
A~ )

],breakout = 2 AVC Vb rb (3-3)
AVco










For A > sin 1.5cal (i.e. no overlap of failure cones)

] =,breakout = 2 n Vb .rb (3-4)
Where
A = angle of circular sector for each bolt (deg) (Figure 3-7)
ca, = adjusted cover (in.) (Equation 3-2)
rb = radius measured from the centerline of the bolt to the center of the foundation (in.)
(Figure 3-6)
Avc = projected concrete failure area of a group of anchors (in.2) (Figure 3-7)
A, = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor (in.2) (Figure 3-6)
Vb = concrete breakout strength in shear for a single anchor calculated using Equation 2-
11 with ca, as calculated in Equation 3-2 (lb.)
n = number of bolts

Using Equation 3-3, the ACI concrete breakout torsion for the test specimen was

determined to be 182 kip-ft (247 kN-m), which was less than the nominal torsional capacity.

During the analysis of the design equations, an issue arose regarding the calculation of the

Eligehausen et al. (2006) factor Vparallel. The result of Equation 2-18 was 4.06 compared to the

ACI 318-05 factor and qa,v of 2.0. This prompted an investigation of the application of the

multiplier to the circular foundation in this research program.

The majority of the tests for the determination of Vu,c (Equation 2-14) were for groups of

two bolts. Therefore, it was investigated how the Avc/Avo term is affected by the spacing

between the bolts and the number of bolts. Figure 3-8 shows that for spacing, s, of 3. Oca or

greater there is no overlap of the breakout cones. In those cases the strength is the sum of the

single anchor strengths. Figure 3-9 illustrates the overlap of the breakout cones. The Avc/Avoc

term is used to calculate the breakout strength for the case where the failure cones overlap.

Av/Avco can be normalized by dividing by the number of bolts. An increase in the number

of bolts at the same spacing along a straight edge leads to a reduction in the normalized A V/AVco

term. This reduction is illustrated in Figure 3-10. The contribution of the failure cone

outstanding "legs" at the ends of the group area, Ave, decreases as the number of bolts increases.









For a circular foundation, with s<3. Ocal, there is a constant overlap of the failure cones with no

outstanding "legs" (Figure 3-11). The equivalent number of bolts along a straight edge is taken

as infinity in order to represent a circular foundation (i.e. no outstanding "legs"). Therefore, the

normalized Avc/Avco term for this case was calculated for an infinite number of bolts at the

prescribed spacing for the foundation. To convert these ratios into a multiplier for WVparallel, the

ratio of the normalized A vc/Avco for an infinite number of bolts to the normalized term for two

bolts was calculated. That multiplier, 0.52, was applied to the parallel term resulting in an

adjusted parallel of 2.1. This resulting value agreed with the ACI 318-05 factor and the

Eligehausen et al. (2006) factor qaW,vof 2.0.

The resultant concrete breakout torsions, based on the Eligehausen et al. (2006) concrete

breakout strength (Equation 2-13), were 167 kip-ft (227 kN-m) using parallel of 2.1 in Equation

2-17, and 159 kip-ft (216 kN-m) using Ia,Tv of 2.0 in Equation 2-16. These torsions were

calculated using the same moment arm, rb, used in Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4. These results

and the results of the other calculations are summarized in Table 3-2.

3.3.3 Development Length of the Bolts

Another key aspect of the shaft design was to ensure that the anchor bolts were fully

developed. In order to meet the code requirements, the splice length between the #4 bars and

anchor bolts was calculated using the development length equations presented in ACI 318-05

Chapter 12. The bolts needed overlap the #4 bars across 26.7 in. (678 mm), and in the test setup

the overlap was 29 in. (737 mm). Therefore, this requirement was met.

3.4 Steel Pipe Apparatus Design

The components of the steel pipe apparatus included the pipe, which was loaded during

testing, and the base plate. The pipe design was based on the interaction between torsion,

flexure, and shear as presented in AISC (2001), LRFD Manual of Steel Construction-LRFD









Specification for Steel Hollow Structural Sections. Each of the individual capacities was

calculated for various pipe diameters and thicknesses. The individual strengths were compared

to the projected failure loads for testing, the concrete breakout failure loads. In addition to

verifying that the capacity of the pipe exceeded those loads, the interaction of the three capacities

was verified. The purpose was to check that the sum of the squares of the ultimate loads divided

by the capacities was less than one. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that an HSS 16.000

x 0.500 pipe would provide sufficient strength.

In order to load the pipe, it needed to have a ninety degree bend in it. This was achieved

by welding two portions of pipe cut on forty-five degree angles to a steel plate. The weld size

for this connection was determined such that the effective throat thickness would equal the

thickness of the pipe, which was 0.50 in. (12.7 mm).

The factors included in the design of the base plate were the diameter of the pipe, required

weld size, bolt hole diameter, and the required distance between the edge of the bolt hole and the

edge of the plate. The required width of the weld between the base plate and the pipe was

calculated such that the applied torsion could be transferred to the plate without failing the weld.

From that point, the bolt hole location diameter had to be checked to ensure that there was

sufficient clearance between the weld and the nuts. It was important that the nuts could be fully

tightened on the base plate. A 0.25 in. (6.35 mm) oversize was specified for the bolt hole

diameter. This oversize was based on the standard oversize used in the field. Beyond that point,

it was ensured that there would be sufficient cover distance between the bolt hole and the edge of

the plate.

The design of the components of the steel pipe apparatus was crucial because these pieces

had to operate efficiently in order to correctly apply load to the bolts. If the apparatus were to









fail during testing, the objective of the research could not be achieved. The weight of the pipe

apparatus was calculated in order to normalize the load during testing. The load applied to the

anchorage would be the load cell reading less the weight of the pipe apparatus.

3.5 Concrete Block Design

The design of the concrete block was based on several key factors to ensure that it served

its purpose as a fixed support at the base of the shaft. The amount of reinforcement required was

based on a strut-and-tie model of the block as outlined in ACI 318-05 Appendix A and, as an

alternate approach, beam theory to check the shear strength and flexural strength of the block.

For the flexural capacity calculations, the ACI 318-05 concrete stress block provisions were

utilized. Based on the results of both approaches, it was determined that 3 #8 bars, each with a

12 in. (305 mm) hook on both ends, spaced across the top and the bottom of the block were

required. Additionally, two cages of #4 bars were placed in the block on the front and back faces

meeting the appropriate cover requirements to serve as supplementary reinforcement. The

purpose of reinforcing the block was to ensure structural stability of the block throughout the

testing process.

Two channel apparatuses were also designed in order to tie the block to the floor of the

laboratory in order to resist overturning. The loads that had to be resisted by each tie-down were

calculated such that the floor capacity of 100 kips (445 kN) per tie-down would not be exceeded.

The channels were designed in accordance with the provisions set forth in AISC (2001). The

welds between the channels and steel plates had to be sufficiently designed such that the

channels would act as a single unit thereby transferring load from the plates through the

channels. Also, the channels were spaced far enough apart to fit 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) bolts between

the channels. A 0.25 in. (6.35 mm) oversize was specified for the spacing of the channels and the

holes in the steel plates. The construction drawings for the channels are located in Appendix A.









In addition to assuring that the concrete block system had sufficient capacity to resist the

applied load, the bearing strength of the concrete had to be calculated. This was done in order to

verify that the concrete would not fail in the region that was in contact with the steel channels.

The bearing strength was found to be sufficient. As a result, it was concluded that the concrete

block system would efficiently serve as a fixed connection, and under the loading conditions it

would not prematurely fail.

3.6 Combined Shear and Torsion

As was presented in Chapter 2, a calculation had to be carried out to ensure that shear need

not be considered in the design. Rather than inputting the values for the ultimate shear and

ultimate torsion into Equation 2-8, the coefficients of these terms were calculated. The base for

doing so was to input the torsion as a function of the shear. For the test specimen, the ultimate

torsion, T,, was taken as the moment arm multiplied by the ultimate shear, Vu. The moment arm

for the load was 9 ft. (2740 mm). As an alternate approach, the actual concrete breakout strength

and the corresponding shear could have been inputted into the equation rather than the generic

variables. The result of the calculation to determine the coefficients was that the coefficient for

the shear term was 1 compared to a coefficient of 88 for the torsion term. This calculation

sufficiently verified that the shear contribution could be ignored in design.

3.7 Overview

The previous sections detailed the design of the various components of the experimental

program. It was of the utmost important to verify that the apparatuses not pertaining to the

foundation failure would not fail during testing (i.e. concrete block system and pipe apparatus).

Furthermore, all other foundation failure modes had to be precluded in the design. This ensured

that if the concrete breakout failure in shear was the failure mode it would be observed during

testing.









Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13 show the fully assembled test specimen at the Florida

Department of Transportation Structures Research Center.










--CONCRETE BLOCK

SHAFT

BASE PLATE

PIPE ASSEMBLY
hL I


I LOAD LOCATION

Figure 3-1. Schematic of test apparatus


Figure 3-2. Front elevation of test apparatus




































Figure 3-3. Plan view of test apparatus


Figure 3-4. Side elevation of test apparatus























Leveling Nut


Figure 3-5. Lever arm for the calculation of bolt flexure


Figure 3-6. Adjusted cover based on a single anchor and 350 failure cone









chord = 2r sin -

r^sin
\ /,..2


Figure 3-7. Development of the projected failure area for the group of anchors around a circular
foundation

1.5ca, 1.5ca, 1..5c 1.5c

Cal


s=3. 0c1a

Figure 3-8. Two anchor arrangement displays the minimum spacing such that no overlap of the
failure cones occurs


Figure 3-9. Overlap of failure cones


II r H











"Leg"_ "Leg"




A Vc
Leg" "Leg"





Figure 3-10. The contribution of the "legs" of the failure cone to Avc along a straight edge
decreases as the number of bolts increases


Figure 3-11. Overlap of failure cones for a circular foundation
































Figure 3-12. Assembled test specimen


Figure 3-13. Shaft with pipe apparatus attached prior to instrumentation being attached









Table 3-1. Field dimensions
Component Field Dimension
Shaft Diameter 60 in.
Hoop Steel Diameter 46 in
Hoop Steel Size #5
Longitudinal Steel #9
Size
Anchor Bolt Diameter 2 in.
Anchor Embedment 55 in.
Bolt Spacing 36 in.
Diameter
Base Plate Diameter 42 in.
Base Plate Thickness 11/ in.

Table 3-2. Summary of design calculations
Component Design Type
Shaft
Cracking Torsion
Basic Torsion
Threshold Torsion
Nominal Torsion
Anchor
ACI Concrete
Breakout
Eligehausen et al.
Concrete Breakout
Eligehausen et al.
Concrete Breakout
Bolt Flexure
Bolt Shear


Equation Reference


(2-1)
(2-2)
(2-3)
(2-4)

(2-12)

(2-16)

(2-17)


Result


131 kip-ft
131 kip-ft
24.6 kip-ft
253 kip-ft

182 kip-ft

159 kip-ft

167 kip-ft

253 kip-ft
1756 kip-ft









CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF TESTING PROGRAM

In order to proceed with testing the specimen presented in Chapter 3, important

considerations had to be made. The first area under consideration was the concrete strength. It

was important to determine this to calculate the predicted failure mode prior to testing. Also, the

flexural and shear strengths of the bolts were calculated using the specified yield strength. The

other area that was of key importance was the instrumentation. The instrumentation was

required to produce meaningful data during testing. The other section of this chapter is on the

carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap used in the retrofit test.

4.1 Materials

4.1.1 Concrete Strength

As it was stated in Chapter 3, the initial calculations for the design of the test setup were

carried out on the assumption of a concrete strength of 5500 psi (37.9 MPa). The concrete

breakout strength was recalculated based on the concrete strength at the time of testing. On the

date of the test, the concrete strength was 6230 psi (43 MPa). This strength was calculated based

on the average of three 6 in. (152 mm) x 12 in. (305 mm) cylinder tests.

4.1.2 Bolt Strength

The yield strength of the F1554 Grade 105 anchor bolts was assumed to be 105 ksi (723.95

MPa). This was used to calculate the flexural strength and shear strength of the bolts.

4.1.3 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrap

The first test was considered concluded after significant cracking and when the test

specimen stopped picking up additional load. The loading was ceased before the specimen

completely collapsed. The reason for doing so was to enable a second test to be performed on

the specimen after it was retrofitted with a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap. The









second test verified whether the CFRP wrap was an acceptable means to retrofit the failed

foundation.

The amount of CFRP that was applied to the shaft was determined by calculating the

amount of CFRP required to bring the shaft back to its initial concrete breakout strength. The

CFRP wrap that was used for the retrofit was SikaWrap Hex 230C. The properties of the wrap

were obtained and the ultimate tensile strength was used to calculate the required amount that

needed to be applied. The property specifications for the SikaWrap were based on the mean

strength minus 2 standard deviations. ACI (2002), ACI 440.R-02, 3.3.1 specifies that the

nominal strength to be used for design be based on the mean strength less 3 standard deviations.

Therefore, the design strength provided by Sika was adjusted to ensure that the design met the

ACI specifications.

The method for calculating the amount of CFRP required was to convert the torsion to a

shear load per bolt. The shear load, which was directed parallel to the edge, had to be adjusted to

such that it was directed perpendicular to the edge. In order to do this, the ACI multiplier of 2

was divided from the load. That load per bolt directed perpendicular to the edge was converted

to a pressure around the circumference of the shaft. The equivalent tension that had to be

resisted by the CFRP wrap was then calculated, and the amount of CFRP to provide that tensile

strength was determined. Figure 4-1 illustrates this method.

Two layers of the wrap were prescribed to meet the ACI concrete breakout strength based

on assuming that the full 12 in. (305mm) width of the CFRP wrap would not be effective.

Rather, it was assumed that the depth of the concrete breakout failure cone based on the cover,

1.5-cover, was the effective width, 7.5 in. (191 mm). Three layers of the CFRP wrap were

applied to the specimen. The addition of the extra layer exceeded the required strength, so it was









deemed acceptable. Once the wrap was set, the retrofit test was carried out. Calculations for the

design of the CFRP wrap layout are located in Appendix B.

4.2 Instrumentation

4.2.1 Linear Variable Displacement Transducers

Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) were placed at the location of the

load cell, and at various points along the shaft and base plate. A total often LVDTs were

utilized in the project. Figure 4-2 is a schematic of the layout of the LVDTs on the base plate.

Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show the location of the LVDTs on the shaft, and Figure 4-5 shows

the LVDT at the load location. The denotation for each of the LVDTs is also on the drawings.

These identification codes were used to denote the LVDTs during testing. The purpose of the

LVDTs along the shaft and base plate was to allow for the rotation of the base plate to be

measured during the testing. The LVDTs at the front and back of the shaft were to allow for the

rotation to be measured relative to the rotation of the shaft. The intent in the project was such

that the shaft would not rotate; only the base plate would rotate as the bolts were loaded. The

horizontal LVDT on the base plate was intended to indicate if there was any horizontal

movement of the base plate. The rotation of the base plate was calculated using Equation 4-1.

RDi +-Dz} (4-1)
R = tan (4-1)
D gage
Where
R = base plate rotation (rad)
D1v = displacement of LVDT D1V (in.)
Ds = displacement of LVDT D3 (in.)
Dgage = distance between LVDTs D1V and D3 (in.)

Once the test apparatus was assembled, the distance Dgage was measured. This distance

was 26.31 in. (668 mm). Figure 4-6 shows LVDTs D1V and D4 on the test specimen.









4.2.2 Strain Gages

Strain gages were attached to the base plate on the outer surface adjacent to the bolt holes

in order to determine how may bolts were actively transferring load given the 1.75 in. (44.5 mm)

holes for the 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) anchors. In applying the ACI 318-05 equation for concrete

breakout strength of an anchor in shear directed parallel to an edge (Equation 2-12) it was of key

importance to know how many bolts were carrying the load. For instance, if two bolts were

carrying the load, the concrete would fail at a lower load than if all twelve bolts were carrying

the load. In addition to showing the placement of the LVDTs, Figure 4-2 also details the

location of the strain gages on the base plate. Figure 4-7 shows the denotation of the strain gages

relative to the bolt number, and Figure 4-8 shows a strain gage on the base plate of the test

specimen. Note that the bolt numbering starts at one at the top of the plate and increases as you

move clockwise around the base plate.
















Divide by 2



J T


TCFRP c ^FRP \


Figure 4-1. Method for the determination of the tension, TCFRP, that must be resisted by the
CFRP wrap



















Strain


Figure 4-2. Instrumentation layout on the base plate

















D6


Figure 4-3. Instrumentation layout on face of shaft







I


Figure 4-4. Instrumentation layout on rear of shaft/face of concrete block


I D1


Figure 4-5. Instrumentation layout of pipe at load location



























Figure 4-6. Location of LVDTs D1V, D4, and D7 on the test specimen

Bolt 1
/


Figure 4-7. Strain gage layout on base plate






















Figure 4-8. Strain gage on base plate of test specimen







Figure 4-8. Strain gage on base plate of test specimen









CHAPTER 5
TEST RESULTS

Two tests were performed on the test specimen. The initial test was conducted to

determine whether the concrete breakout failure was the failure mode demonstrated in the field.

The verification of this was based on the crack pattern and the failure load recorded. If the

failure torsion was the concrete breakout failure torsion, then the hypothesized failure mode

would be verified. The retrofit test was performed on the same test specimen. This test was

completed to establish whether a CFRP wrap was an acceptable retrofit for the foundation.

5.1 Initial Test

5.1.1 Behavior of Specimen During Testing

The initial test on the foundation was carried out on 31 August 2006 at the Florida

Department of Transportation Structures Research Center. The test specimen was gradually

loaded during the testing. Throughout the test, the formation of cracks on the surface of the

concrete was monitored (Figures 5-1 and 5-2). At 90 kip-ft (122 kN-m), the first cracks began to

form. When 108 kip-ft (146 kN-m) was reached, it was observed that the cracks were not

extending further down the length of the shaft. Those cracks that had formed began to slightly

widen. These cracks, Figure 5-1, were characteristic of those that form during the concrete

breakout failure. At 148 kip-ft (201 kN-m), cracks spanning between the bolts had formed

(Figure 5-3). The foundation continued to be loaded until the specimen stopped taking on more

load. The torsion load peaked at 200 kip-ft (271 kN-m). Loading ceased and was released when

the applied torsion fell to 190 kip-ft (258 kN-m). The predicted concrete breakout capacity of

the shaft at the time of testing was calculated as 193 kip-ft (262 kN-m) (Equation 3-3).

At failure, the foundation displayed the characteristic cracks that one would see in a

concrete breakout failure (Figure 5-4). As intended, the bolts did not yield, and the shaft did not









fail in torsion. Data was reduced to formulate applied torsion versus plate rotation and applied

torsion versus bolt strain plots. The Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot (Figure 5-5) shows

that the bolts ceased taking on additional load after the noted concrete breakout failure due to the

shear parallel to the edge resulting from the applied torsion. It also exhibits slope changes at the

loads where crack development started or the existing cracks were altered. The first slope

change at 108 kip-ft (146 kN-m) coincided with the widening of the characteristic diagonal

cracks on the front face of the shaft. The second change occurred at 148 kip-ft (201 kN-m)

corresponding with the formation of cracks between the bolts.

5.1.2 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing

Figure 5-6 displays the Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain plots for each bolt relative to its

location on the foundation. Recall that the term bolt strain refers the measurement of the strain

in the base plate at the bolt location. The strain was a result of the bolt carrying load. The first

line on the plots in Figure 5-6 is 50 kip-ft (67.8 kN-m). At this level, all of the bolts were

carrying load with the exception of bolts one, six, and eight. At the next level, 100 kip-ft (136

kN-m) bolt one picked up load, but bolts six and eight remained inactive.

It must be noted that, at 108 kip-ft (138 kN-m), which was the first slope change on the

Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation Plot, a redistribution of the loading occurred. This

redistribution is illustrated in Figure 5-7. As the cracks widened, those bolts that were

transferring the majority of the load were able to move more freely, and, therefore, the other

bolts became more active in transferring the load to the foundation. A similar redistribution to a

lesser degree occurred at approximately 148 kip-ft (201 kN-m), which coincided with the first

observation of cracks between the bolts.

As the various plots illustrate, some of the strain gages recorded negative strains, while

others recorded positive strains. This was most likely due to the bearing location of the bolt on









the base plate. Although this occurred, the relative strain readings were considered acceptable.

To further explore this phenomenon, strain gages were placed on the bottom of the base plate in

addition to those on the top for the second test.

5.1.3 Summary of Initial Test Results

The results of this test indicated that the concrete breakout failure was the failure mode

observed in the site investigation. The characteristic cracks and the structural integrity of the

bolts in the failed foundations, as observed during the site investigation, was the first step to

arriving at this failure mode. The percent difference between the failure torsion and the

predicted failure torsion (Equation 3-3) was 3.6%. Therefore, it was concluded that the

foundation failed at the failure torsion for the predicted failure mode. These results indicated

that the design methodology for cantilever sign foundations should include the concrete breakout

failure due to shear directed parallel to an edge resulting from torsional loading. All plots for the

first test are located in Appendix C.

5.2 CFRP Retrofit Test

After the results of the first test were reviewed, the need for a method to strengthen

existing foundations became apparent. Since the concrete breakout failure had not been

considered in the design of the cantilever sign structure foundations, a system had to be put in

place to evaluate whether or not those existing foundations would be susceptible to failure. One

economical method of retrofitting the existing foundations is the use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced

Polymer (CFRP) wraps.

Recall that, at the conclusion of the first test, the bolts had not yielded, and the concrete

was still intact. This enabled a second test on the failed foundation to be carried out. The key

focus of this second test was to determine if the foundation could reach its initial concrete

breakout strength again. The foundation was retrofitted with three layers of 12 in. (305 mm)









wide SikaWrap Hex 230C (Figure 5-8). This amount of CFRP exceeded the amount required to

attain the concrete breakout strength, 193 kip-ft (262 kN-m). The torsional strength of the shaft

with the CFRP wrap was calculated. The resultant strength based on the effective width, Section

4.1.3, of 1.5-cover, or 7.5 in. (191 mm), was 229 kip-ft (310 kN-m). Since that effective depth

was an assumption for design, the strength based on the full width, 12 in. (305 mm), of the wrap,

367 kip-ft (498 kN-m), was also calculated for reference.

5.2.1 Behavior of Specimen with CFRP Wrap During Testing

The second test was conducted on 13 September 2006. For this test, the concrete strength

was not required to be known, since the concrete had already failed. The containment provided

by the CFRP wrap, along with the anchor bolts, was the source of the strength of the foundation.

As the purpose of the second test was to learn how much load the foundation could take, and if

that load met or exceeded the concrete breakout strength, the load was not held for prolonged

periods at regular intervals during the test. Figure 5-9 is the Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation

plot for the second test. The foundation was closely monitored for crack formation along the

shaft, propagation of existing cracks, and failure of the CFRP wrap.

The strength of the foundation exceeded the predicted concrete breakout strength of 193

kip-ft (262 kN-m). It was not until the loading reached 257 kip-ft (348 kN-m) that the first pops

of the carbon fibers were heard. At that torsion load, the strength of the CFRP wrap based on the

effective depth, 229 kip-ft (310 kN-m), was exceeded. Therefore, the effective depth of the wrap

was a conservative assumption.

At approximately 288 kip-ft (390 kN-m) more pops were heard. However, the carbon fiber

did not fail. During the course of the test, characteristic torsion cracks began to form along the

shaft (Figure 5-10) and propagated to the base of the shaft. This occurred because the ACI 318-

05 nominal torsional strength (Equation 2-6) of 253 kip-ft (343 kN-m) was exceeded. Although









these cracks had formed, the foundation still had not failed. Another phenomenon that occurred

was the yielding of the bolts. According to the calculations for the yield strength of the bolts, the

bolts yielded at approximately 253 kip-ft (343 kN-m) of applied torsion. The strength was

determined using the same methodology outlined in Section 3.3.1. This was the within the range

in which the yielding was observed (Figure 5-9). The bolts were yielding, but they did not reach

their ultimate strength. The test abruptly concluded when the concrete block shifted out of place,

causing the load cell to be dislodged from its location on the pipe. This occurred at 323 kip-ft

(438 kN-m).

5.2.3 Behavior of Strain Gages During Testing

For the retrofit test, strain gages were placed on the top and bottom of the base plate.

Figure 5-11 shows each of the Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain plots at the appropriate bolt

locations. Note that as the loading increased, the bottom strain gages began to behave similarly

for all of the bolts. The strain was increasing at a higher rate. This illustrated that as the bolts

picked up load and began to bend, they were primarily in contact with the bottom of the base

plate (Figure 5-12). The strains recorded by the bottom gages indicate that all of the bolts

became active during the test.

Similar to the behavior of the bolts throughout the initial test, Figure 5-13 illustrates the

changes in the bolt strain data for the top gages corresponding with milestone loads during the

test.

5.2.4 Summary of Test Results

Upon removal of the pipe apparatus, the crack pattern illustrated the concrete breakout

failure, and torsional cracks in the center of the shaft verified that the torsional capacity was

exceeded during testing (Figure 5-14). Figure 5-15 details the characteristic torsion cracks on

the side of the shaft after testing. The test proved that the CFRP wrap was an acceptable method









for retrofitting the foundation. It exceeded the concrete breakout strength. The success of this

retrofit test led to the development of guidelines for the evaluation of existing foundations and

the guidelines for the retrofit of those foundations in need of repair. All plots for the retrofit test

are located in Appendix D.




















Figure 5-1. Initial cracks on face of shaft


f7


/


em &

it
I I -t4
'tt A\4a6


Figure 5-2. Initial cracks on face and side of shaft (alternate view of Figure 5-1)































Figure 5-3. Face of test specimen after testing exhibits cracks between the bolts along with the
characteristic concrete breakout cracks


Figure 5-4. Crack pattern on face of shaft after testing depicts characteristic concrete breakout
failure cracks

















250




200




S150
o


E 100
B.


50




0


Figure 5-5. Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation Plot- Initial Test














































68


Peak Applied
Torsion



Crack Formation
Between Bolts









Cracks Begin to
Widen







0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Rotation (deg)










































Figure 5-6. Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain Plots for each bolt at the appropriate location on the
base plate with Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot in center (full size plots in
Appendix C)




















200
Crack Formation
Between Bolts

S150,,- .7.- .. -. -




100
/ Cracks Begin to
Widen

50 '




0
-750 -600 -450 -300 -150 0 150 300 450 600 750
Microstrain



Figure 5-7. Bolt Strain Comparison Plot for Initial Test exhibits the redistribution of the load
coinciding with crack formations


Figure 5-8. Shaft with the CFRP wrap applied prior to testing
















350


300


S250


S200


150


100


50


0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Rotation (deg)


Figure 5-9. Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation Plot- Retrofit Test


Figure 5-10. Shaft exhibiting characteristic torsion cracks from face to base of shaft


4.5 5


























I 4I I I I I
10 I I






.... A ....7- ...-...A...-..











Figure 5-11. Applied Torsion vs. Bolt Strain plots for the Retrofit Test at the appropriate bolt
location around the base plate with Applied Torsion vs. Plate Rotation plot in center
(full size plots in Appendix D)


I Ell-













Base Plate







Bearing
Location


Figure 5-12. Bolt bearing on the bottom of the base plate during loading


350


300


250


".
S200


a 150


100


50


0


-1100 -825 -550 -275 0 275 550 825 1100
Microstrain


Figure 5-13. Bolt Strain Comparison plot for the retrofit test exhibits slope changes at milestone
loads


Bolts
Yielded






ACI Concrete
Breakout Strength

________^ H ^ ^ /- ____




-^y^--
































Figure 5-14. Face of shaft after test illustrates yielding of bolts, concrete breakout cracks around
the perimeter, and torsion cracks in the center.


Figure 5-15. Torsion cracks along length of the shaft after the test









CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this research program was to determine the cause of the failure of

foundations of cantilever sign structures during the 2004 hurricane season. After a thorough

literature review, in conjunction with the site investigation, and testing, it was determined that

the foundations failed as a result of an applied torsion which caused a concrete breakout failure

due to shear directed parallel to the edge on the anchors. This anchorage failure is detailed in

ACI 318-05 Appendix D. Previous to this experimental research, this failure mode was not

considered in the design of the cantilever sign foundations. Cantilever sign foundations need to

be designed for shear parallel to the edge on the anchor resulting from torsion.

Test results indicate that the failure of the foundations was caused by concrete breakout

due to shear directed parallel to the edge on the anchors. The test specimen failed at the torsion

predicted by the ACI 318-05 Appendix D design equations. Additionally, the crack pattern

matched the crack pattern exhibited in the field, and both foundations emulated the characteristic

crack pattern of the shear directed parallel to an edge for concrete breakout failure. It is

recommended that future tests be performed on circular foundations to further investigate the

concrete breakout failure for a shear load directed both parallel and perpendicular to an edge.

Additional testing was performed to determine an acceptable retrofit option. It was

determined that applying a CFRP wrap to the foundation strengthens the foundation such that it

not only meets its initial concrete breakout capacity, but, also, exceeds the capacity. The results

of this test led to the development of guidelines for the evaluation and repair of existing

foundations. The guidelines were based on the following:

S Using either the torsional load from the design or, if not available, using the ACI nominal
torsional strength (ACI 318-05 11.6.3.6), determine the torsional capacity of the
foundation.









* Calculate the concrete breakout strength in accordance with ACI Appendix D.

* If the concrete breakout strength is less than the maximum of the nominal torsional
strength and design torsion, then the foundation is susceptible to failure.

* The amount of the SikaWrap 230C required is calculated using the maximum of the
nominal torsional strength and the design torsion. The amount required is given in layers
of the CFRP wrap.

These guidelines were submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation. The

guidelines will be used to evaluate and, if necessary, repair the existing foundations. It is critical

that such foundations be evaluated in order to determine the susceptibility to this type of failure.

The proper use of the findings of this research program will allow for future prevention of the

failures exhibited during the 2004 hurricane season.







APPENDIX A
TEST APPARATUS DRAWINGS


-e

1]n__
1--IFel


2 2[2_I_


' Sr




9.
E ---------



. . .


--- t-- -


S



em
" / -
| tI


v __


,__/ _
= ~ a*~


1


I,


c:

i'


































Qr4














__ is




F I









Ct

C)n



C
g -e


B3







-e
C)
C
Ct3

C)

S~




64



















































I"I
- -- -- .-. - -. --.. ', . . ..



-- -
n. ,.,._ I





4 '0


S- -









a: -e

SC



.-------------<----------------.
,& Sb
S- P
Ii Q)





































igA


4
K


3
u

r eL
~c16;
fff
Pld

9
Bsd
w8
~C~~el
r


-4



















~1










APPENDIX B
DESIGN CALCULATIONS


Design of Test Program
Input
Shaft
d := 30in Diameter of the Shaft

f := 5500psi Concrete Strength

Hoop Steel
BarSize Hoop := 3 Hoop Steel Size

sh:= 2.5in Spacing of Hoop Steel

ft = 60ksi Yield Strength of Hoop Steel

dh:= 27n Hoop Steel Diameter

Bar Size Long:= 4 Longitudinal Steel Size


torsion = 075 ACI 318-05 9.2.3.2

Moment Arm:= 9f1


ORIGIN 1


Bolts
do:= 1-5in Diameter of the Bolt

db:= 20in Center-Center Diameter
of Bolts
boltt= 105k-i

No Bolts:= 12 Number of Bolts

CFRP Properties
tC. := 0.u5]h in Thickness of \\rap

fn Ct-RI := 91-lksi Tensile Strength of
CFRP
w cF I, := 12in Width of CFRP Sheet


For the Hield model, FI554 Grade 55 Anchor Bolls
were used.
tboltfield:= 55ksi










Failure Equations


Torsion
Cracking Torsion


Acp := Pp 2 cp
2- 2
c ..ACcp
Ter: 4 .psl -
Psi Pep)


Basic Torsion


T:- 4- Ipsi
psi

(ds3

Tbasic 2


Threshold Torsion


\Cp
=p l.- I -2n

lcr = 131 nI L kp. Li


Th.I, 11 'I kLp-Ii


Tthreshold = @torsion -psl--
Spsi t Pcp)
Nominal Torsional StrengthPcp


Nominal Torsional Strength


I l.2cshold = 2- 7 k!p-rt


Ao: .(dh 2)2 Area enclosed by hoop steel

At:= I.[(Bar Size Hoop-in + 8) 2]2 Area of hoop steel

S:- 45 ACI318-05-11.6.3.6 (a) Grad: 0.--
180

2-AoAtf ot
T, torsion-: -"t( rad)
sh


A 5712 56 i

A i II In-

rd l 7


In ls,.UU= '5 kip-tt










Combined Shear and Torsion


T,(Vu) := V.Moment Arm-kip


If V := 1kip T(



Coefficient Shear:=






Coefficient Torsion :


Ah-:= Ao Aoh = 572.56 in"

p11:= n-dh Ph = 84.82 in


V) := Vu.Moment_Arm

SVu ,
kip
Aoh
in2


Tu(Vu) Ph-2
kip-in in
2
1.7- _
1 A
"2J


Coefficient Torsion
CofficientShear88.58
Cocfficient Shcar


The coefficient for the torsion term is 88 times that of the shear
term. Therefore. shear need not be considered.










Concrete Breakout Strength


dsdb
cover :- Bolt Cover
2


c db 2 ds 2 Q) Cdb
2 + 3.25 -- -
cal: 3.25


C I 3 s5 in Cover for the calculation of
the anchor ritcmLthi


= 2r sin --
2


hord




3600 r
A


-


TZ


360
A:- --deg
No Bolts


A = 30 deg







n chord -1.5c,


chord_group:= 2---sinI-

chord_group = 7.76 in


Amiingroup:= 2-asin .

Amingroup = 45.24 deg
If A is greater than Anoup then
there is no group effect


AVc:= NoBolts-chord_group-1.5-Cal


C i r = 111


A\'c 53 AVo: 4.5-cal


A -co o 5 u


`J










Effect:= "Group Effect- Analysis is Valid" if A < Amin group

"Analysis Invalid" if A> Am group


Check_Group_Effect = "Group Effect- Analysis is Valid"

ACI 318-05-1).6.2
1c:= 8-do

Vb :=2 5P 15
Vb. 13i .a lbf
-[do) in ,j psi In i I


ycV: 1.4


Vb = 13.5 kip


ACI 318-05- D.6.2.7


1.0 for cracked concrete with no supplcmenutal rcinlforctmcut or reinforcement
smaller than a No. 4 bar
1.2 for cracked concrete with edge reinforcement of a No.4 bar or greater
1.4 for uncracked concrete or with edge reinforcement of a No.4 bar or greater
enclosed within stirrups spaced no more than 4 in. apart


WecV:- 1.0 ACT 318-05-D.6-2-5


edV :- 1.0 ACI 318-05- D.6-2-6


All anchors are loaded in shear in the same direction


Ave
AVc
Vebg : 'cV.4\''edV"b
\VL-cI


Vcbg parallel: 2"Vcbg


Tn breakoutACI:- Vebg_parallel*(db 2)


Vcbg = 109.01 kip


Vcbg_parallel = 218.03 kip


Tn breakout ACI = 81.69kip.fi


CheckGroup











Eligehausen et al. (2006) Concrete Breakout Provision-

fcc200 := 1.18f IXI i the conm\eI)ion factor between
die cylinder test and cube rest


do 0.5

rmm
a := 0.1- -
cal
mm


0.5
0.-
p :- 0.1. a-
cal
mM


p P1.5
Va,, 3 cc200 cal 5
umm mm N mm



Avc
Vuc :- V'uc
AVco


\,*S2.'6 N

\' = 1 -t LIp


uV = 4 -2'1.1 27 N


L '. tI- p


a := 90---
S 180
1
V: cos( av) + 0.5 sin(V)


Vue V:= VucdI aV


Parallel := 4*k4"


[ mdo cc 200
NoBolts fcc200
mmy NN
2
mm
Vuc
N


jc ~ IYI S Lip


k := 0.75


' pa:iIllel


Equation 2-18 was based on tests with two bolts with a straight edge. Therefore, the applicability
of the equation comes into question when there are more than two bolts being loaded. The
following analysis will determine the ratio of V/, for 2 bolts and V, for arrangements of 2 or
more bolts.
Step 1: For 2 bolt arrangements, calculate Vc as a function of spacings, and V'c.

The spacing will be taken as a function of the cover


A, will be the area of the group of anchors for a unit depth
Ao will be the area of a single anchor for a unit depth


'4'ctV -
















cover


cover = 5 in

Sb:= T.db + No_Bolts

Sb = 5.24 in


Ao(c) := 1.5-2-c


Ao(c) -> 3.0-c


This value does not change as a result of changing
the spacing. The generic variable for the cover is c.


L5ca I 1.5c1 I 1.Sca1 I 1.5c1a







s=3. 0ca

For the case where s>=3.0cal, there is no overlap.


3.0-c
1.5-c
s(c) := 1.0-c
0.5-c
0.c
For
n:= 2



Av(c, s,n)

Ao(c).n


Av(c,s,n) := 2-(1.5.c) + s(c)-(n- 1)


n is the number of bolts


A(c,s,n) -> 30-deg(c,function,2)



0.75 The ratios are normalized by
factoring out the number of bolts
0.67 under consideration such that the
0.58 result may be compared to the
0.5 J ratio for 2 or more bolts.











For a circular foundation,n is considered equal to infinity because the bolts are continuous;
there is no end as there is for a straight edge


n:= 1.1020


AV c,s,n)

Ao(c).n


For n= infinity


0.5
0.33
0.17

0 0


Therefore, to calculate the reduction factor for the parallel conversion multiplier, the ratio of the
Ae!/Ago terms for 2 bolts and an infinite number of bolts will be calculated considering the proper
ratio ofs/c.


For the foundation under invesitgationpz is equal to infinity


sb
= 1.05
cover


sb
sratiotest(c):= -c
cover


Av(c, sratio test, n)
Group Multiplier Infinity:= Ao(
Ao(c)-n


Group Multiplier 2 Bolts :


AV(c, sratio test, 2)

Ao(c).2


Group_I Millriphlr_ruliiur 0 35


( rIup 1_Multilier_ iIfi niry
Groi.p Mulltiphei 2 Boll'


Group Multiplier Infnity
Reduction s bolt Group Multiplier 2 Bolts



Vparallelnew:= V parallel'Wreduction s bolt



Vucparallel := parallel new-Vuc


Tn breakoutaV := VucaV(db + 2)


Tn breakout parallel := Vucparallel'(db 2)


G roupl ulitiplhcr 2 Boll' 11








t'redJiiclnj 1oll = IIe'l



k'pl.illel_ne = 2 1



'tipara.llel = 893,' 0 N

'ucpaiaallel 2111" 4


I l'i ca lL III(|.IV


[1 hi eakr'ur i:par:ilIel lb ~ Lip Ii


I -1 kip-ll










Summary of Failure Equations


Tr = 131.06kip.ft

Tbasic = 131.06 kipl f
Tthreshold = 24.57 kip. fi
Tntorsion = 252.95 kipft

Tn breakout ACI= 181.69 kip-ft
Tnbreakout ctV = 159.4kip.ft


According to ACI 318-05 11.6.3.5, assuring the ultimate
torsion exceeds the threshold torsion, the nominal torsional
capacity is taken as the strcngth of the section.




Tn breakout wpurullc = 167.48kip.ft


For the design of the various components of the test specimen, the ACI Concrete Breakout Strength
will be the maximum moment as it is the predicted failure mode. (breakout ACi

Mmax := Tnbreakout ACI


Mmax = 181.69 kip ft


Vmax:= 1ima + Moment Arm Vmax= 20.19kip Failure Load












Tn torsion- 252.95 kip.ft


Shaft Design

Mmax shaft: Vmax-36in


Mmax shaft- 60.56kip.ft


BarSizeHoop = 3 Bar SizeLong 4

sh 2.5 in := 60ksi
t- 60ksi
dh 27in

Required splice for #3 bars


ACI 318-05 12.2.2


& t-rWf e (Bar Size Hoop
RequiredSpliceHoop := -* --*\ Size inp
ec
25. -.psi
Spsi


Required splice between #4 bars and anchor bolts

s:=- 0.8 Use the simplification for the (%+KtI)/db term


.3 bolt field VtyWe*ys' (
Id: No
d 40 rfc cb Ktr term
S-psi Note: The yi
psi determine th
the field for
Development length of #4 bars
ACI 318-05 12.5

0.02 .- &e Bar Size Long ~
ldh:= -- Pm

Fpsi


RequiredSplihe_ loop 1 2 14 in


cb Ktr term:- 2.5 ACI318-05 12.2.3


Id 2 'im
eld Nti cngth in the field was used to
e splice length to replicate the embedment in
the test setup.


s% Ir1 jij


Hook Length= 12Bar Size Long
8


yt:- 1.0 Ye:- 1.0 k :- 1.0


Hook Length t in











Flexural Capacity of Shaft Calculated using to ACI Stress Block
Bar Size Long-m + 8
R := ds 2 R = I u AIng_ steel:= r Size Long-in

S= 60 ksi number of bars:= 24

numberbars_yielded-Along steer fy
Ac :=
0.85-fc


Acircseg(h) := R2acos{R (R h). 2-Rh h A

h:= n,.. \cr-,,egilh.h,0in,15m)


i 0 reel = 2 i "-



Ac 12 '1 ui





i = .3 .3'i


P (f):- 0.85
0.65


0.85


if f < 4000.psi

if f > 8000-psi

0.05f- 4000-psi
1000-p0.05si
1000-psi 7


ACI 10.2.7.3


h
c:= c = 4.2!. W

p c
y:= .002--- = 2Sini
.003


The assumption was correct!


9.2502in-Al,,;_stee1l2 + 12.0237 in .A\lilgsteel-2 + 15in.Along_steel2 ...
+ 17.9763 in-Along_steel2 + 20.7 N I.All,,g _steer2 + 23.1314in-Along_steer2 ...
+25.0189m-Alo,,nI steer2 + 26.1677 n-Aloi_ steer2 + 26.5in-Along steel
bars Alo
17-Alongsteel


Oflexure:= -90


Mn Shaft:= flexure nuIberbars_yielded-Alot, g steerfy dbars )


Check Flexure Shaft : "Sufficient Strength" if Mn Shaft > Mmax shaft

"Insufficient Strength" if Mn Shaft < Mmax shaft

Check_FI excre_Sh.jll = "Siil'litenl SIrelngil"


n Sh.i = 262.2. p f


l ( I ( Ic I


dbars


19.13 in










Anchor Design


Check Bolt Flexure and Shear


Mmax
Vmax anchor :
--No Bolts
2
Vmax anchor- 18.17 kip


fbolt:= Mmax anchor bolt

uta: min(l .9-_bollt125ki)


max anchor: Vmax anchor"



Mmax anchor 24.98 kip.in


bolt= 75.4ksi Ase bk

futa 125 ksi Vbol :


.5-do I 2m
2


do

4


Sbolt 0.33 in3


t:= 1.405in2

Ase bolt'uta


CheckBolt Flexure : "Sufficient Strengll" if fbol < f bolt

"Insufficient Strcllglh" if fbol> y bolt

Check_Bolt_Flexure = "Sufficient Strength"

Check Bolt Shear:- "Sufficient Strenth" if Vbolt Vmaxanchor

"Insufficient Strength" if Vbolt < Vax anchor

Check_Bolt_Shear = "Sufficient Strength"

Calculate the load that will cause the bolts to yield
fy bolt-Sbolt-db-No Bolts
Mbolt yicld 0.5-do + 2in Mboltield = 253.02 kip-ft

Pboltyield:= Mbolt yield : Moment_Arm Pboltyield = 28.11 kip











Pipe Apparatus Design
Based on AISC LRFD Manual of Steel Construction-
LRFD Specificationfor Steel Hollow Structural Sections
Pipe Properties-HSS 16.000 x 0.500
tppe: 0.465 Apipe: 22.7i2 D t : 34.4 Wpipe: 82.8 -
4 3 ,3
pipe : 685 i Spipe: 85.7in rpipe : 5.49in Zpipe : 112m3

Dpipe: 16in Jpipe : 1370in Cpipe : 1713i

Design of Short Section- Applied Shear, Torsion, and Flexure

LShortPipe : 15in Vma 20.19 p Nlm 15I., ki p i'lorsion


MFlexure : Vmax-LShort Pipe


Design Flexural Strength

b:= 0.90 pipe := Dt
kpApipe 49.3

MdShortPipe:= ip pipe


CheckFlexureShortPipe :=



(heck Flexire


Design Shear Sirength
v:= 0.9

F 1.60-E 0.78E'
Fcr := max ----, -5 3
5 3
LShort_Pipe D t 4 D t2
D-
F "pipe

Fcr:= mm(0.6.Fyipei,Fcr)



Vd Short Pipe:= vFcr Apipe + 2


Fy :ipe: 42ksi

Fupipe 58ksi

E:= 29000ksi


Nie leie 25 23 1,p fi


kpJipe:= 0.0714-E + Fyjipe
Spipe 34.4
pipe
> Xpipe, tbFypipe"Zpipe, "Equation Invalid")
Md_nhoPrt_Plpc 352.8 kip h

"Sufficient Sure ,gh" if Md Short Pipe > MFlexure

"Insufficient Strength" if MdShort Pipe <1 le]..me

_Sholrt_Pilie = "S efficient S. ctimlh"


Fr = 575.22 ksi


i = 2 2 ksi



V1 Mhorl Pipe = 257 V2 jp


Check Shear Short Pipe := "Sufficient Strength" if VdShort Pipe > Vmax

"Insufficient Strength" if V ShortPipe
_heckSheaiShorl_Pipe = 'Sull'ilenti Strenglh"











Design Torsional Strength

T:= 0.90 Tdpipe: T-Fcr-Cpipe


Idjupc 3I 1 krp-i


Check Torsion Short Pipe : "Sufficient Srienliiil" if Tdipe > Mmax

"Insufficient Strength" if Tdpipe < Mmax

tlieck Tor'i 'ii Shirt Pipe "Sitticienir St ieliLh"
Check Interaction


SMFlexure Vmax
Interaction Short Pipe MF:exure + V-max
Md Short PipeJ VdShort Pipe


Mmax

Tdpipe


Interaction Short Pipe 0.48

Check Interaction Short Pipe : "Sufficient Sriei"llg' if Interaction Short Pipe < 1
"Insufficient Cernii-tli' if InteractionShort Pipe > 1

'hec'k_h.eia ion__ hIrlin_Pti [ "Sutli.'litIl Suie pii"
Design of Long Section- Applied Shear and Flexure

LLongPipe: 9ft \Va li19 1)p M11 m l1l 6'J klp-
Design Flexural Strength

Md Long Pipe iflpjipe > pipe b-.Fylipe.Zpipe'"Equation Invalid")
M duonieip nIie:up p i f 1 L n 1
M -1 I 1 ,' ~ e -3 2S kip). h


Check Flexure Long Pipe :


"Sufficient sieLI1" if MdLong Pipe > M ax

"Insufficient Strength" if MdLong Pipe < Mmax


( heck Flexire I -iue Pipe "Sllticient SNtlentlih"
Design Shear Strenglth

Vd Long Pipe := vFcrApipe 2


Check Shear Long Pipe :


VI I on,- Pipe 5' -4' kip


"Sufficient Strength" if Vd LongPipe > Vmax

"Insufficient Strength" if VdLongPipe < Vmax


Check Slie: I [ onp Pipe "Silicient Stlie1rli'"










Check Interaction
/2
Mm 1 Vnax
Interaction LongPipe := --- + max
Md Long_Pipe VdLong_Pipe
Interaction Long Pipe = 0.52

Check Interaction Long Pipe : "Sufficient Sircnilh" if Interaction Long Pipe < 1
"Insufficient Sircngili" if Interaction Long_Pipe> 1

Check_Interaction_Long_Pipe = "Sufficient Strength"

Weight of Pipe Apparatus

lbf 24m 2 lbf
Wipe app := W peLShort Pipe + Wpipe-LLong ipe + 490 -n2 -lin + 26in-20in-0.5in-490--

Base Plate \\ eld Plate

Wpipeapp = 1.05 kip

This weight must be subtracted from the applied load to account for overcoming the weight oftlle
pipe before the bolts were loaded. Will be used to normalize the test results










Concrete Block Design
Reinforcement
Two different methods were employed to check the reinforcement in the block:
A) Strut-and-Tie Model
B) Beam Theory


R




K .4'


A) Design by Strut-and-Tie Model ACI 318-05 Appendix A


Mmax = 181.69 kipft


Mmax
d:= 6ft+ 8in R:=--
d


R = 27.25 kip


NODE A


9 := ata -- 6 =
d~ft)
R
T C sin(O)

T:= C.cos(0)


0.64

C = 45.42 kip

T 36.34kip


R




C














Check Reinforcement

NoBarsBlockReinforcement := 3 BlockReinforcement Bar No := 8 fyBlock Reinforcement : 60ksi



(Block Reinforcement Bar No 8N 2
ABlock Reinforcement:" No Bars Block Reinforcement.. Bl-ck-Reinf-rce-ent Bar No22


\BII, R LIIlOrLCCIILt ll U- 2 _r? L




CheckReinforcement_A := "Sufficient iieigtl" if (ABlock Reinforcementt Block Reinforcement) > T


"Insufficient rleilr'h" if ABlockReinforcement.y_BlockReinforcement < T


li'hel. ReinriloiccIlnent \


B) Beam Theory


R






II
SIi

I
II
II
II
Ii
II
Ii
II
Ii
II
II
II
I I
II
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
I ,II
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I


Vblo M


Y- '
:-I
, I
' I4 3'-o"


4'-9"


Vblock : R \block 2:.25 'ip M : R.(3ft+ 4in)


121


" tlml'l e'llli ,iret'l li"


M "90.&1 Ip.-ft











Check Shear

Check Shear B := "Sufficient Strength" if ABlock Reinforcementf Block_ RCIIfi.[L !It) > Vblock

"Insufficient "IieC1lh" if ABlockReinforcement _BlockReiforcement < Vblock


( ]ick Sihear B = "Su'iiicinl Sircength"


Check Flexure


i b




d

A,
-- ***


0.85s,


b := 30in
h:= 6ft
d:= 5.5ft


Locate the neutral axis, c, such that (C T)

T:= ABlockReinforcement BlockementBlo Reinforment T 141.37 kip

CT(a):= C(a) T a:= root(CT(a),a,0,h)


C(a) : 0.85-fc-b-a

. = I 1ll 11


1P(fc) := 0.85
0.65


0.85


p (fc)= 0.78


a
c := -


if fc <4000-psi

if fc> 8000-psi


- 0.5-fc 4000-psi)
( 1000-psi j


ACI 10.2.7.1


Calculate the nominal moment capacity, M1
Capacity Reduction Factor

Mn Block:= T'( 2


ACI 9.3.2, ACI 10.3.4, ACI 10.9.3


-1 BI U k = "I 'Lp II


CheckFlexure_B := "Sufficient Strength" if Mn Block > M

"Insufficient Strength" if Min Block < M

Check FILcirc B "SliIt'iciclt Sircenrll"


ACI 10.2.7.3


. = I oI

C 10.1 1 a1










Required Hook Length for a #8 Bar

ookNo8 : 12.(Block Reinforcement BarNoin ACI R12.5
-- 8

Summary of Concrete Block Design Reinforcement
Block Reinforcement Bar No = 8
NoBars_BlockReinforcement = 3 3 bars on top and bottom
Check_Reinforcement_A = "Sufficient Strength"
Check_Shear_B = "Sufficient Stiength"
Check_FlexureB = "Sufficient Strength"


Hook No 8 = 12in