<%BANNER%>

Development of Hurricane Resistant Traffic Signal Support Systems

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 E20101112_AAAAFW INGEST_TIME 2010-11-13T02:42:28Z PACKAGE UFE0020422_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 859 DFID F20101112_AADKXR ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH johnson_e_Page_67.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
aca56ca8c823b8493f4fe2c69da15934
SHA-1
5600828e53e48bbba51d75b6583120d56dfb82c7
44494 F20101112_AADKNW johnson_e_Page_64.jpg
6cc31aac26ebf4d497005795d42b9c71
60dc0a9f6ae606eb619c45501d1f5e8b1c9cbf03
23303 F20101112_AADKIZ johnson_e_Page_38.QC.jpg
f101d5bb7b4074618742d5051bcb1223
c0ffe2206bb6cbd09d62eb788ef0bfa3b3fc04dd
25271604 F20101112_AADKST johnson_e_Page_66.tif
c979a680547515cb9c0ca020059f22c6
94843d87c64c6ad0ebd360d50716f87ed4986744
352 F20101112_AADKXS johnson_e_Page_68.txt
b9c59779d729bab2af91383ee8b1d02e
fba407e162b245a055e708b4c664853d63610a19
47008 F20101112_AADKNX johnson_e_Page_65.jpg
c207e9b157579e0e4164c42461e08ff7
1eb322078dcb27bffb35a6f54cea5ab864395af4
F20101112_AADKSU johnson_e_Page_67.tif
a2e7e262d499c6ce8f841964e2bc8976
fb6cc783709b89cfdf7abd4b842669683565c4a7
1945 F20101112_AADKXT johnson_e_Page_69.txt
6ec67c402e807996a38792caebf24602
032d4558e6913332b5541aa39b99e18f128e8672
1512 F20101112_AADKLA johnson_e_Page_40.txt
201fe95414f5fa14f2d072b3de0e3c68
47ccad21fa74fdb91bae1946ea26e3baf22751a9
45794 F20101112_AADKNY johnson_e_Page_66.jpg
9d406008849a4c0665bdc2f97f038169
927472e414bfa1160062a4de78166da2d29e9619
1053954 F20101112_AADKSV johnson_e_Page_70.tif
0c9d1270ecf15810b16c159ab2d95480
f5dde6fcab20fdbfd859f6d4cb8a84d2895ee8c0
1936 F20101112_AADKXU johnson_e_Page_70.txt
3112ebd7c689515be0dc93cf0af687af
bfbee732fa7b2c18b48e2d9d772594de9405dd61
35999 F20101112_AADKLB johnson_e_Page_16.jpg
bf04228f73340f33ee88314ff8420724
cb6c776b905bfe2ac3877624a5eab54cc9b1ec40
68857 F20101112_AADKNZ johnson_e_Page_69.jpg
6547213a37412c7e67d814e98436762d
99c08373ed3e1d36e9bad8da624d0a598abb46cd
F20101112_AADKSW johnson_e_Page_71.tif
d74202cee9d6bc291ab487767ef7f66e
a52d1802258aa5cd8f08663182cd469aae861b34
F20101112_AADKSX johnson_e_Page_72.tif
b6f9458e945a42417d839cfd8b010f30
45bb34f9eb7030182d172affe31cc5d5ab0df5f3
33132 F20101112_AADKLC johnson_e_Page_52.jpg
c2264638453704fde34dccfae779064d
c27bc52d54103dc5ac684b29f5bd4297ac7916d7
2022 F20101112_AADKXV johnson_e_Page_71.txt
db2e24abbcdb7028e89b570129701c00
33b818fa9c3ce28caa70c00a563df47b51d48cfb
79522 F20101112_AADKQA johnson_e_Page_59.jp2
61bbfb2230d7a730a2f86d31c4b01c59
e6f3e0ae14b9c15abea23f58b42d40f6eead8128
F20101112_AADKSY johnson_e_Page_74.tif
c2208a022dd86992aaf76df1b1dd6169
d2aa406208050a617040ec60494fbd0af311ab27
9588 F20101112_AADKLD johnson_e_Page_63.QC.jpg
5858b1d7cd61503f148c2268ab12f8d8
c851613b410749d36e012715b3157e354bb78ba3
2064 F20101112_AADKXW johnson_e_Page_74.txt
d8fd646e452924ef4fb290bab164b88c
b0c6d0c73797df84eb429e877ee83721d2647563
24960 F20101112_AADKQB johnson_e_Page_60.jp2
f9333fdc79bfe491ab3bbeb6a0cc55d5
27d991d34440fcc614ffa3b3120d9b84d8153ca3
F20101112_AADKSZ johnson_e_Page_75.tif
e51b69893aabb5bf3398cc292beb9032
0ced0624934a92da975b031affd049eaf9729d41
9528 F20101112_AADKLE johnson_e_Page_07.QC.jpg
e392b1aa13edf02559f0d8e9ed095544
156bb5e9600cd24407fcff7ccae1ae7196a32477
1650 F20101112_AADKXX johnson_e_Page_75.txt
d77bcbf1f2fcb8a2274aac79d04902d3
87f1848f7aefc7ab4948d2ecac7a67179766062e
645146 F20101112_AADKQC johnson_e_Page_62.jp2
b72e799d4bacaf65b96d03c1d829b3c9
0fc705929120c1e8ebe9c44f33540726b6e7d3a8
59210 F20101112_AADKLF johnson_e_Page_11.jpg
042f4c2264fc7673c3da8bfd8fc76f1a
db1c6db7c191e23b6b0226a98f9c0cc34ac8af88
2044 F20101112_AADKXY johnson_e_Page_76.txt
046a82a4a96860ee71c773b55e6a75f0
44ddf7dca155a67419f971d7e38dace729aef14b
20019 F20101112_AADKVA johnson_e_Page_64.pro
b76817d01ecfb2c4c5209ade35b77581
cbf9f076c7be3b36722ce6a11451098bb781b8d6
344324 F20101112_AADKQD johnson_e_Page_63.jp2
98a641408ea82ba84f37a267170bdf65
a24b79f85f553fea93546e1fb6d56c1f7ccd0629
1779 F20101112_AADKLG johnson_e_Page_73.txt
75ea01ad29445d00264b5d261d08237b
17f48b1f908342ed518e3fbdf1a6e863b8f06520
512 F20101112_AADKXZ johnson_e_Page_77.txt
0c9e7adc22f606f5d6ac8f22afa8e6b6
689202a0be6b35da789aa600facabe9b7a9c3db8
18339 F20101112_AADKVB johnson_e_Page_65.pro
bdedc1022fa92c5afa3652ea679e32e7
4a2ee516edf41bfe3f3e7f196cce670e7be0f699
666560 F20101112_AADKQE johnson_e_Page_64.jp2
696b3c5378af1e5b871e0aa98728f49c
a9bafda47c4e556eb784c699e6b856902c44852f
43675 F20101112_AADKLH johnson_e_Page_40.jp2
f7f94ac0fe1a9ef1fea99707efa85bdb
970493d9da2e1eb130ea877aad17592c54904972
9586 F20101112_AADKVC johnson_e_Page_66.pro
c90f202de4d0c374af2b1ec990f42e46
beee5cbda20a7305ced884c5b7189f42eb591480
463680 F20101112_AADKQF johnson_e_Page_68.jp2
b3a198efda936bfaae9ff7bdffafdc19
5f997a1827ee4c2406d78ec2d0a1560718bf4956
3555 F20101112_AADKLI johnson_e_Page_03.QC.jpg
bd7bb35b9ba0b7cbb2bd7f91bd5bb7a7
fa92542c1010247eaabd1c3f4a5f3a962862c5fc
3095 F20101112_AADLCA johnson_e_Page_63thm.jpg
777bbc618a60ba134d1684ab0324ace8
36152e3c06e68cb118b9705ed9782ee56e3e7e1f
17032 F20101112_AADKVD johnson_e_Page_67.pro
10ef8a38efd5b91e34b8de014e91ed46
b7bb94f845536f4eb66362feda159c6032558945
102955 F20101112_AADKQG johnson_e_Page_69.jp2
d145d5077cdab6a81efe43363c3e694c
05227fd4a6363a23b36fb5564dc42f315eb3203f
4209 F20101112_AADLCB johnson_e_Page_64thm.jpg
1b9e3ffa0d07561084b428f73b56350d
60367eb4bf9fbfb9254ee51dff8dee0ac418dcff
5988 F20101112_AADKVE johnson_e_Page_68.pro
428db877b73a27aa3fb86e5eb8ff56e3
808c24992d77597c73420f10af2e0f4a04a34f4f
102460 F20101112_AADKQH johnson_e_Page_70.jp2
417bdf830091e00f81b261b714419039
5bd4840575f1b741185d0b2dc9b69a8f19869646
8432 F20101112_AADKLJ johnson_e_Page_24.QC.jpg
c4df31ac0152d29c0e42af694e16b5e8
133bd4301366f4db2f75262161861ccf467954b5
13622 F20101112_AADLCC johnson_e_Page_65.QC.jpg
876f91db7f1d6c7b6271f567a6f21802
c62859519bf2ab90f23904cdcb79c0264e4d351b
46785 F20101112_AADKVF johnson_e_Page_69.pro
ba23cfe7e527caf1f4c9fb66c8487e5f
128740ffcd521fa7838d3ab8c270ad9d4fe368b7
110527 F20101112_AADKQI johnson_e_Page_71.jp2
94c0cf4e301c1d567767c4f97440a193
df3b895db9d7f717a7b9e9b6109f79bc8513baf2
14668 F20101112_AADKLK johnson_e_Page_43.QC.jpg
54474de2c2c52e982e957e30ea7876fc
f9ab6c7687e3b22474e9a40bcbabe26c4931960a
4130 F20101112_AADLCD johnson_e_Page_65thm.jpg
c1a3be957e03574ac5ce2320abc1c2b1
d5c3414a48c90d72ef901fcaab3269c84e3b2637
47035 F20101112_AADKVG johnson_e_Page_70.pro
8b217247714d8827b1beac6b123c2455
b765e445cd77f31b90f7fc2f8c6c88742043eed6
97425 F20101112_AADKQJ johnson_e_Page_72.jp2
99059669274a39501e6c0e86ba69d5ca
df08b12d364d344c9ebc09377badf4ddc9c75c36
358 F20101112_AADKLL johnson_e_Page_47.txt
4d44f8b0951c4cdbd406ad42dc380528
937161c0338313eeb2baa56f4e4c04c747a1ba3d
13304 F20101112_AADLCE johnson_e_Page_66.QC.jpg
462786b5d9178ca995955a8d1fb6654e
48193cef6fb85d0197dce98822c6144375a1bea2
51327 F20101112_AADKVH johnson_e_Page_71.pro
583a0991392e34565d3521c1eabec821
55402db3933d8edc3bed8255cc01e7d24adc81bb
95880 F20101112_AADKQK johnson_e_Page_73.jp2
77437afbec865d5092ec0c159847d009
49335b9dbf09b4dd707a405f6f529a2424f514c2
25667 F20101112_AADKLM johnson_e_Page_29.QC.jpg
ae22c5b5481cb3c29fd12d4c76f08bb9
e450e5ce59f8fc1bf1e70e443237f6254d5155cf
4253 F20101112_AADLCF johnson_e_Page_66thm.jpg
17100468642f651bea1032d56d944ef5
37c228752a7f331d410a6b6252934c8948652f11
45186 F20101112_AADKVI johnson_e_Page_72.pro
db812c995bd0e1df5e449424db6145c7
50a0c1f1fa8f0407c424d8f5d8ca023d67226f9f
107702 F20101112_AADKQL johnson_e_Page_74.jp2
b2269ec26b9b28f772c44f6cc2182be9
01b1c6f427fb63714f1fcdaf29b333561f94278a
4011 F20101112_AADKLN johnson_e_Page_05.txt
08005a112cffc559366852f5e2fefbc8
bc70a3454ed7afa6f23a0dd973929f112b33dc26
13154 F20101112_AADLCG johnson_e_Page_67.QC.jpg
1fb85f22ce642bc044d0af4c03291ab4
0bdff16478c124b1ecc7ae9390f6931da317a5e5
43454 F20101112_AADKVJ johnson_e_Page_73.pro
ed6b0e59e0566131e02e29fd8c36fe9d
dad55542db321d5d2826a7619afe5f8ea1913d2a
87984 F20101112_AADKQM johnson_e_Page_75.jp2
0929e81990f4aceb637eb262ee227b53
93d6d3b89f034d9591ad01750765ea633c17760f
356108 F20101112_AADKLO johnson_e_Page_55.jp2
2f6f4340c45ac75862aa934f2e1ffec1
09e4cba4f04c74f2a4e4d419ce0b78fa1e2083b5
4034 F20101112_AADLCH johnson_e_Page_67thm.jpg
d100a2683745bc849ab37a6a0ad13758
f1ee5c9c4733496e254a6c78a5bde3a613c036e7
49393 F20101112_AADKVK johnson_e_Page_74.pro
8f4a0d389839a37992bc81be96427ef8
50833dbcee2992dca312556c7b2fc0d4c0396a41
110383 F20101112_AADKQN johnson_e_Page_76.jp2
db97a3b9ba03c7f33d461a9e0412a14c
7f3c0ec56411f7f542e3a2d0df5c4f27fca58e87
35463 F20101112_AADKLP johnson_e_Page_42.jpg
7916aa3e32d59b27993f3e3f2920cd17
b47df8d78876839602fa4994b198f52bf084ee30
9924 F20101112_AADLCI johnson_e_Page_68.QC.jpg
4e61cd461565eb5aa403f2b361901796
4c06ee82209dcf0277819ea47c61d17db5ab2e10
51870 F20101112_AADKLQ johnson_e_Page_58.pro
79b6ab60a82ccef08c5737f15515191d
92b586979499ef17d94d84e7268981d73ad1640a
39349 F20101112_AADKVL johnson_e_Page_75.pro
cd8d1e465b2444acba87fa9820f71617
2e51961758abeb8a04e9661c59f3fe3036db8971
3125 F20101112_AADLCJ johnson_e_Page_68thm.jpg
5c04bfa81d6d2ef647bd5f5a6a0f7a94
59f7d4eaa588d0edfd7889480fc4ab6ee5d083de
353221 F20101112_AADKQO johnson_e_Page_77.jp2
33f41a6caaf0a32ec0b6255d4e11e854
27576da3a80f5fe5e542db26cddb85d6439c3969
42781 F20101112_AADKLR johnson_e_Page_80.jpg
fa72295c508186d3dc80a68416626ef0
9d9e58223325866f7ccd6bb03b701b395b9cf1ca
49918 F20101112_AADKVM johnson_e_Page_76.pro
20131eca5a54282f2c7756d54d6b30c8
0983e13bd0004fcf6c72ae1c5db6514ec8f12fe6
22853 F20101112_AADLCK johnson_e_Page_69.QC.jpg
00835edb2ccf7f2084dea89d21df1f3b
ae0bdd9f8c662bf357dbaaf1c188a5900455375e
1051975 F20101112_AADKQP johnson_e_Page_78.jp2
7c55370227ea5e512de96711a23e2351
7523b6b824c16f4cc4120e1ff27739cd5f358bd2
F20101112_AADKLS johnson_e_Page_58.tif
d93f7cfde1cc4a9fb1fc8ac9d7f87917
4663cccf7ffa13a27982d2eba27c2492196a2745
62320 F20101112_AADKVN johnson_e_Page_78.pro
2af2b3a45dea7515a16d363a9b36eada
b3e702deb1b050431883040cbff7b70d5e3a8e6a
6389 F20101112_AADLCL johnson_e_Page_69thm.jpg
0ea5264da8e8307e6479a195aa80c7e9
836c5f5917c4be254ef95087a990b1ac976c2ef5
59363 F20101112_AADKQQ johnson_e_Page_80.jp2
b7b8314491339be302cc955c769e2775
efaa01444f8a9ed83e083f5f9fbbbb19f3905abd
F20101112_AADKLT johnson_e_Page_32.tif
5854ec5cb661662fc1de0ff658d7ec5d
dc35ff222f332f9d6668ea36b04e84f8418a5870
38064 F20101112_AADKVO johnson_e_Page_79.pro
0d945d0ec67bedeeb024b0947f02efd5
a8dad6f0b12843e0540665fdddc7c52f7d06ed01
22862 F20101112_AADLCM johnson_e_Page_70.QC.jpg
228632148c9c878f6df3ccd04964b106
6723ae32424a64b3d06c23fb734a199b81b8739d
F20101112_AADKQR johnson_e_Page_03.tif
dd441bb51f708aaf9aa788b081cb7b75
b00021c6a371225cc226bea26fd328db552da2c7
F20101112_AADKLU johnson_e_Page_25.tif
6e105ea28523e4a08608cc796baa1b24
aae1e84fad5e93156b3c7d254081b68a437bdae6
427 F20101112_AADKVP johnson_e_Page_01.txt
959c81374d6b561ef89b788fe4695390
e226a4073f9107608f137c770cced62aab0b8a52
23930 F20101112_AADLCN johnson_e_Page_71.QC.jpg
bf311d727c01591c8dbd4aaf32ede707
aac87489c6abdf2785fc0ba58d227d63c6b2aa72
F20101112_AADKQS johnson_e_Page_04.tif
9bfd40e6a918a059239f9b39e819622a
b344e93989de5887851774b794779e341c4de947
6250 F20101112_AADKLV johnson_e_Page_70thm.jpg
e8a9a53f22acbc7d4aac5fc527f67b97
16f637bc1a5fb69b1baa8de14001fedc3ea40e9c
89 F20101112_AADKVQ johnson_e_Page_02.txt
8a9b0c9c6ac478ef83ccc944fd328276
2d9b4d19b96847bf791033f5a4e47a35bf37311d
6693 F20101112_AADLCO johnson_e_Page_71thm.jpg
c9ffe1e1fb4260b61d3ad020b0a7a5a1
7b8b208048415ff8609dfed8a3a45a7ae4b7ca29
F20101112_AADKQT johnson_e_Page_05.tif
955b738ed715d14ec16870b887f4f969
2d7fafcac3a3decb3ecf2cea1d04d33f66e14e97
121560 F20101112_AADKLW UFE0020422_00001.xml FULL
8848b1585d987c26f66702dee1d49141
a4f2807b6753f69dc36ecb0efef30e53271b62d9
145 F20101112_AADKVR johnson_e_Page_03.txt
3db68ab853f026499498c786c486a793
d59ecc9f3a7b8454e13ac124ec02a4ffdef136ce
22031 F20101112_AADLCP johnson_e_Page_72.QC.jpg
bb584d17d00c7d4b065be32db0462ef6
b1c221ab470f2c95627b3ec06f55fda70819757e
F20101112_AADKQU johnson_e_Page_06.tif
80104e65104491e2b7d8c5fc8b33088e
295cb6e665f62e09ff8f752a553c92d812660e8d
1280 F20101112_AADKVS johnson_e_Page_04.txt
de21c18db97c401b7aade2bbb5ca9e95
96bab16b65735329e24c1e2e3a1ac62b81572434
6124 F20101112_AADLCQ johnson_e_Page_72thm.jpg
f17ec2e79677f4ccab6856b3e3ee2f41
ff39fe8a97f6f57ba7a0bbf4a2d4163a9e97c21d
F20101112_AADKQV johnson_e_Page_07.tif
a24429b80e8f544181d40ebbb08be801
c0dc2d98994beb2faed350ff799a63ec629e842c
4405 F20101112_AADKJA johnson_e_Page_17thm.jpg
2a9740b8ac75421975afa2e7a0069d07
e37b2ef00a900442e285903b1778ae65627860b3
5902 F20101112_AADLCR johnson_e_Page_73thm.jpg
5ebd84739fea261b0ea7d0b2ab00d95f
32f0e9a2254195bd5cb25491d19b029c5120fc30
F20101112_AADKQW johnson_e_Page_08.tif
f7ba321c467ab151e11311d9357a904c
2163165a9e5032cd8aeda935fbbf8e9d5b6ba2c6
25316 F20101112_AADKJB johnson_e_Page_30.QC.jpg
d496f57b36599d75f3b621368297696c
43f1bfbd317460632eb5bb3218c3df243b7d2764
22101 F20101112_AADKLZ johnson_e_Page_01.jpg
f030768137d3d6882970960e49e3769a
31997967a5fbf6a9df404062e23463ff5f930a28
3271 F20101112_AADKVT johnson_e_Page_06.txt
3cae20ac9e8a4838247683f0c118ba30
34e7342604fb93fce46a816d1ec3ba7be69fd2ab
6615 F20101112_AADLCS johnson_e_Page_74thm.jpg
cb9aa06f921404561ba4eedb626e605c
e10462700b4037d7cf99746b322d60c9585076b7
F20101112_AADKQX johnson_e_Page_09.tif
db739d49802c2ef28cc5dfa7dd46270e
62cf068a1c76dd06d23ab9de336344b80b4c5e00
F20101112_AADKJC johnson_e_Page_47.tif
0c708561916b443b2220792d47bdbbde
7110fb525098ab6cf87d39caf033fda00b5f18c0
2731 F20101112_AADKVU johnson_e_Page_08.txt
fecda849d17d0a2476fa03855a8fd067
589e4362982a00f36d9585136fc9724edc4e2264
19435 F20101112_AADLCT johnson_e_Page_75.QC.jpg
4ed10a4f367be9f14d7d4e67b0964996
2e283960bba7ce5f6865c85eece21766b0dc0ba0
F20101112_AADKQY johnson_e_Page_10.tif
8e61fce8388aff7da33e108d773aae50
ebf9daf4c80f0f3c7fcaa8f704f240a373b88fb8
71889 F20101112_AADKJD johnson_e_Page_74.jpg
02e35c6bf9f8e588b8b755d091998ebf
3e7f8474b6b77d919e2454cdf037eed5c7fdc2d7
1222 F20101112_AADKVV johnson_e_Page_09.txt
012883d83facf546211fb49f6734a5b8
69d7bd15b2d6feb0eb33e18ce89ec19adf699cef
67196 F20101112_AADKOA johnson_e_Page_70.jpg
b98442846dd38221f10cda328030c410
8878107d0837fe2cdd2b12b8a29069c92ffc47e1
5536 F20101112_AADLCU johnson_e_Page_75thm.jpg
d3a71644809bbd50d0d0fd966ef8a99e
c1c6b07e201b7184e8bd15eb4499c7f24c668a26
F20101112_AADKQZ johnson_e_Page_11.tif
6d9ee41569b99aa10d59d769da34e316
9f8d66986a9c84b4a7548a776822429639478b80
34490 F20101112_AADKJE johnson_e_Page_25.jpg
c696acf48dbcbf819d15e0d81ce6162b
a0f37454374a0ee9fdb03a0ba256c4d2cb11c9cf
1315 F20101112_AADKVW johnson_e_Page_10.txt
6315446c3fdc60958d662bf317de5b3b
76af8ad58768f24791fa6c0b27095bcddbf2fcc3
74303 F20101112_AADKOB johnson_e_Page_71.jpg
8c07950f48a966b0ecc1d47a4b2f9a03
8b307c1f1f203b9b2aaf2e887b7066266e47f930
23823 F20101112_AADLCV johnson_e_Page_76.QC.jpg
3dfaa22c7686c13c278d789f7fd97d9d
62997c104fc69f4ee3660bb1765d55c688c320ef
886 F20101112_AADKJF johnson_e_Page_16.txt
2307fbb8fe41333b22937dfec36015f8
40960dfc4eda851df7a39c0f54d9dfd7b7e8d6e8
1628 F20101112_AADKVX johnson_e_Page_11.txt
4131ac88f3e8f8010f436fa740ee90be
b37cecace1802acadc40f7625e090dd3b696e430
66140 F20101112_AADKOC johnson_e_Page_72.jpg
5d2373d0fb32fe157beda1deaddeb53b
9fc3b6456fc25f42f7098c4b2bd0b7ba9ba8d505
6625 F20101112_AADLCW johnson_e_Page_76thm.jpg
72f91bcea1e9ff1d9642dd082413f94c
02115ee8b8a8ccacd46e142e7f5f0498ebe71418
661045 F20101112_AADKJG johnson_e_Page_61.jp2
b870951f89ffa91e1406b294632b2240
eb5cc5ff8eb6ab5ebf6daea923bd3a3034a0685d
F20101112_AADKTA johnson_e_Page_76.tif
39eb6fc606a7e38d7d0260da531bc404
45ee61295f794c4e4d7460074d401baa0b307291
2040 F20101112_AADKVY johnson_e_Page_12.txt
c102ff71dbb55d1641c7d4c5ce2f08d2
91c51f3024e799d32f3cf894e7db08df2cb7d29e
74326 F20101112_AADKOD johnson_e_Page_76.jpg
47d6cd384378a0705a2e98c8c1b9914c
c7caafda770312195375f45a2c359802ee3979eb
9432 F20101112_AADLCX johnson_e_Page_77.QC.jpg
442cc346797a57ce8640c50f96859b91
24d68b4def6f5be3c0febce740b2d4df78922a73
F20101112_AADKTB johnson_e_Page_77.tif
906e2ef5679c240ef350c641bdb3f906
a8c6e3e5fe85e498c7814acb63383fa15fc1149e
2175 F20101112_AADKVZ johnson_e_Page_13.txt
c59ee0f0194cfb46ae98b70117136c37
a1c623d503824b5bb4eac1f206d19afc67176c87
30420 F20101112_AADKOE johnson_e_Page_77.jpg
fc6a9083a9b840c1d7e3ae41dbaf5e3d
2fa391ae965c8db69aa75e45d950b3c51f23b77b
2987 F20101112_AADLCY johnson_e_Page_77thm.jpg
a77202bf6678810d704cc78ea8dc5c5d
942f71f337b703571e6423e4b2ea4e887d6af456
47746 F20101112_AADKJH johnson_e_Page_36.pro
d440778f6fb95de740894c00ee16c3ed
45d278877e477f61d4141edbc68a04a90619494c
F20101112_AADKTC johnson_e_Page_78.tif
283ea93fa989186718a9563817505aa0
1044ab452fa31d94030e90bad1dde014585310c3
101334 F20101112_AADKOF johnson_e_Page_78.jpg
a270e6c82c0d1e568eeff0ca648ef3dc
e4d983323d29de065d52b79626b4db11429dadac
28738 F20101112_AADLCZ johnson_e_Page_78.QC.jpg
9858137bef2132dd78ab23ac42cb956d
6df3c6881a43043d003d930872a756b011ffcbe0
21914 F20101112_AADLAA johnson_e_Page_32.QC.jpg
d9cb142627a771f6c530d55d6fedcdce
77f81d87b55a8aa0a4f641e83e478d67f09dafec
1085 F20101112_AADKYA johnson_e_Page_80.txt
9e2e0a461b27864b3c60f19206cd2856
023b866ea9582ebfc97a8aec706297bba88ab924
54961 F20101112_AADKJI johnson_e_Page_14.pro
3a581e3de9177f9c42853ae904d229fd
2b9683c5f290a8daea5f92e73e86b23f490e13a5
F20101112_AADKTD johnson_e_Page_80.tif
9193ab8a720eb1821376ac1d3eeee954
778998638d7d62b7c5163888473f64ec6d32f73a
59251 F20101112_AADKOG johnson_e_Page_79.jpg
3d4a825f6d65dde676d7d939adb073d6
9d73ba2dd20cd1a6820b8dc74a9bcb46a259e72b
6453 F20101112_AADLAB johnson_e_Page_32thm.jpg
8fe541881eba2aee8b33e297d843797b
54939c0f4691ca5872236873851688d444b5f265
4110671 F20101112_AADKYB johnson_e.pdf
e00ec1233e8aabc462d396713c4bc78f
135ed745fa6e1c574e6a4751db85d219f0f5009d
659961 F20101112_AADKJJ johnson_e_Page_65.jp2
df39fea12c8b127da6a42247ee1f00e0
78a08e13ad86844809d03f1ac9f8604776cf7b41
1120 F20101112_AADKTE johnson_e_Page_02.pro
721fd5443be43a37e2bd62045562e4cd
26bb4cec4098b00ffebc71fea1eaec6f6ed65ded
24434 F20101112_AADKOH johnson_e_Page_01.jp2
56c7c6576e46038e31de225a1c0cee17
0ab00cb30bc6baae92840774f7a21bce35bcf1e8
23900 F20101112_AADLAC johnson_e_Page_33.QC.jpg
b9447b88cb1cc8c618f3785a87e7c3ad
38ecf2c131f5bdb39df1b5722bff2c288b49287a
7178 F20101112_AADKYC johnson_e_Page_01.QC.jpg
ac707e430bcd873d41232fcaf17a4ca4
cad3c22ecacd3983791f2e016774cd641fa26fad
87302 F20101112_AADKJK johnson_e_Page_11.jp2
44bf41b755d6eeef782dbebe1825a442
a34cab4b8e65f63319635c829aacea617ff1ea4d
2418 F20101112_AADKTF johnson_e_Page_03.pro
c71fb2b95e38d72acb65dfbc293c8e0d
90e5879d08ea21b7c5a0726bc03b44c97111018d
5708 F20101112_AADKOI johnson_e_Page_02.jp2
fe1ef97113bd1b073f01ad7e6f1ed61b
05cf380757ddc36df01f9e3ba47ae835d9e50fdb
6449 F20101112_AADLAD johnson_e_Page_33thm.jpg
c1a133a29a2370a7ce67aacbe3731aa3
e8695b1c2a448150d8c451665c549fed4290c05d
2294 F20101112_AADKYD johnson_e_Page_01thm.jpg
300c6a8a5f8c59ab7c2b914ec42c5102
1a37acce0133bd06814af33e24bdcce20a22264f
687 F20101112_AADKJL johnson_e_Page_44.txt
d32be732fe68eab48743b14e185ac618
9ce3bc1dc0f9b1a0fd7977cc48318b7563e81cd8
30995 F20101112_AADKTG johnson_e_Page_04.pro
699c7e5a482bd6f7cbd873e892ea66bf
bf2ac40b0465f3224df41078a33b60e020627f04
70156 F20101112_AADKOJ johnson_e_Page_04.jp2
5767e5aba4a5ee612d3db3255f88bde3
83f0f58ba58483f384000e9fcb872b8f5ca59307
26160 F20101112_AADLAE johnson_e_Page_34.QC.jpg
9b198f680afe08c8acac086d7279e0c9
0526a45c8db3fef4fa0e1f1bc1f61e298dbeec0a
3167 F20101112_AADKYE johnson_e_Page_02.QC.jpg
3f7de8fbbd5c4f3717080025f976d5aa
426a9b3983e4c0d92f3545fb97da14c56a81ae6d
F20101112_AADKJM johnson_e_Page_61thm.jpg
3d2072b1eb641742548835b2270c134c
d518f51288c69a9df5c9001e9244c8bfc4be83d7
96787 F20101112_AADKTH johnson_e_Page_05.pro
492279bd06e9db4571b59191e9e077f0
2647d372143d9abc7b07643b18baff9a83f19855
1051979 F20101112_AADKOK johnson_e_Page_05.jp2
12a795f4b14866624492771629948568
a476fdefc6238bc14207fa9b3831c5c81a04cfaa
7151 F20101112_AADLAF johnson_e_Page_34thm.jpg
b2e824f56103725ce2e250e0f2f2d579
6d39a95a0673cf337d52e1d00be2d35a2741c37a
1358 F20101112_AADKYF johnson_e_Page_02thm.jpg
446882f1d755817d0d2a0d1a8a923818
c0eb5ccdc341b774a9a1b081fdfb33ebdc55ac3d
6550 F20101112_AADKJN johnson_e_Page_47.QC.jpg
961acd0ac08e29ee44ea490bc528952c
05b0501acc24cbce51bc903270d26b89f444f8f2
79550 F20101112_AADKTI johnson_e_Page_06.pro
9206687a20d7f311fa93807d156d3860
ce2d8c1a2f7805119510a9a934adf6c37b30095d
1051896 F20101112_AADKOL johnson_e_Page_06.jp2
fc852bea51503cf3bc91a9871b140be0
8c9447a8acbd8e51acd6bc5bf30dc8bc67c73de2
24740 F20101112_AADLAG johnson_e_Page_35.QC.jpg
b085246f77f69c880889ef9e91450b80
639d89f8a312e490488fd3ab8d190553f2ad629a
1507 F20101112_AADKYG johnson_e_Page_03thm.jpg
01a4c8c5da4003be6fff1639a51fd628
fbdddfdcb6651dedc2d0c12dec338c249d88ab76
120292 F20101112_AADKJO johnson_e_Page_14.jp2
823f6e58ba6400469daf3f66051d9db6
a114c37cdebffd0ce2fc5c2591eb4c264c49ef31
21943 F20101112_AADKTJ johnson_e_Page_07.pro
b5fa0b17e83d8a04cd0a002eb2d4e802
a20c6dde892d4cd92cadb89a872b8efd838a842d
6846 F20101112_AADLAH johnson_e_Page_35thm.jpg
8c033cabb19a71f9a0adfc115ac05431
93088e68c81261fe0880c5ba4f94c0ea1599735f
16247 F20101112_AADKYH johnson_e_Page_04.QC.jpg
a6b19bb815d447f0971ce58439ddb33a
fc725c0f03dc3b6b5d3f4273a27953f3ebbe87e0
14460 F20101112_AADKJP johnson_e_Page_43.pro
fd7028e1f7c80c655519f7cec042f8ed
95d7022e97c1b7a8418ad2f551c01759192450f1
68407 F20101112_AADKTK johnson_e_Page_08.pro
e48fbcd9fe5cc94c144b6636b0a78c46
ab04b7d56c0cc910cd045480eadd8b4b6203f32b
694829 F20101112_AADKOM johnson_e_Page_07.jp2
470ef2951c771a537bf3d71c95662909
ddc24dd7e5e775298f361c3b4abfc6f7e87896ca
23586 F20101112_AADLAI johnson_e_Page_36.QC.jpg
d0cea3faf02a3f2cf56f6c873013989f
16d581f7344292baab50a4184328efa6ba06bbae
4662 F20101112_AADKYI johnson_e_Page_04thm.jpg
38d858c37ac617997c6e94845a69a84c
ef40228ccafe5ecd7d30e72faeb47a6612472988
78416 F20101112_AADKJQ johnson_e_Page_34.jpg
05f15be457e67be9112cdb48189ae0cc
91fda9f383fcd2a2db2ae8fc273121477ffdd5c7
30543 F20101112_AADKTL johnson_e_Page_09.pro
97ce85108ee1c8d4f6db2ef81eac62be
2e9f570f6ac07bf2eb8f874b2578737ca0988515
1051961 F20101112_AADKON johnson_e_Page_08.jp2
3b1069228c4fe8413e6e8c4a66717dc7
0434ff6868cbee8abeda771fd81063766e49ee89
6602 F20101112_AADLAJ johnson_e_Page_36thm.jpg
f8badfc9161342bdb926567f7e0a151b
33b39b8284ac459bd5ad70383f9b8913aad60664
20515 F20101112_AADKYJ johnson_e_Page_05.QC.jpg
e4b5880e89234c42d2ee1d69009cda73
7ed8d00db366df97308c436c6fbca61801ffd41c
65070 F20101112_AADKJR johnson_e_Page_10.jp2
f432acd617bb7c4a3136682179ed833a
c4b44f20f336893340127c687abac90009e06057
28284 F20101112_AADKTM johnson_e_Page_10.pro
214371fa3dea847bb03683d9204707b6
881430311e671ec3cc2cf75c0f24e8477b664d21
120378 F20101112_AADKOO johnson_e_Page_13.jp2
913fb1947b4793c46dc8b34a86b8a00d
864ea4b5ba3cde10ac605120f00f1044bd67b62f
24074 F20101112_AADLAK johnson_e_Page_37.QC.jpg
f48d74fd78b42f3b9a6a54530fb27ca9
d976dc8481f16a4a970fef4ed237c2ab6909826b
5341 F20101112_AADKYK johnson_e_Page_05thm.jpg
0f2a98144d87b9b7f959cc47c2a0ce0e
7e24be8b37830380efb83c58c3b75fe0e79e0ca5
919 F20101112_AADKJS johnson_e_Page_65.txt
78805b2b3ea383987e11035f387f6754
a65e6b46d26ba074a2ff0052b9d637e95c692b9c
38673 F20101112_AADKTN johnson_e_Page_11.pro
5c54be5117b493d9092f2a03754ba4c0
e13619ef7b2b66d003d48c2d61da27997782873d
106015 F20101112_AADKOP johnson_e_Page_15.jp2
76db21aa8917e7fc2f8815259a335407
10f6fb51660aa5116622a8039d56632ad535f57a
6737 F20101112_AADLAL johnson_e_Page_37thm.jpg
23b3a2d0c3d0179c6450c25a43d25496
a338fe60cbe6f6774a049b7d5b8b3233f744e03d
21219 F20101112_AADKYL johnson_e_Page_06.QC.jpg
ed0e6bce3412a4e7bd91a65146ab9c2a
357bc11d9b8f45f1b83339dd9fd70f31ac47d9e2
48407 F20101112_AADKJT johnson_e_Page_31.pro
81b2960198d5e493aa96ab5d24565bfb
9370c8787f35a92aa45ee821a74b3ac238ef1704
49814 F20101112_AADKTO johnson_e_Page_12.pro
92df8a4b29ce53efc78857786f748b75
5be51f4f207174c69ef4eb5616a37abe54545958
48032 F20101112_AADKOQ johnson_e_Page_16.jp2
e7632ee2c7c708358b237e4177010f23
5fb9661002488d60d0acb2e719c13a0b4dfa6f08
6429 F20101112_AADLAM johnson_e_Page_38thm.jpg
fa4dcebdad13a227c2b459fa579ff47c
e29aa282948cf38a00fe53d310e440d1264c59e5
5766 F20101112_AADKYM johnson_e_Page_06thm.jpg
2577bbd882c5b3dd18c0cfbb98fd67ce
6c00cbe0d315d1a17de35fc6dedd1cc8f3a311e7
21333 F20101112_AADKJU johnson_e_Page_73.QC.jpg
f613adc82e4ed843cfd491a473bc3ab1
85414d0d4f8c4938f2693ab56e08d80a0380c4d6
55588 F20101112_AADKTP johnson_e_Page_13.pro
8ee639e4eeb98fdbb87c7ba4a23657c3
99d9feef42ed6d45d66398cd7c7ed0ca47a93c1b
637938 F20101112_AADKOR johnson_e_Page_17.jp2
62621401d30f24f8ef6ec81bc3971179
74f56caa72f69a7e48d593b4de90ad57fdde4b26
12983 F20101112_AADLAN johnson_e_Page_39.QC.jpg
1c93222e14e9a4d85ff3537f7ea995d6
27b7e9c2b9a673b01b4c54912e6f3efcbbedbe4e
2781 F20101112_AADKYN johnson_e_Page_07thm.jpg
de32973f68ced8976821d053ce0e3596
805426e686ec56134bac2e0f1aef079c22c53649
2886 F20101112_AADKJV johnson_e_Page_26thm.jpg
89af99284aa1fcd0bcdabe4c095ae64d
768c0e46d5e7aac5ec89c49937e6dcc4919f1e98
49354 F20101112_AADKTQ johnson_e_Page_15.pro
f07d82e9a1adf58e27d02504efd06f86
b0790d164030a0072fdca496b0958288b82e986b
112000 F20101112_AADKOS johnson_e_Page_19.jp2
734f2af49170382df4425fb317986b79
1a8214a338ab1f7d78e6e92a1b0289893e4213dc
3873 F20101112_AADLAO johnson_e_Page_39thm.jpg
6b196d58cdf3433f6ebb44ad0209f5ea
1e9bc09a3befaa1fe5ee9fb37d5ce27a12dc734b
23532 F20101112_AADKYO johnson_e_Page_08.QC.jpg
3f24bc8383c2e4d792fb3c8c312b6c2e
e52b247773ad3b4d66f35f434b1d7107a9669d0e
18776 F20101112_AADKJW johnson_e_Page_49.pro
b790b9c1c14253aa67317ef0ad84cb43
74c6a9b5d5a563e4e3119e18ceae728b78c86516
120972 F20101112_AADKOT johnson_e_Page_20.jp2
63f29f4361ab3b8d2abbe11cf298eb83
8425f4f01e4fc154d67eeb1ebed4a16e9f125dc4
12760 F20101112_AADLAP johnson_e_Page_40.QC.jpg
b17998abc408c3446abdbe24bc25d63a
129ac0f129be6ae8b443de36bd1dd05974443d5e
6232 F20101112_AADKYP johnson_e_Page_08thm.jpg
cbe37b9b84d07b742a39a31a123b93bc
e3f4ad5239f9740e2dd82ebc5a07b9cb4da29264
23107 F20101112_AADKJX johnson_e_Page_74.QC.jpg
5c9e62034acbb28da038b8b0f14efb51
fc57cd89464188c220e3c0234f9065ac1b7911ed
21334 F20101112_AADKTR johnson_e_Page_16.pro
1ff99037470a8cf9cfcfa83ea8334f95
15170138dcfd81521b9cfff48fd253f30dd64a86
111381 F20101112_AADKOU johnson_e_Page_21.jp2
4a4e597f90d7e1530cb5851fb043eeae
aee42110750130c7053439c60afc6ad625edadc2
3734 F20101112_AADLAQ johnson_e_Page_40thm.jpg
95691457f1b4fc1e338fff1494abf402
6779c2b53fe5a383f407cb2e8adb65ab9553905b
11075 F20101112_AADKYQ johnson_e_Page_09.QC.jpg
ab7c3af615f6d73742e0416c680d73b4
394b606c9f9967002a9bc4bb7f31dcb50c0083f8
2346 F20101112_AADKJY johnson_e_Page_45thm.jpg
13f489e705c59ff59dd9337dac207cff
cfa2c7f6efc7098b3720e75bbd8edd4cb1b04f2d
18805 F20101112_AADKTS johnson_e_Page_17.pro
48f60b962a69201240913000454cd77a
e1c73b1694915ffbca9df2b9b8333fcf50941065
45873 F20101112_AADKOV johnson_e_Page_22.jp2
fef3ff726e0a47f364bbaef999139391
32dd9abcaed8b3afc32ee4134fd29099074d6678
19008 F20101112_AADLAR johnson_e_Page_41.QC.jpg
75cb95daf3fe357d25bc54ffaf6600a9
c5a7a31bcfd92cfa92649217ef017c0e162c34e9
3379 F20101112_AADKYR johnson_e_Page_09thm.jpg
8ae7987eccc819063b8e3610ab4e8799
8de3d6f60a0cea3a5455b54a4604076aba09e096
52857 F20101112_AADKJZ johnson_e_Page_33.pro
dc2e2bb158d066edb6aece53dd89d5be
d4b65fff39463d18f3f1a37cea030d8250fcfcad
4195 F20101112_AADKTT johnson_e_Page_18.pro
11669ded30e2ea8ba7a568d1d26d939e
bb0dcd60be812cd82a302a1a195f797e33b99d15
94389 F20101112_AADKOW johnson_e_Page_23.jp2
c9840a3727da2317b98f73345b6ddab0
d2451a9e8297eb19cbace80eb5d962a385284b36
5422 F20101112_AADLAS johnson_e_Page_41thm.jpg
ee7708d5c68a3e5017cd2cdae1d4b5bf
fdbba566a778479d49aa1ecc1d05633859a08d3c
14923 F20101112_AADKYS johnson_e_Page_10.QC.jpg
3936959443f7e0a8d3c8b9aac50cc113
2a8d4e36f5769f993034ada307f0edc0c8f39275
50895 F20101112_AADKTU johnson_e_Page_19.pro
2ae3f1352a8cc0ded47e163cc0e10081
81e77401c0b19272deac8e8a2f612f643357f06b
26668 F20101112_AADKOX johnson_e_Page_24.jp2
bc5073b3524f6bc3f9c0cc8a9759c565
00a386d8b3f23be404e4940bba40e4ad6e04cb74
10875 F20101112_AADLAT johnson_e_Page_42.QC.jpg
d2e01e9ef819563545be14feaae28a59
8e54b8eeed5a5935ca402c3604334a04da4cb9f2
4453 F20101112_AADKYT johnson_e_Page_10thm.jpg
f7a79432b6dc6207f01203f6b3f0ded5
88064abae8256973b349f3166e1c0b1052d8048e
20104 F20101112_AADKTV johnson_e_Page_22.pro
b6f6f5d3cee851fec8c9224db82ed8f4
914350ee7c4ae129b51eff842941f5d40552929c
9761 F20101112_AADKMA johnson_e_Page_02.jpg
781491c7380e86c8ddfa17a4f4f51a3f
efc49009bfb1cea407f63d8a52cbd0760acaf862
35475 F20101112_AADKOY johnson_e_Page_25.jp2
2474d254a2f1f9114dc85b06ec776314
12dccfe9a5ced673cb9902da68c830d2a86ca66c
3519 F20101112_AADLAU johnson_e_Page_42thm.jpg
569d744e888357bb6cab7c26c8217231
e2a0a62fa919cc2511894551b215ef863cf1d99f
19441 F20101112_AADKYU johnson_e_Page_11.QC.jpg
496022a59996e4ac1e2d26c4ebad8395
06b53ecb8e6df8b5d835d4f0ce6a8dfec37d8daa
48168 F20101112_AADKTW johnson_e_Page_23.pro
559d9fefe316004a322ad3f9722b4d2d
7ddcb5897907eb3c3f53d5f77b7f2dfdb68c744f
12014 F20101112_AADKMB johnson_e_Page_03.jpg
adc0366c95cad7d4824b1a99ac5ba235
1cba9d0ab7239e61443e73a8bc739a8b121a2f50
115909 F20101112_AADKOZ johnson_e_Page_28.jp2
a7e4ff99571a8b48d6a16fc89ab2d088
6f21e1518ea4aeecae70c6fe8b07c38dbbd11653
4367 F20101112_AADLAV johnson_e_Page_43thm.jpg
baca6f61bc1b8af4691953332c6747d5
52b54b520b4d64909e6707dc9fcafa1080f7892a
23770 F20101112_AADKYV johnson_e_Page_12.QC.jpg
10554356d179fd087df36477a9a18069
753b5d7a1b2ba910b2aa85cf52ccda9fea9afcd2
8313 F20101112_AADKTX johnson_e_Page_24.pro
dd5e0a2380ab332fb14fc22764499d9f
2a26f4c47ab58fc68773c06c46f9d7bffe65db58
49970 F20101112_AADKMC johnson_e_Page_04.jpg
667668a5c8e2831cdf45a9382810f5cf
1677bb1b5ad2276881cbfdad31694a353dda0f30
14305 F20101112_AADLAW johnson_e_Page_44.QC.jpg
27e913b0207847da4af2c6341e28397c
d38ed39561dad30a7effad7ecf7653f95fd2b1a0
10927 F20101112_AADKTY johnson_e_Page_25.pro
3019de4eb307e3d747b0bcf8773581dc
2a253f7c6f548508433895bb90b2b43882c5639a
79525 F20101112_AADKMD johnson_e_Page_05.jpg
aa653d6340be54c41306ea178083d8ad
7b7baf25acbfdb1e57b3cfad66c029831ec4fd64
F20101112_AADKRA johnson_e_Page_12.tif
38681ed62dad6554da6ebf68be23907b
f503a09a3999b0a487b34c1726c8800e5ce4d047
4377 F20101112_AADLAX johnson_e_Page_44thm.jpg
43430bfbea5a39a036cede3c0aa94faa
a8356e87c03986dce928aef05756a6ebce4c5009
6578 F20101112_AADKYW johnson_e_Page_12thm.jpg
3e194ffd159fbe25cdf048be70bf97fd
e18e1dda3bdd0a5798f645ba4ea723addb10ef51
45240 F20101112_AADKTZ johnson_e_Page_27.pro
8ffda1299879f6180455f8f2836da7ca
36857bbf33253d201cde06be07e77b0b6a0b332c
82161 F20101112_AADKME johnson_e_Page_06.jpg
36180394ad799de8cc158cf16f1db0f4
465d8742b17a37f79cec0ec9048c1b6f7f2978e3
F20101112_AADKRB johnson_e_Page_14.tif
58912505330fba3ff7f3c61ac0e3654f
6cc825f2bf2aac79203cbc0de2f5c4a79bd6a232
13234 F20101112_AADLAY johnson_e_Page_46.QC.jpg
05106058e341952180a685c5264e916c
90444dffe6473d70f6abbf77d5eeeacbd8e56f69
26127 F20101112_AADKYX johnson_e_Page_13.QC.jpg
258aa68202919a79f275f838a27b8871
c7c683141f83c4a57c548fae3439067dc01df2d2
31316 F20101112_AADKMF johnson_e_Page_07.jpg
e7119a48ff305f78d807dcc6668874c3
e731f9393133deb577ef71d4e4f5acd1ab4b3e84
F20101112_AADKRC johnson_e_Page_15.tif
bd694699cf89df29f3d7256f15f0abea
d49c9b758b773632aad0cb695a1513343824258d
4014 F20101112_AADLAZ johnson_e_Page_46thm.jpg
6d4d6db10815ece49cf76182d8ce6255
d26c37ec23062487a4e475294dae30749a6d3c0a
7036 F20101112_AADKYY johnson_e_Page_13thm.jpg
20c0657e5bd1baf77e6da24fa3829061
a8e2454c502d5f44fe3c56d09a4aba7375b606ba
78571 F20101112_AADKMG johnson_e_Page_08.jpg
8c87a28d96cb6ca3c03c989b3eb2e44b
8c741e2befd9d27956845532eaf5f259025e0948
2152 F20101112_AADKWA johnson_e_Page_14.txt
cae1599fdef0a67a519eee15774e0325
1bd5b7d6c5d1a26da46d3881a1fa007dfb49db67
F20101112_AADKRD johnson_e_Page_16.tif
824896953a64515084fbd3f7156ba81a
db472769ced748632cf53d868ad17a6adfc576da
7106 F20101112_AADKYZ johnson_e_Page_14thm.jpg
ee86519c6eaa9af7e190b84b9f4eaa82
a6bcb6aa20380c0d28d6a80e99297e3231f18e74
38349 F20101112_AADKMH johnson_e_Page_09.jpg
24c76afe860d27b16a8b8784839158b5
1abc6ae8d2a56a6c8be45011815123656973bf2f
1983 F20101112_AADKWB johnson_e_Page_15.txt
8dd9a9e5cf9a36a281fb24c7f4c452d4
af66a770f304f989855904ff7c2001b7e1eaa976
F20101112_AADKRE johnson_e_Page_17.tif
ad6eda63b7d66bacc098436bbe8ce3eb
050380c893d3837d99f847674b71de56158dae65
46350 F20101112_AADKMI johnson_e_Page_10.jpg
30a8a9609559aafe6d84a8af50a09a65
b87131764c3ab231881031bf35f51d1aa9e325a3
940 F20101112_AADKWC johnson_e_Page_17.txt
18f3040ccfec27667fa62e210c83fb62
26d969a85943baade9f0e6504dc7eeecd7f496f1
F20101112_AADKRF johnson_e_Page_18.tif
8a8325686a2d4ef7b4397560148f5ae4
2cc9792a81c7b8cfbee64de41d259504e0cbfeed
7663 F20101112_AADLDA johnson_e_Page_78thm.jpg
66d1b6e199fed1533786d7081877739f
d700fe981e15f2ea7d6cf939a8f42de8c26f94bc
73952 F20101112_AADKMJ johnson_e_Page_12.jpg
efec79b08ec9643e1cbf7076dc1edb43
625684a9e91cb3a6ef08908bec68e68e28f178ae
220 F20101112_AADKWD johnson_e_Page_18.txt
3f5c704c7109d052d432dda44aeb3b37
6f2d66186cbda6bc00726f6ce4fa1f6bbd36d44d
F20101112_AADKRG johnson_e_Page_19.tif
f40a54ce758b7162e7831e260d87a510
d16b624c66b9609b74ce21827c5eb4c8e6bf9e7a
18236 F20101112_AADLDB johnson_e_Page_79.QC.jpg
b575710ee1dfc6632682ed18f3f7f18a
a94f095d29d860286952d780d63b32af4f7079fa
2105 F20101112_AADKWE johnson_e_Page_19.txt
7c429be95c6ca784b0d5860564001fd2
914d662c19d5289a376d6ace099ed8a30e323c97
F20101112_AADKRH johnson_e_Page_20.tif
8d99e8de511c93c1585a535f239858b6
36d157d076d37658b8d17a38f7bfc88c09c5cb44
5203 F20101112_AADLDC johnson_e_Page_79thm.jpg
84ee989bbeadbc921fea8f63571d25ca
dc2eec3ed1da36a125826fc32ace48d4bab77116
79354 F20101112_AADKMK johnson_e_Page_13.jpg
000ebbad176f2c393392b0ced8b65d0a
5ac0bcdac63cfd54f5fba25f1aa76a1d1d15b2a3
2217 F20101112_AADKWF johnson_e_Page_20.txt
00f954c8ebce5079b12dc6859a882a4d
0bb0df40270f149399b3a02afc0d5805354ed63a
6836 F20101112_AADKHN johnson_e_Page_19thm.jpg
9f05f458543db9d1ce97d0ff5502d7c3
f33698e9f20f2efa929155299a526efa64b65ea3
F20101112_AADKRI johnson_e_Page_21.tif
9ec5063685bccfb6f58fb99c41154083
77c64ad87b42d9705e475c85eaa0881e8abe92c1
13895 F20101112_AADLDD johnson_e_Page_80.QC.jpg
4f7b4d24754b110105f0e1aa7265fa00
f360cb6ba3b91f4e57ca51fb8d51a69babc8b8e2
78998 F20101112_AADKML johnson_e_Page_14.jpg
0a41fc28036dd2d7efdcca2d2ca2c0bf
a15fec6fe0aad978039819a626420e8e35e4381f
2087 F20101112_AADKWG johnson_e_Page_21.txt
dffd49b8f4656f80a14469c07ec2e39b
24b22535e1e687dc2ce8ee2fa0ec725ef2e36fc4
2314 F20101112_AADKHO johnson_e_Page_39.txt
872002c21e3970a312a40d8ff193369f
ce9d0a47796247c084865899509cfbdfa25d91c9
F20101112_AADKRJ johnson_e_Page_22.tif
b64c5893d21177fcb9e8b93c93900f0e
5817df98f939f80138ca5fd5af85e8d010ee6f5d
3968 F20101112_AADLDE johnson_e_Page_80thm.jpg
5087f6f450e4c361ed19b66814787c4d
fe40c871d811c52ea2ed71d20eb1842a886ac378
46537 F20101112_AADKMM johnson_e_Page_17.jpg
375e84deefbfd96358262dd1a54d0f33
4ddd60bdadc5e7f83f3ff0185b6d546687ff57d6
813 F20101112_AADKWH johnson_e_Page_22.txt
6d09c8e4dff7e8dbf9cc6955402cc975
a3caf0a1daaa7356112572177384829a9e546cf7
581403 F20101112_AADKHP johnson_e_Page_18.jp2
b80d8e3ad386e5e92238dd2da13f74f4
571e94eb20c0e292a92799cf5cdf1729a21baba6
F20101112_AADKRK johnson_e_Page_23.tif
89b5290e9e06195376c6d98a5971ea5e
c4a89bf73eb48e9322083397af8b30f9a97db3b9
93914 F20101112_AADLDF UFE0020422_00001.mets
8d93b567c37cf51aadee13c5090a268c
19001f5c3443ef74abfd71056e12102139cc0c3e
31792 F20101112_AADKMN johnson_e_Page_18.jpg
b64c1d571c10b52990f06c21f859c0f5
2ae9c8984aee824042d1de95546ca1c5966551fc
2188 F20101112_AADKWI johnson_e_Page_23.txt
e662933ddd0321f6e56400af592e57d7
dbfb2b007f37d672970f17419e9579bed5abfa36
610417 F20101112_AADKHQ johnson_e_Page_67.jp2
61c273b9a72646ec201db992f3337c5b
a1c3a642e51b43956ccff99e9743ca1958b6d8d4
F20101112_AADKRL johnson_e_Page_24.tif
e3a8718b440a949e7ec01a87fa1a20df
9237e92ab6e80f70d1a3f7a3d939aac27e180a05
73727 F20101112_AADKMO johnson_e_Page_19.jpg
40a35df810b435962a712409d86297de
8a138c169cab868fa28c9fa330f9679ac64880d3
437 F20101112_AADKWJ johnson_e_Page_24.txt
96aaf22b270f649a6f0ec774abbb8224
430ea363fa6c57dd0c823f61dec459caa184f8ce
2086 F20101112_AADKHR johnson_e_Page_33.txt
26fbda7621ad84841cc81487add0178d
a6851c05e19e77c8cb710212c06ad96ab00a223e
F20101112_AADKRM johnson_e_Page_26.tif
db3e2aa767da9e64065656cdb9a428af
4d113cf7b0efcfb446b3c35b45a29dec54df52e3
80351 F20101112_AADKMP johnson_e_Page_20.jpg
1486a53af234f4f3e9caa8c22951212a
26d15ee0f0db84b725e0700c4c0eeb0937b30d89
1431 F20101112_AADKWK johnson_e_Page_25.txt
bd1c540cc9f56ff3c05d3c81f43b05cd
e77cbc95e79ffb717599fa973670a9735a9aec72
46221 F20101112_AADKHS johnson_e_Page_53.jpg
89b933d21172399f7e498f2c3dc0d7c8
6ed4d0420be39fb63bfbda0a6f26626c5772488b
F20101112_AADKRN johnson_e_Page_27.tif
163c76eb78c7c60310c63fed94f21e74
d6cc31621d3350994a80c8cd354b9fdc5bcf3c53
74296 F20101112_AADKMQ johnson_e_Page_21.jpg
dad3c04c53cda6f0be9d272260e2e704
d03cee20941cd4053da1d248276847300f4c944a
339 F20101112_AADKWL johnson_e_Page_26.txt
db0839d0d93c26a74fb0550bf42235fb
9f3dbc38e236b95dfcb2ec14a94b464089d5a5fe
44023 F20101112_AADKHT johnson_e_Page_46.jpg
dd22735e713e6f4d03148916ee10e40e
0a1a0f7e9fdca714ff25a7f2793612c7906a6793
F20101112_AADKRO johnson_e_Page_28.tif
04871be1877295e5250240a9bf279d86
993894987b6e54a904cafd0b5ddaa117010b805c
63124 F20101112_AADKMR johnson_e_Page_23.jpg
aa5182ebaeca13d06ada9086ed4601a3
25b0d399c2bb4425b68ed83bd22fa10ca271c006
1908 F20101112_AADKWM johnson_e_Page_27.txt
87473c04cbefb4102006c185ebdaa55a
7e54fdbfa255200fe31cecc12350dfa39e779b5d
F20101112_AADKHU johnson_e_Page_57.tif
65a42fb3324145dc0d596a97a08f2f51
23e061490c90e325d573620bbbbcca9643115d62
25315 F20101112_AADKMS johnson_e_Page_24.jpg
c3ce34be0f5d2649e49182bbfa590c6f
b87f80085c1dad169f2683904b09d28cad8f6475
2114 F20101112_AADKWN johnson_e_Page_28.txt
86454cfb8e318445b93ce55ad0508670
5501784fa74e1fd72a269dcac807be8fcf6c7c02
8612 F20101112_AADKHV johnson_e_Page_03.jp2
be73bd84303a1934b8878d79d6216114
b6774e98efbe9608cdd504238cfd6a7bc2fc2128
F20101112_AADKRP johnson_e_Page_29.tif
ea65babe394e8ed8403a0495384bdb1d
2abb92e3b75007d0a61a4c13d1d15ef8a897a736
27010 F20101112_AADKMT johnson_e_Page_26.jpg
6d749c2a4bee63148a1d5f37149cb475
a20683c61082365a35eca11167e050ba164bd199
2134 F20101112_AADKWO johnson_e_Page_29.txt
0b013af2a9a31e80dcb9a81fc9d8670c
e8f2ea55a7c1afa03d0b74df73e30ab1d3852f7e
51014 F20101112_AADKHW johnson_e_Page_21.pro
794c8fc32bed2bd04e3c03b6df43738a
b69d7dd181d2fac758bb1f77c0701b2d94ef18e2
F20101112_AADKRQ johnson_e_Page_30.tif
a4ce427d59e5d08d44383571baaba84b
97544ff2618c7f69ae457ca414ad62b4581b1932
65421 F20101112_AADKMU johnson_e_Page_27.jpg
a640c0e61c714f6dc116ba0fdd024724
344f19d90adb9060eb8afe49c3557a9e4589389b
2150 F20101112_AADKWP johnson_e_Page_30.txt
cbcbc3f4ec232e6def78d42cf5a4c4d5
605659339cb735edc42f0acdb25a49a4ca7d3972
F20101112_AADKHX johnson_e_Page_36.tif
fffce8721668689f38667001767eb97d
897b370d571c1d9b6b54a39d41bce27b61d7daee
F20101112_AADKRR johnson_e_Page_31.tif
2be5ef7da9ec2481f61026585c5e264b
a0dad534871b66bf93edf257ad5d16070aa4d980
75877 F20101112_AADKMV johnson_e_Page_28.jpg
a7b066b3684494a5760e9ed9dc8a53b3
0ffa8b7dd0c6ab2f64c3e2d83b0b05f2456b3a2b
1973 F20101112_AADKWQ johnson_e_Page_31.txt
37ca9c7d14bc39fef2aae90f2173b552
ba582e4fc244a84fe4f3905998c36859cf15e778
5431 F20101112_AADKHY johnson_e_Page_11thm.jpg
fb6c626538d4309d38b23862d63ffd37
9fcc9b3a34cc7014531e3892fedfc970aebeb3b2
F20101112_AADKRS johnson_e_Page_33.tif
36e914f095176f8ca20f184279959a14
07e4bce529ce7c728e4ed9c7ab73c393d8cd5d1c
1874 F20101112_AADKWR johnson_e_Page_32.txt
3fd866139c08fed5a2621bbc6268a14b
1635d8099098986b60ac11a9606d226f48c45e73
64366 F20101112_AADKHZ johnson_e_Page_73.jpg
0d4475b743407f53db2bfa87ea56ea41
9b343b977a5a7a0d3803258d1dc2e16a7b42c399
F20101112_AADKRT johnson_e_Page_35.tif
7f8a3d58661a487607f7bea643ed127c
fae8cd776a0efb0771653950a13bf9d90e644f85
75700 F20101112_AADKMW johnson_e_Page_29.jpg
1200dce19b4198283223641b36b83def
38dd1e18125015612e4b6db4bb788697d0f29f9b
2267 F20101112_AADKWS johnson_e_Page_34.txt
b188814b7588713fe0cf141479b331d1
d8ebecd689d3bbb7142a6e13e9b67076c6b8990c
F20101112_AADKRU johnson_e_Page_37.tif
3ef6337c9f3f37aead964c787e41e053
b878c38de3fd0e574b6b903eda94ae64f8a37510
75785 F20101112_AADKMX johnson_e_Page_30.jpg
883b7a155fd2688c3e2a9f340a365fee
31d778b68a51272b27706aef2476277ed9afbad5
2092 F20101112_AADKWT johnson_e_Page_35.txt
3e0390267814e46b7a90d79fae07f231
fee9f8959814a107df88cb16ab675f758434cbcf
F20101112_AADKRV johnson_e_Page_38.tif
6f65fd7433561dbb69a062a0eb9f3fb1
5666125fc249c75dca0fe9d692bda3d5aa7e0fea
1880 F20101112_AADKKA johnson_e_Page_72.txt
eb55cf995f4a90d1f40c35411faea600
a98fd74e68851287a04273f512d5d81dca0fdbaa
67885 F20101112_AADKMY johnson_e_Page_31.jpg
80ef510bdcdfd88e83294c6056d71dcc
102e55ab09f085aaffaeb4107aca2b6c22685a06
F20101112_AADKRW johnson_e_Page_39.tif
606cbb01bff22c35bf1a3d0eeaa65ebb
78731538848edf12ba05c2834527701a89eba2c6
13057 F20101112_AADKKB johnson_e_Page_54.pro
8acc06e6ea5697963f2960bf48426fa9
45324b88510613e487f8c9df86ed268b079d8b6d
66927 F20101112_AADKMZ johnson_e_Page_32.jpg
4a31e2361a2c491ec3f802854d3c2079
96d0c19474f74be92c575fe721da30717a72f79f
1897 F20101112_AADKWU johnson_e_Page_36.txt
00431c5c3bcafe4384e82b703ba6c0e4
19466449f68d827d386ccf19b73b65b4fd292808
F20101112_AADKRX johnson_e_Page_40.tif
8c2595866aeb08099a14496899ef6bd4
9c7b1d8438c655f42db1eb60f140996e083a8f07
F20101112_AADKKC johnson_e_Page_73.tif
f1059eecf5953d9f0b5a9b71ecf41f9d
524e3a3b81bb841986435ccc5edb3a66e687cfd7
2031 F20101112_AADKWV johnson_e_Page_37.txt
31ea076beb0c7205e8575338924e4b4d
8357bdaa168a54d9a24f048c864564cd7d01b468
117011 F20101112_AADKPA johnson_e_Page_29.jp2
cc215d5468306313e170d19fef16cbb4
2993cd74f6193e8c33fc2dd343e6e9b15ac6976d
F20101112_AADKRY johnson_e_Page_41.tif
451a8d8a6c024764085e7944b794f1e4
dc2221360c023f6bd1d81903f30fdebcc428fc01
6583 F20101112_AADKKD johnson_e_Page_45.QC.jpg
65cc576b6e2687e062ba92ee3d5973c9
752f5fe52f90798c5298c502b3c5f150878a0207
1977 F20101112_AADKWW johnson_e_Page_38.txt
55a3641799cb8b358234a1d8032863e8
935a29766caf959013e8e08ad040745f32ba9123
115346 F20101112_AADKPB johnson_e_Page_30.jp2
d70bfc48b4e51d7150f122833bc1ef8b
0307857d0d25ea95f594291accc33bcf5a43f4fd
F20101112_AADKRZ johnson_e_Page_42.tif
36707f8304221a902974d18663b386a8
14eae613263b98ae83ed00e768ef6d4de3f91a16
33356 F20101112_AADKKE johnson_e_Page_22.jpg
f0f652ae6d6938deff4e1e68f726053f
b8065d6c25729a102c0db6c0ddd323f1e7f7e85c
3024 F20101112_AADKWX johnson_e_Page_41.txt
0260aa1aeaef8af071aa4c43e074206c
2c5a8eb3c383a76806a354c20c338751566bd350
104811 F20101112_AADKPC johnson_e_Page_31.jp2
003af9861fd8f8b441da7c7da2ab783d
9bfba367beaa550c82a64172509ba9f077160fce
F20101112_AADKKF johnson_e_Page_34.tif
e45a7e4631f2b3cf6e197b4a1cf508fe
3507a276af634ae8760a968046ba30d9afbc5311
692 F20101112_AADKWY johnson_e_Page_42.txt
0b142dcdb7e5f4004c947c1f6d4006ad
1126e17c215f05343a0b194cff817b78cf8aebc7
112193 F20101112_AADKPD johnson_e_Page_33.jp2
0e96a95ef25919437ae247f7b929f7e6
f1eb2d407437205d214f867a647a8cfba3957e8d
22612 F20101112_AADKKG johnson_e_Page_57.QC.jpg
18dc6756aba12c36b43468b5dc379c08
68b443482bc8e35c609ea64139e9e696ffeb5a8d
53571 F20101112_AADKUA johnson_e_Page_28.pro
c293eb630451c3526e4d199b1dde3be7
eb139501e3cb87bcdee316abd9f80100b20a46a2
729 F20101112_AADKWZ johnson_e_Page_43.txt
3dbdcb10c7b91e7fcf9bbff84505a3b0
c3562cf19b6768bbb9256426464013c37d600682
120379 F20101112_AADKPE johnson_e_Page_34.jp2
00700bd1867b6abac837c8e04c1d93ff
491a65dca957327914556ec1a6f4c4d36c471b1f
72671 F20101112_AADKKH johnson_e_Page_37.jpg
55a493575e51c6625d84f42da84f475d
09f0064f9cc09921b31c35abc64fa004b0017816
54067 F20101112_AADKUB johnson_e_Page_29.pro
41eefeaeac4a88424f56c2c589110bc9
bc50ede27f299c811392a00ac9c1eada1cffdd7e
105944 F20101112_AADKPF johnson_e_Page_36.jp2
b2ec40148675e4d87b976f80801a8c29
fdf8d71f5225c536504af571855ed4b71351cdbe
54148 F20101112_AADKUC johnson_e_Page_30.pro
f67fbfc64336f71d364f43fa95cf27cb
eea5fbc9c602a1fd2f0fe4de984c7215469c8f99
2259 F20101112_AADLBA johnson_e_Page_47thm.jpg
10323dbf10a5a313408211f6620c8b44
89f82ffc0876e66b06409e7b1640556d9194a302
22907 F20101112_AADKZA johnson_e_Page_15.QC.jpg
874209f4b86dfa564a2e84bfcd8c3944
c1185839f383707aba4f1af29a97da6206875f24
110704 F20101112_AADKPG johnson_e_Page_37.jp2
6da3031fb9de9055f8ced10814e930d3
31cd3b2c377fd9aaeb9b71c6ed5317e3243e5591
56200 F20101112_AADKKI johnson_e_Page_20.pro
a633c166a9720172f3434b59794d40a0
38a082754728223bfaf1e768fb5172e1bfc1ef89
52235 F20101112_AADKUD johnson_e_Page_35.pro
c9a77a134d8a81a8775d4f9f650a58e7
ef949947b3164cf3ae7ddc71c258337f34a35797
14380 F20101112_AADLBB johnson_e_Page_48.QC.jpg
6df32ac7fda4cbd5811b5c49c36b06e0
a7c2b4529a0d577baac760e459278060546028e3
6352 F20101112_AADKZB johnson_e_Page_15thm.jpg
3132652a00ceee4733750614568c15df
7673b6f4a303dcaff677bc315bfd6958ee438597
107689 F20101112_AADKPH johnson_e_Page_38.jp2
19c5ea67f90308e0fbf80addf97e7792
567414bf02556f42f1ba7810072ba906586961b8
1982 F20101112_AADKKJ johnson_e_Page_57.txt
f923d5c0b1fb81f6bc2ea720a21ae8f4
eb6b6e5e171a01b88b369090274544f59dd0dc46
50318 F20101112_AADKUE johnson_e_Page_37.pro
e2f1ffc4baf9c4016c61f5708dfdcf8e
616093a92ccfe2d76d28d5f1eda7d29f6476648c
4420 F20101112_AADLBC johnson_e_Page_48thm.jpg
d8cd67a324eda3277f9c0123c738ba4d
a6bb11a7aad3dd5a0cdc7fb9ea0f020837fe051d
11925 F20101112_AADKZC johnson_e_Page_16.QC.jpg
18133c47300e383c7cc6b18cd9ecdcb1
0770243c57b21f0f5723e1588a360031dc9f4ae6
52076 F20101112_AADKPI johnson_e_Page_39.jp2
16cb02e67536de356b2813f7a62acb00
3706b56ba8842811e40ee48fd49e2c43ff5c8eeb
F20101112_AADKKK johnson_e_Page_69.tif
6db4366f7ce45d2f09401e08f086f22c
b94f11cdf4e8a7988be4d1c9a277b555fefa7ffe
49996 F20101112_AADKUF johnson_e_Page_38.pro
ae4e3f83236b83c44bdc6d3872ce6e6a
0d7132173b37f5a25bdaa45e83f487a76af29912
13568 F20101112_AADLBD johnson_e_Page_49.QC.jpg
6d719cefc07f76355cf250f390cb3db6
75d30c2e4d55a1d7f1571bf8536d945d2f32a677
3532 F20101112_AADKZD johnson_e_Page_16thm.jpg
eeb9f5d59fd2b1bc244c0938b3188e58
989200c9527453a449964b57eef1e309606981f3
89836 F20101112_AADKPJ johnson_e_Page_41.jp2
09e96c82748348f7a8a0a5769e00cb4d
c3cb93ffcc5ce9fc422b2354ecc06ef2c5996382
7949 F20101112_AADKKL johnson_e_Page_01.pro
a31f777ea0911d907629f27a336537ae
ef45a3d13a0db5916455f53a6e05226c38f90f0f
39051 F20101112_AADKUG johnson_e_Page_39.pro
8d546666d9f2e5e30c51d4451cffabf4
a5497fae09023c74b4327415a011cab26351e9af
4313 F20101112_AADLBE johnson_e_Page_49thm.jpg
34300b49b9a85aca15e8ebc238c5cc91
b3fb29c315c7e3b1400d6d285f796cc68cdd3b06
14459 F20101112_AADKZE johnson_e_Page_17.QC.jpg
0464299a4960ef37153f3d652d3a3011
dc2a84f24d783b759df17ba9201fd41e0196ef62
448270 F20101112_AADKPK johnson_e_Page_42.jp2
705c95b8faf4ffd0c994128709c284c1
57bedda90acbd159ba6700e6f18a323b506dc3a3
26218 F20101112_AADKKM johnson_e_Page_80.pro
a7aaa31a7aa8726f5a8a69a68921c5c2
fe6dec5dc914943e24352db0022796e2cd224935
30150 F20101112_AADKUH johnson_e_Page_40.pro
5e2880555a486dc7c4eac257eca15129
eb24c31061de37f55d656402bc808afc34b7d9c3
7165 F20101112_AADLBF johnson_e_Page_50.QC.jpg
ae5f5debd234f9b370bceafc7f19a03f
1d5919983bf3a7ed388f527d37ea8b21e75b3d23
10589 F20101112_AADKZF johnson_e_Page_18.QC.jpg
1701bc65057eb84aacf2f6000343a4b1
d3f81d1ce377844d79524ab51aaf92049e4e92f7
741022 F20101112_AADKPL johnson_e_Page_43.jp2
98fc340f2f9c5a414d2bcdb34f342e1b
e7808204d7b110145c5cd42c50452f643696e871
F20101112_AADKKN johnson_e_Page_68.tif
ff7cee94587203539a517d156a1a73ec
31be74908b589b74da144851640aaf2ba1592d6a
54416 F20101112_AADKUI johnson_e_Page_41.pro
eff39690fbd0f6fe048f10d2b74f82b4
2e613d5b271ccd7f53377f7f454582bde5f57c1f
2440 F20101112_AADLBG johnson_e_Page_50thm.jpg
3580cd23377a732a67d9ac7c4055f239
45e6e95164c3bb3dde01d51ba27185dfd6117760
3492 F20101112_AADKZG johnson_e_Page_18thm.jpg
df8b51442c0579ce9df572329781eeea
1bb4fa0fc5bb1097881ff5cf09a7862cd6cfbb8e
701018 F20101112_AADKPM johnson_e_Page_44.jp2
cb3ab65a72898ed8f8bff84def8eaf53
15e8d61999bbe70ad1097310513821e2fbadb343
6937 F20101112_AADKKO johnson_e_Page_20thm.jpg
cc63abd2e2cadd578189b02e6e2079cd
4f1d0daf244f53e00623e9dbc6c5b0946a9aabfa
12613 F20101112_AADKUJ johnson_e_Page_42.pro
eee492a6f5468c815bc589346b349c6c
6c1ada568e57ffbed62b05d274a1a443417c6668
13298 F20101112_AADLBH johnson_e_Page_51.QC.jpg
baf014434998e5c80ce52967d5268435
d94b0460edb2595418284876836d3e2771bb7471
24058 F20101112_AADKZH johnson_e_Page_19.QC.jpg
c97e2c496a267e23507814b317171ceb
1e481ff37b1b5a7324907bca781dfa64ec5a2e9f
2470 F20101112_AADKKP johnson_e_Page_78.txt
e97ce45858185cc063888e8515e882cd
5c6b61c277abe310ae031f7df5b6a92409c258f6
12293 F20101112_AADKUK johnson_e_Page_44.pro
d7735d8271603266572b11dfdacc2414
037ca97acb0d64d0197969bddeac80a12a81ecc5
3954 F20101112_AADLBI johnson_e_Page_51thm.jpg
333fe622dc6950a868348e4fda66d40a
ff34026fb49a16d24f72fb12850ac5d304193499
25328 F20101112_AADKZI johnson_e_Page_21.QC.jpg
be989ea99191c8cc84fdedbd903f1b1e
a27ee0e7e57431603e64249053670efd6aaa6b2c
228073 F20101112_AADKPN johnson_e_Page_45.jp2
cd173264e54c62a007393ce68fb7f846
e1d18952e0b54378fb4f2695ee5590d0df45de8a
670269 F20101112_AADKKQ johnson_e_Page_66.jp2
f14dca055b4ae85b028f1d32e07fbe6b
6b1060955e08bc369827278bc7c12ce63c15ac36
6718 F20101112_AADKUL johnson_e_Page_45.pro
80b688a43093d97c5422a1cc32d240c3
7daa3b0b01198f7439ac1074c0e1fc8aaac5f147
10856 F20101112_AADLBJ johnson_e_Page_52.QC.jpg
5af18fe12cdafe9bc71ef9d85c8337cc
078f962f26cc698da987465c2b5242579fcf7a29
6786 F20101112_AADKZJ johnson_e_Page_21thm.jpg
9848c9a19dacd7b62c5814b241219481
df0296758d74b8337c01c49800c7b28b0743f38f
610936 F20101112_AADKPO johnson_e_Page_46.jp2
acb6f47f1cf56896f7ff36d97af00a8d
a4c77ad7ba3db7dbe8ea1070d64386429ccfe296
26510 F20101112_AADKKR johnson_e_Page_20.QC.jpg
ecf5c412b35b446577e55f49092c5f07
05e7351666a76820544860f9d1927eaa29fd78f4
6725 F20101112_AADKUM johnson_e_Page_47.pro
721ca4bdc406cec18eac486c26857bf0
8a5927de744d77c89ea917c595ce207e7e74d519
3445 F20101112_AADLBK johnson_e_Page_52thm.jpg
747a1416016cb785fab507b386e99e32
69e708c99400e30ebcbb45a6a27df2359050b34e
10755 F20101112_AADKZK johnson_e_Page_22.QC.jpg
2e9828e91c80ffb1fe0eb6e6b969c41a
cdd2a26675d12b7c9a6647eadec7d99a826e3003
222809 F20101112_AADKPP johnson_e_Page_47.jp2
f16b7a7897b1380bae738a5907810db2
5609080c1fb69ffac6296941490a16fc99f4f9be
59662 F20101112_AADKKS johnson_e_Page_75.jpg
acbb291356e310f2678375653ffc0905
b46c6b44fb80b9f57e3d33ceeedef66c167bc263
19466 F20101112_AADKUN johnson_e_Page_48.pro
eb894257e60aa0a5c53573cbd2b79104
17b286e0ed91004136d5e16054167f4ba1beefb3
13570 F20101112_AADLBL johnson_e_Page_53.QC.jpg
035cfa0b945bcc2681cce7967f6b2e06
1f8d8266e3cafb3651ec49725eefd72a2d70b8d8
3471 F20101112_AADKZL johnson_e_Page_22thm.jpg
ffaf5187a6ce5ca172d627d76504183e
fd788b72870652ae8d57b65616b2e4b834807404
638694 F20101112_AADKPQ johnson_e_Page_48.jp2
1b4a96635ce9ac6ea378da2325274e45
79f2f909db760d9bfc7653679654c9e7a75b4b03
F20101112_AADKKT johnson_e_Page_79.tif
2e9307e5cfc6d9e819b41743c3d5efce
aa8a6463023606033809dcdb5a9a9049f1253aa2
8624 F20101112_AADKUO johnson_e_Page_50.pro
5e96b775ca0458daa01c09908b8896e1
8807abc285b4ff227d7400bf7155a5598ce18959
4362 F20101112_AADLBM johnson_e_Page_53thm.jpg
3bef4ea32dd0f8b5d7db29d1764d2fe6
3f23c2e41eac502bc840ea58808a76fd4c1c1fe1
19574 F20101112_AADKZM johnson_e_Page_23.QC.jpg
b52e221ebd0ea319f1b87d7d86d6eef2
dbe2b98c1ea7de2c93a8646d2e5309b5f991140a
630754 F20101112_AADKPR johnson_e_Page_49.jp2
54ad1ae1b32e11ed4079799bd498c8ed
13311cb1349bf14890f3c50e4cb38e7a47fc0cfb
F20101112_AADKKU johnson_e_Page_01.tif
14945a75117ff7103dad4b6169c8e02e
6ed350d00ee51f058d1da8241ffac4a66ab38edb
18698 F20101112_AADKUP johnson_e_Page_51.pro
5b5ebe2c3ca569eaec0d6d1bdd9c2cfa
3ce50ff86f19bb09a2f65a200d421bbdece0ce6f
4290 F20101112_AADLBN johnson_e_Page_54thm.jpg
a0eb8cbdf13551a06361e9640d3d2dfb
7e25b46b0f735b0a83cf2736b1faf0810ea9a3c0
5119 F20101112_AADKZN johnson_e_Page_23thm.jpg
dadac2fa5185d5f9714b0c29bcdded0b
0ae99a81048b71e75280a114262c61c4276691d5
686 F20101112_AADKKV johnson_e_Page_52.txt
0d196256ebdf08d9c1319a7c621fc692
968f03a128d2d24b0666abad87c04561906c92e6
12694 F20101112_AADKUQ johnson_e_Page_52.pro
ced3c2cee5540498e657a3de67ad5270
9261190c6607c7e5989b71504cad92280f27ff76
277628 F20101112_AADKPS johnson_e_Page_50.jp2
43fad1d9f980cdc30e1e2ce15c80054b
b2e9e90384332763b4c2f1d9123d6f0d2bc5ed19
3023 F20101112_AADLBO johnson_e_Page_55thm.jpg
710ad04f42556f14b0f9a97511148f25
44fea8b4d789d804209f54c8148c880bbeb4083a
3052 F20101112_AADKZO johnson_e_Page_24thm.jpg
0302fd7d0f4efc98e58b3ddd0f4a0398
e7aa23d1d5567047e1a9fb582a97d9ff1a4a17e4
14591 F20101112_AADKKW johnson_e_Page_46.pro
14fedee3ea3142be72e84ee7fc573c55
39d9a3b2b4b48520431c1596f2f4ccff54f9bfeb
15968 F20101112_AADKUR johnson_e_Page_53.pro
0490049b6465f084614a4271b9767c54
7fe505cfb5c918f1c8a27cc5a576ff6d4783a1bc
625273 F20101112_AADKPT johnson_e_Page_51.jp2
a82646eb071fe100ff708afd45badd25
b2cba8d6bd21dfdc3225faba77d8c547886bf030
25658 F20101112_AADLBP johnson_e_Page_56.QC.jpg
8a34e5a3e9fb6713f9586a78b9443b42
7340b1554ffb46b07f2bbd795e6773d6302224b7
12388 F20101112_AADKZP johnson_e_Page_25.QC.jpg
d575f5501bc4832de225542f51e212eb
de1d66612c44b7c641c0cf72de696f09e01702fa
9099 F20101112_AADKKX johnson_e_Page_55.QC.jpg
9349cf406577ef4838ebddc0a2e808fb
f5239bc4f8e66444e64b3e0c4c7cfeba47d5284d
449726 F20101112_AADKPU johnson_e_Page_52.jp2
c42b66fdc9431258de07a0a48e455c2a
1c8fa7d64ecd53312aadf17ff7e69f7fe3ff8354
7055 F20101112_AADLBQ johnson_e_Page_56thm.jpg
efebad24e45744cc23adc7b255183835
187a593c179d174303b1bfd82706c710228f6e16
4153 F20101112_AADKZQ johnson_e_Page_25thm.jpg
da13c814bd0423e59893dc79333ef8a3
0ff96d025372b5d3cb4728fed378d0db687163fa
44675 F20101112_AADKIA johnson_e_Page_51.jpg
75c11d4167b09e8a30de6cafd4823494
1f424098f6eef8d3ed7685de3da615705c2b1635
56764 F20101112_AADKKY johnson_e_Page_34.pro
6ea460bb26aef8eed6a99fe7931c62db
9460e80be812f57ff8a3858f312504ef75b00a60
10499 F20101112_AADKUS johnson_e_Page_55.pro
00628fb0a710bbe9c61c5ad1b9a2ff24
b4d645392a6c85449bea5ee35a221abf4728a8bd
698679 F20101112_AADKPV johnson_e_Page_53.jp2
020ef2f6ab5aebfcde51dc1df6e740ae
5385a012358fb09a1f6555ee77d4167896b8c939
6163 F20101112_AADLBR johnson_e_Page_57thm.jpg
dc78a7307e7dcc97b2863bfe56f8145a
02416f502fadeea6de8924a1598e1a0a4fe5cbfe
8386 F20101112_AADKZR johnson_e_Page_26.QC.jpg
d319aa2739d4971e683eb58011636100
173c91a91b165fa46de518be3281be18ae4e7caf
F20101112_AADKIB johnson_e_Page_64.tif
84edfc8bb50a039a203b05acddf88833
3b3b8eb05c7fa7b14b6fb15fd462ceb03f23bd55
13431 F20101112_AADKKZ johnson_e_Page_64.QC.jpg
6e66369ff635129a1d65119997948edc
604d6248bae815541b65606b5b3e1b1f09a1037b
54005 F20101112_AADKUT johnson_e_Page_56.pro
e5dc3a42ed01a23edbdd6050ef9a9765
53488e1c567b475240e88cb55270c032786f1a94
687159 F20101112_AADKPW johnson_e_Page_54.jp2
75195ff6424d043491d7e435723b856f
aa707a226f4f758d896835967411decab1e3ad1c
23981 F20101112_AADLBS johnson_e_Page_58.QC.jpg
a06b4c1498e84aa772ea47f1947089fc
a261bb0aef193f8a975428c31213d7f25d0ddf92
21601 F20101112_AADKZS johnson_e_Page_27.QC.jpg
a52135f0009e29889610ab384d55fb65
3a4f60aefdfcda51fb07cb000bfaa4267714e4c2
45330 F20101112_AADKIC johnson_e_Page_44.jpg
39413296fe49944ba8d486dfa5a36f85
0ba6b1ceab2f36dfc50b6e340aaa4b54cdac6529
47842 F20101112_AADKUU johnson_e_Page_57.pro
a59708e815814a08cdec40a55d1d66a7
3e5ff869d8d704ea1db26c2305bdaf47b03fd14f
116617 F20101112_AADKPX johnson_e_Page_56.jp2
98acfa6b02f6dc453dee34ff93882b3e
15994d6946ae02efe2d267e7fd464dd1158222da
6513 F20101112_AADLBT johnson_e_Page_58thm.jpg
c30043f6dc3eb269b120f260d5e6bf36
fc6893305592b81afff96af1b46bb57d719e5696
6161 F20101112_AADKZT johnson_e_Page_27thm.jpg
ab61ba65c743fbbba511cc28d90af461
c336bc8dcc1d2804052d2253e1247e577370dc90
30924 F20101112_AADKID johnson_e_Page_63.jpg
591316d2ab9f6f8d5e6cab774a671186
d994ba67d694858d21ee6fec77a6bef5a9bed2b8
35393 F20101112_AADKUV johnson_e_Page_59.pro
aba1cb495b0e5bfc9e8f8a6aee30dc74
c682e139d46b91f95ed2baee219498ed56e72a9b
74281 F20101112_AADKNA johnson_e_Page_33.jpg
3ec9f6d19b46a17d3348e66a059b554e
b971497f0c96a29b107070251bfcef4af6651e36
100951 F20101112_AADKPY johnson_e_Page_57.jp2
0ff55689db1254958295778d4db4ef68
a447f8215888eeff95cd8e49d71d75abb3adb9c9
18000 F20101112_AADLBU johnson_e_Page_59.QC.jpg
54f7b2277a5fa346bafe952c34facf35
2041bab6ccdca76a941ba775a3ef06d91f1282d3
24266 F20101112_AADKZU johnson_e_Page_28.QC.jpg
a9b9aab1e63e40b58ca7533b4b81a21b
f8bdb1be881283a4f946aefec271ae056c5899d9
1529 F20101112_AADKIE johnson_e_Page_79.txt
1035f72802b0e5a932240bf3063cde3c
e4e59337a625b46e5f524cef443a0c0578b8a139
2846 F20101112_AADKUW johnson_e_Page_60.pro
df63ef29255f8835c6c7ec115f02ea80
6586f1ecb9a96c6766c7fec5aaaa16600f8d4bde
76139 F20101112_AADKNB johnson_e_Page_35.jpg
08ab7c64aeea0b2e67ed30994d706512
86decb164b6f48ae89f3e3dc942e6f50e6d79740
110404 F20101112_AADKPZ johnson_e_Page_58.jp2
29a39e149972fe5e70a0dc958beadbb0
ac3527d6eb4b5dd3929650ea94fd018da1ed2a5c
5062 F20101112_AADLBV johnson_e_Page_59thm.jpg
b7926d279d030ec097d35d7fb301e4a8
b8d9a3743ded66ddfa71ade84610d779ebb4c4dd
6755 F20101112_AADKZV johnson_e_Page_28thm.jpg
dc8a4d18fd293c9d42e1f41e3f1acfa6
be3d730c9329802f67dae2716533f28c2ba1a247
13873 F20101112_AADKIF johnson_e_Page_54.QC.jpg
3164ed666c8b8899cc4b6c52bb33ef2d
69e263b99ecda745da8c8daada356b2e68215275
11724 F20101112_AADKUX johnson_e_Page_61.pro
f02ed824603b7115a2f985c8fa53c584
db7c9600dd18fe5eca4943c486c18dc3a2d43c7b
69228 F20101112_AADKNC johnson_e_Page_36.jpg
4cf83ac20f629142047de85f5fe05196
338936684b56d9f6026f6572730964a6b768f80b
7668 F20101112_AADLBW johnson_e_Page_60.QC.jpg
e98d6261e1e1131fbde04c873b2be7dd
68c33f2a8ae3633551c6aefa3c31d3bf3e709b34
7007 F20101112_AADKZW johnson_e_Page_29thm.jpg
ffdaafee037db9c74acd8fa5ee938c09
c56b258b3ff81546c951c282a2431b5268d503a6
F20101112_AADKSA johnson_e_Page_43.tif
f769051c9e084c44aaa27b229d8866c0
ab42832e8673a9362a240038a8bc7072925b3395
11221 F20101112_AADKUY johnson_e_Page_62.pro
fddd5120a55698db96c96336b2025a12
3cac6767ef8055507f5c693c7aacd6dc179371ef
70348 F20101112_AADKND johnson_e_Page_38.jpg
a7b63a15b24f81b30bb939e6181eb2b3
81c18cc668123734471dea83e35116ffdfc50cbc
13522 F20101112_AADLBX johnson_e_Page_61.QC.jpg
209bbff1900be4ed2480e4f09f473c7d
5b7ec9048a6a63df35f2b947529fb67a99748ccc
F20101112_AADKSB johnson_e_Page_44.tif
db7efa404d67fe1e9ffaddfd787d6100
1b7ccf4a44e7cfa73aae5bb677265be1a5e86c98
5572 F20101112_AADKUZ johnson_e_Page_63.pro
3ed04ee77910c3be730337127e3fe540
70e883894c2a3ea8860491bd3e3fd3a1af6ddbdb
41418 F20101112_AADKNE johnson_e_Page_39.jpg
191cb4f70e0121e385bd7a62781763b4
3ca44629390bdfc498496f182bf412b183b4e5aa
43095 F20101112_AADKIG johnson_e_Page_67.jpg
86b2832a93059bc63a2c25876995d4a6
775768d80fb4d0bfb341dedbd95d29c6fb53d87d
13879 F20101112_AADLBY johnson_e_Page_62.QC.jpg
e9532b87e8fd2cec62065bb7f448719c
de696e7d836f601adc5a649b55029332e6b35060
6967 F20101112_AADKZX johnson_e_Page_30thm.jpg
a5382a7317ebb2d9339b2df7c750e600
6b82785a5f5ca3a5cefbfa65469c1d4f8a5c4687
F20101112_AADKSC johnson_e_Page_45.tif
cf37061c212db895d3a0674fced67ce1
b7f62f1d80953d93aed63dad7c356adf60fef319
37951 F20101112_AADKNF johnson_e_Page_40.jpg
3ed6e14041374fa833d8723b18741aeb
d35d326f0eb0d2227ee0d992dbd825affc04726f
113394 F20101112_AADKIH johnson_e_Page_35.jp2
a36de87a67647576b16be7e9f2d26269
ce98d44fab3326f2ac6136e92d60f325664eb91e
4109 F20101112_AADLBZ johnson_e_Page_62thm.jpg
99693538963e2f3e94efe81183ad71a8
22f35e6d4072a70293f55666180d38569532ebbb
23038 F20101112_AADKZY johnson_e_Page_31.QC.jpg
44e2e7e7b08668d42b893fb8bccaf751
3c48415225eaf925fcc8777074a014243fcf9850
351 F20101112_AADKXA johnson_e_Page_45.txt
3c1e7ebdf6035c17d897bb00c02cf52a
b522990f2ee590f0d4d04eabc76bd0c898617a13
F20101112_AADKSD johnson_e_Page_46.tif
7764de885aa9032ff0be4e0e9a0e929b
b95bac6e678f21db457771b00d318734777639f4
61735 F20101112_AADKNG johnson_e_Page_41.jpg
96518d289e15a5945b9489afed07545a
9d90f2d6b9b3641a4fb4679ece6ff1bc4e94d342
31831 F20101112_AADKII johnson_e_Page_68.jpg
0e790209fa3386212b8345dea8c7f98c
248262fa0083ea572dafe9366df23bdbc2590b64
6439 F20101112_AADKZZ johnson_e_Page_31thm.jpg
cf66acdbfb302801a0a05762fcf02694
2896d9c57c8a607409f353053d13f7aa19f8c6b6
734 F20101112_AADKXB johnson_e_Page_46.txt
9ac20177b583a33f55b99e8efbed7719
0f2f1642ef81eb42d18f7ca9d0bb50848e3a7e87
F20101112_AADKSE johnson_e_Page_48.tif
13863fbafeb4eaffcfb9c00f1cc1ae50
b9a2477a3b9edd21fad6044d4fcb38a4a4ebd9a9
46988 F20101112_AADKNH johnson_e_Page_43.jpg
f84fb9ff6e5b8eb58e491202b49b7696
665ab26a6c6a12a54d5c2a109441023225a7b3a5
46976 F20101112_AADKIJ johnson_e_Page_32.pro
1024e1fdf4c1f11b7c8a04b8911c633c
441ed5d6771589e54d1047f33b8b1ac28a81c57c
915 F20101112_AADKXC johnson_e_Page_48.txt
3f86bd64003d7014cd95a2b0ebd5ea96
db1122a0e0cc17c665e6acc7f1b3e36a39d1f65c
F20101112_AADKSF johnson_e_Page_49.tif
90005ffbd0aaa9d914e97732807a5836
a42a2a4656af0891f04209d9c039e377b83dc001
20893 F20101112_AADKNI johnson_e_Page_45.jpg
a11ae1eedac9645f8077be90af3d9557
8f39bf9d66c8ba5a39e6b9358e1fd2217786fdd6
89963 F20101112_AADKIK johnson_e_Page_79.jp2
48bb8a81581d634177d3d401ed8dcfbe
99fa37b3d4c7676e9308f03cb40d44d6afa000ac
970 F20101112_AADKXD johnson_e_Page_49.txt
7ac5538d26c335aab5e1c08d0596d063
3fb32ff5799e8187ba85046d7dd8d8695c79a805
F20101112_AADKSG johnson_e_Page_50.tif
b28f6f74778b08923f11a1a42c820894
5e9052d25f67cb58c7a13b5ec703c453bf902bb0
21232 F20101112_AADKNJ johnson_e_Page_47.jpg
e1f2b959f4581c3879142a298e30556b
0ff1c85c1f89f35ba99e5cb345b57fb9b7d13053
97218 F20101112_AADKIL johnson_e_Page_27.jp2
793369ac5ce03cb08569396404815c3e
12f427ac0d55335abd1f81d368a837acb56a1fb3
423 F20101112_AADKXE johnson_e_Page_50.txt
fcfada43b745c3396c05d8862246e073
2ef5eed18d58f24d6676a766378860d55322d07f
F20101112_AADKSH johnson_e_Page_51.tif
311f1263238ab488ed497a79965294a6
0f628690bb830c31c3f522a7f8f7b2c4e18b9ebf
46231 F20101112_AADKNK johnson_e_Page_48.jpg
3c8a119714a403e2306e612b329308fa
e1c539188c361d64460bc8f9204484940b20f6da
109720 F20101112_AADKIM johnson_e_Page_12.jp2
d55a0af1bcce1e97948b19b70bd7ec52
bb4e4ce750d4e4e0e58e7cb0325b91f57dcc0984
F20101112_AADKXF johnson_e_Page_51.txt
a064b5c343d6c67488429e8db310836b
85cfd9f53496155f70fb70da6acb2947d33b2231
F20101112_AADKSI johnson_e_Page_52.tif
d44298782c2501f4e987bcf7f57ce6d9
b824cfb8ed7af23ae0a1251bce36646e198a23b9
F20101112_AADKIN johnson_e_Page_02.tif
dbd670e2af12686fb78192122649e8fc
1dcc58b660a1a856b2f52412b317b94636450177
815 F20101112_AADKXG johnson_e_Page_53.txt
817644f8e7052c71026bd25622fb40d8
d2a09536016ad26041c90db38987f849b6b990bd
F20101112_AADKSJ johnson_e_Page_53.tif
53aaea1b1fb7fc855cebfaa37a95a53f
c3169fc6e3ccf96eb2d7cfce13de6f4b7083ffcd
44544 F20101112_AADKNL johnson_e_Page_49.jpg
2f6b9f42f04afcc41acf92daad485ad7
f5ed81090462f4d02fb652d2c0fc7b2d988d6d3e
70936 F20101112_AADKIO johnson_e_Page_15.jpg
3190c3d07a10163b73a278c2baee258b
6d4f77feb2f1818ec8e39251a416b54d1e522ac6
698 F20101112_AADKXH johnson_e_Page_54.txt
4f1f2d48d4bd3e1d6b1870c679edb89a
4efec14f98492bd2367682b53ba81acc991dbf71
F20101112_AADKSK johnson_e_Page_54.tif
6f8942ca2b717c9af8cc6245b4ddb361
be8c168dca84233665c71232f325e4634228953f
23581 F20101112_AADKNM johnson_e_Page_50.jpg
5b3eb942ba7a70371e93bfccc8345d44
9d2a9572cd808a5e1346f5fed42c8ce68f462c79
2745 F20101112_AADKIP johnson_e_Page_60thm.jpg
b0f4891bf907830f4f121de4c2ab4875
780de0cd84389add384a96ede00c057e34f61ba2
541 F20101112_AADKXI johnson_e_Page_55.txt
aa6a1e8164f5b3a4332c8bc3adfe89cf
c96372a1f0a0ce2771b0457fc5821c4bd0e7a5db
F20101112_AADKSL johnson_e_Page_55.tif
9ef5c0969cf264614282d7fa6f4e59df
d7ff6d33a8da3b0497bd9bcec53b8c4554e8e350
46104 F20101112_AADKNN johnson_e_Page_54.jpg
582ca4aee6d53b8ff03d390040d93ce7
64c3e4983ce7d595004b3ec3242787ddb64f7a34
913 F20101112_AADKIQ johnson_e_Page_07.txt
fd74a26665afb598009690029cfdb404
bf27233021a0d9619bea2e352c7d9631ee18d67f
2183 F20101112_AADKXJ johnson_e_Page_56.txt
1b8de99d87e9cd9fc0da9bd31846da54
3c007ce015b6f616b1bd86d84a348a47e39832c2
F20101112_AADKSM johnson_e_Page_56.tif
e37e37a551e80e0de5a93dc734523583
388d2b353768f7b5fafdcfd75d35df9b6c2e7b2b
29629 F20101112_AADKNO johnson_e_Page_55.jpg
31470871a7140f7b0af7d802dd495078
6a6f7ab115766ac1f1bfce2fdb448c6307183105
6650 F20101112_AADKIR johnson_e_Page_26.pro
574855b6d1c2e0adb655bba369248627
38a6b408120bb281fe62db685b03c5f6035cba08
2095 F20101112_AADKXK johnson_e_Page_58.txt
cff8d02edd07edaa940e3df78c7c73ae
025f66f75ad347dd43ee56b01bd261eee10e3b67
F20101112_AADKSN johnson_e_Page_59.tif
cd3025f11cd5cda3c49c37b3094b6dde
0870536f14ad31782fc247942417b7a3ad59b071
78169 F20101112_AADKNP johnson_e_Page_56.jpg
55e2301c8be4ffa1618b291ee3dd36db
25213f6cc4d4ba964cd72a094bfaed299a5cd6d8
101366 F20101112_AADKIS johnson_e_Page_32.jp2
b459f5000caba48d1e26b669c3184203
f46cb168880e689db23021eb8e94ea5ad0b18027
1440 F20101112_AADKXL johnson_e_Page_59.txt
0ae330e9dcc546c100e575f2c667ddbd
b46d157b179cda387172097709cfe1e2846dd1d0
F20101112_AADKSO johnson_e_Page_60.tif
eb0e83a7fbeac6353898a7391c77f18b
f691210ba7427d2081e420a3616a9e9701efd402
68867 F20101112_AADKNQ johnson_e_Page_57.jpg
d5bf0ef5e8f75ae4c6825e569344e9cb
9d8eb2a7625faa0b9441df7dead7857218becf83
10196 F20101112_AADKIT johnson_e_Page_77.pro
79c608b3ff6d614347e5ffdfa6927c2e
78eb8c176a61961c207987777fe7cd41c25a650d
180 F20101112_AADKXM johnson_e_Page_60.txt
b93b8ab7a7a3eb706bcd56accfdeb73c
31d08fb331c1541f44443521f4f12ff7bb91809d
75549 F20101112_AADKNR johnson_e_Page_58.jpg
5ba957a9b3be847d8f00830fff67b618
818353eade81aacc84fd598308198196980005e5
310488 F20101112_AADKIU johnson_e_Page_26.jp2
9f7d162eeca0faccdb78f9c9a866e1d5
10d1cba877ae73380a24e4fc128e19ab7ddcf939
F20101112_AADKSP johnson_e_Page_61.tif
d1e6f302a6ce784e6d547b97e250a724
8ef469759a64a57ee574ab58036d6581c3f96221
596 F20101112_AADKXN johnson_e_Page_62.txt
27e82f3aa0142b646235e641ba129db9
eaf9bf449f61bdf14118ace0926c31940ae21bf4
52894 F20101112_AADKNS johnson_e_Page_59.jpg
0883f4196c86447e3d494f868d2db932
ded5074339eee833f38fe342d5b7c5963911fc31
979410 F20101112_AADKIV johnson_e_Page_09.jp2
05de3695795240d2f3577151c20ccd1e
459ac703f948da051ee006e98b0af3f5de568b61
331 F20101112_AADKXO johnson_e_Page_63.txt
e357d19b87db2e4c13c3663eb08269d8
3a7be1d49e7d48b555792dc798b0ee56430262ea
22150 F20101112_AADKNT johnson_e_Page_60.jpg
336bb593241291eccc243e2f3f3ba970
183679db4dccf01332ede170349a63bb1d6959e8
26316 F20101112_AADKIW johnson_e_Page_14.QC.jpg
dbde599ad1955f91cf344b31180ea357
fc937727017aef3a96286ff15252a778483389b5
F20101112_AADKSQ johnson_e_Page_62.tif
09f0d54d83458ee9163cad61ef95f1a4
86214177d70a0b3be35bc803cf707d68087b982c
1118 F20101112_AADKXP johnson_e_Page_64.txt
ea21aa176e2789c4e0cc2cd12508d79c
f282a430fa9ce9d417aab267171ba59e8a12021c
45733 F20101112_AADKNU johnson_e_Page_61.jpg
6490b93e99a9e8e36ef43e449ada3411
3c3a71e01b4b673deb54d566ca5698239789cd79
F20101112_AADKIX johnson_e_Page_13.tif
b53e6cdc9249b8293049a1f8bf00faa7
852a4979f7884e39a6f52420780debd5b32dfc1d
F20101112_AADKSR johnson_e_Page_63.tif
0ffc147e0baa653f9b7a05adce500b5f
531574e59e2ad9e700b1910987406d8e2acaae74
498 F20101112_AADKXQ johnson_e_Page_66.txt
3c71e585a617dfa315f3b0b57f994baa
edd50c3af2c55570a7d333b6150e8016832026cf
45228 F20101112_AADKNV johnson_e_Page_62.jpg
06f2e436bd4bdb669ebc545a09a76af5
9cb2af2dbda459e6512dcd6b09fd07a65c8ae572
578 F20101112_AADKIY johnson_e_Page_61.txt
72fa189f3fd77190937017b47fe34f6a
3cda01b29bfa5c382a8a84f835fcf50eb7f939d7
F20101112_AADKSS johnson_e_Page_65.tif
bca281ad043f72385cf716f253479647
a262d0091fb847b6f5e17bfd34b742560f1e2f66



PAGE 1

1 DEVELOPMENT OF HURRICANE RESISTANT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS By ERIC VINCENT JOHNSON, JR. 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 Eric Vincent Johnson, Jr.

PAGE 3

3 To those who ignited and continue to kindl e my interest in structural engineering.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Ronald A. Cook has been instrumental in offering guidance for not only the project, but with any matter; his understa nding, patience, and concern for well-being truly enabled this project to be completed not only in a reasonabl e amount of time, but with high morale. Dr. Forrest Masters is greatly appreciated for his role in the research and testing. Dr. Kurtis Gurley’s willingness to assist is highly valued. Charles Broward, III; George Fernandez; and R obert Gomez allowed testing to take place with no problem and merit more praise than I can possibly offer. The Traffic Operations Department of the City of Gainesville also prov ided immeasurable assistance in testing; the willingness—and wit—expressed by the departme nt was the only way testing could occur on a project of this scale wh ile being enjoyable. Finally, many aides have created a social network to offer support that cannot be underestimated, and the following are as responsible as any in the co mpletion of this thesis: Lori Fede, my parents and siblings, Nicholas Li ndblad, Jasmine Davenport, Rebekah Friedman, Kathleen Halcovich, Adrian Lawrence, Sujatha Kalyanam, and Damon Allen.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................12 3 DEVELOPMENT OF WIND TESTING PROGRAM..........................................................19 Test Setup..................................................................................................................... ..........19 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......21 Test Methods................................................................................................................... .......21 4 TEST RESULTS................................................................................................................. ...27 Signal Rotations............................................................................................................... .......27 Single Cable System........................................................................................................27 Effect of signal orie ntation on rotation....................................................................28 Effect of additional weight on rotation....................................................................28 Dual Cable System..........................................................................................................29 Repeated Tests................................................................................................................. 29 Discussion of Signal Rotation.........................................................................................30 Cable Tension.................................................................................................................. .......31 Single Cable System........................................................................................................31 Effect of signal orientation on cable tension............................................................31 Effect of additional weight on cable tension............................................................32 Dual Cable System..........................................................................................................32 Repeated Tests................................................................................................................. 33 Discussion of Cable Tension...........................................................................................33 Pole Movement.................................................................................................................. .....34 Cable Displacement............................................................................................................. ...35 Single Cable System........................................................................................................35 Effect of signal orientat ion on cable displacement..................................................35 Effect of additional weight on cable displacement..................................................36 Dual Cable System..........................................................................................................36 Repeated Tests................................................................................................................. 36 Discussion of Cable Displacement..................................................................................37

PAGE 6

6 Summary of Test Results........................................................................................................ 37 Data Observation.............................................................................................................37 Visual Observation..........................................................................................................38 5 FORCE COEFFICIENTS, DRAG COEFFI CIENTS, AND LIFT COEFFICIENTS............56 Force Coefficients............................................................................................................. ......57 Effect of Signal Orienta tion on Force Coefficient..........................................................57 Effect of Additional Weight on Force Coefficient..........................................................57 Comparison of Repeated Tests........................................................................................58 Drag and Lift Coefficients..................................................................................................... .58 Effect of Signal Orientation on Drag and Lift Coefficients............................................58 Effect of Additional Weight on Drag and Lift Coefficient.............................................58 Comparison of Repeated Tests........................................................................................59 Discussion of Force, Dra g, and Lift Coefficients...................................................................59 6 ANALYSIS OF SPAN WIRE DESIGN METHODS............................................................69 Specifications for Wind Loads on Signs Luminaires, and Traffic Signals............................69 Height and Exposure Factor............................................................................................69 Gust Effect Factor............................................................................................................7 0 Importance Factor............................................................................................................72 Drag Coefficient..............................................................................................................7 2 Comparison of Results from AASHTO 2001 and Wind Tests...............................................73 Discussion of Design Methods...............................................................................................73 7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................74 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........74 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........75 Recommendations................................................................................................................ ...75 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WIND TESTING PROGRAM FOR MODERN CODES AND RESEARCH RESULTS.................................................................................76 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................80

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Number of cycles and fraction of ma ximum force applied according to SBCCI..............17 3-1 Tests performed............................................................................................................ .....23 4-1 Cable sag determined from load cell.................................................................................39 4-2 Wind velocity at 50% signal visibility...............................................................................40 4-3 Cable tension increase for single cable support systems at 115 miles per hour................41 4-4 Cable tension increase for dual cabl e support systems at 115 miles per hour...................41 4-5 Pole Displacement during testing......................................................................................41

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Drag and lift coefficients from ASCE Task Comm ittee on Wind Forces.........................17 2-2 Test apparatus created for tes ting of traffic signal components........................................18 3-1 ATLAS results for rotations...............................................................................................2 4 3-2 Layout of test setup....................................................................................................... .....25 3-3 Wind loading function...................................................................................................... .26 4-1 Rotation of forward facing signal supported by single cable............................................42 4-2 Top view of traffic signal with respect to oncoming wind................................................42 4-3 Signal rotation versus wind sp eed for various support hangers.........................................43 4-4 Effect of weight on signal rotation.....................................................................................44 4-5 Wind velocity vs. rotation for dual cabl e systems with 40 inch hanger and 15 inch hangers........................................................................................................................ .......45 4-6 Wind velocity versus rota tion of forward facing signals...................................................46 4-7 Single cable system tension for forward facing signals.....................................................47 4-8 Cable tension for signals at various angles of attack.........................................................48 4-9 Cable tension for single cable tests featuring additional weight........................................49 4-10 Tension of messenger and catenar y cables of dual cable system......................................50 4-11 Cable tension for repeated tests.........................................................................................5 1 4-12 Moment of concrete poles with signal at minimum clearance height...............................52 4-13 Catenary displacement at point of attachment to signal support hardware.......................52 4-14 Cable translation for single point signal............................................................................53 4-15 Catenary cable displaceme nt for single point hangers.......................................................54 4-16 Cable translation for dual cable system with 5% sag........................................................55 4-17 Cable displacement for repeated test with 2% catenary sag..............................................55

PAGE 9

9 5-1 Determination of Force Coefficient...................................................................................60 5-2 Orientation effects on force coefficients............................................................................61 5-3 Weight effects on force coefficients..................................................................................62 5-4 Force coefficients from repeated tests...............................................................................63 5-5 Drag coefficients for various orientations..........................................................................64 5-6 Lift coefficients fo r various orientations............................................................................65 5-7 Drag coefficients for signals of various weight.................................................................66 5-8 Lift coefficients for signals of various weight...................................................................67 5-9 Drag and lift coefficients from first and second tests........................................................68 A-1 Graphs for use with “Structural Qualif ication Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs.”........................................................................................................................ ........77

PAGE 10

10 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 DEVELOPMENT OF HURRICANE RESISTANT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SU PPORT SYSTEMS By Eric Vincent Johnson, Jr. May 2007 Chair: Ronald A. Cook Major: Civil Engineering Span wire traffic support systems provide a reasonable cost alternative to mast arm structures. Unfortunately failure of span wire systems is prev alent in high velocity winds. Previous research of the dual cab le support mechanism indicates that this particular span wire assembly is not well suited for hurricane prone regions. Dual cable and single cable support systems were tested in high velocity winds, and results are compared to investigate th e performance of both under seve re wind loading. Additionally the force, drag, and lift coefficients of a 5 head traffic signal are determined and compared to previous research to determin e if the current recommended drag coefficient is adequate for analysis of wind forces on a typical traffic signal.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Performance of traffic signal support system s during hurricanes has indicated that the current dual cable system performs inadequately under hi gh velocity winds. As investigated in “Structural Qualification Procedure for Tra ffic Signals and Signs” after Hurricane Andrew, failures in traffic signal support systems occur in the hanger or quick disconnect box near the connection to the messenger cable (Cook et al. 1 996). Experience has shown that the current support system needs improvement. Because ther e is widespread use of single point support systems in hurricane prone regions, this project investigates the perfor mance of both dual cable and single cable support systems under high velocity winds. Several actions will take place to determine th e adequacy of each system. Modern codes provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO), as well as prev ious research by the Florida Department of Transportation, will be investigat ed to determine the expected wind forces and coefficients in extreme wind events. Testi ng of both systems will determine how the signal support systems behave in high winds. Results from design methods will be compared to the results observed from testing to verify accuracy. This thesis summarizes the results of design code inquiry, testing of traffic signals, and comparison between test results and design methods.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW The response of traffic signals to high veloci ty winds has previously been studied at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer sity under James F. Marchman, III. Because of the complexities of the shape of traffic signal s and their support system s, empirical data was determined to be best suited for finding the design wind loads on traffic signals (Marchman, III, 1971). Testing of 3-head signals took place wi th varying signal orientation, hood shapes, and number of signals on each support. Graphs depicting wind pressu re versus the force applied by the signal illustrated how the signals re sponded to winds that reached 160 mph. The research conducted at Virginia Tech in the late 1960s remains as background in the 2001 version of “Standard Specifications for Stru ctural Supports for High way Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals” (AASHTO 2001). A few other projects we re carried out to further understand the behavior of traffic si gnal structures to wind loads before the current version of the code was adopted. Florida is prone to high winds from tropical cyclones, and widespread damage to traffic signal structures was experienced in South Florida during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As a result, the following projects sponsored by Florida Department of Transportation in the 90s were geared towards understanding how traffic signa ls respond to wind loading. One project, “Computer Aided Design Program for Signal Pole and Span Wire Assemblies with Two Point Connection System,” was completed in two phase s (Hoit et al. 1994). Phase one included the development of a computer program—Analysis of Traffic Lights and Signs (ATLAS)—to model the behavior of traffic signals supported by the two-cable system used in Florida. ATLAS includes a nonlinear analysis of the signal support system and can verify that components are not

PAGE 13

13 overstressed. The second phase included th e testing of dual cable support systems for comparison of results between ATLAS and the tests. The other project, “Structural Qualification Procedure for Tr affic Signals and Signs,” was conducted to understand the failures of the dual cable traffic signal syst em that occur during hurricanes and to create a method of testing dual cable systems for adoption of standards into the FDOT Product Approval List (C ook et al. 1996). “Standards for Windborne Debris Impact Tests” by Southern Building Code Congress Inte rnational (SBCCI) specifi es tests that expose structures to cyclic loads; Table 2-1 shows th e load application for testing according to the standards. The maximum force was determined after examination of both ASCE 7-95 and AASHTO 1985. The design procedure in ASCE 7-95, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” was selected for computat ion of the wind force because it was the more current document. The total force for was altere d, however, according to the anticipated motion of traffic signals in high velocity wind events Unlike fixed structures, signals rotate when exposed to wind. As a result, the profile of the signal exposed to the wind changes, resulting in drag and lift coefficients that vary. Using “Wind Forces on St ructures” published by the ASCE Wind Force Committee, the anticipated drag and lift coefficients were selected (ASCE 1961; Cook et al. 1996). The drag and lift were computed, and using vector addition of the perpendicular forces, the total anticipated force was determined through 90 degrees of rotation for the signals. Figure 2-1 shows the expected dr ag and lift coefficients for 3 head and 5 head traffic signals. ATLAS was used to model the rotation of the traffic signal at varying wind velocities with rigid hardware, a nd this angle was added to the a ngle of rotation experienced by a signal in the test apparatus. The total angle e xpected for the change in wind velocity was then used to find the anticipated rotation at various wind speeds. Where the anticipated wind force

PAGE 14

14 from ASCE 7-95 matched the wind force measured from the actuator arm attached to the signal, the value was considered the applied force Fmax and was used for testing. The test apparatus, as shown in Figure 2-2, applies the fo rce to the centroid of the signal using an actuator arm. When the load cell reaches the appropriate force, the ac tuator retracts. The cycles may be altered, but the program allows for typical factors of Fmax based on SBCCI standards. For the negative pressures, the signal is rotated 180 degrees for the actuator arm to apply the force in the opposite direction. The testing summary reveals the number of cycles completed and Fmax. This method of testing could be used to qualify signal components while using widely accepted loading criteria for structural engineering. The New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) investigated th e affects of winds on support poles (Alampalli 1998). NYDOT attach ed an anemometer at op one pole to record wind speed and direction, and load cells were pl aced on opposite ends of the catenary cable to measure tension in the single cable assembly. The instrumentation was programmed to collect data when wind speeds exceeded 10 miles per hour; testing took place over 6 months. Wind speeds rarely exceeded 40 miles per hour, and the loads placed on the poles were compared to results from AASHTO design methods. The results were within 10% of design loads at low wind velocities, but design values were much hi gher than recorded at higher velocities; the author concluded that the dead and wind load s on the pole calculated from AASHTO design method are conservative because of the high anticipated wind loads from the square of the velocity term (Alampali 1998). A dditionally the span-wire sag was c onsidered a critical factor in determining the forces experienced by the poles (Alampalli 1998). NYDOT surveyed other transportation agencies around the United States before conducting re search, and of the 17 respondents, only Florida and West Virginia experi enced failures of the span wire assemblies.

PAGE 15

15 West Virginia experienced failures of the wire clamps, while Florida experienced the failures from high winds during aforementioned hurricanes (Alampalli 1998). The current code provisions for determinati on of wind forces are provided by ASCE and AASHTO. ASCE 7-05, “Minimum Design Loads fo r Buildings and Other Structures,” offers extensive information for the determination of wind forces on various st ructures (ASCE 2005). Traffic signals would apply to Section 6.5.15, which provides a computational method for determining wind forces on structur es other than buildings. The dete rmination of wind forces in structural engineering according to ASCE is given by the Bernoulli expression, and Equation 2-1 describes the expected wind force, where qZ is the dynamic wind pressure at elevation z, G is the gust effect factor, Cf is the force coefficient, and Af is the projected area of the object perpendicular to the wind unless the force coe fficient is specified fo r the total surface area (ASCE 2005). (2-1) The dynamic wind pressure can be determined from the design wind speed, and the projected area of the signal is known. The gust factor wo uld need to be determined from Section 6.5.8, which provides an analytical procedure for determ ining the factor for either rigid or flexible structures (ASCE 2005). Force coefficients are provided for so lid freestanding walls and solid signs in Figure 6-20; other shap es and structures have coeffi cients provided in Figures 6-21 through 6-23 of the specifications (ASCE 2005). AASHTO 2001 is the current spec ification that determines wi nd forces for transportation related structures. The calculation of wi nd forces is governed by Equation 2-2, where Kz is the height and exposure factor, G is th e gust effect factor, V is the basi c wind speed to be determined Fq z GC f A f

PAGE 16

16 from the wind speed map, Ir is the importance factor, and Cd is the drag coefficient (AASHTO 2001). (2-2) Recommended design values for traffic signals are found within the co de, including the gust effect factor—which has a recommended value of 1.14—and the drag coefficient, which may be taken as 1.2 unless more detailed informati on is provided, as recommended by Marchman, III (Marchman, III, 1971; AASHTO 2001). In Florida the use of cable supported traffic si gnal systems is widespread as it is a lowercost alternative to cantilever mast arm structures. The dual cable system is the primary system in use around the state; however, these perform poorly in high velocity winds. The reaction of dual cable and single cable systems will be compared. P z 0.00256K z GV2I r C d

PAGE 17

17 Table 2-1. Number of cycles and fraction of maximum force applied according to SBCCI. Load Cycle Load Range Cycles 1 0.2 Fmax to 0.5 Fmax 3500 2 0.0 Fmax to 0.6 Fmax 300 3 0.5 Fmax to 0.8 Fmax 600 4 0.3 Fmax to 1.0 Fmax 100 5 -0.3 Fmax to -1.0 Fmax 50 6 -0.5 Fmax to -0.8 Fmax 1050 7 0.0 Fmax to -0.6 Fmax 50 8 -0.2 Fmax to -0.5 Fmax 3350 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0102030405060708090 Signal Rotation (degrees)Drag and Lift Coefficient 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0102030405060708090 Signal Rotation (degrees)Drag and Lift Coefficient Figure 2-1. Drag and lift coefficients from AS CE Task Committee on Wind Forces. A) 3 head signal. B) 5 head signal. A B Drag Coefficient Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient Lift Coefficient

PAGE 18

18 Figure 2-2. Test apparatus created for testing of traffic signal components. A) Renovated with 3 head signal. B) After construction. A B

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 3 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF WIND TESTING PROGRAM Wind tests provide the unique opportunity to de velop an understanding of the response of a traffic signal structure to extrem e winds. The intent is to co mpare expectations provided by design codes with test data and verify the adequacy of design procedures. The response of traffic signals to high winds was measured, and comp arisons between dual cable and single cable systems were made for a large scale assembly. Testing was conducted at th e Eastside Campus of the University of Florida in July 2006 coope ratively between the Fl orida Department of Transportation, City of Gainesville, University of Florida, and Flor ida International University. Test Setup A full scale signal system was deemed necessary in providing an accurate assessment of response to wind loads. The span between support poles was determined with the help of ATLAS, the computer software program developed at the University of Florida. Many traffic signals span intersections at least 100 feet, and a span of 72 feet was previ ously deemed adequate to verify the accuracy of ATLAS (Hoit et al. 1994). However space was limited at the test site, and a span of 50 feet was proposed. Studies were conducte d using ATLAS to determine if the results of testing are comparable between the spans of 50 feet and 72 feet. ATLAS was run using a wind speed of 120 mph, which is the approximate highest wind speed that could be de veloped. Figure 3-1 shows the rotations and translations for a five -head signal suspended on spans of 50 feet and 72 feet, respectively, and on hangers of 15 inches and 40 inches. Computer outputs indicated that essentially the same signal rotations occur as with the 72 ft span, and because the differences in displacement and rotation are minimal, the 50 fo ot span was considered acceptable for obtaining data. A schematic of the test setup is provided in Figure 3-2.

PAGE 20

20 Two 18” x 18” Class 6 concrete poles were obtained from a traffic intersection undergoing improvements in Gainesville, Fl orida. As previously done in “Static and Dynamic Tests on Traffic Signal and Sign Dual Cabl e Support Systems,” holes were dug approximately 7 feet into the ground, the poles were set into place, and th e holes were backfilled with soil (Hoit et al. 1994). No concrete was used as a foundation, and to verify that the poles moved negligibly, their displacement was measured at the co nnection of the catenary cable para llel to the wind direction. Alampalli mentions the cable sag as having a la rge effect on the tension observed in each cable (Alampalli 1998). A sag of 5% is typical ( AASHTO 2001). System s with both 2% and 5% sags were tested in order to understand the behavior of a common stru ctural system, as well as a high-tension situation. In order to achieve both sags whil e maintaining the position of the signal during various tests, the poles had to be modified to ha ndle various cable configurations, and the location of the additional eyebolts are illustrated in Figure 3-2. Minimum span cable diameter in Florida is 3/8 inches, and ATLAS verified that this is an adequate diameter for an applied wind veloci ty of 120 mph. For the dual cable system, the catenary cable supports the weight of the signal at rest and the messenger cable supports the electrical wiring. For the single cable system, the catenary cable supports the wiring. Figure 3-2 shows both cables for the various tests perfor med. The catenary and messenger cables were provided by the City of Gainesvi lle Traffic Operations. The 7wire strand was manufactured by the Hubbell Power Group and has a mini mum breaking strength of 7,400 pounds. Five-head traffic signals have a larger surf ace area exposed to wind and, therefore, were used because they would experience a higher wind force than a three head signal. This would also provide results not previous ly studied in wind tests for co mparison. Only one signal could be mounted because of the limited width of the wind field, and the signal was mounted in the

PAGE 21

21 middle of the span. The bottom of the signal had to be no lower than 6 feet from the ground to completely be enveloped in the constant wind st ream with negligible drag effects from the ground. The aluminum signals, as well as alum inum extender hangers, were provided by the Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Gainesville Traffic Operations Department. The wind was applied using the Wall of Wind Ph ase 1 provided by the In ternational Hurricane Research Center of Florid a International University. Instrumentation Quantifying the behavior of the traffic signa l to wind forces required instruments that monitored several variables. At tached at the center of gravity of the signal were 2 sensors produced by Microstrain. Both were model 3DM-GX1 and one monitored the acceleration of the signal while the other measured the orie ntation of the signal in three axes. The anemometer—produced by R. M. Young Comp any—monitored wind speed. The cable displacements were measured by string potentiometer s attached to a nearby aluminum structure. UniMeasure model HX-P1010-80 measured the large displacements at the midpoint of the cables where the traffic signal was atta ched. An additional string pot, Ametek Rayelco Linear Motion Transducer model P-2A, was attached to the ey ebolt at the uppermost cable to measure the movement of the pole in the direction of the wind. The tension of the cables was measured directly. Model LCCA-10K load cells—which are tension and compression “s-type” load cells—were manufactured by Omega and placed in lin e with the cables to measure tension. Data was acquired at a rate of 50 hertz. Test Methods For each test, the cable configuration was fi rst set, and the traffic signal was then suspended at midspan. For testing, the instrumentat ion began to take readings before the Wall of Wind revved up. The engines either gradually brought the wind speed to approximately 115

PAGE 22

22 miles per hour over the course of 2.5 minutes, or they brought the wind speed up to an assigned value and oscillated around that for two minutes. When tests were complete, the engines receded to idle and were finally shut down for installation of a new cable setup. Figure 3-3 shows a typical wind speed graph over time for the wind speed applied by both a ramp function and sinusoidal function. The ra mp function is modeled by a linear function as shown in Figure 3-3 A. Table 3-1 presents the tests that were conducte d. The oscillating load is shown in Figure 3-3 B. Street name signs were mounted in li eu of traffic signals in tests 29-31. The ramp loading function is the easiest to analyze for it provides a direct relationship to the other parameters.

PAGE 23

23 Table 3-1. Tests performed. Date Test Orientation Number of Cables Connection Hardware Desired Catenary Sag Weight Notes 7/17/2006 1 Forward 2 40” Strap 5% 62 lbs None 7/17/2006 2 Forward 1 40” Strap 5% 62 lbs None 7/17/2006 3 Forward 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs Oscillating Load 7/17/2006 4 Diagonal 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs None 7/17/2006 5 Forward 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs Oscillating Load 7/17/2006 6 Forward 2 Strap 5% 62 lbs Oscillating Load 7/18/2006 7 Backward 2 Strap 5% 62 lbs None 7/18/2006 8 Forward 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs None 7/18/2006 9 Diagonal 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs None 7/18/2006 10 Backward 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs None 7/18/2006 11 Forward 1 Pipe 5% 82 lbs None 7/18/2006 12 Forward 1 Pipe 5% 102 lbs None 7/18/2006 13 Forward 1 Direct 5% 62 lbs None 7/18/2006 14 Forward 1 Direct 5% 82 lbs None 7/18/2006 15 Forward 1 Direct 5% 102 lbs None 7/18/2006 16 Forward 1 Direct 5% 62 lbs Oscillating Load 7/18/2006 17 Diagonal 1 Direct 5% 62 lbs None 7/18/2006 18 Backward 1 Direct 5% 62 lbs None 7/19/2006 19 Forward 1 Direct 2% 62 lbs None 7/19/2006 20 Diagonal 1 Direct 2% 62 lbs None 7/19/2006 21 Backward 1 Direct 2% 62 lbs None 7/19/2006 22 Forward 1 Direct 2% 82 lbs None 7/19/2006 23 Forward 1 Direct 2% 102 lbs None 7/19/2006 24 Forward 2 15” Strap 7% 62 lbs None 7/25/2006 25 Forward 2 40” Strap 5% 62 lbs None 7/25/2006 26 Forward 1 Pipe 5% 62 lbs None 7/25/2006 27 Forward 1 Direct 2% 62 lbs None 7/25/2006 28 Forward 1 Direct 2% 67 lbs Backplate 7/25/2006 29 Forward 1 Direct 2% 15 lbs Street Sign 7/25/2006 30 Forward 1 Direct 2% 15 lbs Street Sign 7/25/2006 31 Forward 1 Direct 2% 15 lbs Street Sign

PAGE 24

24 Figure 3-1. ATLAS results for rota tions. A) Fifty foot span with 40 inch hanger (61 rotation). B) Fifty foot span with 15 inch hanger (79 rotation). C) Sevent y-two foot span with 40 inch hanger (69 rotation). D) Sevent y-two foot span with 15 inch hanger (80 rotation) C D A B

PAGE 25

25 50’0” 1’0” 10’0” 1’6” 3’4” Messenger Cable Catenary Cable A 50’0” 1’0” 10’0” 1’6” 3’4” Catenary Cable B 50’0” 1’0” 10’0” 1’6” 3’4” Catenary Cable C Figure 3-2. Layout of test setup. A) Forty inch aluminum hanger, 5% sag. B) Forty inch pipe hanger, 5% sag. C) Di rect connection, 5% sag.

PAGE 26

26 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 060120180240 Time (s)Wind Velocity (mph) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 060120180 Time (s)Wind Velocity (mph) Figure 3-3. Wind loading function. A) Linear increase in velo city. B) Oscillating Load. B A Linear Increase

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 4 4.0 TEST RESULTS Wind tests provide the unique opportunity to understand how signals behave in high winds. A total of 31 tests were conducted over th e course of 4 days. The final day was open to the public and traffic signal maintaining agencies throughout Florida were invited to observe the tests. The measurable data was compiled and data are presented to help understand the nature of traffic signal behavior under extreme wind condi tions. The test number is presented for each data series. Signal Rotations The rotation of the signal head is related to signal visibility. Th is study measured the rotation of the signal head to determine the relationship to wi nd speed and compare visibility between single cable and dual cable systems. Single Cable System As shown in Figure 4-1, the rotation experi enced by the signal heads was directly correlated to the wind speed. As a result, the linear increase in wind speed resulted in a linear increase in signal rotation. For the forward facing signals suppor ted by only the catenary cable, the sag of the cable did not play a significant ro le in the rotation of the signal. However, the signal supported by the pipe hanger di d rotate less than the signal c onnected directly to the cable. Tests 8 and 13 were repeated, and the first tests are presented in Figure 4-1. The best model for rotations occurred at wind speed s above 20 miles per hour; below this wind speed, the signal displayed a rotation as a result of its support not being in line with the support, and the wind force was low and applied in less than 1 s econd. Afterwards, the increase in wind speed occurred linearly at a rate of approximately 1 mile per hour every 2 seconds.

PAGE 28

28 Effect of signal orientation on rotation The previous section presented the rotations fo r forward facing signals with a 40 inch pipe extender on a cable with 5% sag, as well as a signal connected dire ctly to a cable with 5% and 2% sag. Because the wind may come at a signal from any direction, the previously shown tests were repeated with varying orientations of the signal. The additional testing angles are presented in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3 shows signal rotation for the forw ard facing signals, as well as for signals rotated at angles of 45 degrees and 180 degrees. In all cases, th e forward facing and rear facing signals experienced a similar rate of increase in rotation with respect to wind speed. In the case of diagonal signals, the rotation wa s taken with respect to the fr ont face of the signal heads, which is in line with drivers’ view but at a 45 degree angle with respect to the oncoming wind. In the case of the signal featuring a pipe extende r, as shown in Figure 43 A, the signal did not experience any rotations greater than 60 degrees. The moveme nt experienced by the signals without the pipe extender was gr eater for both the 5% and 2% cas es for the forward facing cases, but the rear and diagonal signals performed similarly with respect to one another as shown in Figures 4-3. Regardless of support conditions, however, the diagonally facing signal rotated slightly more than 50 degrees. Effect of additional weight on rotation Because aluminum signal heads are heavier than their polycar bonate counterparts, the tests were conducted with the single point tests to observe the ro le of weight in rotation. To test the reaction of heavie r signals to wind speed the forward facing tests were repeated adding weights of 20 pounds and 40 pounds to th e bottom of the 62 poun d aluminum signal head. For the test with the pipe extender, the signal without weight pe rformed similarly to the signal with an additional 20 pounds as shown in Fi gure 4-4 A. The signal with the additional 40

PAGE 29

29 pounds, however, did experience less rotation. In Figure 4-4 B, representing the signal with a catenary sag of 5% and no pipe hanger, additiona l weight lessened the rotation incrementally. Figure 4-3 C shows that for the system with 2% sag and no pipe extender, the additional weight influenced rotation similar to the directly connect ed signal with 5% sag. The system with pipe extender and 5% catenary sag was the only configur ation to lack variation in rotations that appear to be directly associat ed with the increased weight; the other two cases had greater variation in rotation because of the addition of weight. Dual Cable System The dual cable system widely us ed in Florida was tested for comparison to the single cable system. In the tests that featured both a messeng er and catenary cable, an aluminum extender of either 40 inches or 15 inches was used, producin g a catenary sag of 5% or 7%, respectively. Figure 4-5 shows the rotation experienced by the signal with a 15 inch hanger and a 40 inch hanger. The signal with th e longer hanger rotated slightly less, but both are within 5 degrees of one another at all velocities, with lower variation at higher wind speeds. Repeated Tests Several tests were performed twice with slight variations in each test. Table 4-1 shows the cable sag calculated from load cell data. Figure 46 represents the rotation data from the tests that were done twice. The dual cable system with 5% sag was redone, and so were the single cable tests with pipe extender (5 % sag) and direct c onnection (2% sag). Figure 4-6 A represents the test with the dual cable system while figure 46 B represents the test with the pipe hanger. Figure 4-6 C shows the rotation experien ced by the system with 2% cable sag. Only slight variations occurred between the firs t and second test in all cases. The variation was within 5 degrees between tests, showing that similar tests performed consistently by yielding similar results, regardless of whether the signal was supported by one or two cables.

PAGE 30

30 The messenger cable provides more restraint to the signal, resulting in the smaller variation in angles observed during test ing of the dual cable system. Discussion of Signal Rotation In all cases, a linear correlation existed betw een the wind speed and signal rotation. This proportionality allows for direct comparison betw een the single cable and dual cable systems. The data suggest that although there is a difference between the rotation at the highest wind speed, all values fall between 50 and 70 degrees. The maximum rotation may not be a critical fa ctor as long as the system does not break. No tests yielded failure of any component; however the aluminum hanger used in the dual cable system did deform appreciably. The rotation of the signal head at maximum winds does not play any significant hazard because drivers will not be present during extreme events. Signal rotation does play a role in winds existing dur ing evacuation and thunderstorms. As presented by Hoit, the signal was deemed to be no longer safely visible when half of the bulb cannot be seen by oncomin g motorists, occurring at a rota tion of 30 degrees (Hoit et al. 1994). The maximum wind speed was 75 miles pe r hour for two of th e direct connection examples, and a wind speed of 49 miles per hour was the smallest for the forward facing signal without pipe hanger with a 2% sa g as shown in Table 4-2. The range of wind speeds is 26 miles per hour, and the dual cable system had wind veloci ties above 65 miles per hour for the visibility criteria. The single cable systems have a wider variation of wind speed to cause the signal to lose visibility, but the dual cable system does not perform particularly better than the systems with pipe hangers or heavier signals. Situations may occur during normal operation th at may cause an unfavorable rotation in the traffic signal. In particular, Florida is su sceptible to severe thunde rstorms. The National Weather Service classifies thunderstorms as severe if they produce hail, tornadoes, or winds in

PAGE 31

31 excess of 58 miles per hour (NWS 2006). The 58 mile per hour wind speed can be applied to traffic signals and determine the differences in rotation between the signal s of various supports. As shown in Table 4-1, only the 2% and 5% si ngle cable systems with no weight and forward orientations do not m eet this criteria. The data show that for normal operating cond itions, the difference in signal rotation can be alleviated with the use of heavier signals or hangers. Cable Tension Alampalli found that the sag of the catenary cable was the pr imary factor in determining cable tension (Alampalli 1998). The results from tests indicate that for the single point system, this is accurate; however, the dual cable system reacts differently when wind loads are applied. Single Cable System The forward facing signal with single point a ttachment is presented in Figure 4-7. As expected the cable with the smaller sag e xperienced a larger ini tial tension. All cases, regardless of initial sag, experienced a small linear increase in tension as the wind increased. In addition to the direct proportionality to wind spee d, all also prove to be nearly parallel; this indicates that the systems behave similarly regardle ss of the initial tension. Both tests featuring a cable sag of 5% experienced simila r forces throughout testing. Effect of signal orient ation on cable tension Figure 4-8 shows the cable re actions while the signal expe rienced high wind speeds from various angles of attack. In all cases the orientation has a minimal eff ect on the measured tension. The 2% forward signal did experience a slightly diffe rent increase of tension with re spect to the other two cases as indicated by the slope of the te nsion increase. Otherwise, the change in signal profile did not alter the tension perc eived by the cable.

PAGE 32

32 Effect of additional weight on cable tension Unlike the signal orientation, the weight added to the signal was expected to increase the cable tension. Figure 4-9 shows that like the other tests, the increase in cable tension was directly proportional to the wind speed. Additionally, the initial tension in the cable did not increase appreciably with an increase in wind speed. The only difference be tween tests was the affect of additional weights on the initial cable tension. Th e linear plots for tension were nearly the same in all tests. The tests with addi tional weight indicate that the wei ght of the signal has little effect on the increase in cable tension with increased wi nds; instead, the initial tension in the cable is the only variable affected by the increased signal weight. Dual Cable System The difference in behavior between catenary and messenger cables was significant As the wind speed increased for both tests, the catenary cab le reacts similiar to the single cable system; however, the messenger cable resist s the rotation of the hanger and experiences a large increase in tension associated with the increas ed resistance from high wind speeds. While the catenary cables experience increa ses in tension of less than 100 pounds, the messenger cable tension increases by several hun dred pounds. The messenger cable is initially tensioned, and regardless of the initial force obser ved at the beginning of th e test, the increase of force is similar and is represented by the nearly parallel lines in Figur e 4-10. The length of hanger is indicated as 15 inches (for 7% sag) or 40 inches (for 5% sag). For both single and dual cable systems, the increase in tension in the catena ry cable is similar, no matter the initial tension of the catenary cable.

PAGE 33

33 Repeated Tests Figure 4-11 shows the results from each series of repeated tests. The tests were conducted approximately one week apart, and the cables we re removed after the first round of tests. Although the same cables were reinstalled, differen ces in cable reactions result from different initial conditions, including a difference in sag and initial tension in the messenger cable with the dual cable system as shown in Table 4-1. Figure 4-11 A shows that for the dual cable syst em, the messenger cables started at nearly the same initial tension, but th e second test had a higher increa se in tension by several hundred pounds. The catenary cables also differed in behavi or between the two tests. The tension in the first test rose slightly, while during the second te st, the initial tension wa s higher but decreased as the wind speed increased. While all the other tests indicate a consistent pa ttern of force increase with wind speed increase, the catenary cable prov ided the most contradictory results. However these changes are negligible and likely due to variations in initial cable sag. The pipe hanger experienced an increased tens ion the second test initially, but at the highest wind speeds the data indicate a similar tension. The increases in tension are shown to remain nearly parallel. Unlike the signal su spended by the pipe hanger, the one directly connected to the signal experien ced a higher tension on the first test, and the second test had a lower tension. Discussion of Cable Tension The cable tension increased in all tests; how ever, the increase in tension was different between the single cable and dual cable systems. The tension experienced by the single cable systems was primarily determined by the initial sa g in the cable. No appreciable increase in tension resulted from the wind lo ad. The dual cable systems did not give consistent results. The catenary cable in the dual cable system either s lightly increased or decreased in tension with

PAGE 34

34 respect to the initial readings. In the dual cab le system, the messenger cable experienced a large increase in tension, as it is the primary restraint against movement of the aluminum hanger. This tension increased by several hundred pounds in e ach case, and the resistance also caused the aluminum hanger to bend in every test. The results indicate that the dual cable system lacks the consistency in behavior. The large forces in th e messenger cable has resu lted in failures of the dual cable system, as previously reported in “Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs” (Cook et al. 1996). The loads carried by the cables are transmitted to the foundati on from the poles which are responsible for resisting the tensil e forces. The poles develop an internal moment to resist the tension of the cables. Figure 4-12 shows the moments at the ba se of the poles for the single cable test 8 and the dual cable sy stem featured in test 25. Both cases were analyzed with an assumed clearance of 17.5 feet for the traffic signal. As expected, because the tension in the messenger increases significantly, the poles in th e dual cable system under go a large increase in moment, while the single cable system shows the pole moment increase to be negligible. Pole Movement A two-inch string pot was connected to the ey ebolt on the west concrete pole and measured small displacements of the pole parallel to the wind direction. The pole displacement parallel to the catenary cable and perpendicular to the wind di rection was deemed to be insignificant for the single cable tests that measured movement. Visual inspection duri ng testing to verified that the poles behaved like cantilever beams fixed at the ground. Because the poles were visually determined to be stable and consistent the st ring pot was attached only to the west pole. The recorded deflection was observed to be between 0.004 and 0.008 inches for each test, which is negligible by engineer ing standards. During the test featuring the rear-facing signal with 2% sag, the string pot returned a constant value of approximately 1.3, indicating that the

PAGE 35

35 equipment malfunctioned. Fortunately a clear representation of pole movements was already observed and displacements were deemed immaterial Table 4-5 provides results from the tests. Cable Displacement The movement of the catenary and messenger cab les at the attachment of the traffic signal shows how the system displaces in high winds. Single Cable System Figure 4-13 shows the horizontal translation of the catenary cable for the single hanger tests at the connection to the tr affic signal. At a wind velocity of 115 miles per hour, the signals supported by the 5% cable did not vary much in displacement. The signal with extender moved approximately 55 inches at midspan while the di rectly connected signal moved approximately 52 inches. The tighter cable move d about half as much as the other two—the signal supported by the cable with 2% sag moved approximately 21 inches. Effect of signal orientat ion on cable displacement For the single cable systems that featured va rious orientations with respect to the wind field, the displacement of the cable was measured at midspan. Figure 4-14 displays results from the tests. Displacements varied by less than 10 inches. For the pi pe hanger, little difference was seen in displacement for different signal orientat ions. The forward facing signal resulted in the least displacement of the cable while the backwa rd facing signal resulted in the most cable displacement. The signal connect ed directly to the catenary ca ble with 5% sag also did not record much difference in cable movement between the type of orientatio n the signal had with the wind field. The forward facing and diagona l signal had almost the exact same cable displacement during testing, and the backward f acing signal caused more movement than the other two. The signal supported di rectly by the catenary cable but with greater tension displaced approximately half as much as the 5% case, as previously mentioned. Like the previous two

PAGE 36

36 results, there was little difference between th e 3 orientations where the backward signal displaced the cable the most while the diagona l signal displaced the least. The maximum displacement was approximately 24 inches and the minimum was approximately 20 inches for the 2% sag. Effect of additional weight on cable displacement The effect of weight varied slightly between tests as shown in Figur e 4-15. In all cases, cable translation was less for the lighter signa ls, however, the differences were small. In the tests featuring the pipe hanger in the dual cable syst em, the catenary cable moved approximately 61 inches when the weights were added. For the 5% directly connected signal with additional weights, the tran slation was approximately 56 inches The system with catenary sag of 2% experienced slightly different results between the signa l with 20 pounds and the signal with 40 pounds. The signal with the most weight moved the most, with a horizontal translation measured at approximately 29 inches. Th e signal with an additional 20 pounds moved approximately 26 inches, and the signal with no additional weight moved approximately 21 inches. As in all cases, the difference in signal weight wa s less than 10 inches. Dual Cable System For the 5% sag, the catenary cable move d towards the wind source and reached a maximum displacement of slightly more than 10 inches. The messenger cable moved in the direction of the wind and displa ced approximately the same distance as the catenary cable. Repeated Tests The second series of tests were conducted ap proximately one week after the first with various maintenance agencies present. The goa l of the viewing was to offer the chance for authorities to view the behavior of the tests. Because a goal was to complete the tests within a

PAGE 37

37 day, time was limited to conduct each test. As a re sult, the test with the 2% catenary sag was the only test used to give results on cable displacement that day. Figure 4-17 shows the comparison between th e two tests performe d on the single cable system with 2% sag. Both cases yielded maximum cable displacements below 30 inches, and both further show that the tighter cable had less movement than th e cases with 5% sag. The data from the first test show that the catenary cable move d less compared to the second test. The difference in movement was approximately 6 inches. Discussion of Cable Displacement The cable displacement showed the horizontal movement the traffic signal cables underwent. In the single cable system cases, the movement was over 4 feet with the 5% catenary sag and approximately 2 feet with the tighter 2% catenary sag. The catenary and messenger cables experienced less movement with the dual cable system as the messenger cable works to restrain the motion of the system ; although this may seem desirabl e, data has also shown that while the displacement is limited, the aluminum extender material has the tendency to bend. Summary of Test Results The value of wind testing was realized by the observations of numeri cal and visual data. Data Observation At wind speeds of approximately 115 miles pe r hour, all systems experienced rotations between 50 and 70 degrees. The signal rotati on was reduced by the presence of the messenger cable, but orientation and additiona l weight added to the system lead to similar rotations in the single cable systems. The forw ard facing signals supported by a single cable without additional weight rotated more than for the other cases. The cable tension did offer a good understandi ng of system performance in high velocity winds. The single cable system experienced little gain in cable tension with high wind loading.

PAGE 38

38 The ability of the cable to move freely minimizes stresses in the hanger and signal; therefore, the hanger did not bend in high wind velocities. Th e dual cable system resists movement and the messenger cable experiences a high increase in tens ion. This stress is transferred between the cables and the signal by the adjustable aluminum extender, which lacks appropriate stiffness to carry the loads without permanent deformation. In the single point system the cable, signals and hangers appear to not be in danger of being overstressed. The cable translation helps understand the in crease in tensile forces for the dual cable system. Because the messenger cable is provided, it limits the motion of the hanger and increases dramatically in tension when the wind force increases. The single cable system is allowed to move more freely, and the horizontal translations, as well as free rotations, allow for minimal buildup of critical stresses. Visual Observation All signals rotated gradually as a result of increased wind speed. However when the hanger was used, the primary difference between th e single point and dual point system is that the messenger cable restricted movement and bent the aluminum hanger. This occurred in every test of the dual cable system. The pipe hange r, when connected by only the single catenary cable, never experienced deformation. The pr esence of the messenger cable has shown to be detrimental to the behavior of the signal s upport hardware. The osci llating wind load function caused some oscillations in the traffic signal. The street signs that were tested could not yield data on rotation because instruments were not mounted. However, they did rotate as the wi nd increased, but they al so displayed horizontal movement in addition to the sway in the direct ion of the wind possibly due to vortex shedding. At no time did any hardware fail.

PAGE 39

39 Table 4-1. Cable sag determined from load cell. Test Desired Sag Note Hanger Number of Cables Sag Obtained From Load Cell (in) Actual Sag (%) 1 5% None Strap 2 30 5.0 25 5% None Strap 2 30 5.0 8 5% None Pipe 1 37 6.2 26 5% None Pipe 1 33 5.5 19 2% None Direct 1 13 2.2 27 2% None Direct 1 33 5.5 7 5% Backward Strap 2 38 6.3 2 5% Forward Strap 1 37 6.2 24 7% None Strap 2 58 9.7 9 5% Diagonal Pipe 1 36 6.0 10 5% Backward Pipe 1 37 6.2 11 5% Additional 20 lbs Pipe 1 39 6.5 12 5% Additional 40 lbs Pipe 1 39 6.5 13 5% None Direct 1 32 5.3 17 5% Diagonal Direct 1 35 5.8 18 5% Backward Direct 1 34 5.7 14 5% Additional 20 lbs Direct 1 34 5.7 15 5% Additional 40 lbs Direct 1 34 5.7 20 2% Diagonal Direct 1 13 2.2 21 2% Backward Direct 1 13 2.2 22 2% Additional 20 lbs Direct 1 14 2.3 23 2% Additional 40 lbs Direct 1 15 2.5

PAGE 40

40 Table 4-2. Wind velocity at 50% signal visibility. Test Hanger Desired Sag Number of Cables Note Wind Velocity at Limiting Angle (mph) 1 Strap 5 2 None 69 25 Strap 5 2 None 69 8 Pipe 5 1 None 58 26 Pipe 5 1 None 57 19 Direct 2 1 None 50 27 Direct 2 1 None 49 7 Strap 5 2 Backward 75 2 Strap 5 1 None 56 24 Strap 7 2 None 65 9 Pipe 5 1 Diagonal 73 10 Pipe 5 1 Backward 71 11 Pipe 5 1 Additional 20 lbs 60 12 Pipe 5 1 Additional 40 lbs 74 13 Direct 5 1 None 52 17 Direct 5 1 Diagonal 64 18 Direct 5 1 Backward 70 14 Direct 5 1 Additional 20 lbs 63 15 Direct 5 1 Additional 40 lbs 73 20 Direct 2 1 Diagonal 63 21 Direct 2 1 Backward 71 22 Direct 2 1 Additional 20 lbs 61 23 Direct 2 1 Additional 40 lbs 67

PAGE 41

41 Table 4-3. Cable tension increase for singl e cable support systems at 115 miles per hour. Test Hanger Signal Orientation Additional Weight (lbf) Initial Tension (lbf) Final Tension (lbf) Force Increase (lbf) %Force Increase 19 Direct Connection Forward 0 915 981 66 7% 22 Direct Connection Forward 20 1045 1164 119 11% 23 Direct Connection Forward 40 1197 1282 85 7% 20 Direct Connection Diagonal 0 883 1015 132 15% 21 Direct Connection Backward 0 888 1034 146 16% 13 Direct Connection Forward 0 365 391 26 7% 14 Direct Connection Forward 20 446 489 43 10% 15 Direct Connection Forward 40 532 588 56 11% 17 Direct Connection Diagonal 0 350 422 72 21% 18 Direct Connection Backward 0 356 420 64 18% 8 Pipe Forward 0 332 362 30 9% 11 Pipe Forward 20 413 434 21 5% 12 Pipe Forward 40 480 506 26 5% 9 Pipe Diagonal 0 335 349 14 4% 10 Pipe Backward 0 345 369 24 7% Table 4-4. Cable tension increase for dua l cable support systems at 115 miles per hour. Test Signal Orientation Cable Initial Tension (lbf) Final Tension (lbf) Force Increase (lbf) %Force Increase 2 Forward Catenary 121 187 66 55% 2 Forward Messenger 318 1132 814 256% 7 Backward Catenary 343 373 30 9% 7 Backward Messenger 120 137 17 14% 24 Forward Catenary 232 250 18 8% 24 Forward Messenger 828 1556 728 88% Table 4-5. Pole Displ acement during testing Test Maximum Displacement During Test (in) 8 0.006 9 0.008 10 0.004 11 0.004 12 0.007 13 0.004 14 0.007 15 0.075* *String pot malfunctioned during test

PAGE 42

42 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) Figure 4-1. Rotation of forward f acing signal supported by single cable. Figure 4-2. Top view of traffi c signal with respect to oncoming wind. A) Forward facing signal. B) Backward signal. C) Diagonal signal. 45 Signal Wind Wind 0 Signal 180 Signal B C A Wind 2% Sag, Direct (19) 5% Sag, Direct (13) 5% Sag, Pipe (8)

PAGE 43

43 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8020406080100120140Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) Figure 4-3. Signal rotation versus wind speed fo r various support hangers. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. A B C Forward Signal (8) Backward Signal (10) Diagonal Signal (9) Forward Signal (13) Backward Signal (18) Diagonal Signal (17) Forward Signal (19) Backward Signal (21) Diagonal Signal (20)

PAGE 44

44 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) Figure 4-4. Effect of weight on signal rotation. A) Pipe Hanger. B) Direct connection with 5% Sag. C) Direct connection with 2% Sag. B A C 62 lb Signal (8) 102 lb Signal (12) 82 lb Signal (11) 62 lb Signal (13) 102 lb Signal (15) 82 lb Signal (14) 62 lb Signal (19) 102 lb Signal (23) 82 lb Signal (22)

PAGE 45

45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) Figure 4-5. Wind velocity vs. rotation for dua l cable systems with 40 inch hanger and 15 inch hangers. 15” Hanger (24) 40” Hanger (1)

PAGE 46

46 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Signal Rotation (degrees) Figure 4-6. Wind velocity versus rotation of forward facing signals. A) Single cable with 5% catenary sag and drop pipe extender. B) Single cable with 2% catenary sag and no pipe hanger. C) Dual cable w ith 40 inch aluminum extender. A B C Second Test (26) First Test (8) Second Test (27) First Test (19) Second Test (25) First Test (1)

PAGE 47

47 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) Figure 4-7. Single cable system tension for forward facing signals. 2% Sag, Direct (19) 5% Sag, Direct (13) 5% Sag, Pipe (8)

PAGE 48

48 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) Figure 4-8. Cable tension for signa ls at various angles of attack A) Drop pipe system with 5% sag. B) Direct connect system with 5% sag. C) Direct connect sy stem with 2% sag. C Forward Signal (19) Backward Signal (21) Diagonal Signal (20) B Forward Signal (13) Backward Signal (18) Diagonal Signal (17) A Forward Signal (8) Backward Signal (10) Diagonal Signal (9)

PAGE 49

49 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) Figure 4-9. Cable tension for single cable tests featuring additional weight. A) Drop pipe hanger with 5% sag. B) Direct connection with 5% sag. C) Direct conn ection with 2% sag. A B C 62 lb Signal (8) 82 lb Signal (11) 102 lb Signal (12) 62 lb Signal (13) 82 lb Signal (14) 102 lb Signal (15) 62 lb Signal (19) 82 lb Signal (22) 102 lb Signal (23)

PAGE 50

50 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) Figure 4-10. Tension of messenger and catenary cables of dual cable system. 15” Catenary (15) 40” Catenary (1) 15” Messenger (24) 40” Messenger (1)

PAGE 51

51 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Tension (lbf) Figure 4-11. Cable tension for repeated tests. A) Dual cable system. B) Single cable system with 5% sag and pipe extender. C) Si ngle cable system with 2% sag. A B C Test 27 (2.3%) Test 19 (2.2%) Test 26 (5.5%) Test 8 (6.2%) Test 25 catenary (5.0%) Test 1 catenary (5.0%) Test 25 messenger (5.0%) Test 1 messenger (5.0%)

PAGE 52

52 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Base Pole Moment (lbf-ft) Figure 4-12. Moment of concrete poles w ith signal at minimum clearance height. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) Figure 4-13. Catenary displacement at point of attachment to signal support hardware. Test 8 Test 25 2% Sag, Direct (19) 5% Sag, Direct (13) 5% Sag, Pipe (8)

PAGE 53

53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) Figure 4-14. Cable translation fo r single point signal. A) Pipe hanger with 5% catenary sag. B) Direct Connection with 5% cat enary sag. C) Direct connec tion with 2% catenary sag. A B C Forward Signal (13) Backward Signal (18) Diagonal Signal (17) Forward Signal (19) Backward Signal (21) Diagonal Signal (20) Forward Signal (8) Backward Signal (10) Diagonal Signal (9)

PAGE 54

54 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) Figure 4-15. Catenary cable displacement for single point hangers. A) Pipe extender with 5% catenary sag. B) Direct connection with 5% catenary sag. C) Direct connection with 2% catenary sag. A B C 62 lb Signal (12) 82 lb Signal (11) 102 lb Signal (8) 62 lb Signal (13) 82 lb Signal (14) 102 lb Signal (15) 62 lb Signal (19) 82 lb Signal (22) 102 lb Signal (23)

PAGE 55

55 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70020406080100120140Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) Figure 4-16. Cable translation for dual cable system with 5% sag (test 1). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 020406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Cable Translation (in) Figure 4-17. Cable displacement for repeated test with 2% catenary sag. Catenary Messenger Test 19 Test 27

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 5 5.0 FORCE COEFFICIENTS, DRAG COEFFI CIENTS, AND LIFT COEFFICIENTS The flow of air around traffic signals creates variances in pressure on the surface of the signal. Although the determination of pressure at various points on the signal is possible, it would be more practical to determine the wind for ces on the entire signal; furthermore, the shape of traffic signals would add to the complexities of determining wind forces perpendicular to each surface in a particular condition. Therefore a goal of this project is to determine the aerodynamic effects of a wind stream around the signal head. The primary reference manuals for determ ining wind forces on structures—“Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ” (ASCE 7-05) and “Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highw ay Signs, Luminaires, and Tr affic Signals” (AASHTO 2001)— both define a coefficient for determ ination of the effect of bodies immersed in a flowing stream of air. ASCE 7-05 makes use of a force coeffi cient in Section 6.5.15 of “Design Wind Loads on Other Structures” (ASCE 2005). AASHTO uses a drag coefficient in determination of the total force acting on signals (AASHTO 2001). The determination of the force coefficient, drag coefficient, and lift coefficient allows understandi ng of the total forces pa rallel and perpendicular to the wind stream, and the react ion of the signals can be dete rmined from these components. Drag, lift, and force coefficients are more easily determined from analysis of the single cable systems, making analysis of the dual cab le systems unnecessary; th e single cable system allows the supporting load to accumulate in the catenary cable. The cable tension, T, can be resolved into a component, T’, that opposes the we ight of the signal, as shown in Figures 5-1 A and 5-1 B when the sign al is at rest. As the wind increases on the signal, the measured rotation, also increases, as shown in Figure 5-1 C. The wind applies a pressure, p, th at acts perpendicular to the structure which can

PAGE 57

57 be modeled by a force, Pw, on the signal (Figure 5-1 C and Figure 5-1 D). Figure 5-1 E shows the combined forces acting on the structure from th e side. Vector addition of the weight, W, and wind force, Pw, results in a force vector that opposes T’. The relationship between the known values—signal weight, angle of rotation, and cable tension—can be found and the wind force, Pw, can be resolved. The dynamic wind force is de termined by Equation 5-1 and is necessary for determining the force, drag, and lift coefficients. (5-1) The force coefficient can be f ound by dividing the wind force, Pw, by the dynamic wind force, P. The drag and lift coefficients are determined by taking the components of the wind force parallel and perpendicular to the wi nd flow, respectively. Force Coefficients The force coefficient must first be determ ined and the drag and lift forces can be determined as components of the total force. Be cause of the ability of the signal to rotate as wind speed increases, the pressure on the surface changes during testing. Effect of Signal Orientation on Force Coefficient Various orientations of the traffic signal re sult in a different cross sectional areas and profiles exposed to the wind. In each case a differe nt orientation results in a different total force experienced by the signal. Figure 5-2 shows the force coefficients for the various tests. Effect of Additional Weight on Force Coefficient The force coefficient is presented for tests wi th weight added to the signal. The force coefficients experienced by the signal with 5% catenary sag and pipe ha nger show a lower total force than the other tests at small signal rotati ons. Figure 5-3 shows that the force coefficient varied slightly with additional weight. P 1 2 V2 A

PAGE 58

58Comparison of Repeated Tests Variations in cable sag have shown to impact te st results as illustrated in Chapter 4. Figure 5-4 shows the force coefficient for the test featur ing the 5% catenary cable with pipe hanger, as well as the test featuring a 2% catenary sag with outa hanger. For the traffic signal supported by the direct connection, little di fference is noted in the force coefficient, and for the signal supported by a pipe hanger, the second test revealed a higher coefficient. Drag and Lift Coefficients The drag and lift forces are components of the to tal force, and drag and lift coefficients can be found by dividing the measured drag force or lift force by the dynamic wind force. Effect of Signal Orientation on Drag and Lift Coefficients The drag forces as a fraction of the total force are presented in Figure 5-5 for various orientations of the traffic signal head. For lo w signal rotations, the curve representing drag coefficient is similar to the force coefficient curv es because the lift is a small percentage of the total force acting on the signal. The drag beha ves similarly on all tests at high wind speeds. Figure 5-6 shows the lift coefficients for the sa me tests presented in Figure 5-5. The lift coefficient did not display any significant devia tions between tests, except for the backward facing signal with 2% sag. Effect of Additional Weight on Drag and Lift Coefficient Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show the effect of additi onal weight on the drag and lift coefficients, respectively. Figure 5-7 displays the drag coefficients, and as previously shown, the drag coefficient converges on a value of approximately 0. 3 as the wind velocity peaks. The results are similar to the values shown for various signal orientations. Figure 5-8 displays the lift coefficients for th e traffic signal. The va riation of weight for each signal leads to slightly different values dur ing testing, indicating maximum values of 0.4 for

PAGE 59

59 the signal with pipe hanger and 0.6 for the direc tly connected signals. Th e tests reveal a plateau at higher wind speeds. Comparison of Repeated Tests Figure 5-9 shows the drag and lift coefficien ts for the tests that were conducted on different days. Figure 5-9 A repr esents the system with 5% cate nary sag and drop pipe extender, and the drag coefficient is slightly different between the first two tests; the drag and lift coefficients for the signal with 2% cable sag do not vary as much. Behavior was found to be rather consistent in these cases. Discussion of Force, Drag, and Lift Coefficients Drag and lift forces combine to act on the traffi c signal; drag acts parall el to the wind field, while the lift is perpendicular to the wind field. The constant drag coefficient of 1.2 presented in AASHTO does not account for the varying drag coefficient experienced by a rotating signal and is conservative for high wind sp eeds (AASHTO 2001). For low wind velocities, the drag makes up a large portion of the total force acting on the signals, and the drag and force coefficients are greater than unity. As the wind speed increase s, the rotation increases, causing the lift to increase and the drag to decrease. Testi ng with higher wind veloci ties would yield more conclusive results for design wind sp eeds in excess of 120 miles per hour.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 5-1. Determination of Force Coefficient. W Wind Wind Wind Pressure, p Pw=p*A T’ T’ W Pw= p*A T’ 90T’ T T W W W A B C D E T

PAGE 61

61 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient Figure 5-2. Orientation effect s on force coefficients. A) Pi pe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. A B C Forward Signal (19) Backward Signal (21) Diagonal Signal (20) Forward Signal (13) Backward Signal (18) Diagonal Signal (17) Forward Signal (8) Backward Signal (10) Diagonal Signal (9)

PAGE 62

62 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient Figure 5-3. Weight effects on for ce coefficients. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. B C 62 lb Signal (19) 82 lb Signal (22) 102 lb Signal (23) 62 lb Signal (13) 82 lb Signal (14) 102 lb Signal (15) 62 lb Signal (8) 82 lb Signal (11) 102 lb Signal (12) A

PAGE 63

63 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Force Coefficient Figure 5-4. Force coefficients from repeated tests. A) 5% Pipe hanger. B) 2% direct connection. Test 19 Test 26 Test 8 Test 27 A B

PAGE 64

64 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Drag Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Drag Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Drag Coefficient Figure 5-5. Drag coefficients for various orie ntations. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. B C A Forward Signal (8) Backward Signal (10) Diagonal Signal (9) Forward Signal (19) Backward Signal (21) Diagonal Signal (20) Forward Signal (13) Backward Signal (18) Diagonal Signal (17)

PAGE 65

65 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Lift Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Lift Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Lift Coefficient Figure 5-6. Lift coefficients for various orientations. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. A B C Forward Signal (19) Backward Signal (21) Diagonal Signal (20) Forward Signal (13) Backward Signal (18) Diagonal Signal (17) Forward Signal (8) Backward Signal (10) Diagonal Signal (9)

PAGE 66

66 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Drag Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Drag Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Drag Coefficient Figure 5-7. Drag coefficients for signals of va rious weight. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. A B C 62 lb Signal (19) 82 lb Signal (22) 102 lb Signal (23) 62 lb Signal (13) 82 lb Signal (14) 102 lb Signal (15) 62 lb Signal (8) 82 lb Signal (11) 102 lb Signal (12)

PAGE 67

67 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Lift Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Lift Coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Lift Coefficient Figure 5-8. Lift coefficients fo r signals of various weight. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection. A B C 62 lb Signal (8) 82 lb Signal (11) 102 lb Signal (12) 62 lb Signal (19) 82 lb Signal (22) 102 lb Signal (23) 62 lb Signal (13) 82 lb Signal (14) 102 lb Signal (15)

PAGE 68

68 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Coefficients 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20406080100120140 Wind Velocity (mph)Coefficients Figure 5-9. Drag and lift coeffici ents from first and second tests. A) 5% Pipe hanger. B) 2% direct connection. A B Drag (26) Drag (8) Lift (8) Lift (26) Lift (27) Drag (27) Drag (19) Lift (19)

PAGE 69

69P z 0.00256K z GV2I r C d CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF SPAN WIRE DESIGN METHODS Specifications for Wind Loads on Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals AASHTO’s document is used to determine the forces on signs, signals and luminaries. Section 3.8 in particular presents the speci fications and commentary for the design of wind forces. Equation 6-1 defines the wi nd force on traffic signals where Kz is the height and exposure factor, G is the gust effect factor, V is the basic wind speed to be determined from the wind speed map in AASHTO Figure 3-2, Ir is the wind importance factor, and Cd is the drag coefficient (AASHTO 2001). The pressure equati on is derived from Bernoulli’s expression for fluid flow. (6-1) Height and Exposure Factor Wind profiles vary according to elevation, and the roughne ss experienced at the boundary layer directly influences the wind speed away from the boundary. The height and exposure factor is used to categorize the upwind surf ace conditions and account for the surface friction which is responsible for alteri ng the wind profile near the gro und. The height and exposure factor in AASHTO 2001 is analogous to the veloc ity exposure coefficient presented in ASCE 705. Because ASCE 7-95 was the standard re ferenced in AASHTO 2001, exposure category A, which was used for dense urban areas, remain s in AASHTO 2001 while being discontinued in ASCE 7-02. Category B is defined as suburban and urban areas with obstructions the size of a single family dwelling; category D is defined as a flat, unobstructed surf ace, not to include coastal zones in hurricane prone regions; and expo sure category C is described as open terrain with scattered obstructions and applies where exposures B and D do not apply.

PAGE 70

70 The commentary of AASHTO’s design specific ations notes that exposure C has been adopted for use in the specifications because it provides a conservative approach to the estimation of surface roughness (AASHTO 2001). Therefore the surface roughness coefficients that appear in table 3-5 of the specifications are for a reference exposure category C, and the commentary also offers Equation 6-2 as an alterna tive to calculate the hei ght and exposure factor where z is the height above the ground or 15 feet, whichever is greater, and and zg are constants which vary with the exposure condition. K z 2.01 z z g 2 (6-2) For exposure C—the reco mmended condition— zg is taken as 900 feet and is 9.5, as in ASCE 7-95 (AASHTO 2001). This equation corresponds to equa tions C6-4a and C6-4b in ASCE 7-05 and the constants are unchanged from ASCE 7-95 (ASCE 2005). For a height of 32.8 feet, the factor is equal to unity, which corresponds to the reference height and exposure category for the wind speed map in Figure 3-2 of AASHTO 2001. Gust Effect Factor The gust effect factor accounts for the dyna mic response of the structure exposed to fluctuations in wind velocity. The gust effect factor presen ted in AASHTO 2001 is not based on the derivation from ASCE 7. ASCE 7 presents the gust factor for two types of structures: flexible and rigid. The basis of calculations is based on wind variations and the dynamic response of the structural system. AASHTO cites the requirements for flexible struct ures in ASCE 7-95 as a structure that has a fundamental frequency less than 1 hertz or a rati o of height to least horizontal dimension as greater than 4; accordingly, all sign and signal structures are considered flexible. AASHTO

PAGE 71

71 2001 mentions the application of the procedure provided in ASCE 7 would be cumbersome, requiring detailed information about the site and construction methods. Because details regarding the structures are not considered to be known with good precision, the code determines that the use of the “…calcula tion procedure does not outweigh th e complexities and confusion introduced by its use” (AASHTO 2001). The gust effect presented is based on a modified recommended gust factor by R. H. Sherlock in 1947. After recordi ng wind speeds in 3 winter storms in Michigan, Sherlock used the values obtained from a storm on January 19, 1933, and divided the wind data into 5 minute intervals. He then took the fastest gust for a given time frame and divided that velocity by the average for the storm’s duration. The points we re drawn below Pearson Type III curves. The intervals of 5 minutes had gust durat ions of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0 seconds; the curves were combined and Sherlock decided that th e 5 minute interval should be based on a 20% increase over the average. Fo r a 3 second gust at 1.2 times the storm’s average wind velocity, the gust factor from the Pearson Type III curve is 1.3, but his recommendation was for more conservative gust factor of 1.385. The value of 1.3 has remained in the AASHTO specifications. Because this value is greater than for rigid stru ctures and “resulted in successful designs,” the value would continue to be used for fastest mile wind speeds but would differ with the inclusion of the 3-second gust (AASHTO 2001). The standard’s conversion to a 3-second wind gust resulted in a c onversion of the gust factor. Previously the gust effect factor was multiplied by the wind speed before squaring. Using the Durst model for wind gusts in ASCE 705 Figure C6-4 for a wind velocity of 85 miles per hour, the gust factor was to be multiplied by 0. 82 and then squared to remove the gust effect

PAGE 72

72 factor from the wind velocity (ASCE 2005). The product of the gust effect factor and the Durst factor, once squared, results in the recomme nded value of 1.14 found in AASHTO 2001. Importance Factor The importance factor is analogous to the impor tance factor presented in ASCE 7. The wind speed maps provided in Figure 3-2 of the specifications are associ ated with the annual probability of occurrence of 2%, representing a 50-year mean recurrence interval. All transportation structures do not ha ve a design life of 50 years and ma y require either a shorter or longer recurrence rate based on expected lifesp an and consequences of failure. AASHTO 2001 Table 3-2 provides the importance factors for 3 cases: wind velocities of 85 to 100 miles per hour, wind velocities of 100 miles per hour or grea ter in hurricane prone regions, and Alaska. While these are representative of ASCE 7 va lues, AASHTO provides Table 3-3, specifically recommending a minimum design life for transportation structures. Drag Coefficient The drag coefficient is the vector component of the force coefficien t in the direction of wind flow. It may be represented by E quation 6-3, where D is the drag force, r is the density of air, V is the wind velocity, and A is the area of the cross sec tion (Holmes 2001). C d D 1 2 V2A (6-3) The drag force varies according to the aerodynami c properties of the structure, including shape and dimensions. The drag coefficients for variou s shapes and structures are presented in Table 3-6 of the AASHTO specifications; however, the drag represents only one component of the resultant force acting on traffic signa ls that are allowed to rotate.

PAGE 73

73Comparison of Results fr om AASHTO 2001 and Wind Tests For the tests featuring the single cable system the drag, lift, and force coefficients are presented in Chapter 5. In all cases, the force and drag coefficients both began above unity and decreased as the signal rotated. At wind velo cities above approximate ly 40 miles per hour, the signals displayed a force coe fficient below 1.0. For the design wind speeds presented in AASHTO Figure 3-2, the observed drag coefficient is well below the design value of 1.2 (AASHTO 2001). The lift that acts on the signal adds to the tota l wind force; as a result, the drag coefficient only shows one component of the force acting on the signal. The force coefficient should be used in design to account fo r all forces on the sign al. Additionally, the force coefficient should be specified for the design speed in a given location based on test results. Discussion of Design Methods AASHTO 2001 makes use of a cons tant drag force for design of traffic signals for wind speed. However, as shown in Chapter 5 and Ch apter 6, the drag coefficient does not remain constant throughout testing because the signal rotate s; as a result, the use of constant value is inaccurate. As the signal rotates, the lift force in creases, which is a component of the total force experienced by the signal; therefore, the force co efficient, as shown in Chapter 6, provides a more accurate assessment of the to tal forces acting on a traffic signal. Whether using a constant coefficient of 1.2 or the coefficients provided in Cook et al. 1996 (shown in Figure 2-1), the wind forces measured during testing were lower than expected.

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Wind testing was conducted to determine how dual and single cable support systems for traffic signals experience wind force and transf ers the force to the supporting structure. Summary Although the traffic signal expe rienced a large increase in force due to high-velocity winds, the catenary cable in the single cable system experienced little increase in tension relative to the initial tension. For th e dual cable system, the catenary ca ble experienced little relative change in tension, but the for ce in the messenger cable increased significantly compared to the initial tension. This large increase in cable tens ion results from the rotational resistance provided by the messenger cable; the aluminum hanger deform ed in the dual cable tests because of the resistance from the messenger cable. The messe nger cable’s increase in tension would cause a high moment to develop in the concrete poles at minimum clearance height; the design of the poles must include this large increase in moment. The messenger cable restrained movement of the aluminum hanger, causing the signal rotation for the dual cable system to be lesser than the rotation for the single cable systems for similar signal orientation and weights. However, when weight was added or the signal oriented in other directions, the rotation was similar to the dual cable systems. The orientation and weight of the signal have little effect on the wind forces on the traffic signal. In some cases, however, the heavier traffi c signals rotated less than the lighter signals. As expected, the heavier signals caused greater te nsion in the catenary cable for the single cable systems. The signal experiences a drag and lift com ponent when exposed to wind. The drag coefficient provided in AAS HTO 2001 is very conserva tive at high velocities.

PAGE 75

75Conclusions The dual cable system experiences large forces not measured during tests of single cable systems. The aluminum hanger used in testi ng the dual cable system deforms under load while in the single cable system showed no sign of stre ss; the minimal increase in cable tension verifies that the single cable system’s rotational freedom does not create additional resistance that transfers to other components in the traffic signal assembly. Th e rotational restraint provided by the dual cable traffic signal may slightly lessen the rotation of the sign al at the expense of hardware. The dual cable system results in less cable movement, causing rotational restraint of the hanger. Recommendations Wind tests have revealed results comparable to “Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs;” however, to reveal a complete picture of all possible outcomes and design loads, more signal configurations shoul d be tested (ASCE 1961; Cook et al. 1996). Combinations of 3 head and 5 head signals on th e same span can reveal the dynamic nature of the system, resulting in a more complete analysis of the design procedure. Future tests should also subject the traffic signals to higher wind speeds. The maximum speed obtained during testing was approximately 115 miles per hour, while the design wind speed in Florida is as high as 150 miles per hour. At higher speeds, the appropr iate force, drag, and lift coefficients can be determined for the higher rotations expected.

PAGE 76

76 APPENDIX A A ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WIND TESTING PROGRAM FOR MODERN CODES AND RESEARCH RESULTS The following provides a summary of the work done regarding rehabi litation and testing using the apparatus designed for the qualification of traffic si gnal support systems (Cook et al. 1996). When returned to the Univ ersity of Florida, the testing apparatus was fully operational. The computer program performs tasks as designat ed, loading the traffic signal until a specified force is reached over a number of cycles. The lo ad cell records data accurately, and the actuator arm is in working order. The steel frame was in good condition; nevertheless, it was repainted. The actuator arm places a force at the centroid of traffic signals. The apparatus was used to create curves that show the force required to rotate the signal, and these were compared to curves of wind force using codes to determine a force to apply during testing. The wind force curve was created using ASCE 7-95, and the valu es within the code have not changed in the 2005 version; however, wind tests reveal that measured force coefficients are lower than currently used. Using the average force coefficient curve from testing, shown in Figure A-1 A, the wind force was recalculated using the iterative procedure outlined in “Structural Qualification Procedure for Tra ffic Signals and Signs” (Cook et al. 1996). Figure A-1 B shows the force curve using a higher design wind sp eed of 150 miles per hour, representing the maximum design velocity in Florida for a 3 seco nd curve; the previous value used was 140 miles per hour. The iterative procedure yields a value of 185 pounds for a 1 foot hanger and a value of 180 pounds for a 5 foot hanger; therefore, the re commended force from the new coefficients is 183 pounds, which is approximately equal to 180 pounds used by the TWISP program for a five head signal.

PAGE 77

77 0 1 2 3 010203040506070 Signal Rotation (degrees)Force Coefficient 0 200 400 600 800 1000 010203040506070 Signal Rotation (degrees)Wind Force (lbf) Figure A-1. Graphs for use with “Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs.” A) Force coefficient from wind test s. B) Wind force using force coefficients for constant wind speed. A B

PAGE 78

78 LIST OF REFERENCES Alampalli, S. (1998). Response of Untethered -Span-Wire Signal Poles to Wind Loads. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77&78, 73-81. American Association of State High way Transportation Officials (2001). Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for High Si gns, Luminaires and Traffic Signals (4th Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. ASCE 7-05 (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Branick, Michael (2006). “A Comprehensive Glo ssary of Weather Terms for Storm Spotters.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-145, < http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/severewx/glossary.php > (February 3, 2007). Cook, R.A., Bloomquist, D., & L ong, J.C. (1996). Structural Qua lification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs (FDOT WPI No. 0510731). Gainesv ille, Florida: Univer sity of Florida, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station. Cook, R.A. & Johnson, Jr., E. (2007). Devel opment of Hurricane Resistant Traffic Signal Support Systems (FDOT WPI No. 0054246). Gainesvi lle, Florida: University of Florida. Durst, C.S. (1960). Wind Speeds Over Short Periods of Time. The Meteorological Magazine, 89(1056), 181-186. Hoit, M.I., Cook, R.A., Christou, P.M., & Adediran, A.K. (1997). Computer Aided Design Program For Signal Pole and Span Wire Asse mblies With Two Point Connection System (FDOT WPI No. 0510653). Gainesville, Florida: Un iversity of Florida, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station. Hoit, M.I., Cook, R.A., Wajek, S.L., & Konz, R.C. (1994). Static and Dynamic Tests On Traffic Signal and Sign Dual Cable Support Systems (FDOT WPI No. 0510653). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Engin eering and Industrial Experiment Station. Holmes, J.D. (2001). Wind Loading of Structures. New York, NY: Spon. Krayer, W.R., & Marshall, R.D. (1992). Gust Factors Applied to Hurricane Winds. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 73(5), 613-617. Liu, H. (1991). Wind Engineering: A Handbook for Structural Engineers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Marchman, J.F., III. (1971). Wind Loadi ng On Free-Swinging Traffic Signals. Transportation Engineering Journal, 98, 237-246. McDonald, J.R., Mehta, K.C., Ol er, W.W., & Pulipaka, N. (1995). Wind Load Effects on Signs,

PAGE 79

79Luminaires and Traffic Signal Structures (Research Study No. 11-5-92-1303). Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University, Wi nd Engineering Research Center. Sherlock, R.H. (1947). Gust Factors for the Design of Buildings. Publications: International Association for Bridge a nd Structural Engineering, 8, 205-236. Simiu, E., & Miyata, T. (2006). Design of Buildings and Bridges for Wind. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Solari, G. (1993a). Gust Buffeting I: Peak Wind Velocity and Equivalent Pressure. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(2), 365-382. Solari, G. (1993b). Gust Buffeti ng II: Dynamic Alongwind Response. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(2), 383-398. Solari, G. (1992). Alongwind Response Estimation: Closed Form Solution. Journal of the Structural Division, 108, 225-244. Solari, G., & Kareem, A. (1998). On the Form ulation of ASCE 7-95 Gust Effect Factor. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77-78, 673-684. Task Committee on Wind Forces (1961). Wind Forces On Structures. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 126(2), 1124-1198. Transportation Research Board (1998). Structural Supports for Highw ay Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals (NCHRP Rep. No. 411) Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board (2003). Structural Supports for Highw ay Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals (NCHRP Rep. No. 494) Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

PAGE 80

80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Eric Vincent Johnson, Jr. was born in New Or leans, Louisiana, on February 10, 1983, but moved to Miami, Florida, shortl y thereafter before settling in Ta llahassee, Florida, in 1996. His participation in the Summer Transportation Institute at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in Tallahassee in th e summer of 1997 was responsible for his matriculation into a civil engineering program after graduating as valedictorian of the class of 2001 at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical Univer sity Developmental Research School. Eric enrolled at the University of Miami in August 2001 and shortly thereafter decided to major in architectural engineeri ng in addition to civil engineeri ng. He was a member of Chi Epsilon and graduated with honors in the spring of 2005. He attended the University of Florida to specialize in structural engineering at the ma ster’s level and will work toward his doctorate in civil engineering at the Univer sity of Miami upon graduation.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020422/00001

Material Information

Title: Development of Hurricane Resistant Traffic Signal Support Systems
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: UFE0020422:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020422/00001

Material Information

Title: Development of Hurricane Resistant Traffic Signal Support Systems
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: UFE0020422:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





DEVELOPMENT OF HURRICANE RESISTANT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS


By

ERIC VINCENT JOHNSON, JR.













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 Eric Vincent Johnson, Jr.
































To those who ignited and continue to kindle my interest in structural engineering.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Ronald A. Cook has been instrumental in offering guidance for not only the project,

but with any matter; his understanding, patience, and concern for well-being truly enabled this

project to be completed not only in a reasonable amount of time, but with high morale. Dr.

Forrest Masters is greatly appreciated for his role in the research and testing. Dr. Kurtis Gurley's

willingness to assist is highly valued.

Charles Broward, III; George Fernandez; and Robert Gomez allowed testing to take place

with no problem and merit more praise than I can possibly offer. The Traffic Operations

Department of the City of Gainesville also provided immeasurable assistance in testing; the

willingness-and wit-expressed by the department was the only way testing could occur on a

project of this scale while being enjoyable.

Finally, many aides have created a social network to offer support that cannot be

underestimated, and the following are as responsible as any in the completion of this thesis: Lori

Fede, my parents and siblings, Nicholas Lindblad, Jasmine Davenport, Rebekah Friedman,

Kathleen Halcovich, Adrian Lawrence, Sujatha Kalyanam, and Damon Allen.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IS T O F T A B L E S ................................................................................. 7

LIST OF FIGU RE S ................................................................. 8

ABSTRACT ........................................... .. ......... ........... 10

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ..................................................... ..... 11

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ........................................................................ .. ....................... 12

3 DEVELOPMENT OF WIND TESTING PROGRAM .................................. ...............19

T e st S e tu p ......................................................................................................................... 1 9
Instrum entation ......... ......... ...... ..... ...... ........................ ............... 21
T est M eth o d s ................................................................2 1

4 TEST RESULTS ..................... ....... ............................ ....27

Signal R rotation s ......... ..................................... ............................27
Single Cable System ...... ........ ... .................................... ... ............... 27
Effect of signal orientation on rotation ........................................ .....................28
Effect of additional w eight on rotation ........................................ .....................28
D ual C able System ........................ .. ........................ .. .... ........ ........ 29
R ep heated T ests ....................................................... ................ 2 9
D iscu ssion of Signal R otation ........................................ ...........................................30
C ab le T en sio n ......... .... .............. ...................................... ............................ 3 1
Single Cable System .... ................................... .............. 31
Effect of signal orientation on cable tension...............................................31
Effect of additional weight on cable tension.........................................................32
D ual C able System ............................ ........................ .. .... ........ ........ 32
R ep heated T ests ...................................................... ................ 3 3
D discussion of C able T pension ............................................................................ ...... 33
P o le M o v e m e n t ................................................................................................................. 3 4
Cable Displacem ent .................. ................... .................. ............ .......... ........ 35
Single Cable System .................... ........ ........ .............. ........ ... ..............35
Effect of signal orientation on cable displacement ...............................................35
Effect of additional weight on cable displacement ...............................................36
D ual C able System ........................ .. ........................ .. .... ........ ........ 36
R repeated T ests ..................................................... ......................36
D discussion of Cable D isplacem ent........................................................ ............... 37









Sum m ary of Test Results .................. ................................ .. ........ .. .......... 37
Data Observation ..................................................................... ......... 37
Visual Observation .................................. .. ...... .. .... ........... .... 38

5 FORCE COEFFICIENTS, DRAG COEFFICIENTS, AND LIFT COEFFICIENTS............56

F o rc e C o efficient ts ...... .. ..... .. ... ............ .... .. ........................................ .................... 5 7
Effect of Signal Orientation on Force Coefficient .................................. ............... 57
Effect of Additional Weight on Force Coefficient.................................................. 57
Com prison of R repeated Tests...................... .................................... ............... 58
D rag and L ift C oefficients ........... ................ .......... ... ................................. ............... 58
Effect of Signal Orientation on Drag and Lift Coefficients ........................................58
Effect of Additional Weight on Drag and Lift Coefficient .......................................58
Com prison of Repeated Tests ......... ...... ........................................................59
Discussion of Force, Drag, and Lift Coefficients.............. ......... ........ ............... 59

6 ANALYSIS OF SPAN WIRE DESIGN METHODS.....................................................69

Specifications for Wind Loads on Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals..........................69
H eight and Exposure Factor ......... ................. ................... .................. ............... 69
Gust Effect Factor .......... .... ................................. .. .................... 70
Im portance Factor .................................. .... .. .... ......... ...... ....... 72
D rag C efficient ........... ............. .............. .... ........................... ............... 72
Comparison of Results from AASHTO 2001 and Wind Tests ................... ..................73
D discussion of D design M methods ............................ ................. ............................ ................73

7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................74

S u m m ary ............. ...... ...........74................. .........
C onclu sions.......... ..........................................................75
Recommendations................. ..... .. .. ..... .... ..................75

APPENDIX

A ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WIND TESTING PROGRAM FOR MODERN
CODES AND RESEARCH RESULTS ........................................ ........................... 76

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................... ...................78

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................80











6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Number of cycles and fraction of maximum force applied according to SBCCI.............. 17

3-1 Tests perform ed. ...........................................................................23

4-1 Cable sag determ ined from load cell. ........................................ .......................... 39

4-2 W ind velocity at 50% signal visibility ..................................................... ............. 40

4-3 Cable tension increase for single cable support systems at 115 miles per hour ...............41

4-4 Cable tension increase for dual cable support systems at 115 miles per hour................41

4-5 Pole D isplacem ent during testing ............................................. ............................. 41









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

2-1 Drag and lift coefficients from ASCE Task Committee on Wind Forces .......................17

2-2 Test apparatus created for testing of traffic signal components .................... ........ 18

3-1 A T L A S results for rotations...................................................................... ...................24

3-2 Layout of test setup ......... .... .... .... .......... ....................... 25

3-3 W ind loading function ............................................................................. .................... 26

4-1 Rotation of forward facing signal supported by single cable ............ ..... ............. 42

4-2 Top view of traffic signal with respect to oncoming wind.............. ...................42

4-3 Signal rotation versus wind speed for various support hangers......................................43

4-4 Effect of w eight on signal rotation........................................................ ............... 44

4-5 Wind velocity vs. rotation for dual cable systems with 40 inch hanger and 15 inch
h a n g e r s ................... ........................................................... ................ 4 5

4-6 Wind velocity versus rotation of forward facing signals............................................46

4-7 Single cable system tension for forward facing signals ..............................................47

4-8 Cable tension for signals at various angles of attack............. ... .................48

4-9 Cable tension for single cable tests featuring additional weight .............. ...............49

4-10 Tension of messenger and catenary cables of dual cable system ................................50

4-11 C able tension for repeated tests .............................................................. .....................5 1

4-12 Moment of concrete poles with signal at minimum clearance height ............................52

4-13 Catenary displacement at point of attachment to signal support hardware .....................52

4-14 C able translation for single point signal ................................................. .....................53

4-15 Catenary cable displacement for single point hangers...........................................54

4-16 Cable translation for dual cable system with 5% sag ................................ ............... 55

4-17 Cable displacement for repeated test with 2% catenary sag ................ ........ ...........55









5-1 Determination of Force Coefficient....... ............................................... ............... 60

5-2 Orientation effects on force coefficients................................................61

5-3 W eight effects on force coefficients ............................................................................ 62

5-4 Force coefficients from repeated tests ........................................ .......................... 63

5-5 Drag coefficients for various orientations...................... .... .......................... 64

5-6 Lift coefficients for various orientations ....................................... 65

5-7 Drag coefficients for signals of various weight.............................. ...........66

5-8 Lift coefficients for signals of various weight............................... .............67

5-9 Drag and lift coefficients from first and second tests ................................................68

A-1 Graphs for use with "Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and
S ig n s ." ............................... .............. ........................................... 7 7









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

DEVELOPMENT OF HURRICANE RESISTANT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS

By

Eric Vincent Johnson, Jr.

May 2007

Chair: Ronald A. Cook
Major: Civil Engineering

Span wire traffic support systems provide a reasonable cost alternative to mast arm

structures. Unfortunately failure of span wire systems is prevalent in high velocity winds.

Previous research of the dual cable support mechanism indicates that this particular span wire

assembly is not well suited for hurricane prone regions.

Dual cable and single cable support systems were tested in high velocity winds, and results

are compared to investigate the performance of both under severe wind loading. Additionally

the force, drag, and lift coefficients of a 5 head traffic signal are determined and compared to

previous research to determine if the current recommended drag coefficient is adequate for

analysis of wind forces on a typical traffic signal.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Performance of traffic signal support systems during hurricanes has indicated that the

current dual cable system performs inadequately under high velocity winds. As investigated in

"Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs" after Hurricane Andrew,

failures in traffic signal support systems occur in the hanger or quick disconnect box near the

connection to the messenger cable (Cook et al. 1996). Experience has shown that the current

support system needs improvement. Because there is widespread use of single point support

systems in hurricane prone regions, this project investigates the performance of both dual cable

and single cable support systems under high velocity winds.

Several actions will take place to determine the adequacy of each system. Modem codes

provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Association of

State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), as well as previous research by the Florida

Department of Transportation, will be investigated to determine the expected wind forces and

coefficients in extreme wind events. Testing of both systems will determine how the signal

support systems behave in high winds. Results from design methods will be compared to the

results observed from testing to verify accuracy.

This thesis summarizes the results of design code inquiry, testing of traffic signals, and

comparison between test results and design methods.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The response of traffic signals to high velocity winds has previously been studied at the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University under James F. Marchman, III. Because of

the complexities of the shape of traffic signals and their support systems, empirical data was

determined to be best suited for finding the design wind loads on traffic signals (Marchman, III,

1971). Testing of 3-head signals took place with varying signal orientation, hood shapes, and

number of signals on each support. Graphs depicting wind pressure versus the force applied by

the signal illustrated how the signals responded to winds that reached 160 mph.

The research conducted at Virginia Tech in the late 1960s remains as background in the

2001 version of "Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires

and Traffic Signals" (AASHTO 2001). A few other projects were carried out to further

understand the behavior of traffic signal structures to wind loads before the current version of the

code was adopted.

Florida is prone to high winds from tropical cyclones, and widespread damage to traffic

signal structures was experienced in South Florida during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As a

result, the following projects sponsored by Florida Department of Transportation in the 90s were

geared towards understanding how traffic signals respond to wind loading. One project,

"Computer Aided Design Program for Signal Pole and Span Wire Assemblies with Two Point

Connection System," was completed in two phases (Hoit et al. 1994). Phase one included the

development of a computer program-Analysis of Traffic Lights and Signs (ATLAS)-to model

the behavior of traffic signals supported by the two-cable system used in Florida. ATLAS

includes a nonlinear analysis of the signal support system and can verify that components are not









overstressed. The second phase included the testing of dual cable support systems for

comparison of results between ATLAS and the tests.

The other project, "Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs," was

conducted to understand the failures of the dual cable traffic signal system that occur during

hurricanes and to create a method of testing dual cable systems for adoption of standards into the

FDOT Product Approval List (Cook et al. 1996). "Standards for Windbome Debris Impact

Tests" by Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) specifies tests that expose

structures to cyclic loads; Table 2-1 shows the load application for testing according to the

standards. The maximum force was determined after examination of both ASCE 7-95 and

AASHTO 1985. The design procedure in ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings

and Other Structures," was selected for computation of the wind force because it was the more

current document. The total force for was altered, however, according to the anticipated motion

of traffic signals in high velocity wind events. Unlike fixed structures, signals rotate when

exposed to wind. As a result, the profile of the signal exposed to the wind changes, resulting in

drag and lift coefficients that vary. Using "Wind Forces on Structures" published by the ASCE

Wind Force Committee, the anticipated drag and lift coefficients were selected (ASCE 1961;

Cook et al. 1996). The drag and lift were computed, and using vector addition of the

perpendicular forces, the total anticipated force was determined through 90 degrees of rotation

for the signals. Figure 2-1 shows the expected drag and lift coefficients for 3 head and 5 head

traffic signals. ATLAS was used to model the rotation of the traffic signal at varying wind

velocities with rigid hardware, and this angle was added to the angle of rotation experienced by a

signal in the test apparatus. The total angle expected for the change in wind velocity was then

used to find the anticipated rotation at various wind speeds. Where the anticipated wind force









from ASCE 7-95 matched the wind force measured from the actuator arm attached to the signal,

the value was considered the applied force Fmax and was used for testing. The test apparatus, as

shown in Figure 2-2, applies the force to the centroid of the signal using an actuator arm. When

the load cell reaches the appropriate force, the actuator retracts. The cycles may be altered, but

the program allows for typical factors of Fmax based on SBCCI standards. For the negative

pressures, the signal is rotated 180 degrees for the actuator arm to apply the force in the opposite

direction. The testing summary reveals the number of cycles completed and Fmax. This method

of testing could be used to qualify signal components while using widely accepted loading

criteria for structural engineering.

The New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) investigated the affects of winds

on support poles (Alampalli 1998). NYDOT attached an anemometer atop one pole to record

wind speed and direction, and load cells were placed on opposite ends of the catenary cable to

measure tension in the single cable assembly. The instrumentation was programmed to collect

data when wind speeds exceeded 10 miles per hour; testing took place over 6 months. Wind

speeds rarely exceeded 40 miles per hour, and the loads placed on the poles were compared to

results from AASHTO design methods. The results were within 10% of design loads at low

wind velocities, but design values were much higher than recorded at higher velocities; the

author concluded that the dead and wind loads on the pole calculated from AASHTO design

method are conservative because of the high anticipated wind loads from the square of the

velocity term (Alampali 1998). Additionally the span-wire sag was considered a critical factor in

determining the forces experienced by the poles (Alampalli 1998). NYDOT surveyed other

transportation agencies around the United States before conducting research, and of the 17

respondents, only Florida and West Virginia experienced failures of the span wire assemblies.









West Virginia experienced failures of the wire clamps, while Florida experienced the failures

from high winds during aforementioned hurricanes (Alampalli 1998).

The current code provisions for determination of wind forces are provided by ASCE and

AASHTO. ASCE 7-05, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," offers

extensive information for the determination of wind forces on various structures (ASCE 2005).

Traffic signals would apply to Section 6.5.15, which provides a computational method for

determining wind forces on structures other than buildings. The determination of wind forces in

structural engineering according to ASCE is given by the Bernoulli expression, and Equation 2-1

describes the expected wind force, where qz is the dynamic wind pressure at elevation z, G is the

gust effect factor, Cf is the force coefficient, and Af is the projected area of the object

perpendicular to the wind unless the force coefficient is specified for the total surface area

(ASCE 2005).

F = qz G Cf Af (2-1)

The dynamic wind pressure can be determined from the design wind speed, and the projected

area of the signal is known. The gust factor would need to be determined from Section 6.5.8,

which provides an analytical procedure for determining the factor for either rigid or flexible

structures (ASCE 2005). Force coefficients are provided for solid freestanding walls and solid

signs in Figure 6-20; other shapes and structures have coefficients provided in Figures 6-21

through 6-23 of the specifications (ASCE 2005).

AASHTO 2001 is the current specification that determines wind forces for transportation

related structures. The calculation of wind forces is governed by Equation 2-2, where Kz is the

height and exposure factor, G is the gust effect factor, V is the basic wind speed to be determined









from the wind speed map, Ir is the importance factor, and Cd is the drag coefficient (AASHTO

2001).

Pz = 0.00256 Kz G V2 r Cd (2-2)

Recommended design values for traffic signals are found within the code, including the gust

effect factor-which has a recommended value of 1.14-and the drag coefficient, which may be

taken as 1.2 unless more detailed information is provided, as recommended by Marchman, III

(Marchman, III, 1971; AASHTO 2001).

In Florida the use of cable supported traffic signal systems is widespread as it is a lower-

cost alternative to cantilever mast arm structures. The dual cable system is the primary system in

use around the state; however, these perform poorly in high velocity winds. The reaction of dual

cable and single cable systems will be compared.










Table 2-1. Number of cycles and fraction of maximum force applied according to SBCCI.
Load Cycle Load Range Cycles
1 0.2 Fmax to 0.5 Fmax 3500
2 0.0 Fmax to 0.6 Fmax 300
3 0.5 Fmax to 0.8 Fmax 600
4 0.3 Fmax to 1.0 Fmax 100
5 -0.3 Fmax to -1.0 Fmax 50
6 -0.5 Fmax to -0.8 Fmax 1050
7 0.0 Fmax to -0.6 Fmax 50
8 -0.2 Fmax to -0.5 Fmax 3350


0 10 20 30 40


50 60 70 80 90


Signal Rotation (degrees)
A


Drag Coefficient


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Signal Rotation (degrees)
B

Figure 2-1. Drag and lift coefficients from ASCE Task Committee on Wind Forces. A) 3 head
signal. B) 5 head signal.
























A B


Figure 2-2. Test apparatus created for testing of traffic signal components. A) Renovated with 3
head signal. B) After construction.









CHAPTER 3
DEVELOPMENT OF WIND TESTING PROGRAM

Wind tests provide the unique opportunity to develop an understanding of the response of a

traffic signal structure to extreme winds. The intent is to compare expectations provided by

design codes with test data and verify the adequacy of design procedures. The response of traffic

signals to high winds was measured, and comparisons between dual cable and single cable

systems were made for a large scale assembly. Testing was conducted at the Eastside Campus of

the University of Florida in July 2006 cooperatively between the Florida Department of

Transportation, City of Gainesville, University of Florida, and Florida International University.

Test Setup

A full scale signal system was deemed necessary in providing an accurate assessment of

response to wind loads.

The span between support poles was determined with the help of ATLAS, the computer

software program developed at the University of Florida. Many traffic signals span intersections

at least 100 feet, and a span of 72 feet was previously deemed adequate to verify the accuracy of

ATLAS (Hoit et al. 1994). However space was limited at the test site, and a span of 50 feet was

proposed. Studies were conducted using ATLAS to determine if the results of testing are

comparable between the spans of 50 feet and 72 feet. ATLAS was run using a wind speed of

120 mph, which is the approximate highest wind speed that could be developed. Figure 3-1

shows the rotations and translations for a five-head signal suspended on spans of 50 feet and 72

feet, respectively, and on hangers of 15 inches and 40 inches. Computer outputs indicated that

essentially the same signal rotations occur as with the 72 ft span, and because the differences in

displacement and rotation are minimal, the 50 foot span was considered acceptable for obtaining

data. A schematic of the test setup is provided in Figure 3-2.









Two 18" x 18" Class 6 concrete poles were obtained from a traffic intersection undergoing

improvements in Gainesville, Florida. As previously done in "Static and Dynamic Tests on

Traffic Signal and Sign Dual Cable Support Systems," holes were dug approximately 7 feet into

the ground, the poles were set into place, and the holes were backfilled with soil (Hoit et al.

1994). No concrete was used as a foundation, and to verify that the poles moved negligibly, their

displacement was measured at the connection of the catenary cable parallel to the wind direction.

Alampalli mentions the cable sag as having a large effect on the tension observed in each

cable (Alampalli 1998). A sag of 5% is typical (AASHTO 2001). Systems with both 2% and

5% sags were tested in order to understand the behavior of a common structural system, as well

as a high-tension situation. In order to achieve both sags while maintaining the position of the

signal during various tests, the poles had to be modified to handle various cable configurations,

and the location of the additional eyebolts are illustrated in Figure 3-2.

Minimum span cable diameter in Florida is 3/8 inches, and ATLAS verified that this is an

adequate diameter for an applied wind velocity of 120 mph. For the dual cable system, the

catenary cable supports the weight of the signal at rest and the messenger cable supports the

electrical wiring. For the single cable system, the catenary cable supports the wiring. Figure 3-2

shows both cables for the various tests performed. The catenary and messenger cables were

provided by the City of Gainesville Traffic Operations. The 7-wire strand was manufactured by

the Hubbell Power Group and has a minimum breaking strength of 7,400 pounds.

Five-head traffic signals have a larger surface area exposed to wind and, therefore, were

used because they would experience a higher wind force than a three head signal. This would

also provide results not previously studied in wind tests for comparison. Only one signal could

be mounted because of the limited width of the wind field, and the signal was mounted in the









middle of the span. The bottom of the signal had to be no lower than 6 feet from the ground to

completely be enveloped in the constant wind stream with negligible drag effects from the

ground. The aluminum signals, as well as aluminum extender hangers, were provided by the

Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Gainesville Traffic Operations Department.

The wind was applied using the Wall of Wind Phase 1 provided by the International Hurricane

Research Center of Florida International University.

Instrumentation

Quantifying the behavior of the traffic signal to wind forces required instruments that

monitored several variables. Attached at the center of gravity of the signal were 2 sensors

produced by Microstrain. Both were model 3DM-GX1 and one monitored the acceleration of

the signal while the other measured the orientation of the signal in three axes. The

anemometer-produced by R. M. Young Company-monitored wind speed. The cable

displacements were measured by string potentiometers attached to a nearby aluminum structure.

UniMeasure model HX-P1010-80 measured the large displacements at the midpoint of the cables

where the traffic signal was attached. An additional string pot, Ametek Rayelco Linear Motion

Transducer model P-2A, was attached to the eyebolt at the uppermost cable to measure the

movement of the pole in the direction of the wind. The tension of the cables was measured

directly. Model LCCA-1OK load cells-which are tension and compression "s-type" load

cells-were manufactured by Omega and placed in line with the cables to measure tension. Data

was acquired at a rate of 50 hertz.

Test Methods

For each test, the cable configuration was first set, and the traffic signal was then

suspended at midspan. For testing, the instrumentation began to take readings before the Wall of

Wind revved up. The engines either gradually brought the wind speed to approximately 115









miles per hour over the course of 2.5 minutes, or they brought the wind speed up to an assigned

value and oscillated around that for two minutes. When tests were complete, the engines receded

to idle and were finally shut down for installation of a new cable setup.

Figure 3-3 shows a typical wind speed graph over time for the wind speed applied by both

a ramp function and sinusoidal function. The ramp function is modeled by a linear function as

shown in Figure 3-3 A.

Table 3-1 presents the tests that were conducted. The oscillating load is shown in Figure

3-3 B. Street name signs were mounted in lieu of traffic signals in tests 29-31. The ramp

loading function is the easiest to analyze for it provides a direct relationship to the other

parameters.










Table 3-1. Tests performed.
Number
of
Date Test Orientation Cables
7/17/2006 1 Forward 2
7/17/2006 2 Forward 1
7/17/2006 3 Forward 1
7/17/2006 4 Diagonal 1
7/17/2006 5 Forward 1
7/17/2006 6 Forward 2
7/18/2006 7 Backward 2
7/18/2006 8 Forward 1
7/18/2006 9 Diagonal 1
7/18/2006 10 Backward 1
7/18/2006 11 Forward 1
7/18/2006 12 Forward 1
7/18/2006 13 Forward 1
7/18/2006 14 Forward 1
7/18/2006 15 Forward 1
7/18/2006 16 Forward 1
7/18/2006 17 Diagonal 1
7/18/2006 18 Backward 1
7/19/2006 19 Forward 1
7/19/2006 20 Diagonal 1
7/19/2006 21 Backward 1
7/19/2006 22 Forward 1
7/19/2006 23 Forward 1
7/19/2006 24 Forward 2
7/25/2006 25 Forward 2
7/25/2006 26 Forward 1
7/25/2006 27 Forward 1
7/25/2006 28 Forward 1
7/25/2006 29 Forward 1
7/25/2006 30 Forward 1
7/25/2006 31 Forward 1


Connection
Hardware
40" Strap
40" Strap
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Strap
Strap
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
15" Strap
40" Strap
Pipe
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct


Desired
Catenary
Sag
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
7%
5%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%


Weight Notes
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs Oscillating Load
62 lbs None
62 lbs Oscillating Load
62 lbs Oscillating Load
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
82 lbs None
102 lbs None
62 lbs None
82 lbs None
102 lbs None
62 lbs Oscillating Load
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
82 lbs None
102 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
62 lbs None
67 lbs Backplate
15 lbs Street Sign
15 lbs Street Sign
15 lbs Street Sign






















A B C









D


Figure 3-1. ATLAS results for rotations. A) Fifty foot span with 40 inch hanger (610 rotation).
B) Fifty foot span with 15 inch hanger (790 rotation). C) Seventy-two foot span with
40 inch hanger (690 rotation). D) Seventy-two foot span with 15 inch hanger (800
rotation)












3'- 4"
S Catenary Cable 1'- 6"
----'- 0"

Messenger Cable 10'- 0"


1 50'- 0"
A



3'- 4"
Catenary Cable 1'- 6"
S 1'- 0"

10'- 0"


50'- 0"
B



3'- 4"
1'- 6"

Catenary able
10'- 0"


50'- 0"

C

Figure 3-2. Layout of test setup. A) Forty inch aluminum hanger, 5% sag. B) Forty inch pipe
hanger, 5% sag. C) Direct connection, 5% sag.










140
120
100
* 80
S60
> 40
" 20
0


2 140
t 120
100 -

60
> 40
. 20
0


Linear Increase






0 60 120 180 240


Time (s)
A


Time (s)
B


Figure 3-3. Wind loading function. A) Linear increase in velocity. B) Oscillating Load.









CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS

Wind tests provide the unique opportunity to understand how signals behave in high

winds. A total of 31 tests were conducted over the course of 4 days. The final day was open to

the public and traffic signal maintaining agencies throughout Florida were invited to observe the

tests. The measurable data was compiled and data are presented to help understand the nature of

traffic signal behavior under extreme wind conditions. The test number is presented for each

data series.

Signal Rotations

The rotation of the signal head is related to signal visibility. This study measured the

rotation of the signal head to determine the relationship to wind speed and compare visibility

between single cable and dual cable systems.

Single Cable System

As shown in Figure 4-1, the rotation experienced by the signal heads was directly

correlated to the wind speed. As a result, the linear increase in wind speed resulted in a linear

increase in signal rotation. For the forward facing signals supported by only the catenary cable,

the sag of the cable did not play a significant role in the rotation of the signal. However, the

signal supported by the pipe hanger did rotate less than the signal connected directly to the cable.

Tests 8 and 13 were repeated, and the first tests are presented in Figure 4-1. The best model for

rotations occurred at wind speeds above 20 miles per hour; below this wind speed, the signal

displayed a rotation as a result of its support not being in line with the support, and the wind

force was low and applied in less than 1 second. Afterwards, the increase in wind speed

occurred linearly at a rate of approximately 1 mile per hour every 2 seconds.









Effect of signal orientation on rotation

The previous section presented the rotations for forward facing signals with a 40 inch pipe

extender on a cable with 5% sag, as well as a signal connected directly to a cable with 5% and

2% sag. Because the wind may come at a signal from any direction, the previously shown tests

were repeated with varying orientations of the signal. The additional testing angles are presented

in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-3 shows signal rotation for the forward facing signals, as well as for signals

rotated at angles of 45 degrees and 180 degrees. In all cases, the forward facing and rear facing

signals experienced a similar rate of increase in rotation with respect to wind speed. In the case

of diagonal signals, the rotation was taken with respect to the front face of the signal heads,

which is in line with drivers' view but at a 45 degree angle with respect to the oncoming wind.

In the case of the signal featuring a pipe extender, as shown in Figure 4-3 A, the signal did not

experience any rotations greater than 60 degrees. The movement experienced by the signals

without the pipe extender was greater for both the 5% and 2% cases for the forward facing cases,

but the rear and diagonal signals performed similarly with respect to one another as shown in

Figures 4-3. Regardless of support conditions, however, the diagonally facing signal rotated

slightly more than 50 degrees.

Effect of additional weight on rotation

Because aluminum signal heads are heavier than their polycarbonate counterparts, the tests

were conducted with the single point tests to observe the role of weight in rotation.

To test the reaction of heavier signals to wind speed the forward facing tests were repeated

adding weights of 20 pounds and 40 pounds to the bottom of the 62 pound aluminum signal

head. For the test with the pipe extender, the signal without weight performed similarly to the

signal with an additional 20 pounds as shown in Figure 4-4 A. The signal with the additional 40









pounds, however, did experience less rotation. In Figure 4-4 B, representing the signal with a

catenary sag of 5% and no pipe hanger, additional weight lessened the rotation incrementally.

Figure 4-3 C shows that for the system with 2% sag and no pipe extender, the additional weight

influenced rotation similar to the directly connected signal with 5% sag. The system with pipe

extender and 5% catenary sag was the only configuration to lack variation in rotations that

appear to be directly associated with the increased weight; the other two cases had greater

variation in rotation because of the addition of weight.

Dual Cable System

The dual cable system widely used in Florida was tested for comparison to the single cable

system. In the tests that featured both a messenger and catenary cable, an aluminum extender of

either 40 inches or 15 inches was used, producing a catenary sag of 5% or 7%, respectively.

Figure 4-5 shows the rotation experienced by the signal with a 15 inch hanger and a 40

inch hanger. The signal with the longer hanger rotated slightly less, but both are within 5

degrees of one another at all velocities, with lower variation at higher wind speeds.

Repeated Tests

Several tests were performed twice with slight variations in each test. Table 4-1 shows the

cable sag calculated from load cell data. Figure 4-6 represents the rotation data from the tests

that were done twice. The dual cable system with 5% sag was redone, and so were the single

cable tests with pipe extender (5% sag) and direct connection (2% sag). Figure 4-6 A represents

the test with the dual cable system while figure 4-6 B represents the test with the pipe hanger.

Figure 4-6 C shows the rotation experienced by the system with 2% cable sag.

Only slight variations occurred between the first and second test in all cases. The variation

was within 5 degrees between tests, showing that similar tests performed consistently by yielding

similar results, regardless of whether the signal was supported by one or two cables.









The messenger cable provides more restraint to the signal, resulting in the smaller variation

in angles observed during testing of the dual cable system.

Discussion of Signal Rotation

In all cases, a linear correlation existed between the wind speed and signal rotation. This

proportionality allows for direct comparison between the single cable and dual cable systems.

The data suggest that although there is a difference between the rotation at the highest

wind speed, all values fall between 50 and 70 degrees.

The maximum rotation may not be a critical factor as long as the system does not break.

No tests yielded failure of any component; however, the aluminum hanger used in the dual cable

system did deform appreciably. The rotation of the signal head at maximum winds does not play

any significant hazard because drivers will not be present during extreme events. Signal rotation

does play a role in winds existing during evacuation and thunderstorms.

As presented by Hoit, the signal was deemed to be no longer safely visible when half of

the bulb cannot be seen by oncoming motorists, occurring at a rotation of 30 degrees (Hoit et al.

1994). The maximum wind speed was 75 miles per hour for two of the direct connection

examples, and a wind speed of 49 miles per hour was the smallest for the forward facing signal

without pipe hanger with a 2% sag as shown in Table 4-2. The range of wind speeds is 26 miles

per hour, and the dual cable system had wind velocities above 65 miles per hour for the visibility

criteria. The single cable systems have a wider variation of wind speed to cause the signal to

lose visibility, but the dual cable system does not perform particularly better than the systems

with pipe hangers or heavier signals.

Situations may occur during normal operation that may cause an unfavorable rotation in

the traffic signal. In particular, Florida is susceptible to severe thunderstorms. The National

Weather Service classifies thunderstorms as severe if they produce hail, tornadoes, or winds in









excess of 58 miles per hour (NWS 2006). The 58 mile per hour wind speed can be applied to

traffic signals and determine the differences in rotation between the signals of various supports.

As shown in Table 4-1, only the 2% and 5% single cable systems with no weight and forward

orientations do not meet this criteria.

The data show that for normal operating conditions, the difference in signal rotation can

be alleviated with the use of heavier signals or hangers.

Cable Tension

Alampalli found that the sag of the catenary cable was the primary factor in determining

cable tension (Alampalli 1998). The results from tests indicate that for the single point system,

this is accurate; however, the dual cable system reacts differently when wind loads are applied.

Single Cable System

The forward facing signal with single point attachment is presented in Figure 4-7.

As expected the cable with the smaller sag experienced a larger initial tension. All cases,

regardless of initial sag, experienced a small linear increase in tension as the wind increased. In

addition to the direct proportionality to wind speed, all also prove to be nearly parallel; this

indicates that the systems behave similarly regardless of the initial tension. Both tests featuring a

cable sag of 5% experienced similar forces throughout testing.

Effect of signal orientation on cable tension

Figure 4-8 shows the cable reactions while the signal experienced high wind speeds from

various angles of attack.

In all cases the orientation has a minimal effect on the measured tension. The 2% forward

signal did experience a slightly different increase of tension with respect to the other two cases as

indicated by the slope of the tension increase. Otherwise, the change in signal profile did not

alter the tension perceived by the cable.









Effect of additional weight on cable tension

Unlike the signal orientation, the weight added to the signal was expected to increase the

cable tension.

Figure 4-9 shows that like the other tests, the increase in cable tension was directly

proportional to the wind speed. Additionally, the initial tension in the cable did not increase

appreciably with an increase in wind speed. The only difference between tests was the affect of

additional weights on the initial cable tension. The linear plots for tension were nearly the same

in all tests. The tests with additional weight indicate that the weight of the signal has little effect

on the increase in cable tension with increased winds; instead, the initial tension in the cable is

the only variable affected by the increased signal weight.

Dual Cable System

The difference in behavior between catenary and messenger cables was significant As the

wind speed increased for both tests, the catenary cable reacts similar to the single cable system;

however, the messenger cable resists the rotation of the hanger and experiences a large increase

in tension associated with the increased resistance from high wind speeds.

While the catenary cables experience increases in tension of less than 100 pounds, the

messenger cable tension increases by several hundred pounds. The messenger cable is initially

tensioned, and regardless of the initial force observed at the beginning of the test, the increase of

force is similar and is represented by the nearly parallel lines in Figure 4-10. The length of

hanger is indicated as 15 inches (for 7% sag) or 40 inches (for 5% sag). For both single and dual

cable systems, the increase in tension in the catenary cable is similar, no matter the initial tension

of the catenary cable.









Repeated Tests

Figure 4-11 shows the results from each series of repeated tests. The tests were conducted

approximately one week apart, and the cables were removed after the first round of tests.

Although the same cables were reinstalled, differences in cable reactions result from different

initial conditions, including a difference in sag and initial tension in the messenger cable with the

dual cable system as shown in Table 4-1.

Figure 4-11 A shows that for the dual cable system, the messenger cables started at nearly

the same initial tension, but the second test had a higher increase in tension by several hundred

pounds. The catenary cables also differed in behavior between the two tests. The tension in the

first test rose slightly, while during the second test, the initial tension was higher but decreased as

the wind speed increased. While all the other tests indicate a consistent pattern of force increase

with wind speed increase, the catenary cable provided the most contradictory results. However

these changes are negligible and likely due to variations in initial cable sag.

The pipe hanger experienced an increased tension the second test initially, but at the

highest wind speeds the data indicate a similar tension. The increases in tension are shown to

remain nearly parallel. Unlike the signal suspended by the pipe hanger, the one directly

connected to the signal experienced a higher tension on the first test, and the second test had a

lower tension.

Discussion of Cable Tension

The cable tension increased in all tests; however, the increase in tension was different

between the single cable and dual cable systems. The tension experienced by the single cable

systems was primarily determined by the initial sag in the cable. No appreciable increase in

tension resulted from the wind load. The dual cable systems did not give consistent results. The

catenary cable in the dual cable system either slightly increased or decreased in tension with









respect to the initial readings. In the dual cable system, the messenger cable experienced a large

increase in tension, as it is the primary restraint against movement of the aluminum hanger. This

tension increased by several hundred pounds in each case, and the resistance also caused the

aluminum hanger to bend in every test. The results indicate that the dual cable system lacks the

consistency in behavior. The large forces in the messenger cable has resulted in failures of the

dual cable system, as previously reported in "Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic

Signals and Signs" (Cook et al. 1996).

The loads carried by the cables are transmitted to the foundation from the poles which are

responsible for resisting the tensile forces. The poles develop an internal moment to resist the

tension of the cables. Figure 4-12 shows the moments at the base of the poles for the single

cable test 8 and the dual cable system featured in test 25. Both cases were analyzed with an

assumed clearance of 17.5 feet for the traffic signal. As expected, because the tension in the

messenger increases significantly, the poles in the dual cable system undergo a large increase in

moment, while the single cable system shows the pole moment increase to be negligible.

Pole Movement

A two-inch string pot was connected to the eyebolt on the west concrete pole and measured

small displacements of the pole parallel to the wind direction. The pole displacement parallel to

the catenary cable and perpendicular to the wind direction was deemed to be insignificant for the

single cable tests that measured movement. Visual inspection during testing to verified that the

poles behaved like cantilever beams fixed at the ground. Because the poles were visually

determined to be stable and consistent the string pot was attached only to the west pole.

The recorded deflection was observed to be between 0.004 and 0.008 inches for each test,

which is negligible by engineering standards. During the test featuring the rear-facing signal

with 2% sag, the string pot returned a constant value of approximately 1.3, indicating that the









equipment malfunctioned. Fortunately a clear representation of pole movements was already

observed and displacements were deemed immaterial. Table 4-5 provides results from the tests.

Cable Displacement

The movement of the catenary and messenger cables at the attachment of the traffic signal

shows how the system displaces in high winds.

Single Cable System

Figure 4-13 shows the horizontal translation of the catenary cable for the single hanger

tests at the connection to the traffic signal. At a wind velocity of 115 miles per hour, the signals

supported by the 5% cable did not vary much in displacement. The signal with extender moved

approximately 55 inches at midspan while the directly connected signal moved approximately 52

inches. The tighter cable moved about half as much as the other two-the signal supported by

the cable with 2% sag moved approximately 21 inches.

Effect of signal orientation on cable displacement

For the single cable systems that featured various orientations with respect to the wind

field, the displacement of the cable was measured at midspan. Figure 4-14 displays results from

the tests. Displacements varied by less than 10 inches. For the pipe hanger, little difference was

seen in displacement for different signal orientations. The forward facing signal resulted in the

least displacement of the cable while the backward facing signal resulted in the most cable

displacement. The signal connected directly to the catenary cable with 5% sag also did not

record much difference in cable movement between the type of orientation the signal had with

the wind field. The forward facing and diagonal signal had almost the exact same cable

displacement during testing, and the backward facing signal caused more movement than the

other two. The signal supported directly by the catenary cable but with greater tension displaced

approximately half as much as the 5% case, as previously mentioned. Like the previous two









results, there was little difference between the 3 orientations where the backward signal

displaced the cable the most while the diagonal signal displaced the least. The maximum

displacement was approximately 24 inches and the minimum was approximately 20 inches for

the 2% sag.

Effect of additional weight on cable displacement

The effect of weight varied slightly between tests as shown in Figure 4-15. In all cases,

cable translation was less for the lighter signals, however, the differences were small.

In the tests featuring the pipe hanger in the dual cable system, the catenary cable moved

approximately 61 inches when the weights were added. For the 5% directly connected signal

with additional weights, the translation was approximately 56 inches. The system with catenary

sag of 2% experienced slightly different results between the signal with 20 pounds and the signal

with 40 pounds. The signal with the most weight moved the most, with a horizontal translation

measured at approximately 29 inches. The signal with an additional 20 pounds moved

approximately 26 inches, and the signal with no additional weight moved approximately 21

inches. As in all cases, the difference in signal weight was less than 10 inches.

Dual Cable System

For the 5% sag, the catenary cable moved towards the wind source and reached a

maximum displacement of slightly more than 10 inches. The messenger cable moved in the

direction of the wind and displaced approximately the same distance as the catenary cable.

Repeated Tests

The second series of tests were conducted approximately one week after the first with

various maintenance agencies present. The goal of the viewing was to offer the chance for

authorities to view the behavior of the tests. Because a goal was to complete the tests within a









day, time was limited to conduct each test. As a result, the test with the 2% catenary sag was the

only test used to give results on cable displacement that day.

Figure 4-17 shows the comparison between the two tests performed on the single cable

system with 2% sag. Both cases yielded maximum cable displacements below 30 inches, and

both further show that the tighter cable had less movement than the cases with 5% sag. The data

from the first test show that the catenary cable moved less compared to the second test. The

difference in movement was approximately 6 inches.

Discussion of Cable Displacement

The cable displacement showed the horizontal movement the traffic signal cables

underwent. In the single cable system cases, the movement was over 4 feet with the 5% catenary

sag and approximately 2 feet with the tighter 2% catenary sag. The catenary and messenger

cables experienced less movement with the dual cable system as the messenger cable works to

restrain the motion of the system; although this may seem desirable, data has also shown that

while the displacement is limited, the aluminum extender material has the tendency to bend.

Summary of Test Results

The value of wind testing was realized by the observations of numerical and visual data.

Data Observation

At wind speeds of approximately 115 miles per hour, all systems experienced rotations

between 50 and 70 degrees. The signal rotation was reduced by the presence of the messenger

cable, but orientation and additional weight added to the system lead to similar rotations in the

single cable systems. The forward facing signals supported by a single cable without additional

weight rotated more than for the other cases.

The cable tension did offer a good understanding of system performance in high velocity

winds. The single cable system experienced little gain in cable tension with high wind loading.









The ability of the cable to move freely minimizes stresses in the hanger and signal; therefore, the

hanger did not bend in high wind velocities. The dual cable system resists movement and the

messenger cable experiences a high increase in tension. This stress is transferred between the

cables and the signal by the adjustable aluminum extender, which lacks appropriate stiffness to

carry the loads without permanent deformation. In the single point system, the cable, signals and

hangers appear to not be in danger of being overstressed.

The cable translation helps understand the increase in tensile forces for the dual cable

system. Because the messenger cable is provided, it limits the motion of the hanger and

increases dramatically in tension when the wind force increases. The single cable system is

allowed to move more freely, and the horizontal translations, as well as free rotations, allow for

minimal buildup of critical stresses.

Visual Observation

All signals rotated gradually as a result of increased wind speed. However when the

hanger was used, the primary difference between the single point and dual point system is that

the messenger cable restricted movement and bent the aluminum hanger. This occurred in every

test of the dual cable system. The pipe hanger, when connected by only the single catenary

cable, never experienced deformation. The presence of the messenger cable has shown to be

detrimental to the behavior of the signal support hardware. The oscillating wind load function

caused some oscillations in the traffic signal.

The street signs that were tested could not yield data on rotation because instruments were

not mounted. However, they did rotate as the wind increased, but they also displayed horizontal

movement in addition to the sway in the direction of the wind possibly due to vortex shedding.

At no time did any hardware fail.










Table 4-1. Cable sag determined from load cell.

Desired Number of Sag Obtained Actual
Test eg Note Hanger Cables From Load
Sag Cables Cell (in) Sag (0)

1 5% None Strap 2 30 5.0
25 5% None Strap 2 30 5.0
8 5% None Pipe 1 37 6.2
26 5% None Pipe 1 33 5.5
19 2% None Direct 1 13 2.2
27 2% None Direct 1 33 5.5
7 5% Backward Strap 2 38 6.3
2 5% Forward Strap 1 37 6.2
24 7% None Strap 2 58 9.7
9 5% Diagonal Pipe 1 36 6.0
10 5% Backward Pipe 1 37 6.2
11 5% Additional 20 lbs Pipe 1 39 6.5
12 5% Additional 40 lbs Pipe 1 39 6.5
13 5% None Direct 1 32 5.3
17 5% Diagonal Direct 1 35 5.8
18 5% Backward Direct 1 34 5.7
14 5% Additional 20 lbs Direct 1 34 5.7
15 5% Additional 40 lbs Direct 1 34 5.7
20 2% Diagonal Direct 1 13 2.2
21 2% Backward Direct 1 13 2.2
22 2% Additional 20 lbs Direct 1 14 2.3
23 2% Additional 40 lbs Direct 1 15 2.5













I


Table 4-2. Wind velocity at 50% signal visibility.
Tet H r Desired Number of No
Test Hanger Cl Note
Sag Cables
1 Strap 5 2 None
25 Strap 5 2 None
8 Pipe 5 1 None
26 Pipe 5 1 None
19 Direct 2 1 None
27 Direct 2 1 None
7 Strap 5 2 Backwal
2 Strap 5 1 None
24 Strap 7 2 None
9 Pipe 5 1 Diagona
10 Pipe 5 1 Backwal
11 Pipe 5 1 Addition
12 Pipe 5 1 Addition
13 Direct 5 1 None
17 Direct 5 1 Diagona
18 Direct 5 1 Backwal
14 Direct 5 1 Addition
15 Direct 5 1 Addition
20 Direct 2 1 Diagona
21 Direct 2 1 Backwal
22 Direct 2 1 Addition
23 Direct 2 1 Addition


Wind Velocity at Limiting Angle


rd



1
rd
al 20 lbs
al 40 lbs

1
rd
al 20 lbs
al 40 lbs
1
rd
al 20 lbs
al 40 lbs


Wind Velocity at Limiting Angle
(mph)
69
69
58
57
50
49
75
56
65
73
71
60
74
52
64
70
63
73
63
71
61
67










Table 4-3. Cable tension increase for single cable support systems at 115 miles per hour.
.n Additional Initial Final Force 0F
Signal %. Force
Test Hanger inain Weight Tension Tension Increase
Orientation Increase
(lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf)
19 Direct Connection Forward 0 915 981 66 7%
22 Direct Connection Forward 20 1045 1164 119 11%
23 Direct Connection Forward 40 1197 1282 85 7%
20 Direct Connection Diagonal 0 883 1015 132 15%
21 Direct Connection Backward 0 888 1034 146 16%
13 Direct Connection Forward 0 365 391 26 7%
14 Direct Connection Forward 20 446 489 43 10%
15 Direct Connection Forward 40 532 588 56 11%
17 Direct Connection Diagonal 0 350 422 72 21%
18 Direct Connection Backward 0 356 420 64 18%
8 Pipe Forward 0 332 362 30 9%
11 Pipe Forward 20 413 434 21 5%
12 Pipe Forward 40 480 506 26 5%
9 Pipe Diagonal 0 335 349 14 4%
10 Pipe Backward 0 345 369 24 7%



Table 4-4. Cable tension increase for dual cable support systems at 115 miles per hour.
Initial Final Force
Test Signal Cable Tension Tension Increase %Force Increase
Orientation
(lbf) (lbf) (lbf)
2 Forward Catenary 121 187 66 55%
2 Forward Messenger 318 1132 814 256%
7 Backward Catenary 343 373 30 9%
7 Backward Messenger 120 137 17 14%
24 Forward Catenary 232 250 18 8%
24 Forward Messenger 828 1556 728 88%


Table 4-5. Pole Displacement during testing
Test Maximum Displacement During Test (in)
8 0.006
9 0.008
10 0.004
11 0.004
12 0.007
13 0.004
14 0.007
15 0.075*
*String pot malfunctioned during test










80
70 -
70

50-
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -


2% Sag, Direct (19)--



5% Sag, Direct (13)

SSau. Pipe IS


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


Figure 4-1. Rotation of forward facing signal supported by single cable.


0 Signal


A


Wind
--
4^ ---
4 ---


1800 Signal


Wind

450 Signal

C


Figure 4-2. Top view of traffic signal with respect to oncoming wind. A) Forward facing signal.
B) Backward signal. C) Diagonal signal.


Wind
4-\ wn

4_










,80
770
660
50
40
t30
-20
.10
0


20 40 60 80 100 120
Wind Velocity (mph)


,80
g70
'60
-0
"50
S40
-30
- 20
.10
0


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


,80
g 70
0 Forward Signal (19)
-0
t50 -
40
030 DDiagonal Signal
20 -
20 dBackwa d Signal (21)
.P10 -
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-3.


140


Signal rotation versus wind speed for various support hangers. A) Pipe Hanger. B)
5% Direct Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection.










80
70
660
-e
550
240
o 30
- 20
.10
0


20 40 60 80 100
Wind Velocity (mph)
A

,,80
u 70
)60 62 lb Signal (13)---
550
40 -
S30
82 lb Si
- 20 -
al0
1 102 lb Signal (15)
0
20 40 60 80 100
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


120


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-4.


Effect of weight on signal rotation. A) Pipe Hanger. B) Direct connection with 5%
Sag. C) Direct connection with 2% Sag.










80 80
2 70 -
6 60
S50- 15" Hanger (24)

| 403 04 anger(l)
20 -
20

I 10 -

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
Figure 4-5. Wind velocity vs. rotation for dual cable systems with 40 inch hanger and 15 inch
hangers.












Second Test (26).

First Test (8)


20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)
A


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


12 80
2 70
60
o 50
S40
o 30
20
e 10
S0


20 40 60 80 100 120
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-6. Wind velocity versus rotation of forward facing signals. A) Single cable with 5%
catenary sag and drop pipe extender. B) Single cable with 2% catenary sag and no
pipe hanger. C) Dual cable with 40 inch aluminum extender.


Second Test (25)-

*- First Test (1)


I










1400
1200 2% Sag, Direct (19)
1000 -
0 800 -
H 600 5% Sag, Direct (13)
400
S200 50 Sa. Pipe (8)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)

Figure 4-7. Single cable system tension for forward facing signals.










1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0


0 20


40
Wind


60 80 100 120 140
Velocity (mph)


0 20 40 60 80 100
Wind Velocity (mph)


1600
-1400
,1200
1000o
I 800
600
- 400
200
0




1600
-1400
1200
100l -
S800-
S600
S400
S200
0-
O


120 140


40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-8. Cable tension for signals at various angles of attack. A) Drop pipe system with 5%
sag. B) Direct connect system with 5% sag. C) Direct connect system with 2% sag.


Backward Signal (10)
Forward Signal (8)


Diagonal Signal (9)


Backward Signal (18)
Diagonal Siigal (17)



Forward Siunnal (13)


3 20


Forward Signal (19)
Backward Signal 21


Diagonal Signal (20)


f










1600
1400
,1200
S1000 -
= 800 -
600-
S400
200-
0


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
A


1600
,1400
=1200
o1000
S800
S600
S400
S200
0


0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Wind Velocity (mph)


1600
C,1400
-^1200
O1000
S800
so
S600
S400
U 200
0


0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-9. Cable tension for single cable tests featuring additional weight. A) Drop pipe hanger
with 5% sag. B) Direct connection with 5% sag. C) Direct connection with 2% sag.


102 lb Signal (12)
82 lb Signal (11)


l-'2 Ib Signal (S)


102 lb Signal (15)
82 lb Signal (14)




62 lb Signal (13)


102 lb Signal (23)



62 Ib Signal (22)

62 lb Signal (19)










1600
1400 15" Messenger (24)-,--
1400
S1200 -
S10 40" Messenger (1
0 40" Catenary (1)
6 600
S15" Catenary (15) \
400 _
200 ----------

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)

Figure 4-10. Tension of messenger and catenary cables of dual cable system.











1600
" 1400
-o
- 1200
-
o 1000
I 800
o
600
S400
u 200
0
2


20 40


80 100 120 140


Wind Velocity (mph)


1600
0 1400
- 1200
o 1000
I 800
600
S400
u 200
0


1600
" 1400
'- 1200
o 1000 -
I 800
S600
iu
S400
u 200
n -


Test 26(5 6 )5


Test 8 (6.2%)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Wind Velocity (mph)
B


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-11. Cable tension for repeated tests. A) Dual cable system. B) Single cable system with
5% sag and pipe extender. C) Single cable system with 2% sag.


Test 25 messener (5.0%)




st 1 messenger (5.0%)
STest 25 catenary (5.0%)

S--est I catenary (5.0%)


Test 19 (2.2%)



Test 27 (2.3%)


\J










50000

40000 Test 25

| 30000

S20000
0 Test 8
S10000 -

9 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


Figure 4-12. Moment of concrete poles with signal at minimum clearance height.


/- U 5% Sag, Direct (13)
60 -
o 50
550 -
40 5% Sag, Pipe (8
30
S20
10 -
22% S_, Direct (19)
0-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


Figure 4-13. Catenary displacement at point of attachment to signal support hardware.





















0 20


100 120 140


Wind Velocity (mph)


0 20


40 60 80 100
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


120 140


Forward Signal (19)

Backward Signal (21)

f agonal Signa (20)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 4-14. Cable translation for single point signal. A) Pipe hanger with 5% catenary sag. B)
Direct Connection with 5% catenary sag. C) Direct connection with 2% catenary sag.


Diagonal Signal (9)
Backward Signal (10)



Forward Signal (8)


Forward Signal (13)

Backward Signal (18)


Diagonal Sign 1 (17


70
S60
S50
i40
330
H
, 20
u10
0





















0 20


40 60 80 100 120 140


Wind Velocity (mph)
A


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


0 20 40 60 80 100
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


120 140


Figure 4-15. Catenary cable displacement for single point hangers. A) Pipe extender with 5%
catenary sag. B) Direct connection with 5% catenary sag. C) Direct connection with
2% catenary sag.


102 lb Signal (8)

82 lb Signal (11)-



62 lb Signal (12)


70
S60
o 50
1 40
30
" 20
10
0
o










70
50
30
10
-10
-30
-50
-70


Wind Velocity (mph)


Figure 4-16. Cable translation for dual cable system with 5% sag (test 1).


70
60 -
60

40 -
50
40
30
20
10
0


0 20 40 60 80 100
Wind Velocity (mph)


120 140


Figure 4-17. Cable displacement for repeated test with 2% catenary sag.


M4lessenger



20 40 60 80 10 o 120 1
Cate ary


Test 27

Test 19
',Test 19









CHAPTER 5
FORCE COEFFICIENTS, DRAG COEFFICIENTS, AND LIFT COEFFICIENTS

The flow of air around traffic signals creates variances in pressure on the surface of the

signal. Although the determination of pressure at various points on the signal is possible, it

would be more practical to determine the wind forces on the entire signal; furthermore, the shape

of traffic signals would add to the complexities of determining wind forces perpendicular to each

surface in a particular condition. Therefore a goal of this project is to determine the aerodynamic

effects of a wind stream around the signal head.

The primary reference manuals for determining wind forces on structures-"Minimum

Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures" (ASCE 7-05) and "Standard Specifications for

Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals" (AASHTO 2001)-

both define a coefficient for determination of the effect of bodies immersed in a flowing stream

of air. ASCE 7-05 makes use of a force coefficient in Section 6.5.15 of "Design Wind Loads on

Other Structures" (ASCE 2005). AASHTO uses a drag coefficient in determination of the total

force acting on signals (AASHTO 2001). The determination of the force coefficient, drag

coefficient, and lift coefficient allows understanding of the total forces parallel and perpendicular

to the wind stream, and the reaction of the signals can be determined from these components.

Drag, lift, and force coefficients are more easily determined from analysis of the single

cable systems, making analysis of the dual cable systems unnecessary; the single cable system

allows the supporting load to accumulate in the catenary cable. The cable tension, T, can be

resolved into a component, T', that opposes the weight of the signal, as shown in Figures 5-1 A

and 5-1 B when the signal is at rest.

As the wind increases on the signal, the measured rotation, 0, also increases, as shown in

Figure 5-1 C. The wind applies a pressure, p, that acts perpendicular to the structure which can









be modeled by a force, Pw, on the signal (Figure 5-1 C and Figure 5-1 D). Figure 5-1 E shows

the combined forces acting on the structure from the side. Vector addition of the weight, W, and

wind force, Pw, results in a force vector that opposes T'. The relationship between the known

values-signal weight, angle of rotation, and cable tension-can be found and the wind force,

Pw, can be resolved. The dynamic wind force is determined by Equation 5-1 and is necessary for

determining the force, drag, and lift coefficients.

P = 1 .p.V A (5-1)
2
The force coefficient can be found by dividing the wind force, Pw, by the dynamic wind force, P.

The drag and lift coefficients are determined by taking the components of the wind force parallel

and perpendicular to the wind flow, respectively.

Force Coefficients

The force coefficient must first be determined and the drag and lift forces can be

determined as components of the total force. Because of the ability of the signal to rotate as

wind speed increases, the pressure on the surface changes during testing.

Effect of Signal Orientation on Force Coefficient

Various orientations of the traffic signal result in a different cross sectional areas and

profiles exposed to the wind. In each case a different orientation results in a different total force

experienced by the signal. Figure 5-2 shows the force coefficients for the various tests.

Effect of Additional Weight on Force Coefficient

The force coefficient is presented for tests with weight added to the signal. The force

coefficients experienced by the signal with 5% catenary sag and pipe hanger show a lower total

force than the other tests at small signal rotations. Figure 5-3 shows that the force coefficient

varied slightly with additional weight.









Comparison of Repeated Tests

Variations in cable sag have shown to impact test results as illustrated in Chapter 4. Figure

5-4 shows the force coefficient for the test featuring the 5% catenary cable with pipe hanger, as

well as the test featuring a 2% catenary sag without hanger. For the traffic signal supported by

the direct connection, little difference is noted in the force coefficient, and for the signal

supported by a pipe hanger, the second test revealed a higher coefficient.

Drag and Lift Coefficients

The drag and lift forces are components of the total force, and drag and lift coefficients can

be found by dividing the measured drag force or lift force by the dynamic wind force.

Effect of Signal Orientation on Drag and Lift Coefficients

The drag forces as a fraction of the total force are presented in Figure 5-5 for various

orientations of the traffic signal head. For low signal rotations, the curve representing drag

coefficient is similar to the force coefficient curves because the lift is a small percentage of the

total force acting on the signal. The drag behaves similarly on all tests at high wind speeds.

Figure 5-6 shows the lift coefficients for the same tests presented in Figure 5-5. The lift

coefficient did not display any significant deviations between tests, except for the backward

facing signal with 2% sag.

Effect of Additional Weight on Drag and Lift Coefficient

Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show the effect of additional weight on the drag and lift coefficients,

respectively. Figure 5-7 displays the drag coefficients, and as previously shown, the drag

coefficient converges on a value of approximately 0.3 as the wind velocity peaks. The results are

similar to the values shown for various signal orientations.

Figure 5-8 displays the lift coefficients for the traffic signal. The variation of weight for

each signal leads to slightly different values during testing, indicating maximum values of 0.4 for









the signal with pipe hanger and 0.6 for the directly connected signals. The tests reveal a plateau

at higher wind speeds.

Comparison of Repeated Tests

Figure 5-9 shows the drag and lift coefficients for the tests that were conducted on

different days. Figure 5-9 A represents the system with 5% catenary sag and drop pipe extender,

and the drag coefficient is slightly different between the first two tests; the drag and lift

coefficients for the signal with 2% cable sag do not vary as much. Behavior was found to be

rather consistent in these cases.

Discussion of Force, Drag, and Lift Coefficients

Drag and lift forces combine to act on the traffic signal; drag acts parallel to the wind field,

while the lift is perpendicular to the wind field. The constant drag coefficient of 1.2 presented in

AASHTO does not account for the varying drag coefficient experienced by a rotating signal and

is conservative for high wind speeds (AASHTO 2001). For low wind velocities, the drag makes

up a large portion of the total force acting on the signals, and the drag and force coefficients are

greater than unity. As the wind speed increases, the rotation increases, causing the lift to

increase and the drag to decrease. Testing with higher wind velocities would yield more

conclusive results for design wind speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour.









T






E

W

A


Wind


Figure 5-1. Determination of Force Coefficient.


Wind



Wind
Pressure, p W
C





















20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 -
1.0 -
0.8-
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2-
0.0


20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)
B


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 5-2. Orientation effects on force coefficients. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct
Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection.


For\\ ad Signal (13)
S Backward Signal (18)


Diauon, Siuivl (1'




















20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0


20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)
C
Figure 5-3. Weight effects on force coefficients. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct Connection. C)
2% Direct Connection.


62 lb Signal (19)


/


-- 82 lb Signal (22)
102 b Signal (23)





















20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B
Figure 5-4. Force coefficients from repeated tests. A) 5% Pipe hanger. B) 2% direct
connection.










2.0
1.8
1.6 -
1.4
1.2 -- Backward Signal (10)
0 1.0 -
0.8
i 0.6
Q 0.4 Diagonal Signal (9)
0.2 Forward Siunal (8)"
0.0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
A


2.0
1.8
S1.6 Forward Signal (13)
1.4 -
1.2 Back\\lad Sinal (18i
S1.0
u 0.8
0.6
0.4
40. Diagonal nal (17)
0.2
0 .0 1 1 1 1 ,
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B

2.0
1.8
S1.6 Diagonal Signal (20)
*3 1.4
S1.2
1.0 -
u 0.8
S0.6
S0.4 Backwad Signal
0.2 F reward Signal (19)
0.0
0.0 ,--- ,-----,--- ,

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
C

Figure 5-5. Drag coefficients for various orientations. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct
Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection.










2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 Diagonal Signal (9)
1.0 \ Forward Signal (8)
0.8 -
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 Backward Signal (10)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
A

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 Diagonal Signal (17)
1.0 Forward Signal (13)
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4
0.2 Backward Signal (18)
0.0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4 -
1.2 -
1.0 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4
0.2
0.0


20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)
C


Figure 5-6. Lift coefficients for various orientations. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct
Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection.


Diagonal Si nal (20)

Forward Signal (19)\


Backward Signal (21)




















20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)


62 Ib Signal (19)
S102 lb Signal (23)




82 1 Signal (22)

20 40 60 80 100 120 1


Wind Velocity (mph)
C

Figure 5-7. Drag coefficients for signals of various weight. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct
Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection.










2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)


2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0


20 40 60 80 100


120 140


Wind Velocity (mph)


2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
C

Figure 5-8. Lift coefficients for signals of various weight. A) Pipe Hanger. B) 5% Direct
Connection. C) 2% Direct Connection.


82 Ib Signal (11)

62 lb Signal (8) 102 lb Signal (12)


82 lb Signal (14)
62 lb Signal (13)


I ''2 lb Signal (5I


82 Ib Signal ,22)
62 lb Signal (19)


1I2 Ib Signal 23)





















20 40 60 80 100 120


Wind Velocity (mph)


20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Wind Velocity (mph)
B


Figure 5-9. Drag and lift coefficients from first and second tests. A) 5% Pipe hanger. B) 2%
direct connection.









CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF SPAN WIRE DESIGN METHODS

Specifications for Wind Loads on Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals

AASHTO's document is used to determine the forces on signs, signals, and luminaries.

Section 3.8 in particular presents the specifications and commentary for the design of wind

forces. Equation 6-1 defines the wind force on traffic signals where Kz is the height and

exposure factor, G is the gust effect factor, V is the basic wind speed to be determined from the

wind speed map in AASHTO Figure 3-2, Ir is the wind importance factor, and Cd is the drag

coefficient (AASHTO 2001). The pressure equation is derived from Bernoulli's expression for

fluid flow.

Pz = 0.00256 Kz G V2 1r Cd (6-1)

Height and Exposure Factor

Wind profiles vary according to elevation, and the roughness experienced at the boundary

layer directly influences the wind speed away from the boundary. The height and exposure

factor is used to categorize the upwind surface conditions and account for the surface friction

which is responsible for altering the wind profile near the ground. The height and exposure

factor in AASHTO 2001 is analogous to the velocity exposure coefficient presented in ASCE 7-

05. Because ASCE 7-95 was the standard referenced in AASHTO 2001, exposure category A,

which was used for dense urban areas, remains in AASHTO 2001 while being discontinued in

ASCE 7-02. Category B is defined as suburban and urban areas with obstructions the size of a

single family dwelling; category D is defined as a flat, unobstructed surface, not to include

coastal zones in hurricane prone regions; and exposure category C is described as open terrain

with scattered obstructions and applies where exposures B and D do not apply.









The commentary of AASHTO's design specifications notes that exposure C has been

adopted for use in the specifications because it provides a conservative approach to the

estimation of surface roughness (AASHTO 2001). Therefore the surface roughness coefficients

that appear in table 3-5 of the specifications are for a reference exposure category C, and the

commentary also offers Equation 6-2 as an alternative to calculate the height and exposure factor

where z is the height above the ground or 15 feet, whichever is greater, and a and zg are

constants which vary with the exposure condition.

2

K = 2.01 -
z) (6-2)

For exposure C-the recommended condition- Zg is taken as 900 feet and a is 9.5, as in

ASCE 7-95 (AASHTO 2001). This equation corresponds to equations C6-4a and C6-4b in

ASCE 7-05 and the constants are unchanged from ASCE 7-95 (ASCE 2005). For a height of

32.8 feet, the factor is equal to unity, which corresponds to the reference height and exposure

category for the wind speed map in Figure 3-2 of AASHTO 2001.

Gust Effect Factor

The gust effect factor accounts for the dynamic response of the structure exposed to

fluctuations in wind velocity. The gust effect factor presented in AASHTO 2001 is not based on

the derivation from ASCE 7.

ASCE 7 presents the gust factor for two types of structures: flexible and rigid. The basis

of calculations is based on wind variations and the dynamic response of the structural system.

AASHTO cites the requirements for flexible structures in ASCE 7-95 as a structure that has a

fundamental frequency less than 1 hertz or a ratio of height to least horizontal dimension as

greater than 4; accordingly, all sign and signal structures are considered flexible. AASHTO









2001 mentions the application of the procedure provided in ASCE 7 would be cumbersome,

requiring detailed information about the site and construction methods. Because details

regarding the structures are not considered to be known with good precision, the code determines

that the use of the "...calculation procedure does not outweigh the complexities and confusion

introduced by its use" (AASHTO 2001).

The gust effect presented is based on a modified recommended gust factor by R. H.

Sherlock in 1947. After recording wind speeds in 3 winter storms in Michigan, Sherlock used

the values obtained from a storm on January 19, 1933, and divided the wind data into 5 minute

intervals. He then took the fastest gust for a given time frame and divided that velocity by the

average for the storm's duration. The points were drawn below Pearson Type III curves. The

intervals of 5 minutes had gust durations of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0 seconds; the curves

were combined and Sherlock decided that the 5 minute interval should be based on a 20%

increase over the average. For a 3 second gust at 1.2 times the storm's average wind velocity,

the gust factor from the Pearson Type III curve is 1.3, but his recommendation was for more

conservative gust factor of 1.385. The value of 1.3 has remained in the AASHTO specifications.

Because this value is greater than for rigid structures and "resulted in successful designs," the

value would continue to be used for fastest mile wind speeds but would differ with the inclusion

of the 3-second gust (AASHTO 2001).

The standard's conversion to a 3-second wind gust resulted in a conversion of the gust

factor. Previously the gust effect factor was multiplied by the wind speed before squaring.

Using the Durst model for wind gusts in ASCE 7-05 Figure C6-4 for a wind velocity of 85 miles

per hour, the gust factor was to be multiplied by 0.82 and then squared to remove the gust effect









factor from the wind velocity (ASCE 2005). The product of the gust effect factor and the Durst

factor, once squared, results in the recommended value of 1.14 found in AASHTO 2001.

Importance Factor

The importance factor is analogous to the importance factor presented in ASCE 7. The

wind speed maps provided in Figure 3-2 of the specifications are associated with the annual

probability of occurrence of 2%, representing a 50-year mean recurrence interval. All

transportation structures do not have a design life of 50 years and may require either a shorter or

longer recurrence rate based on expected lifespan and consequences of failure. AASHTO 2001

Table 3-2 provides the importance factors for 3 cases: wind velocities of 85 to 100 miles per

hour, wind velocities of 100 miles per hour or greater in hurricane prone regions, and Alaska.

While these are representative of ASCE 7 values, AASHTO provides Table 3-3, specifically

recommending a minimum design life for transportation structures.

Drag Coefficient

The drag coefficient is the vector component of the force coefficient in the direction of

wind flow. It may be represented by Equation 6-3, where D is the drag force, p is the density of

air, V is the wind velocity, and A is the area of the cross section (Holmes 2001).

D
Cd =
1 p V2 A
-pV
2 (6-3)

The drag force varies according to the aerodynamic properties of the structure, including shape

and dimensions. The drag coefficients for various shapes and structures are presented in Table

3-6 of the AASHTO specifications; however, the drag represents only one component of the

resultant force acting on traffic signals that are allowed to rotate.









Comparison of Results from AASHTO 2001 and Wind Tests

For the tests featuring the single cable system, the drag, lift, and force coefficients are

presented in Chapter 5. In all cases, the force and drag coefficients both began above unity and

decreased as the signal rotated. At wind velocities above approximately 40 miles per hour, the

signals displayed a force coefficient below 1.0. For the design wind speeds presented in

AASHTO Figure 3-2, the observed drag coefficient is well below the design value of 1.2

(AASHTO 2001). The lift that acts on the signal adds to the total wind force; as a result, the

drag coefficient only shows one component of the force acting on the signal. The force

coefficient should be used in design to account for all forces on the signal. Additionally, the

force coefficient should be specified for the design speed in a given location based on test

results.

Discussion of Design Methods

AASHTO 2001 makes use of a constant drag force for design of traffic signals for wind

speed. However, as shown in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, the drag coefficient does not remain

constant throughout testing because the signal rotates; as a result, the use of constant value is

inaccurate. As the signal rotates, the lift force increases, which is a component of the total force

experienced by the signal; therefore, the force coefficient, as shown in Chapter 6, provides a

more accurate assessment of the total forces acting on a traffic signal. Whether using a constant

coefficient of 1.2 or the coefficients provided in Cook et al. 1996 (shown in Figure 2-1), the wind

forces measured during testing were lower than expected.









CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Wind testing was conducted to determine how dual and single cable support systems for

traffic signals experience wind force and transfers the force to the supporting structure.

Summary

Although the traffic signal experienced a large increase in force due to high-velocity

winds, the catenary cable in the single cable system experienced little increase in tension relative

to the initial tension. For the dual cable system, the catenary cable experienced little relative

change in tension, but the force in the messenger cable increased significantly compared to the

initial tension. This large increase in cable tension results from the rotational resistance provided

by the messenger cable; the aluminum hanger deformed in the dual cable tests because of the

resistance from the messenger cable. The messenger cable's increase in tension would cause a

high moment to develop in the concrete poles at minimum clearance height; the design of the

poles must include this large increase in moment.

The messenger cable restrained movement of the aluminum hanger, causing the signal

rotation for the dual cable system to be lesser than the rotation for the single cable systems for

similar signal orientation and weights. However, when weight was added or the signal oriented

in other directions, the rotation was similar to the dual cable systems.

The orientation and weight of the signal have little effect on the wind forces on the traffic

signal. In some cases, however, the heavier traffic signals rotated less than the lighter signals.

As expected, the heavier signals caused greater tension in the catenary cable for the single cable

systems.

The signal experiences a drag and lift component when exposed to wind. The drag

coefficient provided in AASHTO 2001 is very conservative at high velocities.









Conclusions

The dual cable system experiences large forces not measured during tests of single cable

systems. The aluminum hanger used in testing the dual cable system deforms under load while

in the single cable system showed no sign of stress; the minimal increase in cable tension verifies

that the single cable system's rotational freedom does not create additional resistance that

transfers to other components in the traffic signal assembly. The rotational restraint provided by

the dual cable traffic signal may slightly lessen the rotation of the signal at the expense of

hardware. The dual cable system results in less cable movement, causing rotational restraint of

the hanger.

Recommendations

Wind tests have revealed results comparable to "Structural Qualification Procedure for

Traffic Signals and Signs;" however, to reveal a complete picture of all possible outcomes and

design loads, more signal configurations should be tested (ASCE 1961; Cook et al. 1996).

Combinations of 3 head and 5 head signals on the same span can reveal the dynamic nature of

the system, resulting in a more complete analysis of the design procedure. Future tests should

also subject the traffic signals to higher wind speeds. The maximum speed obtained during

testing was approximately 115 miles per hour, while the design wind speed in Florida is as high

as 150 miles per hour. At higher speeds, the appropriate force, drag, and lift coefficients can be

determined for the higher rotations expected.









APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WIND TESTING PROGRAM FOR MODERN CODES
AND RESEARCH RESULTS

The following provides a summary of the work done regarding rehabilitation and testing

using the apparatus designed for the qualification of traffic signal support systems (Cook et al.

1996). When returned to the University of Florida, the testing apparatus was fully operational.

The computer program performs tasks as designated, loading the traffic signal until a specified

force is reached over a number of cycles. The load cell records data accurately, and the actuator

arm is in working order. The steel frame was in good condition; nevertheless, it was repainted.

The actuator arm places a force at the centroid of traffic signals. The apparatus was used

to create curves that show the force required to rotate the signal, and these were compared to

curves of wind force using codes to determine a force to apply during testing. The wind force

curve was created using ASCE 7-95, and the values within the code have not changed in the

2005 version; however, wind tests reveal that measured force coefficients are lower than

currently used. Using the average force coefficient curve from testing, shown in Figure A-i A,

the wind force was recalculated using the iterative procedure outlined in "Structural

Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and Signs" (Cook et al. 1996). Figure A-i B shows

the force curve using a higher design wind speed of 150 miles per hour, representing the

maximum design velocity in Florida for a 3 second curve; the previous value used was 140 miles

per hour. The iterative procedure yields a value of 185 pounds for a 1 foot hanger and a value of

180 pounds for a 5 foot hanger; therefore, the recommended force from the new coefficients is

183 pounds, which is approximately equal to 180 pounds used by the TWISP program for a five

head signal.











3
3


S2
0
S
a
0O
0


1000
S800
8 600
S400
200
0


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Signal Rotation (degrees)
A


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Signal Rotation (degrees)
B


Figure A-1. Graphs for use with "Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic Signals and
Signs." A) Force coefficient from wind tests. B) Wind force using force coefficients
for constant wind speed.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Alampalli, S. (1998). Response of Untethered-Span-Wire Signal Poles to Wind Loads. Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77&78, 73-81.

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (2001). Standard Specifications
for Structural Supports for High Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals (4th Ed.).
Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.

ASCE 7-05 (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Branick, Michael (2006). "A Comprehensive Glossary of Weather Terms for Storm Spotters."
NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-145,
(February 3, 2007).

Cook, R.A., Bloomquist, D., & Long, J.C. (1996). Structural Qualification Procedure for Traffic
Signals and Signs (FDOT WPINo. 0510731). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida,
Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station.

Cook, R.A. & Johnson, Jr., E. (2007). Development of Hurricane Resistant Traffic Signal
Support Systems (FDOT WPI No. 0054246). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

Durst, C.S. (1960). Wind Speeds Over Short Periods of Time. The Meteorological Magazine,
89(1056), 181-186.

Hoit, M.I., Cook, R.A., Christou, P.M., & Adediran, A.K. (1997). Computer AidedDesign
Program For Signal Pole and Span Wire Assemblies With Two Point Connection System
(FDOT WPINo. 0510653). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Engineering and
Industrial Experiment Station.

Hoit, M.I., Cook, R.A., Wajek, S.L., & Konz, R.C. (1994). Static andDynamic Tests On Traffic
Signal and Sign Dual Cable Support Systems (FDOT WPI No. 0510653). Gainesville,
Florida: University of Florida, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station.

Holmes, J.D. (2001). Wind Loading of Structures. New York, NY: Spon.

Krayer, W.R., & Marshall, R.D. (1992). Gust Factors Applied to Hurricane Winds. Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society, 73(5), 613-617.

Liu, H. (1991). Wind Engineering: A Handbook for Structural Engineers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Marchman, J.F., III. (1971). Wind Loading On Free-Swinging Traffic Signals. Transportation
Engineering Journal, 98, 237-246.

McDonald, J.R., Mehta, K.C., Oler, W.W., & Pulipaka, N. (1995). WindLoad Effects on Signs,









Luminaires and Traffic Signal Structures (Research Study No. 11-5-92-1303). Lubbock,
Texas: Texas Tech University, Wind Engineering Research Center.

Sherlock, R.H. (1947). Gust Factors for the Design of Buildings. Publications: International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 8, 205-236.

Simiu, E., & Miyata, T. (2006). Design of Buildings and Bridges for Wind. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

Solari, G. (1993a). Gust Buffeting I: Peak Wind Velocity and Equivalent Pressure. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 119(2), 365-382.

Solari, G. (1993b). Gust Buffeting II: Dynamic Alongwind Response. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 119(2), 383-398.

Solari, G. (1992). Alongwind Response Estimation: Closed Form Solution. Journal of the
Structural Division, 108, 225-244.

Solari, G., & Kareem, A. (1998). On the Formulation of ASCE 7-95 Gust Effect Factor. Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77-78, 673-684.

Task Committee on Wind Forces (1961). Wind Forces On Structures. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 126(2), 1124-1198.

Transportation Research Board (1998). Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals (NCHRP Rep. No. 411) Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Transportation Research Board (2003). Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals (NCHRP Rep. No. 494) Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Eric Vincent Johnson, Jr. was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 10, 1983, but

moved to Miami, Florida, shortly thereafter before settling in Tallahassee, Florida, in 1996. His

participation in the Summer Transportation Institute at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical

University in Tallahassee in the summer of 1997 was responsible for his matriculation into a

civil engineering program after graduating as valedictorian of the class of 2001 at Florida

Agricultural and Mechanical University Developmental Research School.

Eric enrolled at the University of Miami in August 2001 and shortly thereafter decided to

major in architectural engineering in addition to civil engineering. He was a member of Chi

Epsilon and graduated with honors in the spring of 2005. He attended the University of Florida

to specialize in structural engineering at the master's level and will work toward his doctorate in

civil engineering at the University of Miami upon graduation.