DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000 ETL 1110-2-534

Technical Letter
No. 1110-2-534 30 September 1994

Engineering and Design

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF WELDED ALUMINUM GUARDRAILS
ON CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
 Report Documentation Page
Report Date Report Type Dates Covered (from... to)
30 Sep 1994 N/A -

Title and Subtitle Contract Number

Engineering and Design: Structural Evaluation of Welded
Aluminum Guardrails on Civil Works Projects Grant Number

Program Element Number

Author(s) Project Number

Task Number

Work Unit Number

Performing Organization Name(s) and Address(es) Performing Organization Report Number

Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000

Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) and Sponsor/Monitor’s Acronym(s)

Address(es)
Sponsor/Monitor’s Report Number(s)

Distribution/Availability Statement
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

Supplementary Notes

Abstract

Subject Terms

Report Classification Classification of this page

unclassified unclassified

Classification of Abstract Limitation of Abstract

unclassified UU

Number of Pages
12
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ETL 1110-2-534
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000

Technical Letter
No. 1110-2-534 30 September 1994

Engineering and Design

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF WELDED ALUMINUM GUARDRAILS
ON CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS

1. Purpose f. National Ornamental and Miscellaneous

Metals Association. 1986. Metal Rail Manual,
This engineer technical letter (ETL) provides guid- 2nd ed., Suite 109, 2996 Grandview Ave., NE,
ance for structural evaluation of guardrails on civil Atlanta, GA 30305.
works projects.

4. Background
2. Applicability
a. Welded aluminum railing. Aluminum railing
This ETL applies to all HQUSACE elements, major has been used on many civil works projects, and
subordinate commands, districts, laboratories, and railing systems have usually been specified as stan-
field operating activities having responsibilities for dard building products and were purchased and
the design of civil works projects. installed without design computations. Several dis-
tricts have recently identified welded aluminum rail-
ings at civil works projects which do not meet
3. References U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) safety stan-
dards (see paragraph 4b). The welding of the alumi-
a. ER 1130-2-303, Maintenance Guide. num rail post to the base or connection plate is
potentially an inadequate detail.
b. EM 385-1-1, Safety and Health Requirements
Manual. b. Corps safety requirements. All railing sys-
tems should be designed and constructed to meet the
c. American Iron and Steel Institute. 1985. minimum safety standards prescribed in Section 21.B
Criteria for Structural Applications of Steel Tubing of EM 385-1-1. Existing railing systems should be
and Pipe, 150 East 42nd Street, New York, NY inspected in accordance with ER 1130-2-303. Inspec-
10017. tion and evaluation requirements for metal railings
should be generally consistent with ASTM (1992).
d. American Society for Testing and Materials.
1992. “Test Methods for Performance of Permanent
Metal Railing Systems and Rails for Building,” 5. Action
(E 935-92) Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol
04.07, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. a. Existing railing systems. Evaluation of all
existing railing should be performed as part of the
e. National Association of Architectural Metal Priority A or B inspection (Section 24 of ER 1130-2-
Manufacturers. 1985. “Pipe Railing Manual,” 2nd 303) in accordance with the guidance provided in
ed., 600 South Federal Street, Chicago, IL 60605. Appendix A.
ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

(1) If the results of a structural evaluation indi- (2) Engineers should evaluate the results of the
cate that the railing is grossly inadequate to resist the performance load tests on the railings and upgrade or
design load (i.e., less than 65 percent of the design replace unsafe railings as necessary.
load), then a load test should be performed on the
railing system to ensure that the railing is capable of b. New railing systems. All railings for new
withstanding the maximum design load. Specific construction should be structurally adequate to meet
guidance on field testing of railings, if needed, does the requirements of EM 385-1-1. Design engineers
not exist, so any required field testing should should ensure that all welded details are adequate
generally be performed to obtain results consistent before releasing the plans for fabrication and
with ASTM (1992), which is for laboratory tests. installation.
After testing, all critical details such as the weld
connecting the aluminum rail post to the base or
connection plate should be carefully inspected.

FOR THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS:

Appendix A: Structural Safety Assessment PAUL D. BARBER, P.E.

of Existing Metal Guardrails Chief, Engineering Division
Directorate of Civil Works

2
 ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

APPENDIX A: STRUCTURAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT

OF EXISTING METAL GUARDRAILS

A-1. Introduction Ornamental and Miscellaneous Metals Association).

The majority of the information set forth herein was
a. Concern over the protection of both employ- taken directly from their manuals and adapted for the
ees and the general public against accidental injuries analysis of existing railings, instead of the design of
has greatly increased in recent years. As a result, the new railings. The procedures are basically the same,
proper design of protective devices for this purpose except, in an analysis, the engineer must be careful to
has become more crucial. Prominent among such determine actual existing conditions (such as dimen-
protective devices are railings of all kinds, commonly sions, section sizes, and existing condition) in order
referred to as “guardrails” or “vertical barriers.” For to make an accurate safety assessment.
years, railings have been built to resist a certain
amount of lateral loading as variously specified by (2) In a structural design, the sizes (i.e., section
local building codes and the USACE. However, with modulus) of load-carrying members are determined
the advent of many recent Federal regulations govern- based on the applied loadings, allowable stresses, and
ing the design of railings, more careful consideration member lengths and spacings. In a structural analy-
must be given to the railings’ structural design and sis, the dimensions, etc., of the system are already
physical features. known and the applied stresses are compared with the
allowable stresses of the members to determine
b. Although the differences between railing whether the system is safe. For guardrail systems,
design requirements among the building codes are the areas of greatest structural concern are bending
now becoming fewer, past railing specifications have moments in the rails and posts and anchorage stresses
been widely varied, with some much more stringent at the connection of the posts to the supporting plat-
than others in regard to structural requirements. As a form. Therefore, for the structural analysis of an
result, it is possible that some existing guardrails are existing guardrail system, the following quantities
structurally inadequate according to the current must be defined:
USACE specifications. Since numerous USACE
projects make extensive use of metal guardrail sys- • Existing condition of the railing.
tems for protection of life, this possibility must be
given careful attention. • Material type and properties, section proper-
ties, lengths, and spacings of railings and
c. This ETL provides guidance for the engineer posts.
to use in assessing the structural safety of existing
metal railing. It is primarily concerned only with the • Required loadings.
most basic and most common type of utilitarian rail-
ings, i.e., those constructed with metal pipe or tubing. • Post anchorage details.

d. The manual EM 385-1-1 prescribes the safety • Presence of reinforcing inserts at base of
and health requirements for all USACE activities and posts.
operations. Section 21.B of the October 1992 edition
of the manual contains the requirements for standard (3) The reconnaissance of these items and their
guardrails and handrails. application to structural safety analysis are described
in the following paragraphs.

A-2. Structural Safety Assessment b. Existing condition.

a. General. (1) Prior to any structural safety assessment, the

existing condition of the in-place railing must be
(1) Considerable attention has been given to the determined. This should be accomplished through
design of guardrails by industry associations such as careful onsite inspection of the railing. Check the
the NAAMM (National Association of Architectural guardrail members for any signs of internal or exter-
Metal Manufacturers) and NOMMA (National nal corrosion (which causes reduced cross-section) or

A-1
ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

cracks. High stress areas, such as at railing and post capable of carrying, with little or no permanent defor-
support points, should be given careful inspection. mation, loads much greater than those computed on
Members that are susceptible to debris and water the basis of the conservative conventional bending
collection, such as at the base of posts, should be stresses. With these facts in mind, the engineer must
inspected internally for corrosion. If section loss make a rational decision as to the allowable bending
(internal or external) has occurred, the remaining stress. For USACE guardrails that are located in
section should be carefully measured and those values areas of high public access, such as daily guided tour
used in the structural analyses. If cracking is stops, the conservative and conventional allowable
observed, those particular members should be stresses provided in Table A-1 should be used. For
immediately repaired or replaced. guardrails in low traffic areas, where railings are
rarely leaned upon, an allowable stress up to 0.85fy
(2) The condition of the guardrail’s anchorage to may be used at the engineer’s discretion. However,
its supporting platform must also be checked. Verify due to the often detrimental effects of welding alumi-
that anchor bolts are all still in place, tightly num, only the allowable stresses shown in Table A-1
anchored, and in good condition. If welded, check should be used for welded aluminum railing, regard-
the welds for cracks and deterioration. Welded alum- less of the railing usage.
inum is particularly susceptible to cracking caused
from differential expansion and contraction between d. Sectional properties.
dissimilar metals.
(1) Pipe is produced in a variety of sizes or
c. Material properties. “schedules,” of which those more commonly used for
railings are listed in Table A-2. The sections shown
(1) Guardrails are constructed from a wide range in Table A-2 are by no means all-inclusive. Many
of metals. Mechanical properties and allowable manufacturers have proprietary sections that have
design stresses of some of the more commonly used unique properties. Information on these sections can
metals are provided in Table A-1. Carefully note that often be obtained from supplier’s catalogs or from
the allowable tensile stresses for tempered (T-type) industry associations. In steel pipe, Schedule 40 is
aluminum alloys must be reduced at all locations know as “Standard Weight” and Schedule 80 as
within 25 mm (1 in.) of welds. “Extra Strong.” Standard weight is measured by
i.p.s. (iron pipe size), which designates its nominal
(2) The allowable stresses shown in Table A-1 size. Unless otherwise specified, Schedule 40 is
are based on recommendations from NAAMM (1985) normally supplied in steel, aluminum, or copper pipe
and NOMMA (1986). The NAAMM manual notes and Schedule 5 in stainless steel tubing.
that some designers feel that, particularly in the case
of high concentrated loads such as the 890-N (200-lb) (2) Round tubing is also available in all four
load specified by the USACE, the use of higher metals. Tubing differs from pipe in that it may have
allowable stresses may be justified. This is based on thinner or thicker walls and is measured by a differ-
the fact that this type of loading will be of a momen- ent system, which designates the outside diameter and
tary rather than sustained nature. The validity of this the wall thickness. The wall thickness is designated
position largely depends upon what is considered in decimal inches or gauge number. Size designa-
acceptable railing performance and how “failure” is tions may differ somewhat with the different metal.
defined. The purpose of safety regulations is to
ensure that the railing provides protection against per- (3) For structural analyses of existing railing, the
sons falling, and the railing need not remain in per- section properties of the pipe must be carefully
fect alignment to perform this function. If a slight obtained. This can be accomplished through use of
permanent deformation under this conservative load- reliable as-built records on the project or through
ing is deemed acceptable, this would theoretically careful field measurements. As-built records, backed
permit the use of an allowable bending stress up by field measurements, are the most desirable
approaching the yield stress. Of course, the use of combination since accurate section properties are
yield stress for the allowable stress is not easily palat- essential to an accurate structural analysis. Accurate
able to engineers, who must always be conservative. field measurements are also important since as-built
However, actual physical testing has repeatedly dem- records will only list “nominal” sizes. The ASTM
onstrated that securely anchored pipe railings are standards for pipe and tubing extrusions provide

A-2
 ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

Table A-1
Mechanical Properties and Allowable Design Stresses
(Source: NAAMM and NOMMA)
Allowable Stress Minimum Yield Elastic Modulus
Metal and Alloy MPa MPa MPa x 103
Carbon Steel Pipe:
A53, Type F 124 172 200
Types E and S, Grade A 149 207 200
Types E and S, Grade B 172 241 200
Carbon Steel Struc. Tubing:
A500, Grade A 164 228 200
A500, Grade B 207 290 200
A500, Grade C 228 317 200
A501 179 248 200
Aluminum Pipe:
6063 T5, T52 79* 110 69
6063 T6 124* 172 69
6063 T832 165* 241 69
6061 T6 165** 241 69
Stainless Steel Tubing:
Annealed, Types 302,
304, and 316 124 207 193
Unannealed Types 302,
304, and 316 207 345 193
Note: American Iron and Steel Institute (1985) specifies fb = 0.72fy. It also specifies that the diameter-thickness ratio of hollow
circular sections shall not exceed 3300/fy. For aluminum, allowable stresses are those specified by the Aluminum Association;
for stainless steel and copper, the allowable stresses shown are 0.60fy.

* Reduce allowable stress to 55 MPa within 25 mm of any weld.

** Reduce allowable stress to 97 MPa within 25 mm of any weld.

Table A-2
Pipe Section Properties
(Source: NAAMM and NOMMA)
Outside Inside Wall Section Moment of
Nominal Schedule Diameter Diameter Thickness Area Modulus Inertia
Size No. mm mm mm mm2 mm3 mm4 x 103
32 5 42 39 1.7 210 2,050 43
10 37 2.8 343 3,160 67
40 35 3.6 431 3,850 81
80 32 4.9 569 4,770 101
38 5 48 45 1.7 242 2,720 66
10 43 2.8 395 4,260 103
40 41 3.7 515 5,340 129
80 38 5.1 689 6,750 163
51 5 60 57 1.7 305 4,340 131
10 55 2.8 501 6,880 208
40 53 3.9 693 9,190 277
80 49 5.5 953 11,980 361

A-3
ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

tolerances within which the section sizes can devi- result, this is likely the most applicable loading for
ate from the nominal dimension. While these most USACE facilities where large groups of peo-
allowable dimension variations may appear small ple (such as guided tours) are generally not
and insignificant, they could conceivably affect the expected. Other widely accepted building codes are
overall section properties, and thus the available directed more toward the restraint of large groups
strength of an already marginal structural member. of people at one time. They specify uniform load-
ings over the length of the rails, which are consid-
(4) Also note that since the analysis is being ered to represent the force exerted by tightly
conducted on railing which may have been in ser- grouped persons leaning on or pressed against the
vice for years, its possible deterioration must be railing. Such loading requirements range from
considered. This can only be determined through 292 to 730 N/m (20 to 50 lb/ft), usually applied
careful field reconnaissance and measurements. horizontally to the top rail. Some codes require
The railing can deteriorate from both the outside also that railing in certain locations be designed to
where it is readily visible, or from the inside where carry loads as high as 100 lb/ft applied vertically
it is not readily visible. Deteriorated railing can be downward on the rails.
accounted for in the structural analysis by appropri-
ately reducing the available cross-section of the (4) Because EM 385-1-1 governs all of the
member(s) or by reducing the allowable stresses. Corps’ safety requirements, the 890-N (200-lb) con-
centrated load criterion is the minimum that railings
(5) Reinforcing inserts are sometimes used at on USACE facilities must meet. However, based
the base of the guardrail posts to shorten the length on the above discussion and knowledge of specific
of the posts, thereby increasing the allowable loads railing demands, the USACE engineer may deter-
on the railing. The presence of these items must be mine that other loading criteria are more applicable
established for an analysis since it will significantly to a particular situation. However, the engineer
affect the post’s available load capacity. must always meet the EM criteria as a minimum.

e. Loadings. f. Post analysis.

(1) The most critical loads for guardrails are (1) The following discussion and calculations
those which are applied horizontally since these are applicable to free-standing, straight run railings
produce the maximum bending moment on posts. with uniform post spacing. Lateral bracing, curv-
The maximum bending moment on a rail member, ing, or attachment to other structures may reduce
under a concentrated load, results when the load is bending stresses substantially, which may be taken
applied at the center of the rail span. Posts act as into account. A typical guardrail system is depicted
columns in resisting vertical loading on rails, and as in Figure A-1.
vertical cantilever beams in resisting horizontal
loading on either the rails or the posts themselves.
Usually it is the bending moment due to the canti-
lever beam action under horizontal loading that
produces the highest stress.

(2) EM-385-1-1 specifies that “the anchoring

of posts and framing of members for all guardrails
shall be of such construction that the completed
structure shall withstand a load of at least 890 N
(200 lb) applied in any direction at any point on the
toprail without failure and with a minimum of
deflection.”
Figure A-1. Typical guardrail system
(3) This concentrated loading is the same as
that specified by the Federal Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) for railings in (2) Concentrated rail loading P, as specified by
places or areas where persons are employed. As a the USACE, is assumed applied at any point along

A-4
 ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

the railing. The maximum bending moment M in Mapplied P h Pf

the post will occur at its point of attachment to the
platform, at a distance h from the top railing. In or as
continuous, multispan railing installations (most
common), the horizontal load applied to the top rail
Mapplied P (h h1) Pf
at any one post is distributed, in part, to the adjoin-
ing posts on either side. Therefore, in many
instances, the loading carried by each post is actu- for a concentrated load with a reinforcing insert of
ally considerably less due to load sharing among height h1 at the post base (refer to Figure A-1). If
adjacent posts. Load distribution is determined by end posts differ from intermediate posts in strength,
stiffness of the rail relative to stiffness of the posts the load-distribution pattern becomes indeterminate
and by the total number of spans in the run. For a and end posts should then be designed to carry
straight run of railing, the load-proportion factor Pf 100 percent of the concentrated load. Intermediate
may be determined from the graph in Figure A-2, posts may then be designed to the “center loaded”
based on the stiffness ratio R, which is determined condition. For single span railings (i.e., only two
as: end posts) or where the top rail is completely flexi-
ble (such as a cable), the posts are assumed to carry
kRail the entire applied loading.
R
kPost
(3) Uniform rail loading is assumed to apply
over the full length of the railing. Therefore, no
where load distribution occurs among posts. The load
carried by a single post is thus equal to the load per
ERail IRail
kRail unit length w multiplied by the post spacing, or
L span. End posts carry only half as much rail load
but, for practical reasons, are generally made of the
same pipe size as that required for the intermediate
EPost IPost posts. The maximum applied moment for this load
kPost
h case is thus:

Mapplied w l h
and

k = stiffness (4) For all loadings, the applied bending stress

fapplied is calculated as:
E = modulus of elasticity
Mapplied
I = moment of inertia fapplied
S
L = length
where S = section modules. Applied bending stress
The formula used in developing this graph assumes can be compared to the allowable bending stress
that all posts are of identical material and section. fallow as discussed in paragraph A-2c above. The
If one or both ends of the rail are free-standing, the applied stress should always be less than the allow-
“end-loaded” condition must be assumed. If both able stress.
ends of the run are braced laterally by a change in
direction or attachment to a firm structure, the “cen- g. Rail analysis. A concentrated load applied
ter-loaded” proportion factor may be used. The to a rail exerts its greatest bending moment when
stiffness ratio is plotted on the graph to obtain the applied at mid-span. The moment is determined by
load proportion factor. This factor is then multi- the load P, and the length of the span L, and is
plied by the total load to determine the applied calculated as:
moment on a single post as:

A-5
ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

Figure A-2. Railing load distribution data (source: NAAMM)

P L For uniformly distributed railing loads, the moment

Mapplied is calculated as:
K

w L2
where Mapplied
K
K = 4 for one span
where
K = 5 for two or more spans

A-6
 ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

w = railing load per unit length basically the same for all mounting arrangements
and is calculated as:
K = 8 for one or two spans
P h
K = 9.5 for three or more spans fapplied
d

For all loadings, the applied bending stress fapplied is

calculated as: for the mounting arrangement depicted in Fig-
ure A-3a, and as:
Mapplied
fapplied P (h a d)
S fapplied
d

and compared to the allowable bending stress fallow

as discussed in paragraph A-2c above. The applied
stress should always be less than the allowable
stress.

h. Anchorage analysis.

(1) While all of the above calculations may

show a guardrail system to be structurally safe, the
system will still be only as strong as the anchorage
to its supporting structure. Whatever the supporting
structure -- metal, masonry, or wood -- attachment
procedures are much the same; only the type of
fastener will vary. A railing can be mounted on the
fascia or stringer of a platform or stair, can be set
into the floor or stair tread, or can be mounted on
the floor or tread surface with a mounting fixture.

(2) When railings are set into concrete or Figure A-3. Guardrail mounting methods
masonry floors or treads, the post receiving holes
should generally be at least 13 cm (5 in.) deep in for the mounting arrangement depicted in Fig-
order to provide ample post support. The edges of ure A-3b. A safety factor of 1.65 should be applied
the holes should be located at least 9 cm (3-1/2 in.) to these values. The applied pullout force is then
from the edge of concrete or masonry. The ends of compared to the allowable pullout force (supplied
the aluminum posts should be coated with bitumi- by the manufacturer), which is calculated as:
nous paint, methacrylate lacquer, zinc chromate
primer, or other suitable coating to protect against fallow F n
accelerated corrosion caused by contact with con-
crete, grout, or dissimilar metals. For railings
mounted on the surface of the floor or stair tread, where n = number of fasteners in line. Because of
either lateral bracing is required or a heavy-duty the uneven quality of concrete, it is recommended
floor flange, designed to withstand the required that a safety factor of 4 be applied to the allowable
loading and to support and reinforce the post, must pullout force. However, many manufacturers have
be used. already applied appropriate safety factors to their
recommended pullout values, and additional safety
(3) Required fastener capacity can be deter- factors may not be necessary. The manufacturers’
mined by computing the moment about a fastening recommendations for anchor embedment length and
or support and comparing to the allowable bolt hole edge distance should also be carefully checked.
pullout force, which is listed by the manufacturers
of the fasteners. The applied bolt pullout force is

A-7
ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

A-3. Example Problem fallow = 97 MPa

a. Problem definition. The guardrail in (2) From Table A-2, the section properties for
Figure A-4 has 10 spans and has a change of direc- the post are:
tion at both ends. Both the toprail and posts are
38-mm, schedule 40 pipe, from 6061 T6 Aluminum. I = 129,000 mm4
The posts are spaced at 1.2 m on center and are
welded to a round aluminum plate with a 15 cm S = 5,340 mm3
diameter (d = 11.4 cm). The plate is attached to a
concrete surface via four symmetrically spaced (3) Determine the load proportion factor Pf
10-mm-diam wedge-type concrete anchors. The based on the relative stiffness R:
manufacturer-specified pullout strength for the
anchors is 18.2 kN per anchor (including the safety ERail IyRail
factor). Determine whether the guardrail system kRail L
can safely withstand the USACE-specified 890-N R
(200-lb) horizontal concentrated loading. kPost EPost IPost
h
(69 × 10 MPa)(129,000 mm 4)(1,040 mm)
3

(69 × 103 MPa)(129,000 mm 4)(1,220 m)

0.85

From curve “L” of Figure A-1, Pf = 0.53

(4) Calculate the applied moment:

Mapplied P h Pf
(890 N) (1,040 mm) (0.53)
491,000 N mm

(5) Compare applied stress to allowable stress:

Mapplied 491,000 N mm
fapplied
S 5,340 mm 3
Figure A-4. Railing for example problem 92 MPa < (fallow 97 MPa) ⇒ Good

b. Existing condition. Prior to any analysis,

the guardrail system should be carefully inspected d. Railing analysis.
for deterioration as described in paragraph A-2b.
For this example, it will be assumed that the guard- (1) Calculate the applied moment:
rail system is in good condition and thus no reduc-
tions will be made to the allowable stresses or P L (890 N)(1,220 mm)
section properties. Mapplied
5 5

c. Post analysis. 217,000 N mm

(1) From Table A-1, the allowable stress for

Aluminum 6061 T6 pipe within 25 mm (1 in.) of a
weld (Refer to footnote in Table A-1) is:

A-8
 ETL 1110-2-534
30 Sep 94

(2) Compare applied stress to allowable stress: A-4. Load Testing of Guardrail Systems

Mapplied 217,000 N mm If the analytical procedure discussed above shows

fapplied the applied stresses to be grossly higher than the
S 5,340 mm 3
allowable stresses, an unsafe guardrail system is
41 MPa < ( fallow 165 MPa) ⇒ Good indicated and upgrade and/or replacement actions
should be initiated. However, if the calculations
e. Anchorage analysis. indicate only a marginal system, an in-situ load test
of the guardrail system may be warranted since the
(1) Calculate the applied force: above analytical procedure is quite conservative in
most cases. ASTM specification E 935-92 provides
P h (890 N) (1,040 mm) guidelines for this type of test in a laboratory envi-
fapplied ronment. No standard test device exists for the
d 114 mm
application of this test in a field environment and
8.1 kN SF (8.1) (1.65) 13.4 kN thus the device and test setup must be designed by
the responsible engineer using ASTM E 935 as a
(2) Compare applied force to allowable force: guideline.

fallow F n (18.2 kN) (1)

18.2 kN > (fapplied 13.4 kN) ⇒ Good

A-9