U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

September 20, 1990 

Refer to: HNG-14/SS-20 

Mr. James W. Young 

General Sales Manager 

Franklin Steel 

P.O. Box 671 

Franklin, Pennsylvania 16323 

Dear Mr. Young: 

Thank you for your letter of September 10 to Mr. James Hatton requesting Federal 

highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of your company’s rerolled rail steel Uchannel posts as alternates to Marion Steel’s rail steel equivalent billet steel posts. The 

Marion Steel posts were accepted by our letters of August 31, 1989, and October 2, 1989, 

(copies enclosed). Either rerolled rail steel posts or billet steel posts conforming to the 

mechanical and implied chemical requirements of ASTM A499, grade 60, may be used in 

the following configurations when installed in soil equivalent to NCHRP 230 “S1” 

(strong) soil: 

2.0, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, and 3.0 pound-per-foot posts, with a maximum of three posts 

in a 7-foot path, each with a 6-inch splice, no more than 4 inches of which 

projects above the ground line. 

4.0 pound-per-foot posts with a maximum of two posts in a 7-foot path, each with 

a splice as described above. 

As your letter states, spacers are needed at the splice to prevent distortion of the posts as 

the bolts are tightened. We infer from your letter that only one size spacer (5/8-inch) is 

needed with all weights of posts. However, if the spacer width varies with post size, your 

drawings should specify the correct size to use in each case. We assume there will be no 

mixing of post types in an installation. 

The Arizona Department of Transportation’s tests which led to our acceptance of Uchannel posts with 6-inch ground splices were conducted in strong soil. To date, FHWA 

has accepted, for restricted use, breakaway supports that have only been qualified through 

testing on one of the NCHRP soils. We are now administering a study, “Small and Large 

Sign Supports” in which supports will be tested in both “strong” and “weak” soils. This 
pooled0fund study, with 27 participating States, may reveal performance problems with 

different soils. In this study, testing will be discontinued on any support system that fails 

in one of the soils and the system will be judged unacceptable until it is modified and 

found acceptable in both soils. Furthermore, this office will, from now on, only evaluate 

the breakaway acceptability of sign support systems where there is assurance that they 

will meet our breakaway requirement sin both soil types. Thus, it seems likely that near 

the end of the pooled-fun study (last testing is scheduled for late 1992), the FHWA will 

require all new breakaway systems installed on Federal-aid highway projects be qualified 

as breakaway in both soils. Therefore, we suggest that you qualify your sign support 

system sin “weak” soil in order to ensure its acceptability in the future. 

This acceptance is limited to the breakaway characteristics of your rerolled rail steel posts 

and does not cover their structural features. We anticipate that user agencies will require 

certification that the post material conforms to ASTM A499, grade 60, and that the posts 

will meet AASHTO breakaway requirements when installed according to your 

recommendations. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 L.A. Staron, Chief 

 Federal-Aid and Design Division 

Enclosures