Florida Department of Transportation

Summary of Final Report, WPI# 0510775

October 1998

MECHANICAL DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TRAFFIC

SIGNAL MAST ARMS

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) currently requires mast arm supports for traffic
signs and signals near the coast. Numerous light poles on bridges and roadways also near the coast
are susceptible to structural vibrations resulting from both normal and extreme winds. These wind-
induced vibrations are typically caused by vortex shedding and galloping of the cantilevered
structures. Two other types of wind effects that cause these vibrations in structures are natural wind
gusts and truck-induced vibrations. Recent mast arm failures caused by wind effects have been
observed in St. Augustine and Ft. Walton Beach. Light poles on the Howard Franklin Bridge in
Tampa and on the New River Bridge in Ft. Lauderdale also experienced failures from vibration due
to wind.

OBJECTIVES

Currently, there exist no FDOT specifications or qualification procedures for mechanical damping
devices although they are required by FDOT in coastal areas. The objective of this research was to
develop and evaluate the effect of a damping device to mitigate vibrations in mast arm structures and
light poles due to wind. An effective mitigation of vibrations was considered to be five percent of
critical damping, a figure agreed upon by the research committee after inital lab and field tests. The
goal was to develop a damping device to work on all mast arm structures under FDOT control. To
do this, the study included:

• Literature review, survey of previous failures, and identification of viable mechanical

damping systems.

• Laboratory testing of mechanical damping systems.

• Field installation and testing of mechanical damping systems.

FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to develop a damping device to mitigate vibrations in mast arms
and light poles due to any type of wind-induced oscillations. Many devices were developed and
tested in the laboratory on an 11.3 m (37 ft) mast arm. The effective devices developed in the lab
were then tested in the field on a variety of different length mast arms.

Several damping systems were evaluated. Several adaptations of the Stockbridge damper were
constructed and tested. These adaptations consisted of battens of various stiffness, with various
masses attached to the end. This system was too flexible, and all of the energy from the pole was
being transferred into the system, thus exciting rather than damping the pole. Liquid damper devices
were tried in a variety of setups. It was thought that the water sloshing in the pipe would create a
damping system: a 6.1 m (20 ft) straight piece capped at each end and a U-shaped piece were tried,
each with minimal success. A spring-mass tuned damper was tried in a variety of setups including
single spring-mass and double spring-mass systems. The mass and spring constants were varied to
fine-tune an acceptable damping system. This device worked well, but it was tuned to the frequency
of the structure in the lab; consequently, the tuned mass damper was not considered to be an
acceptable damping device.

A variation of the spring mass sytem was then created consisting of a shock cord and a mass.
Various combinations of cord and mass were tried until damping was observed. The system was
first tried in a PVC pipe and then in a steel tube. The steel weight appeared to have more friction
inside the steel tube, causing additional damping not present with the PVC pipe. Oil was then
added to these devices to increase the damping. The oil worked well to bring the pole quickly to
rest.

To decrease the size of the device, compression springs were also tried but found to be
ineffective. The next device that was tried was a spring mass system binding on the sidewalls of
the pipe and bringing the pole to rest very quickly. This device was modified to be smaller so
that it would not distract passing motorists. The device was tapered to create the binding effect.
A device, which involved the tension mass banging, was also successful, although the tapered
damper worked better to dissipate the vibrations. The final device tried was a woodpecker
device that consisted of a compression spring and a mass banging on top of the pole. This device
was ineffective at damping the vibrations.

Field testing was performed three times with different types of damping devices. The first test
verified a range of natural frequency present in mast arm structures, from 0.7 Hz to 1.4 Hz. In
the second field test, the shock cord mass device and the spring mass device were tested with
little success. This test indicated the need for a device independent of natural frequency. The
third field test involved testing the tapered damper device. The device yielded three percent of
critical damping on an 11 m (36 ft) arm and a 21.4 m (70 ft) arm. These arms were tested
because they were at the lower and upper range of frequencies associated with mast arms. This
percent of critical damping was considered acceptable and a prototype device in steel was
developed.

CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicate the following:

• The dominant frequencies present in mast arm structures are in the range of 0.7 Hz to 1.4
Hz.

• A device developed to mitigate wind-induced vibrations must be independent of natural

frequency to work on all types and lengths of mast arm structures.
 • The fatigue failures occurring in mast arm structures can be reduced with the
implementation of the developed damping device.

• The developed damping device was the tapered device, consisting of a spring and mass
that creates a banging and damps the mast arm quickly.

• The developed damping device yielded three percent critical damping on a range of mast
arms.

This research project was conducted by Ronald A. Cook and David Bloomquist at the University of
Florida. For more information on the project, contact Marc Ansley at (850) 414-4291,
marc.ansley@dot.state.fl.us