You are on page 1of 99

WIND-INDUCED VIBRATIONS OF CANTILEVERED

TRAFFIC SIGNAL STRUCTURES
by
NARENDRA PULIPAKA, B.E., M.S.C.E.
A DISSERTATION
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved

December, 1995

1^ I
^

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

-

I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my doctoral
committee chairman, Dr. James R. McDonald for his patience, and
encouragement. I sincerely appreciate his guidance, which not only helped
me in successfully completing this research, but also helped me in learning
American culture and professionalism.
I extend my sincere thanks to my advisory committee members Dr.
Kishor 0. Mehta, Dr. W. Pennington Vann, Dr. Partha P. Sarkar, and Dr. Walt.
J. Oler without whose guidance and input this research would not have been
possible. I express my deep sense of respect and gratitude towards Dr.
William P. Vann, whose courses I always enjoyed. His comments after my
seminars and on my dissertation manuscript were very valuable.
I would like to thank all the visiting researchers, especially Professor
Scanlan, whose comments and suggestions have helped me take the right
direction in my research.
I acknowledge the financial support from the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) for conducting this research. My special thanks are
due to many people who helped me in conducting experiments, especiallyByron Yeatts, Scott Funderburk, Robby Manalli, Allan Wolf, Kyle Eleuterius,
Frank Wyatt, Drex Little, Mario Torres, and Eric Hunzeker. I also thank all my
friends and colleagues, who helped me in many occasions and were very
supportive throughout my stay at Texas Tech.
I thank my parents and family members who have been always there,
when I needed encouragement and support. My special thanks are due to
my wife Uma, for her support and help-which she provided in spite of herself
being very busy preparing for her USMLE exams.

Lastly, I would like to thank all my professors and teachers for their
excellent instruction and patience in answering my questions. Without them, I
would not have achieved anything. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to
all my professors and teachers.

Ill

- - 1 - - - 3 - 1.2.1 General - - 2.2.1 General 1 . .4 Objectives - - .3 Effect of surface roughness - - 7 2.2 Vortex shedding - 1 - - .2 Description of the structure 1. .TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii ABSTRACT viii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES - - .3 Galloping 10 2. 1.5 Organization of the dissertation 2. .2. . INTRODUCTION 1. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES - - - - 17 3.2 Objectives 17 IV . . BACKGROUND LITERATURE 2.4 Summary - - - - 16 3. - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 5 - - - - - 5 2. LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - - - x - - xii CHAPTER 1.2.1 General 17 3.5 Other research - - 8 - - 9 - - - 2.4 Unconstrained circular cylinder - - 7 2.1 Mechanism - - - - - 5 2.2.2.6 Vibration mitigation techniques 2.2 Strouhal's number - - - 6 2.3 Problem description1.

^v^r-

3.3 Finite element models

-

-

-

-

18

3.4 Fundamental frequencies -

-

-

-

19

3.5 Load versus strain -

-

-

-

-

20

3.6 Arm tip displacement versus maximum stress -

21

3.7 Risk of fatigue failure

-

-

-

-

21

3.7.1 Background

-

-

-

-

21

3.7.2 Endurance limit

-

-

-

-

22

3.7.3 Fatigue of signal structures

-

-

22

3.8 Conclusions from the finite element analyses

-

24

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

-

25

-

-

4.1 General

25

4.2 Tow-tank experiments
4.2.1 Objectives

-

-

-

-

4.2.2 Experimental research plan

-

25
27

-

-

28

4.2.3 Flow visualization tests

-

-

-

29

4.2.4 Vortex shedding results

-

-

-

33

4.2.5 Force measurements

-

-

-

33

4.2.6 Galloping results

-

-

-

-

35

4.3 Wind-tunnel experiments -

-

-

-

35

4.3.1 Objectives

37

4.3.2 Aerodynamic damping

-

-

-

37

4.3.3 Wind tunnel facility -

-

-

-

39

4.3.4 Effect of turbulence -

-

-

-

39

4.3.5 Model

40

4.3.6 Dynamic experiments

-

-

-

40

4.3.7 Wind-tunnel results -

-

-

-

41

4.3.8 Conclusions FIELD EXPERIMENTS

-

-

-

-

-

41
-

43

^^•J!*^„.

5.1 Objectives

-

.

.

5.2 Field research plan -

.

-

.

43

-

-

-

44

-

5.3 Facilities and instrumentation

-

-

-

44

5.3.1 Texas Tech field site

-

-

-

45

5.3.2 Test signal structures

-

-

-

45

5.3.3 Foundation

-

-

5.3.4 Instrumentation

-

-

46

-

-

-

48

5.3.4.1 Wind instruments -

-

-

48

5.3.4.2 Transducers

-

-

49

5.3.4.3 Displacement transducer-

-

53

5.3.4.4 Tilt meter

-

54

5.4 Field studies -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

54

5.4.1 Structural characteristics

-

-

-

55

5.4.1.1 Stiffness

-

-

-

55

5.4.1.2 Natural frequencies

-

-

55

5.4.1.3 Damping

-

-

-

58

5.4.2 Galloping of the structure -

-

-

58

5.4.2.1 40-ft Signal structure

-

-

58

5.4.2.2 48-ft Signal structure

-

-

63

-

-

-

65

-

-

-

65

5.5.2 Size and location of wing -

-

-

66

5.5.3. Proposed wing

-

-

67

-

71

-

-

5.5 Mitigation measures

-

5.5.1 Damping plate (Wing)

-

6. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Analysis of results

-

-

6.1.1 Equivalent SDOF model

-

-

-

6.1.2 Calculation of structural parameters

71
-

71

-

73

6.1.3 Aerodynamic force and eff. damping coeff.

VI

74

6.1.4 Calculation of effective damping -

-

11

6.2 Conclusions -

-

-

-

-

-

83

REFERENCES

-

-

-

-

-

85

-

VII

VIII . The vibrations are attributed to a galloping phenomenon. These vibrations are steady 'up and down' motions perpendicular to the wind direction. This configuration was found to have negative aerodynamic damping from the wind tunnel experiments conducted using a one quarter scale dynamic model. A horizontal wing attached above the signal light increased the aerodynamic damping to make the structure aerodynamically stable. (3) to develop strategies to mitigate vibrations in cantilevered traffic signal structures. which takes place in steady winds was obtained by conducting tow tank experiments. A better understanding of the across-wind vibration problem. which primarily takes place when the wind is blowing normal to the cantilever arm from the back side of a traffic signal attached with a back plate.ABSTRACT Under certain conditions of wind speed and wind direction. Preliminary structural analysis was done using finite element models of the typical traffic signal structures to obtain the fundamental frequency and the stress levels reached due to static loading. in addition to being a distraction to passing motorists. some cantilevered traffic signal structures undergo large amplitude vibrations in wind speeds of 10 to 20 mph. The most effective mitigation measure was found to be a horizontal wing attached above the signal light. These large amplitude vibrations may lead to fatigue failures. (2) to understand the mechanism that produces the large amplitude vibrations. The three primary objectives of this research are: (1) to identify the conditions required for large amplitude vibrations in cantilevered traffic signal structures. The vibration amplitudes sometimes reach as high as 2 ft from peak to peak.

Measured strains.1 - - - - - - - 20 - - 20 21 56 - 58 .2 Measured frequency.1 Calculated frequencies of TxDOT signal structures with different arm lengthsCalculated load versus strain 3. moments. and displacements of 40-ft and 48-ft signal structures - 5. and stresses for various load cases. tilt.2 5. and damping IX - - 3.3 Calculated arm tip deflections.LIST OF TABLES 3.

1 Strouhal number versus Reynolds number 2.3 Tow carriage mounting configurations - 31 4.2 FEM model of 48-ft signal structure - - 4.4 Velocity. and force component definitions - 32 4.5 A three-cup anemometer and wind direction vane mounted on a 19-ft pole near the test structure - 49 5.1 Typical cantilevered traffic signal structure - - - 1 1.5 Cpy versus angle of attack for traffic signal configuration-5 - 36 4.8 Wheatstone full-bridge circuit - - - - - 51 5.2 Traffic signal configurations used in tow tank experiments - 30 4.9 Pre-amplification unit used to amplify the strain signal- 5.6 Wind tunnel setup - 4. angle of attack. - - 2 1.6 Locations where the transducers were mounted - 50 5.1 General view of the tow tank 4.2 3-light signal head without backplate .2 Details of the 48-ft signal structure - - - - 47 5.3 5-light signal head with backplate 2.3 The possible orientations of the signal structure arm - - 47 5.1 FEM model of 40-ft signal structure - - 3.2 Effective angle of attack on an oscillating bluff body 2.1 Details of the 40-ft signal structure - - - - 46 5.7 Wheatstone half-bridge circuit - - - - - 50 5.10 Displacement transducer - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - 11 - 14 - - 18 - - 19 - - - - - - - - - - 26 - 37 - - 40 - - 42 - - - - 43 - 52 53 .4 Rotatable foundation 5.3 Force coefficient in the Y-direction for a square shape 3.7 Wing shapes and dimensions - - - 4.8 Reduced velocity versus H*i - - - 5.LIST OF FIGURES 1.

.2 Equivalent SDOF model 6.12 Static load versus strain 5.11 Tilt meter 54 5. .17 Proposed wing .15 Spectrum of free vibration of 40-ft structure without lights - 61 5. .5 Effective damping coefficient versus wind speed - - 80 6.14 Free vibration of 48-ft structure without lights.1 Mode shape corresponding to the lowest freq. . Time Versus Strain 59 5.3 Aerodynamic force - 6.13 Free vibration of 40-ft structure without lights. for 48 ft structure 72 6. 68 5.20 RMS of strain plot - 6.16 Spectrum of free vibration of 48-ft structure without lights - 62 5. .4 Three locations of the wing considered - - - - 79 6.6 Effective damping ratio versus wind speed - - 81 - - - - - - 57 - 69 70 - - XI - - - - 72 - - - - 75 - . . Time Versus Strain 60 5.19 Wind speed plot - 5.18 Wind direction plot - - - - - - - 68 5.5.

WING A rectangular flat-plate fixed on the traffic signal structure to reduce wind-induced vibrations.LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FEM Finite Element Method SDOF Single Degree of Freedom SMA-80 Single Mast Arm signal structure designed for 80 mph wind load. XII .

and have tapering diameters. modern structures are becoming more and more slender.1 Figure 1. These slender structures are prone to wind-induced vibrations.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. more accurate computer analysis software.1 General With the development of stronger materials. and new design methods. The pole and the arm are made of hollow galvanized steel sections. 1. which are either circular or octagonal in shape. In the design of these slender structures the dynamic effects of wind loads sometimes are significantly large and cannot be neglected.1 Typical cantilevered traffic signal structure. . The research work presented here addresses wind-induced vibrations of cantilevered traffic signal structures similar to the one shown in Figure 1.1) consist of a vertical pole (17 ft to 20 ft high) and a horizontal arm (20 ft to 48 ft long). with signal light heads attached.2 Description of the structure Cantilevered traffic signal light structures (see Figure 1.

2) or a 5-light head with red. Figure 1. and yellow signals (see Figure 1. Some signal light heads have fj.. green.3 Five-light signal head with backplate. yellow.Figure 1.>:. green arrow. and yellow arrow signals (see Figure 1.2 Three-light signal head without backplate. Signal light heads are usually either a 3-light head with red.}*vs^-. . green.3).

video recordings of signal structure vibrations in other states in the United States prove that this problem is not limited to Texas.a black colored plate (backplate) attached for better visibility of the signal lights. The cantilever arm fell to the ground when a crack developed at the connection between the horizontal arm and the vertical pole. 1. no one was injured by the collapse. The vibration amplitudes sometimes reach as high as 20-24 inches from peak to peak. A 48-ft cantilever traffic signal structure failed in Dalhart. These vibrations are steady 'up and down' motions perpendicular to the wind direction. Fortunately. . in addition to being a distraction to passing motorists. (2) to understand the mechanism that produces the large amplitude vibrations. These large amplitude vibrations may lead to fatigue failures. 1. One structure failed during the course of this study. Texas in November 1991. However.3 Problem description Under certain conditions of wind speed and wind direction.4 Obiectives The three primary objectives of this research are: (1) to identify the conditions required for large amplitude vibrations in cantilevered traffic signal structures. some cantilevered traffic signal structures undergo large amplitude vibrations in wind speeds of 10 to 20 mph. The dimensions used in the analytical studies and the full-scale test structures were selected to meet Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) specifications. (3) to develop strategies to mitigate vibrations in cantilevered traffic signal structures. The signal light head shown in Figure 1.3 has a backplate and five signal lights.

based on video recordings and field observation. . The second chapter reviews literature on wind-induced vibrations of slender structures.5 Oroanization of the dissertation This dissertation is divided into six chapters including this introduction. In the fourth chapter results from the tow tank and wind tunnel experiments are reported. The third chapter discusses various analytical studies conducted using finite element models of the traffic signal structures. Once the phenomenon was understood. The second objective was accomplished by seeking a better understanding of structural characteristics using finite element analyses. 1. Chapter 5 discusses the series of full-scale field experiments. The final chapter analyzes results and presents conclusions. the third objective was to develop strategies for vibration mitigation and to test them in the field. and wind-structure interaction through a sequence of laboratory and field tests.The first objective involved identifying the signal light configurations that contribute to excessive vibration.

" The frequency of vortex shedding is dependent primarily upon the cross-stream dimension of the body and the free stream velocity. A wake that exhibits the generation and downstream convection of alternating vortices is referred to as a "von Karman vortex street. 2. Most of the available publications deal with common shapes like circular. Despite the differences in the dynamic flow. none of them deal with the vibrations of cantilevered signal structures. square and other sections. There is also a secondary dependence on the viscosity of the fluid that can be . Literature on vortex shedding and galloping is reviewed in the following paragraphs. However. this behavior can be attributed to one of two aerodynamic mechanisms (Scruton. square. or some combination of these.1 Mechanism Vortex shedding in the wake of a cylindrical object is the periodic formation of vorticity with alternating rotational directions caused by shear layers on opposite sides of the object. one can understand the basic characteristics of fluid-induced vibrations by reviewing the available literature on circular. or other) may exhibit wind-induced oscillations in a plane normal to the wind.2. square. Dynamic flow past these simple shapes obviously is different from flow past the more complex shape of a signal light. Neglecting the effects of wind gusts and the wakes of other bodies.CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND LITERATURE 2.1 General Long cylindrical structures of any bluff cross-section (circular.2 Vortex sheddina 2. 1963): vortex shedding or galloping. There are many research publications in the area of vortex shedding and galloping vibrations of structures.

the vortex shedding becomes regular again but the characteristic Strouhal number is slightly higher (approximately 0.characterized by Reynolds number. . the pressure on each side of the object is alternately reduced and increased. = (fD)A/ (2. At intermediate Reynolds numbers near 1x10^. Over a large range of relatively low Reynolds numbers. At higher Reynolds numbers.2 Strouhal number The vortex shedding frequency is characterized by the non-dimensional Strouhal number S. The result is a periodic forcing function normal to the free stream that can excite motion of the body.2.2. D is the cross stream dimension of the object. 2. and V is the free stream velocity. critical or transcritical.1) where f is the shedding frequency of wake vortices. resulting in a condition of resonance. the mean flow Reynolds number. Figure 2. two-dimensional wakes exhibit regular vortex shedding at an almost constant Strouhal number approximately equal to 0. and high Reynolds number regimes are referred to as the subcritical. and supercritical regimes.1 depicts Walshe and Wooten's (1970) summary of the variation of Strouhal number with Reynolds number for a stationary cylinder of circular cross-section. The degree of coherence. and two-dimensionality of the wake vortices depends on the aspect ratio of the body. As a bluff body sheds vortices. The periodic forces associated with the vortex street are small relative to the mean drag forces. respectively.27) than in the low Reynolds number regime. These low. and the background turbulence in the free stream flow. intermediate. the vortex shedding process becomes random and irregular and occurs at a higher Strouhal number. periodicity. particularly if the structure has one of its frequencies close to the vortex shedding frequency.

8 10 10 Reynolds Number .3 Effect of surface roughness Achenbach and Heinecke (1981) evaluated the influence of surface roughness on the vortex-shedding frequency of circular cylinders in the Reynolds number regime of: 6x10^ < R < 5x10^. Crilical .06 < (fhD)A/ < 0.2.5 0.205. . 8 c I I I I 6 J6 .Cylinder roughness was observed to delay the onset of the critical flow where vortex shedding becomes irregular.014 < (ho)/D < 0. variation from the general cylinder depicted in Figure 2.6 .083 10 .2.4 E Regular shedding r) 5 -3 Regular shedding CO 2 2.R Figure 2.4 Unconstrained circular cvlinder Jones et al. In addition. which is approximately equivalent to the smooth cylinder results. but not significant.1 Supofcrilical Subcntical J ^ 1 4 I 6 Transcritical L_i. Therefore. In the subcritical region the Strouhal number was nearly constant at St= 0.1. surface roughness reduced the Strouhal number in the critical flow regime.2. (1969) studied the effect of forcing a circular cylinder to oscillate normal to the flow over a range of frequencies and amplitudes: 0. 1970) 2.6 -"—r Random shedding ^ . variations in surface roughness cause a measurable.1 Variation of Strouhal number with Reynolds number (Walshe and Wooten.

many researchers have published results for square or rectangular sections. The results are summarized by them as follows: Oscillation of the cylinder in the lift direction has no significant effect on the mean drag coefficient. three-dimensional effects were controlled in an effort to observe their effect on fluctuating lift. D is the previously defined characteristic diameter.99. 2. drag and shedding frequency. the degree of constraint will not have much effect on the Strouhal number.5 Other research Szepessy and Bearman (1992) investigated the effect of using end plates on circular cylinders. The resonance effects are strongest in a small bandwidth around the stationary Strouhal frequency with the greatest amplification of lift occurring when the ratio of forced frequency to Strouhal frequency is 0. In addition to experiments on circular cross-sections. An unsteady lift due to cylinder motion. By varying the ratio of open length (cylinder span length between end plates) to cylinder diameter. cylinder motion tends to amplify the forces associated with vortex shedding and to facilitate a convergence of the cylinder's frequency of oscillation with the vortex shedding frequency for a given wind velocity. As the cylinder frequency is increased through and above the Strouhal frequency. and V is the flow velocity. exists only when the cylinder is oscillated at or relatively near the aerodynamic Strouhal frequency for the stationary cylinder.. 1969) In other words. which increases with amplitude of motion.In their nomenclature. However. (Jones et al. Okajima (1982) obtained the Strouhal number for rectangular cylinders with side-to8 .2. ho is the amplitude of the forced oscillation. there is an abrupt change to a positive (stabilizing) aerodynamic damping force. This lift is a negative (destabilizing) aerodynamic damping force at cylinder frequencies below the stationary-cylinder Strouhal frequency. fh is the forcing frequency. if the Strouhal frequency is much different from the natural frequency of the structure.

the Strouhal number was approximately constant at 0.0). Examples of devices meant to accomplish this goal are a perforated cylinder mounted outside a plain cylinder (Price 1956). At lower Reynolds numbers. It is possible that the splitter plate allows the flow to remain more nearly attached to the cylinder much .27.0 and 3. For Reynolds numbers from 3x10^ to Ixio"^ regular vortex shedding from a simple cylinder occurred at a Strouhal number (St) of 0.0). The effects of vortex excitation can be suppressed by reducing the periodicity of vortex formation or by reducing the span wise cohesiveness of the flow. and helical strakes on vertical stacks.6 Vibration mitiaation techniques Scruton (1963) dealt with practical methods of reducing wind effects on structures and tall stacks. that is.height ratios (b/h) of 1.0 to 4. For the square cylinder (b/h = 1. the flow continuously reattached. Figure 2. suggested by Scruton and Walshe (1957) for which Woodgate and Meybrey (1959) determined the optimal configuration.17 with the fully attached flow.13 for Reynolds numbers of 1x10^ to 2x10\ For rectangular cylinders (b/h of 2. Roshko (1955) studied flow past a circular cylinder at high Reynolds number. 2. the flow separated at the leading edges and did not reattach. by forcing the flow to be three-dimensional. at higher Reynolds numbers.13 for the fully separated flow to 0.1 depicts this result as the supercritical region where regular shedding has resumed.0 over a range of subcritical Reynolds numbers. triangular spoilers on a suspended pipe-line (Baird 1955). Roshko also noted that a splitter plate attached to the trailing edge of a circular cylinder tended to suppress the vortex shedding. The corresponding Strouhal numbers varied from 0. Okajima observed a transitional Reynolds number where the flow separated at the leading edges with periodic reattachment on the lower or upper surfaces synchronized with the vortex shedding.2.

In addition to the above discussed techniques. then the air surrounding it will have a relative velocity of y upwards. Assume the bluff body is moving down with a velocity y.3 GalloDinc When a structure vibrates normal to the free stream flow. Figure 2. then the structure is said to be aerodynamically stable. This relative wind velocity Vrei hits the bluff body with an angle of attack a with respect to the free stream velocity. The vector sum of free stream velocity and upward air velocity relative to the bluff body (because of downward movement of the bluff body). The free stream velocity V of the flow is horizontal (from left to right). If that aerodynamic force tends to increase the vibrations.in the same way that the trailing portions of an airfoil aid it in maintaining attached flow. 2. many damping techniques (both active and passive) have been successfully used to mitigate the vortex shedding vibrations.2 shows a bluff body in steady flow. is Vrei. and CD(a) are lift and drag coefficients for an angle of attack a of the incident flow. and A is the characteristic area of the 10 . This oscillating flow induces an oscillating aerodynamic force on the structure.2) D(a)=^CD(a)pv2|A (2. If that aerodynamic force tends to diminish the vibrations of the structure. The lift and drag forces caused by the relative wind velocity Vrei are given by: L(a)=jCL(a)pv2|A (2. CL(a). the structure is said to aerodynamically unstable.3) where p is the density of the air. the flow in turn oscillates relative to the moving structure.

6) If the force Fy is negative it acts downwards. If the body has mass m per unit length. in the same direction as the movement of the bluff body. By substituting free stream velocity V = V^ei Cos(a). means the aerodynamic force is trying to help the structure vibrate. The force component in line with the direction of oscillation of the body (Fy) can be obtained as : Fy=L(a)Cos(a)-i-D(a)Sin(a)=-CFypV^A (2.5) A bluff body moving downward causes positive angles of attack as shown in the Figure 2. Under these conditions the structure is aerodynamically unstable. its equation of motion can be written as: 11 ..2. and has linear mechanical damping.e.4) where a is the angle of attack. in turn.2 and 2.4. and the equations 2.3 into Equation 2. i.Lift force (L) caused by the relative wind Aerodynamic force (Fy) either helping the vibration or mitigating the vibrations Drag force (D) caused by the relative wind Bluff body moving V down with a velocity of y Figure 2. which.2 Effective angle of attack on an oscillating bluff body bluff body. which in turn is given by: a = tan"^(-^) (2. is elastically sprung. the force coefficient Cpy can be written as: Cpy = [CL(CX) + C D(a)tan(a)] sec(a) (2.

7) where ^ is the damping ratio.6. y is the acceleration of the bluff body (positive downwards). The overall damping coefficient for the structure vibrating in a steady flow can be written as 2mCco-h-pVA — .p V ^ A — ^ ' ^ J ' ^ (2. this term is known as aerodynamic damping.8) For this condition Fy = raPy^ V^OCy a (2.11) ^ where the first term is the mechanical damping of the structure and second term the aerodynamic damping.10) Since the aerodynamic force on the right hand side of Equation 2. wherein a = (yA/)=0 (2.9) a=0 which leads to the examination of the force coefficient (dCpy/da).^ V da / 2 =d (2. that is. y is the velocity of the bluff body (positive downwards).2Ccoy+ co^ y] = . similar to the mechanical damping term on the left hand side.. Fy is given by Equation 2. which can be found by differentiating Equation 2. when the velocity of the bluff body (y) is close to zero. Considering small amplitude incipient motions.10 is a function of the velocity of the bluff body.m[y+2Ccoy-hco^y] = -Fy (2. For small amplitudes of vibration the equation of motion can be written as m[y-f. If the mean aerodynamic lift and drag coefficients are assumed to be the same for a fixed body and an oscillating body. and Cpy is given by Equation 2. co is the natural circular frequency. The system is aerodynamically stable if d > 0 and 12 . y is the displacement of the bluff body downwards.6. and Fy is the aerodynamic force (positive when acting upwards on the body).4.

Since the first term (mechanical damping) is a positive term. angle of attack also reverses. Consider an initial disturbance of the cylinder that results in a downward motion. Unlike the oscillations of circular cylinders which occur only at resonance with the periodic shedding of wake vortices. Den Hartog (1932) recognized that certain cross-sectional shapes exhibit galloping oscillations at near constant frequency over a wide range of wind speeds with oscillation amplitudes that increase as a function of wind speed.3. Circular cross-sections do not develop steady lateral forces perpendicular to the free stream because of symmetry at all angles of attack. instability will occur only if 'dCpy^ ^ da I „ <0 (2. However. 13 . non-circular shapes produce aerodynamic forces that are a function of angle of attack. the relative velocity between the fluid and cylinder includes a cross-stream component giving a positive angle of attack. a necessary condition (the sufficient condition is d < 0) for galloping instability. His study dealt with transmission lines with non-circular cross-sections due to ice accumulation. From Figure 2.aerodynamically unstable if d < 0.3. As the structure decelerates during downward motion. a square cross-section exhibits this behavior for a < 14 degrees. As illustrated in Figure 2. As a result of the cylinder motion. the angle of attack and aerodynamic force decrease.12) This is the as well-known Den Hartog's criterion (1956). sections meeting Den Hartog's (1956) criterion exhibit a pure plunging motion perpendicular to the free stream at an amplitude that increases with wind speed. it is noted that the aerodynamic force on the cylinder at a positive angle of attack is negative and most importantly is acting in the same direction as the cylinder motion. Simple vortex shedding could not account for this observed behavior. The deflected structure moves past the neutral position with maximum velocity where the angle of attack also is maximum. Once the downward motion ceases and the structure starts moving upwards.

4 -. the amplitude increases as the free-stream velocity increases. Similarly. • * * " . the transverse force is positive for positive angles of attack and always acts in the opposite direction of the cylinder motion. thereby providing positive aerodynamic damping. However.3 Force coefficient in the Y-direction for a square shape velocity increase.Degrees Figure 2.Because the aerodynamic force is aligned with the motion. The angle of attack increases as vibration amplitude and translational y . Therefore. / ' / 1 -. Consequently. a symmetrical airfoil produces a lift force with respect to the relative velocity vector that is also positive for positive 14 . At higher angles of attack the aerodynamic forces become stabilizing.6 10 20 15 25 Angle of Attack a . For example. the structure will overshoot the neutral position and the motion will continue in a self-perpetuating manner. The corresponding aerodynamic forces increase as well until the angle of attack reaches approximately 15 degrees. a circular cylinder experiences a pure drag with respect to the relative velocity vector. The Den Hartog criterion is not satisfied and galloping behavior does not occur for all cross-sectional shapes. the amplitude of the galloping motion is limited to the negatively damped angles of attack only.

He concluded that near the resonant reduced velocity. Furthermore.angles of attack. Then. A nonlinear theoretical explanation of the interaction between vortex shedding and incipient galloping was presented by Obasaju (1983). this response can continue somewhat above 15 . Whereas Parkinson and Wawjonek investigated the free vibration of cylinders in which only amplitudes were measured. Parkinson and Smith (1962) improved the accuracy of the analytical model by using higher order polynomials to approximate the aerodynamic coefficients of a square section more accurately. sections that satisfied the Den Hartog criterion would oscillate at velocity dependent amplitudes. models of spring-mounted cylinders began plunging when resonance existed between the system's natural frequency and the stationary vortex-shedding frequency of the cylinder. for certain mass-damping parameters. Any deviation from the statically neutral position always results in an aerodynamic force opposite to the disturbed motion. a spring-mounted cylinder can perform either a high amplitude oscillation at the vortex shedding frequency or small-amplitude galloping. Obasaju linearized the forcing function used in the quasisteady theory of galloping by making an assumption of small amplitude oscillations. Furthermore. as predicted by their theory of galloping. They refer to their model as "quasi-steady" because of the assumption that steady-state aerodynamic data can be applied to a dynamic equation of motion. Parkinson and Wawjonek (1981) noted that the quasi-steady theory of galloping did not adequately describe experimental results for cylinders at velocities near the vortex shedding lock-in velocity. In Parkinson and Brook's experiment. and compared the resulting behavior to that predicted by vortex shedding alone. Parkinson and Brooks (1961) presented a nonlinear analytical model using aerodynamic coefficients to explain the galloping motion of cylinders. Obasaju used a forcedvibration study of a square cylinder to determine the dependence of massdamping parameter on amplitude ratio and reduced velocity.

1972) provided the most mathematically detailed and comprehensive development of the quasi-steady theory of galloping. In Parkinson and Brooks (1961) non-linear quasi-steady theory. in the instance of the square at a = 15 degrees. The nonlinear nature of the aerodynamic forces on most shapes results in a limit to the amplitude of galloping oscillation at a given wind speed. the seemingly chaotic behavior of cylinders having an incipient galloping velocity greater than but very near to the vortex lock-in velocity is explained. the aerodynamic forces resulting from displacement become stabilizing. Also. With the exception of Obasaju's more recent linearization refinement. the quasi-steady theory of galloping by itself fails to make this prediction. he successfully provided a rigorous and complete description of the quasi-steady theory of galloping. Therefore. Novak (1969. 2. as velocity increases.the resonant velocity. although galloping is never observed below the resonant velocity for vortex shedding. However. 16 . Novak's theoretical development parallels and is inclusive of all published work and at the same time is more detailed. an advantage of incorporating Obasaju's forced-vibration results is that it correctly predicts that galloping cannot occur below vortex resonance. the minimum speed for onset of galloping is a function of structural damping and negative aerodynamic damping but does not take into account the critical or lock-in velocity due to vortex shedding. so does the limit-amplitude until. Even more refined are his closed-form equations generalized for any aerodynamic cross-section and many degrees of freedom. Using early theoretical and experimental results as a foundation. Finally.4 Summary The literature on vortex shedding and galloping phenomena were reviewed. Vortex shedding vibrations occur under a narrow lock-in wind speed range. It is the galloping phenomenon which best explains the vibrations of the cantilevered signal structures in a wide range of winds.

1990). The aim here was to compare the calculated strains (using FEM) with the strains measured in the field experiments. Later it was found that the dimensions of the test structures used in the full-scale field testing did not exactly match the TxDOT specifications. These measured dimensions were used so that comparison could be made between the field measurements and the finite element method results. Single Mast Arm structures designed for 80 mph wind (SMA-80) with cantilever arm lengths of 20.CHAPTER 3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES 3. (2) To obtain a relationship between a static load applied near the cantilever arm tip and strain at strain-gage locations on the signal structure used in the field experiments. and 48 ft were analyzed. A second set of finite element analyses was conducted using the actual dimensions and weights of the test structures as measured in the field. 28. The objective here was to define the range of fundamental frequencies of signal structures with different cantilever arms. including the ones tested in the field. 32. 44. 40. 3. (3) To obtain a theoretical relationship between arm tip displacement and the stresses in the signal structure for the purpose of evaluating potential 17 . 24. 36. The FEM models in this analysis were based on the arm and pole dimensions of the test structures as measured in the field.2 Obiectives The primary objectives of the analyses were: (1) To estimate fundamental frequencies of vibration of typical signal structures.1 General The first set of finite element analyses of signal structures was based on current TxDOT drawings and specifications (TxDOT.

can be modeled with beam elements. Because both the vertical pole and the cantilevered arm are tapered.2. 1993) was used to perform the static and dynamic analyses.0 (Titan Corp. 3. A commercially available FEM software package. The dimensions of the test structures and the locations of the signal light heads on the arm are shown in Figures 5.fatigue effects.1 and 3.2. at a point 12 ft. respectively. a relatively fine mesh is needed to represent the mass and stiffness variations. The FEM model was based on a 48 ft long arm and TxDOT specifications.1 FEM model of 40-ft signal structure 18 . Signal Light Masses Calculated fundamental frequency = 0.3 Finite element models The cantilevered traffic signal structure. Stardyne for Windows. from the tip of the arm. and (2) a 3-light signal head which weighs about 55 lb. Two types of signal light heads were used: (1) a 5-light signal head which weighs about 90 lb..87 Hz Node Numbers Fixed Boundary Condition : ^ Figure 3. Version 4.1 and 5. at the tip of the arm. which is a statically determinate structure. FEM models of 40-ft and 48-ft signal structures are shown in Figures 3.

2) were compared with the frequencies measured in the field (see Table 5.81 Hz Figure 3. Models were also developed and analyzed for the SMA-80 standard TxDOT signal structures with different cantilever arm lengths. The calculated fundamental frequencies for the two structures tested in the field (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2 FEM model of 48-ft signal structure frequencies of vibration and mode shapes. Using the measured dimensions and actual weights of the structures. These models were based on published geometry and weights.2). Table 3. The table gives the calculated fundamental frequencies (first mode) for standard TxDOT signal structures with different cantilever arm lengths. Natural frequencies estimated using the standard dimensions may not always give correct results. the field and calculated values agree very well. 19 .4 Fundamental frequencies The two signal structures tested in the field were first analyzed by the FEM using the Stardyne software.1 summarizes the results of the FEM analyses. The purpose was to determine the natural Signal Light Masses 51 Node Numbers Fixed Boundary Condition Calculated fundamental frequency = 0.3.

Static concentrated load increments were applied at a location near the free end of the cantilever arm. then the model can be used with confidence in calculating other parameters. such as stress and displacement.96 0.7 89.4 44.23 1.8 69.3 Load applied 3 feet from tip of arm.6 31.81 3. Table 3.1 79. Ib^ 0 50 60 70 80 90 Strain on vertical Dole in u strain 40-ft structure^ 48-ft structure^ 0 0 49. above top of base plate.5 59.4 56. 2 Strains located 13 in.4 50. The FEM analysis was then used to determined the strains at gage locations on the structure where the strain gages were mounted for the field tests.35 1.2 Calculated load versus strain Load.70 1.3 37.2 presents the results of the load versus strain calculations.56 1. 20 .1 Calculated frequencies of TxDOT signal structures with different arm lengths Arm Length (Feet) 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 Freqijency (Hertz) 1. If the FEM model gives reasonable agreement between load and strain. Table 3.88 0.5 Load versus strain The purpose of this study was to validate the FEM model with field measurements.10 0.Table 3.

The endurance limit is a function of mean stress.) Moment at pole base and arm connection (in.7 2. moments and stresses for various load cases^ Arm tip Defl.3 presents the relationships between tip displacement of the arm versus the maximum stresses in the arm and the pole.28 11.26 Case 1 2 3 Load Dead load of pole and arm only Values are calculated for 48-ft SMA-80 signal structure ^In Case 2 stresses and deflection are due to weight of the structure and signal lights.56 19.52 14.131 10.09 Case 1 -f.two signal^ lights (80 lb. Table 3. fail at stresses smaller than the ultimate strength of the material under static loads. X 10'^) Stress at base of Arm Pole (ksi) (ksi) 15.72 12.3 Calculated arm tip deflections.42 11.73 5 Case 3 31 3.60 16.7 Risk of faticue failure 3.) 21.1 Backcround Materials under repeated loading and unloading.811 9.6 Arm tip displacement versus maximum stress The relationships between arm tip displacement and maximum stresses in the vertical pole and the cantilever arm were needed to study fatigue effects from cyclic loading. As the cycles of stress reversal increases. If we have a relationship between tip displacement and maximum stress in the signal structure. Table 3.4 2. X lb.142 7.58 17.21 4 Case 3 28 3.55 Case 2 with forced arm tip deflection of 25 3. the magnitude of stress 21 .3. conclusions regarding potential fatigue failure can be drawn by knowing the vibration amplitude. stress range and number of loading cycles. and 50 lb. (in.7. 3. or under reversal of stress.

This phenomenon of decreased strength of materials under cyclic loading is called fatigue..3 Fatigue of sional structures When a traffic signal structure is not vibrating.1) is called the range of stress. The maximum stress amax reached when the arm tip moves down 9 inches (in addition to the dead load deflection) is about 20 ksi.2 amin — ^ a m " amax 2 x 1 5 . 3. As the signal structure starts vibrating.e. For this amplitude of vibration.2 Endurance limit The endurance limit is the maximum stress at which the material does not fail even after infinite number of complete stress reversals (i. If cTmax and amin are the maximum and minimum values of the repeated stress cycle. and 3. the structure is stressed due to its self weight and the weights of the signal lights.20 10 ksi R amax " amin 20. The endurance limit for mild steel is about 27 ksi. from Equations 3. The cycle is completely defined if the range and maximum stress are given. am= 0).3).10 10 ksi 22 .2) 3.CJmin (3. The mean stress caused by dead load am is about 15 ksi in the 48-ft structure arm with lights (see Table 3.1. it undergoes cyclic stress variations about the dead load stress.7. 5 (Gmax + amin) (3. The average stress is Gm = 0 .7. The endurance limit for the galvanized steel used for the traffic signal structures should be at least 20 ksi.at which the failure occurs decreases. then the algebraic difference R = CTmax .

This range of stress 10 ksi variation. Due to this stress concentration. The sample calculations suggest that the fatigue failure of traffic signal structures is not an issue unless the amplitudes of vibration are very high (± 20 inches for 48-ft arm structure. (2) improper handling during erection.3 shows the stresses caused by arm tip deflection up to 9 inches (in addition to the dead load deflection). which is much less than the endurance limit of 20 ksi.4) from 3. But. The cracks can be caused in many ways. should not cause any fatigue failures. some of which are: (1) manufacturing defects. or arm length to amplitude ratio of about 30). Back calculating the amplitude of vibration needed for the stress variation range (R) to be equal to the endurance limit R = amax-amin = am = 0 . and 3.3. hair line cracks present in the structure can also lead to fatigue failures under the vibration amplitudes much smaller than the above calculated amplitudes.4 25 ksi amax amin = 5 ksi Table 3. the amplitude of vibration needed to produce a maximum stress (amax) of 25 ksi can be calculated as about 20 inches. and (3) an automobile hitting the signal structure. by extrapolating the values in Table 3. 23 .3) we know 15 ksi So. Besides stress concentration. It should be noted that the above calculations did not take stress concentration at the junction of the arm to pole into account. 5 (amax + amin) 20 ksl (3. the fatigue failure of signal structures can be a concern even at lower amplitudes of vibration. amax + amin = 30 ksi (3.3.

Sample calculations suggest that fatigue failures should not occur unless the amplitudes of vibration reach very high values (± 20 inches for 48-ft arm structure). type and quality of the welding. However stress concentration at the connections. Also the fundamental frequencies of the test structures used in the field study were calculated (see Figures 3.3) and the risk of fatigue failures was briefly addressed. 24 . The main objective of this research is focused towards identifying the mechanism that produces vibrations and proposing methods to mitigate them-fatigue behavior of these structures was not studied in depth.1 and 3. and other manufacturing defects can lead to fatigue failures at smaller amplitudes of vibration.2).1).3.2). Bending strains at strain-gage locations on the signal structure used in the field experiments due to a static load applied near the cantilever arm tip and were calculated (see Table 3. which gave an idea of the range of fundamental frequencies of these signal structures (see Table 3.8 Conclusions from the finite element analyses The fundamental frequencies of traffic signal structures with different cantilever arm lengths were calculated using the finite element method. Stresses in the signal structure due to different loading conditions were calculated (see Table 3.

The tow-tank experiments were conducted by Dr.CHAPTER 4 LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 4. and (3) Field testing. The results from the tow-tank experiments were used to design the field tests conducted on full-scale signal structures. A load transducer capable of measuring forces in three coordinate directions determined equivalent wind forces on the signal light arm assembly as it was towed through the tank. (2) Wind tunnel. Walter Oler and Mr. The first two are discussed in this chapter. These measured forces were used to check if a signal light configuration is susceptible to galloping vibrations. (1995) 4. the Texas Tech Tow Tank consists of a belowground water tank with overall dimensions of 80 ft long by 15 ft wide and 10 ft 25 . and the full-scale field tests are discussed in Chapter 5. Visualization experiments were designed to detect vortex shedding. The resulting flow patterns were observed by injecting dye into the water and recording on video tape. which has the advantage of working with flow speeds less than 10 feet per second. Steve Cook of the Mechanical Engineering Department of Texas Tech University. For a more detailed discussion of the tow-tank studies. Shown in Figure 4.1 General The experiments conducted for this research used three testing environments: (1) Tow tank. Their experiments are briefly discussed here. An actual traffic signal light along with a portion of the arm were towed through the tow tank to simulate wind speeds in the range of 10 to 30 mph.2 Tow-tank experiments The tow tank permitted the testing of a full-scale signal arm and traffic light using water instead of air.1. see McDonald et al.

tffp.i . 7 ^-:I^^ t*i / Figure 4.^^^^" ijJU.-ran.1 General view of the tow tank 26 .i»H«j<tiWW—gH_Jli^ • 1 ^W7^'f^^'^^—™'""*— '• .

deep. Steel rails mounted above the water on either side of the tank support a
motorized towing carriage which is used to propel a variety of models through
the tank. The carriage also supports the computerized motion control and data
acquisition systems and has adequate space for the operator and several
observers. The carriage and supported models can be tested at preprogrammed
speeds of 0-5 ft/s with the capacity for accelerations up to ±2 ft/s^. Data
acquisition systems include a high speed pressure measurement system, load
cells for force and moment measurements, and several options for video taped
flow visualization both above and below the water surface.
In general, the tow tank can be used for any incompressible aerodynamic
study which might more typically be conducted in a wind tunnel. The 16:1 ratio
of kinematic viscosity of air to water allows tests of a specific model to be
conducted at 1/16 the speed of an equivalent wind tunnel test at the same
Reynolds number. This speed differential is particularly advantageous in flow
visualization experiments involving time dependent model motion or transient
phenomena. Flow visualization in water based experiments (tow tank, water
table, etc.) is better than that of wind tunnel experiments because color dyes do
not diffuse in water as rapidly as smoke disperses in the air. The tow tank is
particularly suited to tests involving transient model velocities which are virtually
impossible to duplicate in a wind tunnel. The Texas Tech Tow Tank has been
successfully applied to research programs concerned with parachute,
automotive, and wind turbine aerodynamics as well as the aerodynamic loading
on solar receivers and traffic signal lights.

4.2.1 Obiectives
The primary objective of the tow tank experiments was to determine the
source of the aerodynamic force causing vibrations. The two most likely
candidates were vortex shedding and galloping. Separate experimental
programs were developed to evaluate the significance of each of these
27

phenomena. A flow visualization experiment was utilized to detect the
occurrence of vortex shedding and to identify the shedding frequency. The
potential for galloping of the traffic signals was evaluated by making steady state
aerodynamic lift and drag measurements and applying the Den Hartog (1956)
criterion for negative aerodynamic damping. Both the flow visualization and
force measurements were performed for variety of signal light configurations as
shown in Figure 4.2.

4.2.2 Experimental research plan
A full-size, three-light traffic signal head was mounted on a 6 5/8 in.
diameter steel pipe in several configurations. The steel pipe simulated the
shape and size of the horizontal cantilever arm which supports the traffic signals
over road intersections. Figure 4.2 depicts the cross-sections of the test
configurations. Configurations 1 through 4 are traffic signals mounted without a
back plate; Configurations 5 through 8 are traffic signal options mounted with a
51 in. x 23 in. rectangular back plate. The back plate, which is black, provides a
contrasting background for the signal lights, when viewed toward the sun.
The signals were tested with flow from both the front and back. Hence,
the configurations were matched pairs (1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8) where the only
difference was in the direction of the relative flow used in the experiment. In
Configurations 1, 2, 5 and 6 the signal heads were hung below the horizontal
arm. In Configurations 3, 4, 7 and 8, the signal heads are mounted in front of
the horizontal arm. Because the blockage ratio of the traffic signal and arm
relative to the tow tank cross section was low, the free stream flow field was
assumed to be essentially two-dimensional. However, the flow near each end of
the traffic signal was three-dimensional. This characteristic was investigated
through the flow visualization experiment. None of the experiments considered
flow parallel to the axis of the supporting arm.

28

Figure 4.3a shows how the arm-mounted traffic signal was attached to the
towing carriage. Note that the pipe arm is mounted to the bridge and extends
down into the water. A second mounting configuration for flow visualization,
Figure 4.3b, used an extension to place the signal underneath the bridge where
clear video tapes could be made through a Plexiglas viewing plane.

4.2.3 Flow visualization tests
To determine the significance of vortex shedding from traffic signal heads
and the corresponding Strouhal numbers, dye was injected at up to twenty
locations around the mounting pipe and signal head. The dye ports were turned
on in various combinations and video tapes were made of the resulting flow field.
Small-scale turbulence features were most apparent when dye was injected
close to the pipe and traffic signal. Conversely, the primary vortex frequency
was more easily observed when dye was injected approximately two
characteristic diameters downstream of the model (characteristic diameter is the
largest cross-stream dimension of the model). Furthermore, by placing dye ports
in the middle and on the ends of the traffic signal, three-dimensional features of
the flow could be investigated. Repeated experimental runs and dye port
adjustments were made for Configurations 1 through 8, to obtain the best
visualization of the vortex features. Over three hours of video tape recordings
were made during the flow visualization portion of the experiment. When a dye
port location successfully captured periodic flow reversals which could be
studied to obtain the vortex shedding frequency, the video tape of that
experimental run was analyzed frame-by-frame on a video editor. The number
of video frames between flow reversals is proportional to the period of that flow
feature and can be used to compute the Strouhal number

29

I r J Configuralion 7 (h) Coofiguratioa 8 Figure 4.2 Traffic signal configurations used in tow tank experiments 30 o .) (e) QxiTiguration 3 (d) Configuration 4 Coofiguratioa 5 (0 Connguratioa 6 o (g) o .• (a) O ^ X Configuration 1 (b) Configuralion 2 V o (j..

t d O) (/) Q) . c o o o 'co' p|l' 31 .nnn (0 N •^— CD CD i_ "1 _J (0 O) '*> **c ii o ^-^ ID o o V o N' 5= c g CO D CD "c D O £ 0 O) CO s o t 1 p^^ co r—1 c o E rt i) CD t_ ij.•-» i_ n o ••—' o .

E o o 0 o •D c (0 o B CO o _© D) C (0 o 0 > "^ 0 U- 32 .CO c o CD •D "c 0 c o Q.

In general. Second. The Strouhal numbers for other configurations could not be identified and are not reported.2. 2. a relatively high shedding frequency implies that the required lock-in wind velocity for signal heads would be around 5 mph. and side forces.3. drag. random and disorganized vortex shedding is less energetic and thus less able to sustain significant oscillations. First. Vibrations in a wide range of wind speeds can not be explained by the vortex shedding phenomenon. the signal structure with a 48-ft arm was observed to be vibrating at wind speeds ranging from 9 mph to 16 mph.28. For the orientation of the model shown in Figure 4. even though the flow velocity was well within the sub-critical Reynolds number range. Since the lock-in velocity is relatively low. Moreover. Randomness and high frequency of vortex formation are characteristics that make vortex shedding an unlikely candidate to produce significant winddriven oscillations of traffic signal structures.2. The Strouhal numbers for the configurations 1. the driving forces would also be low. large amounts of video had to be reviewed to find useful data for most of the signal head configurations.13 to 0. While the periodic vortices shed from the simple cylinder were easy to see. and 4 ranged from the 0. 4. the drag is the force acting on 33 . For example.4 Vortex sheddina results The Strouhal number of S.5 Force measurements Force measurements were made by attaching the mounting pipe to a force balance which simultaneously measured the lift. The variety of edges and corners on the traffic signals produced a complex turbulent flow field in which identification of a dominant shedding frequency was difficult. test signal structures in the full-scale field tests were observed to be vibrating at a wide range of wind speeds.4. =0.19 for the circular cylinder closely agrees with published results by other researchers. the flow was very disorganized.

Therefore. The angle of attack.2) CFy=Fy/(0. this direction would correspond to the vertical direction or the direction commonly associated with lift. Vrei. when the simulated motion of the model is in the negative y-direction. Therefore. simulate the conditions experienced by an object subjected to galloping. It is also the velocity produced by the tow tank (Vrei = V. Cpy.1) Fy = Lcosa + (D-Dtare)sina (4. a. all motion is in the y-direction (pure plunging). The traffic signal mounting arm was connected to the balance by a coupler which could vary the angle of attack of free stream flow relative to the traffic signal. The force of interest in galloping applications is in the y-direction because this is the force which either dampens or drives the motion of the model.4. a positive induced velocity of Vy results in a positive angle of attack. In other words.4): Vx = Vre|COSa (4. This side force is the driving force of interest for the signal structure vibration study. The necessary equations are as follows (refer to Figure 4. the lift is an axial force aligned with the mounting pipe. The relative velocity. the angle between the wind and the model is always zero. the motion of the model in the y-direction (Vy) results in an induced angle of attack. is measured between the x-axis and Vrei.ank).4 Vx is analogous to the wind velocity which is aligned with the ground and the x-axis of the traffic signal. as depicted in Figure 4. The x-y axis is always attached to the model and indicates that in simple galloping. is the vector sum of Vx and Vy. Static angles of attack. In Figure 4. In a field experiment or during normal operation. must be computed.5pVx'A) (4.3) 34 . the coefficient. However. and the side force acts perpendicular to the plane defined by the mounting pipe and the free stream velocity vector.the model in the free stream direction.

A dynamic test setup facilitates finding the aerodynamic damping at different wind speeds.are is the drag on the pipe with no traffic signal mounted on it.5 that dCpy /da<0 for all angles of attack.5 depicts the results for Cpy versus angle of attack for configuration 5. and in turn mitigate the vibrations. Finally.3 Wind-tunnel experiments A static test setup like the one used in the tow tank experiments can only be used to check if a given traffic signal light configuration meets Den Hortog's criterion-which is only the necessary condition for galloping vibrations. 35 . The first 4 seconds of data were discarded to avoid acceleration dynamics and the average force was computed for each axis. Also. i. This procedure was completed for each of the 8 traffic signal configurations.2.. 4. This is a classic result for an object that experiences aerodynamic forces aligned with its direction of motion when initially disturbed in a direction perpendicular to the free stream velocity. None of the other configurations tested were found to be susceptible to galloping. The tow tank was operated at 1 fps for 50 seconds and 2000 data points were collected for each angle of attack tested. the coefficient of force in the y-direction was computed.e. 4. which can be used to find the wind velocity required for the onset of galloping vibrations and the amount of the damping to be added to mitigate the vibrations.6 Gallopino results Figure 4. and D. using a dynamic test setup one can test the effectiveness of wing (damping plate) attached to the signal lights to increase the aerodynamic damping. for an object exhibiting negative aerodynamic damping. For a complete understanding of the galloping phenomenon. one must use a dynamic test setup. Notice in Figure 4. The negative slope for Cpy indicates that the aerodynamic forces are destabilizing and the model is susceptible to galloping oscillations.where A is the signal area.

• The signal was Installed witti 15 degrees of tilt because of Interference between the back plate and the mounting pole.IS D 0..5 Cfy versus angle of attack for traffic signal configuration-5 36 20 30 .25 Dn D 0 On d ^.5 -30 -20 •10 0 10 An^eof Atta± Figure 4.5 XI Fy D 0. Q.25 tr ^.

which was successfully tested in the field (see Figure 5.6) which in turn are connected to load cells to measure the dynamic lift and drag forces. 4.. the model was suspended in the wind tunnel using springs (see Figure 4. i.2 Aerodynamic dampina If the model is given an initial displacement and suddenly released.3. This damping is analogous to the structural damping of the signal structure measured in zero wind speed conditions.The wind tunnel experiments were conducted with the knowledge that only configuration 5 in Figure 4. In the wind-tunnel experiments a dynamic model was used.6 Wind tunnel setup. 4.3. The damping measured in 37 . and these forces were used to determine if a configuration satisfied Den Hartog's criterion.2 is susceptible to galloping. when no wind is blowing. and (2) to test the effectiveness of the 'wing' (or damping plate) as a vibration mitigation technique. In the tow-tank experiments a static (fixed) model was used to measure the drag and lift forces. we obtain the mechanical damping of the suspension system. N^ -k|^rag Ul Springs k-B-H Signal Light Modal Backplate Springs (b) Side View (a) Front View Figure 4. Wind Tunnel Wing Wing.17).1 Obiectives The objectives of the wind-tunnel experiments were: (1) to evaluate the aerodynamic damping.e.

This can be written as : Overall Damping = Mechanical Damping -i. The aerodynamic damping is usually plotted as a non-dimensional number H / . 38 .Aerodynamic Damping If the aerodynamic damping is negative. ^(R) = the overall damping of the system at reduced velocity R p = density of the air m = mass of the model per unit length B = along wind dimension of the model (see Figure 4. Otherwise. The overall damping system when the wind is blowing can be either higher or lower than the mechanical damping. n = frequency of the system (model suspended from the springs) at zero wind speed.the wind tunnel when the wind is blowing at a certain speed would be different from the mechanical damping of the system. the overall damping measured when the wind is blowing will be smaller than the mechanical damping. which is given by Sarkar (1992): 4m(Co-C(R)) Hi(R) = ^^° ^^^ ^^ pB . it will be larger.6) ^0= damping of the system at zero wind speed.4) where HJ(R)= a measure of the aerodynamic damping at reduced velocity of R R=-ynB U = wind speed. (4.^ ^.

the system is aerodynamically stable.From Equation 4. Similarly. All tests were conducted in smooth.3. Novak and Tanska (1974) reported that the wind speeds required for the onset of galloping were lower for a turbulent wind than for a non-turbulent wind. However. wind speeds up to 90 ft/sec could be attained.3. However. 1977).. 4. if Hi is a positive number the aerodynamic damping is negative. i. one can observe that H^' will be a negative number if the aerodynamic damping is positive. the effect of turbulence can be determined by simply using a wind tunnel with the desired level of turbulence (Blevins. 4.3 Wind tunnel facility A three feet high and four feet wide closed section was used for these experiments. Due to a lack of the required facilities.4. non-turbulent wind.e. Though it would be very interesting as well as useful to study the effect of turbulence on the galloping vibrations (or aerodynamic damping). 39 . higher wind speeds could have been obtained by changing the gear ratio between the electric motor to the turbine fan. If the bulk of the turbulence energy is contained in frequencies much different from the natural frequency of the structure.4 Effect of turbulence Turbulence in the incident wind can have a profound effect on the galloping vibrations. the difficulties in conducting the tests with a turbulent wind in the Texas Tech wind tunnel were: (1) generating the required turbulence and more importantly (2) measuring the turbulence. For the setup used. the wind tunnel tests were confined to tests in the non-turbulent wind.

6 Dvnamic experiments The model was suspended by the springs as shown in Figure 4.5 Model A one-quarter scale model similar to that of the signal light configuration 5 (see Figure 4.7. 0. The shapes and dimensions of the wings are shown in Figure 4.4.6.25 inch tubes p a d d e d to the plate to obtain rounded edges ^f-^^^^.3. This procedure was repeated with different wind speeds.3. 4. 4 in.2) was made from wood and aluminum. An initial displacement was given to the model in the direction of the lift and it was suddenly released to allow the model to vibrate freely. Two different wings were tested for their effectiveness in mitigating vibrations: (1) a flat plate wing. and (2) a flat plate with rounded edges. and (3) flat plate with rounded edges. The free vibration response (in the direction of lift) was recorded for different wind speeds and for the cases of: (1) no wing (2) flat plate wing." 0=-© ^ Flat plate wing Flat plate with rounded edges Figure 4.7 Wing shapes and dimensions 40 .

The effect of attaching a wing on the aerodynamic damping was tested by repeating the free vibration tests after attaching a wing. the wing has stabilized the signal light configuration. These H / values for an air foil were calculated using the theoretical approximation suggested by Theodorsen (1940). H / decreases even more. i.8.e.7 Wind-tunnel result..1. Aerodynamic damping was measured by conducting free vibration tests in different wind speed conditions. this configuration is even more stable. 41 .. The results were presented in a nondimensional form.3. and is susceptible to galloping vibrations.e. With the flat-plate wing attached H / decreases (becomes a bigger negative number) in the same region of the reduced velocity.4. 4.3. In the case of the wing with rounded edges. H / suddenly starts increasing beyond a reduced velocity of 20. H / values for an air foil were also plotted in Figure 4. i. the primary objectives of the wind tunnel testing were (1) to measure the aerodynamic damping and (2) to test the effectiveness of the wing in increasing the aerodynamic damping and mitigating the vibrations. which corresponds to a wind speed of 14 mph in field conditions.3. Two different wings were tested and the results were compared. For the model without a wing attached to it. At a reduced velocity of 25 (18 mph in the field conditions).8 for comparison purpose. which suggests that the signal light configuration has negative aerodynamic damping. * Hi became a positive number.^ The non-dimensional number H / which gives a measure of the aerodynamic damping is plotted against the reduced velocity (R = U/nB) in Figure 4.8 Conclusions from the wind tunnel experiments As stated in Section 4.

. x: W 0) •a U LU 0) "D (0 <D CL • D C -^ TO O LL CC 5 C o .winn-Mtsxri^sjj:.2 CL ^ LL 1 CD o ^ ^111 o in CO o CO CO > CM 00 c o o > •D CD O ID •D CD in CC CD "^ (D ^— 13 in m lO in m o CM CM o CO .^H 42 m CO o r .

(3) Test the effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate large amplitude vibrations. Instrumentation is more difficult to control under the field conditions than in the laboratory. The wind does not always blow and rarely at the speed and direction required by the experiment. fundamental frequency and damping of the two traffic signal structures tested.CHAPTER 5 FIELD EXPERIMENTS Full-scale field experiments provide an opportunity to deal with the behavior of the actual structure without the problems of modeling and scaling errors. Despite these disadvantages field experiments provide the best information on the behavior of structures subjected to wind loads. it was first necessary to produce them in the field. Individual parameters cannot always be isolated by holding all other parameters constant. 5. 43 . representing the actual situation. flow conditions are threedimensional. The wind conditions are real. Fundamental frequency and damping can be measured directly. Field experiments are not without disadvantages. Some field conditions are difficult to control. rather than simulated. The structural characteristics of the two signal structures tested were needed to evaluate the galloping phenomena and to verify results of the finite element method (FEM) analyses.1 Obiectives The objectives of the field experiments were as follows: (1) Determine the structural characteristics. and turbulent. In order to evaluate mitigation strategies for the large amplitude vibrations. (2) Study the large amplitude vibrations observed under conditions of a steady wind. Experiments cannot always be repeated under the exact same conditions.

Otherwise. From observations of operational signal structures and the tow tank experiments. 5. The research plan included an evaluation of various transducers such as displacement transducers. The fullscale field tests either verified their effectiveness or demonstrated that the concepts did not work. The tests were conducted at the Texas Tech University Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory (WERFL). Wind characteristics were determined from instrumentation on the 160-ft meteorological tower. The design of the turn-table foundation had to meet these two critical criteria. electrical resistance strain gages. Thus. the need to control the relative wind direction of attack. Structural response 44 . The wind direction appeared to be the most critical. a wait would ensue for the wind to blow from the required direction. 5.Once the vibrations were initiated.3 Facilities and instrumentation The field experiments were conducted on the two traffic signal structures. Instrumentation was needed to measure the characteristics of the wind and the response of the signal structure to wind effects. On the other hand. the rigidity of the foundation under service conditions had to be reproduced. and a tilt meter.2 Field research plan Results of the tow tank experiments were used to develop the field research plan. The ability to rotate the signal arm to a predetermined relative wind direction of attack was essential. The existing meteorological tower at the field test site provided the needed data on wind characteristics. was one of the first field conditions addressed. it was clear that the galloping phenomenon takes place under a rather narrow set of conditions. A number of mitigation measures were identified and tested. the circumstances under which vibrations are sustained could be identified.

3.1 Texas Tech field site The WERFL is located on the Texas Tech University campus in a large open field with very few obstructions within a one-mile radius of the site. 33.was measured with transducers mounted on the signal structure and the WERFL data acquisition system. barometric pressure and relative humidity sensors that are mounted at the 33 ft level. 5. This building contains the data acquisition system for monitoring wind instrumentation and the various transducers. The 160-ft meteorological tower supports anemometers at the 13. was an old structure that had been taken out of service. 5. The first one.3. Other weather instruments include temperature. hereafter referred to as the 40-ft signal structure. Hereafter it is referred to as the 48-ft signal structure.2 Test signal structures Two signal structures were selected for testing. Facilities at the WERFL include a 30 x 45 ft pre-engineered metal building mounted on a circular track so the building can be rotated. It was available early in the project and was used primarily as a shake down test for the instrumentation. It was purchased directly from a manufacturer and meets current TxDOT specifications for an SMA-80 structure. All weights and dimensions had to be measured in the field. The second signal structure tested had a 48-ft cantilever arm. The instruments provide data for determining wind speed profile and turbulence intensity. 70 and 160 ft levels. 45 . The dimensions of this structure do not match current TxDOT standard specifications. Inside the rotatable building is a concrete block building that does not rotate. Details of the 40-ft signal structure are shown in Figure 5. The structure was selected for testing because it was readily available when testing began.1.

The signal structure foundation used in the tests had provision for four anchor bolts. Figure 5. dia. A series of individual tests was designed for each of the two signal light structures in order to achieve the stated objectives of the project. 11. dia.Figure 5.17 inches.55 in.94 in. (1) All the diameters shown are outer diameters of a hollow circular cross section.3 Foundation Because of the need to rotate the signal arm to any relative wind direction of attack (with 15° increments) the rotatable foundation had to meet the following criteria: 46 . dia.4 ft. (2) The thickness of the shell Is 0.1 Details of the 40-ft structure Both signal structures have base plates to accommodate four anchor bolts that are normally set in a concrete pier foundation. i 22. ]-^^ '"• ^'^ 3.3.1 in. h 8. These tests are described in detail in subsequent sections of this report.2 shows details of the 48-ft signal structure. dia. except they were attached to a rotatable steel plate that could be rigidly clamped at one of the 24 possible locations spaced 15 degrees apart (see Figure 5. 5.3).74 in. ^__l ——' 9.

i_^(. 10. the foundation was constructed to the same specifications as one being used for actual service conditions.5 in. dia.2 Details of the 48-ft structure Except for the rotatable turret bearing. as a structure under service conditions. when clamped. dia. (2) Same foundation rigidity. Figure 5. (2) The thickness of the shell is 0.1 in. K- 12ft 4. The t North JL * »« t * 270 I—I r~i ' ' . nm 19ft ^ 1 (XXXX) Notes: 13 in. - 90 I* t i l [ •Q 180 \ \ I 15 Degree increments Figure 5. dia (1) All the diameters shown are outer diameters of a hollow circular cross section.3 Possible orientations of the signal structure arm (plan view) 47 .(1) Capability to easily rotate the signal structure to any desired orientation in 15° increments.239 inches.

4 The following procedure was followed in rotating the signal structure to some desired orientation relative to the wind direction. 5.3.1 Wind instruments. 5. (2) The four clamping bolts were removed.4 Instrumentation Instrumentation was needed to measure wind characteristics and structural response. Anemometers mounted on the 160-ft meteorological tower and on a 19-ft pole were used to measure characteristics 48 . (3) The structure was rotated to the desired location in 15° increments.4 Rotatable foundation Figure 5. J5—.rotatable foundation is shown in Figure 5. To achieve vibrations due to galloping the cantilever arm needed to be very nearly perpendicular to the mean wind direction.4. (1) The wind direction was monitored for at least five minutes to obtain an average value. The structure was then secured by installing the clamping bolts in the threaded holes provided in the steel base plate and tightened. which allowed the structure to rotate freely (the rotatable foundation supports the structure even when the clamping bolts are removed).3. Signal Structure Base plate Signal Structure Pole ^. Signal Strucuture Anchor Bolts Clamping Bolts Top Plate (Rotates) Turret Bearing (Rotates) Bottom Plate (Fixed) Concrete Pier Foundation Figure 5.3 shows the possible orientations of the signal structure arm.

49 . Three transducers were tested in the field for their effectiveness in measuring the response of the signal structure to wind effects. This arrangement measured the bending strain and compensated for axial and temperature strains.7. in line with the cantilevered arm of the structure 13 in. They were (1) electrical resistance strain gages. the gage on the outside measures tension strains while the one on the inside measures compression. The gages were connected into a Wheatstone half-bridge circuit as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5.5 A three-cup anemometer and wind direction vane mounted on a 19-ft pole near the test structure. These instruments measured the wind speed and direction needed to set the proper orientation of the signal structure relative to the wind direction. (2) a linear variable differential transducer and (3) a tilt meter.2 Transducers.6 shows locations where the transducers were mounted. A three-cup anemometer and wind direction vane were mounted on a 19-ft pole that was placed near the signal structure installation (see Figure 5. Two gages were mounted on opposite sides of the vertical pole. above the top of the pole base plate.3. Data runs requiring a continuous measurement of wind speed and direction were taken continuously for 15-minute periods. One set of strain gages was installed on the 40-ft signal structure. As the pole bends.of the natural wind. Figure 5.5).4. 5.

a full Wheatstone bridge was configured with four active gages. Ri and R2 are bridge completion resistors and R3 and R4 are the strain gages on the pole. 50 . In order to obtain a higher voltage output.8. Two gages were mounted on the tension side of the structure. as well as two on the compression side.in Figure 5. The fullbridge Wheatstone circuit is shown in Figure 5. Tilt Meter Displacement Transducer Figure 5. One set was located 13 inches above the base of the vertical pole and the other set was located on the cantilever arm at a distance of 11 inches from the connection R4 — Rg p Figure 5.7.7 Wheatstone half-bridge circuit plate of the arm.6 Instrument locations on the test structure Two sets of strain gages were installed on the 48-ft signal structure.

The bridge output due to strain is small and can easily be overshadowed by noise voltage. (2) Temperature fluctuation may also affect the resistance of lead wires in the circuit. Lead wires should be kept as short as possible.R2 = Rc Figure 5. voltages from nearby electrical or magnetic fields can create noise that affects the voltage output of the bridge. This technique is known as pre-amplification because the signal is amplified before running it 51 . In the field. The noise effects can be eliminated by one of two well-known techniques: (1) By amplifying the signal close to the gage. For this reason. the amplifier circuit boards were installed very near the locations of the gages.8 Wheatstone full-bridge circuit Temperature changes during a data run will give erroneous strain readings if provisions have not been made for temperature compensation. temperature compensation is especially important. Temperature fluctuations affect the bridge circuit in two ways: (1) The bridge will output an erroneous strain reading if there are no provisions for temperature compensation. Temperature compensation can be achieved in a Wheatstone bridge if the gages in opposite legs of the bridge experience the same temperature changes. rather than in the instrumentation room near the data acquisition equipment. Under harsh field conditions.

The balance is accomplished by connecting a very high variable resistance in parallel with one of the strain gages. (2) By using a current signal instead of a voltage signal to measure strain. The pre-amplification technique was used in this study. the strain gage bridge must be balanced so there is zero output voltage prior to applying the load.through a long signal cable. the signal voltage is much higher than the noise voltage. By amplifying the signal before it is affected by noise. The balance is achieved by adjusting the resistance of one of the gages in the Wheatstone bridge.9) Figure 5. A model TM-1 amplifier conditioner module (Imperial Instruments) was used to amplify the strain signal close to the test structure (see Figure 5. The inductive nature of the noise voltage does not significantly affect the current carried by the electrical conduit. In order to relate strain to the loading on a structure.9 Pre-amplification unit used to amplify the strain signal. The variable resistance is adjusted until the voltage output from the bridge is zero. 52 .

The method is known as shunt calibration.10 Displacement transducer A voltage proportional to the amount of wire rolled off the shaft is the output signal.10). imposing a known change in resistance of one of the gages and measuring the voltage output. similar to a fishing reel.Calibrating the strain gage bridge means establishing a relationship between voltage output and strain in the specimen.3.e. An instrument that seemed to hold promise was a displacement transducer (UniMeasure) with a thin wire that unrolled from a shaft as the displacement took place (see Figure 5. i. 5. 53 . The instrument has a linear response over a relatively large displacement of the order of 24 inches.. The sensor worked well for the free vibration tests. A method was needed to measure the large amplitude deflection at the tip of the cantilever arm. a tension was needed in the wire to keep it taut. Bridge calibration is done by simulating a known strain. but could not be used for galloping tests. However. since the arm tip was moving up and down.3 Displacement transducer. Even though the tension was less than 2 lbs. it was enough to dampen the vibration due to galloping. Figure 5.4.

~-.4 Tilt meter. 54 .5. The tilt meter is a small sensor (Applied Geomechanics) that provides a voltage output signal proportional to the angle of tilt of the surface on which the instrument is mounted (see Figure 5. (3) Test the various mitigation concepts. The angle of tilt of the cantilever arm can be measured by mounting the tilt meter at the arm tip as shown in Figure 5.3.11 Tilt meter 5. Each of these experiments is discussed below. mwsmmmm^m::iisms^it''*Mr7:v.4.11).6.is^^':^^^^^^^ Figure 5.4 Field studies The field studies involved three distinct sets of experiments: (1) Determine structural characteristics of the two full-size signal structures. (2) Examine the specific conditions under which galloping takes place.

12 shows load versus strain relationships for the 40-ft and 48-ft signal structures. Note that the curves are essentially linear. The strain records were selected for the frequency analysis because the results appeared to be the most reliable of 55 . respectively.1 Structural characteristics The three structural characteristics of interest were stiffness (expressed as a load versus deflection relationship). and damping coefficient.1 for both the 40-ft and the 48-ft structures. Results of these tests are summarized in Table 5.4. natural frequencies.1 Stiffness. The instruments were read as each load increment was added to obtain relationships between load and strain. From these load versus strain curves. Agreement is reasonable. 5.4. tilt and displacement. The structures were instrumented with strain gages. The two signal structures were tested for stiffness characteristics on calm wind days. Calculated strains from Chapter 3 (see Table 3. The three sensors were monitored to obtain time histories of strain.1 for the comparison of calculated strains with the measured strains. tilt angle and displacement. Figure 5. Static concentrated loads were applied at a point near the free end of the cantilever arm of the signal structure by hanging known weights using a steel wire. Tests were conducted to obtain the natural frequencies of vibration of the two signal structures.2) were also shown again in Table 5. A concentrated load was suspended by a wire connected three feet from the free end of the cantilever arm. Zero load readings were taken on the three transducers. The wire was cut to quickly release the weight and allow the arm to undergo free vibration.5.3. even on a calm day. and a displacement transducer.4. the data were recorded as five minute means. as described in Section 5.2 Natural frequencies.1. a tilt meter. it is apparent that the 48-ft signal structure is slightly stiffer than the 40-ft signal structure.1. Because of small fluctuations in the transducer outputs. 5.4.

E ' " "^ <Si O -n ^ ^ CO CO CD 1- O CD ' ^ CO -^ in i n CD N- O :. to TD •D CO O 00 o JO C CO CO CO O CO O CD CO Tf o .- © CO JO 0) 0) CO CO ^ • .^ CO o j a> ci> CI) cj) Tt i n CD r^ 00 o g^ CM f o CO CO CD CD CD h - CJ) 00 i n CD r^ 00 cj) in m iw: CO "' 2 T3 "^ 3 © S in (0 D ) h.o "^ 00 "^ o in CO CO '^' in in E CD CO C30 O CD CL n CO o 13 O Q.O c C/D CD o -^ CD r^ o in -^ r^ CO o h~ CO CO Tf in iri o O) c\j in T.-^ O * * * * * ^ |s> Tt O CD CO CO ^ t i n in •D .0 0 C5) O -4—' CO 0 0 E g^ <2 C o 13 v_ CO O O CO CO CM O CD Q^ ^ iD CO CO I o I o c o <D i : (0 CO iz E E " O ZJ g CO *-» I T5 CO CX) 55 i2 (D CO o i n 00 T. .w o 56 O .. E CO < o CD O o 3 to c ..CD I CO O ••C\J Tt CD CO "cO 00 ••.00 CO "(0 1— *C0 CVJ CO Q.= " - g 'co CO •-« <D CO I— 13 CO o Qd O CL 13 (0 0) CM C\J c "co ' ^ in CO N.J .3 D) CO .Tt r>.9.(0 (Tt CO ^ o o o o o i5 O : 9 *-' i n CD h .0 0 cj) • - CO .

The fundamental frequencies change when traffic signal lights are mounted on the signal structures.1 and 5. A spectral analysis was then performed to identify the fundamental frequencies of vibration. The two spectral analyses are shown in Figures 5.15 and 5.16 for the 40-ft and 48-ft signal arms. 57 .the three instruments. Table 5.2 also shows the calculated frequencies (using FEM) from Chapter 3 for comparison with the measured frequencies. This discrepancy could be due to the lack of exact dimensions and material properties of 40 ft structure.2 compares fundamental frequencies of the bare structures and configurations of two signal lights on each structure. respectively.13 and 5. Table 5.2. The change depends on the mass of the signal lights and their locations relative to the free end of the arm. Signal lights were mounted on the two structures as shown in Figures 5.12 Load Versus Strain in the Vertical Pole The experiment was first performed on the bare pole without signal lights attached. FEM results for 48-ft structure are very close to that of measured frequencies. The presence of the signal lights on the structures reduced the fundamental frequencies by about 25%.14 show time histories of strain for the two bare signal structures. ^ 100 40-ft Structure 48-ft Structure CO 0 20 40 60 Load in Lb 80 100 Figure 5. The analog signals from the transducers were converted to digital form. Figures 5. where as for 40 ft structure the results were off by about 20%.

81 48-ft struct ^Measured in the field ^Calculated using finite element models 5.e.4. The structure with the 40-ft cantilever arm was installed in the field first. Clearly the presence of the signal lights affects the damping as well as the fundamental frequencies. and Calculated Frequency % Critical Damping Fundamental Frequency Structure type Without lights With lights Without lights With lights Meas^ Calc^ Meas^ Calc^ 1.98 1.3 Damping. The primary purpose was to shake down the instrumentation and obtain qualitative information about the galloping phenomenon in the field. The true damping of a structure can be obtained only by conducting a free vibration experiment.4.1.62 0. The strain versus time histories of free vibration given in Figures 5.74 0. From the tow tank experiments signal light Configurations 1. the structural damping is typically assumed based on the guidelines provided in the design codes.38 0.87 0.2) were found to be very stable.02 1.13 and 5. i. 5. Damping values with signal lights and without signal lights are tabulated in Table 5.21 0. For conducting a dynamic analysis of a structure. it was desired to verify results observed in the tow tank.4.2. galloping was not expected to take place.78 40-ft struct 0. 3 and 4 (see Figure 4.02 0.52 0. Measured damping.2 Gallopino of the structure This second series of tests in the field was designed to reproduce galloping in the two test structures and to carefully identify the parameters that contribute to galloping. because of the positive slope of the Cpy versus angle of the attack 58 . 1980) was used to obtain the damping ratios for the two signal structures.5.. In particular. The logarithmic decrement approach (Clough and Penzien.78 0. Table 5.2 Measured frequency.1 40-ft Signal structure.2. 2.14 were used to obtain damping values.

Seconds Figure 5. c o *co CO -100 10 20 30 Time.150 <o c (0 "co o k_ o o Q.13 Free vibration response of 40-ft structure without signal lights 59 60 .

<0 c "co to o o o CL c o c 'co CO 10 20 30 40 50 70 Time. Seconds Figure 5 14 Free vibration response of 48-ft structure without signal lights 60 80 .

15 Free vibration spectrum of 40-ft structure without signal lights 61 .5 L 4 4. Hertz Figure 5.5 J I I 2 2.5 5 Frequency.5 3 £i_J 3.T r 1 r <0 c: Q "co CD a CO 1.

16 Free vibration spectrum of 48-ft structure without signal lights 62 .xlO (O c (D Q CD CL CO 3 4 5 6 8 10 Frequency. Hertz Figure 5.

the data indicate that the only light configuration likely to gallop is Configuration 5. and 8 from Figure 4. With Configuration 5 mounted on the 40-ft signal structure. but galloping was not observed in any case. Configurations 6. galloping was observed on several occasions with free end displacement amplitudes of 12-16 inches. The test was set up several different times.. Because these configurations are not susceptible to galloping. 7. Configuration 5 in Figure 4. According to the tow tank studies.2 also were not expected to exhibit galloping. 63 . The wind vane on the 19-ft pole near the structure was monitored to obtain oneminute mean wind direction. wind blowing from back side of the lights or from the front side) (2) Wind speed (3) Signal light Configuration 5.4. These same three configurations were set up on the structure in the field. The three primary factors required for the structure to exhibit galloping were: (1) Relative wind direction of attack (i. The cantilever arm was rotated to within ± 7.2 48-ft Signal structure.5° from the back side of the signal light.e. 5.2 should exhibit galloping. none of these configurations was tested in the field. According to tow tank test results. From these tests. the signal light configuration that produced galloping with the largest amplitude displacements of the free end of the cantilever arm was Configuration 5. because of the negative slope of the Cpy versus angle of attack curve. Hence.2. The tow tank and field tests were in complete agreement for these three configurations. All field tests that involved galloping essentially followed the same procedure.5° of the five-minute mean wind direction under several wind speeds. this configuration was used in all subsequent tests on the 48-ft signal structure. The signal structure arm was rotated so the wind direction was normal to the cantilever arm within ±7.curve over a wide range of attack angles.

After adjusting the signal structure to the most favorable wind direction. Ideally. after a few minutes the galloping resumed and regained its original steady state amplitude. the signal light is suspended below the signal arm and has a back plate. the structure would achieve a state of steady galloping through the following sequence of events: The free end of the cantilever arm was held steady by means of a thin wire. if wind direction held steady. The wire was slowly released to allow the signal structure to vibrate at will. With significant change in wind direction. A change in wind speed resulted in a change in displacement amplitude. The signal structure was set up to gallop as described above. Suddenly the displacement amplitude was reduced and did not regain the original displacement amplitude. The vibration took place at a frequency very near the fundamental frequency of the sign structure. After a period of time. Initially. The wire was then unhooked. However. vibrations would continue to increase in amplitude until some limiting value was achieved. the following experiment was conducted. the displacement amplitude reached a steady state and clear evidence of galloping. small displacements normal to the wind flow took place. the tension in the wire caused significant damping of the vibrations. because the driving force associated with galloping was so small. The wire to the displacement transducer was carefully hooked to the free end of the arm without stopping the vibration. The wire had no more than a two-pounds tension. 64 . Wind flow is from the back side of the signal light. If the wind speed and direction held steady. the vibration amplitudes would decrease and galloping would cease. To demonstrate the problem with tension from the displacement transducer. A change in wind speed or wind direction would alter the vibration characteristics. The signal structure was allowed to continue vibrating. displacements of the free end of the cantilever arm would have been measured with the displacement transducer.In Configuration 5. Gradually the amplitudes of vibration increased.

. The strain gage readings proved to be reliable and accurate. is eliminated by addition of the plate 65 . The positive aerodynamic damping of a flat plate increases the effective damping of the signal structure. These included a damping plate (wing) attached to the cantilever arm.e. The negative aerodynamic damping of Configuration-5. which has positive aerodynamic damping (Shiraishi. speed and structure characteristics. and it is described below. All subsequent tests relied on the strain gage readings either in the arm or the vertical pole to derive the displacement.5. Configuration-5 with a wing over it) has a positive * aerodynamic damping (given by negative Hi in Figure 4. it was concluded that the displacement transducer could not be used for measuring displacements during galloping. 1971). This negative aerodynamic damping decreases the effective damping of the structure and leads to large amplitude galloping vibrations.From these experiments.1 Damping plate (Wing) Signal lights fixed as Configuration-5 (see Figure 4. as discussed above. A flat plate used for this purpose of vibration mitigation is called a "Damping Plate" or a "Wing.8). 5.2)have negative aerodynamic damping (given by positive Hi in Figure 4. Several mitigation measures were tested in the field to reduce the amplitude of the vibration. such that the new configuration (i. These vibrations can be mitigated by installing a flat plate. tuned mass dampers." A wing can be used in two different ways to mitigate the vibration: (1) A wing can be installed above the signal light in Configuration-5. 5.5 Mitigation measures Galloping has been identified as the mechanism for large amplitude displacements in traffic signal structures under certain conditions of wind direction.8). The damping plate was by far the most effective mitigation measure. and water slosh damper.

A larger wing 16 in. One must calculate the negative aerodynamic force caused by the signal lights and then determine the size of the wing needed to compensate this force. Equation 5.5. x 66 in.1) The left-hand side of the Equation 5. The typical installation consists of a plate 9 in. This method of vibration mitigation is called the "Elimination method".1 is the aerodynamic damping force.1 gives the aerodynamic damping force per unit length in the direction parallel to the arm.2 Size and location of wing The important parameters in the magnitude of the damping force that a wing causes in order to mitigate the vibrations are its size and its location on the arm. in size mounted on a section of the bare arm away from the signal light (compensation method).4 may be rewritten in the following form: 4m(Co-aR)) = Hi(R)pB2 (5. The reason is that the a much larger plate is required to obtain the positive aerodynamic damping force. Various damping plate configurations have been used by TxDOT maintenance personnel to mitigate wind-induced vibrations with marginal success. was used in the field testing. This method is effective only if the negative aerodynamic force caused by the signal lights is compensated by the positive aerodynamic damping force caused by the wing. Moreover. B. hereafter called Proposed wing. Equation 4. 66 . because some signal structures continue to vibrate after a wing is attached.over the lights. The proposed wing was mounted above the 5-signal light (elimination method). a wing can be used elsewhere on the cantilever arm (away from the signal lights). This method of vibration mitigation is called the "Compensation method". which is shown from the right-hand side to be proportional to the square of the wing dimension in the direction of the wind. 5. x 36 in.. This configuration is not very effective in mitigating vibrations. (2) In the second method.

(TxDOT wing) = 66 in.3. The reason for selecting that particular size is that it is a standard blank road sign stock used by the Texas Department of Transportation and is readily available for the implementation. B = width of the wing = 9 in.To relate the aerodynamic damping to the dimensions of the wing. By substituting the sizes of two different wings.17. The above equation suggests that the aerodynamic damping force due to the wing is proportional to the square of the width and directly proportional to the length of the wing.5. by locating the wing over the signal light near the tip of the arm. and (2) the wing which has a positive aerodynamic damping by itself generates higher damping force due to higher vibration velocities near the tip of the arm. A 16 in. 5. (TxDOT wing) = 16 in. X 66 in. FAD = the aerodynamic damping force due to the wing. In addition to increasing the size. the effectiveness of the wing can be increased. long plate was mounted above the traffic lights in Configuration 5 (see Figure 4. as shown in Figure 5. Higher effectiveness is due to two factors: (1) the signal light head which originally had negative aerodynamic damping will have positive aerodynamic damping with the plate installed above it.2). the Proposed wing (at the same location as TxDOT wing) generates 5 to 6 times more damping force than the TxDOT wing. wide and 66 in. (Proposed wing). 67 . size. but not the 16 in. a simplified relation can be written as follows: FAD a (B^ L) (5. L = length of the wing = 36 in. The above discussion addresses the reason for using a larger wing.2) where. Proposed wing An experiment was designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of a large damping plate. (Proposed wing).

18. plots of 5-minute mean wind direction. respectively. These are essentially time-histories of the three parameters. Initially. 5.20. Wind Direction Figure 5. which is the root mean square of the fluctuating strain component for each five-minute record.Wing |^B = 16in 3 1 3 in.18 Wind direction plot The RMS of strain. 5-minute mean wind speed and.19 and 5. After validation of the data. 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Run Number Figure 5. the signal arm was rotated to be normal to the 5-minute mean wind direction. is a measure of strain fluctuation about a 68 . the damping plate was mounted on the structure. The wind was essentially from the south (180) so the signal arm was rotated 270 and pointed toward the west.17 Proposed wing On a day when the wind speed was between 10-15 mph. A continuous set of records was obtained consisting of 217 5-minute records. 5-minute RMS of strain on the vertical pole of the 48-ft signal structure were made as shown in Figures 5.

as shown by the relatively small values of RMS during that time period (see Figure 5. from Figure 5. Thereafter. galloping diminished as observed in Figure 5. Even when the wind direction was favorable for galloping. so it was no longer normal to the back side of the signal structure. The large wing is essential for effective mitigation of the vibration. separation between the damping plate and top of the backing plate. Galloping is not expected below record 27 and above record 91 because the wind direction was not favorable. By record 91 the wind direction had shifted more than 7.5° of due south (180°). the plate was quickly removed from the signal structure. Thus. The signal structure would not be expected to gallop unless the wind direction was within ±7.20 indicate a very strong galloping from record 75 to 91.20. The experiment clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of the large damping plate. RMS values in Figure 5. These were the records of data collected when the wing was attached. little or no galloping was indicated for records 27 to 75. the plate should be mounted above the signal light with at least a 3-in.5°. To be most effective.20).18 galloping was expected from record 27 to 91 when the wind direction was favorable for galloping. A large RMS value implies large fluctuations (displacements) of the signal structure. Expect Galbping G & 20 J | Without Wing With Wing 100 120 140 200 220 240 Run Number Figure 5.zero mean.19 Wind speed plot At about record 73. 69 .

70 .20 RMS of strain plot The large damping plate was clearly the most effective method for mitigating vibration due to galloping.I r~ on C -<—> 80 :l 60 - Expect Galloping I "H With Wing Without Wing 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Run Number Figure 5. (2) Materials are readily available and easy to install by highway department maintenance personnel. (3) The wing is not a significant distraction to motorists. for this mitigation method to be effective one needs to calculate the negative aerodynamic damping force caused by the signal lights and find out what size of the plate at a given location on the arm can produce the required positive aerodynamic damping force. Obviously. one is trying to compensate for the negative aerodynamic damping of the signal lights instead of eliminating it. The wing can be used elsewhere on the arm other than over the signal lights. Except that by doing so. The advantages of this mitigation strategy are: (1) It is a relatively easy fix. requiring no knowledge of the dynamic characteristics of the existing structure. When galloping is observed in an existing signal structure. a large damping plate (wing) can be installed over the signal light to effectively reduce the vibration.

which is continuous (infinite degrees of freedom).2. laboratory experiments (Chapter 4). The equivalent single degree of freedom system concept is based on defining the dynamic response as follows: y(x.CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The large amplitude vibrations of cantilever traffic signal structures have been thoroughly studied through a literature search and a series of experiments. and full-scale field experiments (Chapter 5) are analyzed in this chapter. and field site to address the objectives of this research.1 Eouivalent Single Degree of Freedom Model The response of a signal structure (see Figure 6. However this problem can be simplified to an equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) model as shown in Figure 6.t) = y*(t)x|/(x) (6. wind tunnel. The discussions and calculations in this chapter are limited to the 48-ft structure.1 Analvsis of results Results from finite element analyses (Chapter 3). namely : (1) to identify the conditions required for large amplitude vibrations in cantilevered traffic signal light structures. The experiments were conducted using the Texas Tech tow tank.1).1. is a function of both space and time. 6. (2) to understand the mechanism that produces the large amplitude vibrations. and (3) to develop strategies to mitigate vibrations in cantilevered traffic signal structures. 6.1) where 71 .

2 Equivalent SDOF model 72 .t) = dynamic response at point x on the structure at time t. the first mode response has displacement in both X and Y directions. Mode shape \\f(x) is obtained using FEM analysis and is normalized with respect to the arm tip displacement.y(x. The response in the X direction is very small.1 Mode shape corresponding to the lowest frequency for 48 ft structure As seen in Figure 6. y*(t) = displacement along the generalized coordinate (see Figure 6. y*(t) -• X Figure 6.1) \|/(x) = normalized mode shape.1. Figure 6. and is neglected in the calculations presented in the following paragraphs.

91 lb/in 191 lb/ft.75 )]/5 15.2 Calculation of structural parameters Considering only the arm movement and using the normalized mode shape from the FEM analysis and the known mass distribution along the arm.2) where M* = Generalized mass CO = Circular frequency y* (t) = Acceleration in the direction of generalized coordinate y* (t) = Velocity in the direction of generalized coordinate y*(t) = Displacement in the direction of generalized coordinate Cm = Mechanical damping ratio (measured at zero wind speed) P*(t) = Generalized dynamic force.1.2 can be written as follows: M * [y* (t) + 2CmC0y* (t) -f.37)-H(80/5)+(90/5. K* = [(50/3.14)+(60/3. The generalized stiffness K* of the 48-ft structure was determined from field measurements using the average load at the tip of the arm to produce a deflection of one inch (see Table 5.The dynamic equilibrium equation for the equivalent single degree of freedom model shown in Figure 6. 73 . the generalized mass of the 48 ft structure was calculated to be 8.co^ y* (t)] = P * (t) (6. 6.76)-f-(70/4.42 slugs (Clough and Penzien. 1980).1).

6.Knowing the fundamental frequency f of the 48 ft structure with signal lights installed (see Table 5.5) 0 74 .51 slugs/sec = 16. 0. The generalized mechanical damping Cm for the 48 ft structure with the signal lights is calculated using the field measured damping ratio ^^n = 0.2) K* —9-^ = 8.4) = 2 X 8.t)\|/(x)dx (6.39 1b.74 = 0.83 X 0.2) and the generalized stiffness K*.1.83 slugs M^ which closely matches with the analytical result of 8.3 Aerodynamic force and effective damping coefficient The generalized force P* is the aerodynamic force which causes the vibrations: P*(t)= JP(x.74 Hz (field measured frequency.0062 x 2 x 71 x 0.2.3) 1 K 27C VM* So. the generalized mass M* of the structure can be calculated as follows: co=27rf = (6. (see Table 5.2) as follows: Cm =2M*Cm(27rf) (6.42 slugs. sec/ft. The difference in the masses can be explained by the fact that discretized finite element models are stiffer than actual structures. which also explains the difference in the measured and calculated frequencies in Table 5. see Table 5.62%.

The same mathematical model can be used for traffic signal structure vibrations by considering only the contribution from vertical displacement.. Neglecting the contribution from the arm alone. i. 11 c m mWintg n KXXXX Figure 6. the distributed aerodynamic force on the structure can be assumed to act only at the location of the signal lights.^ ^ . the final equation can be written as follows: P(x. P(x.t) is the aerodynamic force distributed along the cantilever arm length of L and \|/(x)is the normalized mode shape.3). and at the location of the wing (see Figure 6. Mx)y* (t) + LB(x.t) for bridge decks with two degrees of freedom. ^ H .6) . After simplifications (neglecting terms for torsional rotation).t) where P Air density B Along wind dimension of wing 75 (6.3 Aerodynamic force Simiu and Scanlan (1986) discussed a mathematical model to compute this force P(x.2). vertical displacement and torsional rotation of the bridge deck.where P(x. The 48-ft traffic signal structure arm that was tested had two traffic signal lights: (1) a 5-light signal at the tip of the arm and (2) a 3-light signal at a point 12 ft from the tip of the arm (see Figure 5.t) .t) = .e.

(6.6 in Equation 6.CO = Circular frequency of the structure \|/(x) = Normalized mode shape = Flutter derivative obtained from wind tunnel experiments (see Figure 4. the term within the brackets is an aerodynamic damping coefficient Ca: Ca=--^^H.. If the net damping coefficient is called effective damping coefficient Ce. 6.. (6.t)v(x)dx.9.(t) (6.4. LB(x.12) In the above equation the damping coefficient is the sum of the mechanical damping coefficient of the structure Cm and the aerodynamic damping coefficient Ca. 0 (6.7 becomes P*(t)=-Cay*(t)+LB(t). Substituting Equation 6.8) If the second term in Equation 6.W'(x)dx 2 y*(t) + jLB(x.t)\|/(x)dx 0 (6.jxi/2(x)dx.10) Substituting Equations 6.„y*(t) + K*y*(t)]=-C.+Cjy*(t) + K*y*(t)l = LB(t).y*(t)+L. 6. 6.8) * H| y * (t) = Velocity of equivalent SDOF system (Arm tip velocity).12 can be written as: 76 . 2 0 (6.9) then Equation 6. Equation 6.10.5: P*(t) = P^'^H.2 M*y*(t) + C.11) which can also be written as: M * r ( t ) + (C. and 6.7 is written as: LB(t)=jLB(x.7) 0 In the above equation.3 in Equation 6.t) = Buffeting force due to turbulence.8.

. the structure starts vibrating by itself. the effective damping decreases (i.13) Ce = Cm + Ca. The attached wing increases the effective damping of the structure. and stiffness) were calculated from results of the field experiments and FEM analyses. With this reduced damping. a small disturbance will lead to prolonged vibrations of the structure. The effective damping ratio in terms of percent critical damping is calculated using Equation 6. The aerodynamic damping coefficient Ca is calculated using the flutter derivatives Hj (see Equation 6. Ca < 0).^100 (6. It is of interest to calculate the 77 . which are obtained from the windtunnel experiments.1..1 4) where The effective damping ratio ^^ in terms of percent critical damping is given by: Ce = .M * y* (t) + Ce y* (t) + K * y* (t) = LB(t) (6. From the full-scale field experiments.e.e. (6..8). the effective damping coefficient is calculated using Equation 6. Ce < 0). The vibrations were significantly mitigated when a wing was attached (see Figure 5.4 Calculation of effective damping for different cases In the above paragraphs. it was found that Configuration-5 (see Figure 4.20) above the 5-light signal at the tip of the arm. mechanical damping.e." 6. which is "self excitation. Ce < Cm). Knowing the mechanical and aerodynamic damping coefficients.14.15.2) exhibited galloping vibrations when there was no wing attached. If this reduction in the effective damping reaches a point where the effective damping becomes negative (i. all the structural parameters (mass.15) 2 M CO When a structure has negative aerodynamic damping (i.

H] values were obtained from the wind-tunnel experiments. Effective damping ratios ^e were plotted against wind speeds in Figure 6.increase in the effective damping after the wing is attached. B. theoretical values of Hj for an airfoil of the same size as the proposed wing was used. Lights same as in Case A and the proposed wing attached above the 5-signal light. B. 1940) was readily available and experiments conducted by Shiraishi (1971) suggested that H[ for a flat plate is close to that of an airfoil. In the field experiments. wide and 66 in.5. Effective damping coefficients Ce were calculated and plotted with respect to the wind speeds for the above five cases in Figure 6. It is also desirable to know the effectiveness of the proposed wing attached at other locations away from the signal lights. E. D. Airfoil data (Theodersen. C. Lights same as in Case A and the proposed wing with rounded edges located above the 5-signal light. In Case D (wing attached to the arm between the 78 . For Cases A.6. To address these questions the effective damping coefficients at different wind speeds and different wing locations were calculated for the following five cases: A. A 5-signal light at the arm tip. and C. and a 3-signal light at a point 12 ft from the tip of the arm with no wing. A wing can also be effective at other locations. Lights same as in Case A and the proposed wing attached to the tip of the arm. long) was attached above the 5-light signal to change this shape into an aerodynamically stable shape. provided it generates enough positive aerodynamic damping to compensate for the negative aerodynamic force caused by the signal lights. For cases D and E. the proposed wing (16 in. Lights same as in Case A and the proposed wing attached halfway between the lights.

Case D Cases B & C Case E I I ^X X X A > >^AA/ 12 ft.e. because the gap between the wing and the arm is large enough for the wing to act independently. (2) wind-tunnel experiments were conducted in two-dimensional flow conditions. the interference of the arm was neglected. Except for the difference in the onset wind speed for galloping..lights). whereas the field experiments were conducted in the turbulent wind. effective damping for the signal structure with no wing attached (Case A) is 79 . and (3) there could be small differences between the one-quarter model used in the wind tunnel experiments and the complex shape of the signal lights. the same configuration vibrates at wind speeds above 10 mph (see Figure 5. whereas in the field conditions the wind flow is three dimensional. However.4 Three locations of the wing considered From Figure 6. — H Figure 6. the calculated effective damping coefficient Ce becomes negative for Case A (structure vibrates) for wind speeds greater than 20 mph. the wind tunnel results explain the observations made in the field experiments i. in the field experiments. This difference in the calculated and observed wind speeds for the onset of galloping can be attributed to several factors: (1) the flutter derivatives (Hj) were obtained in the wind tunnel in smooth flow.19).5.

0/ CO c C\J 13 C/) CO CVJ 0) > • ^ CO SI CL E eff CX3 C d") 0 ed. C/) •D c OJ 0 o: c CL E CO •D CD .CO CO in in rr 1^ in CO CO O J C\J 1 - o in o in t - (UPeS 'Ql) ®0 'luepji^eoQ BuidoiBQ eAipe^j^ 80 IT) CO 0) 13 . tvj 0 CD Q.m (O CC O CD (n CC O I M O Lli 0) (0 CC o CO CC (O CC O O O f I CN CO \ 00 CO seB cy Case <D CO O^ Case O CO cu O i •o CD 0) CL CO C\J CC-.> O CD •+— LU CO CO / CVJ Ti 1 • o in o ir> o in o o in o in h.

mph 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 \ Q) 28 \ 3se B ai Q Cas Cas( y —ri— cq'«.j-cvjcvjoocO"^cvj cvi cvi cvj T-" -r-^ T.6 Effecltive d amp ng ratio v ersus wind spe Q .I-' \ cn CO Tf CVJ o CD CD C> C> 2 \i1 0 \ 4 6 \> CVJ Tf o p (BuidoiBQ iBoiiuQ %) ®5 'oiJBu BuidiuBQ eAiJoejB 81 Figure 6.a> m 0) CO CO CO CO O O o LJJ o CD CO CO CD CO CO CC CO O O O I ^I I i CVJ 5f 3 ^ \ CO O \ < aY 0 o 1 30 CD CD Wind Speed.

instead of attaching them to the arm). wing and signal lights can be made 82 . D. Hence. The wing used in the experiments was an aluminum plate. Case B and C eliminate the force causing the vibrations. and B. in order.5). C. if the manufacturers of signal lights make wings that attach directly to the signal lights (i. but the results are valid even if it is made of some other equally strong material as long as it is of same size and shape. It may be more practical. which suggests that Cases B. whereas Case D and E compensate the force causing the vibrations with positive aerodynamic damping. Also. signal lights without wing attached above them will contribute to negative aerodynamic damping force.. In this way. C.5. at wind speeds higher than 20 mph. the wind tunnel results explain the aerodynamic behavior of the various cases discussed above. Wings can be attached to other lights on the arm. Case B or Case C are recommended as a vibration mitigation strategy. which in turn depends on the mode shape of vibration. number of signal lights and their location. to further increase the effective damping.negative (aerodynamically unstable) and the effective damping for signal structure with a wing attached over the 5-light signal at the tip of the arm (Case B) remains positive (aerodynamically stable) for all wind speeds (see Figure 6. In Case D and E. The reasons are: 1. and E are aerodynamically stable and do not exhibit galloping vibrations. Case-E has the highest effective damping followed by Cases C. or E) is the best vibration mitigation strategy? In Figure 6. 2. The question arises which of these four cases (B. by using a wing with rounded edges one can obtain even higher damping. D.e. Except for Case A (at wind speeds higher than 20 mph) all the other cases have positive effective damping. D. Although Case E exhibits highest effective damping. A wing was used only above the 5-light signal light at the tip of the arm in the field experiments.

A flat-plate wing with rounded edges was found to be a better alternative to a flat-plate wing from the wind-tunnel experiments. These conditions were first identified from the tow tank experiments.2). Large amplitude vibrations occur when the wind blows from the backside of the signal lights with a backplate attached (see Configuration 5 in Figure 4.compatible in terms of connections. which is caused by aerodynamic instability. The signal structures exhibit the galloping phenomenon when the Den Hartog criterion is satisfied based on quasi-steady theory or when negative-damping criterion is satisfied based upon aeroelastic theory. The use of a wing eliminates the building up of the high amplitudes in the first place. The vibration amplitudes increase with increase in wind speed until the amplitudes reach a limiting value due to possible non-linearity in the system. the overall structural damping (effective damping) reduces until it becomes negative. The shape of the wing can be further optimized to give higher (positive) aerodynamic damping through additional wind tunnel testing. 6. A strategy of using a wing (damping plate) mounted above the signal lights was tested in the field experiments and found to be an effective means of vibration mitigation. After the onset of galloping.2 Conclusions The signal structures were observed to be vibrating under a narrow set of conditions. by 83 . Also. for ease of installation and removal. The mechanism that produces the large amplitude vibrations can be explained as follows: At low wind speeds vortex shedding or gustiness in the wind initiates small amplitude vibrations. This phenomenon was explained with aeroelastic tests done on a wind-tunnel model of the signal light. leading to self-excited motion with large amplitudes. These large amplitude vibrations are due to the galloping phenomenon. lighter and cheaper materials like plastics can be used instead of aluminum plates. The vibration amplitudes diminish if the wind direction changes or the wind speed reduces.

i.„V .tlB . 84 _:.increasing the aerodynamic damping as demonstrated by the wind tunnel experiments.

98... E. Vol. M. pp. pp. pp.. G. Novak." Journal of Fluid Mechanics. New York. McGraw-Hill.. J. Vol.. J. P. New York. 297-321. and Pulipaka. 27-46. Austin.. 27-47. and Heinecke. Baird. D. TX. No. W. and Obasaju. W. 115-142. J.. New York.. Cincotta. 119." Journal of the Engineering Mechanical Division. a report submitted to Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). K. Vol. NASA Technical Report 300. 109. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Vol. Vol. 1982: "An Experimental Study of Pressure Fluctuations on Fixed and Oscillating Square-Section Cylinders. 1955: "Wind-Induced Vibrations of a Pipe-line Suspension Bridge and Its Cure." Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division.. W. R. W. Blevins. 1969: Aerodynamic Forces on a Stationary and Oscillating Circular Cylinder at High Reynolds Numbers.. 77. Novak. Novak. Tanska. W. 1074-1076.... New York." Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division. 51. 1969: "Aeroelastic Galloping of Prismatic Bodies.. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. pp. Den Hartog." Transactions. R. E. Vol.. ASCE. J. P. EMI. pp.REFERENCES Achenbach. 100. EM1. R.. 1977: Flow Induced Vibration. pp. and H. 239-251. Oler. C . 1972: "Galloping Oscillations of Prismatic Structures. Luminaires. R. Bearman. 6. 4th Ed. Mehta. No. ASCE. 1981: "On Vortex Shedding from Smooth and Rough Cylinders in the Range of Reynolds Numbers 6 x 10^ to 5 x 10^. P. C . M. 85 . 1980: Dynamics of Structures." Transactions. McDonald. ASCE. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. J." Journal of Fluid Mechanics. and Walker. Clough. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Den Hartog. Houston. 1974: "Effect of Turbulence on Galloping Instability. and Penzien. 1932: "Transmission Line Vibration Due to Sleet. E. 1956: Mechanical Vibrations. D. Jones. J. J. R. M. No. 1995: Wind Load Effects on Signs. 95. New York. NY. N. Vol. and Traffic Signal Structures. AIEE. Texas.

A." Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. G. V. Journal of Applied Mechanics." Transactions ASME. Vol. Sarkar. A. H i i V ••-#. N. Second Ed. and Scanlan.»• . Scruton. 907...851.. C . 123.D. D. Towers and Masts. 8. Baltimore. John Wiley and Sons. 444-445." Journal of the Engineering Mechanical Division. Simiu.) Shiraishi. pp. Roshko. 1961: "On the Aeroelastic Instability of Bluff Cylinders. 84. P." Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1957: A Means for Avoiding Wind-Excited Oscillations of Structures of Circular or Nearly Circular Cross-Section.Obasaju. Maryland. 1981: "Some Considerations of Combined Effects of Galloping and Vortex Resonance.. D. pp. NY." Transactions ASME. pp. dissertation submitted to The Johns Hopkins University. 1983: "Forced-Vibration Study of the Aeroelastic Instability of a Square-Section Cylinder Near Vortex Resonance.. pp. Price. 1956: "Suppression of the Fluid-Induced Vibration of Circular Cylinders. D. E. Japan. P. A. unpublished report NPL/Aero/335. 1986: Wind Effects on Structures. and Smith. 1971: "An investigation on Aerodynamic Response of Plate-Like Structures in Fluctuating Gusts. 12.. pp. 252-258.. J. 379-398.. 1962: "An Aeroelastic Oscillator with Two Stable Limit Cycles. G.. P. 86 / • . Vol. H.1030. 82." Journal of Wind Engineering. Ph. and Brooks. Vol. Journal of Applied Mechanics. Parkinson. Vol. 1982: "Strouhal Numbers of Rectangular Cylinders." Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures. J. 1955: "Experiments on the Flow Past a Circular Cylinder at Very High Reynolds Number. and Walshe.. N. E. Vol. G. E. 345-356.. C. 313-327. 135-143. and Wawzonek. pp. V. Scruton. Britain National Physical Laboratory. 83 . P. Vol. H. (Also: British Patent No. pp. V.. 10." Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1992: New Identification Methods Applied to the Response of Flexible Bridges to Wind. Vol. New York.. Parkinson. M. Tokyo. 1963: On the Wind-Excited Oscillations of Stacks. Parkinson. R. Okajima. Paper 16.

1992: "Aspect Ratio and End Plate Effects on Vortex Shedding from a Circular Cylinder. Vol. 234. 191-217. 1940: NACA Report 685. Theodorsen.0.Szepessy. 1993: Stardyne. Walshe. pp. L. Woodgate. 1-24. S. M. California 91311. TxDOT. Version 4. D.." Proceedings. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation." Journal of Fluid Mechanics. Texas. 1970: "Preventing Wind-Induced Oscillations of Structures. 47. W. Austin. P. Unpublished Report NPLyAero/381.. Vol.. and Maybrey. Charsworth. Titan Corporation. and Wootton. 87 . pp.. E. 1990: Traffic Control Standard Sheets. T. and Bearman. F. L R. J. Institute of Civil Engineers. 1959: Further Experiments on the Use of Helical Strakes for Avoiding Wind-Excited Oscillations of Structures of Circular or Nearly Circular Section.