WIND – INDUCED VERTICAL OSCILLATIONS AND VIBRATIONS OF SPAN WIRE

SUPPORTED TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Signal Safe’s (SS) research, analysis and testing is not to understand every detail of span wire
signalization but to understand and identify certain actions and processes that are always
followed by a certain set of negative behaviors – each occurring during high wind events.

To the best of our knowledge, Signal Safe is the only entity that has ever addressed preserving
existing span wire signalization to better survive during hurricane wind events. Over 5 years of
research, field interviews, testing and in-depth structural analysis has been performed to this
effort.

In October 2007, FDOT placed the SS device on its Approved Products List stating that it had
been evaluated, tested and approved for “existing” two-point span wire installations. The use
stated in the SS application was “the reinforcement of traffic signalization on span wire
installations.”

A 2007 UF/FDOT study [1] defined most of the known areas of structural failures in the existing
dual cable support system. As a result of these studies, it was determined that for new
installations a single point span wire system, by shedding the wind load, should result in
increased survivability of traffic signals during high wind events such as hurricanes.

Similar to most problems that have varying dynamics, especially wind related, structural failures
of span wire signalization are not limited to one specific reason or solution.

SS has determined that during high wind events traffic signals and their hardware do not always
experience structural failures as is simulated by the prior arts limited testing ability. Instead,
signalization during hurricane events experience violent and reciprocating wind forces that result
in immense stresses that are repetitive and are rapidly transferred throughout the signalization.
Additionally, the subsequent velocities and forces may be greater than the wind force of the
initial impact, and that the different parts of the signal assembly are subject to different
acceleration due to rotation and movement of the signal after the initial impact.

Field interviews and review of the post-storm photos of damaged signalization not only
confirmed the areas of failure as indicated in the UF/FDOT study, but also revealed additional
areas of failures and probable reasoning as to why.

As an example, the UF/FDOT study points out that “failures occur in the hanger or the quick
disconnect box near the connection to the messenger cable”. Post storm photos and research
reveal that the failure stated almost always occurred at the top of the rigid tri-stud hanger acting
as a fulcrum allowing the extension hanger above to break by repeated bending from wind force
and gravity loads. This specific, one area of structural failure can be greatly reduced by the signal
being able to rotate in the direction of the wind force; however historical data, analysis and
testing leads to the conclusion that other dynamics also play major roles in the hurricane
survivability of span wire signalization.

Townsend 12/2010
Currently the study of aerodynamic responses of suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges and
cantilevered traffic signal mast arms has been on the increase. The purpose of this research has
been to understand and try to determine why these structures are susceptible to wind-induced
forces that may and sometimes ultimately lead to structural failures. Determination as to
preventing or lessening the stresses by including retrofits to improve aerodynamics and dampers
to dissipate harmful loads, has also been a common goal of these studies.

Aerodynamic responses in general are typically classified into four different types: Vortex
shedding, galloping, flutter and buffeting, all applicable to some extent to span wire
signalization.

Vortex Shedding – “… when a wind passes over a bluff body, flow separation occurs. Alternate
vortices are then formed on either surface of slender structures like bridge deck, resulting in the
formation of low pressure zones. Due to asymmetric nature of these vortices, different lift forces
develop on each side of structure. This results in a motion transverse to the flow of wind. If the
frequency of vortex shedding matches the resonance frequency of the structure, the structure will
begin to resonate and the structures’ movement becomes self sustaining. This self sustaining
movement in-turn changes the flow of wind around the structure. This alternate motion induces
fatigue stresses in the components of bridge deck which can prove fatal to the overall safety of
the bridge if neglected…” [2]

“…Galloping is different than vortex shedding but also results in large-amplitude, resonant
oscillations perpendicular to the direction of wind flow. Unlike vortex shedding, galloping
occurs on asymmetric members (i.e., those with signs, signals, or other attachments) rather than
circular members. Therefore, it is the mast arms rather than the poles that are susceptible to
galloping. Galloping has caused mast arms to move up and down with a range greater than
1m…” “…Galloping also requires uniform steady wind rather than gusty winds. However, in
contrast to vortex shedding, galloping can continue over a large range in wind velocity. The
mode of vibration for galloping is swaying of the mast arm in the vertical direction…” [3]

Flutter is a self-feeding and potentially destructive vibration where aerodynamic forces on an

object couple with the structure’s natural mode of vibration to produce rapid periodic motion.
Flutter can occur in any object within a strong fluid flow, under the conditions that a positive
feedback occurs between the structure’s natural vibration and the aerodynamic forces. That is,
the vibrational movement of the object increases an aerodynamic load, which in turn drives the
object to move further. If the energy during the period of aerodynamic excitation is larger than
the natural damping of the system, the level of vibration will increase, resulting in self-exciting
oscillation. The vibration levels can thus build up and are only limited when the aerodynamic or
mechanical damping of the object matches the energy input, which often results in large
amplitudes and can lead to rapid failure. [4]

Buffeting is defined as the unsteady loading of a structure by velocity fluctuations in the

incoming flow and is not self-induced. While vortex shedding occurs at specific frequencies and
causes amplified vibration near the natural frequencies of the structure, buffeting is a relatively
“broad-band” excitation and includes frequencies of eddies that are present in the natural wind
(usually up to 2 Hz) as well as those caused by wind-structure interaction. The dynamic

Townsend 12/2010
excitation from buffeting can be significant if the mean wind speed is high, the natural
frequencies of the structure are below 1 Hz, the wind turbulence intensity is high with a wind
turbulence that is highly correlated in space, the structural shape is aerodynamically odd with a
relatively rough surface, and the mechanical damping is low. In practice, a structure is always
subject to both vortex shedding and buffeting excitations. But unlike vortex shedding, where
amplified dynamic excitation occurs within a short range of wind speeds, buffeting loads keep
increasing with higher wind speeds. [5]

Based upon the above, and research of other coastal states’ span wire signal support
systems [6], Florida’s current dual span-wire system with the pivotal hanger assembly
(PHA) is superior to any single span wire system, of any description including any signal
system that performs as a single span wire system. The PHA is designed and engineered to
preserve existing span wire supported signals by reducing wind and subsequent shock
loads during hurricane high wind events.

 Two span wires are stronger than one, especially with distributed loads.
 Two points of pole loading in lieu of one upper pole concentrated connection perform
better than one point.
 As a damper, PHA allows recovery of wind induced oscillations transverse to the wind
direction.
 PHA reinforces areas of known failures due to wind-induced shock loads.

Hurricane protection of traffic signalization is critical to maintaining a safe and efficient roadway
system. Signal Safe, Inc.’s inception and goal was primarily grounded on life-safety issues that
require the preservation of traffic signals. The traveling public understands this issue and the
need for a solution.

References:
1. 2007 – Development of Hurricane Resistant Cable Supported Traffic Signals
2. Patil – Mitigation of Vortex Induces Response in Long Span Bridges
3. 2005 FHWA publication – Guidelines for the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Structural
Supports for highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals
4. Wikipedia
5.Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University – Final Report November 2007 –
Development of Fatigue Procedures for Slender, Tapered Support Structures for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals Subjected to Wind-Induced Excitation from Vortex-Shedding and Buffeting
6. Townsend – Historical Data Study of Traffic Signalization in the Most Hurricane Prone Regions of the United
States

Townsend 12/2010