TR2-26 and TR2-11 Testing for MassDOT~1.pdf
PDF 7 MB Posted
- Attached to
- MassDOT Due Diligence Posting Traffic Dampers
- Solicitation number
- BD-26-1030-CPO1-CPO1-130294
- Issued by
- Worcester County, Massachusetts
About this file
This is a technical data and testing document for Valmont Industries' TR2 vibration dampers submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in support of a procurement opportunity for traffic dampers. MassDOT seeks to procure two TR1 Mitigators and six TR2 Mitigators as part of the FHWA Technology Transfer program and a project titled "Performance Evaluation of Dampers for Traffic Signal and Sign Structures." The TR2 dampers are vibration mitigation devices engineered to reduce wind-induced galloping vibrations in cantilever sign structures, with models TR2-26 configured for high-frequency applications (1.73 to 3.03 Hz) and TR2-11 for low-frequency applications (1.03 to 1.68 Hz). The procurement solicitation deadline is 3:00 PM on June 18, 2026, with responses submitted through the COMMBUYS online procurement platform. Valmont Industries submitted the intended quote with a lead time of 4 to 6 weeks from order release.
Valmont Industries has quoted $25,000 for the complete order, comprising two TR1 units at $2,000 each and six TR2 units at $3,500 each, with freight to MassDOT District 3 Headquarters in Worcester, Massachusetts included. Pricing is firm for 30 days and payment terms are NET 30 upon approved credit. Testing data presented in the document demonstrates that the dual-damping technology (combining eddy current and pneumatic mechanisms) achieves response reductions ranging from 39 to 99 percent depending on frequency configuration and dynamic weight, with each TR2 unit weighing approximately 50 pounds. Endurance testing on the TR2 dampers indicates TR2-11 has reached 7.60 million cycles and TR2-26 has reached 2.86 million cycles as of the testing date. Responding vendors must submit qualifications and documentation demonstrating comparable or superior offerings, with all submissions required to comply with Commonwealth requirements including digital accessibility provisions and prompt payment discount forms.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
© 2020 Valmont® Industries, Inc.
Test Dates:
HF Arm Free Vibration: 10/09/2025
HF Arm with TR2-26 & TR2-11: 02/23/2026
LF Arm Free Vibration: 03/24/2026
LF Arm with TR2-26 & TR2-11: 03/24/2026
Mitigator
TR2-26 & TR2-11
Technical Data and Testing
Carl J. Macchietto, P.E.
Valmont’s Mitigator TR2 Vibration Damper:
The TR2 vibration mitigation device is engineered to reduce the amplitude of wind-induced galloping vibrations in cantilever sign structures. The patented system is based on the same proven vibration control principles utilized in Valmont's TR1 traffic signal mast arm damper, which has been successfully deployed on installations throughout the United States for more than a decade.
The TR2 device is specifically designed for larger cantilever sign structures exhibiting higher natural frequencies and provides effective vibration mitigation over a frequency range of 1.3 Hz to 3.5 Hz. By reducing cyclic stress amplitudes associated with wind-induced oscillations, the TR2 damper enhances structural fatigue performance and extends the service life of the structure.
TR2 Damper Technology (Eddy Current + Pneumatic)
Patented
Technology
The Valmont TR2 Vibration Damper has both eddy current damping and pneumatic damping resulting in a reduction of mast arm movement generally over 90% in most situations.
Eddy Current:
• Eddy currents are circular electric currents induced within conductors by the movement of a magnet next to the conductive material.
• These circular currents are opposite the direction of movement creating a resistance and thus damping.
Pneumatic:
• Pneumatic Damping occurs as steel weight translates up and down within a sealed chamber.
• The exchange of air from the upper air chamber to the lower air chamber creates this resistance.
TR2 – SIGN STRUCTURE
DAMPER
TR2 – ENDURANCE TESTS
Mitigator TR2 Endurance Tests:
TR2-11 Currently at 7.60M Cycles (still in process)
TR2-26 Currently at 2.86M Cycles (still in process)
TR2 – DAMPING
PERFORMANCE TESTS
Mitigator TR2 Damping Performance Test Set-up:
Typical Test Set-up
Mitigator Free Vibration Test Set-up:
TR2 Mounting Clamp
C-Clamps
Accelerometer
Weight Plates
TR2 Ballast Wt.
Weight Mounting
Clamp
Mitigator TR2 Damping Performance Test Set-up:
TR2 Damper
TR2 Mounting Clamp
C-Clamps
Accelerometer
Weight Plates
Weight Mounting Clamp
TR2-26
PERFORMANCE
DAMPING TESTS
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Configuration A: 3.03 Hz, dynamic weight 299 lbs., increased damping from 0.07% to 5.7% [99% response reduction] – R = 81
Free Vibration vs. TR2-26
Comparing Test 1A & 10A
Configuration B: 2.47 Hz, dynamic weight 452 lbs., increased damping from 0.07% to 10.3% [99% response reduction] – R = 147
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Comparing Test 2B & 9B
Configuration C: 2.13 Hz, dynamic weight 605 lbs., increased damping from 0.10% to 4.5% [98% response reduction] – R = 45
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Comparing Test 3C & 8C
Configuration D: 1.90 Hz, dynamic weight 758 lbs., increased damping from 0.13% to 2.3% [94% response reduction] – R = 18
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Comparing Test 4D & 7D
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Configuration E: 1.73 Hz, dynamic weight 911 lbs., increased damping from 0.15% to 1.4% [89% response reduction] – R = 9
Comparing Test 5E & 6E
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Configuration A: 1.68 Hz, dynamic weight 367 lbs., increased damping from 0.13% to 1.7% [92% response reduction] – R = 13
Comparing Test 16A & 26A
Configuration B: 1.41 Hz, dynamic weight 520 lbs., increased damping from 0.18% to 0.9% [79% response reduction] – R = 4.8
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Comparing Test 17B & 27B
Configuration C: 1.23 Hz, dynamic weight 673 lbs., increased damping from 0.21% to 0.6% [63% response reduction] – R = 2.7
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Comparing Test 18C & 28C
Configuration D: 1.12 Hz, dynamic weight 826 lbs., increased damping from 0.22% to 0.42% [48% response reduction] – R = 1.9
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Comparing Test 19D & 29D
Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Configuration E: 1.03 Hz, dynamic weight 979 lbs., increased damping from 0.22% to 0.36% [39% response reduction] – R = 1.6
Comparing Test 20E & 20E
TR2-11
PERFORMANCE
DAMPING TESTS
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Configuration A: 3.03 Hz, dynamic weight 299 lbs., increased damping from 0.07% to 3.3% [98% response reduction] – R = 47
Free Vibration vs. TR2-11
Comparing Test 1A & 11A
Configuration B: 2.47 Hz, dynamic weight 452 lbs., increased damping from 0.07% to 2.94% [98% response reduction] – R = 42
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Comparing Test 2B & 12B
Configuration C: 2.13 Hz, dynamic weight 605 lbs., increased damping from 0.10% to 3.2% [97% response reduction] – R = 32
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Comparing Test 3C & 13C
Configuration D: 1.90 Hz, dynamic weight 758 lbs., increased damping from 0.13% to 3.8% [97% response reduction] – R = 29
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Comparing Test 4D & 14D
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm
Configuration E: 1.73 Hz, dynamic weight 911 lbs., increased damping from 0.15% to 4.5% [97% response reduction] – R = 30
Comparing Test 5E & 15E
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Configuration A: 1.67 Hz, dynamic weight 367 lbs., increased damping from 0.13% to 15.5% [99% response reduction] – R = 119
Comparing Test 16A & 25A
Configuration B: 1.41 Hz, dynamic weight 520 lbs., increased damping from 0.18% to 5.6% [97% response reduction] – R = 31
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Comparing Test 17B & 24B
Configuration C: 1.23 Hz, dynamic weight 673 lbs., increased damping from 0.24% to 2.6% [92% response reduction] – R = 12
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Comparing Test 18C & 23C
Configuration D: 1.12 Hz, dynamic weight 826 lbs., increased damping from 0.22% to 1.5% [85% response reduction] – R = 6.7
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Comparing Test 19D & 22D
Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm
Configuration E: 1.03 Hz, dynamic weight 979 lbs., increased damping from 0.22% to 1.0% [78% response reduction] – R = 4.5
Comparing Test 20E & 21E
98% response reduction (6%)
90% response reduction (1.2%)
95% response reduction (2.4%)
Calculated performance for the Valley Test Structure with frequency varied by adding weight.
Actual test data shown as red (HF Arm) & blue (LF Arm) / squares (TR2-11) & circles (TR2-26)
Mitigator TR2 Damper Test Results
TR2-11 – square
TR2-26 – circle
A numerical model of the TR2 dampers is developed to predict damping performance – the results are validated with the measured actual test conducted at Valley
HF Arm – Red
LF Arm – Blue
Mitigator TR Damper Test Results Performance Damping Curves from Valley Tests
90% response reduction (2%)
80% response reduction (1%)
Estimated performance for cantilevered sign structures with a dynamic weight of 1,500 lbs. (blue), 2,500 lbs. (red) and 3,500 lbs. (black) with a single TR2 (% damping increased from 0.2% inherent damping) showing a range to achieve 80% (R-Factor of 3.0) response reduction for the 3,500 lbs. structures from 1.9 Hz to 2.8 Hz.
Sign Structure Weight
Blue – 1500 lbs.
Red – 2500 lbs.
Black – 3500 lbs.
THANK YOU
| Default |
| Slide 1 |
| Slide 2: Valmont’s Mitigator TR2 Vibration Damper: |
| Slide 3: TR2 Damper Technology (Eddy Current + Pneumatic) |
| Slide 4: TR2 – Sign Structure Damper |
| Slide 5: TR2 – Endurance Tests |
| Slide 6: Mitigator TR2 Endurance Tests: |
| Slide 7: TR2 – Damping Performance tests |
| Slide 8: Mitigator TR2 Damping Performance Test Set-up: Typical Test Set-up |
| Slide 9: Mitigator Free Vibration Test Set-up: Typical Test Set-up |
| Slide 10: Mitigator TR2 Damping Performance Test Set-up: Typical Test Set-up |
| Slide 11: TR2-26 Performance Damping Tests |
| Slide 12: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 13: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 14: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 15: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 16: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 17: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 18: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 19: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 20: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 21: Mitigator TR2-26 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 22: TR2-11 Performance Damping Tests |
| Slide 23: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 24: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 25: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 26: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 27: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on HF Arm |
| Slide 28: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 29: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 30: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 31: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 32: Mitigator TR2-11 Damper Test Results on LF Arm |
| Slide 33: Mitigator TR2 Damper Test Results |
| Slide 34: Mitigator TR Damper Test Results Performance Damping Curves from Valley Tests |
| Slide 35: Thank You |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .