Bridge aeroelastic analysis in frequency domain

Le Thai Hoa1), Nguyen Dong Anh2)

Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi 606-8501, Japan. Email: thle@bwku.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp 2) Department of Vibrations and Structures, Institute of Mechanics, Academy of Natural Science and Technology 264 Doican St., Badinh Dist., Hanoi, Vietnam. Email: ndanh@mi01.ac.vn
1)

Abstract: After total collapse of Tacoma Narrow bridge in USA, 1940 due to the aeroelastic instability, the aerodynamic and aeroelastic phenomena has been focused on bridge structures. Especially, the aeroelastic instability (famed for the flutter) is the most concerned for flexible long-span bridges, because of a reason of structural catastrophe. This paper will review on the bridge aeroelastics and the analytical methods for aeroelastic instability solutions. The state-of-the-art analytical methods, including single-mode, two-mode and multi-mode aeroelastic analyses will be presented with numerical example and some investigations.

1. Introduction Many large-span bridges have been successfully built around over the world in only last two decades of the 20th century. Further bridges are hinged on super long span and more slender structure as the main tendency of research and development of bridge engineering in the few coming decades. The longer, the more slender structures, however, also face with many difficulties, especially in the dynamic, seismic and aerodynamic behaviors. It is widely agreed that the long-span bridges are very prone to the aerodynamic effects and the wind-induced vibrations. The collapse of Tacoma Narrow bridge in USA, 1940 (see Fig.-1) always reminded as the aware lesson about the important role of the aerodynamic effects on long-span bridges. Among the aerodynamic effects, such phenomena are initiated from the wind-structure interactions that induce the dynamic instability sub-classified into the aeroelastic phenomena (also known as aeroelastic instability or aeroelastics). In the branch of bridge aeroelastics, the flutter instability is usually required the much more concern, especially for long-span, slender and flexible bridges due to its potential risks for structural catastrophe.

Fig.-1. Extreme-amplitude vibration and collapse of Tacoma Narrow bridge in USA, 1940 This paper presents the literature reviews on the bridge aerodynamics and aeroelastics, moreover, the state-of-the-art analytical methods for the aeroelastic analysis in frequency domain and model space also are focused on. Numerical example with some further investigations is carried out in a case of cable-stayed bridge.

2. Literature review on aeroelastic instability and analytical methods Previous works of the aerodynamics and aeroelastics were first applied for the aeronautical field, since after the accidence of the Tacoma Narrow bridge in 1940, they had focused on the bridge structures. The bridge aerodynamics can be commonly classified into two groups: limited-amplitude and divergent-amplitude wind-induced vibrations (Simiu, 1978). The former comprises the vortexinduced vibrations, buffeting and wake-induced vibrations which affect to dynamic fatigue and serviceable discomfort, whereas the later consists of flutter and galloping which can deduce to structural instability. Response amplitude of the bridge aerodynamics corresponding to wind velocity ranges is expressed in Fig-2 (Le, 2003). Generating mechanism of the bridge aerodynamic phenomena much concerns: i) simultaneous modification of approaching flow and around-body flow by decks geometry and movement, wind characteristics itself and ii) local distribution of pressure fluctuation at leading edge region of deck surface (Matsumoto, 2003). The bridge aeroelasticity imply for the flutter instability. It trends to be most concern on flexible long-span bridges at high wind velocity in which the aeroelastic interaction between wind and structure generates the so-called self-excited aeroelastic forces. The aeroelastic instability, however, occurs relating to negative damping mechanism due to combination between structural damping and aerodynamic one. Traditionally, two types of the flutter instability have been classified basing on characteristics of bridges modal participation at instability state. Torsional flutter is case that only torsional mode participate dominantly to such critical state, whereas coupled flutter occurs when two torsional and heaving modes simultaneously involve in. For example, the torsional flutter was observed in the failure of Tacoma Narrow bridge, and coupled flutter experienced in the aeroelastic instability of airplanes airfoil wing. Various experiments and numerical analyses (Matsumoto, 1996; Katsuchi, 1999), moreover, showed that the torsional flutter seems to occur at long-span bridges with bluff deck sections such as rectangular, H-shape or stiffened truss sections, whereas streamlined sections are favorable for the coupled flutter. Surprisingly, the Akashi-Kakyo bridge (the world longest bridge now) exhibited with the coupled flutter that this has been never experienced before with stiffened truss sections (Katsuchi, 1998). In the practical view, aeroelastic instability analysis purposes on finding out a critical wind velocity at which instability condition occurs. Generally, it can be obtained either from analytical, experimental or simulation approaches (see Fig.-3). The experimental method is based on the free vibration tests of 2D sectional models in the wind tunnel. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technique that is almost based on the discrete vortex simulation (DVS), large eddy simulation (LES), or Reynold average numerical simulation (RANS) has gained much development so far to become usefully supplemental tool beside the analytical and experimental methods, however, it still has many limitations to cope with complexity of bridge sections and nature of 3D bridge structures(Larsen, 1997). At beginning works of analytical approach, models of the self-excited forces and solutions of 2DOF systems aeroelastic instability problem had been focused. Theodorsen(1935), Kussner(1936) developed potential theory of airfoil aerodynamics by given circulation functions to build the self-

excited forces, however, such Theodorsens model was limited applications for only airfoil, thin-plate sections. Scanlan(1971) introduced building up the self-excited forces from experimental approach by invented aerodynamic derivatives, this Scanlans model has widely exploited so far for the aeroelastic instability problem of 2D sectional systems and 3D full-bridge structures due to its applications to various types of bridge sections.
Response Amplitude Vortex-induced Response Buffeting Response Flutter and Galloping Instabilities Analytical methods Empirical formula 2DOF solutions Random forces in turbulent wind Resonant peak Self-excited forces in smooth or turbulent winds Bridge aeroelastic analysis Sectional models nDOF solutions Full-scale bridges Reduced velocity U re = U nB Experimental method Limited-amplitude response Low and medium wind velocity range Divergent-amplitude response High wind velocity range Simulation method Computational fluid dynamics Selbergs; Kloppels Complex eigenvalue method Step-by-step method Single-mode method Two-mode method Multi-mode method Free vibration method

Karman-induced Lock-in Response Response Forced forces Self-excited forces

Fig-2. Response amplitude vs. wind velocity

Fig.-3. Branches of bridge aeroelastic analysis

The analytical solutions for the 2DOF aeroelastic instability included a complex eigenvalue method (Simui, 1978) and a step-by-step method (Matsumoto, 1996). Empirical formula, moreover, have introduced by Bleich(1956), Selberg(1963), Kloppel and Thiele (1967). For analytical methods of the bridge aeroelastic instability (as nDOF system problems), the state-of-the-art developments have been broadly based on frequency-domain analyses and generalized transformation in modal space using the finite element method (FEM). It significantly found that only certain mode or some coupled modes involved dominantly at critical state of aerelastic instability. Scanlan (1990); Pleif (1995) introduced single-mode aeroelastic analysis that is suitable to the torsional flutter analysis in which only one dominant mode participated, whereas two-mode analytical method developed to treat with the coupled flutter (Jones, 2003). Le (2003) modified such formulations of the single-mode and two-mode aeroelastic analyses to take more involvement of auto-modal, cross-modal interactions. Some studies (Katsuchi, 1999), however, suggested that in the coupled flutter of some investigation cases, not only fundamental torsional and heaving modes were involved at the critical state, but many modes might superpose to create more-risked critical state. In the comprehensive approach, when many modes might be taken into participation in the critical state, multi-mode aeroelastic analysis has been developed to deal with such cases (Katsuchi, 1999; Ge, 2002). Recently, coupling between self-excited aeroelastic forces and randomly wind-induced forces (known as buffeting forces) has been taken into account at medium, high velocity range in the turbulent wind (Katsuchi, 1999; Jones, 2003), however, participation of the buffeting forces does not influence on the critical condition of the aeroelastic instability. In another development, moreover, an analytical framework of the bridge aeroelastic analysis presented in the time-domain formulations thanks to using indicial function and rational function approximation (Chen, 2000; Aas-Jakobsen, 2001). This new approach is promising for the further applications, because its possibility to treat with geometrical and aerodynamic nonlinearities.

4. Self-excited aeroelastic forces and aerodynamic derivatives 4.1. Uniformly self-excited forces Self-excited aeroelastic forces are dependant on deflection components (vertical: h, lateral: p and rotation: ) and their first-, second-order derivatives. Because air density is much smaller than that of structural materials, thus aeroelastic inertia forces almost have been omitted. Accordingly, the selfexcited aeroelastic lift, drag and moment in unit length of bridge deck can be expressed (Scanlan, 1971): & & 1 2 * h * B * * h L U B KH (1a) = ( + KH 2 + K 2H3 + K 2H4 ) L 1 se M U U 2 B U h D & & B p 1 * p (1b) Dse = U 2 B( KP + KP2* + K 2 P3* + K 2 P4* ) 1 p U U B 2 B & & h 1 * B * * h M se = U 2 B 2 ( KA1* + KA2 + K 2 A3 + K 2 A4 ) (1c) U U B 2 where B: deck width; , U : air density and mean wind velocity; H i* ( K ), Pi* ( K ), Ai* ( K ) (i=14): aerodynamic derivatives associated with self-excited lift, drag and moment, respectively; K: nondimensional reduced frequency K = B / U .
se se se

4.2. Nodal-lumped self-excited forces Uniformly self-excited forces are linearly lumped at bridge deck nodes (see Fig.-4), expressed as: & } + [ P ]{U } (2) {Pse (t )} = [ P1 ]{U 2 & } : deflection where [ P ], [ P ] : damping and elastic aeroelastic force matrices, respectively; {U }, {U
1 2

vector and its first-order derivative vector which can be expressed as nodal six components in element & p & } = {0 h & 0 0}T . & (3) coordinates: {U } = {0 h p 0 0}T and {U

1/2.M.L

1/2.M.L

Fig.-4. Nodal linear-lumped self-excited forces From eqs.(1a), (1b), (1c) and linearly-lumped forces (2), nodal deflection components (3), the nodal damping and elastic aeroelastic force matrices [P1], [P2] can be obtained: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H* 0 BH * * * 1 2 0 0 H 4 0 0 BH3 0 0 * * * 0 0 P4* BP 0 0 0 0 BP 1 2 K 0 0 P 1 1 2 3 2 2 [P1] = U B L [ ] P U K L = ; 2 (4) * * * 2 * 0 B2A 0 0 4 4 U 0 BA 1 2 BA4 0 0 B A3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.3. Aerodynamic derivatives As usual, the aerodynamic derivatives are commonly obtained by experimental-based measurements, concretely, as forced vibration tests from i) indirect measurements of unsteady surface pressure and phase difference (Scanlan, 1971), or ii) direct measurements of aeroelastic forces on sectional model (Matsumoto, 1997). Furthermore, some approaches for determination of the aerodynamic derivatives are mentioned as free vibration tests using system identification technique (Iwamoto, 1995), CFD simulation (Larsen, 1999), or quasi-steady formulations (Scanlan, 1989; Pleif, 1995).

Fig.-5. Aerodynamic derivatives of fundamental rectangular sections (Matsumoto,1996) * * From eqs.1ac, only few velocity-related derivatives H1* , P 1 , A2 play very important role in the aeroelastic instability due to their contributions on the systems damping mechanism. Interrelation among the aerodynamic derivatives, furthermore, has been found from means of experimental measurements (Matsumoto, 1996), but still has not yet proved consistently from theoretical aspect. * * * * * * H3 2 H1* / K ; H 2 2 H 4 / K ; A3 2 A1* / K ; A2 2 A4 /K (5)
5. Analytical methods for aeroelastic instability 5.1. General formulations The motion equation of bridge structure (N degree-of-freedom system) solely subjected to the selfexcited aeroelastic forces can be expressed in means of FEM as: &&} + [C ]{U & } + [ K ]{U } = {P (t )} [ M ]{U (6) se where [ M ], [C ], [ K ] : structures mass, damping, stiffness matrices, respectively; {Pse (t )} : self-excited & }, {U &&} : deflection vector and its first-, second-order derivatives, respectively. force vector; {U }, {U & } + [ P ]{U } The self-excited force vector can be explicitly expanded as follow: {P (t )} = [ P ]{U
se 1 2

Thus, the motion equation (6) is rewritten as follows: &&} + [C * ]{U & } + [ K * ]{U } = 0 [ M ]{U
* *

(7)

where [C ] = [C ] [ P1 ] , [ K ] = [ K ] [ P2 ] : aeroelastic systems damping and stiffness force matrices. 5.2. Transforming into generalized coordinates and modal space, stability critical condition

The motion equation is transformed into the generalized coordinates and the modal space: {U } = []{ } (8) where { } : deflection vector in the generalized coordinates; [ ] : mass-normalized eigenvector matrix. Using the mass-matrix-based normalization technique, we transform eq.(7) into the standard form: &&} + [C * ]{ &} + [ K * ]{ } = 0 [ I ]{ (9)

where [C ] = [ ]T [C * ][ ] , [ K ] = [ ]T [ K * ][ ] : aeroelastic systems generalized damping force and generalized stiffness matrices, respectively; [ I ] = [ ]T [ M ][ ] : unit-normalized matrix. Then, finding a solution of eq.(9) under such the form: { } = []e t (10)
Expanding eq.(9) using eq.(10), the quadratic eigenvalue problem can be obtained: Det (2 [ I ] + [C ] + [ K ]) = 0
* * * *

(11)

where : eigenvalues solved from 2N-order polynomial equation of eq.(11). Because the matrices [C ], [ K ] are no longer symmetrical as the structures original matrices [C ], [ K ] , thus the eigenvalues, eigenvectors are exhibited by the N pairs of complex conjugates as follows: {i } = {i } j{i } ; {i } = { pi } j{qi } ; i = 1 N generalized coordinates: { } = {i }e it
i =1 N

(12)

Generalized response amplitude can be expressed by superposing of modal responses in the

(13)

where N : number of combined modes to global response ( N N ). Thus, global response amplitude of bridge in the generalized coordinates can be rewritten hereby:

{ } = e i t [({ pi } + {qi }) sin i t + ({qi } { pi }) cos i t ]

i =1

(14)

Global response of bridge structure in the original coordinates follows: {U } = e it {i }[ ({ p i } + {qi }) sin i t + ({qi } { pi }) cos i t ]
i =1 N

(15)

From eq.(15), if a negative real part of complex eigenvalue ( i ) of any mode exists, then system is induced to the aeroelastic instability due to divergent response amplitude. It is also known as content of the Liapunovs Theorem in the motion instability. Thus, the critical condition of aeroelastic instability is traced at which real part of complex eigenvalue of any mode become zero. 5.3. Multi-mode aeroelastic analysis in state-space Solution for the quadratic eigenvalue problem given by eq.(11) is complicated. For practical applications, eq.(9) can be transformed into the state space to be the standard eigenvalue problem: && [I ] [0] & {0} [0] [I ] (16) = [I ] C * & + [0] K * { } 0 { }

{} [ ] {}

{}

Finding solution under form: { } = []e t

 [I ] [0] { &} [ ] &&} [0] [I ] [ ] t t { * , , [A]= [ ] , e B = = * = e [I ] C & [ ] 0 K & [ [ ] ] { } { } T We have: [A]{ [ ] [ ]} = [B ]{ [ ] [ ]}T [B] {Z } = [A] {Z } ; in which {Z }= { [] []}T

[ ]

(17)

Expanding from eq.(17), we have: [A]1 [B] {Z } = {Z }

[D ] {Z } = {Z }

C * K * in which [D ] = [ I ] [ ] 0

(18)

The standard eigenvalue problem in eq.(18) can be solved by some computational techniques such as Jacobi diagonalization, QL or QR transformation, subspace iteration and others. Above-mentioned approach in the state space is known as the multi-mode aeroelastic analysis in which many modes can be combined (Ge, 2002). Because the bridge aeroelastic instability occurs favorably at certain torsional mode or certain coupled torsional-heaving modes, some simpler approaches can be applied for tracing the critical condition. Thus, the single-mode and two-mode aeroelastic analyses have been developed. 5.4. Single-mode aeroelastic analysis The general motion equation can be expressed in the modal space in different way: &&} + [C ]{ &} + [ K ]{ } = []T [ P ][]{ &} + []T [ P ][]{ } [ I ]{ 1 2
T
T T

(19)

where [ I ] = [ ] [ M ][ ] ; [C ] = [] [C ][] ; [ K ] = [] [ K ][] ; [I], [C ] , [ K ] : mass-normalized unit, damping and stiffness matrices, respectively. Single degree-of-freedom motion equation of ith mode in the generalized coordinates can be written: 2 && + 2 & (20) i i i i + i i = p i (t ) T & } + { }T [P ]{ }{ } (21) where pi(t):ith-mode generalized self-excited force: p (t ) = { } [P ]{ }{
i i 1 i i i 2 i i

where Grm sn (r , s = h, p, ; m, n = i, j ) : modal summations; Grm sn = lk (r ,k ) m (s ,k ) n (23) k =1 ) N : number of discrete deck nodes; lk : discrete deck length; (k ) : modal value at kth node
Omitting cross-modal summations Grm sn (rs), only auto-modal ones Grm sn (r=s) remain

Expanding eq.(21) with aeroelastic force matrices [P1],[P2] given in eq.(4), pi(t) can be obtained: 1 BK * * * * * 2 * & [ H1 Ghi hi BH 2 pi (t ) = U 2 Ghi i + P 1 G p i p i + BP 2 G p i hi BA 1 G i hi + B A2 G i i ] i 2 U 1 * * * * + U 2 K 2 [ H 4 Ghihi BH 3 Ghii + P4*G pi pi + BP3*G pii + BA4 Gihi + B 2 A3 Gii ] i (22) 2 )
N

1 BK * & + 1 U 2 K 2 [ H *G + P *G + B 2 A*G ] (24) pi (t ) = U 2 [ H1*Ghi hi + P1*G pi pi + B 2 A2 Gii ] i pi pi i 4 hi hi 4 3 i i 2 U 2 From eq.(20) and eq.(24), ith-mode aeroelastic motion equation can be obtained as follows:

&& + [2 U 2 ( H *G + P *G + B 2 A*G )] & + [ 2 U 2 K 2 [ H *G + P *G + B 2 A*G )] = 0 1 hh 1 2 4 hh 4 3 i i i pp i i pp i

i i i i i i i i i i

1 i i 2 && + 2 i & + i = 0 i i i i
2

1 2

(25) Ki = B i U

(26a) 2 B 2 * * (26b) [ H1 ( K i )Ghi hi + P1* ( K i )G pi pi + B 2 A2 ( K i )Gii ] i i i 4 i Eq.(25) is solved iteratively with incremental value of wind velocity, in which the aerodynamic derivatives are determined from the aeroelastic frequency ( i ). The critical condition of the aerelastic instability is traced out when aeroelastic systems damping ratio becomes zero ( i = 0) . 5.5. Two-mode aeroelastic analysis Similar to eq.(20), eq.(22), dual motion equations of ith and jth modes with coupled self-excited aerelastic forces can be expressed: &&} + 2 { &} + 2 i , j { } = { i, j i, j i, j i, j i, j

where i i2 /[1 +

* * (H 4 ( K i )Ghi hi + P4* ( K i ) + B 2 A3 ( K i )Gii )] ;

1 BK * * &} U 2 [ H 1*Ghi , j hi , j BH 2 Ghi , j i , j + P1*G pi , j pi , j + BP2*G pi , j hi , j BA1*G i , j hi , j + B 2 A2 G i , j i , j ]{ i, j 2 U 1 * * * * + U 2 K 2 [ H 4 Ghi , j hi , j BH 3 Ghi , ji , j + P4*G pi , j pi , j + BP3*G pi , ji , j + BA4 Gi , j hi , j + B 2 A3 Gi , ji , j ]{ }i , j (27) 2 Solution for dual motion equations (27) can be carried out by similar procedure for solution of 2DOD system that was presented in Scanlan, 1978; Le, 2003. As a result, solution of eq.(27) has been expanded to solve two equations (containing only such parameters as velocity, frequency, aerodynamic derivatives, modal integral sums). Solutions of eq.(28a), eq.(28b) are found simultaneously, then solution curves plotted and intersections of these curves determine the critical condition: (28a) Aii A jj Bii B jj A ji Aij + B ji Bij = 0
Aii B jj + Bii A jj A ji Bij B ji Aij = 0
2 2 * 4 * 3 * 4 * 3 * 4 2 * 3 * * * * Aij = 1 / 2( B 2 )[ H 4 Ghi h j BH 3 Ghi j + P4*G pi p j + BP3*G pi j + BA4 G i h j + B 2 A3 G i j ] ; * * Bii = 2 i (i / F ) 1 / 2( B 2 )[ H 1*Ghi hi BH 2 Ghii + P1*G pi pi + BP2*G pi hi BA1*Gi hi + B 2 A2 Gii ] ; * * * * 2 * Bij = 1 / 2( B 2 )[ H1*Ghi h j BH 2 Ghi j + P 1 G p i p j + BP 2 G p i h j BA 1 G i h j + B A2 G i j ] ;

(28b)

where Aii = (i / F ) 1 1 / 2( B )[ H Ghi hi BH Ghi i + P G pi pi + BP G pi i + BA G i hi + B A G i i ] ;

A jj , A ji , B jj , B ji are deduced in the same manner

(29)

6. Numerical example and discussion A concrete cable-stayed bridge was taken for demonstration and investigations. Spans were arranged by 40.4+97+40.5=178m. Three dimensional full-bridge model was built using the finite element method (FEM)s frame and truss elements. Material properties were: i) girder and tower: E =3600000T/m2, G =1384600T/m2, =0.3; ii) cable stays: E = 19500000T/m2. Sectional geometrical parameters were: i) girder A =6.525 m2, I33 =0.11 m4, I22 =114.32 m4, J=0.44m4; ii) tower A =1.14 m2,

I33=0.257 m4, I22 =0.118 m4;J=0.223m4 and A =1.14 m2, I33=0.257 m4, I22 =0.118 m4;J =0.223m4; iii) cable stays: A =26.355 cm2 (group 1), A =16.69 cm2 (group 2). First ten modes of free vibration were analyzed, modal characteristics and mode shapes are given in Tab.-1 and Fig.-6. Normalized modal values of first five mode shapes (3 heaving and 2 torsional modes) that were used for calculation of the modal summations presented in Fig.-7, in which totally 30 nodes along deck length taken into account.
Tab.-1. Modal characteristics of first 10 modes
Mode index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Eigenvalue Frequency Period (s) 1.639579 1.247406 1.172893 0.836876 0.773318 0.689849 0.613324 0.594049 S-V-1 A-V-2 S-T-1 A-T-2 S-V-3 A-V-4 S-V-5 A-V-6 Note

Mode 1

Mode 2

2
1.47E+01 2.54E+01 2.87E+01 5.64E+01 6.60E+01 8.30E+01 9.88E+01 1.05E+02 1.12E+02

(Hz) 0.609913 0.801663 0.852593 1.194920 1.293130 1.449593 1.581915 1.630459 1.683362

Mode 3

Mode 4

0.632145 S-T-P-3

Mode 5

Mode 6

10 1.36E+02 S: Symmetric mode ,A: Asymmetric mode

1.857597 0.538300 S-V-7 V: Heaving mode shape T: Torsional mode shape P: Horizontal mode shape
Heaving mode shapes Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 5

Fig.-6. 3D mode shapes of first 6 modes

Torsional mode sahpes
0.015

0.1

Mode 3 Mode 4
0.01

0.05

Norm alized m odal values

Norm alized m odal values

0.005

-0.05

-0.005

-0.01
-0.1

-0.015
Note: Nodes 8, 23 at towers -0.15

Note: Nodes 8, 23 at towers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Deck nodes

-0.02

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Deck nodes

Fig.-7. Normalized modal values of 5 first modes: heaving modes (left) and torsional modes (right)
20 15 10 H*i (i=1,2,3) 5 Reduced velocit y Ure=U/fB 0 1 -5 -10 -15 -20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H*1 H*2 H*3

3.5 3 2.5 A*1 A*2 A*3

A*i (i=1,2,3)

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 -0.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reduced velocity Ure=U/fB 8 9 10 11 12 13

Fig.-8. Aerodynamic derivatives H i* , Ai* (i=1,2,3)

* * , A4 , Pi * ) were determined using the Main aerodynamic derivatives of bridge section (omitting H 4 quasi-steady formulations given by Scanlan(1989); Pleif(1995), basing on reduced velocity U re = U / fB = 2 / K , shown in Fig.-8. Structural damping values were assumed to be 0.5% for all modes. Fig-9 and Fig-10 express the aeroelastic damping values and frequencies depending on the wind velocities, associated with first five modes.
Damping-velocity diagram 1.2 1.5 1.4 1 1.3 Aeroelasic frequency (Hz) 0.8 Aeroelastic damping ratio Mode 1 0.6 Mode 2 0.4 Mode 5 0.2 Mode 4 0
critical condition U=64.5m/s

Frequency-velocity diagram

Mode 5 Mode 4
Aeroelastic interaction

1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8

Mode 3

Aeroelastic interaction

critical condition U=88.5m/s

Mode 2 0.7 Mode 1 0.6 0.5 10

Mode 3

-0.2 10

20

30

40 50 60 Wind velocity (m/s)

70

80

90

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Wind velocity (m/s)

Fig.-9. Aeroelastic damping vs. wind velocity Fig.-10. Aeroelastic frequency vs. wind velocity As can be seen from Fig.-9 that with an increase of wind velocity, aeroelastic damping of the torsional modes (modes 3&4) reduces to respectively intersect axis at certain velocities of 64.5m/s and 88.5m/s of which determine the critical conditions of aeroelastic instabilities, whereas that of the heaving modes (modes 1,2&5) grows up. These mean that aeroelastic damping forces supplement energy to the torsional modes, but suppress energy of the heaving modes. Aeroelastic instability in this example, furthermore, is identified as the torsional flutter. Aeroelastic frequencies of torsional modes reduce at certain velocities, whereas those of heaving modes almost stay a constant (see Fig.-10). This can be explained that aeroelastic stiffness forces are favorable to interact with torsional-mode-based forces, not heaving-mode-based ones.
0.1 0.015 0.01 0.05 0.005

M odal resp onse

M odal resp onse

-0.005 Mode3 Mode3 Mode3 Mode3 Mode4 Mode4 Mode4 Mode4 - initial at 50m/s at 70m/s at 90m/s - initial at 50m/s at 70m/s at 90m/s

-0.05

-0.1

Mode1 Mode1 Mode1 Mode1 Mode2 Mode2 Mode2 Mode2

at at at at at at at at

0m/s 50m/s 70m/s 90m/s 0m/s 50m/s 70m/s 90m/s Modes 1&2 - Decay

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02 Modes 3&4 Divergence

-0.15

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

-0.025

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Deck nodes

Deck nodes

Fig.-11. Modal responses of heaving modes (left) and torsional modes (right) Modal responses of heaving modes (1&2) and torsional modes (3&4) at different velocities (U=0;50;70;90m/s) and time interval of 2 seconds are investigated, shown in Fig.-11. Modal responses of the heaving modes seem to quickly decay no respect to increase of velocity, whereas those of the

torsional modes diverge at certain wind velocities. Mode 3 starts divergently from investigated velocity of 70m/s, and mode 4 from 90m/s.

7. Conclusion The theory and example presented in this study highlight the bridge aeroelastic instability and its applicable analytical methods. Iterative procedure with velocity increment seems to be a must in the aeroelastic analysis in the frequency domain. The example shows that torsional-mode-based instability (or torsional-branch instability) plays very important role that is associated with modal characteristics and aerodynamic derivatives, relating to torsional modes and aeroelastic damping forces. Acknowledgements
The first author would acknowledge Prof. Masaru Matsumoto, Ass.Prof. Hiromichi Shirato, Dr. Tomomi Yagi of the Bridge and Wind Engineering Laboratory, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University for their numerous helps during his fulfillment of this work.

Reference
Agar, T.J.A., (1991). Dynamic instability of suspension bridges. Computers and Structures, 41, 1321-1328. Bisplinghoff, R.L. (1996). Principles of aeroelasticity. John-Wiley and sons. Chen, X., Matsumoto, M., Kareem, A., (2000). Time-domain flutter and buffeting response analysis of bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 126, 1, 7-16. Davenport, A.G., (1962). Buffeting of a suspension bridge by storm winds. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE. Ge, Y.J., Tanaka, H., (2000). Aerodynamics flutter analysis of cable-supported bridges by multi-mode and fullmode approaches. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 86, 123-153. Iwamoto, M., Fujino, Y., (1995). Identification of flutter derivatives of bridge deck from free vibration data. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 54-55, 55-63 Jones, N.P., Raggett, J.D., Ozkan, E., (2003). Prediction of cable-supported bridge response to wind: coupled flutter assessment during retrofit. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91, 12-15, 1445-1464 Katsuchi, H., Jones, N.P., Scanlan, R.H., Akiyama, H., (1998). Multi-mode flutter and buffeting analysis of the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77-78, 431-441. Matsumoto, M., (1996). Aerodynamic damping of prisms. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 59, 159-175. Matsumoto, M., Shirato, H., Yagi, T., Shijo, R., Eguchi, A., Tamaki, H., (2003). Effects of aerodynamic interferences between heaving and torsional vibration of bridge decks: the case of Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91, 1547-1557 Larsen, A., Walther, J.H., (1997). Aeroelastic analysis of bridge girder sections based on discrete vortex simulation. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67-68, 253-265 Le., T.H., (2003). Flutter aerodynamic stability analysis and some aerodynamic control approaches of cablestayed bridges (in Vietnamese). Masters thesis at Vietnam National University of Hanoi. Pleif, M.S., Batista, R.C., (1995). Aerodynamic stability analysis of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, l. 121, No. 12. Simiu, E., Scanlan, R.H., (1978). Wind effects on structures. 1st edition, John-Wiley and Sons. Scanlan, R.H., Tomko, J.J., (1971). Airfoil and bridge deck flutter derivatives. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE. 97, 6. Scanlan, R.H., Jones, N.P., (1990). Aeroelastic analysis of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 113, 4. Theodorsen, T, Garrick, I.E., (1940). Mechanism of flutter: a theoretical and experimental investigation of the flutter problem. Report NACA TR 685.