Aerodynamic stability of a

beam in steady flow

H. Pagi~ and M. Bazdulj
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Sarajevo, 71000 Sarajevo,
Yugoslavia
(Received July 1991, revised version accepted October 1991)
The galloping response of a cantilever Euler-Bernoulli beam of an
arbitrary cross-section in a steady flow is investigated. A simple closed
form analytical solution and stability criteria as well as the numerical
results are presented. The boundary value problem, describing
mutually coupled screw bending and torsion, is analytically approximately solved by the Boobnov - Galerkin method. The resulting initial
value problem is then solved by the Krylov-Bogoliuboff asymptotic
technique at the critical angle flow in accordance with Den Hartog's
criterion. For a particular beam with a right-angle cross-section, for
which aerodynamic properties and its dynamic response were
experimentally determined elsewhere, the results compare
favourably. The analysis of the right-angle section response shows
that the overall influence of the cross-sectional shear centre eccentricity may play an important role in substantially diminishing the
critical flow velocity threshold value and therefore should not be
disregarded.
Keywords:

galloping, vibrations, beam, flow, cantilever, stability

Flow-induced vibrations are an interesting area in the

theory of oscillations and engineering practice. Severe
vibrations have been observed in objects such as tall and
slender structures (TV and cooling towers, buildings,
chimneys, etc.), suspended bridges, electric power lines
subjected to the wind; then there is the flutter of turbine
blades and aircraft wings, etc. From the point of view of
the excitation mechanism involved, two basic types
exist t'2 firstly vortex-induced, and secondly galloping
vibrations. Their combination is also possible, but in such
a case vortex-induced vibrations can usually be disregarded in comparison with the much more severe galloping vibrations, characterized, as the word says, by high
and slowly changing amplitudes and low frequencies.
Vortex-induced vibrations occur when the flow-vortex
shedding frequency is close or equal to one of the natural
frequencies of an elastically suspended or supported
object. Fortunately, this usually happens at low flow
velocities and therefore the resulting forces are too weak
to excite the object in the corresponding natural mode.
But if the flow velocity is increased, the two frequencies
no longer match and the resonance is avoided.
But galloping vibrations do not exist at all at small
flow-velocities, only after a certain critical velocity is
reached and passed do they start to grow sharply, since
the force exerted by the flow grows with the velocity
obeying the well known parabolic law.
The galloping vibrations of a cantilever Euler

0141-0296/93/020090-07
:c 1993 Butterworth-HeinemannLtd
90

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 2

Bernoulli beam in steady flow are studied in this paper.

The boundary value problem, describing bending and
torsion, is covered by three mutually coupled partial
differential equations. They are approximately solved by
the Boobnov-Galerkin method 3 assuming the first mode
domination. The Krylov-Bogoliuboff metho& is then
used to solve the resulting nonconservative, nonlinear
and autonomous system of ordinary differential equations and to develop the corresponding stability criteria
and diagrams at the most critical conditions, defined by
the Den Hartog criterion 5. Finally, a specific example is
solved and the results compare favourably with the
numerical solution.
A similar galloping model was at first used to study
the possibilities for the reconstruction of the 80 m tall TV
tower on the Trebevi6 mountain near the city of Sarajevo 6, whose cross-section has a symmetry axis.

Formulation
Let us consider deformations of a vertical, cylindrical
Euler-Bernoulli type beam subjected to the axial body
force q(z) and the load exerted by the horizontal steady
flow and defined by the force F[Fx(z, t), Fy(z, t)] and the
couple M(z, t) whose intensity is M, (Figure 1). Its crosssection is arbitrary and, therefore, its centroid C and the
shear centre O do not coincide, (Figure 2).

Aerodynamic stability of a beam in steady flow: H. Pa~i6 and M. Bazdulj

k

Fx(z't)

-- Xo ~

2z2

,o

q(~) d~ - Yo ~ z z

q(~) d~

-]
02
02
+ m Yo ~ ( U - yo 0 ) + x0 ~0t (v - Xo0)/
l
020
pl 0 - ~ = M

q[z

(3)

While the boundary conditions are

u(O, t) = v(O, t) = 0(0, t)

Ou(O, t)

Or(O, t)

Oz

Oz

00(0, t)
- -

8z

_ 02u(L, t) 820(L, t) _ 020(L, t) 03u(L, t)

8Z3
OZ2
OZ2
OZ2

Figure1 Cantilever beam and forces

83v(L, t) 030(L, t)
OZ3

- -OZ=3 0

(4)

where

u,v,O,(z,t)
t
E,G
I x, Iy, I o
q(z)
Y

m(z), p
xo, Yo
Jr, Jo,
A(z)

YO

linear and angular displacements

time
Young's and shear moduli, respectively
moments of inertia for x and y axes, and
polar moment (Figure 2)
unit body force (in this paper it is the unit
weight but it may equally be of some other
origin, say the inertial force, such as in
turbine blades (of course with opposite sign
with respect to that shown in Figure 1))
unit mass and density
shear centre co-ordinates (Figure 2)
torsion and warping constants 7
cross-section area

Equations (1) and (2) describe bending in the x and y

directions, while equation (3) covers the torsion. The
buckling effect, due to the beam's own weight, is included
through terms containing q(z). Closer examination of
these equations reveals their both elastic and inertial
coupling.

Figure2 Cross-section

Solution of the boundary value problem

Combining the well known bending, twisting and buckling terms, given say in Reference 7, one can derive the
following differential equations a
0
Oz 2 EIy-~z 2 + ~z 2

u(z, t) = a(t)~p(z)
q(~)d~ - q(z) ~z

021) ~"

~b(z) = 6L2z 2 - 4Lz 3 + z 4

(1)
8l)

8z2LElx-~z2z2J +-~z2z2 Jz q ( ) d - q ( Z ) ~ z
00
020 f ~
- xoq(x) ~z + x-~z2
q(Od~
02
+ ~ m(v -- xoO) = F r

(5)

where

8z
+ ff~m(u + yo O) + f x
02I)q

v(z, t) = b(t)~b(z)

O(z, t) = c(t)~(z)

00 - yo ~OzO f : q(~) d~
+ yoq(z) N

02 [-

The boundary value problem, equations (1)-(4), is solved

by the Boobnov-Galerkin method 3. Assuming first mode
domination, namely

(6)

is a so-called shape function satisfying the boundary

conditions (4), equations (5) are first substituted into
equations (1)-(3), then multiplied by equation (6) and
integrated over the domain 0 ~< z ~< L. That procedure
renders the following set of ordinary differential equations
for time dependent coefficients a, b,

gn'a + kxa = yofn~ + yohc + Fx

(2)

rhb" + kyb = xo~b~ - xohc + FB,

(7)

J? + koc = -xofnb" - xokb - yogn~ + yolka + .(4

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 2

91

Aerodynamic stability of a beam in steady flow: H. Pagi6 and M. Bazdulj

Owing to the limitations of space, a complete list of all

the remaining coefficients in equation (7) is not given
here, but it is clear that, for example

;o

m(z)t~Z(z) dz,

F~. =

Fr(z, t)qJ(z)dz

as described. Both elastic and inertial coupling in equation (7) is now seen to be better than before. The structural damping is not taken into account at this stage.

Analysis of the load

Forces exerted on the vibrating object by the oncoming
fluid may be found experimentally by using low scale
models and the so-called quasi-steady approach 2. It is
assumed that the aerodynamic force on the cross-section
in a flow at any time is identical with the force on the
same cross-section in a steady flow at the same relative
angle of attack and flow velocity. Such an approach
proves to be satisfactory since, in a rather wide range of
turbulence, the coefficients used to find the forces do not
depend on the object dimensions and the flow velocity,
i.e. they do not depend on the Reynolds number ~. The
experimental procedure consists of making a small rigid
model which is geometrically similar to the real object
and testing it in the tunnel, measuring the forces at all
angles of flow attack from 0 to 360 . Lift and drag forces
and the twisting moment induced by the flow, (Figure 3),
may be found in the well known manner as any fluid
mechanics textbook will demonstrate.
F L = lpfU2dCv(fl),

Fn = pfU2dCn(fl),

M = lpfU2d2CM(fl)
for any angle ~ of flow attack direction (Figure 4). U is
the velocity of the flow, d is any characteristic dimension
of the cross-section of the object with respect to which
the load coefficients Cv, Co, CM are measured on the
experimental model, and Pv is the fluid density.
While the model is rigid during the experiment, the
real object, however, vibrates and is attacked not by U
but by the relative flow velocity U,~j (see Figure 3) which
must also be taken fnto account.
Furthermore, according to the Den Hartog criterion 5,
the critical angle of flow attack, fl~, at which galloping
takes place is the one defined by the largest negative slope
in the Cv, fl diagram (Figure 4). Galloping takes place in
the x~ direction, which is perpendicular to the critical
flow direction Yl (see Figure 3).

Y1
FD

Figure 4

Lift coefficient versus f l o w attack angle

Hence, assuming that the object is being attacked just

at the critical angle fl~, and that it vibrates around that
position primarily in the xl direction, and taking (see
Figure 3) fi, b, R~O << U; Urel ~ U; then realizing that the
real angle of fluid flow attack on the vibrating object is
in fact ~ (Figure 3), and that for small angles ~ and 0 the
following relationships hold

tg(O+7)~O+~;

sin0~0,

cos0~l

one may include that (Figure 3)

==-o+F+

=, - c , + F +

(8)

The term RI 0 in Figure 3 and in equation (8) defines a

characteristic relative velocity for the cross-section which
approximates to the net flow field; this concept has
proved to be useful in the analysis of pure torsional
galloping.
Bearing all that in mind, in the vicinity of fl~, (Figure
4) the lifting force and the twisting moment may reasonably well be described by the third-degree polynomial

FL = PU2d(z)(go @ gl ~ @ ~2~2

g3 ~3)

(9)

- ou2d(z) Y gi ~i
0

M = l p U 2 d 2 ( z ) ( t o + t l 2 + t2~ 2 + t3 ~3)
3

= pUZdZ(z) ~ ti~'

(10)

Assuming that vibrations in the Yl direction may be

neglected in comparison with those in the xl direction,
and transforming equations (7) from the old coordinate
system, 0, x, y into the new one, 0, x,, Yl the following new set of two equations describing galloping are
obtained

ff~dl + 2~xcoxfnih + kxlal = yofn'~l + yohcl + Fx1

Jcl + 2~oCOoJbl + kolcl = --yo&al + yokal + M
(11)
In these equations structural damping has been included
through the coefficients ~x and 30 in a standard manner
well known in the theory of vibrations 9.

Solving the initial value problem

x

Figure 3

92

Lift and drag forces due to relative motion

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 2

First equations (11) are rearranged in the following

manner. The first one is solved for ~iI , the value of which
is substituted into the second equation. Then the second

Aerodynamic stability of a beam in steady flow: H. Pa~id and M. Bazdulj

equation is solved for cl and that value inserted into the

first equation. Then, the equations of motion are
3
?h + 69~al = p.i~ 1 + pcCl + r~cl + ~ OiOli

+ 02 ~

\(R;&U2 1 sin 3(be + ~ 03Ao \ U2

0
3

Cl + (02Ct = SaCtl + ScCl + raal + ~

(U 2 + R16J~) cos 2(b0 + 03 3R1694UA3

--

(12)

cos3(b0 +" T920)x AxAo [sin((bx - (be)

This transformation was necessary since otherwise it

turns out that the Krylov-Bogoliuboff method, which is
used to solve these equations, would not yield a logical
result, since the terms containing i~t, a~, ~ and cl on the
right-hand sides of equation (11) would not make any
contribution, which is not logical.
Owing to the limitation of space, a complete list of the
coefficients in equation (12) is not given here. To give an
illustration

R l (oo
+ sin((bx + (be)} + T
[cos((bo - (bx)

t i ~i

2 ky2/2
t~. = 1 + yo~n/J '
-

('Ox - -

Sc

_ _

2~ocoo .
1 + y2fn/J'

-- (be) -- cos(2(b~ + (be)] - Uao [sin(2~0 - q~x)

- sin(2(bo + (b~)] + 2Rl(ooAo
[sin(2q~o - 4~) + sin(2q~0 + 0~)]
2

- Rl(ooAo ~ [sin(2(bo - (bx) - sin(2(bo + (bx)]

1-[gV2(o'f:dO2dz+yt'f:d22dz)]2

+ Rx&x(oA.[sin(2(bx + (be) - sin(2(bx - (be)I} (16)

Oi =

1 +/o,~/~

Equations (12) represent a nonconservative, nonlinear,

autonomous system. Applying the Krylov-Bogoliuboff
method 4, we first assume the solution to be of the form

~0"1 +

~ =

f-{o

+ A~(U ~ +

al(t) = Ax(t) cos (b. + exl(A., Ao, (bx, (b0);

(b~ = 6J.(t - (bl(t))
Cl(t )

-- Cos(C0 + (bx)']} + ~34U'23&XAA{dOxA.Ecos(2(bxx

o

(13)

As(t) cos (b0 + eOl(A~, As, (b~,,(be);

(b0 = 6)(t -- qJz(t))

(14)

Recognizing that in galloping A~, As, (bx, (be are all slowly
changing functions, the following relationships hold
/h = -th.A~ sin (b. + e21;

-2 2
+ T~t2 E~xA~

R,~)]

A.6).
+T
6 r {_4U3S ~

4U2t 1

--2 2 + 2Ao2(U2 + Riots

_ 3t3[UO~xAx
2- 2 sin(bx + As

590

-- SS%

71R1
U

3t3Rl( [A2(U 2
4U 3

+ R , ~ 2) + 2&2Ax] sin (be +

Ao

{ _4U2~o~2

__ 4U2~1 _ 6t~wxA
- -2 ~2 __ 373A2(U2 + Rffoo)}
2 - 3 cos(be

el + -(ooAo sin (bo + e01

(15)
After substituting equations (13) and (14) into (12) and
equating the terms of equal powers in the small, artificially
introduced, parameter e, one ends up with the following
set of equations for the corrective terms Xl, 0t
- 2 2 + A2(U 2 + Rt~o)]
2-2}
-2 1 = { gO + ~u
g22 [09xAx
eYq + eog~x

+ raA x

cos (bx + t2

Rlffo A 2

t 2 fro2 A 2

o sin 2(be - ~

cos2(bx + t2A2tu 2 + Rl(O 2) cos2(bo +

2U 2
sin 3(bx +

373&A3 ( R2(2
4~
\ U2

1) sin

-3

3t39~A________2~
4U 3

3(b0

(R,(o3o 1) cos 3(be + --t 2 ~ A x A o

A*C* {4U3 ~ - 4Uap - 4U201

370
+ -~- Aoa \-~-~

2 2 + 2A2(U 2 + R2~2)] t sin (bx

- 303[~o~Ax
+ d)xAx~tl cos (bx + Ao {--pc(oo -- 01
3R1 (oEA2( U 2 +
-- 93"~--'~

{[sin((bx - (be) + sin((b~ + (bo)]

R___!
U

2-2 + 2)xA.]
-2 2 t
Ri)o)

+ - ~ ~oEcos((bo - (bx) - cos((bo + (bx)]

sin(bo

Co~Ax[cos(26~ - Ce)

2-2
)
-- cos(2(bx + (bo)] + (R--~-2 Ao + UAo

- -2 2
+ ~A {4U2(rc -- .01) -- 6g3co~Ax
2- 3

+ ~3t3Cbx &A6

-2

mxAx

- 30~A~(U 2 + &o~o)} cos (be - 0 2 5 - U ~

-3 3
sin 2(be + 30~ ~*Ax sin 3(bx
+ 02 Ra6~A~
u

cos 2(bx

[sin(2(bo -- (b~) -- sin(2(bo + (bx)]

-- 2Rl(OoAo[sin(2(bo - (b~) + sin(2(bo + (b~)]

+ RtCo~69oAx[sin(2(bx + 4)o) - sin(2(b~ + (bo~
)
Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 2

(17)

93

Aerodynamic stability of a beam in steady flow: H. Pa~i6 and M. Bazdulj

Eliminating the so-called secular terms from equations"

(16) and (17), which would otherwise cause physically
impossible unbounded vibrations, and assuming ~o0
(i/j)~o= + 0(e); i,j = 1, 2, 3, i.e. that the two frequencies
are harmonically separated, one concludes that amplitudes and the phases change in time, in accordance with
the following equations
]4x =

p, +

(19)
3t3R1 [A3(U 2

s~ + 6ooU/Ao +

coo

Clg 3 +

Joe213

A~ = 21~ + ~ e at,

and linearizing the resulting equations, the stability of

the steady state solution can be examined. The results of
such an analysis are contained in Table 1 and the
corresponding stability diagram (Figure 5).

U2(~)
_~20(U2 + g~coo)A
2 - 2 2 o (21)

t
-- --

Results and conclusions

pU

K2 = - 2 ~ o ~ o +
C1 =

t0

t31 T 1" r

--/t"-I

--Torsion

- I - -7;',.

The steady-state galloping amplitudes A~ and Ao may be

determined by setting A~ = A o = 0 in equations (18) and
(20). From equations (18)-(20) one may also conclude
that: since @1 = 0, the bending vibration frequency in the
lowest approximation is &x; in order for the amplitudes
to be finite g/a, 5r3 < 0; and for the solution to be stable,
it is impossible that both A~ and Ao are different from
zero at the same time.
Introducing the following abbreviations
KI = -2~xe)= + ~

Ao = 7to + ~oe at

(20)

2 - 2 + 2d)xAZAo]
+ Rl~oo)
3t3(~x2 A~2 +
= -tl- + "~UWo
~-vT:7--

g~

~/2 d 2 dz

t* = R1 t 3 c 2 - y o - - 9 3 c l
J

(18)

~1 = 0

tlR1%

and considering small perturbations in equations (18) and

(20) of the form

Ax + ~-U-g [oJ~A~

2-2 ]
+ 2A~AZ(U 2 + Rlo~o)

]4o =

C2

--I -- --/'=

beo _ing
=- '--' "~ - ~ ;

Static
equilibrium

(Clg 1 + YoC2tl);

I I r I
I I I I
I I I I
Bending

c2h - yo j g , c ,

0 2 d 2 dz

Figure 5

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

l
I
I
I

Stability diagram

Table 1
Nature of
solution

Steady-state amplitude

Stability criteria

~,x = 0

K1 <

~,0 = 0

K2 < 0

Equilibrium

Ax =

/ - 2UrnK~ ~ 1/2
/

K, > 0

Bending
Ae = 0

K2 - 2 --t~* K1 < 0
g2

Ax = O

1 A:~
- - - K1 - K2 < 0
2 g~

Torsion

- 2UftlK2+Rtt~v~))

A0 = 2~ \ 3 g t - 3 ( ~

1/2

K2 > 0

A~ = 0(1)

g~ < 0

A0 = 0(1)

tJ' < 0

Bending and torsion

94

Eng. Struct.

1993, Vol. 15, No 2

7-"1"
!

ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Aerodynamic stability of a beam in steady flow: H. Pa~i6 and M. Bazdulj

Blevins and Iwan ~ investigated the galloping response
of a two-degree-of-freedom system of a rigid cylinder
elastically supported by two plug and torsion springs.
Starting from two equations of motion which are very
similar to equations (12) they arrived at results similar to
those contained in Table 1 and Figure 5. However, their
starting assumption was that the shear and gravity centres
coincide. Therefore, their model may now be treated as
a special case of the solution described herein for Yo = 0,
L = 1, ~, = 1. But more important than that, the model
presented here allows us to show that the eccentricity Yo
should not be disregarded. Moreover, it may play. a very
important role.
To show that importance of Y0, let us study the same
model as in Reference 10, namely the right angle section
(Figure 6) with the aerodynamic coefficients shown in
Figure 7 ~. Let L = 2 . 5 m , h = l mm, H = 1 5 m m ,
p = 9.0 kg
dm-3,
E = 1.15
107
N x cm-2,
~x = (o = 0.01. O n e may find that the eccentricity is

Y0 = 5.12 ram, and wx = 12.5, 60o = 43.75. The aerodynamic properties of this section, (Figure 7) have been
determined experimentally by Slater 11 in the range of
Reynolds number between 103 and 104 and are essentially
independent of this number, as mentioned previously.
The spanwise distribution of the fluctuating pressure
coefficient is reasonably uniform over the length of the
cylindrical model examined, -indicating an essentially twodimensional condition of the model and the mean flow.
More details about the experimental setup and conditions
may be found elsewhere 11.
Figure 8 shows the numerical solution obtained by the
fourth-order Runge-Kutta method for U~=25.62
(U = 6.6 ms -~) and for ratios ~oo/~x = 3.6 and 1.4. For
the corresponding values K1 = 11.39 and K 2 = -0.637
the stability diagram indicates the bending response
domination. The approximate analytical solution, according to Table 1, for Ux = 25.62 and A~ = 0.482 is
represented by the horizontal line in Figure 8. The
agreement between the two solutions is excellent, if the
ratio og0/to~ is not close to 1.

0.2

cs

o.o3

:o::IVVY V ? ?
0 -

"

-0.03

0
Y

0.4
0.09

~.03
-0.03
-0.09

'X

-0." I-

"

Y0
l=

Figure 6

Figure 8 Numerical solutions for al and c~ for (a), o~o/O~x = 3.6;

a n d (b) o~e/O~x= 1 . 4 . A x = 0 . 4 8 ; U = 6 . 6 0 m s -1, Ux = 2 5 . 6 2

R i g h t - a n g l e section

0.10:

0.006
o o
o
0.004

0.08

O o

0.002
0.06 B

/o

L~

0
0.04
-0.002

0.02
-0.004
C=0.105~-9.34c

-0.006
0.08

Figure 7

0.16

L i f t a n d m o m e n t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r r i g h t - a n g l e s e c t i o n . Ux = 2 5 . 6 2 ,

0.02

0.24

Ax

I
0.05

I
0.1,0

= 0.481

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 2

95

Aerodynamic stability of a beam in steady flow: H. ~Pa#i6and M. Bazdulj

/
0.5 !

1.5-

~c

0.4

0.3
0.2
1.0 -

Y0-5.120

~c

~I~/~'-/AIO=_~I/dYo
=0
0.5-

0.03

10

20

'ti,'
30

0.02

0.01
I

q0

50

Ux

Figure 9

Eccentricity lowers critical flow velocity. (O),

experimental data; ( - - ) , cubic approximation

Figure 9 represents the approximate analytical solution

for the bending amplitude versus the Ux velocity. The
solid line stands for the eccentricity Yo = 5.12, the dashed
curve is Blevins' solution for Yo = 0, while the circles are
obtained by a direct numerical integration - one of them
representing the solution from Figure 8. It should be
noted that analytical and numerical solution agree very
well for the U~ values close to the critical one. As Ux
increases, the difference becomes s o m e w h a t larger, but
still tolerable.
The results from Figure 9 also show that the inertial
and elastic coupling is i m p o r t a n t and c a n n o t be disregarded as it was done in Reference 10. Even t h o u g h the
shapes of the curves are similar, the critical values of Ux
at the same flow velocity differ considerably. A n interesting point is a rather surprising hardening effect of the
eccentricity at relatively higher flow velocities, Figure 9.
The amplitude response for Ux = 25.62 versus o90/~ox
is shown in Figure 10. The asymptotic analytical solution,
according to Table 1, for co0/cox # 1 + 0(e) is represented
by the dashed line, while the solid line represents the
direct integration of equation (12). O n e can see that for
oJo/COx = 1, i.e. at the resonance, the coupling between

96

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 2

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.q

~ol~x
Figure10 Asymptotic versus numerical solution for Ax and Ao.
( - - ) , numerical integration Yo # 0; (- -), asymptotic solution
o~e/ox~# 1 + 0(~), A x = 0.481

bending and torsion modes becomes important, otherwise the bending response is dominant.

References
1 Blevins, R. "Flow-induced vibrations', Van Nostrand, New York,
1977
2 Sach, P. 'Wind Forces in Engineering', Pergamon Press, Oxford,
1972
3 Handbookof,Engineering Mechanics (Ed. W. Fluge), McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1962
4 Nayfeh, A. H. "Perturbation methods', John Wiley, N.Y., 1973
5 Den Hartog, J. P. Mechanical vibrations, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1956
6 Pa~i6,H. 'Possibilities for reconstructionof the Trebevi6 TV tower',
Scientific Report, Departmentof Mechanical Engineering, University
of Sarajevo, 1981
7 Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. 'Theory of elastic stability', McGrawHill, New York, 1961
8 Bazdulj, M. 'Galloping vibrations of cantilever beam in fluid flow',
Masters thesis, The University of Sarajevo, 1988
9 Meirovitch, L., 'Analytical methods in vibrations', Macmillan, New
York, 1967
10 Blevins, R. D. and Iwan, W. D. 'The galloping response of a twodegree-of-freedom system', J. Appl. Mech., Dec. 1974, 1113- 1118
11 Slater, J. E. 'Aeroelastic instability of structural angle section', PhD
Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1969