Aerodynamics, stability and response

of long-
long-span bridges
in atmospheric turbulent flow

Le Thai Hoa
Kyoto University
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Bridge aerodynamics
3. Literature reviews on stability and response
analyses
4. General formation of stability and response
5. Analytical method for stability analysis
6. Analytical method for response prediction
7. Numerical example and discussions
8. Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION

 Long-span bridges (suspension and cable-stayed bridges) are prone to

dynamic behaviors (due to traffic, earthquake and wind)
 Effects of aerodynamic phenomena (due to wind):
Catastrophe (Instability) + Serviceability (Discomfort)

Prevention and Mitigation

Wind-resistance Design and Analysis for Long-span Bridges

 Computational methods for aeroelastic instability analysis and

aerodynamic response prediction of long-span bridges are world-
widely developed increasingly thanks to computer-aid numerical
methods and computational mechanics
 Span length (m)

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

Tacoma (USA) 1080

TsingMa (HK) 1377

Great Belt (DM) 1623

S p a n le n g th (m )

Seto (Japan) 1723

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Suspension Bridges
Akashi (Japan) 1991

B in h 260m Messina (Italy) 3300

K ie n 2 7 0 m

M yTh u a n 3 5 0 m
Span length (m)
Th u Th ie m 4 0 5 m
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200

B a iC h a y 4 3 5 m

Cable-stayed bridges in VietNam

C a n Th o 5 5 0 m
Oresund(DM) 490

Meiko (Japan) 590

Yangpu (China) 602

Normandy (France) 865

Suspension and cable-stayed brides
Tatara (Japan) 890
Cable-stayed bridges

Stonecutter 1018

Sutong(China)1088
LONG-SPAN BRIDGES IN WORLD AND VIETNAM
 RESEARCH TOOLS IN WIND ENGINEERING

 Computational tools:
Fluid and solid mechanics
+
 Experimental tools:
Wind Tunnel Tests
+
 Simulation tools:
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
 WIND TUNNEL TESTS

Some pictures of wind tunnel tests

 BRIDGE AERODYNAMICS AND WIND-
WIND-INDUCED
VIBRATIONS

Serviceable Discomfort
Dynamic Fatique
Vortex-induced vibration

Wind- Limited-amplitude Buffeting vibration

induced Vibrations
Wake-induced vibration
Vibrations
And Rain/wind-induced
Bridge Galloping instability
Aero- Divergent-amplitude
Flutter instability
dynamics Vibrations
Wake instability
Structural Catastrophe

Branches of bridge aerodynamics and wind-induced vibrations

FAILURE OF TACOMA NARROW BRIDGE, USA 1940

Ansymmetric torsional mode Torsional mode

No heaving mode

Structural Catastrophe

Aeroelastic Instability

Flutter Instability
Extreme vibration and failure images of Tacoma Narrow
 RESPONSE AMPLITUDE AND VELOCITY
Response Vortex-induced Buffeting Flutter and Galloping
Response
Amplitude Response Instabilities
Karman-induced ‘Lock-in’
Response Response
Random Forces Self-excited Forces
in Turbulence Wind in Smooth or
Forced Forces Self-excited
Turbulence Wind
Forces
Resonance
Peak Value

U
Reduced Velocity U re 
nB

Limited-amplitude Response Divergent-amplitude Response

Low and medium velocity range High velocity range

Note: Classification of low, medium and high velocity ranges is relative together
 FLUTTER INSTABILITY

 Flutter might be the most critical concern to bridge design at high

wind velocity causing to dynamic instability and structural catastrophe

 Flutter is the divergent-amplitude self-controlled vibration

generated by the aerodynamic wind-structure interaction and
negative damping mechanism (Structural + Aerodynamic damping)

 Bridge Flutter or classical Flutter are basically classified by

Type 1: Pure torsional Flutter  Bluff sections: Truss, boxed…
Type 2: Coupled heaving-torsional Flutter Streamlined section

 The target of Flutter analysis and Flutter resistance design for long-span
bridges is to
 Tracing the critical condition of Flutter occurrence
 Determining the critical wind velocity of Flutter occurrence
LITERATURE REVIEW IN STABILITY ANALYSIS (2)

 Empirical formulas: Bleich’s [1951], Selberg’s[1961], Kloppel’s [1967]

 Modeling self-controlled aerodynamic forces:
Theodorsen’s circulation function (Potential Theory) [1935]
Scanlan’s flutter deviatives (Experiment) [1971]
 2DOF Flutter problems:
Complex eigenvalue analysis: Scanlan [1976]
Step-by-step analysis: Matsumoto [1994]
 nDOF Flutter problems:
Finite Differential Method (FDM) in Time Approximation:
Agar [1987]
Finite Element Method (FEM) in Modal Space:
Scanlan [1990], Pleif [1995], Jain [1996], Katsuchi [1998], Ge [2002]
 BUFFETING RESPONSE

The buffeting is defined as the wind-induced vibration in wind turbulence

that generated by unsteady fluctuating forces as origin of the random
ones due to wind fluctuations.
The purpose of buffeting analysis is that prediction or estimation of
total buffeting response of structures (Displacements, Sectional
forces: Shear force, bending and torsional moments)
Buffeting response prediction is major concern (Besides aeroelastic
instability known as flutter) in the wind resistance design and evaluation
of wind-induced vibrations for long-span bridges
Wind Fluctuations Fluctuating Forces Buffeting Response

Nature as Random Prediction of Response

Stationary Process (Forces+ Displacement)
 BUFFETING RESPONSE (2)

Effects of buffeting vibration and response on bridges such as:

(1) Large and unpredicted displacements affect psychologically
to passengers and drivers (Effect of serviceable discomfort)
(2) Fatique damage to structural components
Characteristics of buffeting vibration
(1) Buffeting random forces are as the nature of turbulence wind
(2) Occurrence at any velocity range (From low to high velocity).
Thus it is potential to affect to bridges
(3) Coupling with flutter forces as high sense in high velocity
range
LITERATURE REVIEW IN BUFFETING ANALYSIS (2)
H.W.Liepmann (1952): Early works on computational buffeting
prediction carried out for airplane wings. The spectral analysis applied
and statistical computation method introduced.

Alan Davenport (1962): Aerodynamic response of suspension bridge

subjected to random buffeting loads in turbulent wind proposed by
Davenport. Also cored in spectral analysis and statistical computation, but
associated with modal analysis. Numerical example applied for the First
Severn Crossing suspension bridge (UK).

H.P.A.H Iwin (1977): Numerical example for the Lions’ Gate

suspension bridge (Canada) and comparision with 3Dphysical model inWT.

Recent developments on analytical models based on time-domain

approach [Chen&Matsumoto(2000), Aas-Jakobsen et al.(2001)];
aerodynamic coupled flutter and buffeting forces [Jain et al.(1995),
Chen&Matsumoto(1998), Katsuchi et al.(1999)].
EXISTING ASSUMPTIONS IN BUFFETING ANALYSIS
(1) Gaussian stationary processes of wind fluctuations
Wind fluctuations treated as Gaussian stationary random processes
(2) Quasi-steady assumption
Unsteady buffeting loads modeled as quasi-steady forces by some simple
approximations: i) Relative velocity and ii) Unsteady force
coefficients
(3) Strip assumption
Unsteady buffeting forces on any strip are produced by only the wind
fluctuation acting on this strip that can be representative for
whole structure
(4) Correction functions and transfer function
Some correction functions (Aerodynamic Admittance, Coherence,
Joint Acceptance Function) and transfer function (Mechanical
Admittance) added for transform of statistical computation and SISO
(5) Modal uncoupling: Multimodal superposition from generalized response
is validated
 INTERACTION OF WIND-
WIND-INDUCED VIBRATIONS

Interaction of wind-induced vibrations and their responses is potentially

happened in some certain aerodynamic phenomena. In some cases, the
interaction of them suppresses their total responses, and in
contrast, enhances total responses in the others.

Vortex-shedding Physical Model + Mathematic Model

Individual Buffeting Random Vibration Physical + Mathematic

Phenomena
Flutter Self-excited Vibration Physical +
Case study
Mathematic

Vortex-shedding and Buffeting (Physical Model)

Aerodynamic Vortex and Low-speed Flutter (Physical Model)

Interaction
Case study Buffeting and Flutter (Mathematic Model)

Reduced Velocity Axis

 ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENT FLOW

Atmospheric boundary layer (ABL)

Elevation (m) Amplitude of

Velocity

ADB’s Depth u(z,t): Fluctuation

d=300-500m
U(z)
z u(z,t) U(z)
Mean
Time

Mean and fluctuating velocities of turbulent wind

Horizontal component: U(z,t) = U(z) + u(z,t) Buffeting Forces
Vertical component: w(z,t)
Longitudinal component: v(z,t)
Wind Fluctuations
Wind fluctuations are considered as the Normal-distributed
stationary random processes (Zero mean value)
 WIND FORCES AND RESPONSE

Total wind forces acting on structures can be computed under

superposition principle of aerodynamic forces as follows
Ftotal (t )  FQS  FB (t )  FSE (n)
FQS : Quasi-steady aerodynamic forces (Static wind forces)
FSE (n) : Self-controlled aerodynamic forces (Flutter)
FB (t ) : Unsteady (random) aerodynamic forces (Buffeting)
Aerodynamic behaviors of structures can be estimated under static
equilibrium equations and aerodynamic motion equations
KX  F : Static Equilibrium
QS

MX  CX  KX  FSE ( n)  FB (t ) : Dynamic Equilibrium

Combination of self-controlled forces (Flutter) and unsteady fluctuating

forces (Buffeting) is favorable under high-velocity range
 LITERATURE REVIEW IN STABILITY ANALYSIS

Flutter Analytical Empirical Formula Selberg’s; Kloppel’s

problems Methods
2DOF FlutterSolutions ComplexEigenMethod

Sectional modes Step-by-Step Method

nDOF FlutterSolutions Single-Mode Method

Full-scale Bridges Two-Mode Method

Multi-mode Method
Experiment Method Free Vibration Method

Simulation Method CFD

Branches for flutter instability problems

 LITERATURE REVIEW IN BUFFETING ANALYSIS

The buffeting response analysis can be treated by either:

1) Frequency-domain approach (Linear behavior) or
2) Time-domain approach (Both linear and nonlinear behaviors

Quasi-steady/ corrected
Linear analysis buffeting forces
Frequency Domain Methods Turbulence modeling
(Power spectral density)
Spectral analysis method
(Correction functions)
Buffeting response
prediction methods Quasi-steady/unsteady
buffeting model
Time Domain Methods Time-history
turbulence simulation

Linear and Non-linear Time-history analysis

STEPWISE PROCEDURE OF BUFFETING ANALYSIS IN
FREQUENCY DOMAIN
Power Spectral Aerodynamic Joint Acceptance
Density (PSD) Admittance Function

Spectrum of Wind Spectrum of Point- Spectrum of Spanwise

Fluctuations Buffeting Forces Buffeting Forces

Mechanical
Admittance
Background and
Resonance Parts

Multimode Response Response Estimate Spectrum of ith Mode

of ith Mode Response

SRSS or CQC Inverse Fourier

Combination Transform
GENERAL FORMULATION OF FLUTTER INSTABILITY
 Flutter motion equations in ordinary coordinates
M X  C  X   K  X   Pt 
Pt  Pd   Ps  P1 X   P2  X
M  X   C  X   K  X   0
* *

K   K   P  ; C   C   P 
*
2
*
1

 Generalized coordinates and mass-matrix-based normalization

X     
I    C    K    0
* *

K     [ K ]   ; C    [C ]
* T * * T *

   et


Det 2 I    C *  K *     0
 Response in generalized coordinates Liapunov’s Theorem
i  i  i i If any i < 0 exists then Divergence
n
    e   t  2 i pi    i q i sin i t
i
 2 i q i    i p i  cos  i t  14
i 1
NODE-LUMPED SELF-CONTROLLED AERODYNAMIC
FORCES
 Self-controlled Forces = Elastic Aerodynamic Forces + Damping
aerodynamic Forces
Pt   Pd   Ps  P1 X   P2  X
 Linear-lumped in bridge deck’s nodes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 H * 0  BH *
0 0 0 0 0 H *
0 0 
 1 2  3

0 0 P1*  BP *
0 0 0 0 0 P *
0 0
P1   1 U 2 B K L 2

1
P2    U 2 BK 2 L  3

4 U 0  BA1* 0 B2 A *
2 0 0 4 0 0 0 BA *
3 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 
 MULTIMODE FLUTTER ANALYSIS
 Generalized basic equation in the State Space
I        
  C *   K *    0

A Y   B  Y 
   
Y     e
0 I    I  0  
A I  C *   B  0  K *   Y       et t
Where:               
   

       
  A    B   
       
  
B Z    A Z  Z   
   

A1 B  Z    Z 

D Z    Z  
   K   Z    Z 
 C * *  C *    K *  
D       
 I  0   I  0 
Standard form of Eigen Problem
SINGLE-MODE AND TWO-MODE FLUTTER ANALYSIS
 1DOF motion equation associated with ith mode in modal space
i  2 i  i i   i2  i  pi (t )
Where: pi (t )  i  P1 i   i  P2 i  :Generalized force of ith mode
T T

1 BK * 1
pi (t)  U 2 [H1 Ghi hj  P1* Gpi p j  B2 A2* Gi j ]i  U 2 BK2 [ BA3* Gi j ]i
2 U 2
m
Grmsn   l k ( r ,k ) m ( s , k ) n : Modal sums
k 1

 1DOF motion equation in standard form

i  2 i  ii   i i  0
2  i2
 i 
B 4
1 A 3* ( K i ) G  i  j
B i 2
Ki 
U
 iω i ρB 4
 i   [H 1* ( K i ) G hihj  P 1* ( K i )G pipj  B 2 A *2 ( K i )G α iα j
ωi 4

Critical condition: System damping ratio equal zero

TIME--FREQUENCY DOMAIN TRANFORMATION AND
TIME
POWER SPECTRUM

Transformation processes

Time Domain Frequency Domain

Fourier
Transform
Correlation Power Spectrum

Transform between time domain and frequency domain using Fourier

Transform’s Weiner-Kintchine Pair
 
1
X ( )   X (t ) exp( jt ) dt X (t )   X ( ) exp( j ) d
0  0
Power spectrum (PSD) of physical quantities known as Fourier
Transform of correlation of such quantities

R X ( )  E[ X (t ) X (t   )] S X ( )   R X ( ) exp(  j )d
0
BASIC FORMATION OF BUFFETING RESPONSE

NDOF system motion equations subjected to sole fluctuating buffeting

forces are expressed by means of Finite Element Method (FEM)
MX  CX  KX  FB (t ) FB(t): Buffeting forces

Fourier Transform [  2 M  jC  K ] X ( )  FB ( )

X ( )  H ( ) FB ( ) H(): Complex frequency response matrix
H ( )  [  2 M  jC  K ] 1 X(), FB(): F.Ts of response and
buffeting forces
Fourier Transform of mean square of displacements and that of
buffeting forces
R X (0)  E[ X (t ) X (t )] RF (0)  E[ FB (t ) FB (t )]
SX(), SB(): Spectrum of response
S X ( ) | H ( ) | 2 S b ( ) and buffeting forces
Mean square of response 
2
   S X ( ) d
0
MULTIMODE ANALYTICAL METHOD OF BUFFETING
RESPONSE

Analytical method of buffeting response prediction in frequency domain

for full-scale bridges based on some main computational techniques as
(1) Finite Element Method (FEM)
(2) Modal analysis technique
(3) Spectral analysis technique and statistical computation
For response of bridges, three displacement coordinates (vertical h,
horizontal p and rotational ) can be expressed associated with
modal shapes and values as follows:
h( x, t )   hi ( x) B i (t );p ( x, t )   p i ( x) B i (t ); ( x, t )   i ( x)i (t )
i i i
1DOF motion equation in generalized ith modal coordinate:
  2 1 Qb,i: Generalized force of ith mode
 i  2 ii i  i  i  Qb ,i
L Ii
Qb ,i   [ Lb (t )hi ( x ) B  Db (t ) pi ( x) B  M b (t ) i ( x )]dx
0
Lb, Db, Mb: Fluctuating lift, drag and moment per unit deck length
RELATION SPECTRA OF RESPONSE AND FORCES
AND BUFFETING FORCE MODEL
Transform 1DOF motion equation in generalized ith modal coordinate
into spectrum form : 2 2
2 n 2 2 n 1
S , k (n) | H ( nk ) | Sb , k ( n) | H (n k ) | 2  {I k2 [(1  )  4 k ]}
n k2 n k2
Mechanical Admittance Spectrum of Forces k=h; p; 

Fluctuating buffeting forces (Lift, Drag and Moment) per unit deck
length can be determined as follows due to the Quasi-steady Assumption
1 2 2u (t ) ' w(t )
Lb (t )  U B[C L 0  CL ]
2 U U
1 2u (t ) w(t )
Db (t )  U 2 B[C D 0  C D' ]
2 U U
1 2 2 2u (t ) ' w(t )
M b (t )  U B [C M 0  CM ]
2 U U
u(t), w(t): Horizontal and vertical fluctuations
 SPECTRUM OF BUFFETING FORCES (1)
Spectrum of unit (point-like )buffeting forces can be computed
as such form
1
S L ( )  ( UBl ) 2 [4C L 0  Lu ( ) S u ( )  C L'  Lw ( ) S w ( )]
2
1
S D ( )  ( UBl ) 2 [4C D 0  Du ( ) Su ( )  CD'  Dw ( ) S w ( )]
12
S M ( )  ( UB 2 l ) 2 [4C M 0  Mu ( ) S u ( )  C M'  Mw ( ) S w ( )]
2
Aerodynamic Admittance Spectra of fluctuations

Spectrum of spanwise buffeting forces can be computed as follows

1
S L ,i (n)  ( UB 2 ) 2 [ 4C L20 | J Lu (n) |2 |  Lu (n) |2 S uu ( n)  C L'2 | J Lw ( n) |2 |  Lw (n) |2 S ww (n)]
2
Joint acceptance function
L L
Approximations | J Lu (n h ) | | J Lw (n h ) | | J L ( x A , x B , n h ) |  
2 2 2
 Coh(x, n)h i ( x A )hi ( x B )dxdx
0 0

|  Lu (n h ) | 2 |  Lw (n h ) | 2 |  L (n h ) | 2
 SPECTRUM OF BUFFETING FORCES (2)
Spectrum of spanwise buffeting forces can be expressed
4 L12 L22
S L ,i (n)  [ 2 S u (nh )  2 S w ( nh )]| J L (n h ) | 2 |  L (n h ) | 2
U U
2
4 D1 D22
S D ,i (n)  [ 2 S u (n p )  2 S w (n p )]| J D ( n p ) | 2 |  D (n p ) | 2
U U
2
4M 1 M 22
S M ,i (n)  [ 2 S u (n )  2 S w (n )] | J M (n ) | 2 |  M (n ) | 2
U U
1 1 2 ' 2
2
L1  U C L 0 B 2 L 2   U C L B
2 2
1 1
2
D1  U C D 0 B 2
D2  U 2 C D' B 2
2 2
1 1 2 ' 2
2
M 1  U C M 0 B 2 M 2   U C D B
2 2
 SPECTRUM OF RESPONSE
Generalized response of ith mode and total generalized response
in three coordinates (response combination by SRSS principle)

 2, F ,i   S  , F ,i (n)dn F=L, D or M
0
N
 2, F  SQRT (  2  , F ,i )
i 1

System response
N
2
 X2 , F  SQRT {  r [riT ( x k )  2  , F ,i ri ( x k )]}
i 1
r= h, p or 

B r  h or p
r 
1 r 
BACKROUND AND RESONANCE COMPONENTS OF
SYSTEM RESPONSE
Background and resonance components of generalized response
of ith mode
  
n2 2 2 n
2
2
   S  ,i (n) dn  
i | H (ni ) | S b ,i (n)dn   {I [(1  2 )  4 i 2 ]}1 S b ,i (n)dn
2
i
2

0 0 0 ni ni

2
  ,i     2 2 2 1 2 ni
Bi Ri  B,i  2  Sb ,i (n)dn and  R ,i  2
Sb, i (ni )
I i0 4 i I i
Background Resonance

Background and resonance components of total response

Nm 
2 2 2 1
 B   { i ri ( x k ) 2  S b,i dn }
i 1 Ii 0
Nm
2 ni 2 2
  { r ( xk )
R S (ni )}
i i
2 b,i
i 1 4 i I i
 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
Structural parameters:
parameters:
Pre
re--stressed concrete cable-
cable-stayed bridge taken into consideration
for demonstration of the computational procedures
Mean wind velocity parameters:
Deck elevation: z=20m
Turbulence model
Wind fluctuations modeled by the one-sided power spectral density
(PSD) functions using empirical formulas
200 fu*2 3.36 f u*2
S u ( n)  S w ( n) 
n1  50 f 
5/3

n 1  10 f 5 / 3 
Aerodynamic admittance approximated by Liepmann function
2 1
 ( ni ) 
2 2 ni B
1
U
Coherence function proposed by Davenport (1962)
 cni x
Cohu (ni , x)  exp( )
U
FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS (1)

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6

Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9

 FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS (2)

Mode Eigenvalue Frequency Period Modal Character

2 (Hz) (s)

1 1.47E+01 0.609913 1.639579 S-V-1

2 2.54E+01 0.801663 1.247406 A-V-2
3 2.87E+01 0.852593 1.172893 S-T-1
4 5.64E+01 1.194920 0.836876 A-T-2
5 6.60E+01 1.293130 0.773318 S-V-3
6 8.30E+01 1.449593 0.689849 A-V-4
7 9.88E+01 1.581915 0.632145 S-T-P-3
8 1.05E+02 1.630459 0.613324 S-V-5
9 1.12E+02 1.683362 0.594049 A-V-6
10 1.36E+02 1.857597 0.53830 S-V-7

22
 FLUTTER DERIVATIVES

20 3.5
15 3
10 2.5
H2* A3*

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

5 2
0 1.5
A1*
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1
-5 H*1

H*2
H3*
-10 H1* 0.5
H*3
0 A2*
-15
-0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-20

Reduced Velocities Reduced Velocities

 MODAL SUM COEFFICIENTS

Mode Frequency Modal Modal integral sums Grmsn

shape (Hz) Character Ghihi Gpipi Gii
1 0.609913 S-V-1 5.20E-01 7.50E-11 0.00E+00
2 0.801663 A-V-2 4.95E-01 7.43E-09 1.35E-09
3 0.852593 S-T-1 3.79E-09 5.23E-05 1.14E-02
4 1.194920 A-T-2 1.78E-07 1.82E-05 1.07E-02
5 1.293130 S-V-3 5.07E-01 1.36E-07 23.62E-09
6 1.449593 A-V-4 4.99E-01 2.10E-09 9.42E-09
7 1.581915 S-T-P-3 2.67E-07 1.10E-03 1.10E-02
8 1.630459 S-V-5 5.03E-01 1.43E-07 1.27E-08
9 1.683362 A-V-6 1.64E-06 1.77E-04 1.09E-02
10 1.857597 S-V-7 4.16E-06 2.78E-03 1.11E-02

N r, s: Modal index; m, n: Combination index

Grmsn   Lk (r , k ) m (s , k ) n r, s=h, p or : Heaving, lateral or rotational
k 1 m, n=i or j
( r , k ) m : rth modal value at node k
STATIC FORCE COEFFICIENTS AND FIRST-
FIRST-ORDER
DEVIATIVES

CD CL
0.1
0.5
0.08 0.4
Force coefficient

0.06 0.3

0.04 0.2
0.1
0.02
0
0
-8 -4 0 4 8 -0.1 -8 -4 0 4 8

Attack angle (degree) Attack angle

CM CD CL CM C’D C’L C’M

0.35 0.041 0.158 0.174 0 3.25 1.74
0.3
Force coefficient

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Static force coefficients above
0
-8 -4 0 4 8
were determined by wind-tunnel
Attack angle (degree) experiment [T.H.Le (2003)]
 JOINT ACCEPTANCE FUNCTION
Joint acceptance function can be computed by following formulas
L L
2  cn h x
| J F ( x A , x B , nh ) |   0 exp( U )ri ( x A )ri ( x B )dxdx
0
i: The number of mode
Discretization F=L, D or M
r=h, p or 
2  cnh x
| J L ( x, n h ) |  exp( )(x)G hi hi
U
2  cn x
| J M (x, n ) |  exp( )(x)G i i
U
2  cn p x
| J D (x, n p ) |  exp( )(x)G pi pi
N U
Grmsn   Lk (r , k )m (s , k ) n : Modal sum coefficients
k 1
( r ,k ) m : Modal value
Lk: Spanwise separation
 MECHANICAL ADMITTANCE
Mechanical admittance is known as Transfer function of linear SISO
system in frequency domain
2 in ith mode,
2 determined as
2 n 2 2 n
H ni   {I [(1  2 )  4 i 2 )]}1
i
2

ni ni  i   s ,i   a ,i
Ii: Generalized mass inertia i: Total damping ratio
6
10
(Structural s,i+ Aerodynamica,i)

4
10
Damping ratio 0.003
Resonance
Damping ratio 0.01
Damping ratio 0.015 Modes s,i a,i i
Amplitude Log(|H(n/ni)|2)

Damping ratio 0.02

2
10
Mode 1 0.005 0.00121 0.00621

Mode 2 0.005 0.000912 0.005912

0
10
Mode 3 0.005 0.0001 0.0051

-2
10
Background Mode 4 0.005 0.0000716 0.005072

Mode 5 0.005 0.0000571 0.005057

-4
10
-2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency Log(n/ni)
 1.2
Mode 1 (Heaving)
Mode 2 (Heaving)
1 Mode 3 (Torsional)
Mode 4 (Torsional)
Mode 5 (Heaving)
0.8
System damping ratio

0.6
Mode 1 Mode 2

0.4 Mode 5

0.2

Mode 4
0
Mode 3
-0.2
10 20 30 40 50 60 64.5 70
64.5 80 88.5 90
88.5
Wind velocity (m/s)

Damping ratio-velocity diagram of 5 fundamental modes

 1.3
Aerodynamic interaction Mode 3 (Torsional)
Mode 4 (Torsional)
1.2
Mode 3

1.1
Frequency (Hz)

Aerodynamic interaction
0.9

0.8
Mode 4

0.7

0.6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Wind velocity (m/s)

Frequency-Velocity diagram of torsional modes

 1 1
Mode 1 Mode 1
0 0

-1 -1
10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 2
60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mode 2

U= 65m/s
0 0
U= 50m/s

-1 -1

Modal Amplitude
Modal Amplitude

10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 3
60 70 80 90 100 20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mode 3 (Divergence)
80 90 100

0 0

-1 -2
10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 4
60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mode 4
0 0

-1 -1
10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 5
60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mode 5
0 0

-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s) Time (s)

1 1
Mode 1 Mode 1
0 0

-1 -1
10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

U= 90m/s
Mode 2 Mode 2
0 0
U=70m/s

-1 Modal Amplitude -1 x 105

Modal Amplitude

50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 3 (Divergence)
60 70 80 90 100
Mode 3
0 0

-5 -1
10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 4
60 70 80 90 100 20 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 4 (Divergence)
60 70 80 90 100

0 0

-1 -2
10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 5
60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 5
60 70 80 90 100

0 0

-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s) Time (s)
 0.1 0.015

0.01

0.05
0.005

0
Modal response

Modal response
0

-0.005

-0.05 Mode1 at 0m/s Mode3 - initial

Mode1 at 50m/s -0.01 Mode3 at 50m/s
Mode1 at 70m/s Mode3 at 70m/s
Mode1 at 90m/s Mode3 at 90m/s
Mode2 at 0m/s Mode4 - initial
-0.015 Mode4 at 50m/s
Mode2 at 50m/s
-0.1 Mode2 at 70m/s Mode4 at 70m/s
Mode2 at 90m/s Mode4 at 90m/s

Modes 1&2 - Decay -0.02

Modes 3&4 Divergence

-0.15 -0.025
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 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 Deck nodes

Modal response of heaving modes and torsional modes

 0
Node 5 0
Node 5
10 10
Sh(n)

Sa(n)
-5 -5
10 10

-10 -10
10 -1 0 1
10 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10

0
Node 15 0
Node 15
10 10
Sh(n)

-5 Sa(n) -5
10 10

-10 -10
10 -1 0 1
10 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency n(Hz) Frequency n(Hz)

Power spectra of global responses in nodes 5 &15 at U=20m/s

 0.8
Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
Mode 5 0.7 Total response
0.3
Total response

0.6
0.25
RMS of vertical disp. (m)

RMS of rotation (deg.)

0.5
0.2

0.4

0.15
0.3

0.1
0.2

0.05
0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mean velocity (m/s) Mean velocity (m/s)

RMS of vertical displacement (left) and rotation (right) at midpoint

 0.25
Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
Mode 5 Total response
Total response 0.5
0.2
RMS response of vertical disp. (m)

RMS response of rotation (deg.)

0.4

0.15

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.05
0.1

0 0
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 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 Deck nodes

RMS of vertical displacement and rotation on deck nodes

 CONCLUSION

Further studies on numerical analytical methods should be:

1) Non-linear geometry problem should be included for Flutter
time-domain analysis for ‘flexible’ long-span bridges

Further studies on buffeting response prediction will be focused on

1) Contribution of background and resonance components
2) Buffeting analysis method in time domain
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION