Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41-44 (1992) 1279-1290 Elsevier

! 279

Coupled Mode Flutter Analysis Using Flutter Derivatives

H. Tanaka a, N. Yamamura a, M. Tatsumi b abridge Design Dept., Hitachi Zosen Corporation, 1-3-40, Sakurajima, Konohana-Ku, Osaka 554, JAPAN bTarumi Construction Office, Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority, 1-1-66 Hiraiso,Tarumi-Ku, Kobe 655, JAPAN
Abstract

The "classical" coupled bending-torsion flutter of long-span bridges, possessing 3-dimensional vibration modes, is investigated both analytically and experimentally. In the analysis, self-excited forces are defined by using the so-called flutter derivatives. The vertical wind profile as well as the spanwise non-homogeneity of wind velocity are also incorporated. The analysis permits (i) straight forward prediction of the coupled flutter velocity by using the flutter derivatives and (ii) reasonable interpretation of 2-dimensional model tests to predict the coupled flutter behavior of bridges with 3-dimensional freedom of motion. I. INTRODUCTION The prediction of coupled mode (i.e, bending-torsion) flutter is one of the most important aspects for the design of long-span bridges. An analytical approach has been advanced by Bleich [1], Scanlan [9.] and recently by Miyata & Yamada [3] incorporating self-excited forces in equation of motion. Bleich and Scanlan applied the self-excited forces only to the girder, neglecting the damping effects due to the motion of cables and towers. Miyata & Yamada included the motion of cables and towers but their analysis is simply based on the Theodorsen's aerodynamic forces on flat plates. The present paper first provides the complex eigenvalue and vector solutions for coupled mode flutter which, using flutter derivatives [2], [4], incorporate the self-excited forces on all structural members. An effort is also made to include the vertical wind profile as well as the spanwise non-homogeneity of the wind velocity. The analysis enables straight-forward prediction of coupled mode flutter behavior including flutter frequency, velocity, inter-coupling amplitudes and the phase-shift of each mode, if the flutter derivatives are measured. In numerical example, the present method and the Scanlan's solution are compared for a simple-beam model. Then, the analysis is extended to amend the V-6 curve obtained through a section model test by providing a formula for the additional damping effects due to the motions of cables and towers. The formula, expressed as a weighted average of additional damping terms for the simple bending or
0167-6105/92/$05.00 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

1280 torsional flutter [5], is expected to eliminate the inconsistency between 3-dimensional and section model tests. The analysis is applied to a suspension bridge with a center-span of 770m which has different aerodynamic characteristics at the left- and right-hand girder sections under erection. The V-~ curve from the 3-dimensional test and t h a t from the analysis and the amended V-~ curve of section model test are shown to be remarkably consistent.

2. DYNAMIC EQUATIONS By extending Scanlan's formulation [2], [4], dynamic equations can be derived in matrix form by the displacement method [5]. First, the equation of motion is expressed as (See Fig. 1 for notation),

(~O(t) Li(t)t o'. /R t~ \ Pi(t) Li Ai

v/

.O~(t) "'~

Fig. 1 M e m b e r ~ i n

global coordinate (1)

[M]. O~(t) + [C]. I)~(t) + [K]. U~(t) ffi {F~(O~,U~, t)}= {F~(t)}

where [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the structural damping matrix and [K] is the stiffness matrix including geometrical stiffness. Fi(t)is the self-excited forces. The displacement Ui(t) can be expressed as
M

Ui(t)= ~im 'Xm(t) (i=1,2,...,M: M is the adopted number of modes)] ~,1= ~, {~im= (~}km+ (~lm)/2 (Mode shape at the center of i-th member)
Pre-multiplying Eq.(1) by {im} it becomes T,
Xm(t) + 2hmm O}m' Xm(t) 0}m2" Xm(t) ffi {~im} {Fi(t)}/Mm T"

(2)

T [M]

I (3)

where hmm and O)m are, respectively, the s t r u c t u r a l damping ratio in still air and circular frequency [rad/s] of the m-th mode. Under the assumption t h a t the girder can be regarded as horizontal, the components of the wind load vector {Fi(t)} in Eq,(3) can be expressed as

1281

Fi(t) = {0, L~(t),Pi(t),M~(t), 0, 0} Pi(t) = (p. Vi2/2) Ai. Ki. [~i(Ki), Hi (Ki), V3i(Ki)]

(4)

{~.~(t)/vi, Bi-~i(t)Ni. Ki. a~(t)} L~

Li(t)=(p Vi2/2) Bi. Ki [ ,.li(Ki), H~.i(Ki), I-I~i(Ki)]

{:~i(t)/Vi, Bi. &~(t)/Vl, ~ . ai(t)}. Li

Mi(t) = (p. V2/2) Bi~. Ki. [Ali(Ki), A2i(Ki), A~i(Ki)]
{yi(t)/Vi, Bi" ~i(t)/Vi, Ki. (xi(t)} Li Ki - Bi" o)/Vi : t h e r e d u c e d f l u t t e r frequency P~i = - 2CDi/Ki, P2i - 0 [2], P3i = (dCDi/d(x)/Ki ~ = CDi'/K 2

(5)

t
n

(6)

where Pi(t), Li(t), Mi(t) are respectively, the drag force, lift force and moment. P~i(Ki) H~i(Ki) A~(Ki) (jffil,2,3) are dimensionless flutter derivatives of i-th member (cf. Table I N.B.). By expressing the components of eigen-mode function {(~im} as {(~Xm,~)Ym,(~Zm,(~i~m,~)~m,(~m } and after some modifications of Eq. (3), one obtains the following couple~l mode flutter equations. Xm(t) + 2hmm (COrn/CO)" CO.Xm(t) + corn Xm(t) = ZE,m" CO"~[n(t) + ZFmn" CO Xn(t) 2" 2"
n

(7)

Emn --(p/2Mm) ' YBi" {(~Ym, ~)im}' [HI" {~Y~,~.~, ~ , }. Li ~m,

i

[HI =

I Hli(Ki) ' Bi 0 A1i(Ki). B 2

0 P]i(Ki). Ai 0

H~.i(Ki). B~ P~.i(Ki)' Ai' Bi A~i(Ki). Bis

(8)

F m = (p/2Mm) ' ~-Bi2" {~, ~m,~ }T

i

{H;i(Ki) Bi, P;i(Ki) Ai, A~i(Ki) Bi2} *~. Li

3. COMPLEX EIGENVALUE EQUATIONS

The complex generalized coordinates Xm(t), associated with the complex flutter frequency co, are introduced as follows:
Xm(t) = Xmo' e i~, Xmo = xRo + i. XImo

co = COR i . ~=(I + i . h). ~ +

(9)

1282

IXmoI = [(XRmo) + (X~mo)2] : the a m p l i t u d e of the m - t h mode 2 '~ Om= tan-l(XImo / XRmo): the phase-shift of the m - t h mode (tad)

(10)
where CORis the flutter circular frequency [rad/s] and h=coi/coR (~G/2~) is the sum of s t r u c t u r a l and a e r o d y n a m i c damping. The complex eigenvalue equations, derived from inserting Xm(t) of Eq.(9) into Eq.(7), are as follows:

o..
(rG=1-E l) {X.o} =

.nJ[]
G.
. . . . - o

(11)

Gml

Gin2

Gmn -

Xmo

Gram = [From+ 1 + i. {Emm- 2hmm (~/co)} l/COrn 2

Gmn = (Finn + i . Emn) / (0m2 (m ~ n)

[~,] = Diag [1/{o2] (Diagonal m a t r i x of eigenvalue ~) Then, for a set of eigenvectors {Xmo} to exist for assumed Koj,
det ([Gmn] - [~,])= det ([Gmn] - Diag [1/o)2]) = 0

(12)

(13)

To so!re Eq. (13), arbitrary initial values (e.g., corn/co=l) may be given and wsth lterative calculation of Eqs. (12), (13), co and {Xmo} can be determined by the following convergence criterion with suggested e-value of 10 -8 ~ 10-4:

l el<-col,-1 III e k l < e

(14)

When the r a n k of the matrix in Eq.(13) is M, an M-set of flutter frequencies con and a matrix of eigenvectors [ X~m ] (n = 1,2, ..,,M) will be obtained. It should be noted, however, t h a t the calculation of Eqs. (12) and (13) should not necessarily be carried out for all modes. One can easily find the flutter frequency e0n and amplitude I Xm I max in which the m-th (e.g., torsional) mode is dominant with the following Eq.(15):

t x~o t ~a,=~AX[

tx~st, Ix% I,..., tx~t]

(15)

4. EQUIVALENCY FOR PROTOTYPE BRIDGE A N D SECTION MODEL

The requirements for a section model test to duplicate properly the flutter behavior of a 3-dimensional prototype bridge can be s u m m a r i z e d as (i) reduced frequency co'. b/v (model) ffi co. B/V (prototype), (ii) mass and moment of inertia equivalency[5] and (iii) s t r u c t u r a l and aerodynamic damping equality. The second criterion can be written as follows:

1283
m~lq = (b/B) 2- M ~ ) = (b/B) 2. M~ / [ Z (~,Yn) I~] ) 2. m(2) = (b/B) 4" M ~ ) ffi (b/B) 4" Mn / [ T'. (~)~)2. Li] eq

(16)

where m eq and M(k) (k=l, 2) denote the equivalent mass [t/m] for k = l and (k) eq the equivalent moment of inertia It- m2/m] for k=2. Capital and small letters represent 3-dimensional prototype bridge and section model, respectively. The third criterion is also developed [5] for single-degree flutter cases to supplement (with additional damping Ahm) the V- 5 curve of the sectional model test, which cannot simulate the damping effects added by the motion of cables, towers and the lateral movement of the girder. Here, the corresponding criterion is discussed and supplementary damping Ahj is formulated for the more complex case of multi-mode (e.g., bending-torsional) coupled flutter. First, the supplementary damping Ahj for the coupled-flutter mode {~bFj} at KfKoj is expressed by the following Eq. (17), the deduction of which is made in the same way as for single-degree flutter [5]. Ahj =-(p/4M~) YBi. {(~, ~)~i, ~)~i} [HF]" {~)~i,~}~i, ~)~i}"Li T"
i

M~ = {+~,t~. Era1. {,~,}

where the coupled-flutter mode {~)Fi} is given as follows: {~)Fi}----Z ~)im" Xmo (re=l,2,..., the number of coupling modes)
m

(17)

(18)

Substituting Eq.(18) into Eq.(17), using orthogonality of modes, M~ is written

as

M~ = z Xmo 2 .{,~}". [M]. {,,m}= z X~o 2 M ~

m m

(19)

Under the assumption that the girder is straight in plan and has symmetric sections, the matrices [HF] are simply written as:

[HFC] H~i(Ki).Bi =I 0
0

P~i(Ki)" Ai 0

0 1 0
0

(20a)

o
[HF = [H~] = G]

o P~i(Ki)' Ai

o 0

(20b)

where [HC], [HF and [H~] denote [HF] for cables, girders and towers, G]

1284 respectively. The compotents of {~Fi} in Eq.(18) are expressed as follows:

{~i = ~' {~Y" Xmo, {~}i= X ~)iZm Xmo, ~i = X (~zin. Xmo

m m m

(21)

With the assumption of orthogonality for the eigen-mode functions {~Fi} for the matrix of aerodynamic coefficients [HF], the R.H.S. of E q. (17) becomes

{(~}i, ~}i, ~i} T" [HF]" {~i, ~}i, ~}i} -" ~Xrno 2" {{~Ym,OiZm,~}im}" [HF]" {~)Yml, ~}'~m} {~iZm,
in

(22)

The supplementary damping Ahj can be obtained by inserting Eqs.(19) and (22) into Eq.(17).

Ahj =-to/(4 Xmo M~)]. Z Xmo2Z Bi" {Ym,~, ~im} ' [HF] 2.
In In i

a T

{Ym,~)iZm,~)~m}"Li = X (X=oz Mm)" A hin/X (Xino Mm) 2m Ill

(23)

Ahm =-(p / 4Mm)" ~ Bi" {Ym,~bzin,~biam} [HF]" {Ym,~b~, ~m}"Li T' (24) i where Ahin is the additional damping for simple-flutter of m-th mode [5]. When the eigen-modes are normalized as (25) Eq.(23) is simplified to become
Ahj = Z Xmo 2. Ahm / Z Xmo 2
m m

(26)

As the coupled flutter amplitude of the m-th :mode Xino is a complex number in Eqs.(17)-(26), Ahj given by Eq.(23) or (26) is rigorously a complex number. However, the phase-shift 0m (mffil,2 ... M) is usually found to be 6m ~0, or e,, ~~, when flutter is evoked, therefore,
X = = I Xmo I . e i" Gm
- -

[(XRmo)2+ (XImo)2]~ (cosein + i. sin era)

(27)

'ffi.Sign(cos era). I Xmol where the operator Sign denotes the sign of cosein in parenthesis. Substituting Eq.(27) into Eq. (23), one obtains

Ahj = X (t Xinot 2. M~). Ahin / X ( I Xmo I~. M~) (28) In In where Ahj is expressed as a weighted average of Ahm by modal energy.
Corresponding to Eq.(25), Eq.(28) becomes

1285

~thj - ~'. [ Xmo [ 2. ~lm / I Xmo [ 2 m m

5. NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL EXAMPLES

(29)

The present method and the Scanlan's solution are compared in a numerical example at first. Next, the present analysis is applied to a suspension bridge with a center-span of 770 m which has different aerodynamic characteristics at the left- and right-hand girder sections under erection.

5.1 Comparison w i t h Seanlan's m e t h o d

Scanlan showed the numerical example of coupled mode flutter of a bridge with flat box girder and gave critical flutter velocity Vc in Ref. [6] (pp. 39-47). The mechanical damping 8ram is taken as 0.0628; the flutter derivatives are listed in Table 1. The deck width Bf30.5m, while the span L=1220 m (Fig. 2). The polar moment of inertia is taken as M=3822 (tf. m2/m), while the mass of the deck is m=34.11 (tf/m). It is assumed that tea = 20~h and tha t 0~h= 2~. (0.1 H,.). For an assumed simple-beam model (Fig. 2) to satisfy these frequencies, the sectional moment of inertia I and torsional resistance J are assumed to be I=1488 (m 4) and J=11.56 (m4), respectively.

./
V

../

L~

..

V..___~ Bffi30-500 "1 ~

t0xt22 000=1 220 000

Fig.2

Simple-beam model for coupled flutter analysis Table 1 Flutter derivatives H~ A~(i = 1,2,3)

V/fB
2.0 4.0

H]
-1.34 -3.00

H~.
0.00 0.00

H~
0.00 0.10

A~
0.00 0.00

A~
0.00 -0.06 0.00 0.00

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

-4,10 -6.50 -8.50 -11.00

-1.40 -4.50 -8.50 -17.80

2,50 6.70 8.00 10.00

-1,50 -1.40 -1.36 -1.40

-0.10 -0.20 -0.28 -0.32

1.00 2.00 2.92 3.38

N.B.) All derivatives are double of those given by Scanlan [6] and H~i. H~i. A~i have reversed sign due to upward y-axis here. The following three cases are solved by the present method. Case-(1): Coupled vertical bending and torsion flutter Case-(2): Vertical bending (single DOF) instability (Galloping) Case-(3): Torsional (single DOF) flutter As the solutions of-these cases, the change of flutter frequency t~ (=

~Rj/2K)

1286
and that of logarithmic decrement (V-5 curve) of the bridge corresponding to wind velocity are respectively shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b). According to the solution of Case-(1): (i) Critical flutter frequency fc is 0.162 (Hz) and agrees with fc=0.162 (Hz) given by Scanlan [6]. (ii) Critical flutter velocity Vc from V-5 curve (Fig. 3(b)) is 58.4 (m/s) and agrees well with Vc=58.0 (m/s) given by Scanlan with the difference of 0.7%. (iii)Amplitude ratio and phase shift between vertical bending (Mode-l) and torsion (Mode-2) are shown in Figs. 3(c) and (d).
). 0.2S --CASEd ! ) ---CASEd 2 ) ...... CAll|.( 3 ), ~01S

O3O --CAIIE-(I) t 0;5

----CAIIE.(;I) ..... CAIE.(:I)

"~OlO

Io,o
0 15 /i i OW, 0

,~

+,

+
(a)

,"

,~

.'

~,-o,.,
.,+-o 1o

10

WIND VELOCITY (m/e)

~0 Xl 40 W ~',~ ~ WIND vELOCITY (mls)

(b)
.~ ZOO I --MOOI-i:I)------IdOOE.lt)

--UOOli.(2)

---MOOE,I I )

i I
o

io

Io

+o

!o

Io

~- ~ "~ oo+L/ ~:~ /

WIND VELOCITY (m/s) " ' ' " -

WIND VELOCITY (m/e)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 3 Flutter characteristics of simple-beam model

6.2 Comparison with wind tunnel test The secoud model is a suspension bridge with a center span of 770 m (Fig.4). Consideration is given to wind aerodynamic stability just before the closing of the girder, on which bogie-girders are located upstream and downstream at the left- and right-hand sections, respectively (Fig.4). With the aerodynamic characteristics of the left- and right-hand girder sections being completely different, sectional model test have been carried out usiug both sections [8], then the lower flutter velocity has been conservatively taken. In addition, a full model test has been made [7]. Drag, lift and moment coefficients of the girder measured on the sectional model [8] are shown in Fig.5. For other members, the drag coefficients are taken as CD=0.7 for main cables and hangers, and CD=I.8 for towers. The flutter derivatives H~, A~ (i=1,2,3) for girder have been measured by the forced vibration method (Fig.6). The following three cases of analyses are compared with the experimental results: Case-(1): the coupled flutter (lst sym. bending mode and 1st sym. torsional mode)

1287
y [7"
BoSm.Rirdet .. 55

--+
~

~ IT-/~-' /I
A-A ~

J~T~

NOIeDinlenllionl prototvpe ' denote

BoBie.girder
V B

-- I

469

,~05 B-B ! 250 000(2 500) 770 000 (7 700)

6
i _,

250 000 (2 500)

Fig. 4 Frame model of a suspension bridge

Co eL
l+oo. $01) 3t|{l,
I,H -

C.
o.+I0 +31
051 0.11 0.0"/11

Co 4.0o. 340.

CL
I~lO

Cn
OJD~I0 A021'

G0+P O0|l
00+I

e+31 e~l

QOI4

i.io 1,4o 0,II I~011

-----co
,

- ~
'-

.,'-P+"~ .,, +p~-++.]

- - " - - - Cn
{II +@0| II i 4 I

fall

l~.{l, I

,=o
$40

0,II

141

-I

.I

.I , ~ I ~ . ]

I|

II

14 II

i'.;s'.h''~ "r'4": ~1~ ~ * o .

+.j

:~1;';';';'; ";,''j''+" -o,,, .o,oo+ AIIACK-A~OLE (OEG)

~ I J 4 , I + I , I0 I| 14 ,; II "l*.'l + , ' F . ' P . . . . . . . . '-;," .;J' .h'/~ ' :, ' .'t' .'a" :, '/~ ' ; ' ; " ; ' ; ' ?~ ' ,'s ' ,'~'
f 4 / .Mo.p .a.+ -~o:: MtACK-ANCLE (DEO) .M~ .-aOl -o,o,,
I, ~ 'HI . l, llO l,II -0,11 "Q, I OO -0,|I "0,011 "0,15 "501I - Itil,l "0.Ol I +il "Sill

0.00$

l,10..lLtl .19

+-++
.O00t

"Oil *Od)+ I
,OOl$

- I l l O '11" "+I0 I

l,lO { -1~14 .lltill I,I0 I .011 .0.011 O, IO - O,ill ,A011 .Sil0

4,tlO

"l~ll "+01P .eft0 .0+030

+41.00

.211 .:i:
,Q401

"0,0||

Ct C. (A) QPtilR[API OO91['OIROER

+

o Ct C. IO) OOWNSTREAHBOOIIt-oIAOR

Fig. 5 Drag, lift and moment coefficients of stiffening truss Case-(2): the single-degree torsional flutter ( l s t sym. torsional mode) Case-(3): the 4-modes of coupled flutter (lst anti-sym, and sym. bending modes, plus 1st anti-sym, and sym. torsional modes) The supplementary damping &Sin (= 2 ~. Ahm) by Eq.(24) and ASj by Eq.(28) for the sectional model are listed in Table 2. The section model tests are limited to the 1st symmetric modes, therefore, A 8m and A 8j given in Table 2 are the additional damping for them. The V- 8 curve for the section model, then, is obtained by the following formula:
8 = (81 + + =

Ahj

(30)

1288
I0,OOt 0,00 1 II,00 4.O0
2,00 0 H*

0, I 4.00 t _ 5.OO 3.00 1,OO

0

H;

z.oo t

H~

OJlO 0,4

5.Of
l ~ .S ~

I0.0
I
1".$

15.0
1 12.$2.~ I

20.0
I ir.s

',

; ;I ~.$

25.0 ,~-

-0.40-0,80- 1.20-

15.0 ~ 8 , '.O ' g.o ' 12,0 l 15,0 , * ! I I I t3.S -~o~ ,:s ' ,:s ' ;.s ' ,~s ~SSu/.e U/Ha "4,00 t -I.OO

-4,oo i-~+oo]

-"0t
0.50. 0.40 O.30 0,~0 0,10
O

--LEAS T" "~Qt,,I~RES I"IETHOD

- t.40-~.00.

LEAST- SQUARES PIETHOD D

-0,0o I --LEAST-14ETHOD SQUARES - 10,ooJ~ O.50 0`40 O-30

0,so :
0,I0 -

^;

0.20 ]-

~o

,,0

,~o

~0,o

~o

0.04T O"

3+0

6.0

~.0

I ~,0

I
,

I
4.5

l
,.s

I
10,$

l~O II

0
--~lO 1

I-5

:
4,$

:
?.5

'
10,5

'

I
13.$

-0,10 -0.20' 0,:S0

-0,40

r~..5

+"'t
-LE^S,-+Q+AR.

U/NB

UIH9

- 0.:10
-0,30

-0,S0

HETHDD

-o.,, T
-O+20 J

-0.40 -0,=O

-LEAST=SQUARES METHSO

(a) Upstream bo6ie.girder ,0,00

O.O0

H~

2,00[H;
1,60 I"

! 0,00 III.OO 41.OO 4.OO

H;

" o

o.o
+,+~.. r,~

,o.o
.+,

,,.o
,p,~
"-

,0,o
,.

,,.o "t u,",o "0,' I

0 It0 t

+.o

._p~'~' '+'.~

1,00

,'0'
+m~~ ' ' ~ ' - '.~. ,- -

'"o

~o+.~+
0

i.

o ~ - " ~

~ ~ ,,T'~+"++"l,.

p,+,

~:s

,:s " ~,l " i~,l ' -if'+" m+l

U/NO

"+'I
- 4,00

-'~.+..
--L[AGt" GQUArIf~S IqGTIIOO

u,,.o -qOg'
-I,OD
t,O0'

1,00'

-+00

-~00'I' t -I~00

. i . + o |

,boo| -,.o0 [

- - L I ~ A S l o SGUAIIES HElltOO

10`00,

- - L E A S T - SQUARES METHOD

0,16 0,1~

At

0`501 ^;
0,15" 0,t~ ~ 0,00' 0,04
t t~o , ,!o , a?o . ~!,o

^~

0,40 0,30.

~ ,.

~J'-'~",,

~OB 0.04 - 0 , "0,0| +

-0,1~.

~
0

0`10

-"~- , ~:o
~ i , +

. . . .
" ,is " ,i, '

o
[ ,'~ ' i,i ' r',1 ' lls

II,Q
" lis

|S,O

"

'

U/NO -0.04, -0,08' .0,1~ \ -0,re LEAST- 5QUAnES HElifO0

(b)

U/NO

-0,3D"0`10' t0,30'. .o.4o | |

T

Q/HO " L(AST- SQUARES tIE T)IOO

0,i~'

--LEAST-SQUAnES HEIIIOD

Downstream bosie.sirder

Fig. 6

Flutter

derivatives

(Erection-system

( I V ) . S t e p ( 1 1 ) ; (~ = + 3 0

1289
0.12

O.IZ

~CASE-(

I )

---CASE--(2

...... C A S E - - ( 3 )
0.10
O.O8

0.10

--O-- 3-dimengional model --4-- Section model

o

o Sectionmodel
B

/
o

0.06 i < 0.04

002
o

' 0.06
0.04

~
0 0 O0

----t--- -----4 I0 20

I 3o

-O,OZ
-004

tI I I 40 SO 60 tO WIND VELOCITY (MF$)

I gO

4 gO

I
IO0

0.02

ol

tO

20

30 --

40

50

60

70

80

Prololyi~eV (m/s)

Fig. 7 Logarithmic decrement for torsional and coupled flutter (Erection-system (IV), Step (11); u=+3 )

Fig. 8 Rotational center at Pt. 484 (Erection-system (IV). Step (11) with downstream bogie-girder ; (z=+3

where 8z and 82 are the logarithmic decrements of the sectional models with u p s t r e a m a n d downstream bogie-girders, respectively. The V-8 curve obtained by Eq.(30) using section model tests and t h a t obtained by 8-dimensional model tests are compared with the analysis u s i n g f l u t t e r derivatives in Fig. 7. It is observed that (i) case-(3) gives the lowest d a m p i n g by analysis a n d is r e m a r k a b l y consistent with the model tests, (ii) the V-8 curve of the section model should be a m e n d e d by Eq.(30) and (iii) section model tests without additional d a m p i n g ASj m a y be too conservative. The lateral excursion of rotational center at Pt. 434 by a n a l y s i s is compared with t h a t obtained in sectional model tests in Fig. 8. The good a g r e e m e n t between them m a y be regarded as a verification to the accuracy of the proposed analysis. Table 2 S u p p l e m e n t a r y damping Erection system (IV).Step(ll) (a = +3 )

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.0031 0.0126 0.0305 0.0543 0.0824 0.1140 0.1483 0.1851 0.2243 0.2664

0.0009 0.0017 0.0025 0.0033 0.0041 0.0049 0.0057 0.0065 0.0073 0.0081

0.0030 0.0060 0.0089 0.0118 0.0148 0.0177 0.0207 0.0236 0.0265 0.0295

549.2 549.3 549.5 550.3 551.6 553.9 557.1 561.5 567.3 574.7

0.0030 0.0060 0.0089 0.0118 0.0147 0.0176 0.0204 0.0232 0.0259 0.0285

N.B.) My = 359.6 (t. m2/9), M~ = 549.2 (t. m~/9), IX~,~I = 1.0

1290
6. C O N C L U D I N G REMARKS

A coupled flutter analysis as well as the equivalency for section model and prototype bridge (or 3-dimensional model) are discussed. The results are s u m m a r i z e d as, (i) coupled f l u t t e r b e h a v i o r can be predicted by Eqs.(7)-(14) when the flutter derivatives are measured and (ii) the V- 5 curve obtained by section model tests, which satisfy reduced frequency as well as mass and moment of inertia equivalency, may be amended by an additional damping term A hj of Eqs.(20)-(29) without measuring the flutter derivatives. For this purpose, the model amplitude ratios [ Xmo [ can be taken from the tests and H~i (Ki) in Eq.(20) is obtained by quasi-steady formula. It should be added that Eqs. (20)-(29) are given under the assumption of analogous bending and torsional mode shapes, therefore, further amendment is necessary when bending and torsional mode shapes differ widely, e.g, in case of a mono-cable suspension bridge or a single-plane cable-stayed bridge. Acknowledgement The authors extends sincere appreciation to Prof. N. Shiraishi of Kyoto University for his valuable suggestions on this study.
REFERENCES

1.F. Bleich, Dynamic Instability of Truss-Stiffened Suspension Brigdes under Wind Action, Trans. ASCE, Vol. 114, pp. 1177-1232 (1949) 2.R.H. Scanlan, The Action of Flexible Bridges under Wind, Part I. (Flutter Theory), Journal of Sound and Vibration, 60(2), pp. 187-199 (1978) 3.T. Miyata, H. Yamada, and H. Ota, Flutter Analysis of A Truss Stiffened Suspension Brigde by.3D Model Method, Proc. of JSCE, Vol 404, pp.
267-275, April (1989) (l.n. Japanese) . __ 4.R.H. Scanlan, Interpreting Aeroelastlc Models of Cable-Stayed Brigaes, Journal of Engineering Mechamcs, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. EM4, pp. 555.575, A ril (1987) 5. ~I~.Tanaka, N. Yama.mura, a n d M. Tatsuml, Interpreting sectional model tests t o p r e d i c t 3-dlmenmonal flutter behavior of long-span bngdes, Canada-J~apan Workshop on Bridge Aerodynamics, NRC No. 31871, pp. 239-248, Ottawa, Canada, Sept. 25-27 (1989) __ 6.R.H. S c a n l a n , S t a t e - o f - t h e - A r t M e t h o d s for C a l c u l a t i n g F l u t t e r , Vortex-Induced, and Buffeting Response of Bridge Structures, Final Report to FHWA No. FHWA/RD-80/050 (1981). 7. M. Ito, Experimental Research of Wind Stability for the Innoshima Bridge in Girder Erection Steps, BEL-Report No. 81301, the University of Tokyo, (1981) (in Japanese) 8. T. Ueda and A. Kumagai, 2-Dimensional Wind Tunnel Tests for Safety of the Innoshima Bridge in Erection and Completion, The Hitachi Zosen Technical Review, Vol. 42 (1981) (in Japanese)