Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Flutter Stability Analysis - 2
Flutter Stability Analysis - 2
Flutter Stability Analysis - 2
2004
1. INTRODUCTION
There are two typical types of bridge flutter were i) Torsional flutter that the
fundamental torsional mode dominantly involves to the flutter instability ii) Coupled flutter
that the fundamental torsional mode aerodynamically couples tendency with either of any first
symmetric or ansymmetric heaving mode at single frequency (called flutter frequency) and
also known as the so-called classical flutter (similarly to flutter of airfoil wings). Various
experiments and numerical analyses [Matsumoto et al.(1996,1997)] showed that,
moreover, the torsional flutter seems to dominate almost cases of bridges with bluff
bridge sections as low slenderness ratio (B/D) rectangular sections, H-shape sections,
stiffened truss sections, whereas streamlined boxed bridge sections are favorable for
coupled flutter. However, the Akashi-Kankyo bridge exhibited with coupled flutter
that this is never experienced before with stiffened truss sections.
For analytical methods for bridge or nDOF systems’ flutter problems, there are two
approaches: i) finite differential method (FDM) in linear-time approximation and ii) finite
element method (FEM) in modal space. However, the most state-of-the-art development
of analytical methods has carried out in the later. Agar(1989) developed FDM for
flutter problem of suspension bridges. Scanlan(1987,1990) firstly introduced sing-
mode and two-mode flutter analytical methods thanks to generalized transforms and
modal technique and based on idea that critical flutter conditions are prone to
dominant contribution of fundamental torsional mode (torsional flutter) or of
coupling between two torsional and heaving modes (coupled flutter). Many recent
studies [Pleif et al(1995), Katsuchi(1999), Ge et al.(2002)], however, pointed out that
in many cases of bridges there are not the fundamental torsional and heaving modes
involved to the critical flutter conditions, but many modes (multi-mode method)
superpose to generate more critical conditions.
1
U B 3 KA2*
4 I
4 I
As a result, A2* (A1.7)
UB 3 K
Through above unequality, the significant role of the torsional-motion-related flutter
derivative A2* (aerodynamic damping force) can be clearly approved.
1 h B
h 2 h h h 2 h h U 2 B KH1* KH 2* K 2 H 3* (A2.3)
2m U U
1 h B
2 * U 2 B 2 KA1* KA2* K 2 A3* (A2.4)
2I U
Kh K Ch C
Where: h2 = ; 2 = ; h ; (A2.5)
m I 2 K h .m 2 K .I
Ut
Introducing time-dimensionless variable: s = (A2.6)
B
First-order, second-order differentials of t time, we have:
d ( ) d ( ) ds U
(.) = . () (A2.7)
dt ds dt B
d 2 ( ) d 2 ( ) ds U2
(..) = . ( )' ' A2.8)
dt 2 ds 2 dt B2
Replacing eqs.(A2.7), (A2.8) into eqs.(A2.3), (A2.4), then dividing eq.(A2.3) by U 2 / B
and eq.(A2.4) by U 2 / B2 , we have:
h" B B 2 h'
2 h h h .h' h2 2 h [ KH *1 KA2* ' K 2 H *3* ] (A2.9)
B U U 2m B
B ' B2 B 4 h' 2
" 2 2 . 2 [ KA1* KA2* ' K A3* ] (A2.10)
U U 2I B
K2 K B 2 iK 2 * B 2 2 * B 2 2 *
[ 2i h K h Kh H 1 ] h0 + [ i K H2 K H3 ] 0 0
B B 2m B 2m 2m
4
B 4 K 2 * B B 2 2 *
[ i A1 ] h0 [ K 2 2i K K K 2 i K 2 A2* K H 3 ] 0 0
2I B 2I m
Conditioning that above homogenous equations have non-trivial solutions is that its
determinant must be zero:
2
B 2 2 * 1
2 B 2 2 * B
[ K 2 2i h K h K K h iK H 1 ] [ iK H 2 K 2 H 3* ]
Det 2m B 2m 2m =0 (A2.15)
4 4 4
B 1 2 B B
[ iK 2 A1* ] [ K 2 2i K K K 2 iK 2 A2* K 2 A3* ]
2I B 2I I
Expanding the determinant (A2.15) and grouping by real part and imaginary one as
follow:
Det H = 1 i 2 =0 A2.16)
The determinant (A2.15) is developed in such form as (A2.16). Then dividing the
2
determinant H by K h , we have:
2 B 2 * 2 B 2 * 2 B 2 * 2
( X 1) ( 2i h X iH 1 X ) i 2m iH 3 X ( H 2 X )i
2m 2m
H
B 4 * 2 2 B 4 * 2 2 B 4 *
(
2I 1 A X )i ( X A3 X 2
) ( 2 A2 X )i
2I h h 2I
2 2 B 4 * 2 2 B 2 * 2 B 4 * 2
( X 1) X A3 X 2 2 h X
H 1 X (2 h A2 X )
2I h 2m h 2I
B 4 * 2 B 2 * 2
( A1 X )( H2 X ) 0
2I 2m
3 B 2 * B 4 * 2 2 B 4 *
+ X [2 . H 1 2 h A2 ] + X [ 2 4 h 1 A3 ]
h 2m 2I h h 2I
2
+( ) =0 (A2.21)
h
2 B 4 * B 2 * 2 B 4 *
+ X [ 2 2 h 2 h A3 ] + X [ H1 2 A2 ] +
h 2I 2m h 2I
2
+ [2 h 2
2 ] =0 (A2.22)
h h
Step-by-step Method
Fig 1. The scheme for analytical methods of 2DOF heaving-torsional flutter problems
10 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
transformation process, there is torsional-branch or heaving-branch step-by-step
method. Because torsional-branch instability dominates in almost cases, thus
torsional-branch step-by-step analysis will be favorable to be much more applicable
in comparision with heaving-branch one.
Though the complex eigenvalue method has been applied for a long in solving 2DOF
heaving-torsional motion system to determine certain critical wind velocity, but
difficulty to investigate relationship of system damping ratio, system frequency on
wind velocity, and inter-relation between flutter derivatives as well. The step-by-step
method is favorable to deal with the complex eigenvalue method’s limitation.
11 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
I , C , K are mass inetia moment, damping coefficient and stiffness,
1 b
L se (2b)U 2 kH 1* (k ) kH 2* (k ) k 2 H 3* (k ) k 2 H 4* (k ) (3.2.a)
2 U U b
1 b
M se (2b 2 )U 2 kA1* (k ) kA2* (k ) k 2 A3* (k ) k 2 H 4* (k ) (3.2.b)
2 U U b
b
k is reduced frequency, k
U
1 b
2 2 (2b)U 2 kH 1* (k ) kH 2* (k ) k 2 H 3* (k ) k 2 H 4* (k )
2m U U b
1 b
2 2 (2b 2 )U 2 kA1* (k ) kA2* (k ) k 2 A3* (k ) k 2 H 4* (k )
2I U U b
(3.3.a); (3.3.b)
Where:
12 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
, are free damping ratio and free circular frequency of heaving
motion, respectively
, are free damping ratio and free circular frequency of torsional
motion, respectively
K K
2 ; 2
m I
C C
;
2 mK 2 IK
2 2 0
13 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
b 2 b 2 2 * b 3 * b 3 2 *
[ 2 *
2
F H 1 ] [ F H 4 ] [ F H 2 F H 3 ] (3.7)
m m m m
Rewriting eq(3.7) in the standard form:
b 3 b 3 2 *
F H 2*
2
2 ** * [ F H 3 ] (3.8)
m m
Where:
* , * are system circular frequency and system damping ratio of heaving
motion, respectively.
2 b 2 2 *
* [2 F H 4 ] (3.9)
m
b 2
2 F H 1*
* m (3.10)
b 2 2 *
2 [2 F H 4 ]
m
Then, in order to transform the tortional-coordinate-related coupled forces in the
right-hand side to be pure external forces, technique for replacing the function can be
applied. Torsional displacement can be written under sinusoidal functional form:
sin t
Where:
0 is total solution of free vibration equation:
14 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
2
2 ** * 0 (3.14)
2 b 3
2 ** * F H 2* sin( t 90 0 ) (3.15)
m
2 is () solution of equation:
2 b 3 2 *
2 ** * F H 3 sin t (3.16)
m
However, because system is motionless at initial time, thus solution of free vibration
is eliminated.
2 b 3
(ii) Finding 1 -solution: 1 2 **1 * 1 F H 2* sin( t 90 0 )
m
We find 1 -solution under such a form:
b 3 b 3
F H 2* F H 2*
1 m m (3.19)
2 2 2
(* 2 ) 2 4 * * 2 *2
2 2 *2
2
(1 2 ) 4 ( 2 )
* *
1
2 **
tan ( 2
) (3.20)
* 2
15 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
b 3
F | H 2* |
1 m (3.21)
*2
2 2
2
(1 2 ) 2 4 * ( 2 )
* *
b) 1 90 0 when H 2* 0
2 b 3 2 *
(iii) Finding 2 -solution: 2 2 ** 2 * 2 F H 3 sin t
m
We also find 2 -solution under such a form:
b 3 2 b 3 2
F H 3* F H 3*
2 m m (3.24)
2 2 2
(* 2 ) 2 4 * * 2 *2
2 2 *2
2
(1 2 ) 4 ( 2 )
* *
2 **
tan 1 ( 2
)
* 2
b) 2 180 0 when H 3* 0
16 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
1 2 1 cos( t 1 ) 2 cos( t 2 )
Expanding , and noting that sin t and cos t , we have:
(3.27)
b 3 2 *
F A4 [ 1 cos 1 1 sin 1 2 cos 2 2 sin 2 ]
I
17 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
b 3 b 3 2
( )( ) F
I m 2
( A1* H 2* cos 1 A1* H 2* sin 1 F A1* H 3* cos 2
2 2 2
2
* (1 2 ) 2 4 * ( 2 )
* *
2
A1* H 3* sin 2 )
b 3 b 3 2
( )( ) F
I m
( F A4* H 2* cos1 F A4* H 2* sin 1 F2 A4* H 3* cos 2
2 2 2
2
* (1 2 ) 2 4 * ( 2 )
* *
F2 A4* H 3* sin 2 )
b 3 b 3 F2
( )( )( )
I m * 2 F2 * *
[( A1* H 2* cos 1 F A1* H 3* cos 2 F A4* H 2* sin 1 A4 H 3 sin 2 )
2 2
2 *2
(1 2
) 4 ( 2
)
* *
(2 A1* H 2* sin 1 F A1* H 3* sin 2 F A4* H 2* cos 1 F2 A4* H 3* cos 2 ) ]
(3.30)
Replacing (3.30) in to eq(3.29), furthermore noting that in a torsional-branch
instability, the flutter frequency can be approximated to be torsional frequency, it
means that F (3.31)
4 4
b b 2 *
2 2 [ F A2* F A3 ]
I I
b 3 b 3 F2
( )( )( )
I m * 2
[( F A1* H 2* cos 1 F A1* H 3* cos 2 F A4* H 2* sin 1 F A4* H 3* sin 2 )
2 2
2
(1 F
) 2 4 * ( F
)
*2 *2
( F2 A1* H 2* sin 1 F2 A1* H 3* sin 2 2 F A4* H 2* cos 1 F2 A4* H 3* cos 2 ) ]
(3.32)
18 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Equation (3.32) can be rewritten under standard form:
Where:
1 b 4 b 2 F2
( )( )( ) F
1 b 4 2 I m * 2
*
(
) F A2* ( A1* H 2* cos 1 A1* H 3* cos 2
2 I 2
2
(1 F
) 2 4 * ( F
)
*2 *2
A4* H 2* sin 1 A4* H 3* sin 2 )
(3.34)
b 4 b 2 F2 2
( )( )( ) F
b 4 2 * I m * 2
*2 2
( ) F A3 ( A1* H 2* sin 1 A1* H 3* sin 2
I 2
2
(1 F
) 2 4 * ( F
)
*2 *2
A4* H 2* cos 1 A4* H 3* cos 2 )
(3.35)
*t
Solution of eq(3.33) can be expressed in such form: * e sin(*t )
2 2
in which: * * *
1 b 4 b 2 F2
( )( )( ) F
1 b 4 2 I m * 2
* ( ) F A2* ( A1* H 2* cos 1 A1* H 3* cos 2
2 I 2
2
(1 F
) 2 4 * ( F
)
*2 *2
A4* H 2* sin 1 A4* H 3* sin 2 ) 0
19 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
(3.35)
Logarithmic decrement (Log. dec) * 2 *
b 4 b 2 F2
( )( )( ) F
b 4 I m * 2
* ( ) F A2* ( A1* H 2* cos 1 A1* H 3* cos 2
I 2
2
(1 F
) 2 4 * ( F
)
*2 *2
A4* H 2* sin 1 A4* H 3* sin 2 ) 0
b 4
1 = ( )
I
b 2 F2
( )( )
m * 2
2 =
F2 2 * F2
(1 2
) 4 (
2
)
* *
- Dynamic parameters: m, I, C , C
U
(2) Flutter derivatives vs. reduced velocity U re
fFb
- Heaving derivatives: H 1* , H 2* , H 3* , H 4*
20 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
- Torsional derivatives: A1* , A2* , A3* , A4*
K C
- Torsional motion: 2 ;
I 2 IK
*2 b 2 2 *
2
[
F H 4 ]
m
b 2
2 F H 1*
* m
b 2 2 *
2 [2 F H 4 ]
m
(5) Initial phase angle
2 **
tan 1 ( 2
)
* 2
21 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Structural and dynamic input
b, , m, I , K , K , C , C
U i 1 U i U H i* , Ai* , * , * , F , j 1 F , j
Frequency checking
* F , j
Log. Dec. checking
j 0
End
22 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
5. SINGLE-MODE, TWO-MODE AND MULTI-MODE FLUTTER
PROBLEMS OF NDOF SYSTEMS
As mentioned above, the conventional complex eigen method [Simui&Scanlan(1976)]
and the Step-by-step method [Matsumoto(1995)] are very powerful to solve for 1DOF
torsional flutter equation and 2DOF tortionnal-heaving equations of 2-dimensional
structures, some analytical methods have been developed for solving nDOF flutter
equations of 3-dimensional structures.
As first, happened flutter possibilities for bridge structures will be reviewed for
explanation of numerical analytical developments of nDOF flutter problems. By
various experiments and numerical analyses from practical applications of bridge
engineering, it is shown that the fundamental torsional vibration mode dominantly
involves to the flutter instability. Moreover, with bluff cross sections like low
slenderness ratio (B/D) rectangular sections or H-shape sections or stiffened truss
sections, the flutter instability almost occur in solely fundamental torsional mode
[Matsumoto (1996)] as known the torsional flutter as the case of Tacoma Narrow
failure. Whereas the fundamental torsional mode and any first symmetric or
asymmetric heaving mode usually couple mechanically at single frequency with the
streamlined cross sections as known as the coupled flutter or the classical flutter
(studied previously on aerodynamics of airplane’s airfoil wings). It is very
interesting, however, by both analyses and experiments to mark that coupled flutter
has occurred in case of the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge, that has been never seen before
with such kinds of the stiffen truss-girder cable-supported bridges [Katsuchi(1998)]. It
is questionable from case of the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge, thus, that coupled flutter also
possibly happens to very flexible long-span cable-supported bridges with bluff-
sections.
23 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Some recent analytical studies [Scanlan(1990), Pleif(1995), Jain(1996), Katsuchi(1998)],
furthermore, pointed out that in many cases of coupled flutter there are not the
fundamental torsional and heaving modes involved to the critical condition, but
many modes (multi-modes) superpose to gain more critical condition at a lower onset
velocity.
Some analytical methods for flutter problems have been developed from above
happened possibilities as single-mode [Simui&Scanlan(1976)], two-mode
[Scanlan(1981)], multi-mode methods [Scanlan(1990), Jain(1996), Katsuchi(1998),
Ge(2000)]. In principle, above-mentioned analytical methods are carried out on the
modal space thank to generalized coordinate transform and modal superposition
technique.
Bluff cross-sections
Low B/D or H/- sections
Stiffen truss sections
Multi-mode Method
Airfoil
Thin plate sections
Streamlined sections
It is suggested that the single-mode method can be applied for cases of torsional
flutter possibly happens, whereas, the two-mode method for simplified approach and
24 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
the multi-mode method for more accuracy should be applied for tendency cases of
coupled flutter.
1 B
L se BU 2 KH 1* ( K ) KH 2* ( K ) K 2 H 3* ( K ) K 2 H 4* ( K )
2 U U B
1 p B p
D se BU 2 KP1* ( K ) KP2* ( K ) K 2 P3* ( K ) K 2 P4* ( K ) (A3.2)
2 U U B
1 B
M se B 2U 2 KA1* ( K ) KA2* ( K ) K 2 A3* ( K ) K 2 H 4* ( K )
2 U U B
25 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Above self-controlled aerodynamic forces can be explicitly divided by the
displacement-dependant aerodynamic elastic force-component and first-order
derivative-dependant aerodynamic damping one, we have:
P (t ) P1 (t ) P2 (t ) P1U P2U (A3.3)
MU [C P1 ]U [ K P2 ]U 0
Where: C * C P1 ; K * K P2
C*, K* are the system damping-force and elastic-force matrices, respectively.
Because above matrices have no longer symmetrical, thus eigenvalues of
frequency equation of eq.(A3.4) must be conjugate complex pairs.
26 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
t
Solution of eq.(A3.) found under such form: e (A3.7)
Det I C
2 *
K
*
0 (A3.8)
2n eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be determined through above equation.
Because the system damping and elastic matrices have no longer to be symmetrical,
thus eigenvalues from eq.(A3.8) will be exhibited under the conjugate complex
eigenvalue pairs:
i i j i (A3.9)
27 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
2n
e i t 2 i p i i q i sin i t 2 i q i i p i cos i t
i 1
(A3.11)
From eq.(A3.11), it can be seen clearly the role of the real part i of complex
eigenvalues in the system stability and instability problem, when real part of complex
eigenvalue become positive, system response amplitude is to be divergent and flutter
instability occurs (known as the Liapunov’s Theorem).
Uniform aerodynamic forces are linearly lumped at deck nodes. Six nodal
displacements and their first derivatives can be expressed in to element coordinates
as follows: {U } {0 h p 0 0}T and {U } {0 h p 0 0}T .
28 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
The self-controlled aerodynamic forces along bridge deck can be linearly discretized
at any bridge deck node:
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 H 3* 0 0
1 0 0 0 P3* 0 0
P 2 U 2 BK 2 L (A3.12)
4 0 0 0 BA3* 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
29 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Noting that the matrices P 1 , P 2 (6x6) above are only presented at single node of
element, and element force matrices P1, P2 (12x12) will be built symmetrically from
above P 1 , P 2 (6x6).
t t
Y e ; Y e
We will have:
A Y B Y
A B
B Z A Z (A3.15)
Here Z
Expanding from eq.(A3.15), we have:
A1 B Z Z
30 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
C * K *
Z Z
I 0
C * K *
Replacing: D (A3.16)
I 0
The standardized eigenvalue problem above can be solved by the many solving
techniques such as Jacobi diagonalization, QL or QR transformation, subspace
iteration and another.
In general, the multi-mode method has been still based on prior selection of concrete
modes in combination. Recently, it can be automatically combined total modes from
free vibration analysis for flutter analysis, so-called full-mode method [Ge(2002)],
however, this full-mode method don’t pay much more accuracy out of control than
multi-mode method but time-consuming.
31 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
(containing modal damping coefficients)
Flutter motion equation of ith mode in the generalized coordinates can be written after
the normalized technique: i 2 i i i i2 i pi (t ) (A3.19)
Where: pi(t) is the self-controlled aerodynamic force of ith mode (or called as
the normalized generalized aerodynamic force) determined as follow:
i (x) or j (x)
and i = p i (x) or p j (x) (A3.21)
i (x) or j (x)
x is an deck-alongside coordinate
i, j are an index for combination between two modes
below:
1 BK *
pi (t ) U 2 [ H1 Ghi h j BH 2* Ghi j P1* G pi p j BP2* G pi h j BA1*G i h j B 2 A2* G i j ]i
2 U
1
U 2 BK 2 [ H 3* Ghi j P3* G pi j BA3* G i j ] i (A3.22)
2
32 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
m
Grmsn = l
k 1
k (r,k)m (r,k)n (A3.23)
Omitting cross-modal integral sums Grmsn (rs) due to their small, remaining auto-
modal integral ones Grmsn (r=s), we easily obtain:
1 BK 1
pi (t ) U 2 [ H 1* Ghi h j P1* G pi p j B 2 A2* G i j ]i U 2 BK 2 [ BA3* G i j ] i (A3.24)
2 U 2
Where:
2 i2
i (A3.26)
B 4 *
1 A3 ( K i )G i j
2
i ω i ρB 4 *
i = [H 1 (K i ) G hihj P1* ( K i )G pipj B 2 A *2 ( K i )G αiαj (A3.27)
ωi 4
B i
Ki (A3.28)
U
33 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Generally, the two-mode flutter method has developed from problems of nDOF system’s
single-mode analysis and of 2DOF system’s complex eigen analysis. The two motion
equations of ith and jth modes with the coupled normalized generalized aerodynamic
forces can be expressed following:
i) ith modal motion equation
i 2 ii i 2ii
1 BK *
U 2 [ H1 Ghihi BH 2*Ghi i P1*G pi pi BP2*G pihi BA1*Gi hi B 2 A2*G ii ]i
2 U
1
U 2 K 2 [ H 4*Ghihi BH 3*Ghii P4*G pi pi BP3*G pii BA4*G ihi B 2 A3*Gi i ]i
2
1 BK *
+ U 2 [ H1 Ghi h j BH 2*Ghi j P1*G pi p j BP2*G pi h j BA1*G i h j B 2 A2*G i j ] j
2 U
1
U 2 K 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 ] j (A 3.29a)
2
j 2 j j j 2 j j
1 BK *
U 2 [ H1 Gh j h j BH 2*Gh j j P1*G p j p j BP2*G p j h j BA1*G j h j B 2 A2*G j j ]j
2 U
1
U 2 K 2[ H 4*Gh j h j BH 3*Gh j j P4*G p j p j BP3*G p j j BA4*G j h j B 2 A3*G j j ] j
2
1 BK *
U 2 [ H1 Gh j hi BH 2*Gh j i P1*G p j pi BP2*G p j hi BA1*G j hi B 2 A2*G ji ]i
2 U
1
U 2 K 2 [ H 4*Gh jhi BH 3*Gh ji P4*G p j pi BP3*G p j i BA4*G jhi B 2 A3*G ji ] i (A 3.29b)
2
Solution for two modal motion equations under coupled forces can be carried out by
following steps:
34 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Step 1: Solutions assumed under such forms as i i 0 ei F t , j j 0 ei F t . Then expanding
and grouping into equation system under terms of i 0 , j 0 . We can obtain 2 equations:
i 2
[( ) 1 2i i ( i )] i
F T
1 2
B {i[ H1*Ghihi BH 2*Ghi i P1*G pi pi BP2*G pihi BA1*G ihi B 2 A2*G ii ]
2
[ H 4*Ghi hi BH 3*Ghi i P4*G pi pi BP3*G pi i BA4*Gihi B 2 A3*Gi i ]} i 0
1 2
B {i[ H1*Ghi h j BH 2*Ghi j P1*G pi p j BP2*G pi h j BA1*G i h j B 2 A2*G i j ] (A 3.30a)
2
[ H 4*Ghih j BH 3*Ghi j P4*G pi p j BP3*G pi j BA4*G ih j B 2 A3*G i j ]} j 0
and
j 2
[( ) 1 2i j ( j )] j
F T
1 2
B {i[ H1*Gh j h j BH 2*Gh j j P1*G p j p j BP2*G p j h j BA1*G j h j B 2 A2*G j j ]
2
[ H 4*Gh j h j BH 3*Gh j j P4*G p j p j BP3*G p j j BA4*G j h j B 2 A3*G j i ]} j 0
1
B 2{i[ H1*Gh j hj B2*Gh j j P1*G p j pi BP2*G p j hi BA1*G jhi B 2 A2*G ji ] (A 3.30b)
2
[ H 4*Gh j hi BH 3*Gh j j P4*G p j pi BP3*G p j i BA4*G j hi B 2 A3*G j i ]}i 0
solutions that their determinant must be zero. We can write the determinant under such a
form:
35 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Step 3: Expanding the determinant, two equations of real and imaginary parts can be
obtained and must be simultaneously zero, we have:
Real part: Aii A jj Bii B jj A ji Aij B ji Bij 0 (A 3.32a)
Where:
Bii 2 i (i / F ) 1 / 2( B 2 )[ H1*Ghihi BH 2*Ghii P1*G pi pi BP2*G pihi BA1*G ihi B 2 A2*G ii ]
Step 4: Solutions of Eq.(A 3.32a), Eq.(A 3.32b) are found simultaneously, intersected point
of solution curves determine the critical flutter condition.
36 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
6. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE
Numerical example of a cable-stayed bridge for the flutter analysis will be presented
under three approaches:
i. Complex-eigen analysis for a 2DOF torsional-heaving system (first
torsional and heaving modes selected for the analysis)
ii. Step-by-step analysis for a 2DOF torsional-heaving system ( also first
torsional and heaving modes selected for the analysis)
iii. Single-mode and multi-mode analysis for the cable-stayed bridge
37 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Structural characteristics and flutter derivatives
Table A4.1. Sectional characteristics of example cable-stayed bridge
Gider Tower Stayed cables
Material parameters Material parameters Material parameters
E =3600000 T/m2 E =3600000 T/m2 E = 19500000 T/m2
G =1384600 T/m2 G =1384600 T/m2 Geometrical parameter
=0.3 Poison ratio =0.3 Poison ratio A =26.355 cm2 Type 19K15
Geometrical parameter Geometrical parameter A =16.69 cm2 Type 12K15
A =6.525 m2 A =1.14 m2; I33=0.257 m4
I33 =0.11 m4 I22 =0.118 m4;J=0.223m4
I22 =114.32 m4 A =1.14 m2; I33=0.257 m4
J =0.44m4 I22 =0.118 m4;J =0.223m4
Flutter derivatives
20
15
10
(i=1,2,3)
5
Hi
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-5
-1 0
-1 5
-2 0
Reduced velocity K
Flutter derivatives
3.5
3
2.5
(i=1,2,3)
2
A*i
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Reduced frequency K
Fig A4.2. Diagrams of the flutter derivatives H*i, A*i (i=1-3) given by
quasi-steady formula [Scanlan(1989), Pleif(1995)]
38 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Free vibration analysis
Mode 1 Mode 2
f=0.6099Hz f=0.8016Hz
Mode 3 Mode 4
f=0.8522Hz f= 1.1949Hz
Mode 6
Mode 5 f=1.4495Hz
f=1.2931Hz
Mode 7 Mode 8
f=1.5819Hz f=1.6304Hz
39 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Mode 7 Mode 8
f=1.5819Hz f=1.6304Hz
40 | L e T h a i H o a – F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
D¹ng dao ®éng thø 2
D¹ng dao ®éng thø nhÊt ( D¹ng uèn thø 2)
(D¹ng uèn thø nhÊt )
0,1
0,06
0,04 0,05
0
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
-0,02
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
-0,04
-0,05
-0,06
-0,08
-0,1
-0,1
-0,12
-0,15
0,02 0,015
0,015 0,01
0,01
Gi¸ trÞ d¹ng
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
0
1
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
-0,005
-0,005
-0,01
-0,01
-0,015 -0,015
-0,02 -0,02
0,06 0,1
0,04
0,05
0,02
Gi¸ trÞ d¹ng
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
0
- 0,02
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
- 0,04
-0,05
- 0,06
- 0,08
- 0,1
-0,1
- 0,12 -0,15
1,00E-02 0,12
0,1
5,00E-03
0,08
Gi¸ trÞ d¹ng
0,06
0,00E+00
0,04
1
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
-5,00E-03 0,02
0
-1,00E-02
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
-0,02
-0,04
-1,50E-02
-0,06
-2,00E-02 -0,08
41 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Table A4.2. Modal integral sums of first 10 natural mode shapes
Mode Frequency Modal Modal integral sums Grmsn
shape (Hz) Character Ghihi Gpipi Gii
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
42 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
2
X33
1.5
X44
1 X43
0.5
X32
-0.5
Intersection
-1 X41
X31
X 42
-1.5
1 2 3 4 5 5.3 6 7 8
Reduced Frequency K
43 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
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 80 88.5 90
Wind velocity (m/s)
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)
44 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Time-history modal amplitude of first 5 modes at certain wind velocities
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
0 0
-1 -1
M odal A m plitude
M o d a l A m p lit u d e
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)
Modal amplitude of first 5 modes at U=50m/s Modal amplitude of first 5 modes at U=65m/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
Mode 2 Mode 2
0 0
-1 x 105
M odal A m plitude
-1
M odal Am plitude
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 60 70 80 90 100 20 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 4 (Divergence)
60 70 80 90 100
Mode 4
0 0
-1 -2
10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 10 20 30 40 50
Mode 5
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)
45 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
Investigation on change of modal amplitude of some major modes following wind
velocities and time intervals
0.06
0.04
0.02
Modal amplitude
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.02
-0.04 Initial
-0.06 50m/s
65m/s
-0.08 70m/s
90m/s
-0.1 Decay
-0.12
Deck nodes
Diagram of 1st heaving modal amplitude vs. wind velocity after 2 seconds
0.1
0.05
Modal amplitude
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.05
Initial
50m/s
-0.1
65m/s
70m/s
Decay 90m/s
-0.15
Deck nodes
Diagram of 2nd heaving modal amplitude vs. wind velocity after 2 seconds
46 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
0.01
0.005
0
Modal amplitude
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.005
Initial
-0.01
50m/s
65m/s
-0.015
Divergence 70m/s
90m/s
-0.02
-0.025
Deck nodes
Diagram of 1st torsional modal amplitude vs. wind velocity after 2 seconds
0.015
0.01
0.005
Modal amplitude
0
1 3 5 7 9 Divergence
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.005
-0.01 Initial
50m/s
65m/s
-0.015
70m/s
90m/s
-0.02
Deck nodes
Diagram of 2nd torsional modal amplitude vs. wind velocity after 2 seconds
47 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
0.06
Initial
0.04 50m/s
65m/s
0.02 70m/s
90m/s
Modal amplitude
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
Decay
-0.1
-0.12
Deck nodes
Diagram of 3nd heaving modal amplitude vs. wind velocity after 2 seconds
0.06
0.04
Modal amplitude (at 50m/s)
0.02
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.02
Initial
-0.04
1seco nd
-0.06 2seco nds
5seco nds
-0.1
10seco nds
-0.12 Deck nodes
Diagram of 1st heaving modal amplitude at wind velocity 50m/s vs. time intervals
48 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
0.06
0.04
Modal amplitude (at 70m/s)
0.02
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.02
Initial
-0.04 1second
-0.06 2seco nds
5seco nds
-0.1
10seconds
-0.12
Deck nodes
Diagram of 1st heaving modal amplitude at wind velocity 70m/s vs. time intervals
0.01
0.005
Modal amplitude (at 50m/s)
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.005
Initial
-0.01 1seco nd
2seco nds
-0.015 3seco nds
5seco nds
10seco nds
-0.02
Deck nodes
Diagram of 1st torsional modal amplitude at wind velocity 50m/s vs. time intervals
49 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e
0.01
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
-0.005
-0.01
Initial
1seco nd
-0.015
2seco nds
3seco nds
-0.02
5seco nds
10seco nds
-0.025
Deck nodes
Diagram of 1st torsional modal amplitude at wind velocity 50m/s vs. time intervals
50 | L e T h a i H o a - F l u t t e r s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s : T h e o r y & E x a m p l e