Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 90 (2002) 2099–2111

An experimental approach on aerodynamic

stability of a cable-stayed cantilever bridge
F. Yoshizumi, Hiroo Inoue
Engineering Department, Steel Structures and Logistic Systems Headquarters, Mitsui Engineering and
Shipbuilding, Co., Ltd., 1-50, Tsutsujigaoka 1-chome, Akishima Tokyo 196 0012, Japan

Abstract

The View Bridge constructed in Yawatahama City, Ehime Prefecture, Japan, has a novel
form of a 2-span continuous cantilever steel bridge with a free end. In order to investigate the
aerodynamic stabilities of this bridge, wind tunnel tests using 2- and 3-dimensional models are
conducted and the dynamic properties of the real bridge and the wind characteristics are
measured on the site. A gust response is observed in these tests while flutter, galloping and
vortex-induced vibration do not occur. Analytical approaches to identify the gust response
on the site are performed through two methods, that is, the ordinary gust-response analysis
and the correction of the response in the wind tunnel. The latter method is carried out to
correct the difference between the conditions of the wind tunnel and the site related to wind
turbulence and structural properties. Though the gust-response analyses fail to reproduce
the response on the site because of the uncertainty of the aerodynamic admittance, the
corrected response of the 3D wind tunnel test is in good agreement with the response observed
on the site.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; Cantilever bridge; Wind tunnel test; Gust response

1. Introduction

The cable-stayed bridge, View Bridge, has been constructed in the marine park Sea
Road Yawatahama to access the pontoon for fishing. This bridge is a very unique
cable-stayed bridge with special features as follows:
(1) cantilever-type deck beam in completed condition,
(2) gangway structure covered with mesh panels at the beam edge,
(3) bluff deck section with 2 edge-girders and a center grating,
(4) non-uniform deck section along the bridge axis.

0167-6105/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 3 2 7 - 6
2100 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111

The general view of the bridge as well as the gangway structure and the deck
section is shown in Fig. 1. In light of those features, it seems to be more difficult to
predict the aerodynamic instability problems of this bridge than that of other normal
cable-stayed bridges. Therefore, 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) wind
tunnel tests have been carried out in order to clear the aerodynamic phenomena of
this bridge and the characteristics of the site wind and the structural properties of the
real bridge have been measured to evaluate the assumed condition of the 3D wind
tunnel test. Ordinary analyses for 3D galloping and gust response using the results of
2D deck section tests have been carried out. The responses obtained from the
analyses and those observed in the 3D wind tunnel test or on the site have been
compared. In addition, as an approach to the gust response on the site, the 3D wind

Fig. 1. General view and the deck section (unit: mm): (a) general view, (b) details of the gangway
structure, and (c) the deck section.
 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111 2101

tunnel test result has been corrected in consideration of difference between the
conditions of the wind tunnel test and the site related to wind turbulence and
structural properties, which is a hybrid method based on the 3D wind tunnel test and
the ordinary frequency domain analysis.

2. Wind tunnel tests

Wind tunnel tests consist of 2D tests for the deck section near the beam edge
and 3D tests using the 3D model with the elastic deck beam. The former 2D tests
include three-component force balance tests and spring supported tests that have
cleared the basic aerodynamic characteristics of the deck section. Through the 3D
tests, the response of the non-uniform deck beam has been measured directly. The
result of the eigenvalue analysis is shown in Table 1, which is applied to design of the
3D model.

2.1. 2D wind tunnel tests of the deck section

1
The 2D deck section model is 12 scale and simulates the section near the beam end
(62 m point from the tower). Deck width B is 2.8 m in the prototype.

2.1.1. Aerodynamic characteristics in static condition

Three-component force balance tests have been conducted for the original open-
grating section and the closed-grating section. The aerodynamic coefficients in static
condition are shown in Fig. 2. The CL of the closed-grating section has rather steep
negative slope than that of the original section. Therefore, the grating is supposed to
bring aerodynamic stability in heaving motion from the viewpoint of quasi-steady
theory.

2.1.2. Unsteady aerodynamic characteristics

Unsteady aerodynamic characteristics have been tested by the heaving/torsional
1 degree of freedom (DOF) spring supported tests under smooth flow. The

Table 1
Eigenvalue analysis of the prototype

Mode order Freq. (Hz) aGeneralized mass (t m2) Equivalent mass Mode H: horizontal V: vertical

meqy (t/m) meqz (t/m)

1 0.696 25.72 1.914 — Deck H. first

2 0.905 22.49 — 2.247 Deck V. first
3 1.233 43.67 1.396 — Tower first
4 2.332 24.38 — 1.170 Deck V. Second
5 2.883 38.20 1.329 — Deck H. Second
a
The Max. modal amplitude (73 m from the tower) is scaled to 1 m.
y: Horizontal z: vertical.
2102 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111

Fig. 2. Aerodynamic coefficient in static condition.

normalized aerodynamic derivatives, shown in Figs. 3 and 4, are defined as

follows [1]:


1 Z’ Z
L ¼ rU 2 ð2bÞ KH1 þ K 2 H4 ;
2 U b

’ 
1 2 2  bf 2 
M ¼ rU ð2b Þ KA2 þ K A3 f ; ð1Þ
2 U

where L is the unsteady lift force per unit span length, M is the unsteady moment
force per unit span length, r is the air density, U is the wind velocity, b is the half
chord length ð¼ B=2Þ; Z is the heaving displacement, f is the torsional displacement,
K is the reduced frequency (K ¼ bo=U), o is the circular frequency (o ¼ 2pf ), f is
the frequency and Hi and Ai are the aerodynamic derivatives. The aerodynamic
derivatives H1 and A2 can make the judgment of heaving/torsional 1DOF instability.
H1 of the original section remains near zero to the extent of the high wind speed
region (Fig. 3(a)). The aerodynamic force has a little effect on the damping factor in
1DOF heaving motion. On the other hand, H1 of the closed-grating section has a
positive value (Fig. 3(b)) that corresponds to the possibility of galloping instability.
 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111 2103

Fig. 3. U=fB  Z=B  H1 diagram: (a) the open-grating section and (b) the closed-grating section. (Z is the
heaving amplitude.)

Fig. 4. U=fB  f  A2 diagram of the open-grating section. (f is the torsional amplitude.)

This indicates that the grating has an effect of stability in heaving motion. A2 of the
original section keeps negative, that is, the section has stable aerodynamic force in
1DOF torsional motion.
2104 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111

Table 2
3D wind tunnel test conditions

Model condition

Mode order Freq. (Hz) Logarithmic damping Mode

1 5.33–5.34 0.012–0.013 Deck H. First

2 6.33–6.35 0.017–0.018 Deck V. First

Turbulence condition

Intensity u Iu (%) 11.2–13.8

w Iw (%) 7.6–8.6
Scale (wind direction) u Lu (m) 0.238 (Equivalent scale in the prototype) 14.28
w Lw (m) 0.063 (Equivalent scale in the prototype) 3.78

2.2. 3D wind tunnel tests

1
The 3D model is scaled to 60 and is made up of the elastic deck beam, the
rigid tower and cables with springs installed at ends of the tower side. The first
horizontal and vertical mode shapes have been simulated to them obtained by the
eigen-value analysis. The responses of the deck beam have been measured both in a
smooth flow and in a turbulent flow. Test conditions are shown in Table 2. In a
smooth flow, the deck beam has been statically deformed in the horizontal, and
dynamic instabilities as vortex induced vibration and galloping have not been
observed as shown in Fig. 5(a). In the turbulent flow, the gust response has occurred
in addition to static deformation while other dynamic phenomena have not been
observed as shown in Fig. 5(b). The case of the closed-grating deck has been tested
under a smooth flow to survey the effect of the grating, but no dynamic phenomenon
has been observed. Besides that, the case where the gangway structure is taken away
has been tested under the turbulent flow to survey the effect of the gangway, and the
gust response of the horizontal mode has become about 23 of the original case as
shown in Fig. 5(b).

3. Comparison between 3D measurement results and analyses

3.1. Damping coefficient in a smooth flow

We have tried to estimate the damping ratio of the vertical first mode of the 3D
model in a smooth flow both by H1 of the 2D deck sections and by Den Hartog
condition considering the mode shape.
(1) From unsteady aerodynamic coefficient

z0 o0 rb2 H1eq
z¼  ; ð2Þ
o 2meq
 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111 2105

Fig. 5. Response at the cantilever edge in 3D wind tunnel tests: (a) in a smooth flow and (b) in the
turbulent flow. (The wind direction has been perpendicular to the bridge axis in the tests.)

where
P
o0  iðGÞ

H1;4 ðU  ; fi q0 =BÞf2i li
o ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi; H1;4eq ¼ P 2
;
iðGÞ fi li
1 þ ðrb2 H4eq  =m Þ
eq

M
meq ¼ P 2
:
iðGÞ fi li

(2) From steady aerodynamic derivatives

 
rUB dCL
z ¼ z0 þ þ CD ; ð3Þ
4meq o0 da
where z is the damping ratio, z0 is the structural damping ratio, o0 is the structural
circular frequency, meq is the equivalent mass of the first mode, U  is the reduced
2106 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111

velocity (U  ¼ U=ðfBÞ), fi is the mode amplitude of the ith member of the first
mode, q0 is the amplitude of the generalized coordinate of the first mode, li is the

Pith member, M is the generalized mass of the first mode, a is the attack
length of the
angle, and iðGÞ is the sum of deck girder members.
V 2d (logarithmic damping coefficient, d ¼ 2pz) characteristics obtained from
Eqs. (2) and (3) are compared to those of the 3D tests in Fig. 6. In both cases of the
original deck section (open-grating section (O-G) and closed-grating section (C-G)),
damping factors of the 3D tests cannot be evaluated from Eq. (2) or (3) using 2D
deck section characteristics only. This inconsistency is considered to be due to
disregarding the effect of the gangway structure at the beam edge. The damping
factors of 3D tests are larger than that obtained by using deck section damping only

Fig. 6. Damping ratio of the vertical first mode in a smooth flow: (a) 3D V2d under open grating
condition and (b) 3D V 2d under closed grating condition.
 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111 2107

Eq. (2) or (3). This indicates that the gangway structure contributes to stability
against heaving flutter (galloping), while it increases the gust response of the
horizontal mode as shown in Section 2.2.

3.2. Gust response

In the analysis process, we adopt frequency domain method [2] and introduce the
assumptions as follows: (1) the aeroelastic forces are expressed by quasi-steady
theory and modal coupling caused by aeroelastic forces can be neglected, (2) the gust
response of each mode is mainly due to one-component turbulence which is
dominant for the mode. The latter assumption is considered to be valid in the case of
this bridge because the preliminary study indicates that the analytical response
taking only one-component turbulence into account is almost identical to that taking
two components into account.
The analyses are carried out under the site condition obtained by follow-up
site measurements as well as under the 3D wind tunnel test condition as shown in
Table 3. The aerodynamic forces of the section near the beam edge are applied to all
deck parts along the beam, considering that the aerodynamic property near the beam

Table 3
Conditions of gust-response analyses

Wind tunnel condition The site condition

Horizontal first Vertical first Horizontal first Vertical first

mode mode mode mode
a
Generalized mass Mj (kg m2) 0.112 0.0988 25720 22490
Structural damping ratio zs 0.00189 0.00294 0.00318 0.00191
Natural freq. fs (Hz) 5.34 6.34 0.739 0.839

Aerodynamic damping Quasi-steady

Three-component Deck CL ¼ 0:220; CD ¼ 0:957; dCL =da ¼ 0:925

Gangway (member CD ¼ 1:41 (corresponds to CD ¼ 1:6 for projected area: 28.2 m2),
length l ¼ 11:4 m, dCL =da ¼ 0:38
width B ¼ 2:8 m)
Turbulent Horizontal Iu (%)12.5 32.0
intensity
Vertical Iw (%) 8.5 17.1

PSD of turbulence Karman type

Turbulence scale Horizontal Lu (m) 0.238 72.9
(wind direction)
Vertical Lw (m) 0.063 11.7

Spatial correlation Exponential type (decay factor k ¼ 8)

Aerodynamic admittance Quasi-steady Quasi-steady Quasi-steady Quasi-steady
and Davenport and Sears Fn. and Davenport and Sears Fn.
a
The Max. modal amplitude (73 m from the tower) is scaled to 1 m.
2108 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111

edge has dominant role in first modes of the cantilever. The aerodynamic drag force
of the gangway is given by the projected area and the supposed CD value. The lift
coefficient CL of the gangway is supposed to be 0 and the slope of the lift dCL =da is
estimated from the damping ratio in the 3D test in smooth flow. Karman type, which
is in good agreement with the measured power spectral density (PSD) as shown in
Fig. 7, is applied as the PSD of turbulence. As for the aerodynamic admittance
function, Davenport type [3] is tested in the horizontal mode, and Sears function [4]
is tested in the vertical mode as well as the quasi-steady type. The gust response
observed in the 3D wind tunnel test is compared with that obtained from the analysis
in Fig. 8. The analysis does not correspond with the 3D test particularly in the
horizontal first mode.
Carried out for the identification of the gust response observed on the site are not
only the analysis but also the correction of the 3D wind tunnel test result. By applying
the frequency domain analysis method, the correction is conducted as follows:
  ! !
 2
2 jH1p ðfp Þj2 Sup ðfp Þ Iup
fp Sq1p ðfp Þ ¼ n fm Sq1m ðfm Þ ;
jH1m ðfm Þj2  ðf Þ
Sum m
2
Ium
 ! !
2  S  ðf Þ I 2
jH 2p ðf p Þj wp p wp
fp Sq2p ðfp Þ ¼ n2 fm Sq2m ðfm Þ  ðf Þ
;
jH2m ðfm Þj2 Swm m
2
Iwm

1
jHjp;m ðf Þj2 ¼ (  2 )2  2 ; ð5Þ
fp;m 2 fp;m
1 þ4ðz0jp;m þ zajp;m Þ
fjp;m fjp;m

Su ðf Þ ¼ f  Su ðf Þ=s2u ; Sw ðf Þ ¼ f  Sw ðf Þ=s2w ; ð6Þ

Fig. 7. Power spectral density of wind turbulence: (a) horizontal component and (b) vertical component.
 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111 2109

Fig. 8. Standard deviation of the gust response in the wind tunnel: (a) the horizontal first mode and (b) the
vertical first mode.

where Sqj ðf Þ is the PSD function of the generalized displacement of the jth mode,
jHj ðf Þj2 is the mechanical admittance of the jth mode, Su ðf Þ and Sw ðf Þ are the
reduced PSD function of horizontal and vertical turbulence, Iu and Iw are
the horizontal and vertical turbulence intensity (su;w =U), f is the frequency, fj is
the natural frequency of the jth mode, z0j is the structural damping ratio of the jth
mode, zaj is the aerodynamic damping ratio of the jth mode, Su ðf Þ and Sw ðf Þ are the
PSD function of horizontal and vertical turbulence, su and sw are the standard
deviation of horizontal and vertical turbulence, and n is the scaling magnitude of the
3D model. The suffix p represents the prototype and m represents the 3D model. In
the correction, the Karman-type PSD shown in Fig. 7 is applied. The correction of
the spatial correlation is not taken into account because the measurement of
correlation has not been performed in both the wind tunnel test and the site
measurement. However, the preliminary parametric study where decay factor k
varies from 4 to 16 brings the standard deviation 18% difference in the horizontal
mode and 4% in the vertical mode, so that, in case of this bridge, the special
correlation is considered to have a slight effect on the gust response. Shown in Fig. 9
are the gust responses observed on the site, obtained from the correction and from
the analysis. The gust response obtained from the correction of the 3D test
corresponds with the response on the site. The corrected response of the horizontal
first mode is similar to the original in spite of the difference in turbulence intensity
(Table 3). This reason is considered that, as shown in Fig. 7, the difference in
turbulence is mainly due to the lower frequency region and, in practical wind region
(fZ=U ¼ 0:220:7), the difference in the power is only about 1.9 times (1.4 times in
linear scale) which is cancelled out by the difference in the structural damping factor.
The response obtained by the analysis does not corresponds with that observed on
2110 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111

Fig. 9. Standard deviation of the gust response on the site: (a) the horizontal first mode and (b) the vertical
first mode. (The wind direction has been perpendicular to the bridge axis on the site.)

the site, particularly in the horizontal mode. This inconsistency is believed to be due
to the uncertainty of the aerodynamic admittances both of the deck and the gangway
structure.

4. Concluding remarks

The 2D and 3D wind tunnel tests and site measurements have been performed for
the cable-stayed bridge with the cantilever deck beam, which is very unique from a
view point of wind engineering.
(1) The 2D deck section tests have cleared that the grating brings aerodynamic
stability in heaving motion. The deck section with the grating does not have
unstable aerodynamic forces both in heaving and torsional 1DOF motion.
(2) In the 3D model test, the deck beam has been statically deformed to the
horizontal and the gust response has been observed while other dynamic
phenomena have not occurred.
(3) The galloping analyses using 2D deck properties underestimate the damping
factor of 3D model, which indicates that the gangway structure contributed to
aerodynamic stabilization in heaving motion.
(4) The gust-response analysis has failed, presumably due to the uncertainty of the
aerodynamic admittance, to reproduce the gust response, particularly in the
horizontal first mode. The correction of the response of the 3D wind tunnel test
has been conducted in frequency domain, considering the differences between
wind turbulence and structural properties of the 3D wind tunnel test and those
of the site. The correction has succeeded in reproducing the gust response
observed on the site.
 F. Yoshizumi, H. Inoue / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 2099–2111 2111

The present work has led to fatigue damage simulation of the deck in which the
identified gust-response characteristics is applied, and it has been estimated that
there is little or no possibility of fatigue collapse.

References

[1] R.H. Scanlan, J.J. Tomko, Airfoil and bridge deck flutter derivatives, ASCE J. Eng. Mech. Div. 97
(EM6) (1971) 1717–1737.
[2] H. Katsuchi, S. Saeki, T. Miyata, H. Sato, Analytical assessment in wind-resistant design of long-span
bridges in Japan, in: Larsen, Esdahl (Eds.), Bridge Aerodynamics, Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410
9610, 1998, pp. 87–98.
[3] A.G. Davenport, Buffeting of a suspension bridge by storm winds, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 88 (ST3)
(1962) 233–268.
[4] W.R. Sears, Some aspect of non-stationary airfoil theory and its practical applications, J. Aeronaut.
Sci. 8 (3) (1941) 104–108.