cable stayed bridge report
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
1/25
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1Preview
Social and economic demand for efficient transportation system has resulted in greater demand forlong span cable-stayed bridges all over the world. Cable-stayed bridges usually span wide rivers,
canals etc., therefore modern long span cable-stayed bridges are very light weight, flexible, and
exhibit low damping. Since cablestayed bridges are frequently constructed along the coastal
areas, they are vulnerable to high wind speed and turbulence. Therefore wind induced vibration is
a very common phenomenon which poses a new challenges to the bridge engineers. The infamous
failure of original Tacoma Narrow Bridge (1940) opens a new chapter in the field of wind induced
vibration of long span cable-supported bridges (Fig. 1.1). Thus to ensure safe and efficient
functionality of bridges and vehicle under wind loading, it is of utmost importance to accurately
determine the behaviors and performances of cable-stayed bridges due to wind induced vibration
and consequently effective measures for mitigating excessive vibration to an acceptable level and
to improve stability to avoid catastrophic collapse.
Figure 1.1 The failure of original Tacoma Narrow Bridge (1940) (Source: Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge1.gif)).
1.2 Main features of Cable-stayed Bridges
As shown in Fig. 1.2 a cable-stayed bridge mainly consists of three components- (i) Bridge Deck,
(ii) stay cables and (iii) towers or pylons. Although the concept of cable-stayed bridges actuallyoriginated from suspension bridge but they have very different principles. Cable-stayed bridge is
an optimization between spans longer than cantilever bridges and shorter than suspension bridges.
The deck girder, tower and cables are basic structural features of a cable-stayed bridges. The
components of the bridges are mainly subjected to axial forces. The cables are under tension
whereas the pylon and deck is under compression. Two important advantages are (i) since the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge1.gif)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge1.gif)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge1.gif)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge1.gif) -
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
2/25
2
members are predominantly under axial loading, therefore their performance is better as compared
to any flexural member; (ii) for a symmetric cable-stayed bridge the horizontal force in the deck
Figure 1.2 Schematic diagram showing main components of cable-stayed bridge.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1.3 Different types of cable systems (a) harp type, (b) fan type and (c) radial type.
balances, thus eliminate the requirement of large anchorage. There are mainly three types of cable
system as shown in Fig. 1.3, (i) harp or parallel cable system, (ii) fan or intermediate cable systemand (iii) radial or converging cable system. Deck may be either comprising of concrete or steel or
a composite section with concrete slab in a steel frame. Pylons can be of different shapes like H-
shaped pylon, A-shape, the inverted Y and the diamond shape etc.
1.3Organization of the report
Chapter 1 gives introduction about the cable-stayed bridges.
Chapter 2 introduces the concept of mean wind load and aerostatic instability. Also simple finite
element modelling of cable-supported bridges are discussed briefly in this chapter.
Wind induced vibration and aerodynamic instabilities e.g. vortex-induced vibration, gallopinginstability, flutter and buffeting are described in chapter 3.
Chapter 4 presents various control strategies to mitigate wind-induced vibration of cable-supported
bridges.
Finally, chapter 5 gives conclusions of the present study including few possible directions for
future research.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
3/25
3
Chapter 2
AEROSTATIC INSTABILITY
2.1 Wind speed components
The wind speed is usually decomposed into a mean wind speed which acts in the mean winddirection and three mutually perpendicular components. At a given point and time wind velocities
can be written as
In the longitudinal direction: ),,,()( tzyxuzU
In the lateral direction: ),,,( tzyxv
In the vertical direction: ),,,( tzyxw
In which )(zU is the mean wind speed as a function ofz , the height above ground, and wvu ,, are
the fluctuating parts of the wind in the yx, and z direction respectively.
2.2 Mean wind load
The total bridge response is considered as the sum of mean response and random response with
zero mean. Mean response can be calculated from mean wind load which depend on mean wind
speed. As the modern long span cable-stayed bridges are highly flexible in nature, therefore mean
wind loading can cause considerable movement of the bridge components. Furthermore it can
cause aerostatic instability which may lead to collapse of the bridge. Although the mean wind load
is usually expressed with respect to the wind coordinate system, it can also be expressed with
respect to the structural coordinate system as shown in Fig. 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Mean wind load in wind coordinate system and structural coordinate system[Xu 2013].
The drag force, lift force and moment acting on a bridge deck section can be given by the following
expressions
)(2
1)( 2
DD BCUF 2.1(a)
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
4/25
4
)(2
1)( 2
LL BCUF 2.1(b)
)(2
1)( 2
MBCUM 2.1(c)
WhereLD
CC , andM
C are the non-dimensional drag, lift and moment coefficients respectively and
all depends upon the wind angle of attack . These coefficients are obtained through wind tunnel
tests of the geometrically scaled model of the prototype bridge. U is the incoming wind velocity
and B is the characteristic dimension of the bridge section, usually taken as the width of the deck.
2.3 Torsional Divergence
It is referred to as the torsional instability which causes continuous increase in the bridge deck
rotation until failure at a critical wind speed. It is a non-oscillatory phenomenon which takes place
abruptly, leading to collapse of the bridge.
1-D Torsional divergence
Figure 2.2 1-D deck model of torsional divergence [Xu 2013].
Fig. 2.2 shows a 1-D model of the bridge deck section. Torsional equilibrium equation is given as
)(2
1 22
MCBUK (2.2)
K torsional stiffness of the bridge girder
Taylor series expansion of )(M
C with respect to zero angle of attack gives (higher order terms
are neglected)
)0()0()(MMM
CCC (2.3)
Substitution of Eq. (2.3) in (2.2) yields
)0(2
1)0(
2
1 2222MM
CBUCBUK
(2.4)
The second term on the left hand side in the parentheses acts as negative torsional stiffness which
increases with wind speed. When the effective torsional stiffness become zero, rotation of the
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
5/25
5
bridge section becomes divergent. So the critical wind speed corresponding to the torsional
divergence can be written as
0)0(2
1 22
M
CBUK
)0(
22
M
cr
CB
KU
(2.5)
2.4 3-D Aerostatic instability analysis
Boonyapinyo et al (1994)performed aerostatic instability analysis of cable-stayed bridges. This
is generally associated with lateral-torsional buckling. Boonyapinyo proposed a 3-D nonlinear
analysis which considers geometric nonlinearity and displacement dependent wind forces. In
iterative form the nonlinear equilibrium equation is written as
)](),(),([)](),(),([}{)]([][ 11111 jzjyjxjjzjyjxjjjge MFFFMFFFxxKK (2.6)
][e
K is the elastic linear stiffness matrix.
)]([ 1jg xK is the geometric stiffness matrix at the (j-1)-th step.
jx is the incremental displacement at the j-th step.
jF and 1jF are the structural displacement dependent wind load vectors at j-th and (j-1)-th iteration
respectively.
For a given wind velocity, convergence is reached when Euclidean norm of static aerodynamic
coefficients are less than a prescribed tolerance limit, i.e.
],,[
)]([
)]()([2
1
2
1
2
1
ZYXk
C
CC
kN
jk
N
jkjk
a
a
(2.6)
aN total node number and k prescribed tolerance limit.
2.5 Finite Element Modelling
2.5.1 Spine Beam Model
It is one of the simplest finite element model for a cable-stayed bridge. This simplified model can
effectively demonstrate the dynamic characteristics and overall structural behavior of a bridge
without much computational efforts. Therefore this model is preferred especially for predicting the
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
6/25
6
global structural behavior, initial design as well as aerodynamic analysis. However, for local
stress-strain analysis solid and/or shell element must be used. The following line elements are used
in spline beam model: beam elements, truss elements and rigid links.
Pylons and piers are modelled using beam element related to their geometric properties. Truss
elements are used to model the cables. The effects of geometric non-linearity is also taken intoaccount. The spline beam which is referred to as the central beam is used to model the deck. As
the bridge deck usually consists of variety of cross sections, the equivalent cross section of the
beam element is calculated by considering the effective area of all the sections. If different
materials are used in the deck-section, then all should be converted to single material through the
use of modular ratio. Similarly the position of neutral axis and the moment of inertia of the section
about transverse and vertical axis is calculated. Since the bridge section is not is not a circular one,
thus its rotational stiffness must include both pure and warping torsional constants. A typical beam
element is shown in Fig. 2.3
Figure 2.3 A typical beam element
However, this simplified model is unable to capture the local responses of some critical member
like stresses at joints which are prone to local failure. Multi-scale modeling can be used toovercome this problem. In a multi-scale model the components of interest can be modeled with
shell elements or solid elements and other components still with line elements.
2.5.2 Modeling of Cables
The total stiffness matrix of a cable element consists of elastic stiffness matrix and geometricstiffness matrix i.e.
][][][ get KKK (2.7)
The elastic stiffness matrix is affected by the sagging of the cable which is considered by
modifying the modulus of elasticity of the cable material. The total displacement of a cable can be
considered as the sum of elongation due to tension in the cable and negative displacement due to
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
7/25
7
self-weight of the cable. This concept is described by Ernsts modulus of elasticity, which relates
the increase in cable length due to increase in cable tension through the stiffness of the cable. The
equivalent modulus of elasticity is given as
3
2
12)(1TAEwL
EEeq (2.8)
Where E modulus of elasticity of cable material; w weight per unit length of the cable; L
horizontal projected length of the cable; A cross-section area of the cable; T mean tension in
cable.
The elastic stiffness matrix for a 3-D cable element is given as
000000
000000
001001
000000
000000
001001
][c
eq
eL
AEK (2.9)
c
L chord length of the cable
In a long-span cable-stayed bridge, the nodal displacements of a cable element is quite large.
Therefore, in addition to the elastic stiffness matrix, the geometric stiffness matrix of the stay cable
should be considered. The geometric stiffness matrix of a 3-D cable element is equal to that of the3-D truss element. It can be obtained by applying the principle of virtual displacements to a straight
element undergoing rigid body rotation and small but finite axial straining. The expression of
geometric stiffness matrix can be written as follows
100100010010
000000
100100
010010
000000
][c
gL
TK (2.10)
2.6 Summary
This chapter first introduces the concept of mean wind load and wind force coefficients. The 1-D
torsional divergence and the critical wind speed are then discussed. Usually cable-stayed bridges
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
8/25
8
are stiffer than the suspension bridges, thus less susceptible to torsional divergence. However, it
should be investigated as the modern long-span cable-stayed bridges are becoming more flexible.
The 3-D non-linear aerostatic instability analysis based on the finite element method (FEM) is also
discussed. A brief introduction on finite element modelling which is important for analysis of
various wind load effects on the bridge is also presented.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
9/25
9
Chapter 3
WIND INDUCED VIBRATION AND AERODYNAMIC INSTABILITY
There are four types of wind-induced vibration and aerodynamic instability problems that occur in
long span cable-stayed bridge, i.e. (i) Vortex induced vibration (ii) Galloping instability (iii) Flutter
and (iv) Buffeting.
3.1 Vortex Induced Vibration
Vortex induced vibrations may occur when vortices are shed alternatively from opposite sides of
a structure when it is interacting with an external fluid flow. Vortices are created behind the
structure and detach periodically from either side of the body. Pattern of vortex shedding differ
according to the Reynoldss Number. At low Reynoldss Number the flow around the body is
nearly symmetric but at higher Reynoldss Number (increases with wind speed) the flow becomes
asymmetric with respect to the mid-plane of the body. Therefore different lift forces developed on
each side of the body, resulting in harmonically varying lateral load. The frequency of this load is
same as that of the vortex shedding. This leads to motion transverse to flow.
Lock in Phenomenon
The frequency of vortex shedding ( )stf which depends on flow velocity Uand characteristic
dimension of the structure D (e.g. width of the bridge deck) can be obtained from the expression
D
USf tst (3.1)
tS is a dimensionless number called as the Strouhal number, named after the Czech physicist
Vincenc Strouhal.It is a function of the Reynolds number. However, experimental investigations
show that the Strouhal number is about constant across a wide range of the Reynolds number (102~
107). The Strouhal number is about 0.18 for a cylinder at a Reynolds number range 300 to .107
As the wind speed increases frequency of vortex shedding increases and when stf become equal
to the lowest natural frequency of the structure, first resonance takes place, leading to large
amplitude oscillation. As the vibration of the structure at this stage can be sufficiently large the
vortex shedding frequency is controlled by the structural vibration, this phenomenon is known asLock-in. The resonance can sustain through certain range of wind velocity. When wind velocity
increased to a certain level, again stf is controlled by wind velocity as given by Eq. (3.1). The
lock-in phenomenon is demonstrated in Fig. (3.1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenc_Strouhalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenc_Strouhal -
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
10/25
10
Figure 3.1 Vortex shedding frequency vs. wind velocity: Lock-in phenomenon [Simiu and
Scanlan, 1986].
A structure under vortex induced vibration can be expressed by the following governing equation
vsLKXXCXM
(3.2)
Where, KC,M, are structural mass, damping and the stiffness matrix respectively; X,XX, are the
nodal displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors respectively.vs
L is the vortex induced lift
force.
Assuming vortex induced force as simple harmonic the governing equation for SDOF system can
be written as
)sin(
2
1)2( 22 tDCUyyym sLnn (3.3)
m is mass of the structure, y is vertical displacement, is structural damping ratio,n
is natural
frequency of structure,s
is vortex shedding frequency and is phase angle.
At resonance i.e. whenns
, the lock-in response is given as
222
2
max
164 tc
L
n
L
SS
DC
m
UDCy
(3.4)
Where 2D
m
Sc
is the Scruton number. Therefore as the Scruton number increases vortex
induced response decreases. But the above simplified model does not consider the effect of motion
induced force.
Simiu and Scanlan(1986)proposed the following model of vortex induced force
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
11/25
11
)sin()()()(
2
1)( 21
2 tKCD
yKY
U
yKYDUtL nLvs
(3.5)
In whichU
BK
is the reduced frequency; )(),(),( 21 KCKYKY L are determined by experiments
and are functions ofKat Lock-in.
In 1990, Ehsan and Scanlan (1990)proposed a revised model which includes the nonlinear aero
elastic damping coefficient. It is given as
)sin()()()1)((
2
1)( 22
2
1
2
tKCD
yKY
U
y
D
yKYDUtL nLvs
(3.6)
is the nonlinear aerodynamic damping coefficients.
3.2 Galloping Instability
Galloping is a typical instability of flexible, lightly damped structures occurring due to the
aerodynamic forces that are induced wholly by the transverse motions of the structure and not
primarily due to vortex shedding. This large amplitude vertical oscillations usually occur at very
low reduced frequency as compared to that of vortex shedding. Although the incoming wind has
a fixed angle of attack, due to the across-wind oscillation of the structure the effective angle of
attack gets modified which leads to the change in aerodynamic forces and thereby introduces self-
excited forces.
Figure 3.2 Flow induced Galloping of a 2-D bridge deck.
As shown in Fig. 3.2, the effective wind velocity U acts on the structure with an angle of attack
with horizontal, although the incoming wind velocity U is horizontal. This is due to the motion
of the deck in y-direction. For the 2-D steady flow the drag and lift forces are expressed as
)(2
1)( 2
DBCUD (3.7a)
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
12/25
12
)(2
1)( 2
LBCUL (3.7b)
The force acting in the y-direction is
]sec)(tan)([2
1]cos)(sin)([
2
1)( 22 LDLDy CCBUCCBUF (3.8)
Taylor series expansion of Eq. (3.8) gives (higher order terms neglected)
U
yC
d
dCBUBCU
FFF D
LLyy
0
22
0 2
1)0(
2
1)0()(
(3.9)
Neglecting the static component, the expression for self-excited force is given by the last term of
Eq. (3.9) i.e.
U
yCd
dCBUF DLexcitedselfy
0
2
2
1)(
(3.10)
For a SDOF system undergoing vertical vibration and subjected to aerodynamic force expressed
by Eq. (3.10) can be written as
U
yC
d
dCBUkyycym D
L
0
2
2
1
02
1
0
kyyCd
dCUBcym D
L
(3.11)
Therefore galloping instability will occur when effective damping become negative or at least zero
i.e.
02
1
0
D
LC
d
dCUBc
UB
cC
d
dCD
L
2
0
(3.12)
3.3 Flutter
Flutter is the dynamic instability of the structure due to self-excited aerodynamic forces resulting
from windstructure interaction. Usually the instability occur when the net damping (can be
defined as the inherent structural damping and the negative aerodynamic damping) reduces to zero
and further decrease leads to failure. It can occur both under laminar and turbulent flow of wind
around bridge deck. Classical flutter of a thin airfoil is a coupled vertical and torsional vibration,
also called 2-D flutter. 1-D flutter may also occur in the form of vertical or torsional motion,
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
13/25
13
although the torsional motion is more dangerous. The famous failure of original Tacoma Narrow
Bridge (1940) is a consequence of two forms of 1-D flutter-initially at low wind speed vertical
motion takes place and with increase in the wind speed large amplitude catastrophic torsional
flutter.
Figure 3.3 2-D structures for flutter analysis.
3.3.1 Self-excited forces and Aerodynamic Derivatives
Scanlan and Tomko (1971)proposed aerodynamic derivatives to represent the self-excited forces
on a 2-D structure involving vertical and torsional vibration (Fig. 3.3) as
B
hHKHK
U
BKH
U
hKHBUL
se 4
2
3
2
21
2
2
1
(3.13a)
B
hAKAK
U
BKA
U
hKABUM
se 4
2
3
2
21
22
2
1
(3.13b)
Wherese
L andse
M are self-excited lift and moment respectively; h and are the vertical and
torsional displacement of the deck respectively; i
H and iA )41( i are the aerodynamic
derivatives or flutter derivatives which can be obtained either form wind tunnel tests or
computational fluid dynamics.
3.3.2 Theodorsen expression for self-excited forces
For a flat plate airfoil subjected to sinusoidal motion, the self-excited lift and moment are given
by Theodorsen(1934)as
)(2)](1[)(2 2 kCUUbkChkUChbbLse
(3.14a)
)()](2
1[
8)( 2
22
kCUUbkCb
hkUCbMse
(3.14b)
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
14/25
14
b half width of the plate; )()()( kiGkFkC is the Theodorsen cyclic function. The variation
of real part )(kF and imaginary part )(kG withk
1are given graphically in Fig. 3.4 (Theodorsen
1934).
Figure 3.4 The functions Fand G againstk
1(Theodorsen1934).
Comparing Equations (3.13) and (3.14) for sinusoidal displacements ),( h the flutter derivatives
can be obtained as
k
kGkF
kKH
k
kFKH
)(2)(1
4)(
)()( 21
(3.15a)
k
kGKH
kkGkF
kKH
)(21
2)(
2
)()(
2)( 423
(3.15b)
k
kGkF
kKA
k
kFKA
)(2)(1
16)(
4
)()( 21
(3.15c)
k
kGKA
kkGkF
kKA
4
)()(
2
)()(
8)( 423
(3.15d)
where 2Kk .
3.3.3 3-D Flutter Analysis in Frequency Domain
Since the self-excited forces are functions of reduced frequency, therefore the flutter instability
analysis is usually performed in frequency domain for computational efficiency. The aim of the
analysis is to obtain the critical flutter wind speed. 3-D Flutter instability problem of cable-
supported bridges has been studied by many researchers (Scanlan 86, Jain et al. 1996, Ding et al.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
15/25
15
2002to name a few). One of the efficient method involve state-space formulation of the governing
equation in modal coordinate and then performing the complex eigenvalue analysis to obtain the
critical wind speed (Ding et al 2002). For 3-D flutter analysis which involve vertical ( h ), lateral (
p ) as well as torsional displacement ( ), the self-excited lift, drag and moment can be expressed
in terms of Scanlans format as follows
B
pHK
U
pKH
B
hHKHK
U
BKH
U
hKHBUtLse 6
2
54
2
3
2
21
2
2
1)(
(3.16a)
B
pPK
U
pKP
B
hPKPK
U
BKP
U
hKPBUtDse 6
2
54
2
3
2
21
2
2
1)(
(3.16b)
B
pAK
U
pKA
B
hAKAK
U
BKA
U
hKABUtMse 6
2
54
2
3
2
21
22
2
1)(
(3.16c)
)61(,, iAPHiii
are the non-dimensional aerodynamic derivatives.
The governing equation can written as
seFKXXCXM (3.17)
seF is the self-excited equivalent nodal force vector.
3.3.4 Flutter in Time Domain
Although the flutter analysis is generally performed in the frequency domain for computational
efficiency, its application is limited only to the linear systems since both the structural and
aerodynamic nonlinearity cannot be taken into consideration in this method. Chen et al. (2000)
proposed a time-domain multimode flutter and buffeting analysis, through the rational function
approximation of the self-excited forces. These functions are obtained from the flutter derivatives
and the span wise coherence of aerodynamic forces. Time domain analysis results of an example
bridge shows good agreement with frequency domain analysis.
3.4 Buffeting
A long span cable-stayed bridge is subjected to both static and dynamic wind forces. Static wind
force is due to mean wind speed whereas the dynamic part comes from the turbulence in the winddue to fluctuating wind speed. Buffeting of a bridge is referred to as the random vibration of the
bridge due to wind turbulence. It occurs under wide ranges of wind speed. However, the model of
buffeting wind load must consists of both the buffeting wind load due to turbulent wind and the
self-excited aerodynamic forces from wind-bridge interaction, since the self-excited forces
increases the magnitude of vibration by providing additional vibration energy to the bridge. As in
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
16/25
16
the case of flutter analysis, both the frequency domain (Scanlan 1986, Jain et al. 1996) and time-
domain (Chen et al. 2000) approach can be adopted for buffeting analysis.
Buffeting Forces
The aerodynamic forces in the bridge deck in the transient wind axis system (Fig. 3.5) can be
expressed as
Figure 3.5 Wind and Buffeting forces on bridge deck[Xu 2013].
BCtUtLL
)()(2
1)( 0
2
(3.18a)
BCtUtDD
)()(2
1)( 0
2
(3.18b)
2
0
2)()(
21)( BCtUtM
M (3.18c)
Where0
is the angle of attack of mean wind speed ;U is the change in angle of attack due to
turbulence. From Fig. 3.5, )(2 tU can be expressed as
U
tuUtwtuUtU
)(21)()()( 2
222 (3.19)
Assuming being very small
U
tw
U
tu
U
tw
tuU
tw )()(1
)(
)(
)(tansin
1
(3.20)
The Taylor series expansion (up to first two terms) of Equations (3.18) give
)()()( 000 kkk CCC ; DLk , andM . (3.21)
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
17/25
17
Transforming the forces along the mean wind direction, using Eq. (3.18)
)sin()()cos()()(
tDtLtL (3.22a)
)sin()()cos()()(
tDtDtD (3.22b)
)()( tMtM
(3.22c)
Now using equations (3.19) to (3.21), equations (3.22) can be expressed as follows
)()(
)(2
1)()()(
)(2)(
2
1)(
0
0
2
000
2
staticb
LDLL
LtL
BCUU
twCC
U
tuCBUtL
(3.23a)
)()(
)(2
1)()(
)(2)(
2
1)(
0
0
2
00
2
staticb
DDD
DtD
BCUU
twC
U
tuCBUtD
(3.23b)
)()(
)(2
1)()(
)(2)(
2
1)(
0
0
22
00
22
staticb
MMM
MtM
CBUU
twC
U
tuCBUtM
(3.23c)
Where )(),(),( tMtDtLbbb
are the buffeting lift, drag and moment.
Equation of motion of a bridge deck in buffeting can be expressed as
sbse FFFKXXCXM
(3.24)
se
F self-excited force vector as given in Eq. (3.16); bF buffeting forces as given by first part of
Equations (3.23) and s
F mean wind force vector given by second part of Eq. (3.23).
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
18/25
18
3.5 Comparison of the four Instabilities
Vortex-Induced
Vibration
Galloping
InstabilityFlutter Buffeting
Occurs at low wind
speed and low
turbulence condition.
Occur at much lower
frequency than vortex
shedding.
Usually occur at very
high wind speed.
Occur over a wide
range of wind speed.
Due to Lock-in,
vortex shedding
frequencynatural
frequency of bridge
components.
Motion of structure in
vertical direction
causes change in
angle of attack of
original flow velocity.
Due to self-excited
aerodynamic forces
resulting from wind
structure interaction.
Due to velocity
fluctuation in the
incoming flow i.e.
turbulence.
Resulting motion
normal to flow, for
bridge deck it is in thevertical direction.
Large amplitude
vibration in normal to
mean wind direction.
Flutter can be 1D
(vertical or torsional),
2D (coupled verticaland torsional motion)
or 3D (coupled
vertical, torsional and
lateral motion).
Random vibration.
Motion can be any
combination oflateral, torsional and
vertical.
Simple harmonic
force due to alternate
vortex shedding as
well as motion
induced force.
Self-excited forces. Self-excited forces. Not self-excited.
Increase in damping
reduces instability.
Increase in damping
reduces instability.
Effect of increase in
damping is very low.
Increase in damping
reduces response.
3.6 Summary
A brief overview of the dynamics of cable-supported bridges under wind loading is given in this
chapter. Four types of wind induced vibration and aerodynamic instabilities are discussed. For
long span cable-stayed bridges flutter instability is the most catastrophic in nature and can lead to
complete collapse of a bridge. It is mainly a coupled torsional and vertical motion of the bridge
deck caused by the self-excited aerodynamic forces due to wind bridge interaction. Determinationof critical flutter wind speed is an important step in flutter instability analysis for which the
Scanlan and Tomkomodel (1971) can be used to represent the self-excited forces on the deck.
The values of aerodynamic derivatives can be taken either form some wind tunnel test data or can
be calculated explicitly from the Theodorsens functions.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
19/25
19
Chapter 4
WIND INDUCED VIBRATION CONTROL
It is well known that the long span cable-supported bridges are very susceptible to wind induced
vibration and aerodynamic instability. Furthermore, multiple loading related fatigue, rain-wind
induced cable vibration, vehicle-bridge interaction effects can also lead to excessive vibration and
collapse of the bridge. In addition, excessive vibration may affect safety and comfort of the vehicle
and the passengers inside it. So in order to ensure proper functioning of the bridge during its service
period as well as to prevent failures, some control measure should be taken.
Broadly vibration control of long span cable-supported bridges can be classified into the following
three categories.
(i) Modification of structural parameters
(ii) Aerodynamic measures and
(iii)
Mechanical measures.
4.1 Structural Modification
This can be done by modifying structural mass, damping and stiffness either at global level or local
level (e.g. applied to bridge components like bridge deck, stay cables and towers). By increasing
the damping of the structure substantial reduction in vortex induced vibration, galloping instability
and buffeting can be achieved. However, the increase in damping has very little effect on flutter
instability.
Torsional stiffness of bridge deck can be increased by selecting proper cross-section of the deck.
To reduce the vibration of the stay cables, cross-ties can be used to increase the in plane stiffness.However, this may hamper cables aesthetic view.
4.2 Aerodynamic Measures
Aerodynamic measures are adopted to modify the wind flow around the bridge components by
changing its configuration through the installation of some aerodynamic devices. Some of the
aerodynamic measures that can be implemented in cable-stayed bridges are as follows
(i) Wedge-shaped fairings
(ii) Longitudinal open slots with or without stabilizer
(iii)
Aerodynamic appendages(iv)
Actively controlled surfaces
(v) deck-flap system
(vi) Guide vanes (e.g. second bay bridge in San Francisco), adjustable wind barrier, grid
plates etc.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
20/25
20
4.3 Mechanical Measures
This includes passive control system, active control system, and semi-active and hybrid control
system. The effects of these measures is to modify the structural characteristics and thereby reduce
the wind induced vibration. In the following section a few active and semi-active control strategies
are discussed briefly.
4.3.1 Active control system
Active control system like active mass damper or active tendon systems are quite effectively used
to reduce the response of the building structures subjected to wind or earthquake. However, active
control system for bridge vibration control is a relatively new and emerging field. Moreover, their
implementation for wind induced vibration mitigation in real long span cable-supported bridges
are very limited. rlinoK and Starossek (2004)proposed two types of active mass damper (AMD)
system for flutter control of bridge deck. These are rotational mass damper (RMD) and movable
eccentric mass damper (MEMD) [Fig. 4.1].
(a) (b)
Figure 4.1 Two types of AMD (a) Rotating Mass Damper; (b) Movable Eccentric Mass Damper [
r l in oK and Starossek 2004]
The bridge is model considered to have two degrees of freedom, vertical displacement )(h and
rotational displacement )( . For the RMD, an additional mass is installed along the center of the
bridge. The control input is the rotational acceleration of the central mass. In case of MEMD, a
mass movable across the deck width is used and the resisting moment is exerted by the gravity of
the additional mass. The control variable in this case is the eccentricity of the movable mass. A
linear optimal static feedback control strategy is used to enhance the flutter stability of the bridge
deck. Hurwitz stability criterion is used to determine the critical flutter wind speed of the
uncontrolled and controlled structure. This criterion is based on the coefficients of the
characteristic polynomial. A time domain analysis is also performed by considering the rational
function approximation of the unsteady aerodynamic forces. Furthermore, a combined numerical-
experimental simulation has been conducted to verify the analytical results. The critical wind speed
of optimally controlled structure increase to 50 m/s from 36 m/s as that of uncontrolled structure.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
21/25
21
The increase in the additional mass results in reduction of control energy requirement. It has been
observed that RMD requires high energy input to produce desired rotational acceleration due to its
low mass moment of inertia as compared to the bridge section. Although the movable eccentric
mass requires lower energy consumption, its movement can induce undesirable horizontal
movement of the real bridge structure. Authors suggested that due to the large energy demand as
well as the effect of saturation of control, bridge deck flutter control cannot be solved only through
these two devices using linear control theories. Therefore, new active control devices and/or more
robust control algorithms may be considered for further future research.
rlinoK and Starossek (2007)performed wind tunnel test on rotational mass damper system to
investigate its suitability in flutter control of bridge deck. Rotational servo actuator is used to
produce stabilizing moment by changing the rotational speed of the control mass. The critical wind
speed obtained through experimentally and numerically are found to be in good agreement for both
uncontrolled and controlled system.
Achkire et al (1998)proposed active tendon control of stay cables to control flutter instability ofthe suspension bridge (Fig. 4.2). An alternative strategy which includes displacement actuator
(active tendon) collocated with a force sensor and the decentralized integral force feedback control
algorithm are implemented. This control law guaranteed the stability of the system. Active tendon
control enhances the flutter stability as it is observed from the shifting of the system poles towards
the left in the complex plane. To confirm the analytical results, a laboratory experiment on a model
using piezoelectric actuator is also performed.
Figure 4.2 Active tendons for flutter control of bridge deck. [Achk ir e et al (1998)]
4.3.2 Semi-active control
A semi-active control strategy using semi-active tuned mass damper (STMD) has been proposed
by Pourzeynali and Datta (2005). The STMD system has two degrees of freedom, vertical
displacement and rotational displacement. It is installed at the middle of the center span. A semi-
active hydraulic damper (SHD) is incorporated between the TMD mass and the bridge deck
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
22/25
22
(Fig.4.3). The variable damping provided by SHD is controlled using fuzzy logic controller (FLC).
The displacement and velocity at center of bridge where the STMD is installed, are taken as the
input to the controller. The output from the FLC system is the variable damping ratio of the semi-
active damper.
Figure 4.3 Semi-active tuned mass damper (STMD) system: (a) location of the STMD in the bridge;
(b) cross-section showing bridge deck and STMD. [Pourzeynali and Datta (2005)]
The Vincent-Thomas suspension bridge is considered for numerical studies. The self-excited
forces per unit length of the bridge span is taken as that given by Jain et al (1996). Comparison
of the effectiveness of passive TMD and STMD for bridge deck flutter control is reproduced here
as given by the authors.
Table 4.1 Comparison of the efficiencies of passive TMD and STMD control the bridge.
[Pourzeynali and Datta (2005)]
CaseWind Speed
(m/s)
Max. Torsional
amp. (rad.)
Uncontrolled55.52 (flutter, sustained
oscillation)0.02
Controlled with tuned mass damper (20%
damping)
98 (flutter, sustained
oscillation)0.02
Controlled with semi-active tuned mass
damper (max. damping 21.6%)110 (decaying oscillation) 0.0063
The table clearly shows the effectiveness of STMD over passive TMD not only in the increase of
flutter wind speed but also in the reduction of maximum torsional amplitude. Various parametric
studies with different initial conditions and different fuzzy rule bases are conducted to investigate
the performance of the system. It is observed that STMD can bring the whole system in stable
condition within few seconds (50-60 sec.). Also being a semi-active system the power
consumption is very low as compared to purely active control system. The maximum control force
requirement which in turn depends on the maximum damping to be provided by the SHD is
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
23/25
23
dependent on the initial condition and fuzzy rule base, as the parametric study show. The time
delay effect is ignored in this study and therefore, it can form the scope of future studies as
suggested by authors. Nevertheless, STMD system with variable damping is a very effective
method to mitigate flutter instability of cable-supported bridges.
4.4 Summary
This chapter gives an overview of the different wind induced vibration control strategies like
structural modification, aerodynamics measures and mechanical measures. Giving the priority to
the mechanical measures, few active and semi-active control devices and their effectiveness are
discussed in detail. From these literatures review it can be concluded that there exist ample scope
of future research on new active, semi-active and hybrid control systems with robust control
algorithms to mitigate aerodynamic instability e.g. application of hybrid mass damper using direct
feedback control algorithms, consideration of time delay effect etc.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
24/25
24
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS
With the ever increasing prospects of developing super long span cable-stayed bridges to cross
straits around the world, the studies on advanced bridge wind engineering is becoming more
important day by day. These long span bridges are highly susceptible and vulnerable to wind
induced vibration and aerodynamic instability due to their high flexibility and inherently low
damping. Therefore, the effective control measures to mitigate the wind induced vibration and
their implementation to the real bridge structures are highly motivating and challenging task.
The following aspects regarding the wind effects on cable-stayed bridges may be considered as
the topic of future studies.
Non-linear flutter and buffeting analysis.
Vibration due to stay cables and bridge deck interactions.
Wind effects on coupled vehicle-bridge systems. Study on new active, semi-active and hybrid control systems with robust control algorithms
to mitigate aerodynamic instability.
In the next eight months a FEM model for flutter analysis of a cable stayed bridge will be
developed. The free vibration analysis will be performed to determine the natural frequencies and
mode shapes. To determine the critical flutter wind speed, the self-excited aerodynamic forces will
be considered either using the Scanlan and Tomko (1971) model in frequency domain or the
model based on rational function approximation of self-excited forces (Chen et al 2000) for time
domain analysis.
-
7/21/2019 cable stayed bridge report
25/25
25
REFERENCES
1. Achkire, Y., Bossens, F., and Preumont, A. (1998), Active damping and flutter control of
cable-stayed bridges,Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 7476, 913
921.
2. Boonyapinyo, V., Yamada, H., and Miyata, T. (1994), Wind-induced non-linear lateral-
torsional buckling of cable-stayed bridges,Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120(2),
486506.
3. Chen, X.Z., Matsumoto, M., and Kareem, A. (2000), Time domain flutter and buffeting
response analysis of bridges, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 126(1), 716.
4. Ding, Q., Chen, A., and Xiang, H. (2002), A state-space method for coupled flutter analysis of
long-span bridges, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 14(4), 49150.
5. Ehsan, F., and Scanlan, R.H. (1990), Vortex-induced vibration of flexible bridges, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 116(6), 13921411.
6. Jain, A., Jones, N.P., and Scanlan, R.H. (1996), Coupled flutter and buffeting analysis of long-
span bridges,Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(7), 716725.
7. Korlin, R., and Starossek, U. (2004), Active mass dampers for flutter control of bridges,Eighth
International Conference on Flow-Induced Vibrations, Paris, July 69.
8. Korlin, R. and Starossek, U. (2007), Wind tunnel test of an active mass damper for bridge
decks,Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95 (4), 267277.
9. Pourzeynali, S., and Datta, T.K. (2005), Semi active fuzzy logic control of suspension bridge
flutter,Journal of Structural Engineering, 131 (6), 900912.
10.Scanlan, R.H., and Tomko, J.J. (1971), Airfoil and bridges deck flutter derivatives, Journal of
the Engineering Mechanics Division, 97(6), 17171737.
11.Simiu, E., and Scanlan, R.H. (1986), Wind Effects on Structures, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons.
12.Theodorson, T. (1934), General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of
flutter,NACA Report 496,National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington DC.
13.Xu, Y.L. (2013), Wind Effects on Cable-supported Bridges, CRC Press, John Wiley & Sons
Singapore Pte. Ltd.