Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 7476 (1998) 7390

Advances in aeroelastic analyses
of suspension and cable-stayed bridges
Allan Larsen*
COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Parallelvej 15, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Abstract
Cross-section shape is an important parameter for the wind response and aeroelastic stability
of long span suspension and cable-stayed bridges. Numerical simulation methods have now
been developed to a stage where assessment of the eect of practical cross-section shapes on
bridge response is possible. The present paper reviews selected numerical simulations carried
out for a long-span suspension bridge using nite dierence and discrete vortex methods.
Comparison of simulations to existing wind tunnel data is discussed. Further, the paper
addresses the aerodynamics and structural response of four generic cross-section shapes
developed fromthe well-known plate girder section of the rst Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Finally
a case study involving the wind response of a 400 m main span cable-stayed bridge is
discussed. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Numerical methods; Bridge aerodynamics; Bueting; Vortex shedding excitation;
Aeroelastic instability
1. Introduction
The engineering discipline of bridge-aerodynamics was born of the spray rising
from the fall of the rst Tacoma Narrows Bridge into the Puget Sound in 1940. In his
monumental investigation of the bridge collapse, Farquharson [1] covered a wide
range of technical aspects ranging from experimental techniques over aerodynamics
and structural dynamics to guidelines for bridge design. Probably, the singlemost
important nding of the Tacoma Narrows investigation was that vortex-shedding
excitation and utter instability of a complete suspension bridge could be accurately
represented by a spring-supported section model of the deck structure. This important
*E-mail: aln@cowi.dk.
0167-6105/98/$19.00 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 5
result was later corroborated by wind tunnel investigations conducted in the United
Kingdom in connection with design of a suspension bridge for crossing of the river
Severn, Frazer and Scruton [2]. Further versatility was added to section model testing
by Davenport [3], who advanced a method for assessment of bueting response of
complete bridge structures to turbulent wind based on aerodynamic section data.
Needless to say, section model testing oers substantial savings relative to testing of
full aeroelastic bridge section models.
Structural analyses of bridges have moved from laboratory testing of physical
models to computer-based nite element modelling. This development has allowed
the designer to experiment with dierent structural systems and congurations
without resorting to expensive and time-consuming physical testing. Aerodynamic
analysis of bridges has not seen a similar development due to the complexity of the
uid dynamic phenomena involved, hence most aerodynamic analyses of bridge
structures are still restricted by aerodynamic data obtained from wind tunnel testing.
Numerical uid dynamic models and computer capacity have developed over the past
decade to a stage where the bridge designer may start to exploit these new techniques
in actual design work in much the same way as physical section model tests. In
particular, numerical simulations appear well suited for design studies of the eect of
cross-section shape on bridge response to wind loading, thus presenting an ecient
tool for weeding out inecient cross-sections before embarking on conrmatory wind
tunnel testing.
The present paper will highlight some recent comparisons between wind tunnel
section model results and numerical simulations. The main body of the paper will be
devoted to a design study of the eect of cross-section shape on bridge response taking
the rst Tacoma Narrows Bridge as an example. Finally the paper will outline
a numerical design study carried out for determination of the most favourable
cross-section shape for a 400 m main span cable-stayed bridge.
2. Model tests and numerical simulations
The wind design of the East Bridge was carried out in the time span 19891992 and
was based on extensive wind tunnel section model testing. Since that time numerical
methods have developed to the extent that two-dimensional aerodynamic section data
may be calculated with acceptable accuracy for design studies. In order to illustrate this
point, measured and calculated wind load coecients for the girder cross-sections of the
East Bridge suspended spans and approach spans, shown in Fig. 1, will be compared.
2.1. East Bridge suspended spans
Steady-state wind loads for the cross-section of the East Bridge suspended
spans have been reported by two dierent workers using dierent numerical simu-
lation techniques. Kuroda [5] applied a gird-based nite-dierence method
(FDM) using the pseudo-compressibility technique for solution of the incompressible
two-dimensional NavierStokes equations at Reynolds number Re"3;10` (based
74 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
Fig. 1. Girder cross-sections of the East Bridge suspended spans and approach spans.
Table 1
Comparison of steady-state wind load coecients obtained from numerical
simulations and wind tunnel testing of a 1 : 80 section model. East Bridge
Suspended spans
Method C
""
(-) C
*"
(-) C
+"
(-) dC
'
/d: (-/rad) dC
`
/d: (-/rad)
FDM [5] 0.071 !0.100 0.025 6.48 1.15
DVM [6] 0.061 0.000 0.027 4.13 1.15
Experiment 0.081 0.067 0.028 4.37 1.17
on cross-section width B). Walther [6] applied the grid-free discrete vortex method
(DVM) for solution of the two-dimensional vorticity equation representing the ow
around the cross-section at Re"10`. The wind loads reported are made non-
dimensional through division with the dynamic head
`
j` and section width B:
C
"
"
D

`
j`B
, C
*
"

`
j`B
, C
+
"
M

`
j`B`
. (1)
Table 1 compares simulated wind load coecients C
""
, C
*"
, C
+"
at zero angle of
attack and lift and moment slopes dC
*
/d:, dC
+
/d: to experimental values obtained
from wind tunnel testing of a 1 : 80 section model as reported by Larsen [4].
Satisfactory agreement between simulations and experiment is demonstrated for
most of the coecients with the exception of dC
*
/d: obtained from the FDM
simulations. This coecient is 48% in excess of the experimental data. In comparing
C
""
values it shall be remembered that the physical section model was equipped with
light tubular railings and crash barriers, whereas the numerical geometry models only
reproduced the gross trapezoidal cross-section shape. Simple calculations allowing
each of the railing components to be exposed to the free stream wind speed yield
a drag contribution of AC
""
"0.023 which brings simulations and experiment in
better agreement.
2.2. East Bridge approach spans
Similar to the cross-section of the suspended spans the approach spans (Fig. 2,
right) have been subject to two-dimensional numerical ow simulations. Selvam
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 75
Table 2
Comparison of drag coecient and Strouhal num-
ber obtained from numerical simulations and wind
tunnel testing of a 1 : 80 scale section model. East
Bridge Approach spans
Method C
""
(-) St (-)
FDM LES [7] 0.187 0.1660.199
DVM [8] 0.179 0.167
Experiment 0.190 0.170
et al. [7] applied a nite-dierence method including a large eddy simulation (LES)
model for prediction of the important drag loading and Strouhal number and
vortex-shedding frequency. Larsen and Walther [8] report similar results obtained
by means of the discrete vortex method. Table 2 oers a comparison between
numerical simulations and experimental results of drag coecient and Strouhal
number:
C
"
"
D

`
j`B
, St"
f H

, (2)
where H is cross-wind section depth (H"7.0 m) and f is vortex shedding
frequency.
As in the case of the suspended span cross-section the numerical simulations are in
fair agreement with experimental data. Again railings and crash barriers were not
included in the numerical models, hence slightly lower C
""
values are to be expected
when comparing with the experiment.
Further comparisons between experiment and numerical simulations are presented
by Larsen and Walther [8] for the H-shaped cross-section of the rst Tacoma
Narrows Bridge and for a twin-box cross-section developed for a xed link across the
Straits of Gibraltar. These results are equally promising indicating that numerical
simulations of ow around bridge girders are worth while in bridge design and retrot
studies.
3. Models for bridge response to wind
Bridge response to wind is mainly governed by the aerodynamic properties of the
girder cross-sections, structural parameters such as mass, mass moment of inertia,
eigenfrequencies and damping and for bueting response the turbulence properties of
the wind eld. The appendix oers a brief run down of mathematical models which
may be used for a rst-order assessment of the three most important types of
wind-induced response: (1) along-wind bueting response (drag direction), (2) vertical
76 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
vortex-shedding excitation and (3) critical wind speed for onset of utter. Besides
being of practical use, the models illustrate that bridge bueting, vortex-shedding
excitation and utter stability may be calculated, once drag coecient C
""
, root mean
square lift coecient C"``
*
, Strouhal number St and aerodynamic derivatives H*
"
,
A*
"
are available for a given bridge girder cross-section. A more complete descrip-
tion of the use of aerodynamic cross-section data in bridge response analyses is oered
by Scanlan [12]. The following section will focus on the above-mentioned aerody-
namic properties and simulation by the discrete vortex method.
4. Discrete vortex method for 2D bridge deck cross-sections
A distinct feature of ow about blu bodies, stationary or in time-dependent
motion, is the shedding of vorticity in the wake which balances the change of uid
momentum along the body surface. The vorticity shed at an instant in time is
convected downstream by the mean wind speed but continues to aect the aerody-
namic loads on the body. A mathematical model for the ow around blu bodies was
developed within the framework of the discrete vortex method and programmed for
computer by Walther [6]. The resulting numerical code DVMFLOW establishes
a grid-free time-marching simulation of the vorticity equation well suited for
simulation of 2D blu body ows. An outline of the mathematical model and the
simulated ow about a at plate is presented by Walther and Larsen [9]. The input to
DVMFLOWsimulations is a boundary panel model of the cross-section contour. The
output of DVMFLOW simulations is time progressions of surface pressures and
section loads (drag, lift and moment). In addition, maps of the ow eld (vector
plots), vortex positions and streamlines at prescribed time steps are available.
Steady-state wind load coecients and Strouhal number are obtained from time
averages and frequency analysis of simulated loads on stationary panel models.
Aerodynamic derivatives are obtained from post-processing of simulated time
series of forced harmonic motion as detailed by Larsen [10] in a numerical investiga-
tion of ve generic bridge deck cross-sections tested in a wind tunnel by Scanlan and
Tomko [11].
5. Five Bridge deck cross-sections an example
The lively wind response (the galloping) and the nal collapse of the rst Tacoma
Narrows Bridge, Fig. 2, was established to be due to the aerodynamically unfavorable
cross-section shape and lightness of the bridge structure.
Although a number of investigations has pointed out that H-shaped cross-sections
similar to the rst Tacoma Narrows are undesirable from an aerodynamic point of
view they remain attractive from an economic point of view as well as due to ease of
fabrication. The present example will thus consider the aerodynamic eect of four
simple modications of the parent H-shaped cross-section.
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 77
Fig. 2. First Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Girder deck cross-section, elevation and structural data applicable
to the rst asymmetric mode of vibration [1].
Fig. 3. Cross-section shapes considered in the present study.
5.1. Cross-sections investigated
The ve cross-sections investigated are shown in Fig. 3.
The parent cross-section denoted H is a slightly simplied version of the rst
Tacoma Narrows deck omitting cross-girders and curbs but reproducing the longitu-
dinal edge girders and oor slab. Section C (channel type) is obtained from the
H section simply by adding a top plate. Section R (rectangular type) is obtained by
adding a bottom-plate to the C section. The CE section (channel/edge) is obtained
78 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
from the C section by adding triangular edge-fairings to the C section. Finally the
B section (box type) is obtained by adding the triangular edge-fairings to the R section
or closing the bottom of the CE section. All dimensions in Fig. 3 are referred to the
width B of the parent H section. The circumference of each cross-section was
subdivided into a total of 300 surface vortex panels. The discretisation allowed ow at
Reynolds number Re"10` (Re"B/v) to be simulated.
5.2. Simulation of ow about stationary sections
Drag coecient C
""
, root mean square lift coecient C"``
*
and Strouhal number St
are obtained from simulations of the ow about the ve cross-sections xed in space.
An angle of attack of 0 of the wind ow was assumed (angle between ow direction
and section chord). Each simulation was run for 30 non-dimensional time units
"t/B where t is the time, is the ow speed and B is the chord length.
A non-dimensional time increment A"0.025 was adopted throughout the simula-
tions. At each time step the cross-section surface pressure distribution was computed
from the local ux of surface velocity. The section surface pressures were nally
integrated along the contour to form time traces of the section drag D and lift forces.
Lastly, the computed aerodynamic forces were expressed in non-dimensional form
following Eq. (1). Fig. 4 shows an example of the simulated time traces of C
""
and
C
*
obtained for cross-section H.
The C
"
trace displays initial very high values associated with the instantaneous
start up of the ow simulation. After an exponential decay the C
"
trace settles around
a mean value C
""
"0.28 after approximately 5 non-dimensional time units.
C
""
"0.28 is in satisfactory agreement with C
""
"0.29!0.30 reported by Far-
quharson [1]. The C
*
trace develops very distinct oscillations with period +1.7
associated with formation of vortex roll up in the wake the well-known von Ka rma n
vortex street, Fig. 5. The wake pattern obtained from simulation of the ow
Fig. 4. Simulated time traces of drag coecient C
"
and lift coecient C
*
for cross-section H.
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 79
Fig. 5. Formation of von Ka rma n vortex street in the wake of cross-section H.
Fig. 6. Formation of von Ka rma n vortex street in the wake of cross-section B.
Fig. 7. Simulated time traces of drag coecient C
"
and lift coecient C
*
for cross-section B.
around cross-section B is shown in Fig. 6, whereas simulated time traces of C
"
and
C
*
are shown in Fig. 7. A summary of aerodynamic data for all sections is given in
Table 1.
From Table 3 it is noted that the closed-box section B displays better aerodynamic
performance than the remaining cross-sections, i.e. lower C
"
and C"``
*
. The parent
cross-section H appears to yield the worst aerodynamic performance.
80 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
Table 3
Flow elds in the vicinity of the cross sections and C
""
, C"``
*
and St values extracted
Cross section geometry and ow patterns C
""
C"``
*
St
0.28 0.37 0.11
0.23 0.33 0.11
0.23 0.24 0.09
0.16 0.34 0.09
0.11 0.17 0.13
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 81
By comparing Figs. 4 and 7 it is noted that the drag loading and the oscillating lift
have decreased considerably from section H to section B due to the geometric
modications introduced.
5.3. Motion-dependent aerodynamic forces aerodynamic derivatives
Simulations of forced harmonic bending and twisting section motions are used
for determination of motion-induced aerodynamic forces. Lift and moment time
traces obtained from numerical simulations are processed to yield aerodynamic
derivatives following the procedure presented by Larsen and Walther [10]. The G5
and G2 cross-sections investigated in Ref. [10] are almost identical to the H
and B sections considered above, hence the simulated G5, G2 aerodynamic deriva-
tives will be considered representative of the present H and B cross-sections and
thus reviewed here. Fig. 8 superimposes the aerodynamic derivatives obtained from
simulations on the wind tunnel data presented by Scanlan and Tomko [11]. Only
the six major derivatives are reported in line with Scanlan and Tomkos work.
The remaining H*
"
and A*
"
derivatives are of little signicance for practical utter
predictions.
A few comments are appropriate at this point. The simulated H*

!H*
`
and the
A*

derivatives representative of the B section compare very well to the airfoil data (A).
The A*
`
and A*
`
display less correlation with the airfoil data, possibly due to leading
edge separation caused by the sharp-edged corners of the bridge sections. When
comparing the simulations to the experimental bridge section data it is noticed that
H*
`
obtained from simulations is all together dierent. The A*
`
and A*
`
derivatives are,
however, in very good agreement with the derivatives measured for the bridge deck
model. In case of the H section the A*
`
derivative is the most important coecient as
its change of sign (from negative at low reduced wind speeds to positive at high wind
speeds) signies one-degree-of-freedom torsional utter. The simulations which are
run at a forced twisting amplitude of 3 indicate a cross-over point for A*
`
at about
twice the wind speed as compared to the wind tunnel data. The remaining aero-
dynamic derivatives for the H cross-section are in reasonable agreement with the
experiments.
6. Inuence of cross-section shape on wind response and stability
The role of the section shape-dependent aerodynamic parameters on horizontal
along-wind bueting response, vertical vortex-induced response and critical wind
speed for onset of utter is illustrated through the set of expressions given in the
appendix. Assuming similar structural properties and wind conditions for bridges
involving the ve cross-sections investigated allows assessment of their relative
response to wind. Table 2 presents such an evaluation based on the C
""
, C"``
*
and St
coecients summarised in Table 3 and the simulated aerodynamic derivatives given
in Fig. 8. Cross-section H serves as reference and is assigned a unit response (1.0),
82 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
Fig. 8. Comparison of simulated aerodynamic derivatives for the H and B cross-sections aerodynamic
derivatives obtained from wind tunnel section model tests.
whereas the remaining section responses are evaluated relative to this. Critical wind
speeds

for onset of utter are calculated specically in m/s using the structural data
of Fig. 2.
It is noted from Table 4 that wind-induced response due to along-wind bueting
and vortex shedding is sensitive to the cross-section shape. The trapezoidal box
section appears to be signicantly less susceptible to wind response than the remaining
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 83
Table 4
Relative wind-induced response of bridges due to dierent cross-section
shapes
Cross-section
designation
Horizontal
bueting response
Vertical vortex
response
Critical wind speed

(m/s)
H 1.0 1.0 11.5
C 0.82 0.89
R 0.82 0.97
CE 0.76 1.42
B 0.53 0.34 20.5
cross-sections. Also the utter performance of trapezoidal box cross-section appears
to be superior at least to the notoriously unstable H-shaped deck cross-section.
7. Case study wind response of a 400 m main span cable-stayed bridge
Numerical simulations using the discrete vortex method are run on a regular basis
by the authors company for assessment of the aerodynamic performance of new
bridge projects or retrots. The present case study considers a 400 m main span
cable-stayed bridge, Fig. 9.
The bridge was tendered with two alternative cross-sections: (A1) A composite
cross-section composed of a concrete deck slab carried by rectangular box edge
beams, plate cross-girders and longitudinals all in steel. (A2) A composite cross-
section composed of a concrete deck slab supported by a closed steel box struc-
ture. Both alternatives were equipped with solid New Jersey type crash barriers
which caused some concern with respect to the aerodynamic performance of the
bridge. DVMFLOW simulations of steady-state wind load coecients at !3, 0
and 3 angle of attack were carried out for application to bueting calculations and
for identication of the lock-in wind speed for vortex-shedding excitation. Simula-
tions of motion-induced aerodynamic loads were carried out to obtain aerodynamic
derivatives for input to utter routines. Vertical vortex-induced responses were
simulated directly in DVMFLOW by allowing the cross-sections to be supported by
vertical spring elements tuned to the lock-in frequency. Simulated ow elds about
the alternative plate girder and box girder cross-sections are shown in Fig. 10.
The ow about the plate girder cross-section forms large recirculating vortical
structures below the deck in the compartments between the edge girders and the
longitudinals. In contrast, the ow about the box girder cross-section is smooth along
the slightly curved bottomplate. The dierences in the respective owelds carry over
in the predicted aerodynamic properties and the bridge response as summarised in
Table 5.
For the present practical example it is noted that the box section A2 is aero-
dynamically superior to the plate section A1. The drag coecient and the vertical
84 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
Fig. 9. 400 m main span cable-stayed bridge studied by discrete vortex simulations.
Fig. 10. Simulated ow about alternative girder cross-sections for a 400 m cable-stayed bridge.
Table 5
Predicted aerodynamic drag C
""
, Strouhal number St, vertical vortex-induced response h (in rst vertical
bending mode), utter mode and critical wind speed for onset of utter

Cross-section
designation
Drag coecient
C
""
Strouhal no.
St
Vertical vortex
response h (m)
Flutter mode Flutter wind speed

(m/s)
Plate section, A1 0.12 0.13 0.055 1DOF 130
Box section, A2 0.07 0.16 0.034 2DOF 210
vortex-induced response of the A2 cross-section is reduced by approximately 40%
relative to the A1 cross-section, whereas the critical wind speed for onset of utter is
increased by 60%.
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 85
8. Conclusion
The present paper has discussed the use of two-dimensional numerical ow simula-
tions in bridge aerodynamics. The paper has focused on the expected accuracy,
correlation with wind tunnel test results and the application in bridge design studies
for determination of cross-section shape on bridge response to wind. It is concluded
that numerical simulations present a worthwhile alternative to section model testing
in cases where the deck cross-section geometry investigated allow meaningful dis-
cretisation in two dimensions. From a bridge designers point of view numerical
simulations appear as an ecient tool for weeding out inecient cross-section
alternatives before embarking on conrmatory wind tunnel testing.
Appendix A. Mathematical models of bridge response to wind
A.1. Horizontal bueting response to turbulent winds
The bueting theory developed by Davenport [3] considers each vibration mode
receiving excitation by atmospheric turbulence as a one-degree-of-freedom (1DOF)
oscillator. In this format root mean square bridge response o
V
at the eigenfrequency
f of each individual horizontal mode of oscillation may be obtained as
o
V
"C
""

jB`
M*

fB
` 1
8
1
`(
'
#

)
I
S

f S
S
( f )
o`
S
'

"
e!'QQ'D3(s)
'

"
(s') ds ds',
(A.1)
where
'
and

are the structural and aerodynamic damping levels relative to critical,

M*"mj'
"
`(s) ds is the modal mass in the mode of motion considered, m is the
mass/unit length of structure, I
S
is the (along-wind) turbulence intensity, f S
S
( f )/o`
S
is
the normalised power spectrum of turbulence, (j'
"
e!'Q'D3(s)j'
"
(s') ds ds' is the
spanwise joint acceptance function, C+48, and (s), s and are mode shape
spanwise coordinate and span length.
The important thing to notice at this point is that the horizontal bueting response
is directly proportional to the drag coecient C
""
which again is a function of the
cross-section shape. The remaining parameters relate either to the structural proper-
ties of the bridge (modal mass and mode shape) or to the wind climatic conditions
prevailing at the bridge site.
A.2. Vertical vortex-induced response
Vertical vortex-induced response of bridge structures may be treated in a modal
format much the same way as the resonant horizontal bueting response given above.
Wyatt and Scruton [13] have proposed a 1DOF oscillator model in which the vertical
86 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
periodic load due to vortex shedding excitation is represented by a root mean square
lift coecient C"``
*
to be obtained from wind tunnel section model tests. A slightly
modied version of the Wyatt/Scruton model yields the following root mean square
vertical vortex shedding response o
F
:
o
F
"

C"``
*
St`
1
16`(
'
#

)
jBH`
m
j*
"
(s) ds
j*
"
`(s) ds
, (A.2)
where m is the cross-section mass/unit length and j*
"
(s) ds/j*
"
`(s) ds is a factor '1
accounting for the eect of mode shape.
It is noticed that the bridge response, at least to a rst approximation, is propor-
tional to the ratio of the root means square lift coecient to the Strouhal number
squared, items which again are functions of the cross-section shape. The remaining
parameters relate to the structural properties of the bridge.
A.3. Aerodynamic damping
A measure for the aerodynamic damping

(relative to critical) is needed for

carrying out response calculations for along-wind bueting and cross-wind vortex-
shedding excitation. In the case of along-wind bueting, the aerodynamic damping
arises from a force opposing the motion in the direction of the mean wind. In this case,

is expressed in terms of the cross section drag coecient:

"
jBC
""
4m
. (A.3)
In the case of vertical vortex-shedding excitation, the aerodynamic damping arising
from a cross-wind force opposing the vertical motion is negative. In applying the
aerodynamic derivative formulation of motion-induced aerodynamic forces, Scanlan
[12] the cross-wind aerodynamic damping is obtained as

"!
jB`H*

2m
. (A.4)
A.4. Aeroelastic instability utter
Two types of utter instabilities are commonly encountered in bridge engineering:
(1) 1DOF torsional utter by which the girder responds to motion induced aerody-
namic forces in a pure torsional mode. (2) 2DOF utter by which the bridge girder
responds in a combined bending and torsional mode due to cross-coupled motion-
induced aerodynamic forces. Mathematical models for onset of one or two-degree-of-
freedom utter instability are developed from similar modal concepts as the models
for bueting and vortex shedding response. The representation of the motion induced
aerodynamic forces acting on a cross section is however slightly more complicated.
A convenient framework for distinction of utter type (one or two-degree-of-freedom)
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 87
and prediction the critical wind speed for onset of utter is given by Scanlan [12], who
introduced a set of aerodynamic coecients, the so-called aerodynamic derivatives,
representing the motion induced aerodynamics of a given cross section. The aerody-
namic derivatives which are found to be functions of reduced wind speed /fB and
cross section geometry may be related to the well known lift and moment coecients
in cases where the cross-section is undergoing forced harmonic bending or twisting
motion [11].
A.5. One-degree-of-freedom torsional utter
A mathematical model for pure torsional utter is presented by the following
1DOF oscillator assuming time complex harmonic twisting motion of the cross
section (i is the imaginary unit):
I[(c`
?
!c`)#i2
'
c
?
c]:"j`B`

cB

`
[i A*
`
#A*
`
]:, (A.5)
where I is the cross-section mass moment of inertia/unit length, c
?
and c are circular
eigenfrequency and circular frequency of motion and A*
`
and A*
`
are aerodynamic
derivatives representing aerodynamic damping and stiness.
The critical wind speed for onset of 1DOF torsional utter is identied as the wind
speed where the structural damping balances negative aerodynamic damping. From
the equation of motion this condition is fullled for the following critical value of
(A*
`
)

:
(A*
`
)

"
2I
'
jB"
(A.6)
taking c
?
+c.
If A*
`
is plotted in a diagram as function of /f B as is common practice, the critical
wind speed for onset of utter is obtained as the abscissa (/fB)

to (A*
`
)

. Aerodynam-
ically speaking, 1DOF torsional utter is distinguishable from 2DOF utter by the
fact that the A*
`
aerodynamic derivative (which is proportional to the aerodynamic
damping in torsion) changes sign from negative at low/f B to positive at some higher
value of /fB.
A.6. Two-degree-of-freedom coupled utter
Cross-sections for which the A*
`
aerodynamic derivative remains negative for all
reduced wind speeds /f B (A*
`
negative"positive aerodynamic damping in torsion)
are likely to display 2DOF coupled vertical/torsional utter behaviour. This occurs at
the wind speed where the motion-induced aerodynamic loads cause vertical and
torsional frequencies of motion to collapse into one common frequency. A mathemat-
ical model for coupled vertical/torsional utter is presented by the following set of
one-degree-of-freedom oscillators assuming time complex harmonic vertical (h) and
88 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390
twisting (:) motion of the cross-section:
m[(c`
F
!c`)#i2c
F
c]h"j`B

cB

`

(iH*

#H*
"
)
h
B
#(iH*
`
#H*
`
):

,
(A.7)
I[(c`
?
!c`)#i2c
?
c]:"j`B`

cB

`

(iA*

#A*
"
)
h
B
#(iA*
`
#A*
`
):

,
(A.8)
where c
F
and c
?
are the respective circular eigenfrequencies, c a common utter
frequency and H*

2
"
, A*

2
"
are the self-induced section loads the aerodynamic
derivatives.
It is noted that the aerodynamic loads introduces coupling between the equations
for the vertical (h) and twisting (:) motion. Introducing the frequency ratio "c
?
/c
F
and the frequency ratio "c/c
F
and rearranging the equations of motion yields the
utter determinant which, when set equal to zero denes the utter point:

1!`!
jB`
m
H*
"
`#i

2!
jB`
m
H*

!
jB`
m
H*
`
`!
jB`
m
H*
`
`
!
jB"
I
A*
"
`!i
jB"
I
A*

` `!`!
jB"
I
A*
`
`#i

2!
jB"
I
A*
`
`

"0.
The utter determinant denes a fourth-order real and a third-order imaginary
algebraic equation to be solved for introducing the H*

2
"
, A*

2
"
coecients
obtained at successive values of the reduced wind speed /f B. Onset of 2DOF utter
will occur at the particular reduced wind speed (/fB)

where the roots of the real and

imaginary equations '', ' are identical"

. Finally, the critical wind speed

for onset of 2DOF coupled utter is obtained as

"

fB

f
"
B

. (A.9)
For a more detailed and complete description of the use of aerodynamic cross-
section data in bridge response analyses the reader is referred to the state-of-the-art-
review by Scanlan [12].
References
[1] F.B. Farquharson, Aerodynamic stability of suspension bridges, University of Washington Experi-
mental Station, Bull. 116, Part IV, 194954.
[2] R.A. Frazer, C. Scruton, A summarised account of the severn bridge aerodynamic investigation, NPL
Aero Report, 222, London, HMSO, 1952.
[3] A.G. Davenport, Bueting of a suspension bridge by storm winds, J. Struct. Div. ASCE (1962)
233264.
[4] A. Larsen, Aerodynamic aspects of the nal design of the 1624 m suspension bridge across the great
belt, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 48 (1993) 261285.
A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390 89
[5] S. Kuroda, Numerical simulation of ow around bridge, Reprint IHI Eng. Rev. 29 (2) (1996).
[6] J.H. Walther, Discrete vortex method for two-dimensional ow past bodies of arbitrary shape
undergoing prescribed rotary and translatory motion, AFM-94-11, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Fluid
Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark, 1994.
[7] P. Selvam, M.J. Tarini, A. Larsen, Computer modelling of ow around bridges using LES and FEM,
Paper presented at 8th US National Conf. on Wind Eng. Johns Hopkins University, 1997.
[8] A. Larsen, J.H. Walther, Aeroelastic analysis of bridge girder sections based on discrete vortex
simulations, Paper Presented at 2nd Int. Conf. on Comput. Wind Eng., Colorado State University,
1996.
[9] J.H. Walther, A. Larsen, 2DDiscrete vortex method for application to blu body aerodynamics, 1996.
[10] A. Larsen, J.H Walther, Discrete vortex simulation of ow around ve generic bridge deck sections,
Paper Presented at 8th US National Conf. Wind Eng. Johns Hopkins University, 1997.
[11] R.H. Scanlan, J.J. Tomko, Airfoil and bridge deck utter derivatives. J. Mech. Div., EM6, ASCE, 1971.
[12] R.H. Scanlan, State-of-the-art methods for calculating utter, vortex-induced and bueting response
of bridge structures, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA / RD-80 / 050. Washing-
ton, DC, 1981.
[13] T.A. Wyatt, C. Scruton, A brief survey of the aerodynamic stability problems of bridges, In: Bridge
Aerodynamics, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1981.
90 A. Larsen/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 7390