Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BRIDGES
By Robert H. Scanlan, 1 Member, ASCE, and Nicholas P. Jones, 2
Associate Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
279
BASIC ANALYSIS
2
h ~ I f\i{x,y,z)dm{x,y,z) (1)
structure
Since loading and response concerns will focus upon the deck, where x
is the coordinate along the span, let h(x,t), a{x,i), p{x,i) represent, respec-
tively, the vertical deflection, twist, and lateral sway of the deck section at
x. In terms of the dimensionless manifestations ht(x), a,(x), pt{x) of mode
form along the deck, deflection components are
vertical
h(x,t) = X hAxMtt) i (2)
twist
a(x,t) = 2 «i(*)&(0 (3)
sway
p(x,t) = ^ P,(x)BUt) (4)
i
where £,(?) = the generalized coordinate of mode ;'; and B = deck width.
Then, if the mode has circular natural frequency w, and damping ratio-to-
critical £,•, the motion of £, is governed by
It<& + 2£,a),i + o>?&) = Q,{i) (5)
where Qt = the generalized force to be defined.
Let the lift, drag, and moment per unit span be defined by
lift
L = Lae + Lb (6)
drag
280
moment
M = Mae + Mh. (8)
where subscripts ae and b refer to aeroelastic and buffeting, respectively.
Note that, in general, the buffeting effects include self-induced buffeting.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
For purely sinusoidal motions the aeroelastic forces have taken the well-
known form (Scanlan 1978a, 1978b)
l ,
ae = - pU2B KPf(K) - + KPt(K) — + K2PUK)OL (10)
2
u\ w 1
Lb = - pU2B pU2B\,b(x,t) (12)
CL\ 2-J+ (C[ + CD) -
1 , i
Db~- = - pU2B c 2 2
2 'i d) = - -PpU
U BBb(x,t) (13)
w
Mb = -1 pU2,B2,
2 HI) = - pU2B2Mb(x,t)
where CL, CD, and CM are, respectively, the lift, drag, and moment coef-
(14)
SINGLE-MODE APPROXIMATION
281
+ | [Uhi(x)
[LMx) + DbPl(x) + M6a,(x)] y [ (21)
Jo
FLUTTER
Eq. 21 defines two conditions. When the imaginary coefficients of £,• bal-
ance to zero, a condition of no damping occurs. At this condition the ho-
mogeneous system has a natural frequency influenced by the A* term, which
is given by the relation
=1+ A G (22)
i)=U> ^ * «<
282
For a number of years it has been observed in wind tunnel model studies
that flutter under laminar flow typically occurs at a lower velocity than under
turbulent flow, and usually is entered into much more precipitously as wind
speed rises, as suggested in Fig. 1 (Scanlan and Wardlaw 1978). Various
conjectures and qualitative explanations have been advanced for this phe-
nomenon (Scanlan 1979). One view that has been documented (Huston 1987)
is that turbulence affects the sectional (two-dimensional) flutter derivatives,
although it is not certain whether these effects are always in the direction
of enhanced stability. Another view (Lin 1979) is that, since turbulence im-
plies stochastic coefficients of the equations of motion in the time domain,
these effects can alter the nature of stability, coupling deflection compo-
SECTIONAL MODE! J l
283
where
SH(xA,xB,K) = |Hf(£)|V**-*l/' (26)
d being an appropriate dimensionless constant. It may be noted that this form
of exponential reduction in coherence parallels that which is found experi-
mentally for wind buffeting components, as employed subsequently in this
paper. Writing IH as
tH = IKH f Ghl (27)
and replacing Gq.(qi = ht, p,, or a,) in the flutter criterion (Eq. 23), with
Gq. where
Gm^Gqt (28)
shows that loss of spanwise correlation in the flutter derivatives can, for
given wind speed, reduce the possibility of instability. The result, under
these conditions, is bridge response of the type suggested in Fig. 1.
For conservatism in the examples presented at a later point, the effect of
turbulence upon flutter stability will be neglected.
In the examples of this study, the calculated flutter velocity for the com-
pleted bridge based on mode 17 (mainly torsion at 0.67 Hz) was found to
be between 130 mph and 131 mph (58.1 m/s and 58.6 m/s), interpolated
for zero effective damping to be at 130.7 mph (58.4 m/s). In this case, the
margin of bridge safety for wind velocities beyond flutter speed is small.
As an example, the following conditions are hypothetically posed: A mean
hourly wind of 125 mph (55.9 m/s) over the bridge rises abruptly to a mean
of 131 mph (58.6 m/s). The consequences of this are investigated.
284
30 1.73
50 1.35
100 1.02
200 0.70
300 0.54
600 0.36
1,000 0.16
3,600 0.00
The limited duration time T over which a given average velocity, UT,
occurs is related to the mean hourly velocity, Umh, by the relation (Simiu
and Scanlan 1986)
VT = Umh[\ + C(t)I,] (29)
where /, = gust intensity; and C(t) = a statistical function related to aver-
aging time, T, by Table 1.
In the present study, turbulence intensity at deck height z is approximated
by
l
/, = = 0.191 (30)
logz
zo
where z0 = 0.3 m, and z = 185 ft (56.4 m). Hence, by Eq. 29
131 = 125[1 + C(f)(0.191)] (31)
or
C(t) = 0.251 (32)
which yields, from Table 1
T = 818 sec = 13.6 min (33)
At 131 mph (58.6 m/s), the effective damping value of the system is
found by Eq. 23 to be
7,- = -0.00042 (34)
based on 1% structural damping.
At 125 mph (55.9 m/s), the rms single buffeting amplitude (twist of the
deck) in mode 17 is 0.233°. This value will augment exponentially, above
flutter speed, by the factor
R = e~y""T (35)
where w, = 2TTV,(V, = 0.67 Hz) and T = 818 sec. Therefore
285
Hz).
While the aforementioned calculation suggests that there is some margin
of safety for winds above flutter speed, it also should be noted that, at least
in the present case, net negative damping grows very rapidly with wind speed
beyond flutter.
BUFFETING
oB4l
D(K) = 2l,K,K - — K2{H?Ght + PfGPl + AfGa) (40)
8«Z \6nl
(48)
U U
Use of Eq. 41 in Eq. 42 gives rise to double integrations over modal
forms. When these are so slowly varying with x as to be effectively constant,
they may be removed from the integral. In other circumstances they are
linearly or sinusoidally varying. In cases like these, the following integrals
("coherence reduction factors") are useful:
"1 /•!
*c,=
-c\i-n\
d&h\ (c - 1 + e~c) (49)
o Jo
1 /-I
Rc2 = tne-^-^dfyti]
2(1 + r 3 )
- 2 - (1 + r V c3 - 2e" c ( l + r) [l + c(l + r) + c2r] \ (50)
2TT2(1 + e"c)
Rc, = | | sin ir£ sin irne * ^dfytt) = — j + (51)
(C2 + TT2)2
The net p.s.d.'s of buffeted modes are given as a function of those modes
and S^K) by
Sh(x,K) = hHx)B%{K) (52)
Sp(x,K) = pj(x)B%(K) (53)
SJx,K) = otf(x)Sit(K) (54)
Finally, variances of h, p, and a are given by
where q = h, p, or a.
In the calculation of variances it is convenient to use the well-known ap-
proximation
\H(nf = n (57)
1 -
«i
287
WIND SPECTRA
For design it is found useful to employ the spectra (Simiu and Scanlan
1986)
200 - u%
S
M = ~. ^—575 • • • (59)
for which
3.36 - u\
«") = 7—^ • • (61)
1+
Kf)
for which
The flutter criterion (Eq. 23) is applicable to all modes; from it a net
effective damping ratio 7,- may be stated for any given 3-D mode i
pB4l
y, = ii (HfG„, + P? GPi + AfGa) (65)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
~4L
pB4/ N 2
where q,(z) = any natural modal form (Eq. 20). E{nt,U) depends on the
particular mode in question, as reflected by Eq. 42. For example, in a "see-
saw" mode, where the dominant motion is approximately linear in h,(x),
e.g., hj(x) = hiox/l
im,Su(n,)
E(nt,U) = (2CLhi0f + 6ul
47;
r
nniSw{nt)
+ RIRKCL + cD)hl0Y + 1.7K2* (67)
4ys
where RAR = aspect ratio correction (see Fig. 2) and7? c = spanwise correlation
correction (see Eqs. 49-51). In the case of a "weather-vane" mode, where
the dominant motion is approximately linear 'mpt(x), e.g., pfa) = piax/l
TttljSJjli)
E(ni,U) = (2CDpmy + 6u% (68)
. 4-y,-
1.0- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.B-
\
Jo.B-
u
a ^--^^^
0.2-
0.0- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
(C^ljo/A.R.
289
Completed Bridge
A twin-deck cable-stayed bridge with side-by-side roadways' is taken as
an example. The main span length is 1,250 ft (381 m), with symmetrical
side spans of 485 ft (147.828 m). Each deck has a width of B = 78.167 ft
(23.825 m); the parallel disposition of the decks is illustrated in Fig. 3. Note
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that the twin towers are integrally joined structurally at the "knee" at deck
level. To illustrate the relative participation of the h, p, and a components
of the bridge modes, the values of lGqi are listed for the first 17 modes in
Table 2. (The scale to which these are presented depends on arbitrary nor-
malization of the computational units, in which /, = 1.) This table allows a
judgment as to the predominant deflectional action (h, p, or a) of any given
mode. It is noted, for example, that the lowest mode, mode 1, has pro-
nounced lateral sway (IGP. s= 0.35 X 10"6), and that mode 4 is strong in
vertical bending (lGh. = 0.33 X 10~s), while the first mode that is strong in
torsion is mode 17 (lGa. = 0.32 X 10"5). (The display of Table 2 also is
useful in selecting principal modes with strong characteristics of interest to
wind tunnel section model studies. This aspect will not be pursued here.) It
will be observed that the first mode that is strong in torsion (and thus sus-
ceptible to flutter) is mode 17, which occurs at the relatively high frequency
of 0.67 Hz.
In flutter, wind is most critical when normal to the span. Experimental
flutter derivatives Hf,A*, and A* for windward and leeward decks are given
in Fig. 4. The striking difference between windward and leeward results is
evident. A mechanical damping value of £, = 0.01 was assumed for all
modes. Application of the flutter criterion (Eq. 23) led to a calculated flutter
velocity of 135 mph (60.4 m/s), which was later confirmed as conservative
by wind tunnel tests. The integrally connected twin-deck configuration in
• > . . '
290
1.0- • \—— 1 • 1 1
O.B-
0.6-
/
0.4-
/
0.2-
/
0.2-
(1.4- 1 H -_ 1 1 1 .
> 2 4 6 E 2 4 6 E
Reduced Velocity, U/NB Reduced Velocity, U/NB
1.0- • 1 1 1 1 1 .
0.8-
0.B- •
0.4-
-> 0.2-
A
'w
0.2-
0.4- — , — i — , — i — , — i — , —
0 2 4 6 E
Reduced V e l o c i t y , U/NB
291
Stage B, Mode 1
N = 0.189 Hz.
Stage D, Mode 4
N = 0.330 Hz.
I
(a) Stage B
1 0.189 36.95 (93.85) —
2 0.289 18.42 (46.79) 1.48 (3.76)
3 0.463 5.94 (15.09) 1.66 (4.22)
4 0.515 — 1.91 (4.85)
(b) Stage C
1 0.143 7.72 (19.61) 18.36 (46.63)
2 0.169 — 13.40 (34.04)
3 0.224 49.25 (125.10) —
4 0.307 41.17 (104.57) —
5 0.521 9.32 (23.67) —
6 0.580 2.20 (5.59) 0.36 (0.91)
(c) Stage D
1 0.281 — 4.07 (10.34)
2 0.307 33.51 (85.12) —
3 0.322 — 3.17 (8.05)
4 0.330 40.33 (102.44) —
The total deck length in each case was 389.7 ft (118.8 m), 877.9 ft (267.6
m), and 1,098.7 ft (334.9 m), respectively; the configurations are sketched
in Fig. 5. A similar approach for determining flutter proclivity and esti-
mating buffeting response was used as in the preceding example. At each
of the aforementioned stages, a dynamic analysis of the structure was per-
formed and the first 20 modes computed. Flutter was not observed to be a
critical factor at any of the stages. Several modes were identified as being
potentially susceptible, as in the preceding example, but it was found that
the significant coupling between the modal degrees of freedom lent sufficient
positive aerodynamic damping to the structure in each case so as to stabilize
the deck. It should be emphasized that the leeward deck again contributed
significantly to this stability, as in the case of the completed bridge. In a
number of cases, the windward deck was indeed prone to instability, but
transfer of energy to, and subsequent dissipation by, the leeward deck af-
forded overall stability.
Buffeting was studied in the lowest, most flexible modes of each of the
three stages. Buffeting response was checked in what can be described as
"weather vane" (where the decks rotate essentially as rigid bodies about a
vertical axis through the center of the towers) and "seesaw" (where the decks
rotate essentially as rigid bodies about a horizontal axis through the towers)
modes. In all cases, it was found that the most critical mode was the "see-
293
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers are particulary grateful to Ben Christopher and Steven L. Stroh
of Greiner, Inc., Tampa, Fla., and to the Texas State Department of High-
ways for information on the Baytown Bridge as well as Figs. 3 and 5, which
were used in the preparation of this paper. Thanks are also due J. D. Raggett
of West Wind Laboratory, Carmel, Calif., who obtained the flutter deriv-
atives, and to Timothy A. Reinhold of Applied Research Associates, Ra-
leigh, N.C., who performed both erection stage and full-bridge wind tunnel
model studies.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Portugal, 79-100.
Dowell, E. H., et al. (1978). A modern course in aeroelasticity. Sijthoff and Noord-
hoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands.
Huston, D. R. (1986). "The effect of upstream gusting on the aeroelastic behavior
of long suspended-span bridges." Thesis presented to Princeton Univ., at Prince-
ton, N.J., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
Huston, D. R. (1987). "Flutter derivatives extracted from fourteen generic deck sec-
tions." Bridges and Transmission Line Structures, ASCE, L. Tall, ed., 281-291.
Irwin, P. A. (1977). "Wind tunnel and analytical investigations of the response of
Lions' Gate Bridge to a turbulent wind." Report NAE-LTR-LA-210, National Re-
search Council, Ottawa, Canada.
Irwin, P. A. (1987). "Wind buffeting of cable-stayed bridges during construction."
Bridges and Transmission Line Structures, ASCE, L. Tall, ed., 164-177.
Liepmann, H. W. (1952). "On the application of statistical concepts to the buffeting
problem." J. Aeronaut. Sci., 19(12), 793-800, 822.
Lin, Y. K. (1979). "Motion of suspension bridges in turbulent winds." J. Engrg.
Mech., ASCE, 105(6), 921-923.
Lin, Y. K., and Ariaratnam, S. T. (1980). "Stability of bridge motion in turbulent
winds." / . Struct. Mech., 8(1), 1-15.
Lin, Y. K., and Yang, J. N. (1983). "Multimode bridge response to wind excita-
tion." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 109(2), 586-603.
Scanlan, R. H. (1978a). "The action of flexible bridges under wind: I. Flutter the-
ory." / . Sound and Vibration, 60(2), 187-199.
Scanlan, R. H. (1978b). "The action of flexible bridges under wind: II. Buffeting
theory." / . Sound and Vibration, 60(2), 201-211.
Scanlan, R. H. (1979). "On the state of stability considerations for suspended-span
bridges under wind." Practical Experiences with Flow-Induced Vibrations, E.
Naudascher and D. Rockwell, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, W. Germany, 595-
618.
Scanlan, R. H. (1981). "State-of-the-art methods for calculating flutter, vortex-in-
duced, and buffeting response of bridge structures." Report No. FHWA/RD-80-
050, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Apr.
Scanlan, R. H. (1984). "Role of indicial functions in buffeting analysis of bridges."
J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110(7), 1433-1446.
Scanlan, R. H. (1988). "On flutter and buffeting mechanisms in long-span bridges."
Prob. Engrg. Mech., 3(1), 22-27.
Scanlan, R. H. (1987). "Aspects of wind and earthquake dynamics of cable-stayed
bridges." Bridges and Power Line Structs., ASCE, L. Tall, ed., 329-340.
Scanlan, R. H., Beliveau, J. G., and Budlong, K. S. (1974). "Indicial aerodynamic
functions for bridge decks." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 100(4), 657-672.
Scanlan, R. H., and Budlong, K. S. (1974). "Flutter and aerodynamic response con-
siderations for bluff objects in a smooth flow." Flow-Induced Structural Vibra-
tions, E. Naudascher, ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., 339-354.
Scanlan, R. H., and Gade, R. H. (1977). "Motion of suspended bridge spans under
gusty wind." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 103(9), 1867-1883.
Scanlan, R. H., and Rosenbaum, R. (1951). Aircraft vibration and flutter, Mac-
millan, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Scanlan, R. H., and Tomko, J. I. (1971). "Airfoil and bridge deck flutter deriva-
tives." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 97(6), 1717-1737.
Scanlan, R. H., and Wardlaw, R. L. (1978). Cable-stayed bridges. Bridge Div.,
295
Zan, S. J., and Wardlaw, R. L. (1987). "Wind buffeting of long span bridges with
reference to erection base behaviour." Bridges and Transmission Line Structures,
ASCE, L. Tall, ed., 432-448.
locity gust;
RAK = aspect ratio correction (Fig. 2);
RCt = coherence reduction factors (Eqs. 49-51);
f(x) = term defined in Eq. 44;
SF(xA,xB,K) = cross spectrum of aerodynamic buffeting forces;
SH = spectrum of H* flutter derivative, for turbulent wind;
Sh(x,K) = power spectrum of ^-response;
Sp(x,K) = power spectrum of /(-pressure;
Su(xA,xB,K) = cross spectrum of w-velocity;
Sw(xA,xB,K) = cross spectrum of w-velocity;
Sa(x,K) = power spectrum of a-response;
5f. = spectrum of generalized coordinate response;
s = dimensionless time, Ut/B;
t = time;
U = mean wind velocity;
UT = mean wind velocity for duration T;
Umh = mean hourly wind velocity;
u = longitudinal velocity fluctuation;
u* = friction velocity;
w = vertical velocity fluctuation;
x = along-span coordinate;
y = across-span coordinate;
z = vertical coordinate, deck height;
z0 = effective roughness height;
a(x,t) = total twisting deflection;
a,(x) = twisting component of rth modal deflection;
(3 = ratio u2/u%;
y, = effective system damping in (th mode (mechanical plus
aerodynamic);
£,• = dampinig ratio, ith mode;
T|, = full-bridge ith mode shape;
p = air density;
v = frequency parameter (Hz) in Eq. 58;
ii(t) = generalized coordinate of mode i;
£,,(K) - transformed generalized coordinate of m o d e i;
CT^ = variance of ^-response; and
to,- = ith mode circular natural frequency.
Subscripts
ae = aeroelastic;
b = buffeting; and
i = m o d e index.
297