Journal of Sound and Vibration (1996) 192(2), 413438

THE KRYLOVBOGOLIUBOV AND GALERKIN

METHODS FOR NON-LINEAR OSCILLATIONS
P. Y, Y. M. D, N. P A. H. S
Faculty of Engineering, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada R3T 5V6
(Received 21 July 1994, and in final form 10 April 1995)
The objective of this paper is to consider the dynamic motions of second order, weakly
non-linear, discrete systems. The main attention is focused on a comparison, for such
systems, of the method of KrylovBogoliubov (KB) and an enhanced Galerkin (EG)
method which produce seemingly different solutions. Despite the apparent differences, the
two methods are shown to give identical first order periodic and quasi-periodic solutions,
and the same stability conditions for internal and external resonances, as well as a
non-resonance. The ease of applying one or the other method depends upon whether a
system is resonant and upon the number of participating modes. Both approaches are used
here to analyze illustrative examples that are pertinent to galloping.
7 1996 Academic Press Limited

1. INTRODUCTION

There are innumerable engineering problems which can be modelled as a set of second
order, non-linear, ordinary differential equations. If such equations do not explicitly
contain the independent time variable, the system is called autonomous; otherwise, it is
called non-autonomous. Examples of autonomous systems are vortex-induced vibrations,
the galloping of tower guys or transmission lines and the free vibrations of a centrifugal
pendulum; and examples of non-autonomous systems are vibrations in machines and
oscillations in electrical networks which have sources. Although the autonomous systems
appear merely as a special case of more general non-autonomous ones, there exist
fundamental differences between these two systems. For example, autonomous systems
usually have equilibrium solutions, while non-autonomous systems do not. On the other
hand, non-autonomous systems more easily exhibit chaotic motions than autonomous
systems. In general, the analysis of a non-linear dynamic system involves three related
phases: (i) finding the equilibrium points and their stability; (ii) determining the possible
periodic and quasi-periodic dynamic motions which bifurcate from an equilibrium
state; and (iii) evaluating the stability of the dynamic solutions. For a non-autonomous
system, only the second and third phases are involved. The main purpose of this paper
is to focus upon the analysis of periodic and quasi-periodic motions. Although such a
system may exhibit chaos for certain parameter values, such motions are not investigated
here.
To quantitatively analyze the dynamic behavior of a non-linear system, many
approaches have been developed, among them are the LindstedtPoincare method,
multiple time scaling, harmonic balancing, time-averaging, the KrylovBogoliubovMitropolsky (KBM) method, and the Galerkin and Ritz procedures (see, e.g., reference [1], Part
II of reference [2] and Chapter 8 of reference [3]). These methods can be applied to both
413
0022460X/96/170413 + 26 $18.00/0

7 1996 Academic Press Limited

414

. .

autonomous and non-autonomous systems to determine steady state solutions; for

examples, periodic or quasi-periodic motions. The techniques can be divided into two
groups. The first group includes the methods of multiple time scaling, time-averaging and
the KBM approach. This group of methods can be used to derive a set of simple differential
equations, usually described in terms of the amplitudes and phases of motions, which
determine not only approximate steady state solutions but also their stabilities. The second
group includes the LindstedtPoincare technique, harmonic balancing, and the Galerkin
and Ritz procedures. This group of methods can be employed to directly determine
asymptotic periodic and quasi-periodic solutions, but the stability analysis of the solutions
leads to variational equations which require the Floquet theory [1] and is much more
involved. It should be pointed out that the Galerkin or Ritz procedure is essentially an
averaging method. In this paper some methods will be chosen from these two groups and
their advantages combined to overcome their shortcomings.
Time-averaging will be used to find explicit periodic and quasi-periodic solutions and
their stability conditions. Time averaging procedures [4] can be categorized as ones in
which an a priori known frequency is used in an assumed approximation, while the other
procedures assume an unknown frequency. The first approach was developed originally
by Krylov, Bogoliubov and Mitropolsky [5], and is usually called the KBM method. This
approach is, indeed, a combination of the averaging and variation of parameters method
and the perturbation method. However, the approach used in this paper is the first
approximation of KrylovBogoliubov (KB) method which uses the averaging and
variation of parameters method only. The second approach is sometimes called the method
of (conventional) Galerkin [6] or Ritz [7]. The KB method results in time averaged,
differential equations which can be used to find steady state solutions and their stability
conditions. The conventional Galerkins (CG) approach, conversely, yields time-averaged,
algebraic equations from which only the steady state solutions can be determined,
regardless of their stability. Although the CG method has been enhanced recently in order
to evaluate the internal resonances of a two-degree-of-freedom (DOF) [8] and a 3-DOF
[9, 10] galloping model, no rigorous proof was given to show the equivalence of the KB
and the alternative Galerkins averaging method [9, 10]. This enhanced Galerkin method
will be called the EG method for short, in this paper. Moreover, it had been suggested
previously that a solution may be found explicitly for only the internal non-resonance
[1114]. However, internal resonances, in which the ratio of any two natural frequencies
is close to a ratio of two positive integers, are potentially more damaging and, hence, have
more practical interest.
Newland [15] showed that the first order, non-resonant amplitudefrequency relations,
derived by using the KB approach with a known frequency and the CG (or Ritz) procedure
with an unknown frequency, give identical results for a 1-DOF autonomous system which
has no external forcing. However, these first order, steady state solutions can be shown
to coincide only if the derived amplitudes are proved identical. Moreover, Newland also
considered an external 1:1 resonance by assuming that only one of the natural frequencies
(for more than 1 DOF) is close to the forcing frequency. By presuming the same known
frequency (that of the forcing) in the first order approximations, the two methods were
demonstrated to produce identical first order, time-averaged algebraic equations. It will
be shown in this paper that, by assuming the same known frequency, the proof of the first
order equivalence merely requires a co-ordinate transformation. On the other hand, if an
unknown frequency is considered in Galerkins method, an approach which will be shown
to be very useful for certain internal resonances of multiple DOF systems, the proof of
the first order equivalence is more complicated. For clarity, the KB method employs, in
this paper, a known frequency, while an unknown frequency is assumed for the EG

415

method. The two methods will be shown rigorously to be equivalent for a general n-DOF,
non-linear system. Such a system may involve not only external but also internal
resonances, as well as a non-resonance.
A new technique has been developed, based on the KB and Galerkin methods, to find
explicit solutions and their stability conditions, especially for the internal resonances of
a multiple DOF, autonomous system [9, 10]. The CG method was modified, by using time
averaging, to produce time-averaged, differential equations rather than algebraic
equations. This modification is termed the enhanced method of Galerkin (EG method).
The proof of the equivalence of the KB and EG methods will be given here and includes
the stability analysis which was excluded from Newlands work. Although the KB and
EG methods will be shown to produce identical first order periodic and quasi-periodic
solutions as well as the same stability conditions, the KB method is preferred for
non-resonance as well as for combinations of the non-resonant and resonant cases in which
the number of resonant modes is fewer than, say, three. On the other hand, the EG method
may be utilized advantageously for resonances in which more than two modes are involved.
The next section is devoted first to proving that the KB and EG methods produce
identical first order solutions as well as stability conditions for a general n-DOF, weakly
non-linear system. Then the relations of the KB, EG and CG methods will be shown from
the results. Applications of the theory to the galloping problem are given subsequently.
Two typical resonant cases are detailed. Conclusions are drawn in the last section.

2. EQUIVALENCE OF KB AND GALERKIN METHODS

The motion of an n-DOF, weakly non-linear system is described by

h i + vi2 hi = efi (nt, hj , h j ),

i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(1)

where the dots indicate differentiations with respect to normalized time t, and hi and vi
are the ith normalized co-ordinate and eigenvalue, respectively, of the corresponding
(e = 0) linear system. The fi is the analogous normalized force, including all the non-linear
terms as well as all the damping terms and n is the frequency of the external
forcing function. The parameter e (01) represents a weak non-linearity. The internal
non-resonance and resonances of an autonomous system, which does not involve external
forcing functions, will be considered in subsections 2.12.4. Then the derivations will be
extended directly in subsection 2.5 to non-autonomous systems. The relations of the KB,
EG and CG methods are given in subsection 2.6.
2.1. -
It follows from equation (1) that, when e = 0, a response can be written in the form
hi (t) = Xi cos (vi t + fi ),

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(2)

where constants Xi and fi , respectively, represent the ith components amplitude and
phase, which are determined from the initial conditions. The solutions for e $ 0 can be
considered to be a perturbation of solution (2) and, therefore, may be expressed by
hi (t) = Xi (t) cos[vi t + fi (t)] 0 Xi (t) cos Ci (t),

i = 1, 2, . . . , n.

(3a)

Now, the Xi (t) and fi (t) are not constants but are slowly varying variables such that
their derivatives, Xi (t) and f i (t), are small (e order) terms. Equation (3a) belongs to the

. .

416

KB approach because the natural frequencies, vi , are known. An alternative expression

for equation (3a) is given by
hi (t) = Ai (t) cos vi t + Bi (t) sin vi t.

(3b)

The solution in the EG approach, on the other hand, can be written as

hi (t) = X*
i (t) cos [v*
i t + f*
i (t)] 0 X*
i (t) cos C*
i (t),

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(4a)

where v*
i , unlike vi , is unknown. For a steady state solution, the amplitudes Xi (t) (or
X*
i . Moreover, the frequencies v i equal v*
i (t)) are constants, X
i for solution (4a), whereas
they equal vi + f i (t) for solution (3a). That is, for a steady state solution, f i (t) $ 0 but
f i* (t) = 0. An alternative expression for equation (4a) is
hi (t) = A*
i (t) cos v*
i t + B*
i (t) sin v*
i t.

(4b)

The choice between the KB solution (3a) or (3b) (or, alternatively, the EG solution (4a)
or (4b)) depends upon the ease of deriving explicit solutions by using the time-averaging
procedure. In fact, equation (3a) (equation (4a)) can be transformed to equation (3b)
(equation (4b)).
It will be shown in the following subsections that the two formulations (3a) and (4a)
(or (3b) and (4b)) give identical first order approximations.
2.2. -
This case implies that a ratio of any two natural frequencies is not close to a ratio of
two positive integers. Suppose that the periodic or quasi-periodic solutions are given by
equation (3a). Differentiate this equation with respect to t and let the amplitudes and
phases be chosen such that
h i (t) = vi Xi (t) sin Ci (t)

(5)

Xi (t) cos Ci (t) Xi (t)f i (t) sin Ci (t) = 0.

(6)

and

It should be noted that the last two equations cannot be obtained without assuming that
Xi (t) and fi (t) are varying slowly. Next, differentiate equation (5) with respect to t and
substitute the resulting equation and equation (2) into equation (1), to yield
Xi (t) sin Ci (t) + Xi (t)f i (t) cos Ci (t) =

01

e
f [X (t) cos Cj (t), vj Xj (t) sin Cj (t)].
vi i j
(7)

Solving equations (6) and (7) for Xi (t) and f i (t) and then employing time-averaging leads
to

Xi =

01

e
1
lim
vi T:a T

sin Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , vj Xj sin Cj ) dt

(8)

417

and
f i =

0 1

e
1
lim
vi Xi T:a T

cos Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , vj Xj sin Cj ) dt,

(9)

where t has been suppressed from Xi (t) and Ci (t) for brevity.
Following the same procedure, the analogous equations from form (4a) are

0 1

0 1

Xi* =

1
1
lim
v*
T
T:a
i

e
1
lim
v*
T:a T
i

T
2
sin C*
vi2 )hi + efi (X*
i
i [(v*
j cos C*
j , v*
j X*
j sin C*
j )] dt

sin C*
i fi (X*
j cos C*
j , v*
j X*
j sin C*
j ) dt

(10)

and
f i* =

0 1

1
1
lim
v*
T:a T
i X*
i

T
2
cos C*
vi2 )hi + efi (X*
i
i [(v*
j cos C*
j , v*
j X*
j sin C*
j )] dt

0 1

v*2 vi2
e
1
= i

lim
2v*
v*
X*
T
T:a
i
i
i

cos C*
i fi (X*
j cos C*
j , v*
j X*
j sin C*
j ) dt.

(11)

Generally, explicit integrals cannot be obtained from equations (8)(11) because the Xi
(X*
i ) and Ci (C*
i ) are functions of t. However, they may be approximated by assuming
that variables Xi (X*
i ) and Ci (C*
i ) are constants in a period (which implies that the ith
component of the motion is periodic) because these variables are varying slowly. These
approximate, explicit integrals can be obtained by expanding the fi into multi-variable
Fourier series. It should be noted that non-zero residuals arise from those terms of the
Fourier series containing cos Ci (cos C*
i ) and sin Ci (sin C*
i ) (i.e., j = i) because they
correspond to the non-resonant case.
2.2.1. Steady state solutions
First, consider the KB solution (3a). The amplitude of the steady state solution, Xi , is
determined by setting Xi = 0 in equation (8). This yields
1
T:a T
lim

sin v i tfi (Xj cos v j t, vj Xj sin v j t) dt = 0,

(12)

where v i = vi + f i , f i $ 0. Equation (12) contains n independent, non-linear algebraic

equations which can be used to solve the n independent variables Xi because the vi are
known. Note, however, that the solution may not be unique. Having found Xi , the
corresponding frequency, v i , is determined from equation (9) as
v i = vi

0 1

e
1
lim
vi Xi T:a T

cos v i tfi (Xj cos v j t, vj Xj sin v j t) dt.

(13)

The last equation is in the form v i = vi + O(e), where O(e) represents an e order term,
as expected.

. .

418

Next, the steady states for the EG solution (4a) can be found similarly, but from
equations (10) and (11), by setting Xi* = f i* = 0. This results in
1
T:a T
lim

sin v*
i tfi (X*
j cos v*
j t, v*
j X*
j sin v*
j t) dt = 0

(14)

and

0 1

2
v*
vi2
e
1
i
=
lim
v*
T
2v*
X*
T:a
i
i
i

cos v*
i tfi (X*
j cos v*
j t, v*
j X*
j sin v*
j t) dt.

(15)

 i* = 0. The resulting 2n non-linear algebraic

Here C*
i has been replaced by v*
i t because f
equations determine n amplitudes, Xi , and n frequencies, v*
i . However, the equations are
coupled, unlike equations (12) and (13), because the v*
i are unknown and the functions
fi explicitly include v*
i . The 2n equations need to be solved simultaneously and their
number is twice that in the KB method. Therefore, the derivation of explicit solutions by
using the EG method is more complex.
2.2.2. First order equivalence of the steady state solutions
It can be observed from equations (12)(15) that the two steady state solutions, derived
by using the KB and EG methods, are different. To show their equivalence, first note that
(v*
i vi ) is order e because the EG solution (4a) is assumed to be a perturbation of the
unperturbed solution having frequency vi . Therefore, let v*
i vi = O(e) and expand the
fi , appearing in equations (14) and (15), with respect to v*
j . Finally, rewrite equations (14)
and (15) in the form
1
T:a T
lim

sin v*
i tfi (X*
j cos v*
j t, vj X*
j sin v*
j t) dt + O(e) = 0

(16)

and
v*
i = vi

0 1$
e
vi X*
i

1+

O(e)
2vi

%$
1

1
T:a T
lim

cos v*
i t

fi (X*
j cos v*
j t, vj X*
j sin v*
j t ) dt + O(e)

or
v*
i = vi

0 1

e
1
lim
vi X*
T
T:a
i

T
2
cos v*
i tfi (X*
j cos v*
j t, vj X*
j sin v*
j t ) dt + O(e ).

(17)

It can be seen from equations (16) and (17) that their leading (first) order approximate
forms are identical to equations (12) and (13), respectively. Therefore, the KB and EG
methods produce the same first order amplitudes and frequencies for the steady state
motions. In particular,
X*
i Xi = O(e)

and

v*
i = O(e 2 ).
i v

(18)

419

2.2.3. First order equivalence of the stability conditions

A stability analysis can be performed on the Jacobian matrix of either equation (8),
corresponding to the KB approach, or equation (10) for the EG approach. If all the
eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix, evaluated on the steady state solution, have negative
real parts, then the solution is stable. Otherwise, the solution is unstable. The proof of the
first order equivalence of the stability conditions arising from the two approaches can be
shown straightforwardly by rewriting equations (8) and (10) as
Xi =

01

e
1
lim
vi T:a T

sin v i tfi (Xj cos v j t, vj Xj sin v j t) dt

(19)

and
Xi* =

0 1

01

e
1
lim
v*
T:a T
i

T
2
sin v*
i tfi (X*
j cos v*
j t, vj X*
j sin v*
j t) dt + O(e ),

or
Xi* =

e
1
lim
vi T:a T

sin v i tfi (X*

j t, vj X*
j t) dt + O(e 2 ).
j cos v
j sin v

(20)

(Note that equations (12) and (16)(18) have been used in the derivation.) The last two
equations clearly indicate that the formulations of the first order approximate differential
equations are actually identical for the amplitudes.
2.3.
For simplicity, suppose that the ratios of the frequencies, vi , are close to
p1 : p2 : p3 : : pn , where pi are positive integers. This implies that
v j pj
= O(e),
v i pi

for i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n.

(21)

Let the frequency, v, of the greatest common divisor (GCD) be chosen as

v = vj /pj ,

for any j $ (1, 2, . . . , n),

(22)

or, more generally,

l

>

v = s vj s pj ,
j=k

for any k $ (1, 2, . . . , n)

and

l $ (k, k + 1, . . . , n).

(23)

j=k

The v is a known constant. It will be demonstrated later that the choice of v which satisfies
equation (23) leads to the same first order results. (As a matter of fact, other forms of v
may be defined provided that (vj pj v), i = 1, 2, . . . , n, are order e.) By using equation
(23), equation (1) can be rewitten as
h i + (pi v)2hi = [(pi v)2 vi2 ]hi + efi (hj , h j ),

i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n.

(24)

To apply time-averaging, the term (pi v)2 vi2 appearing on the right of equation (24) must
be of order e. Indeed, it can be shown, by using equations (21) and (23), that
(pi v)2 vi2 = O(e). Furthermore, it can be proved that the difference of any two v defined
by equation (23) is also of order e.

. .

420

Based on equation (24), the periodic or quasi-periodic solutions which bifurcate from
an equilibrium point can be described by
hi (t) = Xi (t) cos [(pi v)t + fi (t)] 0 Xi (t) cos Ci (t),

i = 1, 2, . . . , n.

(25)

This form is similar to the KB solution (3a) because the frequencies pi v are known.
Equations similar to equations (24) and (25) can be written for the EG method as
h i + (pi v*)2hi = [(pi v*)2 vi2 ]hi + efi (hj , h j ),

i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n

(26)

and
hi (t) = X*
i (t) cos [(pi v*)t + f*
i (t)] 0 X*
i (t) cos C*
i (t),

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(27)

respectively. The GCD frequency, v*, is unknown and the (pi v*)2 vi2 , i = 1, 2, . . . , n,
are of order e.
The KB procedure, which was used to obtain equations (8) and (9) for the non-resonant
case, can be applied again to produce the time averaged, differential equations
Xi =

0 1g
e
2pi p

2p/v

sin Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , pj vXj sin Cj ) dt

(28)

and

e
(p v) vi
f i = i

2pi v
2pi pXi
2

1g

2p/v

cos Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , pj vXj sin Cj ) dt.

(29)

As in the non-resonant case, the above two integrals can be approximated by assuming
that Xi and fi are constant in the period, 2p/v. However, any term appearing in the
Fourier series of the fi which contains cos Cj or sin Cj contributes a non-zero residual
because this situation corresponds to a resonant case. The extra terms (for j $ i) include
not only the amplitudes Xj but also the phase differences fi 2 mj fj 2 2 mk fk which
satisfy pi 2 mj pj 2 2 mk pk = 0. There are only (n 1) phase differences that are linearly
independent. Without loss of generality, let ci1 = p1 fi pi f1 , i = 2, 3, . . . , n; the other
phase differences can be expressed as linear combinations of ci1 . Consequently,
c i1 = p1 f i pi f 1 can be found from equation (29). Similarly, the time-averaged differential
equations for the EG approach can be written as
Xi* =

0 1g
e
2pi p

2p/v*

(p v*) vi
e
f i* = i

2pi v*
2pi pX*
i
2

sin C*
i fi (X*
j cos C*
j , pj v*X*
j sin C*
j ) dt,

(30)

1g

2p/v*

cos C*
(31)
i fi (X*
j cos C*
j , pj v*X*
j sin C*
j ) dt,

and then c i*1 = p1 f i* pi f 1* .

2.3.1. Steady state solutions
The steady state, KB solutions can be found by setting Xi = 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , n, and
c i1 = 0, i = 2, 3, . . . , n. The resulting (2n 1) independent, non-linear, algebraic
equations can be used to solve the (2n 1) independent unknowns, Xi and ci1 . It should

421

be noted that the steady state solutions cannot be obtained by setting Xi = f i = 0,

i = 1, 2, . . . , n, because f i $ 0. Consequently, Xi = c i1 = 0 results in

2p/v

sin Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , pj vXj sin Cj ) dt = 0,

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(32)

and

0 1g
e
p Xi
2
i

cos Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , pj vXj sin Cj ) dt

2p/v

p
v

0 1g
e
p X1
2
1

2p/v

cos C1 f1 (Xj cos Cj , pj vXj sin Cj ) dt

$0 1 0 1 %
vi
pi

v1
p1

(i = 2, 3, . . . , n).

(33)

Note that (p/v)[(vi /pi )2 (v1 /p1 )2 ] is of e order due to equation (21). The frequency of
the ith component, Xi , is given by
v i = pi v + f i
or
v i =

1g

(pi v)2 + vi2

e

2pi pXi
2pi v

2p/v

cos Ci fi (Xj cos Cj , pj vXj sin Cj ) dt.

(34)

Equations (32)(34) suggest that any v chosen from equation (23) leads to identical first
order solutions because the difference between any two such v is of order e. Furthermore,
note that
pi v j pj v i = pi (pj v + f j ) pj (pi v + f i ) = [pi (c j1 + pj f 1 ) pj (c i1 + pi f 1 )]/p1 = 0,
for i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, so that v 1 : v 2 : : v n = p1 : p2 : : pn . The last ratios imply that
the solution is, indeed, a periodic motion, as expected. Therefore, a GCD frequency v can
be defined such that v i = pi v .
Next, consider the form of the solutions for the EG approach. Then the steady state
solutions can be obtained from equations (30) and (31) by setting Xi* = f i* = 0. This
results in 2n independent, non-linear algebraic equations for the 2n independent unknowns
X*
i , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, c*
i1 , i = 2, 3, . . . , n, and v*. Specifically, the 2n equations can be
written as

2p/v*

sin C*
i fi (X*
j cos C*
j , v*
j X*
j sin C*
j ) dt = 0

(35)

. .

422
and

2
v*
vi2
e
i
=
2v*
2pi pX*
i
i

1g

2p/v*

cos C*
i fi (X*
j cos C*
j , v*
j X*
j sin C*
j ) dt,

(36)

where v*
 i* = 0.
i = pi v* is the frequency of the ith amplitude component, Xi , because f
It can be seen for the resonant cases that the two approaches do not lead to a too
different number of governing equations for the steady state solutions. (One produces
(2n 1) equations and the other gives 2n equations.) However, it will be shown next that
a particular choice between the two approaches may make it much easier to find explicit,
steady state solutions for certain internal resonances.
2.3.2. First order equivalence of the steady state, internally resonant solutions
To prove the equivalence of the two steady state solutions, first note that
Ci = pi vt + fi 0 v i t and pi v = vi + O(e). Rewrite equation (32) as

2p/v

sin pi v tfi (Xj cos pj v t, pj vXj sin pj v t) dt = 0,

which implies that

2p/(1 + O(e))v

sin pi v tfi [Xj cos pj v t, (vj + O(e))Xj sin pj v t] dt = 0

or

2p/v

sin pi v tfi (Xj cos pj v t, vj Xj sin pj v t) dt + O(e) = 0,

so that

2p

sin pi ufi (Xj cos pj u, vj Xj sin pj u) du + O(e) = 0.

(37)

Similarly, by using C*
i = pi v*t and v*
i 0 pi v* = vi + O(e), equations (35), (34) and (36)
can be rewritten as

2p

sin pi ufi (X*

j cos pj u, vj X*
j sin pj u) du + O(e) = 0,

(38)

cos pi ufi (Xj cos pj u, vj Xj sin pj u) du + O(e 2 )

(39)

2
cos pi ufi (X*
j cos pj u, vj X*
j sin pj u) dt + O(e ),

(40)

v i = vi

1g

2p

1g

2p

e
2pvi Xi

and
v*
i = vi

e
2pvi X*
i

423

respectively. A comparison of equations (37) and (38) as well as equations (39) and (40)
leads to two sets of identical forms of first order equations. This implies that
X*
i Xi = O(e)

and

v*
i = O(e 2 )
i v

(i.e., v* v = O(e 2 )),

(41)

which are identical to equation (18) for the non-resonant case.

By using equation (41) and comparing the equations obtained by setting c i1 = 0 with
those found by letting c i*1 = 0, it can be seen that the two sets of (n 1) algebraic equations
are identical up to first order. Hence,
c i*1 ci1 = O(e)

(42)

and the KB and EG methods indeed produce identical first order amplitude components,
phase differences and frequencies.
2.3.3. First order equivalence of the stability conditions
The stability conditions for the two resonant, steady state solutions can be determined
from the eigenvalues of a (2n 1) (2n 1) Jacobian matrix. This matrix is derived from
the differential equations of Xi and c i1 for the KB form (25) and from the differential
equations of Xi* and c i*1 for the EG form (27). A periodic solution is stable if all the real
parts of the non-zero eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix are negative; otherwise, it is
unstable. By following the procedure demonstrating the equivalence of the stability
conditions for non-resonance, it can be shown that the two first-order (2n 1) (2n 1)
Jacobian matrices are identical. Hence, the first order stability conditions derived from the
KB and EG methods are identical.
2.4. -
When one or more natural frequencies correspond to internal resonances while the
remaining natural frequencies are non-resonant, the differential equation (1) can be
rearranged into two subsystems. One subsystem involves only resonant frequencies and
the other incorporates solely non-resonant frequencies. Then the procedures employed
previously for the non-resonant and resonant cases can be used again. However, the two
subsystems are coupled because of non-linear terms. (On the other hand, the governing,
time-averaged equations are coupled only by the amplitudes of motion.) The derivation
of the steady state solutions and proof of their first order equivalence are similar to those
given in subsections 2.2 and 2.3, so they are omitted. The procedure for handling
combinations of resonant and non-resonant cases will be given in the next section for a
3-DOF oscillator.
2.5.
Such a system can be handled by employing the procedure used in the previous
subsection. In addition to the two subsystems which correspond to internal non-resonance
and resonances, a third subsystem may be found. This external resonant subsystem consists
of the systems natural frequencies which are resonant with the external forcing frequency,
n. However, they cannot be included in the internal resonant subsystem. The solution
forms given for the internal resonances can be applied here, provided that the known
external frequency, n, is used instead of the GCD frequency, v or v*, and the external
resonant natural frequencies are expressed in terms of n. This implies that the KB solution
forms (3a) and (3b) are identical to the EG forms (4a) and (4b), respectively, because
v = v* = n. Then, the demonstration of the equivalence of the KB and EG methods for
this subsystem is merely the proof of the equivalence of forms (3a) and (3b). It will be
shown in the following subsection that these two forms produce identical approximate

. .

424

solutions up to any order. Therefore, by using the procedure described in subsections 2.2
and 2.3, the steady state solutions and their stability conditions can be obtained, and their
first order equivalence can be proved similarly for the whole system. Details are omitted
for brevity.
2.6. ,
2.6.1. The KB and EG methods
The relationship between the KB and EG methods is illustrated in Figure 1, in which
ODE, ABE, T.A. and E.Q. are abbreviations for ordinary differential equation, algebraic
equation, time-averaged and equivalence, respectively. Although the equivalence of the KB
and EG methods has been proved explicitly only for solution forms (3a) and (4a), it can
be deduced from Figure 1 that another three equivalences are also true: viz., equations
(3b) \ (4b), (3b) \ (4a) as well as (3a) \ (4b). This is because the relation between the
solution forms (3a) and (3b), or between the solution forms (4a) and (4b), is merely a
co-ordinate transformation, given by
Ai = Xi cos fi ,

Bi = Xi sin fi ,

Xi = zAi2 + Bi2 ,

(43a)

for equations (3a) and (3b), or

A*
i = X*
i cos f*
i ,

B*
i = X*
i sin f*
i ,

2
2
X*
+ B*
i
i ,
i = zA*

Figure 1. The equivalence of the KB and EG methods.

(43b)

425

T 1
A comparison of the EG and CG methods
Method

Frequency

Solution
form

Governing
equation

Stability
analysis

EG

Unknown

(4a) or (4b)

Differential
equation

Available

CG

~ Known
_Unknown

(3a) or (3b)
(4a) or (4b)

Algebraic
equation

Not
available

for equations (4a) and (4b). Therefore, the results obtained by using solution form (3a)
(or (4a)) are actually identical to those produced by employing solution form (3b) (or (4b)).
Note that the most frequently used equivalence is the last one; i.e., (3a) \ (4b).
2.6.2. The EG and CG methods
The EG method can be used for a stability analysis, unlike the CG method. However,
the solution forms of the CG method can have either a known or an unknown frequency,
while that of the EG method can have only an unknown frequency. A comparison of the
two methods is shown in Table 1. The proof of the equivalence of the two methods is given
next.
First, assume that an unknown frequency is given in the solution form of the CG
method. Consider an alternative set of equations for solving the steady state solutions from
the EG approach by using solution form (4a). They are found, by setting Xi* = f i* = 0
in equations (10) and (11), to be
1
T
T:a

1
T:a T

lim

T
2
sin (v*
vi2 )hi + efi (hi , h i )] dt = 0,
i
i t + f*
i )[(v*

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(44a)

2
cos (v*
vi2 )hi + efi (hi , h i )] dt = 0,
i
i t + f*
i )[(v*

i = 1, 2, . . . , n.

(44b)

and

lim

It should be noted that equations (44a) and (44b) apply not only to non-resonance but
also to internal resonance and combinations of the two cases. Multiplying equation (44a)
by sin f*
and equation (44b) by cos f*
i
i , and adding the resulting equations, leads to
1
T:a T
lim

T
2
sin v*
vi2 )hi + efi (hi , h i )] dt = 0,
i
i t[(v*

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(45a)

i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(45b)

because the f*
i , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, are constants. Similarly,
1
T:a T
lim

2
cos v*
vi2 )hi + efi (hi , h i )] dt = 0,
i
i t[(v*

. .

426

can be found from equations (44a) and (44b). In fact, the relationships between equations
(44a) and (44b) to equations (45a) and (45b) can be represented by the simple
transformation matrix

cos f*
i
sin f*
i

sin f*
i
.
cos f*
i

(46)

Therefore, the steady state solutions derived from the EG and CG methods are identical
if an unknown frequency is assumed in the CGs solution form. The same relation (46)
can be obtained if solution form (4b) is used.
Next, suppose that a known frequency is used in the solution form of the CG method.
It is easy to see that this case is merely the KB method without the stability analysis, but
expressed in the forms (45a) and (45b), where the unknown frequency, v*
i , is now replaced
by the known frequency, vi . The same relationship given by equation (46) can be derived
if fi is substituted for f*
i . Thus, the steady state solutions derived from the CG method
with a known frequency are identical to those obtained by using the KB method.
Therefore, the first order equivalence of the KB and EG methods implies that the EG and
CG methods give equivalent first order steady state solutions if a known frequency is used
in the CG method. The relationship between the EG and CG methods is also shown in
Figure 1.
2.6.3. The KB and CG methods
From the above discussion of the relationship between the EG and CG methods, it can
be deduced directly that the KB and CG methods produce identical or equivalent first
order steady state solutions when a known or an unknown frequency is assumed in the
CG method. The relationship between the KB and CG methods is also given in Figure 1.
Also indicated in Figure 1 are the relationships derived by Newland [15], who
demonstrated the equivalence of the KB and CG methods between: (1) equations (3a) and
(4a) for the amplitudefrequency relation of the non-resonance of a 1-DOF system, and
(2) equations (3a) and (3b) for a 1 : 1 external resonance.

3. APPLICATIONS

The KB and EG methods will be employed next to analyze a 3-DOF, eccentric model
of galloping.
3.1. 3-
A continuous multi-span, iced transmission line can be reduced to the 3-DOF, discrete
oscillator model [9, 10] illustrated in Figure 2, where the overall centre of mass, G, deviates

Figure 2. The 3-DOF oscillator.

427

from the centre of the bare conductor due to ice accretion. The motions can be described
by a dimensionless form
[M]{q } + [C]{q } + [K]{q} = {F},

(47)

where a dot superscript indicates a derivative with respect to time, t, vector {q} = (y z u),
in which y and z represent the dynamic displacements in the vertical and horizontal
directions, respectively, while u is the rotation about the centre of the bare line. [M], [C]
and [K] are the mass, damping the stiffness matrices, respectively. {F} is the non-linear
aerodynamic force vector, details of which can be found, together with the other matrices,
in reference [9]. It should be noted that, although equation (47) is derived for an electrical
transmission line, the results given in the following sections can be applied to other weakly
non-linear systems which are described by equation (47).
The first step in investigating the feasibility of galloping is to find whether the initial
equilibrium state (IES) of equation (47), given by {q} = 0, is stable. If the IES is unstable,
the next step is to find solutions bifurcating from the IES and to determine their stabilities.
The stability conditions for the IES can be found from the linearized equation of system
(47). For a dynamic analysis, on the other hand, equation (47) needs to be transformed
to canonical form (1). This transformation is accomplished by first finding the natural
frequencies of system (47), which may be obtained from the associated free vibration
system [M]{q } + [KL ]{q} = {0}, where the linear parts of the aerodynamic forces have
been included in [KL ] to incorporate the effect of wind. Having determined the wind-on
natural frequencies, vi , introduce the linear transformation {q} = [F]{h} into equation
(47), to obtain
T

h i + vi2 hi = Ri (hj , h j ),

i = 1, 2, 3,

(48)

where {h(t)}T = [h1 h2 h3 ] are the principal co-ordinates. [F] is a 3 3 matrix having
column vectors, {fi }, found from [[KL ] vi2 [M]]{fi } = {0}. The Ri are elements of vector
{R} which consist of only damping and aerodynamic forces that are small (e order)
compared to the vi . These forces are usually approximated by polynomials up to third
order so that closed form solutions can be obtained. Thus,
{R} = [P]{a a 2 a 3}T [j]{h },

(49)

in which a is the angle of attack [9], given by

3

a = d s (f3i hi + ri h i ).

(50)

i=1

Constant matrices [P] and [j] and constants ri can be found in reference [9].
The KB and EG methods described in the previous section will be used to evaluate
two representative internal resonant cases, i.e., 1:3:0 and 1:1:1, where 0 indicates a
non-resonant mode.
3.2. 1:3:0
This case describes not only the 1:3:0 but also the 3:1:0, 1:0:3, 3:0:1, 0:1:3 and 0:3:1
resonances. A 1:3:0 resonance implies that the ratio of the first two natural frequencies,
v1 and v2 , is close to 1/3. Specifically, the difference 3v1 v2 is of order e. Both the KB
and EG methods and the technique developed in references [9, 10] have been used to derive
explicit solutions for this resonance. It has been shown that the KB method finally
produces a second and a seventh degree polynomial (details will be given later), while the
EG approach ultimately yields a 13th degree polynomial. Thus, the solutions derived by

. .

428

utilizing the EG approach are more sensitive to small variations in the parameter values,
so that the EG approach is not recommended for this case. Indeed it has been found for
some parameter values that although the KB method produces accurate approximations,
compared to numerically integrated results, the EG approach is intractable. Therefore,
only the KB procedure is detailed here. Apply equation (23) to let
v = 14 (v1 + v2 ),

d1 = v 2 v12 ,

d2 = (3v)2 v22 ,

(51)

so that equation (48) can be rewritten as

h 1 + v 2h1 = R1 + d1 h1 ,

h 2 + (3v)2h2 = R2 + d2 h2 ,

h 3 + v32 h3 = R3 .

(52)

By combining forms (3a) and (25), the first order approximation of the motion can be
written as
h1 = X1 (t) cos [vt + f1 (t)] 0 X1 (t) cos C1 (t),
h2 = X2 (t) cos [3vt + f2 (t)] 0 X2 (t) cos C2 (t),
h3 = X3 (t) cos [v3 t + f3 (t)] 0 X3 (t) cos C3 (t),

(53)

where the Xi and fi , respectively, represent the ith amplitude and phase. Next, by following
the procedure described in subsections 2.2 and 2.3, equation (53) can be applied to
equation (52) to produce the governing bifurcation equations
2X1 = X1 [j11 r1 (p11 + p13 W1)] + p13 (C1 cos c C2 sin c)X12 X2 ,
2X2 = X2 [j22 r2 (p21 + p23 W2)] + 19 p23 (D1 cos c D2 sin c)X13 ,
1
2c = d + [3f31 (p11 + p13 W1 ) 13 f32 (p21 + p23 W2 )]
v

3p13 (C2 cos c + C1 sin c)

01

0 1%

X2
X1
+ 13 p23 (D2 cos c + D1 sin c)
X1
X2

2X3 = X3 [j33 r3 (p31 + p33 W3 )]

C 3 = v3

and

X12 ,

f33
(p + p33 W3 ),
2v3 31

(54)

where
v = 14 (v1 + v2 ),

c = f2 3f1 ,

d=

1
[3(2v 2 + v12 ) v22 ],
3v

1
[f (f 2 r12 v 2 ) 6r1 r2 f31 v 2 ],
v 32 31

2
r12 v 2 ) 2r1 f31 f32 ,
C1 = 3r2 (f31

C2 =

2
r12 v 2 ),
D1 = r1 (3f31

D2 =

f31 2
(f31 3r12 v 2 ).
v

(55)

c is the phase difference between X2 and X1 , which are the amplitude components of the
periodic motion having frequency v. On the other hand, W1 and W2 are described by
Wi = W (f3i2 + ri2 v 2 )Xi2

(i = 1, 3),

W2 = W (f + 9r v )X ,
2
32

2
2

2
2

2
+ 9r22 v 2 )X22 + s (f3j2 + rj2 vj2 )Xj2 .
W = 2 (f32
j = 1,3

(56)

429

The steady states which bifurcate from the IES can be found by setting Xi = c = 0,
i = 1, 2, 3 in equation (54). Note, however, that the equation describing X3 is decoupled
from the first three equations so that only X1 , X2 and c need be solved simultaneously from
the three equations given by X1 = X2 = c = 0. The resulting three, non-linear algebraic
equations are coupled so that no general method exists to find analytical expressions and,
hence, numerical iterations are usually employed. A specific analytical procedure has been
proposed in references [9, 10], on the other hand, to find explicit solutions in order to
save substantial computational time. This saving is achieved by first deducing a polynomial
the coefficients of which are expressed explicitly in terms of known system parameters.
Then the Xi and c can be found from analytical expressions involving the roots of the
polynomial.
The particular polynomial can be found by eliminating two of the three variables, X1 ,
X2 and c, from the three equations obtained by setting X1 = X2 = c = 0. This is achieved
by first employing the first two equations (given by X1 = X2 = 0) to express cos c and sin c
as
cos c =

01

01

A
B
2
2
(f31
3r12 v 2 )f31 X12 + 3
[f31
f32 (r1 f32 4r2 f31 )r1 v 2 ]X22 ,
D
D

01

sin c = v

01

A
B
2
(3f31
r12 v 2 )r1 X12 + 2v
[f31 (r1 f32 r2 f31 ) + r12 r2 v 2 ]X22 ,
D
D

(57)

where
A=
j11 + r1 v[(1 4m)Y + 2(1 2m)Z],
B=
j22 + 2r2 v[2(1 2m)Y + (1 4m)Z],

D = v(r1 f32 + 3r2 f31 )Y 2X1 X2 .

(58)


j11 and 
j22 are detailed in Table 2. m = 0 for periodic solutions and 1 for quasi-periodic
solutions. Consequently, the 1:3:0 resonance may have a family of periodic solutions
consisting of Xi $ 0, i = 1, 2, X3 = 0, and quasi-periodic motions lying on a two
dimensional torus in which Xi $ 0, i = 1, 2, 3.
Next, use sin2 c + cos2 c = 1 and the third equation, given by c = 0, to yield the second
degree polynomial
g3(Z) g6 (Z)Z 0 g3 g6 Z = 0

(59)

and the seventh degree polynomial

(g1 g4 )[(g3 g4 g1 g6 Z)2 (g3 g5 g2 g6 )(g2 g4 g1 g5 Z)]
+(g2 g5 Z)[(g2 g5 Z)(g3 g5 g2 g6 ) (g3 g6 Z)(g3 g4 g1 g6 Z)]
+Z(g3 g6 Z)[(g3 g6 Z)2 2(g1 g4 )(g3 g5 g2 g6 )] = 0,

(60)

where
2
Y = (f31
+ r12 v 2 )X12 ,

2
Z = (f32
+ 9r22 v 2 )X22 .

(61)

. .

430

T 2
The coefficients, Ai and Bi , used for the 1 : 3 : 0 resonance
A0 = m1 r1 s2 (m1r1 + m2 pr r2 )v 2
A1 = r1 s2 (2m1 m2 r1 + m3 pr r2 )v 2 s42

A2 = m2 r1 s2 (m2 r1 + m1 pr r2 )v 2

+3m2 r2 v[3v(m1 r1 + m2 pr r2 )s3

+3r2 v3v(m3 r1 + 2m1 m2 pr r2 )s3

(3m1 f31 m2 pr f32 )s4 ]

(3m3 f31 2m1 m2 pr f32 )s4 ]

A3 = 3m1 r2 v[3v(m2 r1 + m1 pr r2 )s3

A4 = v[m1 r1 (2j
11 + pr 
j22 /3) + m2 r2 pr 
j11 ]s2

(3m2 f31 m1 pr f32 )s4 ]

A5 = v[m2 r1 (2j
11 + pr 
j22 /3) + m1 r2 pr 
j11 ]s2

A6 = 3v[m2 r1 
j22 + m1 r2 (3j
11 + 2pr 
j22 )]s3

+3v[m1 r1 
j22 + m2 r2 (3j
11 + 2pr 
j22 )]s3

[4d
m1 r2 v 2/p13 + (3m2 f31 m1 pr f32 )j
22 ]

22 ]
+[4d
m2 r2 v /p13 + (3m1 f31 m2 pr f32 )j
2

A7 = 
j11 (j
11 + pr 
j22 /3)s2

A8 = 
j22 (3j
11 + pr 
j22 )s3 4d
vj
22 s4 /3p13

B0 = m1 r1 p23 s2 /12
B1 = m2 r1 p23 s2 /9

B2 = 3m2 r2 p13 s1

(3m1 r1 p13 m2 r2 p23 )s3

+(3m2 r1 p13 m1 r2 p23 /3)s3

+(3m1 p13 f31 m2 p23 f32 /3)s4 /v

+(3m2 p13 f31 m1 p23 f32 /3)s4 /v

B3 = 27m1 r2 p13 s1

B4 = p23 
j11 s2 /9v

j11 p23 
j22 /3)s3 /v + 
ds4
B5 = (3p13 

B6 = 9p13 
j22 s1

Terms used in the above expressions

m1 = 1 4m

m2 = 2(1 2m)

2
s1 = f31
+ r12 v 2

s2 = f + 9r v
2
32

2
2

m3 = m12 + m22
ti = ri pi3 ,

i = 1, 2

t3 = f31 p13 /v

s3 = f31 f32 3r1 r2 v 2

t4 = f32 p23 /2v

s4 = v(r1 f32 + 3r2 f31 )

p4 = p23 /3p13


jii = v[jii ri (pi1 + 2mpi3 
j33 )]/p13 ,

i = 1, 2


j33 = (p31 j33 /r3 )/p33


d = d + (3p11 f31 p21 f32 /3)/v
+2m(3p13 f31 p23 f32 /3)j
33 /v

The gi (Z), i = 1, 2, . . . , 6, are polynomials of Z given by

g1 (Z) =

1
(A Z + A4 ),
A0 1

gi (Z) =

1
(A Z 2 + Ai + 3 Z + Ai + 5 ),
A0 i

gi (Z) =

1
(B Z + Bi ),
B0 i 3

i = 4, 5, 6.

i = 2, 3,
(62)

The constant coefficients Ai , i = 0, 1, . . . , 8, and Bi , i = 0, 1, . . . , 6, are presented more

conveniently in Table 2.

431

Having found Z from equations (59) and (60) (by using, for example, the IMSL program
RPOLY [16]), Y is determined from
Y=

(g2 g5 Z)(g3 g5 g2 g6 ) (g3 g6 Z)(g3 g4 g1 g6 Z)

.
(g3 g6 Z)2 (g1 g4 )(g3 g5 g2 g6 )

(63)

Both Y and Z must be positive. The corresponding X3 is obtained from

1
m
(j r3 p31 ) 2(Y + Z) .
2
+ r32 v32 r3 p33 33
f33

X32 =

(64)

The first order approximation of the periodic and quasi-periodic solutions is described by
hi = Xi cos v i t,

i = 1, 2, 3,

(65)

where X3 is given by equation (64). The frequency, v 3 , for the quasi-periodic solution is
given by the fifth equation of (54) as
v 3 = v3

f33
(p + p33 W3 ),
2v3 31

(66)

whereas
3v 1 = v 2 = 3[v d1 f31 (p11 + p13 W1 ) + p13 (C2 cos c + C1 sin c)X1 X2 ]

(67)

for both the periodic and quasi-periodic solutions.

3.3. 1:1:1
In this case the ratio of the natural frequencies, v1 :v2 :v3 , is 1:1:1 and the KB method
can still be adopted. However, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find explicit steady
state solutions by using the KB method. Therefore, the EG method will be used for this
case and the alternative form (4b) will be applied to simplify the solution procedure. This
approach requires equation (50) to be rewritten as
h i + (v*)2hi = Ri + (v*2 vi2 )hi ,

i = 1, 2, 3,

(68)

where v* is the unknown frequency of the assumed periodic motion. Next, the first order
approximation is assumed to take the form
hi = Ai (t) cos v*t + Bi (t) sin v*t,

i = 1, 2, 3,

(69)

so that the averaged equations are given by

1
T:a T

Ai = lim

1
T:a T

Bi = lim

1
[R + (v*2 vi2 )hi ] sin v*t dt,
v* i

1
[R +(v*2 vi2 )hi ] cos v*t dt,
v* i

i = 1, 2, 3.

(70)

. .

432

With the aid of equations (4)(6), as well as equations (68) and (70), the following six
governing equations can be found:
3

2v*Ai = v* s jij Aj (v*2 vi2 )Bi F[pi1 + pi3 (E 2 + F 2 )],

j=1

2v*Bi = v* s jij Bj + (v*2 vi2 )Ai + E[pi1 + pi3 (E 2 + F 2 )],

i = 1, 2, 3,

(71)

j=1

where
3

E = s (f3j Aj + v*rj Bj ),

F = s (f3j Bj v*rj Aj ).

j=1

(72)

j=1

Periodic solutions can be derived from the non-linear equations obtained by setting
Ai = Bi = 0, i = 1, 2, 3, in equations (71). The resulting six equations need to be solved
simultaneously to find the periodic solutions. Frequency v* is an appropriate candidate
for the variable of the polynomial which most reduces computational effort. After
algebraic manipulation, a fifth degree polynomial results, which takes the general form:
[r1 v*2 (j11 f31 + r1 v12 )](J 2 + K 2 ) j12 f32 (L 2 + G 2 ) j13 f33 (M 2 + N 2 )
+[r2 v*2 (j11 f32 + j12 f31 + r2 v12 )](LJ + GK) + [r3 v*2
(j11 f33 + j13 f31 + r3 v12 )](NJ + MK) [v*2(f33 + r1 j13 r3 j11 )
f33 v12 ]

(GJ LK)
(MJ NK)
[v*2(f32 + r1 j12 r2 j11 ) f32 v12 ]
v*
v*

(j12 f33 + j13 f32 )(GM + LN)

1
(r j r3 j12 )(GN LM) = 0,
v* 2 13

(73)

where the Gi , Ki , Ji and Li , as well as G, K, L, J, M and N, are all polynomials of v*.

Their detailed expressions are given in Table 3. Having found positive values of v* from
equation (73), the amplitude components of the periodic motion, Ai2 + Bi2 , i = 1, 2, 3, are
determined from
A12 + B12 =

(J 2 + K 2 )2 2
(E + F 2 ),
P2 + Q2

A22 + B22 =

L2 + G2
(A12 + B12 ),
J2 + K2

M2 + N2
(A12 + B12 ),
J2 + K2

(74)

p11 2v*
+
[j (J 2 + K 2 ) j12 (GK + LJ) j13 (MK + NJ)],
p13 p13 Q 11

(75)

A32 + B32 =
where E 2 + F 2, P and Q are given by
E2 + F2 =

P = f31 (J 2 + K 2 ) f32 (LJ + GK) f33 (NJ + MK)

v*[r2 (GJ LK) + r3 (MJ NK)],

(76)

433

T 3
Polynomial functions used for the 1 :1 : 1 resonance
Polynomial

Degree
in v*

Expression

G(v*)

G1 J2 G3 J3 K1 L2 + K3 L1

K(v*)

G2 J2 G3 J2 K2 L3 + K3 L2

M(v*)

G2 J1 G1 J2 K2 L1 + K1 L2

L(v*)

G1 L3 G3 L1 K3 J1 + K1 J3

J(v*)

G2 L3 G3 L2 + K2 J3 K3 J2

N(v*)

G2 L1 G1 L2 + K2 J2 K1 J1

Terms used in the above expressions

Gi (v*),

i = 1, 2, 3

v*[(p13 j2i p23 j1i ) + ri (p11 p23 p21 p13 )]

Ji (v*),

i = 1, 2, 3

v*[(p13 j3i p33 j1i ) + ri (p11 p33 p31 p13 )]

i = 1, 2

(1)i(v*2 vi2 )p(3 i)3 + f3i (p11 p23 p21 p13 )

Ki (v*)
Li (v*),

f33 (p11 p23 p21 p13 )

K3
i = 1, 3

(1)

(i + 1)/2

(v* vi2 )p(4 i)3 + f3i (p11 p33 p31 p13 )

2

f32 (p11 p33 p31 p13 )

L2

and
Q = v*[r1 (J 2 + K 2 ) r2 (LJ + GK) r3 (NJ + MK)] + f32 (GJ LK) + f33 (MJ NK),
(77)
respectively.
The first order approximation of the periodic solution can be obtained by assuming
B1 = 0 because the system is autonomous. Therefore,
h1 = A1 cos v*t, h2 = A2 cos v*t + B2 sin v*t,

h3 = A3 cos v*t + B3 sin v*t,

(78)

where
A1 = (J 2 + K 2 )

A2 = A1

A3 = A1

E2 + F2
P2 + Q2

1/2

B2 = A1

GJ LH
,
J2 + H2

B3 = A1

MJ NH
.
J2 + H2

GH + LJ
,
J2 + H2

MH + NJ
,
J2 + H2

(79)

3.4.
Both periodic and quasi-periodic solutions are feasible for the 1 : 3 : 0 resonance, but
only a periodic solution is possible for the 1:1:1 resonance. Stability conditions can be
determined straightforwardly from the Jacobian matrices of the time-averaged equations
(54) and (71) for the 1:3:0 and 1:1:1 cases, respectively. A periodic or quasi-periodic

434

. .

Figure 3. (a) The angle section. (b) The D-section.

solution is stable if all the real parts of the non-zero eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix
are negative. It should be noted, however, that the 6 6 Jacobian matrix of the 1:1:1
resonance has one zero eigenvalue [17], because it is evaluated on the periodic solution
which actually has only five independent variables.
3.5.
3.5.1. Example 1: bluff angle section
The angle section, which is shown in Figure 3(a), is actually a 2 DOF, co-centric system.
This particular example was studied analytically by Blevins and Iwan [12] for the
non-resonant case as well as for the 1:1 and 1:3 resonances. However, explicit solutions
and stability conditions were given only for the non-resonance. Dynamic responses in the
resonances were obtained numerically from the time-averaged equations. Later, the 1:1
resonance was re-examined and explicit solutions were derived by using the EG method
[8]. Recently, a typical angle section model was experimentally considered in detail by
Modi et al. [18]. This model had 1 1 in (254 254 cm) and 3 3 in (762 762 cm)
cross-sectional dimensions with uniform leg thicknesses of 1/16 in (16 cm) and 1/2 in
(127 cm), respectively. The aerodynamic lift, drag and moment coefficients of the model
were measured from wind tunnel tests and dynamic responses of the model were also
obtained, especially for the case of vu /vy = 292 (close to 1:3 resonance). However, unlike
reference [12] and this paper, in which we are particularly interested in the dynamic
behavior of the model with respect to the variation of the frequency ratio (vu /vy ) near
the 1:3 resonance, Modi et al. [18] investigated the dynamics of the model with respect
to the wind speed (U) at a fixed frequency ratio (292). Moreover, the results presented
in reference [18] were obtained from a one-degree-of-freedom (either plunge or torsion)
model under appropriate wind speeds. Therefore, the results are actually obtained for
non-resonant cases, and the word resonance used in reference [18] (e.g., plunging
resonance or torsional resonance) means that the corresponding maximum plunge
(torsion) response is with respect to a particular wind speed, rather than the usual
definition [810, 12] indicating the relationship between simultaneous plunge and
torsional motions. Although the main purpose of this paper is to compare the two

435

approximation methods in resonant cases, and thus only the results regarding the variation
of vu /vy are presented, the behavior of the model under different wind speeds is very
important and should be studied. In fact, an interesting phenomenon can be observed from
the results presented in reference [18]: galloping is only associated with certain values of
wind speeds in resonant cases. This observation has indeed been revealed analytically in
our early results [9, 10].
The form of the explicit solution for the 1:3:0 resonance given in the previous
subsections can also be applied for the 1:3 situation. The structural and aerodynamic
properties of the bluff angle section are well documented in reference [12], and they are
used to yield
[M] = diag [1

1],

[C] = 2 diag [0004125

and

[K] = diag [1
000513v],

1 v 2 ],
v = vu /vy ,

F006024(0656a + 783a3 )J
h.
{F} = g00
f045550(0105a + 934a3 )j

(80)

(81)

It should be noted that the horizontal component of the aerodynamic forces is zero,
which results, in turn, in a zero horizontal response so that the system really has 2 DOF.
The normalized wind speed Uy = Uz /vy d, on the other hand, equals 45.
The IES, {q} = {0}, was found to be stable for the specified parameters over the range
of structural frequency ratios, 11114 Q v Q 12815. A dynamic analysis was performed
for the initially unstable regions. A stable periodic solution was obtained by using the
formulae derived for the 1:3:0 resonance over the range 28 Q v Q 32. The resulting
vertical, Ay , and torsional, Au , amplitudes of the motion and that obtained by using
numerical integration are shown in Figure 4, where the results given by Blevins and Iwan
[12] are also indicated. It can be seen from this figure that the vertical amplitude is quite
smooth near v = 3 but the torsional amplitude has a peak at v = 3. Also, it can be noted
that, for the vertical motion, the present results and those of Blevins agree with the
numerically integrated data. For the torsional motion, however, our results are in excellent
agreement with the numerically integrated solution for a large interval of vu /vy
(30 2 02), but the results of Blevins cover a very narrow interval (approximately for
vu /vy = 30 2 0015, while the results outside this region are given by the non-resonant
analysis).
3.5.2. Example 3: D-section
A D-section transmission line, which is depicted in Figure 3(b), has been analyzed
previously in order to consider a 1:1:1 galloping motion having strong coupling between
the vertical, horizontal and torsional components [9, 10]. Although a detailed study has
been published, the dynamic responses were limited to fixed parameter values, although
the steady wind speed was changed. The main interest here, however, lies in the dynamic
behavior near resonance, so that this example will be reassessed.
The dimensionless data are given by
[M] =

&

100000
000000 000520
000000
103000 001780
000520 001780
800000

'

. .

436

&

'

100000 000008 000000

[K] = 000000
v12
000000 ,
000000 000000
v22
[C] = 2 diag [000150

000150v1

054400v2 ],

v1 = vz /vy , v2 = vu /vy ,

(82)

and

&

'

000048(0600a + 0370a 2 + 0200a 3 )

{F} = 000048(0330a 0780a 2 + 0145a 3 ) .
000006(0450a + 0096a 2 + 0210a 3 )

(83)

The non-dimensional wind speed, Uy , is chosen to be 258, which is equivalent to a wind

speed, Uz , of 9 m/s. The initial stability analysis predicted the D-section to be initially
unstable, at least over the range 00 Q v1 , v2 Q 20 of structural frequency ratios. A stable
periodic solution was obtained by using the formulae derived for the 1:1:1 resonance over
the subrange 09 Q v1 , v2 Q 11.
Predictions obtained virtually instantaneously from the analytical formulae given earlier
are presented in the left column of Figure 5, where Ay , Az and Au represent the vertical,
horizontal and torsional amplitudes, respectively. They are in excellent agreement with the

Figure 4. The dimensionless response for the 1 : 3 : 0 resonance; Uy = 45. e, Blevins numerical integration
[12]; q, our numerical integration; - - - -, Blevins asymptotic solution [12]; , our asymptotic solution.

437

Figure 5. The dimensionless response for the 1 : 1 : 1 resonance; Uy = 258. (a) vertical amplitude; (b) horizontal
amplitude; (c) torsional amplitude. The left subfigures are obtained from the analytical formulation; the right
subfigures represent the numerical results.

reference numerically integrated data, shown in the right column of this figure. However,
the computation of each integrated point consumed hours of CPU time on a SUN work
station.
4. CONCLUSIONS

Two seemingly different, time averaging procedures are shown analytically to produce
identical first order, approximate solutions and stability conditions for an n-DOF
non-linear, discrete system. It is suggested that, depending upon the non-resonant or
resonant case under consideration, the application of one or the other procedure can be
more advantageous. The two procedures are used to analyze galloping for which periodic
and quasi-periodic solutions are derived explicitly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Canadian Electrical
Association (CEA Project No. 321 T 672) through the auspices of Manitoba Hydro. Partial

438

. .

support was also received from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

N. M 1962 Nonlinear Oscillations. New York: Van Nostrand.

R. A. S 1982 Nonlinear Differential Equations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
A. H. N and D. T. M 1979 Nonlinear Oscillations. New York: John Wiley.
J. A. S and F. V 1985 Averaging Methods in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
N. N. B and Y. A. M 1961 Asymptotic Methods in the Theory of
Non-linear Oscillations. New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation.
G. C 1987 Journal of Sound and Vibration 119, 225242. Applications of a generalized
Galerkins method to non-linear oscillations of two-degree-of-freedom systems.
K. K 1952 Proceedings of the 1st U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics, ASME,
125131. Non-linear vibration problems treated by the averaging method of W. Ritz.
Y. M. D, A. H. S and N. P 1990 American Society of Civil Engineers Journal
of Engineering Mechanics 116, 25832602. Galloping analysis for two-degree-of-freedom
oscillator.
P. Y, Y. M. D, A. H. S and N. P 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 119, 24042425. Three degrees-of-freedom model for
galloping, part I: formulation.
P. Y, Y. M. D, N. P and A. H. S 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 119, 24262448. Three degrees-of-freedom model for
galloping, part II: solutions.
G. V. P 1989 Progress in Aerospace Sciences 26, 169224. Phenomena and modeling
of flow-induced vibrations of bluff bodies.
R. D. B and W. D. I 1974 Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Journal of Applied Mechanics 41, 11131118. The galloping response of a
two-degree-of-freedom system.
P. Y and K. H 1988 IEEE Transactions of Automatic Control 33, 2841. A perturbation
analysis of interactive static and dynamic bifurcations.
P. Y, A. H. S and N. P 1992 Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Journal of Applied Mechanics 59, 140145. Inertially coupled galloping of iced
conductors.
D. E. N 1965 International Journal of Mechanical Science 7, 159172. On the methods
of Galerkin, Ritz and KrylovBogoliubov in the theory of non-linear vibrations.
M. A. J 1975 ACM Transactions of Mathematical Software 1, 178189. ALGORITHM
493, zeros of a real polynomial [C2].
G. I and D. D. J 1980 Elementary Stability and Bifurcation Theory. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
V. J. M, J. E. S and T. Y 1992 ASME FED-Vol. 138/PVP-Vol. 245,
Symposium on Fow-Induced Vibration and Noise 6, 171192. Wind-induced instability and
near-wake of a structure angle section.