WIND-INDUCED VIBRATION AND CONTROL OF

CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES

KAMAL KRISHNA BERA

Under the guidance of
Prof. Naresh K. Chandiramani
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY

CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE
Main Components:
Bridge Deck
Stay cables
Towers or pylons

Advantages:
stiffness > suspension bridge
cables
temporary and permanent
supports to bridge deck
symmetrical bridge
large ground
anchorages not required.

MODELLING
Deck
Spine (Central) Beam Model

Multi-scale modeling
components of interest: shell elements or solid elements
other components: line elements

Cable
Truss Element
[Kt ] [K e ] [K g ]

Elastic linear stiffness matrix

1
0

AEeq 0
[Ke ]

Lc 1
0

0
0
0
0
0

0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0

0 0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0 0

Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity

Eeq

E
( wL) 2 AE

12T 3

Geometric stiffness matrix

0 0 0
0 1 0

T 0 0 1
[K g ]
Lc 0 0 0
0 1 0

0 0 1

0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1

0 0 0
0 1 0

0 0 1

AEROSTATIC INSTABILITY
Wind speed components

Mean wind load

1
FD ( ) U 2 BC D ( )
2

Longitudinal direction: U ( z ) u ( x, y, z, t )
Lateral direction:

v ( x, y , z , t )

1
FL ( ) U 2 BC L ( )
2

Vertical direction: w( x, y, z, t )

1
M ( ) U 2 BC M ( )
2

Torsional Divergence

C M ( ) C M (0) C M (0)

1
1

2 2
2 2
K U B C M (0) U B C M (0)
2
2

1
K U 2 B 2 C M ( )
2

U cr

2K
B 2 C M (0)

AERODYNAMIC INSTABILITY
I.

Vortex Induced Vibration

1
U 2 DC L sin( 2f s t )
2

Vortex shedding frequency

f st S t

U
D

St Strouhal number
U

Lock in Phenomenon
1
m( y 2 n y n2 y ) U 2 DC L sin( s t )
2
y max

DC L U 2
DC L

4mn2
16 2 S c S t2

Sc

m
Scruton
D 2

number

II. Galloping Instability

Instability by Negative Aerodynamic Damping in cross wind
direction
At very low reduced frequency
o across-wind oscillation of structure
o modifies effective angle of attack
o change in aerodynamic forces

Fy ( )

self excited

1
dC L

U 2 B
CD
2
d

1
dC L

my c UB
CD
2
d

y
0 U

y ky 0

1
dC L

my cy ky U 2 B
CD
2
d

dC L

CD

2c
UB

y
0 U

Instability
Criterion

III. FLUTTER
o Wind-structure interaction
o Self-excited Aerodynamic Forces

Coupled Vertical and Torsional

vibration

o Instability at Critical Wind Speed

Both under Laminar and

Turbulent Wind flow

Failure of Original Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)

 Scanlan and Tomko (1971)

1
B
2
h
Lse U B KH 1 KH 2
K 2 H 3 K 2 H 4
2
U
U

1
2 2
h
B
2
2 h
M se U B KA1 KA2
K A3 K A4
2
U
U
B

Theodorsen (1934)

Lse b bh 2UC ( k )h [1 C (k )]Ub 2U 2 C ( k )

b 2
1

M se b UC (k )h
[ C (k )]Ub U 2 C (k )
8
2

C (k ) F (k ) iG (k )
K 2k

B
Reduced Frequency
U

2-D Flutter Analysis

Eigen value of matrix A

i ii ji 1 i2

Critical State

i 0

i h,

Corresponding wind speed

Flutter Speed

IV. BUFFETING
Mean Wind Speed

Fluctuating Wind Speed (turbulence)

Static Wind Force

Dynamic Wind Force

Random Vibration of bridge

Vertical, Lateral and Torsional motion

under wide ranges of wind speed
increases monotonically with increasing wind speed

Buffeting Forces
1
L (t ) U 2 (t )C L ( 0 ) B
2

Lift force in transient wind axis

2u (t )
2

2
U 2 (t ) U u (t ) w(t ) U 2 1
U

w( t )
w( t )
u (t )

U u (t ) U
U

w(t )
U

C D ( 0 ) C D ( 0 ) C D ( 0 )

L(t ) L (t ) cos( ) D (t ) sin( )

L(t )

Lift force in mean wind axis

1
w(t ) 1
2u (t )
2
U 2 B C L ( 0 )

U
BC L ( 0 )
C L ( 0 ) C D ( 0 )

2
U 2
U

Lb (t ) Lstatic ( 0 )

WIND INDUCED VIBRATION CONTROL

I.

Modification of structural parameters

mass, damping and stiffness

II. Aerodynamic measures

Wedge-shaped fairings , Actively controlled surfaces , deck-flap
system
III. Mechanical measures
Passive, Active, Semi-active and Hybrid Control systems

Active Control System

Korlin and Starossek (2004)
o Rotational Mass Damper
(RMD)

o Movable Eccentric Mass Damper

(MEMD)

Effectively Control Flutter

Requires High Energy Input

lower energy consumption,

movement cause undesirable
horizontal movement of bridge

Semi-active Control System

Pourzeynali and Datta (2005)
o Semi-active Tuned Mass Damper (STMD)

Case

Wind Speed
(m/s)

Max. Torsional
amp. (rad.)

Uncontrolled

55.52 (flutter, sustained

oscillation)

0.02

Controlled with tuned mass damper (20% damping)

98 (flutter, sustained oscillation)

0.02

Controlled with semi-active tuned mass damper (max.

damping 21.6%)

110 (decaying oscillation)

0.0063

FUTURE WORKS
More Literature Study
Finite Element Modelling
Flutter Analysis
.

..

Cable-bridge deck vibration interaction

Control with Active Tuned Mass Damper (ATMD), Active
Tendon Systems
Non-linear Flutter / Buffeting

THANK YOU

Vortex-Induced
Vibration

Galloping
Instability

Flutter

Buffeting

Occurs at low wind Occur at much lower Usually occur at very Occur over a wide range
speed
and
low frequency than vortex high wind speed.
of wind speed.
turbulence condition.
shedding.
Due to Lock-in, vortex
shedding frequency
natural frequency of
bridge components.

Motion of structure in
vertical direction causes
change in angle of attack
of original flow velocity.

Due to self-excited
aerodynamic
forces
resulting from wind
structure interaction.

Due
to
velocity
fluctuation
in
the
incoming
flow
i.e.
turbulence.

Resulting motion normal Large

amplitude
to flow, for bridge deck vibration in normal to
it is in the vertical mean wind direction.
direction.

Flutter can be 1D
(vertical or torsional),
2D (coupled vertical and
torsional motion) or 3D
(coupled
vertical,
torsional and lateral
motion).

Random vibration.
Motion can be any
combination of lateral,
torsional and vertical.

Simple harmonic force Self-excited forces.

due to alternate vortex
shedding as well as
motion induced force.

Self-excited forces.

Not self-excited.

Increase in damping Increase in damping Effect of increase in Increase in damping

reduces instability.
reduces instability.
damping is very low.
reduces response.

WIND-INDUCED VIBRATION AND CONTROL OF

CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES

KAMAL KRISHNA BERA

Under the guidance of
Prof. Naresh K. Chandiramani

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY