Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 87 (2000) 6179

Suppression of wind-induced instabilities of a
long span bridge by a passive deckaps
control system
Part I: Formulation
P. Omenzetter*, K. Wilde, Y. Fujino
Department of Civil Engineering, Univversity of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
Received 22 May 1999; received in revised form 15 December 1999; accepted 10 April 2000
Abstract
A passive aerodynamic control method for suppression of the wind-induced instabilities of a
very long-span bridge is presented. The control system consists of additional control aps
attached to the edges of the bridge deck. Rotational motion of the control aps is governed by
prestressed springs and additional cables connecting the aps to an auxiliary transverse beam
supported by the main cables of the bridge. The rotational movement of the aps is used to
modify the aerodynamic forces acting on the deck, as well as to provide aerodynamic forces on
the aps, used to stabilize the bridge. A time domain formulation of self-excited and bueting
forces is obtained through the rational function approximation of the generalized Theodorsen
and Ku sner functions, respectively. Performance indices assessing improvement in critical
wind speed and degree of stability of the system are proposed to nd the optimal conguration
of the deckaps system. This paper lays the theoretical groundwork for the one that
follows. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Passive control; Control aps; Long-span bridges; Flutter; Divergence;
Rational function approximation
1. Introduction
The construction of the Tatara cable-stayed bridge and Akashi Kaikyo suspension
bridge in Japan, with main spans of 890 and 1990 m, respectively, has set new records
in terms of size of bridge structures. Structurewind interaction phenomena, static as
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-3-5841-6099; fax: +81-3-5841-7454.
E-mail address: piotr@bridge.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp (P. Omenzetter).
0167-6105/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 7
Nomenclature
A state-space matrix
AY B terminal points of the curve traced by the Theodorsen
function
a
i
coecients of rational function approximation
b half chord width of deck
b
c
half of the distance between main cables' axes
b
i
lag coecients
C matrix dened by Eq. (30c)
C
a
aerodynamic matrix
C
c
matrix dened by Eq. (34c)
C
dd
Y C
df
Y C
fd
Y C
ff
matrices resulting from partitioning of matrix C dened
by Eq. (34c)
C
s
structural damping matrix
C the Theodorsen function
~
C approximation of the Theodorsen function
c curve traced by the Theodorsen function
~
c curve traced by approximation of the Theodorsen function
c
( )
damping coecient associated with ( ) degree of freedom
D XY X ( ) distance between points XY X ( )
diag XY XY F F F Y X ( ) diagonal matrix of elements XY XY F F F Y X ( )
E matrix dening aerodynamic states
E
c
matrix dening aerodynamic states given by Eq. (34g)
E
d
Y E
f
matrices resulting from partitioning of matrix E dened
by Eq. (34g)
E
g
matrix dening gust states
F vector of self-excited forces of the wing-aileron-tab
combination
H
(2)
n
the Ha nkel function of the second kind and nth order
h vertical displacement of the deck
I identity matrix
I
1
Y I
2
controlled system performance indices
I
a
second-order mass moment of inertia of the system
I
b
Y I
g
second-order mass moment of inertia of the ap about its
hinge
i imaginary unit
K matrix dened by Eq. (30d)
K
a
aerodynamic matrix
K
b
Y K
cc
Y K
s
Y K
s1
Y K
s2
structural stiness matrices
K
c
matrix dened by Eq. (34d)
K
dd
Y K
df
Y K
fd
Y K
ff
matrices resulting from partitioning of matrix K dened
by Eq. (34d)
k nondimensionalized frequency
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 62
k
( )
stiness coecient associated with ( ) degree of freedom
L
( )
self-excited lift force associated with ( ) coordinate
L
bufY h
bueting lift force
L ( ) Laplace transform of ( )
M matrix dened by Eq. (30b)
M
a
aerodynamic matrix
M
c
matrix dened by Eq. (34b)
M
dd
Y M
df
Y M
fd
Y M
ff
matrices resulting from partitioning of matrix M dened
by Eq. (34b)
M
s
structural mass matrix
M
( )
self-excited moment associated with ( ) coordinate
M
bufY ( )
bueting moment associated with ( ) coordinate
M
b0
Y M
g0
prestressing moments
m mass of the system
min ( ) the minimum value of ( )
n
l
number of lag terms
P vector of self-excited aerodynamic forces of the deck-aps
system
P
buf
vector of bueting forces of the deck-aps system
P
ps
vector of forces due to prestressing
Q aerodynamic matrix dened by Eq. (30e)
Q
buf
matrix dened by Eq. (29b)
Q
bufY c
matrix dened by Eq. (34f)
Q
bufY d
Y Q
bufY f
matrices resulting from partitioning of matrix Q
buf
dened by Eq. (34f)
Q
c
aerodynamic matrix dened by Eq. (34e)
Q
d
Y Q
f
matrices resulting from partitioning of matrix Q dened
by Eq. (34e)
q vector of structural degrees of freedom of the wing-
aileron-tab combination
q
h
vertical displacement of the wing
q
a
rotational displacement of the wing
q
b
rotational displacement of the aileron
q
g
rotational displacement of the tab
R matrix dened in Eq. (11)
R
b
matrix dening aerodynamic states
R
g
matrix dening gust states
Re ( ) the real part of ( )
rms ( ) root-mean-square value of time history ( )
r
cb
Y r
cg
location of support points of the aps by control cables
r
b
Y r
g
location of ap hinge
S
1
Y S
2
matrices dened in Eq. (11)
S
a
rst-order mass moment of inertia of the system
S
b
Y S
g
rst-order mass moment of inertia of the ap about its
hinge
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 63
s Laplace variable
s nondimensionalized Laplace variable
T transformation matrix dened by Eq. (36)
T
p
transformation matrix dened by Eq. (6)
t
+
nondimensionalized time
t
b
Y t
g
gearing factors for ap rotation
U mean wind velocity
U
cr
critical wind speed
U
c
cr
Y U
0
cr
critical wind speed for controlled and uncontrolled system
uY w uctuating component of wind velocity in along and
across-wind direction
V transformation matrix dened by Eq. (14)
x vector of structural degrees of freedom of the deckaps
system
x
a
vector of aerodynamic states
x
d
vector of structural degrees of freedom of the deck
x
f
vector of structural degrees of freedom of the aps
x
g
vector of gust states
x
cb
Y x
cg
location of support points of control cables by the
transverse beam
z vector of structural degrees of freedom of controlled system
"z vector of states
z
a
vector of aerodynamic states of controlled system
z
g
vector of gust states of controlled system
a torsional displacement of the deck
b torsional displacement of the leading ap
b
0
Y g
0
initial angle of ap rotation
D degree of stability
e error of rational function approximation
e
b
Y e
g
relative error between assumed and actual ap motion
g torsional displacement of the trailing ap
l eigenvalue
t dummy integration variable of Eq. (19)
o circular frequency
c the Ku ssner function
0 zero matrix
( ) [ [ absolute value or length of ( )
( )
/
transposition of matrix ( )
Subscripts
low lower limit
up upper limit
b leading ap or its rotation
g trailing ap or its rotation
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 64
well as dynamic, are becoming increasingly important as spans become longer.
Flutter instability and divergence are most often design-governing criteria since they
may lead to the total collapse of a structure.
To control the utter of long-span bridges, application of various devices such as
tuned mass damper [1] and the eccentric mass method [2,3] has been studied, but a
satisfactory solution has not been obtained yet.
The aerodynamic control of bridge utter was proposed by Ostenfeld and Larsen
[4]. According to their concept, active control uses additional control surfaces
attached beneath both edges of the deck through aerodynamically shaped pylons.
The rotational displacement of the control surfaces is actively adjusted by feedback
control such that the generated aerodynamic forces provide a stabilizing action on
the deck. The rst reported research on this control system was given by Kobayashi
and Nagaoka [5]. They conducted a wind tunnel experiment on the sectional model
of a bridge and obtained a signicant increase of utter wind speed by a factor of 2.
The control algorithm, used in the experiment, was selected as proportional to the
rotational motion of the deck. Wilde and Fujino [6] carried out a theoretical analysis
of such a system. They applied a rational function approximation to model unsteady
aerodynamics and, under the assumption of no ow interaction between the control
surfaces and the deck, they derived a time domain equation of motion for the control
system. Since the resulting equation of motion was dependent on mean wind speed,
they proposed a variable-gain output feedback law optimized with respect to the
quadratic performance index dened over a selected range of wind speed. The
suggested controller guaranteed the system's stability and allowed application of
dierent control strategies at low and high wind speed.
To safeguard its reliability, the active control system should be duplicate or
triplicate in the form of parallel systems, and must be constantly monitored and
maintained. This would lead to high costs of active control systems. Wilde et al. [7]
proposed and investigated, both analytically and experimentally, the concept of a
passive system utilizing control surfaces. In their study, motion of control surfaces
was governed by an additional pendulum attached to the center of gravity of the
deck. The analysis revealed a signicant increase in critical wind speed. The
experimental results showed good agreement with the theoretical prediction for small
motions of the control surfaces. However, for larger motions considerable
discrepancy was noticed and actual critical wind speed was higher. This may be
attributed to the aerodynamic interaction between system members which was
neglected in the theoretical formulation of aerodynamic forces.
Aerodynamic control may also be achieved by additional aps attached directly to
the edges of the bridge deck. In this system the ow pattern around the deck is
aected by the motion of the aps; thus the stabilizing action comes not only from
the aerodynamic forces generated on control aps but can also be achieved through
modication of the aerodynamic forces induced on the bridge deck. This control
system will be referred to as a deckaps system.
The proposed passive control system (Fig. 1) consists of auxiliary aps attached
directly to the bridge deck. When the deck undergoes pitching motion, control ap
rotation is governed by additional cables connecting the control aps to an auxiliary
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 65
transverse beam supported by the main cables of the bridge. Since cables can only
pull the aps but not push them, additional prestressed springs are used to force
reverse motion of the control surfaces. The system shown in Fig. 1a, referred to as a
system with asymmetric cable connection, can work properly only for wind coming
Fig. 1. Passive aerodynamic control of bridge deck utter: (a) system with asymmetric cable connection;
(b) system with symmetric cable connection.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 66
from one direction and requires alteration of its conguration as the wind direction
changes. The stabilizing action of the system shown in Fig. 1b, referred to as a system
with symmetric cable connection, is, on the contrary, independent of wind direction.
The aim of this paper is to formulate a mathematical model of aerodynamic
passive control by the deck-aps system and to investigate a possible passive control
system for suppression of wind-induced vibration in ultra-long-span bridges. This
rst paper, Part I, is devoted to derivation of a rational function approximation
model of aerodynamic forces acting on a bridge deckaps system. Then, a nonlinear
equation of motion of the system is derived to account for the lack of compressive
stiness of additional supporting cables. Conditions under which simplication of
the equation of motion is permissible are discussed and a simplied equation of
motion is obtained, which is linear. The evaluation of the most suitable system is
based on the improvement in critical wind speed and system's degree of stability.
Part I provides the mathematical formulation of the problem and Part II presents
numerical simulations of the proposed control systems.
2. Equation of motion of the passive deck-aps control system
A sectional model of a passive bridge deck-aps control system (Fig. 2) is assumed
to have four degrees of freedom: vertical and torsional displacement with respect to
the elastic center of the deck, denoted by h, a and referred to as heaving and pitching
motion, respectively, and relative displacement of leading and trailing control ap,
denoted as b and g. Horizontal motion of the deck and main cables, as well as changes
in hangers' length are ignored. The deck together with the aps has a chord width of
2b, whereas the distance between main cables' axis is 2b
c
. The relative locations of the
leading and trailing ap hinges with respect to the deck elastic center are denoted by r
b
and r
g
; r
cb
and r
cg
are relative locations of the support points of the leading and trailing
ap by additional cables with respect to the deck elastic center, and x
cb
and x
cg
denote
relative locations of the support points of the additional cables by the transverse beam.
The control cables can only pull the aps. Therefore, in order to govern their reverse
motion the springs at the deckaps connections must be prestressed. It is assumed
that after prestressing the relative displacements of the aps are zero.
The equation of motion of the passive system can be written in a matrix
form as
M
s
 x C
s
x K
s
x = P
ps
P P
buf
Y (1)
where the vector of variables describing the motion with respect to the prestressed
conguration is
x
/
= hab a b g [ [X (2)
Forces due to prestressing of the cables are denoted by P
ps
and the total
aerodynamic force is assumed to be a superposition of self-excited forces, P, and
bueting forces, P
buf
[8] due to vertical uctuating wind component, w.
M
s
, C
s
, and K
s
are mass, damping, and stiness matrices of the sectional model,
respectively. The dynamics of the additional cables and the supporting beam are
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 67
ignored and matrix M
s
becomes
M
s
=
mb
2
S
a
b S
b
b S
g
b
I
a
r
b
S
b
I
b
r
g
S
g
I
g
I
b
0
symX I
g
_

_
_

_
Y (3)
Fig. 2. Cross-section of passive deckaps control system.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 68
where m is the total mass of the system, S
a
is the rst-order moment of inertia of the
system about the deck elastic center, S
b
and S
g
are the rst-order moments of inertia
of the leading and trailing aps about their hinges, respectively, I
a
is the second-
order moment of inertia of the system about the deck elastic center, and I
b
and I
g
are
the second order moments of inertia of the leading and trailing aps about their
hinges, respectively. The damping matrix is assumed to be diagonal, i.e.,
C
s
= diag c
h
b
2
Y c
a
Y c
b
Y c
g
_ _
, with the entries corresponding to damping coecients
of respective degrees of freedom. The stiness matrix, K
s
, consists of two matrices,
K
s
= K
s1
K
s2
X (4)
K
s1
describes stiness of the deck-aps system without control cables, i.e.,
K
s1
= diag k
h
b
2
Y k
a
Y k
b
Y k
g
_ _
, where k
h
Y k
a
Y k
b
and k
g
are stiness coecients of
heaving and pitching motion, and leading and trailing ap connection, respectively.
Matrix K
s2
represents the stiness of the cable connections and supporting beam and
is found as
K
s2
= T
/
p
K
b
K
b
K
cc
( )
1
K
cc
T
p
(5)
where T
p
describes a transformation of displacements of the deck and aps, x, into
total vertical elastic displacements of the supporting beam and control cables,
T
p
=
0 r
cb
x
cb
r
cb
r
b
_ _
0
0 r
cg
x
cg
0 r
cg
r
g
_ _
X (6)
The stiness matrix of the supporting beam is
K
b
=
k
bbb
k
bbg
k
bbg
k
bgg
_ _
(7)
and K
cc
is the stiness matrix of the additional cables, which takes into account their
nonlinear properties, i.e., their lack of stiness in compression. K
cc
takes the
following values
K
cc
=
k
cb
0
0 k
cg
_ _
Y (8a)
K
cc
=
k
cb
0
0 0
_ _
Y (8b)
K
cc
=
0 0
0 k
cg
_ _
Y (8c)
K
cc
=
0 0
0 0
_ _
X (8d)
Stiness matrix (8a) is assumed when both cables are in tension, that of Eqs. (8b) or
(8c) when only the leading or trailing ap cable is in tension, and a matrix with zero
coecients (8d) when none of the cables is in tension. The condition for existence of
tensile force is checked by computing the sign of the summation of elastic
displacements of the supporting system, i.e., beam and additional cables, due to
vibration and prestressing.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 69
The forces due to prestressing moments, M
b0
and M
g0
, are represented by vector
P
ps
. The forces P
ps
depend on the existence of tensile forces in the control cables. The
initial moments can be expressed in terms of initial ap displacements, b
0
and g
0
, and
stiness of the connections
M
b0
= k
b
b
0
Y (9a)
M
g0
= k
g
g
0
X (9b)
3. Modeling of aerodynamic forces
3.1. Formulation
A theoretical description of the self-excited aerodynamic forces of an oscillating
airplane wing was derived from potential ow theory by Theodorsen [9]. Theodorsen
and Garrick [10] extended this solution to characterize the nonstationary ow about
a wingailerontab combination. Both solutions describe the unsteady aerodynamic
forces due to steady-state oscillations in terms of the frequency-dependent
Theodorsen circulatory function. An extension of Theodorsen's theory to arbitrary
motions was presented by Edwards [11]. He introduced the generalized Theodorsen
function to describe the self-excited aerodynamic forces caused by arbitrary motion
of the wing.
Roger [12] proposed a modeling method which can transform the aeroelastic
equation of motion of an airplane into the frequency-independent time domain
equation. This method approximates aerodynamic force coecients by rational
functions of the Laplace variable. The size of the equation after approximation is
extended, but the overall analysis is greatly simplied. The augmented system, in
Roger's formulation, has a relatively large number of newly added aerodynamic
states, and modications of his method were proposed by Dunn [13] and Karpel [14].
The application of the rational function approximation for utter analysis of bridges
of various cross-sections was reported by Wilde et al. [15].
The vector of the self-excited forces, P, is selected as
P
/
= L
h
b M
a
M
b
M
g
_
Y (10)
where L
h
is a lift force, and M
a
M
b
and M
g
are torsional moments acting on
respective degrees of freedom.
The unsteady aerodynamic forces acting on a wingailerontab combination
(Fig. 3), according to Theodorsen and Garrick [10], may be represented as
F =M
a
q
U
b
_ _
C
a
q
U
b
_ _
2
K
a
q C s ( )
U
b
_ _
RS
2
q C s ( )
U
b
_ _
2
RS
1
qY (11)
where
q
/
= q
h
ab q
a
q
b
q
g
_
X (12)
Heaving and pitching motion with respect to the center of rotation of the wing are
denoted by q
h
and q
a
, whereas q
b
and q
g
are relative angles of rotation of the aileron
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 70
and tab, respectively. The corresponding vector of generalized forces is
F
/
= L
q
h
b M
q
a
M
q
b
M
q
g
_
X (13)
U is the mean velocity of the oncoming wind. The matrices M
a
, C
a
, K
a
, R, S
1
and S
2
depend on system geometry, namely the location of the wing rotation center, ap size
and location of hinges. The exact formulas can be derived from Theodorsen and
Garrick [10] and are not shown here due to their length and complexity.
Vectors describing the motion of the bridge deckaps system and wingaileron
tab combination are related through linear transformation
q = VxX (14)
Consistently, the relationship between the self-excited aerodynamic forces is given as
P = V
/
FX (15)
Thus, the formula for the unsteady aerodynamic forces of a bridge deck-aps system
may be written as
P = V
/
M
a
V x
U
b
_ _
V
/
C
a
V x
U
b
_ _
2
V
/
K
a
Vx C s ( )
U
b
_ _
V
/
RS
2
V x
C s ( )
U
b
_ _
2
V
/
RS
1
VxX (16)
The function C s ( ) appearing in Eqs. (11) and (16) is the generalized Theodorsen
function [11] which is expressed in terms of the Ha nkel functions, H
2 ( )
n
(n = 0Y 1), of
nondimensional Laplace variable, s, as
C s ( ) =
H
2 ( )
1
s ( )
H
2 ( )
1
s ( ) iH
2 ( )
0
s ( )
Y s = sbaUX (17)
Fig. 3. Aerodynamic forces on a wingailerontab system due to Theodorsen.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 71
The rst three terms of the formula (11) represent lift and moment of a
noncirculatory origin, while the last two terms describe the forces due to vorticity in
the wake generated at the trailing edge.
The vector of the bueting forces, P
buf
, is
P
/
buf
= L
bufY h
b M
bufY a
M
bufY b
M
bufY g
_
Y (18)
where L
bufY h
is the lift force, and M
bufY a
, M
bufY b
, and M
bufY g
are torsional moments
acting on respective degrees of freedom. For a at plate, bueting forces due to
uctuations in longitudinal wind direction, u, may be neglected. Bueting forces due
to uctuations in the vertical direction, w, may be expressed as [16]
P
buf
=
U
b
_ _
2
V
/
R
_
t
+
0
w t ( )
U
dc t
+
t ( )
dt
+
dtY (19)
where t
+
= tUab is nondimensionalized time, and c is the Ku ssner function.
3.2. Rational function approximation (RFA)
The most common approximation of unsteady aerodynamic forces, used in
aeronautics, is based on rational functions [12,14]. Although these methods require a
rather complicated optimization procedure [17], they have proved to be very useful
for direct approximation of the tabular data of unsteady aerodynamics obtained by
experiment [15]. For the deckaps system, a theoretical formulation of unsteady
forces is available and the general approach results in unnecessary computational
burden. It will be shown that the minimum state RFA formulation of the deckaps
aerodynamics can be obtained from approximation of the generalized Theodorsen
function.
The generalized Theodorsen function is approximated by rational functions of the
nondimensionalized Laplace variable as
~
C s ( ) = a
0

n
l
i=1
a
i
s b
i
Y (20)
where
~
C s ( ) denotes approximation. The partial fractions, a
i
a s b
i
( ), are commonly
called lag terms, because each represents a transfer function in which the output lags
behind the input and permits an approximation of the time delays inherent in
unsteady aerodynamics. The coecients of the partial fractions, b
i
, are referred to as
lag coecients. Addition of each partial fraction introduces into the resulting state-
space realization new states referred to as aerodynamic states. The number of partial
fractions is denoted by n
l
, and is found as a compromise between the precision of the
approximation and the size of the state-space realization.
The Ha nkel functions, which are used to determine the generalized Theodorsen
function, have analytical continuation in the whole s-plane except the branch cut-o
along the negative real axis. The generalized Theodorsen function is in fact dened
over a two-dimensional domain and its approximation is a fairly dicult task.
However, if our interest is restricted only to purely imaginary values of the
nondimensionalized Laplace variable, s = ik, where k = obaU, the approximation
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 72
problem is greatly simplied. Since utter phenomena occur for points in the s-plane
which lie along the imaginary axis, this restriction may be justied. The
approximation formula for the generalized Theodorsen function with the argument
s = ik also has analytical continuation in almost all points in the s-plane. Thus, it is
supposed that slightly decaying or growing motions would be well approximated.
However, the approximation may fail in prediction of strongly damped motions.
The Laplace transformation of Eq. (16) with the approximated formula for the
Theodorsen function (20) and zero initial condition yields
L P ( ) = V
/
M
a
s
2

U
b
_ _
C
a
a
0
RS
2
( )s
U
b
_ _
2
K
a
a
0
RS
1
( )
_

U
b
_ _
2
R

n
l
i=1
a
i
s Uab ( )b
i
S
2
s
U
b
_ _
S
1
_ _
_
VL x ( )X (21)
The aerodynamic states are dened in Laplace domain as
L x
a
( ) = sI
U
b
_ _
R
b
_ _
1
U
b
_ _
EL x ( )X (22)
The matrices appearing in Eq. (22) have the forms
E = [b
1
Y F F F Y b
n
l
[
/
S
2
V [1Y F F F Y 1[
/
n
l
times
S
1
VX (23a)
and
R
b
= diag b
1
Y F F F Y b
n
l
( )X (23b)
As the parameter k varies in the range from 0 to , C k ( ) and
~
C k ( ) trace two
curves in the complex plane denoted by c k ( ) and
~
c k ( ), respectively. The objective of
the approximation procedure is to minimize the error of tting the exact curve with
the approximated one. This error can be evaluated as an integral
e =
_
B
A
D c k ( )Y
~
c k ( )
_ _
dc k ( ) [ [Y (24)
where D c k ( )Y
~
c k ( )
_ _
denotes distance between points of curves
~
c k ( ) and
~
c k ( )
corresponding to the same value of parameter k, and d
~
c k ( )

is the length of an
innitesimal arch of c k ( ). A and B are the terminal points of this part of the exact
curve which is approximated. Integral in Eq. (24) can be parameterized with respect
to k as
e =
_
k
up
k
low
C k ( ) C k ( ) [ [
dC k ( )
dk

dkY (25a)
where
dC k ( )
dk
= i
H
2 ( )
0
k ( )
_ _
2
H
2 ( )
1
k ( )H
2 ( )
0
k ( )ak H
2 ( )
1
k ( )
_ _
2
H
2 ( )
1
k ( ) iH
2 ( )
0
k ( )
_ _
2
X (25b)
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 73
The integration limits in Eq. (25a), k
low
and k
up
, are the lower and upper bounds of
the reduced frequency interval on which tting is performed. In this study
optimization is performed by the nonlinear technique proposed by Nelder and Mead.
The formulation of the bueting forces (19) in a form of dierential equations is
obtained through the approximation of the Ku ssner function after Dowell et al. [16]:
c t
+
( ) = 1 0X5e
0X13t+
0X5e
t
+
X (26)
Introducing the above approximation into Eq. (19) and taking Laplace transforma-
tion with zero initial condition yields
L P
buf
( ) =
U
b
_ _
2
V
/
R
0X065
s 0X13

0X5
s 1
_ _
L
w
U
_ _
X (27)
Gust states in the Laplace domain are dened as
L x
g
_ _
= sI R
g
_ _
1
E
g
L
w
U
_ _
Y (28)
where R
g
= diag 0X13Y 1 ( ) is the matrix of gust lag terms and E
/
g
= 1 1 [ [. Hence,
the bueting forces are given by
P
buf
= Q
buf
x
g
Y (29a)
where
Q
buf
=
U
b
_ _
2
V
/
R[0X065Y 0X5[ (29b)
and x
g
is a time domain counterpart of (28).
Taking the inverse Laplace transformation of Eqs. (21) and (22), and inserting
them together with Eqs. (29a) and (29b) into the equation of motion (1) yields a
state-space equation of motion
x
 x
x
a
x
g
_

_
_

_
=
0 I 0 0
M
1
K M
1
C M
1
Q M
1
Q
buf
Uab ( )E 0 Uab ( )R
b
0
0 0 0 R
g
_

_
_

_
x
x
x
a
x
g
_

_
_

0
0
0
1aUE
g
_

_
_

_
w
0
M
1
0
0
_

_
_

_
P
ps
Y (30a)
where
M = M
s
V
/
M
a
VY (30b)
C = C
s

U
b
_ _
V
/
C
a
a
0
RS
2
( )VY (30c)
K = K
s

U
b
_ _
2
V
/
K
a
a
0
RS
1

n
l
i=1
a
i
RS
2
_ _
VY (30d)
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 74
Q =
U
b
_ _
2
V
/
R[a
1
Y F F F Y a
n
l
[X (30e)
The augmented state vector contains aerodynamic states, x
a
, and gust states, x
g
. In
this RFA formulation, addition of one lag term results in addition of only one new
aerodynamic state. The state-space equation of motion is nonlinear due to the
variable stiness of the cables supporting the aps.
3.3. Interpretation of aerodynamic states
For a better understanding of the rational model of unsteady aerodynamic forces,
the physical interpretation of aerodynamic states is provided herein. For the sake of
simplicity only two degrees of freedom of the deck, h and a, and one aerodynamic
state, x
a1
, are considered. Furthermore, the equation of motion is decomposed into
symmetric and skew-symmetric parts. The graphical representation of the symmetric
part of the equation of motion is shown in Fig. 4. The rotational degree of freedom a
is represented as a translation. The aerodynamic forces introduce coupling between
the heaving and pitching motion through the aerodynamic stiness and damping and
the aerodynamic state. The aerodynamic forces also modify the stiness and
damping that connect the heaving and pitching displacement to the supports. Since
the added aerodynamic stiness can be negative, the divergent type of the instability
can also be modeled. Notice that the aerodynamic state in this formulation
represents a displacement.
4. Simplied equation of motion
Due to vibrations caused by wind gust, the control cables can become slack. In
such a case not only will undesirable motion of the additional cables occur, but aps
Fig. 4. Representation of bridge model with RFA of aerodynamic forces.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 75
will not be properly guided as well. Therefore, for practical reasons the control
cables should always remain taut. Numerical simulations of the response of the
bridge under wind action, conducted in Part II of this paper, showed that for
suciently large prestressing moments, M
b0
and M
g0
, and initial angles of rotation,
b
0
and g
0
, the supporting cables may always remain in tension. Moreover, if the
supporting system has adequately large stiness, the rotation of the aps can be
assumed to be proportional to the rotation of the deck:
b = t
b
aY (31a)
g = t
g
aY (31b)
where control gains, t
b
and t
g
, are determined from the geometry of the control
system as
t
b
=
r
cb
x
cb
r
cb
r
b
Y (32a)
t
g
=
r
cg
x
cg
r
cg
r
g
X (32b)
In order to validate the assumptions on ap motions (31), the relative errors
between the actual ap motion and the assumed one are evaluated. The errors are
dened as follows:
e
b
=
rms b t
b
a
_ _
rms t
b
a
_ _
1007Y (33a)
e
g
=
rms g t
g
a
_ _
rms t
g
a
_ _
1007Y (33b)
where rms() denotes the root-mean-square value, and a, b and g are time histories of
the solution of the nonlinear equation of motion (30).
The simplied governing equation of motion derived from Eq. (30a) becomes
z
z
z
a
z
g
_

_
_

_
=
0 I 0 0
M
1
c
K
c
M
1
c
C
c
M
1
c
Q
c
M
1
c
Q
bufY c
Uab ( )E
c
0 Uab ( )R
b
0
0 0 0 R
g
_

_
_

_
z
z
z
a
z
g
_

_
_

0
0
0
1aUE
g
_

_
_

_
wY (34a)
where
M
c
= M
dd
M
df
T T
/
M
fd
T
/
M
ff
TY (34b)
C
c
= C
dd
C
df
T T
/
C
fd
T
/
C
ff
TY (34c)
K
c
= K
dd
K
df
T T
/
K
fd
T
/
K
ff
TY (34d)
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 76
Q
c
= Q
d
T
/
Q
f
Y (34e)
Q
bufY c
= Q
bufY d
T
/
Q
bufY f
Y (34f)
E
c
= E
d
E
f
TX (34g)
The mass, damping and stiness matrices, as well as Q
d
, Q
f
, Q
bufY d
, Q
bufY f
, E
d
and
E
f
are all obtained from the partition of the global system matrices with respect to
the degrees of freedom corresponding to the deck, x
/
d
= [hab a[, and aps, x
/
f
= [b g[.
The matrix T in Eqs. (34bg) denes the relationship between controlled system
displacement vector z
/
= [hab a[ and the vector of displacement of aps x
f
:
x
f
= Tz (35)
and is given by
T =
0 t
b
0 t
g
_ _
X (36)
5. Passive control system synthesis
In this paper, the considered control law given by Eq. (31), relates rotation of the
aps proportionally to the pitching motion of the deck. The objective of the
optimization of the passive system is to nd the optimal control gains. The primary
requirement for a passive control system is to provide the highest possible critical
wind speed, U
cr
, of the system. Thus, the rst proposed performance index evaluates
relative improvement of the critical wind speed.
Let the critical wind speeds of an uncontrolled and a controlled bridge deck be U
0
cr
and U
c
cr
, respectively. The control system performance index is dened as
I
1
=
U
c
cr
U
0
cr
U
0
cr
1007X (37)
This criterion proved to be adequate for systems with symmetric cable connections,
which in general provide limited improvement in critical wind speed. However,
systems with asymmetric cable connections turned out to be capable of improving
critical wind speed far beyond the practical requirements. Thus, for these systems,
comparison of control laws based merely on the maximum critical wind speed
criteria does not provide meaningful information. Therefore, the second of the
suggested performance indices assesses the system's degree of stability over the
selected wind velocity range.
The control system is modeled by an nn homogenous state-space equation of
motion given by

"z = A U ( )"zY (38)

where U denotes the wind speed. It is assumed that the system remains stable in the
selected wind velocity range from U
low
up to U
up
; in other words the real parts of all
its eigenvalues, l
i
(i = 1Y F F F Y n), are nonpositive. The degree of stability [18] for
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 77
system (38) can be dened as
D U ( ) = min
i
Re l
i
( ) [ [ [ [Y
(39)
where Re() denotes the real part. For the utter problem the degree of stability (39)
depends on the wind velocity U. To assess the control system performance over the
selected wind velocity range, a second performance index is proposed as
I
2
=
1
U
up
U
low
_
U
up
U
low
D U ( ) dUX (40)
The performance index (40) evaluates the average value of degree of stability over
the selected wind velocity range.
6. Conclusions
The modeling and control law design of the passive aerodynamic control of long-
span bridge utter by aps attached to the edges of the deck has been studied. A
minimum state RFA formulation of the unsteady aerodynamic forces acting on the
deckaps system has been derived through the rational function approximation of
the generalized Theodorsen function. Performance indices based on the improve-
ment in critical wind speed and system's degree of stability have been proposed to
nd the optimal conguration for the control systems. In Part II of this paper the
numerical simulations of the passive deckaps control systems are conducted and
analysis of the results is provided.
References
[1] J. Nobuto, Y. Fujino, M. Ito, A study on the eectiveness of TMD to suppress a coupled utter of
bridge deck, J. Struct. Mech. Earthquake Eng. JSCE 398/I-10 (1988) 413416 (in Japanese).
[2] F. Branceleoni, The construction phase and its aerodynamic issues, in: A. Larsen (Ed.),
Aerodynamics of Large Bridges, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Holland, 1992, pp. 147158.
[3] K. Wilde, Y. Fujino, V. Prabis, Eects of eccentric mass on utter of long span bridge, Proceedings of
Second International Workshop on Structural Control, Hong Kong, 1996, pp. 564 574.
[4] K. Ostenfeld, A. Larsen, Bridge engineering and aerodynamics, in: A. Larsen (Ed.), Aerodynamics of
Large Bridges, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Holland, 1992, pp. 322.
[5] H. Kobayashi, H. Nagaoka, Active control of utter of a suspension bridge, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 4144 (1992) 143151.
[6] K. Wilde, Y. Fujino, Aerodynamic control of bridge deck utter by active surfaces, J. Eng. Mech.
ASCE 124 (7) (1998) 718727.
[7] K. Wilde, Y. Fujino, T. Kawakami, Analytical and experimental study on passive aerodynamic
control of utter of bridge deck section, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 80 (12) (1998) 105119.
[8] E. Simiu, R.H. Scanlan, Wind Eects on Structures, Wiley, New York, 1986.
[9] T. Theodorsen, General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of utter, N.A.C.A.
Report 496, 1935.
[10] T. Theodorsen, I.E. Garrick, Nonstationary ow about a wing-aileron-tab combination including
aerodynamic balance, N.A.C.A. Report 736, 1943.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 78
[11] J.W. Edwards, Unsteady aerodynamic modeling for arbitrary motions, AIAA J. 15 (1) (1977)
593595.
[12] K. Roger, Airplane math modeling methods for active control design, AGARD-CP-228, 1977.
[13] H. Dunn, An analytical technique for approximating unsteady aerodynamics in the time domain,
NASA TP-1738, 1980.
[14] M. Karpel, Design for active and passive utter suppression and gust alleviation, NASA CR-3482,
1981.
[15] K. Wilde, Y. Fujino, J. Masukawa, Time domain modeling of bridge deck utter, J. Struct.
Earthquake Eng. JSCE 13 (1996) 93s104s.
[16] E.H. Dowell, H.C. Curtiss, R.H. Scanlan, F. Sisto, A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity, Sijtho &
Noordho, Alphen a/d Rijn, 1978.
[17] S. Tiany, W. Adams, Nonlinear programming extensions to rational function approximation
methods for unsteady aerodynamic forces, NASA TP-2826, 1988.
[18] H. Leipholz, Stability Theory, Wiley, New York, 1987.
P. Omenzetter et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 87 (2000) 6179 79