Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (2003) 873891

Simple model of rain-wind-induced vibrations of stayed cables

Krzysztof Wilde*, Wojciech Witkowski
! University of Technology, Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Gdansk ! G. Narutowicza 11/12, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland Received 21 March 2002; received in revised form 10 December 2002; accepted 24 February 2003

Abstract This paper proposes a single-degree-of-freedom model of rain-wind-induced vibrations in stayed cables. It is assumed that the frequency of the circumferential motion of the upper rivulet is equal to that of cable and the rivulet amplitude is set constant for a given wind speed. The obtained results are veried with the existing experimental data showing that these assumptions capture the qualitative properties of the phenomenon. The explicit, analytical expressions are derived for the aerodynamic damping and exciting force. Finally, a linear SDOF model is derived for simple estimation of the amplitude of cable vibrations induced by wind and rain. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stayed cables; Vibrations; Rain-wind-induced vibrations

1. Introduction Cable vibrations of large amplitude, induced by wind and rain, were at rst observed on the Meikonishi Bridge in Nagoya, Japan [1]. It was found that the cables, which were stable under wind action, were oscillating under a combined inuence of wind and rain. The observed oscillations attained amplitudes of the order of 55 cm under wind of velocity 14 m/s. The subsequent study revealed that this phenomenon could not be accounted for by either vortex-induced oscillations or a wake galloping. The frequency of the observed vibrations was much lower than the

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-58-347-2051; fax: +48-58-347-1670. E-mail address: wild@pg.gda.pl (K. Wilde). 0167-6105/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(03)00020-5

874

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

critical one of the vortex-induced vibrations. Further eld observation revealed that the cable oscillations took place in the vertical plane and were mostly of single mode. With the increase of the cable length, the higher modes, up to the 4th one, appeared. The frequencies of these modes were conned to the range of 13 Hz. It was also observed that, during the oscillations, a water rivulet appeared on the lower surface of the cable. This rivulet, characterized by a leeward shift, oscillated in circumferential direction. A later wind tunnel investigation [1], carried out for three different cable frequencies, i.e.: 1, 2 and 3 Hz, showed that this phenomenon appeared for wind velocity from 7 to 14 m/s regardless of the tested frequency. A particular care was exercised towards the rivulet formation. It was observed that there were, in fact, two rivulets: one on the upper cable surface and the other one on the lower surface. These rivulets oscillated in circumferential direction at the same frequency as that of the cable. Their formation point depended on the wind velocity, which has also been noted by Bosdogianni and Olivari [2]. The measurements of the aerodynamic force with the rivulets formed separately [13] showed the negligible role of the lower rivulet, since it is formed in the wake behind the cable. It has been concluded that the aerodynamic interaction between the oscillating upper rivulet and cable is the primary cause of wind-rain-induced oscillations. Further studies by Matsumoto et al. [4,5] reported that there might be another factor triggering the rain-wind-induced oscillations, namely an axial ow generated at the near wake of the inclined cable and associated with the 3-D ow characteristic. The foundations for the modelling of the rain-wind-induced vibrations have been laid down by Yamaguchi [6]. His study reveals that the Den Hartog mechanism (indicated in [1]) cannot explain the rain-wind oscillations phenomenon. The proposed two-degree-of-freedom model couples the plunge motion of the cable with the circumferential motion of the upper rivulet. The numerical simulations showed that when wind speed is close to 10 m/s, the circular rivulet frequency coincides with that of the cable yielding a very rapid growth of the cable amplitude. In this model, however, the frequency of the rivulet is a function of wind velocity, which has not been conrmed experimentally. Gu and Lu [7] also proposed two-degree-of-freedom model. In this model, the equilibrium of forces, including inertia forces associated with the rivulet and cable motion, yielded a set of two coupled ordinary differential equations. The numerical study led to the concept of dangerous zones describing the stability of the cable due to the instantaneous rivulet position. In this paper simplication of the two-degree-of-freedom models is studied. The SDOF model is based on the analysis of one mode that describes the aerodynamically coupled oscillations of the rivulet and the cable. Linearization of the proposed model enables the explicit assessment of the aerodynamic damping and exciting forces, and provides very simple formula for estimation of the cable amplitude of wind-rain-induced vibrations of stay cables.

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

875

2. Single degree-of-freedom model The SDOF model of wind-rain-induced oscillations, derived hereafter, is based on the following assumptions: (1) The in-plane, small amplitude vibrations of a cable with a small sag are considered, (2) The rivulet frequency equals that of the cable [1,2], (3) Amplitude ratio of the rivulet and cable is constant for given wind speed [6], and can be modelled by a function describing the dependence of the rivulet amplitude on wind speed. (4) Initial position of the upper rivulet is a function of the wind speed [1], (5) Mass of the rivulet is negligible compared with that of the cable, (6) The considered mode of oscillations, its frequency, the properties of the cable are taken from [6] and the steady wind force coefcients are after [6,7]. A cable under action of the incoming ow of velocity U0 has an inclination angle a and yaw angle b (Fig. 1a). The effective wind speed and the angle of attack in the plane normal to the cable axis are given by q U U0 cos2 b sin2 a sin2 b 1 and 0 1 2

sin a sin b B C g arcsin@qA: cos2 b sin2 a sin2 b

Based on the assumptions given above, the equation of the in-plane motion for the cable takes the following form F y 3 . o 2 y 2xs o y ; m

motion plane
U0 sin

U0 cos

U0 sin sin U0 U0
U
(a)
0

direction of motion

U0 sin sin

sin

co s

(b)
Fig. 1. (ac) Cable orientation.

(c)

876

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

i + i R y
(a)
(b)

F L

F FD

U R

i y

Urel

Urel

Fig. 2. Relative ow (a) and action of quasi-steady wind force (b).

where y is the vertical displacement of the cable in the motion plane (Fig. 1c), xs is the structural damping ratio, o is the cable circular frequency, m denotes the mass of the cable per unit length. The term F in Eq. (3) is the in-plane aerodynamic force per unit length of the cable and the upper rivulet. The aerodynamic force is computed using the steady force coefcients taken for the instantaneous relative wind velocity Urel and the instantaneous relative angle of attack f (Fig. 2a) dened by the following formulas: q siny yi U sin g y cosy yi U cos g2 ; 4 Urel Ry 2 Ry   Ry siny yi U sin g y f arctan ; cosy yi U cos g Ry

where the cable radius is denoted by R D=2; yi is the initial position of the upper rivulet, measured counterclockwise from the vertical axis. The oscillations of the rivulet, y; are assumed to be harmonic, i.e. y am sinot; 6 where am denotes the amplitude and o is the rivulet frequency equal to that of the cable. Yamaguchi [6] showed that the rivulet-cable amplitude ratio of the considered mode depends on wind speed. The function describing the amplitude ratio has a peak at the wind speed coinciding with the largest amplitude cable vibrations and rapidly decreases for smaller and larger wind speeds. In this study the amplitude of the rivulet is considered to be a function of wind speed U0 in the following form:   U0 Umax 2 am U0 a1 exp ; 7 a2 where a1 ; a2 and Umax are constants to be determined for a given cable. Note that for U0 Umax the nondimensional rivulet amplitude am equals a1 and for other values of U0 it gradually vanishes. Function (7) models small decrease of the rivulet

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

877

amplitudes in the neighbourhood of Umax : Experimental study [1] showed the decrease of the amplitude of order of 12%. Function (7) also models no rivulet condition by rapid reduction of rivulet amplitude for small and high wind speeds. Flamand [3] showed that if wind speed is smaller than 7 m/s the upper part of the cable remains dry whereas if wind speed exceeds 12 m/s the upper rivulet is pulled away by the ow. Projection of the components of the aerodynamic force FD and FL (Fig. 2b) on the y axis becomes
2 Urel Dr CL fe cos f CD fe sin f : 8 2 In Eq. (8) r is the uid density, CD ; CL denote the drag and the lift coefcient, respectively. Angle fe ; used in the experimental studies [6,7] is computed by the following formula:

fe f y yi :

3. Numerical simulations The cable under consideration has the following properties [6]: mass per unit length m 10:2 kg; diameter D 0:154 m, frequency f 2 Hz and structural damping ratio xs 0:002: The coefcients CD ; CL taken from [6] (for the case d =D 0:1; where d and D are rivulet and cable diameters, respectively) and [7] are depicted in Fig. 3. Their values interpolated in the range of interest, are given by
2 CD 0:0831f3 e 0:885fe 0:5382fe 1:5555; 2 CL 1:0081f3 e 1:7625fe 0:2507fe 0:3909;

10 11

2 steady wind fo rce coefficients C D, C L 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 -0.25 -0.5 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 angle of attack
e (deg) CL 20 40
Yamaguchi Gu

CD

Fig. 3. Steady wind force coefcients for cable with rivulet.

878

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

for Yamaguchis data [6] and

4 3 2 CD 5:1350f5 e 0:8484fe 2:1984fe 0:6219fe 0:0931fe 1:0204; 12 4 3 2 CL 12:6840f5 e 11:6705fe 1:6217fe 1:4189fe

0:5279fe 0:1758;

13

for Gu and Lu [7]. Angle fe is expressed in radians. Following Hikami and Shiraishi, the inclination and the yaw angles are assumed to be 45 . In order to corroborate the assumption made with regard to Eq. (7), Fig. 4 depicts the cable amplitudes versus wind speed for CD ; CL taken from [6]. The amplitudes are taken from the steady-state response at time above 40 s and are computed with respect to the new equilibrium positions determined by each wind speed. The rivulet amplitudes, am ; varies from 0.05 to 0.45. The numerical simulations are carried out using RungeKutta scheme of the fourth order for the initial conditions y0 0:001 m, y 0 0 or y0 0:03 m, y 0 0: As it can be observed for all considered rivulet amplitudes, the cable amplitudes grow steadily to attain maximum value at wind speed of about 9.5 m/s. This and the assumption of the zero rivulet amplitudes at wind speed smaller than 7 m/s and higher than 12 m/s [3] yield the following values for the coefcients in Eq. (7): Umax 9:5 m=s; a1 0:448 and a2 1:5842: The assumed, in the following simulations, variations of the rivulet amplitude, y; together with the initial position of the rivulet, yi ; [1] are shown in Fig. 5. Firstly, the cable response for three different cable frequencies, i.e.: 1, 2 and 3 Hz are studied. In Fig. 6 the calculated cable amplitudes are compared with the experimental ones [1]. Note that, despite the quantitative difference between the numerical and the experimental results, which descends from different cable characteristics, the qualitative character is preserved. That is, with the growth of the cable stiffness, the amplitudes decline. This fact was also observed in [7]. The largest responses are independent of both the wind velocity and frequency, in a sense
5
am=0.45

cable amplitue (cm)

3.75
am=0.25

2.5

am=0.2 am=0.15 am=0.1 am=0.05

1.25

0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 wind velocity U0 (m/s) 12 13

Fig. 4. Cable response due to different cable amplitudes.

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

879

80

60
i (deg)

40

20

initial position of rivulet Hikami&Shiraishi interpolation 5 6.5 8 9.5 11 12.5 wind velocity U 0 (m/s) 14

Fig. 5. Variation of the rivulet amplitudes vs. wind speed.

10 8 6 4 2 0 5 6 frequency 1 Hz 2 Hz 3 Hz
Yamaguchi Gu&Lu

20 frequency 1 Hz 2 Hz 3 Hz

cable amplitude (cm)

cable amplitude (cm)

15

10

(a)

7 8 9 10 11 wind velocity U0 (m/s)

12

13

(b)

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 wind velocity U 0 (m/s)

Fig. 6. Cable responses for different frequencies: (a) numerical simulation, (b) Hikami and Shiraishi [1].

that they occur for the U0 9:5 m/s regardless of the cable stiffness. Note that there are no signicant differences between results obtained with Yamaguchis force coefcients and those obtained by Gu and Lu. Variations of the phase shift, denoted by c; between cable displacements and aerodynamic force are studied following the concept presented in [1]. At selected amplitude of cable oscillations, called set-amplitude, the phase shift between peaks of the cable displacements and the aerodynamic force are measured. In [1], the set amplitude is 5 cm while in this paper it is chosen as 2 cm. The tests are carried out assuming the cable frequency to be equal to 2 Hz. For the reference the steady-state cable amplitudes from the numerical study and the experiment are plotted in Figs. 7a and b. The phases, c; for the cable without rivulet are shown in Figs. 7c and d. The numerically determined phases are constant functions of U0 ; while those

880

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

5 cable amplitude y (cm) 4 3 2 1 0 5

(a)
Yamaguchi Gu&Lu

set amplitude 2 cm

7 8 9 10 11 wind velocity U 0 (m/s)

12

13

9 8 7 6 set amplitude 5 5 cm 4 3 2 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (b) wind velocity U0 (m/s)

cable amplitude y (cm)

180 phase lag (deg) 90 0 -90 5

phase lag (deg)

with rain without rain 7 9 11 13

180 90

with rain without rain 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15

0 -90

Yamaguchi

-180
(c)

Gu&Lu

-180
(d)

wind velocity U 0 (m/s)

5
Yamaguchi Gu&Lu

wind velocity U0 (m/s)

10 5
9 11 13

F t (N/m)

0 -5 -10

7 with rain without rain

F t (N/m)

0 -5 -10 -15

7.5

10.5

12

13.5

15

with rain without rain wind velocity U0 (m/s)

(e)

wind velocity U 0 (m/s)

(f)

Fig. 7. Comparison between numerical and experimental results: (a) cable response (numerical), (b) Hikami and Shiraishi [1], (c) phase lag (numerical), (d) Hikami and Shiraishi [1], (e) Ft numerical and (f) Hikami and Shiraishi [1].

from the experiment vary. However, they also lie in the neighbourhood of 90 . Negative sign of the phases indicates the damping characteristics of the aerodynamic force F : The computed phases for the cable with rivulet (Fig. 7c) are similar to those of the no rivulet case for wind speed below 7.5 m/s and above 11 m/s. For wind speed range from 7.5 to 11 m/s the phases are positive and about 90 . The positive sign of the phase shifts indicate the exciting characteristics of aerodynamic force F : The change in the sign of the phase shift was also observed in the experiment [1] (Fig. 7d). The nature of the aerodynamic force can be described by the following formula [1] Ft jF jsinc; 14

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

881

where F is the magnitude of the exciting force and c is the phase shift. When force Ft is positive, it indicates an exciting character of force F and when Ft is negative, F is regarded as a damping force. The comparison between the numerical and the experimental results is illustrated in Figs. 7e and f, respectively. Note that the force changes from the damping one to the exciting, and then again to the damping one. The range in which the positive sign of Ft occurs (Fig. 7e) corresponds to that where the phase shift is positive (Fig. 7c) which, in turn, corresponds to the steady-state amplitudes larger than 2 cm (Fig. 7a). There are no signicant differences between results based on different steady force coefcients. Fig. 8 shows an example of time history of the aerodynamic force for wind speed U0 9:5 m/s. In this case the computations were performed using the steady-wind force coefcients from [6]. The force is nonlinear and periodic. At the beginning of the motion (Fig. 8b) the force precedes the response of the cable, exhibiting thus the exciting characteristic. Note that, as the time unfolds, another component appears. In the steady-state response, seen in Fig. 8c, this component has a signicant amplitude and lags behind the response of the cable. It indicates that the
5.5 force amplitude F (N/m) 5 4.5 4 3.5 0
(a)

25

50 time (s) 6 cable amplitude y (m) 0.06 force amplitude F (N/m) 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06
(c)

75

100

cable amplitude y (m)

0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 2

5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5

5 4.5 4 3.5 100

(b)

3 4 time (s)

97

98 99 time (s)

Fig. 8. Time histories of cable displacement cable and force for CD ; CL from Yamaguchi [6]: (a) time history of aerodynamic force F for U0 9:5 m/s and (b) transient motionA, (c) steady-state responseB.

force amplitude F [N/m]

0.03

5.5

882

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

aerodynamic force acting on the cable with moving rivulet can be expressed by two components.

4. Simplied models of the aerodynamic force In the model presented in the previous section it is not possible to assess neither the exciting component of the aerodynamic force nor the aerodynamic damping. Therefore, the formula for the aerodynamic force is expanded and expressed in terms of the cable velocity y : Three simplied models are considered. Model 1 assumes linearization of all trigonometric functions, models 2 and 3 additionally assumes linearization of steady-state force coefcients by tangent and least square t, respectively. 4.1. Model 1 It is assumed that the drag and lift coefcients change in an arbitrary way. The expansion is based on the following assumptions descending from preliminary numerical simulations: 1. The aerodynamic force F can be expressed by terms containing cable velocity y up to the rst power. 2. The second (and higher) powers of the rivulet amplitude am are small in comparison with am and therefore are neglected. cosy yi in Eqs. (4) and (5) is much smaller than U cos g and is 3. The term Ry considered negligible. 4. The function arctany in Eq. (5) is Taylor-expanded retaining only the linear term. The equilibrium position for expansion descends from inclination and yaw angles and is assumed as g: 5. The sine and cosine functions in Eq. (8) are also expanded about g retaining only linear terms. As a result, the relative velocity, the relative angle of attack and the aerodynamic force read q siny yi U sin g y Urel D Ry 15 2 U cos g2 ; f Darctang siny yi U sin g y Ry =U cos g g ; 1 g2 16 17

fe f y yi ; F
2 Urel Dr CL fe cos g sin gf g CD fe sin g cos gf g: 2

18

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

883

The substitution of formulas (15) and (16) into (18) yield the polynomial of the third order with respect to y : The terms involving the same powers of y had been collected together followed by the removal of the higher powers. Consequently, the terms involving the same powers of am had been collected retaining only the zero and the rst powers. The partially linearized equation becomes 1 19 y Fdamp t Fexc t; . o 2 y 2xs o y m where Fdamp t y Z1 am Z2 t is the aerodynamic damping force and Fexc t F1 am F2 t 21 is the exciting force. The coefcients in (20) and (21) are given in Appendix A. Dividing the right-hand side of Eq. (20) by 2ym o yields the formula for aerodynamic damping ratio Z1 am Z2 t xa : 22 2mo Examination of the coefcients Z1 and Z2 indicates that the damping ratio depends on time. In contrast to the cable without rivulet, for which the damping ratio is solely dependent on CD [8]. Here, due to the presence and the oscillations of the upper rivulet, the aerodynamic damping is a function of CD ; CL and time. This model is applicable to problems with steady-force coefcients rapidly varying with the instantaneous angle of attack fe : 4.2. Model 2 This model, apart from all the assumptions of the previous section, additionally assumes that the functions for CD and CL can be represented as linear functions of the angle fe i.e.: CD D1 f e D2 ; CL L1 fe L2 ; where the coefcients are dened as follows  dCD   ; D1 eq df 
e fe fe

20

23 24

25 26 27 28

D2 CD feq e ;  dCL   ; L1 dfe fe feq e L2 CL feq e

884

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

and feq e D g yi : 29 In Eq. (29) use is made of the fact that the equilibrium point for f ; given by (16), may be assumed as g; and since g is the function of the inclination and the yaw angle, eq feq e depends only on wind velocity U0 : The coefcients D1 ; D2 ; L1 ; L2 and fe are to be determined for each value of U0 : sinyi am sinot in Eq. (16), upon the Taylor expansion, is The sine term of y replaced with the term am o cosotsin yi : Thus the expression for the aerodynamic force become F
2 Urel Dr L1 fe L2 cos g sin gf g 2 D1 fe D2 sin g cos gf g:

30

Grouping the terms in the above equation yields the formula for the damping and the exciting force, i.e. Fdamp t y Z3 AD sinot yD ; Fexc t F3 AE sinot yE ; 31 32

where all the coefcients in (31) and (32) are the functions of g; D1 ; D2 ; L1 ; L2 ; feq e ; am and are dened in Appendix A. Numerical simulations, based on Eqs. (31) and (32), reveal that the oscillating part of the damping force and the constant term F3 in expression for the exciting force have a negligible effect on cable response. Thus, Fdamp t Z3 y ; Fexc t AE sinot yE : The formula for the aerodynamic damping ratio is then xa Z3 : 2m o 35 33 34

Finally, the equation of motion reads   Z3 1 y AE sinot yE : . o2 y y 2xs o m m

36

Formulas for amplitude AE and phase shift yE are given in Eqs. (A.14) and (A.15). Note that since Z3 is time-invariant, Eq. (36) represents a harmonic oscillator driven in harmonic fashion. In this model the exciting component of the aerodynamic force issue from the presence and oscillation of the rivulet. The phase shift between motion of the cable, y; and rivulet, y; is found to be yyy 90 yE : 37

The phase shift between cable and rivulet is a function of wind speed, initial rivulet position, cable orientation and its radius.

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

885

4.3. Model 3 In this model the functions of the stead-wind force coefcients are also linearized. In this model the coefcients in Eqs. (23) and (24) are found using rst-order polynomial tting with the constrains expressed by (26) and (28), satised on angle eq  feq e (29). The tting is conducted for angles, fe ; from the range fe 15 pfe p eq  fe 15 : The transformations proceed in the same fashion as in model 2 yielding Eqs. (33)(36). 4.4. Numerical results from simplied models The numerical results obtained from the simplied models for data both from [6,7] are compared with the solution of the full model (3) (Fig. 9). The frequency of the cable was set to 2 Hz. It may be observed that the greatest discrepancies are pronounced for wind speed around 9.5 m/s. Model 1 underestimates the amplitudes regardless of the used aerodynamic coefcients. Model 2, with CD and CL linearized by tangent, gives larger amplitudes of the cable. This is due to the fact that the values of steady force coefcients vary rapidly with the changes of angle fe : Better results are obtained from model 3, where the curves CD and CL are linearized by tting on the selected range of fe : Generally speaking, the nonlinear curves of steady force coefcients can not be represented by a linear function. Model 3 describes the procedure of the optimal linearization of the aerodynamic force for estimation of the maximum cable amplitude. Fig. 10 presents the time histories of the damping and exciting force components. The steady-state responses are computed for models 1, 2 and 3 for U0 9:5 m/s. For model 1 both aerodynamic force components are periodic and nonlinear. Note that the exciting force computed for Gu and Lus force coefcients has the additional
0.09 0.08 cable amplitude y (m) 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 5
(a)

cable amplitude y (m)

solution exact model 1 model 2 model 3

0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

solution exact model 1 model 2 model 3

7 8 9 10 11 wind velocity U0 (m/s)

12

13
(b)

7 8 9 10 11 wind velocity U0 (m/s)

12

13

Fig. 9. Cable amplitudes from different models: (a) CD ; CL from Yamaguchi [6] and (b) CD ; CL from Gu and Lu [7].

886

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

model 1
1 0.5 F damp (N/m) 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 98
(a)

model 2
1 0.5 F damp (N/m) 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5

model 3

99 time (s)

100
(b)

98 1.5 1 F ecx (N/m) 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5

99 time (s)

100

1.5 1 F exc (N/m) 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 98

(c)

99 time (s)

100
(d)

98

99 time (s)

100

Fig. 10. Time histories of the damping and exciting component of the aerodynamic force: (a) damping force (CD ; CL from Yamaguchi), (b) damping force (CD ; CL from Gu and Lu), (c) exciting force (CD ; CL Yamaguchi) and (d) exciting force (CD ; CL from Gu and Lu).

peaks coinciding with the peaks of the damping component. Models 2 and 3 represent the force components by sine function and thus neglect the additional peaks in the time histories. The amplitudes of forces from models 2 and 3 are larger than those obtained from model 3. Note that there are no differences in modelling the forces by models 2 and 3 for the Yamaguchis force coefcients. The cable amplitudes at wind speed U0 9:5 m/s (Fig. 9) are similar for those models. The derivative of Yamaguchis CD curve (Fig. 3) has small values and do not vary in the range of interest (fe about 20 ). Thus, there are no signicant differences between linearization by tangent (model 2) and constrained tting (model 3). The derivative of CD curve, given by Gu and Lu, has large values and changes considerable in the range of interest, yielding large error in values of CD used in simulations by model 2. Therefore, there are differences in modelling the damping (Fig. 10b) and exciting force component (Fig. 10d) by models 2 and 3. Those differences are reected on the

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

887

computed cable amplitudes (Fig. 9b). Model 2 overestimates the exact solution for wind speed U0 9:5 m/s by 0.036 m, while model 3 by 0.0184 m. The maximum amplitude of the oscillating cable is determined by the added aerodynamic damping and the amplitude of the exciting force. The contribution of the aerodynamic damping, resulting form the presence of the rivulet, can be assess by the ratio x Z3 G a 38 xs 2moxs Fig. 11 shows the cable aerodynamic damping, computed from model 3, for the cable with and without the rivulet. The no rivulet case is determined through the formula derived by Macdonald [8] for the in-plane cable motion. The cable damping, for Yamaguchis data, is larger than for Gu and Lus force coefcients. This is attributed to the differences in values of the CD and CL curves and their rst derivatives (Fig. 3). In the range of interest, both CL curves are similar, while the mean value of CD for Gu and Lu is around 1.2 and for Yamaguchis data is 1.55. This difference is a primary factor for the differences in computing coefcients D1 ; D2 ; L1 ; L2 which determine the aerodynamic damping (Eq. (A.13)). Note that the aerodynamic damping computed for Gu and Lus data is lower than damping of the cable without rivulet for all considered wind speeds. The amplitudes of the exciting forces, computed for the Yamaguchi and Gu and Lu steady force coefcients, versus wind speed are shown in Fig. 12. The force envelopes are computed from model 3. The largest amplitudes for both aerodynamic data are obtained for U0 9:5 m/s. The maximum amplitude for Yamaguchis data is larger than the force amplitude for Gu and Lu force coefcients. The Yamaguchis CD and CL overestimate the effect of rivulet since they are determined for the rivulet of a relatively large size. However, the computed amplitudes of the cable oscillations

4 MacDonald (without rivulet)

(nondim.)

3 Yamaguchi

2 Gu&Lu 1 5 7 9 11 wind velocity U 0 (m/s) 13

Fig. 11. Contribution of the aerodynamic damping vs. wind speed.

888

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

Fig. 12. Amplitudes of the exciting force from model 3 vs. wind speed.

are similar to those obtained from Gu and Lus coefcients (Figs. 6 and 9), since both components of the aerodynamic force are overestimated.

5. Conclusions The phenomenon of rain-wind-induced vibrations of the stayed cables has been studied. The derived SDOF models assume the circumferential oscillation of the upper rivulet with the same frequency as the cable and constant rivuletcable amplitude ratio for given wind speed. The aerodynamic force has been described by quasi-steady formulation. These assumptions oversimplify the problem, since they do not address the problem of adhesive forces acting between the rain water and the surface, the ow of the water on the cable and most of all the effects of the three dimensional air ow around the oscillating cable and rivulet. Nevertheless, the proposed models describe the phenomenon by simple formula that can be easily adopted for estimation of the maximum amplitudes of cable oscillations induced by simultaneous action of wind and rain. The study on the linearized models have revealed that the aerodynamic force acting on the cable may be considered as a superposition of the damping force and the exciting one. These forces depend explicitly on the oscillation of the rivulet as well as on the cable orientation and the steady-wind coefcients. The factor that plays the major role in determining the maximum amplitude of the oscillating cable is the amplitude of the exciting force. The proposed models have been based on the available aerodynamic data for cable with rivulet. The applied force coefcients have been determined for the horizontal cables, and thus, the effects of axial ow could not be incorporated. In addition there

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

889

are no systematic experimental studies, that describe all variables of the wind raininduced vibrations of cables required for, not only qualitative but also quantitative, verication of the proposed models.

Acknowledgements The contribution of Prof. Yamaguchi, Saitama University, Japan to the presented work is greatly appreciated. The authors are thankful to Prof. Gu, Tongji University, China, for provided research results.

Appendix A A.1. Coefcients for model 1 The aerodynamic damping force: DU r Z1 CD c7 CL c8 ; 2c 5 Z2 DRor cosotsinyi am sinot CD c2 4 g2 c1 c4 c5 gc6 c5 CL c1 c5 c2 3c3 c4 2g c4 g2 g3 : DU 2 r 2 CD c2 1 c2 c2 c6 c1 c4 c5 gc6 2c 5 2 3 3 2 3 C L c1 c2 2 g c1 c5 c2 c3 c4 2g c4 g g c2 1 c2 c4 c5 gc6 ; F2 where c1 cosg; c2 sing; c3 tang; c4 arctang; c5 1 g2 ; c6 2 g2 ; A:5 A:6 A:7 A:8 A:9 A:10 DURro cosotsinyi am sinot CD c7 CL c8 ; 2c 5 A:3 A:4

A:1

A:2

The exciting force: F1

890

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

2 2 c7 c2 1 c2 5 2g 2c1 c2 c4 c5 gc6 ;

A:11 A:12

c8 c2 c1 2c1 g2 c2 3c4 2c4 4g 2c4 g2 2g3 : A.2. Coefcients for models 2 and 3 The aerodynamic damping force: 1 Z3 D1 c11 D2 c12 L1 c13 L2 c14 : Ro sinyi The exciting force: q AE am D1 c9 L1 c10 2 D1 c11 D2 c12 L1 c13 L2 c14 2  D1 c11 D2 c12 L1 c12 L2 c14 yE arctan ; D1 c9 L1 c10 where
2 RU 2 rc2 1 c2 c2 1 c5 c1 c4 c5 1 c5 g c9 c5

A:13

A:14 A:15

A:16

c10

3 2 3 RU 2 rc1 c2 2 1 c5 c1 c5 c1 c2 c4 c5 g c5 g c2 c3 c4 c5 g c5 g c5

A:17 c11 1 U or sinyi R2 c2 1 2c 4 c 5 2g c 5 g c 5 yi c2 5

2 2 c2 2 6c 4 c 5 2c 4 c 5 c 3 4 3c 5 6g 5c 5 g 3c 5 yi 2c 5 yi c 1 c 2 2 1 g 2 2c 2 5 c4 gc4 yi

c5 1 4c4 g 2g2 2gyi ; c12 c13

2 R2 U or sinyi c2 1 c2 3 2c5 2c1 c2 c4 c5 1 c5 g ; c5

A:18 A:19

R2 U or sinyi 2 c1 c5 c1 c2 2c4 1 c5 c5 2g c5 g c5 yi 2c2 5 yi c2 5

2 2 2 2 2 2 c2 2 2 4c3 3c5 2c4 c5 4c4 c5 g 2c4 c5 g 2g 2c5 g 2 2c 4 c 2 5 yi 2c5 gyi 2c5 gyi c3 6c4 c5 6g 3c5 g 3c5 yi

A:20

c14

R2 U or sinyi c2 c1 1 2c5 c2 3c3 2c4 c5 g c5 g : c5 A:21

K. Wilde, W. Witkowski / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 873891

891

References
[1] Y. Hikami, N. Shiraishi, Rain-wind-induced vibrations of cables in cable stayed bridges, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 409418. [2] A. Bosdogianni, D. Olivari, Wind and rain-induced oscillations of cables of stayed bridges, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 64 (1996) 171185. [3] O. Flamand, Rain-wind-induced vibration of cables, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 57 (1995) 353362. [4] M. Matsumoto, N. Shiraishi, H. Shirato, Rain-wind-induced vibration of cables in cable-stayed bridges, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 4144 (1988) 20112022. [5] M. Matsumoto, T. Saitoh, M. Kitazawa, H. Schirato, T. Nishizaki, Response characteristics of rainwind-induced vibration of stay cables of cable-stayed bridges, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 57 (1995) 323333. [6] H. Yamaguchi, Analytical study on growth mechanism of rain vibration of cables, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 33 (1990) 7380. [7] M. Gu, Q. Lu, Theoretical analysis of wind-rain-induced vibration of cables of cable-stayed bridges, APCWE-5, J. Wind Eng. 89 (2001) 125128. [8] J.H.G. Macdonald, Separation of the contributions of aerodynamic and structural damping in vibrations of inclined cables, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2001) 1939.