Resonance, Tacoma Narrows bridge failure, and undergraduate physics textbooks K. Yusuf Billeh Program in Sicucturesand Mechanics Princeton Universip. Princeton, New Jersey 08546 Roden H, Scanian Degarsmont of Ce Enginzering, The Johns Hopkine Unversity, Balimore Maryland (Received 26 February 1990; socepted for publication 8 June 1990) The dramatic Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster of 1940s sil very much inthe pubic eye voday Notably, in many undergraduate physies texts the disaster is presented as an example of elementary forced resonance of a mechanical oscillator. with the wind providing an external periodic frequency that matched the natural structural frequency. This oversimplified explanation has existed in numerous texts for along time and continues 10 this day, with even more detailed presentation in some new and updated texts. Engineers, onthe other hand, have studied the phenomenon over the past half-century, and their current understanding differs fondamentaly from the viewpoint expressed in most physics texts. In the present article the engineers’ viewpoint is presented to the physics community to make it clear where substantial disagreement exists. First itis pointed out that one misleading identification of forced resonance arises from the notion thatthe periodic natural vortex shedding of the wind over the structure was the source ofthe damaging externa excitation. I isthen demonstrated thatthe ultimate failure oF the bridge was in fact related to an aerodynamically induced condition of selfexettaion or “negative damping” in a torsional degree of freedoms. The zeroelastic phenomenon involved was an interactive one in which Geveloped wind forces were strongly linked to structural motion. This paper empbasizes the fact that, physically as well as mathematically, forced rezonence and self: excitation are fundamentally different phenomena. The paper closes with a quantitative assessment of the Tacara Narrows phenomenon that isin fll agreement withthe documented action of both the bridge itself in its final moments and a full, dynamically scaled model of it 2218 studied in the 1950s. LL INTRODUCTION ‘The original Tacoma Narrows bridge, at all stages ofits short hie, was indeed very active in the wind (Fig. 1). Its failure on 7 November 1940 attracted wide attention at the lume and has elicited recurring references ever sines. aota- bly in undergraduate physics textbooks. The occasion for this arnete is chat the wrsters. who, in the course of aero elastic research, have studied the matter closely, believe that many of the references are misleading ta the feader in regard to the phenomena that were manifested at Tacoma ‘Narrows. While the early engineering record itself was un- clear and indecisive about the causative factors (see, for ‘example, several quotations in Ref. 1), evidence available even early on*? but subsequently reexamined more close Iy** has allowed the record to be et quite straight. What is currently offered, however, in explanation by certain text- books © entering science and engineering students is, We believe, much 190 casual and often incorrect, perhaps traceable to misleading sources. The main issues in this, instance are: What was the enact nature of the wind-driven ‘sccurrences at Tacoma Narrows. and, can they be consid- ‘ered correctly to be cases of resonance? The occasion for this article occurred to one of us (KYB), while browsing in the bookstore and examining three currently used anc popular textbooks." These ine voke inferences about the Tacoma Narrows episode that differ from present engineering understanding of the fail. 18 Am Phys. $9.2), Febrosry 1991 ure, However, we also point out, below, areas of at least partial agreesbemt. Our aim is 10 set the record a bit straighter chan it now seems to be—at least as popularly understood In several books, for example." where the elementary concept of resonaiee is introduced and explained, the bridge disaster, complete with the sensational photographs ofits failure is cited asa pertinent example. We shall dis, uss abit later to what extent i should—or should not—be ‘considered an appropriote example of resonance. An inter: ‘esting search through other introductory physis tents re vealed how widespread the use of sis example is, For this, five college libraries, two high-schoo! libraries, and three bli iibraries, s well as three campus bookstores nd two ‘of the largest textbook-carrying stores in New York City were searched. We thus also noted the wbiquitous presence of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure in numerous other tents." In fact—in retrospect—it would have been of interes 10 note particularly those ew texts which did not cite the Tacoma Narrows incident as a case of resonance ‘The list presented above consists of introductory college physis texts used inthe USA. While compifing ti list, we discovered that many related works have also made similar idenacation of the failure. These mmslide high-school texts, books that are often classified 95 “physical sei ences;"* more advanced texts in physics." books for popular circulation,“ and the short article cited eavlier {hat accompanies a well-known fm clip, now available as 1 video tape." © 1991 American Assocation of Physies Tenchess 118I, TEXTBOOK ACCOUNT Typically, esonanceis first presented qualitatively along these lines In general, whenever a system capable of oscillation is acted on by 2 periodic series of impulses having a fre- {quency equal to or nearly equal 19 one of the natural frequencies of oscillation of the system, the system is set into oscillation with a relatively large amplitude." ‘The Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster is then suggested asan example of resonance (1) “the central span (ofthe bridge] resonated un- ti the resonance became so great that it eventually caused: the bridge to collapse.” (2) "was destroyed by wind-generated (3) “Because of resonance, wind blowing over the surface and support cables of the Tacoma Narrows bridge generated a very large wave disturbance that destroyed the bridge" (4) "The most famous incidence of resonance des troying a large structure was the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 under the driving force of the Nanos ‘The final, catastcophic event at Tacoma Narrows dic, in fact. fit part of the above qualtative defnition of reso: rrance—as we shall discuss—i/ the more penetrating ques- tion of where the "periodic series of impuises" came from is temporaniy set aside, for it was indeed a single torsional ‘mode of the bridge that was driven to destructive ampli tudes by the wind, as will be discussed ata later point “However. ifwe seek a more quantitative description of resonance in the common textbooks, the approach that is taken is discussion of the classic linear single-degree-of- freedom oscilator defined by the well-known differential equation mat bx + kx Pease o where, m, b, kare the mass, damping coefficient, and sift ness. respectively, ofa linear mechanical system of dis- placement x, and, and Fare the radian frequency and the amplitude of an extemal exciting foree, a a function of time. For this well-known system, resonance (highest re- sponse amplitude) occurs when the external forcing fre- quency @, approaches the mechanical natural frequency 2efin the near vicinity ofthe value yR7m. 119° Am.4, Phys, Vol. $8, No.2, Februry 1991 After the above presentation, a representative com: ‘ment like the following is usualy made: "The wind produced a fluctuating resultant force in resonance with a natural frequency of the structure, This caused o steady increase in amplitude until the bridge was destroyed.” ‘Werbelieve that interesting facts are lost. glossed over, ‘or misrepresented shen texisare vague about just what the exciting force was and just haw it (being due basically 10 the wind) acquired che necessary periodheity. Some texts suggest that this force was supplied “by gale winds.” or “gusts of wind," ere, But “gusts” and “pale” do not con- note any wel-defines periodicity. Seeking sueh periodicity must led to a closer investigation of the aerodynamics of bluff bodies, witich fells wichin the writers’ ares of techni- cal enpertise. The so-called periodic uoviex shedding" effect isa first, very tempring, candidate to which to at- tribute the necessary periodicity Bluff bodies (such as bridge decks) in fluid streams do in fact naturally shed periodic vortex wakes, tripped of by body shape and viscosity. that are accompanied by aiter- hating pressures cn the bodies, which oscillate in conse- ‘quence. Thus some authors." seeking a likely cause, a+ sumed that this observed effect must have provided the necessary conditions that desicoyed the brigge. Unfortu nately, this explanation is incorrect. We now know thet this is nor what ocurred at Tacoma Narrows. II], VORTEX-INDUCED VIBRATION When fixed in a fluid stream, bluff (nonstreamlined bodies generate detached or separated flow over substan- taal parts of their surfaces: thar is, the Pow lines do not follow the contours of the body. but break away at some points. At low Reynolds number, when separation first oc: ‘curs, the low around the body remains steady. At some critical Reynoids number two thin layers—ofien termed the free shear layers—form to the lee of the body. These unstable layers interact nonlinearly with each other in the body wake to produce a regular periodic array of vortices (concentrations of rotating fluid particles) termed the Strouhal vortices, Suck wakes were systematically investi gated for circular cylinders by Benard.” These vortex arrays arrange themselves in two rows, with opposite directions of circulation. Esch vortex 1s lo: cated opposite the midpoint ofthe interval between the ¢wo Closest vortices in the opposite row (Fig 2). The beauty of this “vortex street”—olten termed the Karmon vortex sireet alter the noted aeredynamist von Karman“*—has long atiracted attention, and popular articles” often carry pictures of it, emphasizing the “mystery” that exists in the Formation process. The frequency of the shedding vortices over a fixed (re: strained) body i often termed the Strouhal frequency (/3) and follows the relation: fDiU=S. @ Here, U is the crass-fow velocity, D is the feontal dimen- BOCORDO Fig. 3 Typcal sues ine pater of vores eral behind aut boy KY Buuband RH Scanian 119sion, and Sis the (nearly constant) Sicouhal number ap- propriate te the bod in cuestion, Ln the case of the original Tacoma Narrows bridge the values of Dand S are. respec. tively, 8 flan about 0.11 ‘When the periodie vortes shedding at trequency f, is taken into account in the bridge contest, an external geri- odie agent is idemtified, and this periodic force is typically misidentified as the source of the “resonant” frequency that caused the bridge to fail (1) “The collapse was not due to the brute force of the wind but due toa resonance between the natural frequency of oscillation of the bridge and the frequeney of wind-gen- erated vortices that pushed and pulled alzernately of. the bridge structure." (Q) "vortices were pouring of the top and bottom of the bridge. driving the bridge at its resonant frequency, ‘which eventually led to its callapse."= (3) “Thus, vortex shedding allows us to understand the ‘origin of the fluctuating vertical forces on the Tacoma Nar- rows Bridge.. The assumption that the Strouhal frequency /5) matched a body matursl mechanical frequency of the bridge (ie. f, =/) is frequently made. If this had been what happened during the destrucuve oscillation, Tacoma, Narrows would have been closer to an example of "reso- nance”: but even this requires discussion, as we point out Iter. Mechanical vibration im the presence of the vortices, ‘hat are shed rhythmically under the resonant condition Jy =f 82 well-observed phenomenon termed vortex-in= ‘duced vibration. In the Tacoma Nartows circumstance some of the textbooks in auestion'™"” arein effect conclud- ing that the bridge fatted due to this sort of phenomenon. It did nor. However. ducing its brief lifetime late in 1940 the bridge did experience this sort of vibration, but safely, as it 05 curred in purely vertical modes under relatively low-speed winds. Ia Fact the slender bridge deck gained the sobriquet “Galloping Gertie” from such oscillations, which took piace repeatedly, almost from opening day, } uly 1940, “Motorists crossing the bridge sometimes experienced “rall- cetscoaster like” travel as they watched cars ahead almost Gisappear vertically from sight, then reappear. Professor Burt Farquharson of the University of Washington wit- ‘essed all this. and it was reported that he did nt believe, early on, that the bridge was in danger of collapse. He had begun wind-tunnel madel experiments” that exhibited sm- Fig. >. Aeroclastcpecformance of orginal Tacoma Narrams fl be model” 120 Am J. Pays. Vol 59, No.2, Febremy 191 ilar relatively benign undulations. Figure 3 (after Faraue harsan* } depicts the oscillation amplicudes of full wind il Tacoma Narrows bridge. This ‘in regard to what happened with that bridge. We will reiurn 10 these results a lite later on has by now long since been demonstrated that from the standgoin: of phenomenology, even such vortex-in- Jes, together with theoretical studies over many ryears.**" have led, we believe, co more penetrating in- Biehis. ‘Another error accompanying many accounts?" nas been the confusion of the phenomenon of bridge flutter with that of airplane wing flutter as though they were iden- tical" Unless a bridge deck is highly streamfined as is the case in some very modern decks, the eventual ister ‘phenomenon that it will undergo is not akin co arf Mat- ter, but 0 a form of separated-flow flutter, which tends (0 ‘excite mainiy the torsional degree of freedom. The intrinsic “underlying fact that flow around highly streamlined bo- dies (such as airfoils) satisfies the smooth-flow trailing edge Kurta condition whereas flow around blufl bodies {eg bridges) does not, There are several sources" ** that document the fact that bridge (blufi-body ) utters practi- cally not comparable to airfoil utter. ‘The flutter aerodynamic forces on the airfoils of mod- emaireraft ceach magnitades comparable to their resisting inertia and stifiness forces. AS a cesult, utter. when it oc+ curs for these structures, tends to be very precipitate Further. it represents un unstable coupling of two degrees of freedom (bending 2nd torsion) into a new ¢binary fut- ter} mode, whereas eack is otherwise found, individually, to be positively damped. In the quite diferent case of the heavy structure of bridges, the aerodynamic forces. under ‘wind flows that are low in speed compared to those of ero- nauties, are relatively weaker and do not greatly influence the responding modes—nor their frequencies, “They can and do influence the overall damping. how: fever, reversing tin sign atthe higher wind speeds. When this occurs, even if two or more modes sometimes couple the principal driving meckanism is found to iodge ima sin- alc unstable mode—usually torsion. With bridges, unstable Oscillauon thus tends te grow more gradually in amnphtude, ‘The old Tacoma Nacrows bridge underwent some 45 min of travail before its demise. ‘We note aiso that rumerous instructional texts in matheratics*™” allude to the Tacoma Narrows incident, and most of these, too. could be made more precise and sasightfl in the fight of current analyses of the problem. VI. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE OLD TACOMA NARROWS WIND-EXCITED PHENOMENA In 1971 Scanlan and Tomko.* employing a spring-sup- ported wind-tunnel section mode! of the original Tacoma Narrows bridge, developed the curve shown in Fig. 4 for the 4 ? torsional Rutter derivative associated with the aero- dynamic damping of that deck. The condition for utter, i.e, zero damping in a torsional mode (in this case, the fundamental mode at 0.2 Hz) from Eqs. (3) and (5) is AD aos = USe/8* 6) KV uanand RM Scanisn 122where = section mass mement ofinertia about the cemter of roration: p= air density: B= deck width; and 2r¢y = logarithmic decrement in the torsional mode, Data for the original Tacoma Narrows case (represented first in the engineering units of pounds. slugs. and feet used in the foniginal design study) are as follows: @ = 2850 tb/fe = 4249.1 kg/m; r= 1S fe 4373 m: gm 322 A OSE m/s Pm 2w/gyr = 39829 slugs ft Mt = 177730 (hg)m! /m. Using (p= 0002 378 slugs/fe 39 = 11.89 m its found that 2039 829)5,, 0002 378038" From Fig. 4 the following table of values can be ealeulat- ed: ke/m (A Pen ‘Teble | OTN Facer condsion ab funcion a mechanical damping Protonpeveleis 5 (6108 Cccp Goo ous 330 ne 3008 ote 380 cay D010 os 30 ne ovis bis pa 920 £05 we Jn comparison with this. Farquharson reported the fole lowing facts (cf. Fig. 3) from study ofa full-bridge, 1:50 scale dynamic wind-tunnel mode! of the original Tacoma Narrows bridge: (a) The logarithmic decrement of the mode in question ‘was not known, but probably near t0 5=0.03 (ie. £40005) (b) Flutter in this mode. designeted 1-47, was incipient 3.3 fi/s in the model, This corresponds to @ prototype flutter speed of Cus = 3.3(g2).50= 15.91 mph ‘This vatue compares quite reasonabis to the (incipient) critical speeds predicted above from the section model study," Table I Tn further corroboration of the incipient Butter speed, Fig. 5 (from section model studies of Karman and Dunn indicates that total dampingis zero somewhere in the range 34cUnBGSA, ie forthe prototype bridge between 18 and 27 mpk, which again compares reasonabiy with the results of Table “The increase of response with wind speed. beyond the incipient stage, toward higher amplitude Autter, which is influenced by structure-induced turbulence and hence pro- aressively changing values of A £. was witnessed in the ful model and is documented in Fig. 3. Therein the response curve designated as 1-NT (2nd) is the divergent flutter response, The model freaveney 1.44 Hz corresponds quite closely toa prototype frequency of New n= (44/50 = 0.20H2 = 12.2 cpm, which is clearly the destructive frequency observed and 121 Amd. Phys, Vol $9,.o 2, Februny 1991 reported by Farquharson” al the bridgessite just pror tothe bridge cellapse. The ever-increasing response of mode I~ Tis seen Fig. 3 toapproach “divergent” amplitudes at ‘model velocity of around § fis which corresponds 10 4 full-scale speed of about 3$ mph. The actual prototype steady wind at the time of collapse was of course in excess (of this value (42 mph) In summary, Fig. 3, together with the separate examina tions culminating im Figs. 4 and $, quite accurately charac: terize the critical torsional oscillations of the Oid Tacoma Narrows bridge. In contrast, the relatively benign and set limiting amplitudes of verical oscillation are ail aso clear~ iy indicated in Fig. 3. Thus figure and Fig. $ have been available since 1952, and Fig. 4 since 1971. No “puzzle” or "mystery" is involved here. VIL. CLOSING REMARKS 1 appears tous thatthe accounts given in many physics as wel as elemencary mathematics texts are not hkely 10 have beea based on penetrating investigations ofthe Taco- sma Narrows phenomena discussed in this paper. Many noninvestigative approaches. tothe Tacoma Narrows events have developed a wide range of rather loose descrip- tions, explanations. an€ speculations over the last hal-cen- tury, As we have pointed out, however, good physical evi ence is available in the literature corroborating the Lnderlsing mechanisms of the Tacoma Nareows events as presently understood. The Tacoma Narrows incident will comuin a celebrated ‘example because of is spectacular nature and the freak recording of the disase: by witnessing photographers. The Sensational photographs have made it an icresstibie peda gogical example—and indeed. much isto be learned from 1 Because it lodges itself $0 easly in the memory, its aeedyrami Stabilay of Supencon Bridges, obey FB, Eaegubar- ton, Unsersity of Washington Engincerng Epenmen‘al Stations Bs latin, No 16. PE 1-8, June 1940-fune 1958 RH Scan and). Tork tives" Eng Mech 97.171 *R-H Scanlan, "Oa she sate of stabihty consteraons for suspensee span bres onder vend,” Proc IUTAM-IAHR Symp. Kal rae. Germans, Paper Fl pp. 298-618 (1979) ROH Scanlan “Development in lon-speed evoelast i the ct cogineting Fels” 1. Am. dest Aecomact Asteomaut 20 139-544 ‘98, *Comminee on Wind Effir, Amencan Soci of Cint Engineers, Wind loding and wind-ndvcessractural espanse—A stateolhe act eegor,” ASCE, New York (1987 KY Bilaband Rat Scanian 123PEM Simvwand RH Scanlan Wind Ector Stractare (Wiley, Nes York, 1986). 200 “FG Balivea. R Vaca. and MF Shiaruha, “Marion of uapencon bnyes suet to wind fads” J. Struct. DW. ASCE 103, (188-1205, 9 R Resnickand D Halas. Phyuicr—Fun / Wie). New York, 177) “D. Haligas ard R Reanich Fundamon'els of Poet (Wiley, New York IH, I 125-7. Fravicb RP Olerkk. TM. Apotoh ond. L. Goodstein, 7 Mechanie! Unnerie—Mrenanih dd Hear Advanced Edaion (Came brie UP, Camorigge, Engng. 1986) PRA Sereas.Phviet for Scents and Engines (Suumaert College Pobtshing, Paiadelpha, 190), Sed ed. "C Kinel WD Knight and M.A. Ruderman. Meckonit, Berkeley Pipes Course (MeGtan Hil. New York IF Ane, Vol ee. an "RD, Rusk. fnodction College Posi Appeton-Centur-Cros. New York 1950, WE. Gatys, FJ. Keller. ane M1 Shove, Physics MoGrawt New York 139) "LD. Wilton, Phare Pratvoland Conecpi4ei Approach Sounders ‘ColegePabianing. Pizdeipa, 1982). AL Van Hevtelen, Phauer 4 Genero! Intosuction (Lil, Brows, Bosioe 1986), nde “AR Wathionatd) M. Pasackfl.Pisics Ll Brown, Boston. 1987) TP Snow and JM Shu Pact (West Se Pa. MN. £586), D.C Gaol The fdewo/ Pars | Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Sah, Diego. 1946. Sede =]. Mananand WF Hornsak, Genera Pyne withBicence Eseys (Wis. New York, 1983}, dnd. GL. Bachnalter and D. Mi Riba, College Physics (MeGraw-Hi New York 1387) 2 R.W, Heath RR, Macnaughton. and D . Martndsle, Funder taitof Phases (Heath, Canac, 988) "D.C. Giancoh, Gene Physt (Practice Hall, Engewcod Cif, NI. i988) "RT. Dison, The Oona Bold of Phyice (Mert Calum, OF 1968) S°RLA Senway and. Faust, Coles Phssics(Sauncers College Pabe lahing. Piladelpnia. 1985) SLM Freemin, Paes Principles and laugh (MeGraw-Hil, New York 19735 PRL Weber, K. ¥; Manning. M.W White ang G. A. Weygaed, Co Lege Pics (MeCram- Hill New Yank. 1974 Sth <2 "M.-C. Marcin and C.A. Hewett, Emon of Caza! Phvtcs Pers: son, New York. 1978, “D. Hatidsy and R. Resnick, Fundomaniols of Physics (Wiley, New York 198) 2nd 28 PIG Hewit. Concerto’ Biyseowd New Inraducion 9 Your En ranmeni (Lite, Brown Boson. (978) “LW Kane ong MM: Sleenheim. Life Science Pncr Wiley. New York 1978) S.A. Marais. Paves (Benaige, Nex York, 1969) "9M ile. Colge Phyaes (Harcourt Brace, Jovanonish, New York 1977, eed AWW MsCormck, Fundamentai of Unversity Phy (Macmillan, New Vork, 19681 "R. Stevenson and RB. Moore. Thor of Phy Sandee, Philadel hia. 19671 "DM. Burns and $. GG Macdonald, Physic for Bony and Pre Mecca! Students (Ad8s0n- Wesley, Rencing. MA, 1 6.8, Suariz Phenomenal Pires (Wiley, New Vark, 1981) GF Wheeies sna LD. Kiekpatece, Pain, Ruiing a World View (Prenue Hall Englewood CMS, NI 1583) “LW Kane and MM Stereum, Phir Wiley. New York, 1968), desea "A, Hudson and R. Nelson. Uniersiy Physic Saunders College Pod- ‘hing Piagelpna. 1990), 2nd ed “SP-G. Hest, Phsic 4 Hig Schoo! PhnesPrgram (Addison Wes- ley ending. Ma 1987), 124 Am. Phys, Vol $9, No.2 Febrany 1991 “ACT Tafel Phowcette Methods one Mouning (Ala a Bavon Neston MA. 1986), © RL Hulizer aed D Lorwue, The Word ef Bynes (AdMAOR-N cle, Reacing, MA. 1972) -M. Methen, Pisce Since with Mader Applceone (Saunders Cok lege Pubinhing. Phladeipns. PA. 19721 RL Ammtrongand D King Mecha. Waves ond Thor! Pye 15 (Pearce. Englewood Cif, Nl, 120) SOW. Bokon, Patera Phrice (MeGraw- Hil London. 986) 13. Walker. The Fyn Cras ef Phys Wes, New Vor. 195) “XC Cole Symparhene baton Refstion on Pasir are Way of Life (Moerou. New York 985) "G. Brio and E- H. Zaraniorello, Jus, Wakes and Coones (Aca emie, New York, 957) KY Blah, "A study of sotexndced sibrsion.” Doctoral Din srtaon. Princeton Univer 1184), 2H. Beard, “Formatton de centres ae prsuon 3l'sieted'uwebsace fen mousergr." C. Acad Sh. Pats 17, 839-142 (908) POW. R. Sear. "Vor Karman: Fld éynaris an other things” FSS Tovay 3941). 3439 7986) "°D.A Bramley, “Physes Dural philosophy and invention.” Am. Se 174, 622-439 (1986), OK. YRBillahand RH. Scania, “Vortecindced vibration a0 ts ‘mathemaucal ssodeig: A tisogtaphyy” Report SM-89-1, Dept of Givi Engineering: Praceton Unsverty (1886) This report nciodes 3 Tst of stoet $0 experiment staies on si-imiting vorler induced response "'C. Serwen, “Experimental svestiention of serodyrami stability of Suspension briggesnith tpecal erence to Sevtn bier” Peo. Sth CivlEnpireering Conference Londen, Vol). P11-No.2 pp. 189-222 (sareh 1932) "T.Von Karman with L Eason. The Wind ad Bevond Lie, Brown. Bowen. 1967 F.B, Farquharson. “Lesion in ice deven tush by aefady namic studies" Prot. Am. Soc Cinl Eng 16. 384 (1946) “DR Huson, The eect of upc: gusting on the aroshaso bahay Flog sespenced spun benies” Doctoral Dissertation, Penton Craver 1980 RH. Scurka, “The ation of Ace broges under wind F Flunee theory "I. Sound Vib 6 189-199 41977), PY. Roca, Dymamee Istabiy (Crosby Lockwood London. 19573 © M, Roseau, Mranionria Mecioneal Spates Sprnger-Verag, Berl 90) F. Blech. “Dynomie mstabiiy of tras tiered suspension bars lder nin atin.” Proc. Am, Soc. Chl Eag 78, 1260-1308 11848), RH Seanlanand R. Rosebaum. sire Poruce ana Fier (Mae. tila, New York, 1951) H.W. Forsching, Frdermenaltf aerate in German) (Spring er-erl. Beth. 1975), EH Dowell. RH Seonlan HC Carts and Sito. 4 Morn Coursein dreeloseny (Sythe ane Nooranot, Alpten an de Rie Netherland, 1980) M*D-A Sanches. RC Allen. and WT Kyner, Diferennl Eger ‘AsasoneWeley, Reasig, MA, 1988) SW. R, Derek apa 5 I. Grossman, Jnradection fo Diferemtel Eau fran (Wet St.Paul. MN. 1985) ~M: Braun Diferennial Equations endbeir Applcaios, Applied Math marca! Senes 8 (Springer Verlp New York. 1978200 6 "4G. Sica, dnradacron to apoied Mormematicr Wellesley Cambridge Preis, Welesey. MA 1986. TES Sokolnkoffand R_M Redhefer. Merhemonera/Phises nd Mod fern Engncerng(MeCGraw-Hil, New Yorks 1966), 3nd ed "LD. Himiey and RM. Johoson, Linear nd Nonlinear Difeeneat Exsaton (Ellis Horwood. Chichester Ue 1982), “VA, Yahubowen and ¥. M. Starzhinst, Linear Dierentit Eu ons with Pease Copies (Whey, New York. 1998), Vol 2 YY. PLONeI, adsonced Exgeenng Mavhemaics (Wadsworth, Bel mont. CA, 1580) DG. Bi, Course im Diferenit Equcucns wath Appliciens (Pre, Weber and Schmit, Boston, 1982), 2nd ed KY Bilshard RH. Scanlon 124