See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273750497

Flutter, Galloping, and Vortex-Induced Vibrations of H-Section Hangers

Article  in  Journal of Bridge Engineering · May 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000268

CITATIONS READS
19 3,194

4 authors:

Z. Q. Chen Muguang Liu

Hunan University South China University of Technology
113 PUBLICATIONS   1,713 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xugang Hua Tamanna Mou

Hunan University University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,808 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   246 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

nonlinear dynamics of pendulum-like dampers View project

Vibration and wind loads of transmission tower & line View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muguang Liu on 28 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Flutter, Galloping, and Vortex-Induced Vibrations

of H-Section Hangers
Z. Q. Chen, M.ASCE1; M. G. Liu2; X. G. Hua3; and T. M. Mou4

Abstract: Hangers in arch bridges and other long vertical bars in truss bridges are typically slender members and often adopt an aero-
dynamically unfavorable H-section due to the conveniences in manufacture, construction, and maintenance. In contrast to the very narrow
range of wind attack angles of horizontal members, hangers may suffer wider wind attack angles, possibly from 0° to 360°, and are therefore
more prone to wind-induced vibrations. In August 2006, large torsional vibration with severe damage was observed on the 13 longest hangers
of the Dongping arch bridge in China during a strong wind. While vibrations of hangers were usually caused by galloping, and vortex
shedding excitation, the present case was likely to be a kind of torsional flutter instability. Therefore an in-depth investigation on the hangers’
aerodynamic performances in forms of flutter, galloping, and vortex shedding has been conducted through a series of wind tunnel tests. First,
with section model and aeroelastic models tests of the longest hanger in the bridge, the observed field vibration is confirmed as torsional
flutter under large attack angles from 15° to 25°, and the experimental onset velocity coincides well with the field observation; the flutter
derivative A
2 becomes positive at a low reduced wind velocity, which further implies that the H-section is prone to flutter instability. Then, the
influences of web perforation on flutter, galloping, and vortex shedding are studied with four section models having different web perforation
ratios but the same depth-to-width ratio D∕B ¼ 0:416 (flange depth D to web width B). It is found that the web perforation may increase the
galloping critical velocity to some extent but have no obvious effects on flutter instability and the Strouhal numbers, at least for the shallow
H-section with D∕B ¼ 0:416. Next, a total of 16 H-section models with different D∕B ratios, web perforation ratios, and flange perforation
ratios are tested to investigate their effects on aerodynamic behaviors of hangers. A comparison of the experimental results with previous
work is made, which may explain why the flutter instability of H-shaped hangers under large attack angles was not treated by earlier
investigators. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000268. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Arch bridges; Hangars; Vibration; Wind forces; Wind tunnels.
Author keywords: Bridges; Arch bridges; Hangers; H-sections; Wind-induced vibration; Flutter; Vortex-excited vibration; Galloping;
Wind tunnel test.

Introduction the hanger of this kind possess an aerodynamically unfavorable

Long and slender vertical steel members with H- or box-sections
were widely adopted as hangers or suspenders in arch bridges re-
cently built in China. For example, the H-section hanger in the
Dongping arch bridge in Guangdong, China, has a maximum
length of 40.2 m and a slenderness ratio of 342; the hanger in
the Dashengguan bridge in Jiangsu, China, has a maximum length
of 56 m and a slenderness ratio of 120. In comparison with the
steel-rope or steel-strand vertical hangers with circular sections,
1 dampers were installed as remedy measures to reduce the vibration
Professor, Director of Wind Engineering Research Center, Hunan
Univ., Changsha 410082, Hunan, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
zqchen@hnu.cn
2
Assistant Professor, College of Civil Engineering and Transportation,
South China Univ. of Technology, Guangzhou, P.R. China; formerly, PhD
Student, Wind Engineering Research Center, Hunan Univ., Changsha
410082, Hunan, P.R. China.
3
Associate Professor, Wind Engineering Research Center, Hunan Univ.,
Changsha 410082, Hunan, China.
4
Senior Engineer, Planning, Survey and Design Institute of Highways
of Dept. of Transportation of Shichuan Province, Chengdu 610041,
Shichuan, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 11, 2010; approved on
May 4, 2011; published online on May 6, 2011. Discussion period open
until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2012/3-500–
508/$25.00.
shape and is prone to a variety of wind-induced vibrations, which
may potentially inducing severe fatigue damage, especially in the
connections between hanger and bridge girder. From the early
1970’s, there have been many reports about the large-amplitude
wind-induced vibrations of arch bridge hangers or truss bridge bars.
For example, Ulstrup (1980) listed nine episodes of wind-induced
vibrations on slender bridge components. In China, the first case
was the Jiujiang Yangtze River Bridge, built in the 1990’s, in which
most of its hangers experienced vortex-induced vibrations at mod-
erate wind shortly after completion of the bridge, and tuned mass
(Gu et al. 1994; Yu et al. 1996). Unfortunately, this lesson does not
appear to be well-learned by bridge designers. More recently, large-
amplitude wind-induced vibrations of the H-section hangers were
observed in several steel arch bridges. In August 2006,
typhoon Prapiroon attacked the Dongping bridge, a steel arch
bridge that was nearly completed at that time, as shown in Fig. 1.
On August 4, 2006, Foushan Diary reported the ground gust wind
on the Beaufort wind force scale of 8–10, which corresponds to a
wind velocity of about 25 m∕s at bridge deck level (“Typhoon”
2006). More than 20 hangers oscillated simultaneously in a tor-
sional direction for 24 h, with maximum vibration amplitude reach-
ing 35°, and the 13 longest hangers were damaged with severe
cracks on the flanges near the hanger-to-girder connections, as
shown in Fig. 2. While galloping and vortex shedding excitation
were more common for hangers, the present case was likely to

500 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Fig. 1. The Dongping bridge in Guangdong, China (before completion)
Fig. 2. Wind-induced crack at the connection between hanger and
girder
a kind of flutter instability, based on the careful scrutiny of the
video recorded in situ (Chen et al. 2010).
Significant effort has been made to study the aerodynamic char-
acteristics of the H-sections used on arch bridge hangers and truss
bridge bars over the past decades. Wardlaw is an early investigator
who published several papers regarding wind-induced vibration
and its mitigation countermeasures for the I-section truss bars
and road deck hangers (Wardlaw 1990). Chi et al. (1977) conducted
wind tunnel tests of three typical H-sections with aspect ratios
being approximately 1:1, 3:4, and 1:2, and they determined that
the Strouhal numbers for these sections are in the neighborhood
of 0:125 ∼ 0:134. Chi and Vossoughi (1985) predicted the
vortex-induced response of H-section cylinders by a modified
Hartlen-Currie model, which needs to be calibrated with wind
tunnel data. Maher and Wittig (1980) investigated the vibration
of H-section members of the Commodore Barry bridge, and its
possible remedy countermeasures included modifying H-sections
into box-sections and the use of cable ties and perforated web. They
concluded that vortex-excited vibration in heaving modes and
torsional modes may build up for the H-sections studied, and
the vibration in the Commodore Barry Bridge is very likely a kind
of traditional Karman vortex shedding. Kubo et al. (1980) studied
the vortex-excited oscillation and galloping of H-section cylinders
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 501
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.
of Langer bridge, Japan, in both laminar and turbulent flow. They
clarified that both vortex-induced vibrations and galloping may
develop in the laminar flow, but in the turbulent flow the former
seldom takes place and the oscillation became mainly a galloping
one. Ruscheweyh (1990, 1996) developed a mathematical model
for predicting the vortex-excited vibration, formulated by taking
into account the increasing correlation length of the exciting
force with increasing vibration amplitude. Using this model,
Ruscheweyh predicted the amplitudes of the vortex-excited
bending vibration of several steel stacks and bridge hangers.
The predicted amplitudes had been verified with full-scale mea-
surements and the agreement is very good. This model has been
included into Eurocode ENV “Wind Action.” Ma et al. (2005) stud-
ied the characteristics of galloping and vortex-induced vibration of
H-section hangers, and they pointed that there were apparent effects
on the galloping stability by changing the size/shape of web
perforation in hangers. However, none of the above investigators
have pointed out the dangerous flutter instability possibly encoun-
tered for H-sections. Matsumoto et al. (1992, 2008) studied the tor-
sional flutter mechanism of H-section cylinders. Their research is
connected with the horizontal bridge girders like the Old Tacoma
Bridge under zero wind attack angle. The H-section girders in their
study have a width-to-depth (web width to flange depth) ratio of
2–15 or an equivalent depth-to-width (flange depth D to web width
B) ratio of 0.067 to 0.5. For the vertical hangers, the worst scenario
may be not in parallel with strong/weak-axis of H-section and the
wind attack angle may vary from 0° to 90°. In addition, the width-
to-depth ratio of H-sections adopted in hangers is usually less
than 2, which is not covered by Matsumoto et al. (1992, 2008).
Although H-sections are aerodynamically unstable, they are
convenient to manufacture, and connection and maintenance are
frequently applied in practice. It is therefore very important to study
the aerodynamic characteristics of H-sections from the point of
view of its wind-resistant design. Flutter, galloping, and vortex-
induced vibrations of H-section hangers is examined in this study
by section model and aeroelastic model tests. The longest hanger in
the Dongping arch bridge which experienced strong torsional vi-
bration and severe structural damage after storm was selected as
prototype.
First, the flutter instability of the H-sections is studied with a
section model and full aeroelastic model test for the prototype
hanger. The critical flutter wind speed for the hanger is directly
measured by a free vibration test of the elastically mounted section
model and is further verified by the aeroelastic model test. It is
shown that the experimental critical speed is quite close to the
in-site wind speed. The flutter derivative A
2 of the H-sections is
identified with section model test data for wind attack angles of
15°, 20°, and 25°, respectively. The critical wind velocity predicted
with A
2 agrees with the directly measured one in wind tunnel. It is
concluded that the observed prototype vibration is a kind of
torsional flutter instability.
Second, the influences of web perforation on the performances
of flutter, galloping, and vortex-excited vibration are studied using
four section models with different web perforation ratios but the
same depth-to-width ratio D∕B ¼ 0:416. For galloping, the
measured critical wind speed is compared with that predicted from
the Den Hartog’s galloping criteria. The performance of vortex-
excited vibration of the H-sections is assessed by their Strouhal
numbers and lock-in wind speed ranges.
In view of the fact that web perforations has little impact on
improving flutter stability and vortex-excited vibration, a new
research scheme has been launched to investigate aerodynamic
performances of the H-sections with different depth-to-width ratios
and web and flange perforation ratios.
 Finally, a comparison of the above results with previous works Table 1. Parameters of Prototype and Models
is made, which may explain why the flutter instability of H-section Section Aeroelastic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

hangers under large wind attack angles was not treated by earlier Parameters Prototype model A-3 model
investigators.
Length (m) 40.212 1.400 2.513 (1:16)
Flange depth D 0.5 0.125 (1:4) 0.0312 (1:16)
Torsional Flutter of H-Section Hangers under Large (m)
Wind Attack Angles Web width B (m) 1.2 0.3 (1:4) 0.075 (1:16)
Mass (kg∕m) 211.6 13.2 (1∶42 ) 0.852 (1∶162 )
Prototype and Model Mass moment 63.06 0.25 (1∶44 ) 9:76 × 104
The longest hanger in the Dongping arch bridge (Fig. 1) was (kg  m2 ∕m) (1∶164 )
selected as a prototype for wind tunnel study of aerodynamic Weak-axis 2.001 1.953 (0.976:1) 14.258 (7.125:1)
characteristics of the H-sections. The prototype hanger is bending (Hz)
40.212 m long and the section is so positioned such that the Strong-axis 5.936 1.953 (0.345:1) 41.992 (7.074:1)
web plane is in the transverse direction of the bridge. The web bending (Hz)
is 1.2 m wide and 10 mm thick, and the flange is 0.5 m deep Torsional 2.251 2.148 (0.954:1) 17.188 (7.635:1)
and 18 mm thick. The depth-to-width ratio of the H-section is frequency (Hz)
D∕B ¼ 0:5∕1:2 ¼ 0:416, so it is a shallow H-section. The web Damping ratio 0.002 0.0033 for 0.007 for bending
is perforated mainly for improving the aerodynamic performance bending 0.0017 0.005 for torsion
and the web perforation ratio is 27% (the perforation ratio is defined
for torsion
as the ratio of perforation area to the whole web area before
Wind speed ratio 1:4.098 weak-axis 1:2.246 weak-
perforation). The dynamic modes of the hanger were analyzed with
a finite element model using shell elements, and the minimum axial bending 1:11.5 axis bending
force applied on the prototype was considered as the initial stress strong-axis 1:2.262 strong-
effect. A 1:4 section model of the hanger was made and named A-3, bending 1:4.192 axis bending
whose geometry and size are provided in Fig. 3. A 1:16 aeroelastic torsion 1:2.096 torsion
model was also designed without conforming to the Froude number Note: Figures in parenthesis are scale ratios, and all of the scale ratios are
similarity. Table 1 summarizes the main parameters of the proto- defined as models to prototypes.
type hanger, the 1:4 section model, and the 1:16 aeroelastic model.
Section Model Tests
The section model was elastically suspended in a wind tunnel with
8 springs in such a way that the ratio of the torsional frequency to
the weak-axis-bending frequency was nearly the same ratio as that
of the prototype’s, as shown in Fig. 4. Each spring was connected to
a dynamometer to measure the vibration. The vibration data were
recorded with a sampling frequency of 100 Hz. The definition of
wind attack angle α is illustrated in Fig. 5. The wind direction
normal to the flange is defined as α ¼ 0° and the direction
perpendicular to the web is defined as α ¼ 90°.
The first test was to measure the critical flutter wind speed of the
section model under different wind attack angles in uniform flow.
The tests were carried out for wind attack angles in the range of
0° ∼ 90° with increments of 5°. The torsional instabilities developed
for wind attack angles of 15°, 20°, and 25°. Fig. 6 provides the
variation of torsional amplitudes with prototype full-scale wind
speed for the three wind attack angles. The critical wind speed
was 26:9 m∕s at a wind attack angle of 15°. The criterion for flutter
Fig. 4. Section model elastically suspended in wind tunnel

instability was taken as the torsional amplitude being large than 5°.
This threshold is based on Chinese Guideline for Wind-resistant
Design of Highway Bridges (1996), where it is indicated that a
maximum torsional response of 1° ∼ 5° during wind tunnel tests
indicates occurrences of flutter instability. By further considering
the effect of large wind attack angles associated with vertical
hangers, a maximum torsional response of 5° was taken as the
threshold. The critical wind speed obtained in the section model
test was found to be in good agreement with that reported in
Foushan Diary on August 4, 2006 (“Typhoon” 2006). Since the
Fig. 3. H-shaped section model (dimensions: cm)
amplitude continuously increases with wind speed, these cases

502 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Definition of wind attack angle
Fig. 6. Variation of vibration amplitude of model A-3 with wind
velocity
should be classified as torsional flutter. Additionally, because the
Strouhal number, St, for the H-sections is approximately 0.12, the
hanger would torsionally resonate due to vortex shedding at a wind
velocity of approximately 9:0 m∕s, which is well below the field
wind velocity. Therefore it is not likely the vibration is caused by
Karman vortex shedding.
Fig. S1 shows the variation of the equivalent damping ratio with
the reduced velocity U∕f B for the three attack angles along with
wind attack wind angles of 0°. When the testing wind velocity ap-
proached the flutter critical threshold, torsional response built up
very rapidly for wind attack angles of 15° and 20°, as observed
in Fig. 6. There was concern that the rapidly divergent response
may potentially damage the wind tunnel facilities, thus no effective
data was recorded for some cases. An extrapolation of experimental
net damping curves was adopted to estimate the critical reduced
wind velocity initiating flutter instability for wind attack angels
of 15° and 20°. The curves for wind attack angles of 15° were
the first ones to cross zero at a reduced velocity of U∕f B ¼ 7:5.
Since the vibration frequency and width of the section are
2.25 Hz and 1.2 m, respectively, the onset full-scale flutter wind
velocity is V cr ¼ 7:5 × 1:2 × 2:25 ¼ 20 m∕s, which is slightly
lower than the measured critical wind speed of 26:9 m∕s. The dis-
crepancy is mainly caused by taking a torsional amplitude large
than 5° as the threshold of flutter instability.
Flutter is an aerodynamic instability with torsional vibration.
There are two kinds of flutter instability: classical flutter and
separated flow flutter (Simiu and Scanlan 1996). Separated flow
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 503
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.
flutter is a purely torsional vibration and can be analyzed by a
flutter equation with single degree of freedom (SDOF) as follows:
 
B α_
€ þcα_ þ kα ¼ ρU 2 B2 KA
2
Im α þ K 2 A
3 α ð1Þ
U
where I m , c, and k = inertial, damping, and stiffness parameters of
the model, respectively; α = torsional displacement of the model;
A
2 and A
3 = flutter derivatives, which are functions of the reduced
wind frequency, K ¼ Bf ∕U; ρ = mass density of air; U = wind
velocity; and B = width of the H-section. The right-hand-side
(RHS) term of Eq. (1) represents the unsteady self-excited moment.
Moving the right term to left side, the equation becomes:
€ þðc  ρUB3 KA
2 Þα_ þ ðk  ρU 2 B2 K 2 A
3 Þα ¼ 0
Im α ð2Þ
The coefficient in the bracket of the second term is the equivalent
damping of the model. It is apparent that the hanger may exhibit
torsional flutter when the flutter derivatives of A
2 is positive. There-
fore, the same model was tested by the forced vibration method to
identify the flutter derivatives A
2 for different wind attack angles. In
the forced vibration method, the motion of the section model is
driven by the numerically controlled external exciter fixed at
two ends of the model; the aerodynamic forces acting on the model
for a particular wind velocity and the response were measured and
were used to identify the flutter derivatives (Chen et al. 2005). The
identified flutter derivatives A
2 for wind attack angles of 0°, 15°,
20°, and 25° are given in Fig. S2. It is indicated that positive values
of A
2 is most notable for wind attack angles of 15° and 20°, which is
consistent with the results in Figs. 6 and S1. The flutter derivatives
A
2 curve for wind attack angle 15° has the largest positive value,
which implies the lowest critical wind velocity.
Aeroelastic Model Test
A full aeroelastic model of the above prototype hanger was further
tested in uniform flow to verify the torsional flutter observed in
section model test. The geometrical scale of the aeroelastic model
was 1:16. As the gravity effect is of minor importance for hangers,
the Froude number similarity was not respected. The aeroelastic
model consisted of three welded thin steel plates and its ends were
fixed to the bottom and upper floors of the wind tunnel, as shown in
Fig. 7. To keep the mass similarity, additional mass blocks were
Fig. 7. Aeroelastic model in wind tunnel
 attached to the thin steel plates. The parameters of the aeroelastic Table 2. Prototype Mass and Frequencies of the Four Models
model are listed in Table 1. The model was tested in uniform flow (D∕B ¼ 0:416)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

for wind attack angles of 0°∼90°, with increments of 5°. The struc- Frequency (Hz)
tural damping ratio of torsional mode of the aeroelastic model was
Mass Mass moment Strong-axis Weak-axis
about 0.5%, which is larger than that used in the section model test, Model (kg∕m) (kg:m2 ∕m) bending bending Torsion
0.17%, because of the difficulty in firmly fixing the added mass
blocks to the thin steel plates. A-1 235.553 63.986 6.057 1.901 2.175
At a wind attack angle of 15°, torsional flutter occurs at the A-2 223.342 63.829 6.112 1.952 2.173
prototype full-scale wind velocity of 29 m∕s. The wind velocity A-3 211.635 63.055 5.936 2.001 2.251
in this case is a little higher than the critical flutter wind speed A-4 202.709 61.512 5.469 2.042 2.409
of 26:9 m∕s that was obtained for the section model. Because
the damping ratio of the torsion mode for the aeroelastic model
is higher than that for the section model, this result is reasonable
and acceptable. web perforation ratios. The web perforation ratios of these models
As a remedy countermeasure to reduce the torsional vibration, were 0%, 14%, 27%, and 38%, and these four models were denoted
the midspan of the aeroelastic model was connected to two columns as A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4, respectively. Model A-3 with the per-
with steel wires, as shown in Fig. 7. The horizontal distance from foration ratio of 27% was the one actually used on the Dongping
the aeroelastic model to each column was the same as that of two arch bridge. The mass and stiffness of the hangers varied slightly
suspenders on an actual bridge (15.35 m); the stiffness of steel for the model as a result of different perforation ratios. Table 2 pro-
wires was also expected to follow the same similarity principle used vides the modal frequencies of the longest hanger with different
by the aeroelastic model, but the stiffness of the columns was not web perforation ratios. It was found that the strong-axis-bending
modeled in this study. The use of steel wires increased the torsional frequency for the model A-4 decreased appreciably due to web per-
and weak-axis bending modal frequencies and promoted the lowest foration. The aerodynamic performance of flutter, galloping, and
flutter critical velocity exceeding 60 m∕s, well above the design vortex-excited vibration of these section models were tested for
requirement. This suppression measure was applied on the actual wind attack angles from 0° to 90° with increments of 5°. The damp-
bridge according to the above experimental results. Fig. 8 shows ing ratios during the test were nearly the same of about 0.36% in
the design scheme actually implemented on the bridge. For each bending and 0.17% in torsion.
of three main arches in the bridge, two wind-resistant cables, whose
Flutter Performance
size was equal to the full-scale value of the steel wire used in the
test, were connected through the flanges of hangers and the cable The flutter performances of the four models were directly tested by
ends were fixed to the main arch. The size of each cable was of an elastically suspended rig, as described previously. Torsional flut-
4 ϕ 15:2 steel strands. No attempt was made to optimize the size ter instability was observed for all four models under large wind
of steel wire in wind tunnel tests. attack angles. Table 3 summarizes the ranges of wind attack angle
and the prototype critical wind velocities for the four models under
the criterion of torsional displacement exceeding 5°. The results
Influences of Web Slot on Aerodynamic Features of show that the web perforation does not promote the flutter critical
H-Section Hangers wind speed of H-sections, and actually tends to decrease flutter
performance of H-sections. For the shallow H-section with
D∕B ¼ 0:416, the flutter critical wind speed is lower than the
Section Models
wind-resistant design requirements in most parts of China. The
To study the influence of web perforation on flutter, galloping, and critical wind velocity for a particular web perforation listed in
vortex-excited vibration of the H-section hangers, four section Table 3 is the lowest one for all wind attack angles; such presen-
models were used. The four section models had the same depth- tation is convenience for bridge designers in order to clearly under-
to-width ratio as the model A-3 (D∕B ¼ 0:416) but with different stand which kind of perforation is best in connection with flutter

Fig. 8. Design scheme of wind-resistant cables for hangers

504 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.

 Table 3. Torsional Flutter of the Models with Different Web Perforation
Ratios (D∕B ¼ 0:416)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Section Wind attack Prototype critical Reduced wind

model angle wind speed speed (V∕f B)
A-1 30° ∼ 35° 36:9 m∕s 14.1
A-2 20° 24:3 m∕s 9.32
A-3 15° ∼ 25° 26:9 m∕s 9.96
A-4 15° ∼ 25° 23:1 m∕s 7.99

performance. However, in order to study the underlying mechanism

of improvement of flutter performance, it is necessary to change
only one parameter while keep the remaining parameters fixed,
such as by keeping wind attack angles unchanged and varying
the web perforation ratio.

Galloping Performance
Fig. 9. Den Hartog coefficient of model A-1 at angle interval 8°
Galloping of slender members is a kind of bending, wind-induced,
self-excited, and unstable oscillation. According to the quasi-
steady theory of galloping, the galloping stability for a certain
section can be evaluated by its Den Hartog coefficient, relative to the structure varies during vibration. The structure will
C 0L þ C D . Following this theory, the critical wind speed of gallop- withdraw rapidly from the galloping state when the effective wind
ing is calculated as attack angle is larger than 6°. It is suggested in this study to use the
average values of Den Hartog coefficients between 0° and 6° to
4mωζ
V cg ¼  ð3Þ calculate the critical galloping wind speed. The average galloping
ρBðC0L þ C D Þ coefficient of the model A-1 along the weak-axis is 2:6. Table 4
shows the Den Hartog coefficients calculated with this method and
where ζ = modal damping ratio. Obviously, a necessary condition galloping critical wind speeds of the prototype for the four section
for galloping is to have a negative Den Hartog coefficient. This models. The parameters used in Eq. (3) are given in Table 2. As
method is based on assumption of quasi-steady and linearization
seen in Table 4, the galloping performance for the weak-axis of
and is suitable for engineering purposes. More advanced methods
H-sections is much improved by web perforation. For model
considering the nonlinearity in aerodynamic galloping loads will
A-4 with a slot ratio of 38%, the galloping coefficient increases
be explored in future (Yu et al. 1993; Luongo and Piccardo 1998).
more than that of model A-1 by a factor of 5. However, the
To evaluate the Den Hartog coefficient, the section model was
galloping coefficient at the strong axis changes little with the
connected with a force balance and the assembly was then fixed
web perforation and is approximately 0:5.
vertically on a turntable in the wind tunnel to measure the steady
As verification, wind tunnel experiments were also carried out
aerodynamic lift coefficient C L and drag coefficient C D at wind
in uniform flow for the four section models freely suspended with
attack angles from 0° to 90°, with increments of 2°. The test
the same test rig as that used for flutter instability. The galloping
was conducted in uniform flow. The measured drag and lift
coefficients are shown in Fig. S3 with the web width B being critical speed, along with wind attack angles, are shown in Table 5.
the characteristic length. Fig. S4 shows the variations of Den Har- As consistent with those in Table 4, only models A-1 and A-4
tog’s galloping coefficients with wind attack angles. The negative developed galloping. For model A-1, a galloping vibration normal
slope for the C L is obvious at wind attack angles close to 0° and to to the weak-axis at wind attack angles of 0° and 5° is observed at a
90° for model A-1 without web perforation and the Den Hartog
coefficients for the model A-1 are also negative, indicating that Table 4. Den Hartog Coefficient of H-Sections with D∕B ¼ 0:416
the galloping instability may occur in the vicinity of the two wind
Galloping coefficient Galloping critical velocity (m∕s)
attack angles. For the section models with web perforations,
namely A-2, A-3, and A-4, the negative slope is obviously weak- Model Strong axis Weak axis Strong axis Weak axis
ened. For models A-2 and A-3, with perforation ratios of 14% and A-1 0:6 2:6 146.4 11.5
27%, respectively, the negative slope is not clear at a wind attack
A-2 0:5 þ 140.0 Stable
angle around 0°. It is concluded that modest web perforations have
A-3 0:5 þ 128.9 stable
a positive effect in stabilizing the galloping of H-sections.
Because the Den Hartog coefficients vary considerably with A-4 0:4 0:5 113.7 69.4
wind attack angles, which value should be selected to calculate
the galloping critical wind speed from Eq. (3)? Taking model
Table 5. Critical Galloping Wind Velocity for Different Web Perforations
A-1 as an example, the values of the Den Hartog coefficient at wind
attack angles of 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8° are 1:8, 2:1, 3:0, 3:5, and Model A-1 (web peroration 0%) A-4 (web peroration 38%)
þ1:3, respectively. Following the symmetry, the Den Hartog coef-
Wind attack 0 5 80 85 90
ficients of model A-1 for wind attack angle within 8° are shown in
anglea (°)
Fig. 9. It is seen that the attack angle with a steady state of galloping
is within 6°. It is unreasonable to use the minimum Den Hartog Critical galloping 26.2 34.7 137.9 122.4 92.2
coefficient, i.e., C 0L þ C D ¼ 3:5 to calculate the critical wind speed (m∕s)
a
speed of galloping. This is because the effective wind attack angle The increment of wind attack angle is 5°.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 505

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.

 full-scale wind velocity of 26:2 m∕s and 34:7 m∕s, respectively.
For model A-4, galloping with vibration normal to strong axis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
occurs at attack angles of 80°, 85°, and 90°. However, the critical
wind speed is 92:2 m∕s, which is well above the design require-
ments. The galloping for model A-4 is mainly attributed to the
notable decrease in modal frequency due to large web perforation.
Additionally, the galloping critical wind speed for model A-1
calculated by Eq. (3) is approximately half of the experimental
values, and the quasi-steady theory of galloping is therefore
conservative. These experimental results conclude that a modest
web perforation can promote the galloping performance, especially
normal to the weak-axis.
Vortex-Excited Vibration Performances
Vortex-excited resonance takes place when the frequency of
vortices regularly shed from the model coincides with one of
the model vibration frequencies. The vortex shedding frequency
is given as
V D∕B ¼ 0:416, 0.625, 1.0, and 1.33, respectively; the web
f v ¼ St
L
where L is a characteristic dimension of the body projected on a
plane normal to the mean flow velocity, defined as L ¼ D for 0° ≤
α ≤ 45° and L ¼ B for 45° ≤ α ≤ 90°; V = velocity of the
oncoming flow; and St = Strouhal number. The use of this defini-
tion is based on the two points. The first is that wind-induced
vibrations for wind directions between 0° and 45° are normal to
the web plate or in the direction of the weak axis, so the flange
depth D is used for L. Wind-induced vibrations for wind directions
between 45° and 90° are normal to the flange plate or in the direc-
tion of strong axis, so the web width B is used for L. The second is
the same characteristic length (L ¼ D Or L ¼ B), which is
convenient for bridge designers.
Table S1 shows the vortex-induced vibration characteristics
for the four H-section models for wind attack angles from 0°
to 90°. The wind speed and amplitude of vortex shedding re-
sponse have been converted to full-scale values.
From Table S1, it is shown that (1) torsional vortex-induced
vibration with small amplitude at low wind speed is observed for
section models A-2 and A-3. Among the wind velocities of
vortex-induced vibration at various wind attack angles, the mini-
mum one is less than 10 m∕s, and the torsional amplitude is
lower than 1.5°; (2) for section models A-1 and A-4, the onset
wind speed of vortex-induced vibrations at different attack angles
is usually around 10 ∼ 30 m∕s. However, the torsional amplitude
is large and generally exceeds 3°; (3) torsional motions of vortex-
induced vibrations dominate for the four models, and models A-2
and A-4 may develop bending motions at a certain wind attack
angle; (4) the maximum Strouhal numbers for model A-1 are
Fig. 10. The shape on web and flange perforation of H-sections
506 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.
0.077, whereas the Strouhal numbers for other models generally
exceed 0.11, with the largest one being 0.236 for model A-4, in-
dicating that the H-section members with web slots are more
easily vulnerable to vortex shedding. Thus, it is concluded that
web perforation hardly improves the vortex shedding response of
H-sections.
Effects of Three Sectional Parameters of H-Section
Hangers
In view of the fact that web perforation has little effect on improv-
ing the flutter stability and vortex shedding, a new research scheme
was launched to investigate the aerodynamic performances of
H-shaped hangers with different sectional parameters, namely,
depth-to-width ratios, web perforation ratios, and flange perfora-
tion ratios. As a first step, a group of 16 section models were
designed with the orthogonal test method. In these models, the
depth-to-width ratios were 1∕2:4, 1∕1:6, 1∕1, and 1∕0:75, i.e.,
ð4Þ perforation ratios were 0%, 14%, 27%, and 38%, respectively;
the flange perforation ratios were 0%, 11%, 20.1%, and 28.6%,
respectively. The flange perforation was of a rectangular hole,
as shown in Fig. 10. The selection of these parameters was mainly
based on the general design dimensions of hangers in arch bridges.
For example, the depth-to-width ratio D∕B varies from 0.416 to
1.33, which means the variation of an H-section from a shallow
one to a deep one.
The sectional parameters of the 16 section models are pro-
vided in Table S2. The same hanger in Table 1 was taken as
the structural parameters of these models. The geometrical scale
of the section model was still taken as 1∕4, but the spring-
mounted test rig improved with a bending damping ratio of
0.15% and a torsional damping ratio of 0.10%. The wind-induced
vibration characteristics of torsional flutter, galloping, and
vortex-induced vibration were tested in uniform flow for wind
attack angles of 0° ∼ 90°, with increments of 5°. Table S3 shows
some selected results of the full-scale critical wind speeds for
torsional flutter, galloping, and vortex-induced vibrations, as well
as the maximum amplitude of vortex-induced vibration for each
kind of H-sections.
The results listed in Table S3 reveal some general trends of the
effects of the three sectional parameters on the aerodynamic char-
acteristics of H-sections: (1) increasing the depth-to-width ratio
D∕B notably improves the aerodynamic performances, implying
that the deep H-section is better than the shallow one; (2) flange
perforation can enhance the aerodynamic capability against flut-
ter and vortex shedding; (3) web perforation has positive effects
merely on galloping; (4) for the 16 section models, section
model 10, with a model with depth-to-width ratio of 1.0, a
 web perforation ratio of 14%, and a flange perforation ratio of
28.6%, gives the best aerodynamic performance and has only
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
vortex-induced oscillation at the prototype wind velocity of
70 m∕s, which is larger than design requirement.
To obtain the quantitative description of the effects of these
parameters, more experiments and analyses are needed. Therefore,
this investigation is still in progress. The results will be reported
elsewhere.
Comparison with Previous Works
After the severe wind-induced vibration of tensile members
happened on the Commodore Barry Bridge during the construction,
Maher and Wittig (1980) conducted a careful study of the H-section
model by section model tests. In their tests, the range of attack an-
gles was 0° ∼ 90°, with increments of 10°. However, there was no
flutter instability found. The studied prototype member of the
Commodore Barry Bridge was a deep H-section member with
D∕B ¼ 1:28, a flange depth of 910 mm, and a web width of
710 mm. The prototype wind speed range in the tests did not exceed
50 m∕s. From Table S3, the estimated flutter speed of this member
exceeded 60 m∕s, therefore they missed the flutter in the tests. The
prototype hanger used in the present study was a shallow H-section
with D∕B ¼ 0:416, and the onset flutter velocity is much lower
than that of a deep one. Therefore it was easy to find in the test.
Ruscheweyh (1996) made a valuable contribution on the wind-
induced vibration of slender elements. He presented a mathematical
model for predicting the amplitudes of vortex-excited vibration,
called “The correlation length model.” He also studied the critical
speed of galloping. Besides the formula for bending galloping, he
also presented a similar equation to estimate the critical speed of
“torsional galloping.” It should be pointed out that “torsional
galloping” is an inadequate concept, because if a self-excited insta-
bility is torsional oscillation, it should be classified as flutter
according to the modern theory of wind-induced vibrations.
Ruscheweyh’s formula for galloping was based on the quasi-steady
theory; its applicability to flutter that is caused by the unsteady self-
excited force is questionable.
Matsumoto et al. (1992, 2008) studied aerodynamic behaviors
of the H-sections only for a wind attack angle of 0°. They
concluded that the model is flutter-stable for B∕D < 3:4 or equiv-
alently D∕B > 0:3. As consistent with Matsumoto’s results, the
H-sections with D∕B ¼ 0:416 is flutter-stable at a wind attack an-
gle of 0°, as given in Table 4. However, torsional flutter instability
of H-sections easily develops for large wind attack angles even at
relatively low wind velocity as far as hangers and other vertical
members are concerned.
Conclusions
A series of experimental studies of wind-induced vibrations of
vertical flexible hangers with H-sections is carried out using both
section models and an aeroelastic model. It is highlighted that the
vertical hangers with H-sections are featured by large wind attack
angles and have more complicated and unfavorable aerodynamic
characteristics than the horizontal members. The main conclu-
sions from this study are as follows: (1) the torsional flutter
of vertical H-shaped hangers under large wind attack angle
has been confirmed, especially for shallow H-sections, which
has not been pointed out by previous investigators; (2) flange
perforation can enhance the capability against flutter and
vortex-induced vibration, while web perforation usually increases
the critical wind velocity of galloping; and (3) the increase of
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 507
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.
D∕B significantly improves the aerodynamic performance, which
implies that the deep H-section is better than the shallow one in
resisting wind-induced vibrations.
A total of 16 section models with different depth-to-width ratios,
web perforation ratios, and flange perforation ratios have been stud-
ied. A more complete investigation of the effect of the above three
parameters on the aerodynamic performance of H-sections is
underway.
Acknowledgments
This study is sponsored by the National Science Foundation of
China with the key research program number 50738002,
2006BAJ03B04, and is partially supported by research fund from
Department of Transportation of Sichuan Province (Grant No.
2008.2-4-3).
Supplemental Data
Figs. S1–S4 and Tables S1–S3 are available online in the ASCE
Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Chen, Z. Q., Liu, M. G., Liu, G. D., and Jin, Z. J. (2010). “Wind-induced
vibration and wind-resistant design of H-shaped suspenders under large
attack angle.” China Civ. Eng. J., 43(2), 1–11.
Chen, Z. Q., Yu, X. D., Yang, G., and Spencer, B. F. (2005). “Wind-induced
self-excited loads on bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 131(12), 1783–1793.
Chi, M., Neal, E., and Dennis, B. G. (1977). “Determination of strouhal
characteristics and power spectrum for elastically restrained H-shape
sections.” FHWA-RD-78-26, Federal Highway Administration, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Chi, M., and Vossoughi, J. (1985). “Response of slender structural
members in self-excited oscillation.” J. Sound Vib., 101(1), 75–83.
Gu, J. H., Zhao, Y. C, and Shao, K. H. (1994). “Application of new TMD to
suppressing vortex-shedding vibrations of hangers of Jiujiang bridge
over Yangtze river.” China Civ. Eng. J., 27(3), 3–13 (in Chinese).
Kubo, Y., Sakurai, K., and Azuma, S. (1980). “Aerodynamic characteristics
of H-shaped section cylinder in laminar and turbulent flows.” Mem.
Kyushu Inst. Technol. Eng., 10, 1–14.
Luongo, A, and Piccardo, G. (1998). “Nonlinear galloping of sagged cables
in 1:2 internal resonance.” J. Sound Vib., 214(5), 915–940.
Ma, C., Liao, H., Zheng, S., and Li, J. (2005). “Wind tunnel experiment on
the aerodynamic performances of H-shaped booms.” Zhongguo Tiedao
Kexue, 26(4), 42–46.
Maher, F. J., and Wittig, L. E. (1980). “Aerodynamic response of long
H-sections.” J. Struct. Div., 106(1), 183–198.
Matsumoto, M., Shirato, H., and Hirai, S. (1992). “Torsional flutter
mechanism of 2-D H-shaped cylinders and effect of flow turbulence.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 41–44(1–3), 687–698.
Matsumoto, M., Shirato, H., Mizuno, K., Shijo, R., and Hikida, T. (2008).
“Flutter characteristics of H-shaped cylinders with various side-ratios
and comparisons with characteristics of rectangular cylinders.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 96(6–7), 963–970.
Ruscheweyh, H. (1990). “Practical experiences with wind-induced
vibrations.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 33(1–2), 211–218.
Ruscheweyh, H. (1996). “Vortex-excited vibrations and galloping of
slender elements.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 65(1–3), 347–352.
Simiu, E., and Scanlan, R. H. (1996). Wind effects on structures:
Fundamentals and applications to design, 3rd Ed., Wiley, New York.
“Typhoon Prapiroon blows through Foushan city with strong wind and
rain.” (2006) Foshan Diary, Aug. 4, A4, 〈http://epaper.citygf.com/
szb/history/html/2006-08/04/content_56449.htm〉 (in Chinese).
Ulstrup, C. C. (1980). “Aerodynamic lessons learned from individual
bridge members.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 352(1), 265–281.
 Wardlaw, R. L. (1990). “Wind effects on bridges.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Yu, L., Gu, J., and Wang, Z. (1996). “Experimental study of vortex-induced
Aerodyn., 33(1–2), 301–312. oscillation for the booms on large bridge.” J. Mech. Strength, 18(4), 16–20.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by South China University Of on 08/16/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Xiang, H. F., et al. (1996). Chinese guideline for wind-resistant design of Yu, P., Desai, Y. M., Shah, A. H., Popplewell, N. (1993). “Three-degrees-
highway bridges, China Communications Press, Beijing, China of-freedom model for galloping: formulation and solutions.” J. Eng.
(in Chinese). Mech., 119(12), 2404–2425.

508 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

View publication stats J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:500-508.