JOURNALOF

Mll =lgbc,
Journal of Wind Engineering ~ ~ i ~ g
ELSEVIER and Industrial Aerodynamics 59 (1996) 159-175

Aerodynamic damping of prisms

Masaru Matsumoto
Department of Civil Engineering, Kyoto University. YoshidaHonmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606, Japan

Abstract

This paper describes the aerodynamic damping of two-dimensional (2-D) rectangular prisms
in smooth flow, which characterizes the aerodynamic instability, mainly torsional flutter or
coupled flutter. Their generation mechanisms, in particular, are discussed on the basis of
aerodynamic derivatives, obtained from the unsteady pressure measurement under the IDOF
heaving/torsional forced vibration.

Keywords: Aerodynamic damping; Aerodynamic derivatives; Aerodynamic instability;

Complex eigenvalue analysis; Coupled flutter; Rectangular prisms; Torsional flutter

1. Introduction

The elongation of span length of bridge structures or the increase of height of

tall buildings and towers makes the designers more concerned on their aero-
dynamic instability problems than before. The major problem is how to suppress the
catastrophic aerodynamic vibration induced by strong wind, such as galloping,
torsional flutter or coupled flutter. The accurate apprehension on these vibration
mechanisms is essentially important to aerodynamically stabilize them. This paper
aims to make a brief explanation of the aerodynamic damping characteristics of 2-D
rectangular prisms with various side ratios, BID (B is the longitudinal length of the
prism and D the height of prism), in relation to the torsional flutter and the coupled
flutter.

2. Classification of aerodynamic instability of bluff body

Bluff body aerodynamics are characterized by the flow pattern around the body,
such as flow separation, flow reattachment, formation of vortices and so on. Espe-
cially, it has being clarified that the vortex generation plays an important role not only
on vortex-induced vibration but on galloping and torsional flutter. Based on a num-
ber of wind tunnel tests, the bluff body aerodynamics are classified into various

0167-6105/96/$15.00 (~'? 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII S0 1 6 7 - 6 1 05 ( 9 6 ) 0 0 0 0 5 - 0
160 M. Matsumoto/J. 147ndEng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175

I 2D Vortex L_.IKarmanVorlex- I
] [ InducedExcitation]
,3 2 s h ~ ~ y ~ 0 . J . ~ f f ~
[Instability
'~ 'I~3D Vo~t~ 1.-3 High S~d Vo~t~x-I
I Shedding [ [ InducedExcitation [
]y~now -
reattachment ~
LJ ,

'Ill ~w
Quasi-steadyI
I

Flow- 2 Sheartaye~s'[ ] KarmanVortex- [

SeparationH Instability ] ~ InducedExcitationI
Low SpeedTorsional[
Flutter [
Flow- t Instability
t ShearLayer ]
Reatlachment ] Motion-Induced
VortexExcitation]
,_..___~ FEghSpeedTorsionalI
I I I nu"~ I
Unsteady Flow~ "
' [ ! CoupledHutler[

[ NOnseparationFlO~--~Unsteady
w- Flow] [ CoupledFlutter]

Fig. 1. Bluffbody aerodynamics.

aerodynamic phenomena as shown in Fig. 1. The vortex-induced vibration is classi-

fied into two different types, that is the two shear-layers instability type and the one
shear layer instability type, the former of which is "Karman vortex shedding excita-
tion" and the later is "motion-induced vortex excitation" I-1-3]. Galloping is also
classified into "low speed galloping" and "high speed galloping" [4]. Furthermore,
torsional flutter is also classified into "low speed torsional flutter" and "high speed
torsional flutter" [5]. The mechanism of high speed torsional flutter is just identical to
the one of the coupled flutter, both of which are generated by the unsteady local
separation bubble on the side surface near leading edge [6]. This paper describes the
torsional flutter and the coupled flutter of 2-D rectangular prisms, and the other
vortex-induced vibration and galloping will be explained in the future.

3. Wind tunnel experiments

The unsteady pressure of 2-D rectangular prisms with various side-ratios B/ D from
1 to 20 are measured in smooth flow by the heaving/torsional 1DOF forced vibration
method. The forced vibration system and the model sections are shown in Fig. 2. The
section of wind tunnel has a height of 1.0 m and width of 0.7 m.
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159 175 161

a
n MOTOR 10~=. ...... 200........ -] B/D=-20
13.3~1 ................... I B/D=-15
187.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B/D--12.S
.t'- 200 L~
I SUiPORT 2oli-' ..................
22.5T1
I B/D=-~0
] B/D--8

TRANSMISSION TRANSMISROD
ROD SION 150

50 B/D=I f..........;'"~ B/D=2

(mm)

Fig. 2. (a) Forced vibration system. (b) Model sections.

rlr~onal Motion

Wind "~ Wind

tp Heaving Motion

Fig. 3. Unsteady pressure characteristics.

4. Unsteady pressure characteristics

The normalized amplitude and phase difference of unsteady pressure synchronized

to the prism-heaving/torsional motion are expressed by Cv and 0. The unsteady
pressure characteristics are summarized in Fig. 3. The unsteady pressure coefficient,
Cv, which synchronizes with the prism-motion and is reduced by mean pressure, is
normalized by p U 2. The phase difference of pressure, 0, is defined as the lag phase of
negative peak-pressure from the maximum relative angle of attack, defined by ~0m,xfor
torsional motion and (~/U)maxfor heaving motion.
The unsteady pressure for the prisms with B/D larger than 5 shows fundamentally
identical characteristics as shown in Fig. 4; however, the phase difference of the bluffer
prisms with B/D = 3, 5, 8, and 10 at the low wind velocity range shows a different
property from the one at high wind velocity, which implies vortex convection on the
side-surface of the prism.
162 M. Matsumoto".l. W i n d Eng. l n d Aerodvn. 59 (1996) 1 5 9 - 1 7 5

A
r ,,a
L0/ i:U/fB=7.$6 i :U/fB=7.37 :U/fB=7.35
I ~ ~.:U/1~=11.33 '~ ~ U/tB=753 ~ 'V:Olfl~=ll.09 } ~ V:U/I~=I1.22
/ ~ ~ V:U/fl~15.13 i' ~ ~':U/(B=ll.02 i ~ X:U'/I~.--14.SO '

0-0 ~ ..... ~' 0 0~--- -"-w-'.-,,---'~]'~_ 0 0. . . . ~ 0.0"

'<" " ~ '~': ~ ~_L~7/ " " ..... '~1 [. . . . . . ]
(a)B/'D=20 Co)BfD=15 (c)B/D=12.5 (d)B/D=t 0

i '~t:U/fB=7.48 I.~;:U/fB=7.50 7:U/fB=15.00 Cp :U =7 56 'U =18.70

t _zw-, Y:U/[B=I1.22 }V:U/fB=I1 24i":U/fB=lS.78 ~ _" ~ ~
) ~ ~':U/IB=14.96 ~ " ~;U/fB=22.57
0.51-t~:yA[''/O~x-
'~22.46~:U/fB=18"70 0.5i~ 0.5

0'0L
[. . . . . . ] 0.0[. . . . . ] 0[
LE. M.P. #
T.E.

(e)B/D=8 (OB/D=5 (g)B/D=3

[3

90 93 90LV:U/t~=ll.02:u/t~Z2.1l 90lL 2:U_/~_--7.37~:U/tB=1854

V:U/~=ll.090:UII~=22~24 270

(a)B/D=20 (b)B/D=15 (c)B/'D=12.5 (d)B/D=10

$(aes) (b(acg) '(~) :U/B=7.56
-45 180[ ~:U/1~=10.54
0 r "U/t~=14.96
90 45
180 90 0" ~ "

360I-~):U/t.B=22.46 * 180I-<>:U/ff]=22.57 ~e.

(e)B/D=8 (0B/'D=5 (g)B/D=3

Fig. 4. (A) Unsteady pressure coefficients [torsional I DOFL {B/ Phase differences of unsteady pressure
{torsional IDOF).

5. Aerodynamic derivatives and aerodynamic instability

The differential equations of the heaving and torsional 2 D O F are expressed by

eight aerodynamic derivatives, H~', H*, H~, H,~, A ~, A~', A~ and A*, proposed by
Scanlan [7] as follows,

m(q + 2~OltOOlq + o92111) = p(2b)U2(kH~q/U + kH*b~p/U

+ k2H~q~ + k2H*q/b), (1)
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175 163

H01* ....o--.- B/D=-20

-q~--- B/I~-15
I'~
o-.. B/D=20
....
--~,- BID=t5
---o,- B/I~-12.5
60 ---~---B / D = I 2 ~ \ -$- BID=-10
- ~ - B/D=IO / \ -*-- B /D --8
- , ~ - - B/D=8 ,'-, \ -o- B/D=5
40 - - m - BJD=-5
---~ - B/D=-3 / -LI-'. 7- * - - ~' t \ ~- B/D=3
50 -~- B/I~-2
20 B/I~-2 ' / / \ - -,- - B/D=I

-20
,, ~ ~ "~-<"~. .........
-40

-60 '".)K'I'
i i i v L -~"" 7
-800 -50~ ' - ~ '
10 20 U/fB 1~0 20 U/t~B

AI"
40 o---.B/I~-20 -, o---- B/D=20 - - ~ - B/I)=3
-~,-- B/I~-15 --a-- B/D=15 ~ B/D=2
---[z---B/I~-12.5 ---~--- IND=I2.5 - -~- - B/D=I
30 -$--- B/D=10 10 - ~ - B/D=lO
- ~,-- B/D"-8 - * - - l~tD--8
--m-- B/D=5 ..... --~-- IND=5 ~ ~.>a,~'-'-- c~. . . .
20 - - ~ - B/D=3 _~: ....
0

10 , ,, / --,-__,--.
-10
0
V._'..2 -" ~ - - ' ~ - -
/~, -- -20
-10
I / "--

-30 r i p i
-20
' 1'0 ~-- 2~0 UjfB 10 20 U/fB

F i g . 5. A e r o d y n a m i c d e r i v a t i v e s : (a) H * ; (b) H * ; (c) A * ; (d) A * ; (e) H ~ ; (f) H * ; (g) A * ; (h) A * .

10p + 2(o2~0o2~P + ~022q~) = p(2bE)U2(kA~I/U + kA*bq~/U

+ k2A*q~ + k2A*tl/b), (2)
in which, r/and q~ are the heaving and torsional displacements, m and I the mass and
mass inertia per unit length, (ol and (02 the damping ratio of heaving and torsional
vibrations at still air, ~0ol and ~002 the natural circular frequency of heaving and
torsional vibration at still air, p the air density, b the half chord length ( = B/2), U the
wind velocity, k the reduced frequency ( = bo~/U), co the circular frequency at a certain
velocity of U, H *1, H4,
* A2* and A* the non-coupled aerodynamic derivatives and H*,
H*, A~ and A~ the coupled aerodynamic derivatives.
These aerodynamic derivatives are obtained from the unsteady pressure coefficient,
Cp and its phase difference ~, ( = 4JB = q/x),

H* - U 1 C*cos0Bdx, H~ - 2b2o~2 (~*sin~kTdX,

2be0 1 1

(~* cos 0 , dx, H~- (~p sin 0B dx,

H* - 2b2~ z 1 2be~ 1
164 M. Matsumoto/'d. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159 175

f H3*
300 F o.-- B/D=20 ~ - B/D=3
2 ....<2. B/D=20 i- B/D=5 - - ~ - B/D=15 ~ B/D=2 ,-"
I --~--B/D=15 ~ - - B/D=3 200 ---o -- B/I~-12.5- e- B/I~-p /
---~ -- IVD=12.5 + B/D=2 , -4b-- I ~ - 1 0 ~"
1D0 -4~.- B/D=10 - -* B/D=I , - - ~ 2 ;
-"-- B/D=8 _m---.-~~ 100~ __._ B,'D=-S T,~'-~',.. ,'
2"_-- --- ........-o " "

I , -100 ,-__~~t..
-100 i , 't"" -~ ~- "~ -200 F , ",,, "~.~

_200 ~ '' fI ; , v,. \, "q,.

-4000~- 0 "'" :::

-500 , . , , \"i,,~
-300 1() 20 U/fB 1 2 0 UIfB

9 A2" ~'l &"

150 o BED=20 ~ " - B/D=3 200 r o B/D=-20 --m-- B/D=5
--a~-. B/D=15 + WD=2 / ~-- B/I~-15 --~ - B/D=3 //
~--- B/D=12.5- o- - B/D=I / ~~ -. 150 I- m--- BID=12.5~,-- B/D=2 ...-.
-1'-- WD=10 ---- B/D=I ,,~.:
--~- BJD:IO /v 4
100 - - - B/D=8 100 L - ~ - - B/D=8 j,'.~
--i- B/D=5
/'~ . II1"

50 ",/T~

, I ~J
-50 tlL ". -'"~~"~--" "
- \. "'O
0 ........ - : . ~ @ ~ . ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ ....
i~ ......
' -o--~ _ . ~ /.,

'w-- "'o
-150,

;o -200; I'0 2 0L U / f B,

F'ig. 5. C o n t i n u e d .

f U2 S 1
A* - U ' (7*.',cos~Bdx, A* - 2h2(oz C*xsin~bTdX,
2be) 1 - -i

A~- 262co2 1C*xcSOTdX' A*=---2b iC*xsinOBdX'

(3)
where C* is the unsteady pressure coefficient per unit relative angle of attack for
heaving and torsional motion, because ffp is a linear function subject to the relative
angle of attack as shown in Fig. 6.
The eight aerodynamic derivatives of the 2-D rectangular prisms with BID = 1-20
are illustrated in Fig. 5.
The aerodynamic derivatives H'~ and A~' can decide heaving/ torsional 1DOF
instability, respectively. From the H ~' diagram, it is known that the rectangular prisms
with BID = 1 and 2 would show heaving divergent type instability, that is galloping.
On the other hand, the prisms with B/D = 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 should show the torsional
flutter instability, based on their A~' diagrams. However, the prism with BID = 2
shows the particular characteristic of velocity-restricted positive range of A 7, which
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175 165

seems to be the low speed torsional flutter initiated by a kind of vortex generation on
the side-surface of the prism.

6. Dependence of aerodynamic derivatives

The unsteady pressure coefficient (~pis proportional to the magnitude of the relative
angle of attack as shown in Fig. 6. Furthermore, the similarity of unsteady pressure
characteristics per unit angle of attack exists between heaving and torsional motions
which derives the following mutual dependence of aerodynamic derivatives, consider-
ing Eq. (3),

H*=kH*, H*= -kH~, A*=kA~, A*=-kA~. (4)

Besides, because the equivalent Wagner function, which is defined as the

inverse Fourier transformation of the equivalent Theodorsen function constructed
from A* and A* for torsional motion and HI' and H* for heaving motion as
a frequency complex function, should be a real time function, there is another
dependence between two aerodynamic derivatives, that is (A~ and A~') and (HI'
and H*).
Therefore, using Eq. (4) and the above relation based on the equivalent Wagner
problem, the final independent aerodynamic derivatives reduce to two from eight. The
dependence of these aerodynamic derivatives is confirmed for the 2-D rectangular
prisms with larger side ratios than BID = 5, which are less affected by the vortex
generation (see Fig. 7).
The aerodynamic dependence is also confirmed from the flutter property obtained
by the conventional complex eigenvalue analysis for these rectangular prisms. Fig. 8
shows the fairly good agreement in comparison of V-~ diagrams based on eight
aerodynamic derivatives, H*, H*, H*, H*, A*, A*, A* and A*, and only two
independent aerodynamic derivatives, H* and A ~, for 2-D rectangular prisms with
various side-ratios.

C"~nnax
1

0.5
inglDOF
ionallDOF
2~ )
0 015 i 1.5 2 215a (deg')

Fig. 6. Unsteady pressure coefficients and the magnitude of the relative angle of attack (B/D = 20).
166 M. Mamumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodvn, 59 (1996)159 175

a Hl*/k H3* b -H,~*/k H2.

100 100[
t ~-Hd/k
+ H2"
-100 50 ~-

-~'or \
-300 I 0 ~
--o-- H~'/k
-400 ~ Ha"
d I
-5000 5 1~0 1'5 2-0- 25U/fB -5o--~ lo ; ~ 27U/m

c Aa*/k A3* d -A**/k A2*

150 + Al"/k 50
- <~- -A4"/k
t A2*
100 Aa*/ 25 i

5O
/
-25

0 5 10 15 20 25U/IB -50 0 [ ~ 5 . 1'0 1;--20 ~ 25U/fB

H4* f a3"
2F
o.

-4 t " -~---o--_ o-_o'~ ----~

-6~ - - o r ExperimentalData - o
f - o - - Calculatedby H1.
% s lb ;s ~_bu/m 0 5 10 15 20 U/fB
Fie.~ 7. Dependence of thc aerodynamic derivatives (BI). =20): (a) H*, H~; (b) H*._ H*; (c) A*, A*3,
{d) a*, A*: {el H*. g*: (f) A*. A.*.

7. Step-by-step analysis and role of aerodynamic derivatives on aerodynamic

damping

T h e flutter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h a t is the d a m p i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a n d the f r e q u e n c y

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , are o b t a i n e d by the c o m p l e x e i g e n v a l u e analysis, in general. H o w e v e r ,
this m e t h o d c a n n o t give a n y i n f o r m a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l role of a e r o d y n a m i c
 M. Matsumoto/J. WindEng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175 167

B=0.150m,f ;70=4.5I-lz,f~ 0=6.0Hz B=0.150m,f n 0=4.5Hz,f 0=6.0Hz B=0.150m,f n 0=4.5Hz,I '0=6-0Hz

M=0.200kg sZhn~,l=5.0x 10-4kg s2 M=0.200kg ~hn2,]=5.0 x 10"4kg sz M=0.200kg s2hnZ,l=5.0 104kg sz

0.3 ~rivativcs _..8_~_Dcrivatives ,,'~/

'"~'3~"/ l~e~aving AT,'MI* '/ ving
~ 0.2

"~ ~ o P s i o n a l
0.1

0
' ,i ' k ' 'i~\' ~'6 -0.
U/[B U/fl3 U/fB
(a)B/D=20 (b)B/D=15 (c)B/D=12.5

B=0.150m,f n 0=4-SHz,f ,0=6-0Hz B=0.150m,f rt O=4.5Hz,f~ 0=6.0Hz B---l}.150m,fn 0=4.5Hz,f ~0=6.0Hz

M=0.200kg s2/m2,1=5.0 10-'4kg s2 M=0.200kg ~/m2,1=5.0 x 10~kg s2 M=0.200kg s2hnZ,.l=5.0 10"4kg s2
0.] 0.1
- - 8 Derivatives//
_.'T.Derivativcs , / ' 8 I~rivadvc$ / .~ ..... Az'Sll" , ' ~ /
A2",H1" /
~ -~'JW / /
~0.1 ~0.0: / / ~ Heaving
~0.0 '"'"
{
Torsional " ~ L
} y
-0.1. ~ ~ 8 1~2 2 4 6 8
U/fB U/~ U/~B
(d)B/D=10 (c)B/D=8 (0BID=5

Fig. 8. Velocity-damping diagrams by the conventional complex eigenvalue analysis {BID = 20).

derivatives on flutter instability. Thus the iteration method, so-called "step-by-step"

method, has been developed by the author [8]. The flows of the step-by-step method
for heaving and torsional branches are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively, which
can clarify the role of each aerodynamic derivative on the flutter instability.
The aerodynamic logarithmic decrement of heaving branch and torsional branch at
the wind velocity U are finally expressed by various aerodynamic derivatives as
follows:

fib = -- C x H * -- C 1 C z A * H ~ cos01 - C I C z A * H * cos Oz

+ C 1 C z A * H * sin 01 + C x C 2 A * H * sin 02, (5)

fit = -- C4A * -- C 4 C s A ~H* cos 03 - C4CsA *H* cos 04

+ C 4 C s A ~ H ~ sin 03 + C g C s A ~ H ~ sin 04, (6)

where

C1 = (pb2/m)r~, C2 = (pb4/I)(c0/0-)02)2C31/2,

C3 = 2 {1 - ( 0 ) / ( / . ) 0 2 ) 2} q'- 4~22(fD/fD02) 2,
t68 M. Matsumoto/J. V~TndEng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159 175

(pb2/m)o~H~rl+(pbZ/m)(o~H]~l

+
{ (pb3/I)o}FA;q (Pb3/l)c~-A~rl
J
I
~ ~ r'~ . ~ 1(Pba/I)tl:A~-q>4"(Pbi*/I)%~'A3q~

T
I%re~r;n'{ "'2"espn~

i , 1 1
{(p~/m)o.'}l-l;q%,
{

(pb3/m)o~H~t%q~lcos(tab1t-OI)] (pb3/m)tOFH2mnc4~_cos(e%t-02)]

I [(pbS/m)ttH;sin( ,t-02)]
(P~/m)(oFH;('Pl/'q)'ics0 fI (P~/m)(oFH2(~2/~)ncs02
{(Pb3/m)*FH~-t%(~1/Tl'-')qsin0t ] (pb3/m)tFH2~(q~-/rl)rlsin02

(pb31m))~H;(q~I/r})rlcse~
.(pb&m)wmFH3C~P,
l~)(-q/orn
)sin0t
qI :Heavingdisplacementinducedby ~
q2 : Heavingdisplacementinducedby ~
rh : Amplitudeof~lI
Fig, 9. The flows of"the step-by-step method lbr heaving branches.
(Pba/m'))~
FI;({p2/lq)llcc~ae2
""'1
-(pb3/m)o~H3(~Irl--)(rllo~n)sin02
{
~ : Amplitudeof~q2
02 : Phase lag betweenI11or II2 motion and ~ motion
01: Phaselag betweenrllmotionand 9 motion

C4 = (pb~*/l)rc, Cs = {pI92/DIJ(fO/(D()l)2C6 1,2

C, = { 1 -- ({O/{O01)2} 2 + 4~o12{(0/COol)2
01 = 0 T q- 90, 02 ~ 0T, 03 0 B @ 90 . 04 z 0B -~ 1 8 0 .

Os is the phase lag of torsional motion with respect to heaving motion in

the heaving branch at the velocity U, and 0u the phase lag of heaving motion
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159--175 169

l,~; spo~e = " (.,F-o,,) I~'~pns~l

I(~ ~mo~A:.: I
%= 0 -90" 04-0+180" (H;<0)

1~'/~,~'~.~ ~o,.,- 0,)I

I 0~)

(a,'/n,,,,,~'(~,~;~co~o, ]
I(@~/t),o,a,',~.(~,/~),sm O,l (oh3//)~o~oG(~:/qT)OsinO~

(~/O,4A:(~/~7+ cos0, (p/~ ll)oJ~A](~ / ~ c o s 0 4

I(Oh+/t),o~a:(~ ] ~7)( ] %)sin0+

: Torsionaldisplacementinducedby ~2: Amplitude of ~2
Torsionaldisplacementinducedby q 8,. : Phase lag between ~ or ~2 motion and "q motion
tpl : Amplitudeof 01 : Phase lag between ~imotioa and q motion

Fig. 10. The flows of the step-by-step method for torsional branches.

compared to torsional motion in the torsional branch at the velocity

U.
For the torsional branch, the role of each aerodynamic derivative on the aerody-
namic damping changes with the bluffness of prisms is shown in Fig. 11. The increase
of B/D increases the importance of the role of the coupled term of A* and H*. In
another way, the slender prisms with larger BID than 12.5 show coupled
flutter, where the aerodynamic instability is mainly controlled by one major non-
coupled aerodynamic derivative, A*, and two major coupled aerodynamic ones,
170 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodvn. 59 (1996) 159 175

B=0.150m,l ;7 0=4.SHzd ~0=6.0Hz B=0.150m,f 770=4.SHz,f $ 0=6.0Hz

0.75 M=O,200kg s2/mZj=5.0 x l O n g s 2 M=0.200kg " s21m2,1=5.0x 104kg s 2
0.4
I oq) "
(~'~1 "H2"c'5 01 (D~Al~'Cos 0
0.51 ~ (D@-A4"Hz'sl- 0 o (iX~-,~'Hz'sl- 0 ~
(D@-A~3[~'cos 0 .~ 0.2
"~ 0.25

~0.25 -
3 -02
-0.5 ~:(z~b4a) ~r (D:(/~b4/I) ~ "
~:(~ IF/m)(~or-/w ~)~()- n I @:(~/m)(~o~o ,~)~()-~n~*
i~):{l_(COrlfO r/)2}2+4 ~." ~ 2(COda/ p)2 I~):{I-(~F/,a/ r/)2}2+4 ~" ~72(~ F./O.) rt)2
-0.75 5 1'0 13 20 U/fB L '- ~- :b ' --~5 U / m

(a)~/D=20 (b)B/D=15

0.2 [o B---'0.150m,f770=4.SHz,f 0 0=6.0Hz

M=0.200kg sZlm2,1=5.0x 104kg s2
~;l"H2"cos 0 ~

#,(~)-AI "]-~'cos0 2
0.2,
B=O.15Om,In 0=45H.z,f ~ o=6.0Hz
M--0.200kg s2/m2,I=5.0x 10~cg s 2

~][YA,'H~'cos 01
u q.Xy,d-A4"t~Iz'sln0
@-A:g~'oos 0 ~
0.1 o (Dl~A4"l-~'sh~0 ~ 0.1

.~ (~
"-~

.~ -o.: -e=6d
tt i -0.1
ff):(o b~/D I :(~b4/D " :
" @:(~ bz/m)((o F/o~ ~)z()-*t2
:U-(~oF/~o ,y~iz+4 l" ~Z(~oF/~O~)2 i (~):{I_(~OF/( 0 ~7)2}2+4 ~" ~72(0)F,/~0~)2
k___.
. . . . 5-- I0 1~5U/fB o ~ ~ :, ~ io U/m
(c)B/D=12.5 (d)B/D=10

B--0.t5Om,f~ 0=45Hz, f,o=6.0Hz B---0.150m,f~7 O=4.SHz.f ~ O=6.0Hz

M=0.200kg s2/m2,1=5.0x I04kg s2 M--0.200kg s2/~m2,.l=5.0x 104kg s2
0.2
fo ,*,U.U~-A,I-H.~ cos (72
oCA:
= ~q~A:t[z%s 0 ;
o tt,~-A4"I-~'sia01
(D~-A1~'cos O 2
.~ 0.05 0.1 o (D~A4"H3"si- 0 2
eL

,.I
.u 0c

,.-I--o.05. - e - 5~, ,..~-0.!

(D:(o b*/r) ~:(Db4:0 -
@:(o b2/m)( ~or-/~ ~)z()-~
~):{I_(~OF/( 0 ~)2}2+4 ~" 2(~Or_/(~ 7)2 :O_(~F/~ ~)z} +4( ~2(~oF/~ ~)2
4 ~u/fB
(e)B/D=8 (0Bin=5
Fig. 11. The role of each aerodynamic derivative.
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175 17l

A* and H*. On the other hand, bluff prisms with B/D = 5, 8 and 10 show
torsional instability, which is almost controlled only by the non-coupled aerodynamic
derivative, A*.

8. Low speed torsional flutter/high speed torsional flutter and coupled flutter

The phase difference characteristics of unsteady pressure of the prisms with

B/D = 5, 8 and 10 at low velocity range, where torsional flutter occurs, differ from the
others at higher velocity range or obtained for more slender prisms such as
B/D = 12.5, 15 and 20, it implies, in consequence, that a kind of vortex should convect
along the side-surface of prism (see Fig. 4).
Furthermore, the aerodynamic derivative of A ~ for the prism with B/D = 2 shows
positive value at certain restricted velocity range, which means the torsional
response occurs at the restricted velocity range and the response does not appear
outside this particular velocity range. This velocity-restricted torsional response
is similar to the conventional Karman vortex shedding excitation because of the
response-onset velocity nearly equal to the resonance velocity of Karman vortex
shedding; however, the lock-in velocity is surprisingly wide and the response ampli-
tude is extremely large as if of divergent type. Therefore, this particular torsional
response is thought to be a kind of torsional flutter related to vortex shedding, in
which Karman vortex has a certain role more or less, at low speed range, initiated by
the Karman vortex shedding. This response can be almost suppressed by the installa-
tion of a splitter plate in a wake to suppress Karman vortex shedding as shown in
Fig. 12.

A2 ~

100
B/D=2.0 without S.P.
--(7- B/D=2.0 with S.P.

50

.? 0.
'C

I I I I I
-50 0
10 20 U/fB
Fig. 12. Aerodynamic derivative A'~ (B/D = 2).
172 M. Matsumoto/d. Wind Eng. lnd Aerodvn. 59 (1996) 159-175

I
UifB : by Yoshimura et al.
: Resonant Wind Velocity for H-Section
20- Lira
Cyc
~ ~ ~ U n s t a b ; e on~2 D.O.F.
~ t a b l e on 1i D.O.F.)

, ~.- ~ ~ =0.08
~,x~"~ ' ~ - ~ ..4---- 6 =0 0 4
6 =o3o 6
.3.33 ~ '~" ')?,~pl'~~ ~ . . . . - - - ~ , .Crit~lealWind Velocityof Flutter
1.11 . ~ ~ ~ ' by F.B.Farquharson
IJ , B/D
2 '~ 6 8 1'0 1'2 20
Fig. 13. Unstable region for H-section.

The torsional response appearance range of 2-D H-shaped sections with various
side-ratios, B/D, is summarized in Fig. 13 [9]. This figure shows that the torsional
response is a velocity-restricted type for bluff sections with side-ratios smaller than
approximately BID = 4, and the response changes continuously to the divergent type
from the velocity-restricted type with increase of side-ratios up to approximately
BID = 10. But it should be noted that the onset velocity is almost constant, which
completely differs from the reciprocal value of Strouhal number, 1/St. Kubo et al. [10]
reported that the vortex convection should cause the torsional flutter of H-shaped
sections, which corresponds to the velocity-restricted torsional response at low
velocity range in this paper.
Both 2-D rectangular prisms and H-shaped sections with the side-ratios up to
approximately BID = 10 show velocity-restricted torsional response at low velocity
range, and then for sections slender than B/D= 3 or 4 the velocity-restricted response
smoothly changes to the divergent response with increasing velocity. Thus the former
response is called "low speed torsional flutter" and the later one "high speed torsional
flutter" [5].
What kind of vortex excites this low speed torsional flutter? The details are not
currently known but the author suspects that this vortex is generated by torsional
motion at a near leading edge of the prism, which is suitably amplified as the
interaction between Karman vortex shedding as two shear layers instability and
vortex related to one shear layer instability, or certain latent particular Karman
vortex shedding for unsteady bluff body.
The high speed torsional flutter, on the other hand, is caused by the same mecha-
nism as the coupled flutter. The 1DOF torsional flutter is, in general, explained by the
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175 173

(h ( i t )
-180r

21 ~,.
1 ~ ~
.......
B/[~20
BPI~-I5
-9(]

0.6 -- -- - B~123
..... B/I~-I0
0A ..... B/I~-8 ~ 4 2 . - - B/D=20
'~ ,,X .......... B/D=5 9~ ", . .

-----
. . . . . B/D=15
B/D= 12.5
0.~ ..... B/D=10
0.01
..... B/I~--8
.......... B/D=5

(a)U~dy Pressure ~ e ~ c i ~ t ( b ) P h ~ e Difference

Fig. 14. U n s t e a d y pressure distribution (torsional 1 D O F , U/fB = 14.9): (a) u n s t e a d y pressure distribution;
(b) phase difference.

ii

Cp H@ -- B~-20
0.gr - - B/D=~ 0.9f . . . . B/D=15
/ ....... B/D=15 I - ~123
-

I - - - - - ~123 0.6 . . . . ~13~:_~o

0,6~ ..... B~10
m ..... B ~ 8

,,

0"01 .~.~.~A.:.:......... " I - ~ I ......

ii
--0s{ XG i,,i,~ i oly lof t5

i| ii
/
150 r --o-- B/D'~IIi
/ B/D-15
---i:l---~ 1 ~ 5
~10
1~ I --i--
-*'- B/I~5
Ill/D-8 ./ .w'" - #
ll"
i"
Toidoall Flunci .~'"
I i," ~4- ~ S
A*2>0
I

01 "

\ :
-50 1 10 20 UIIB
~iod~.im~
i
dei',Cvii~eA2* A*2<0
Fig. 15. Torsional flutter instability.
174 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Intl. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175

positive value of the aerodynamic derivative A ~. The value of this A * is decided by the
integration of the Cp(x)xsin 0 distribution on the side-surface or the product of the
area of Cp(x)sin 0, which means the value of H*, and the distance from the mid-chord
point to the center of gravity of the distribution of C,(x)sin ~b, where x~ in Fig. 15
indicates the distance of the figure-center from the mid-chord point for the prism with
B/D = 5, as an example. Therefore, the location of the gravity center of t~p(x)sin ~b
upstream or downstream from the mid-chord point decides the sign of A~,
which means the former case corresponds to A * being negative and is aerodynami-
cally stable, and the later case corresponds to A * being positive and is aerodynami-
cally unstable. By the way, the unsteady pressure distribution has fundamentally
identical characteristics as shown in Fig. 14, therefore, the gravity center moves
continuously and gradually from the leading edge side to the trailing edge side. The
gravity center of the prism with B/D= 10 crosses the mid-chord point to the trailing
edge side, that is why the prisms with smaller BID than l0 up to 5 show torsional
flutter instability. This aspect is illustrated in Fig. 15. The mechanism of this torsional
flutter is caused by the local unsteady separation bubble, which corresponds to the
dynamic stall vortex for torsional flutter of the airfoil with a pitching angle reported by
McAlister and Carr [11]. In conclusion, the high speed torsional flutter is funda-
mentally identical to the coupled flutter from the generation mechanism point of view.

9. Conclusion

The conclusions on the aerodynamic damping of 2-D prisms are summarized as

follows:
(i) Eight aerodynamic derivatives have mutual dependence, and only two deriva-
tives are independent.
(ii) Step-by-step method in flutter analysis is useful to understand the role of each
aerodynamic derivative on the total aerodynamic damping.
(iii) This method shows clearly that the non-coupled derivative of A* plays an
important role for torsional flutter, on the other hand, the other two coupled
derivatives of A* and H~' play an essentially important role for the coupled
flutter in addition to this A*.
(iv) The torsional flutter is classified into two different types. One is "low speed
torsional flutter", which is caused by a certain vortex convection along the
prism-surface, and the other is "high speed torsional flutter", which is generated
by the unsteady local separation bubble on the side-surface.
(v) There is no difference of generation mechanism between the high speed tor-
sional flutter and the coupled flutter.

References

[1J s. Komatsu and H. Kobayashi, ,I. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 14 (1980).
[2] Y. Nakamura and M. Nakashima, Fluid Mech. 163 (1986~.
 M. Matsumoto/J. Wind Eng. Ind Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 159-175 175

[3] N. Shiraishi and M. Matsumoto, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 4 (1983).

[4] Y. Nakamura and K. Hirata, in: Proc. Int. Syrup. on Bluff-Body Wakes, Dynamics and Instabilities
(Springer, Berlin, 1992).
[5] M. Matsumoto, J. Jpn. Soc. Fluid Mech. 14(3) (1995) [in Japanese].
[6] M. Matsumoto, Y. Kobayashi and H. Shirato, in: Proc. UK 2nd Wind Conf. (1994).
[7] R.H. Scanlan and J.J. Tomko, J. ASCE, EM6 (1971).
[8] M. Matsumoto, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Niihara, H. Shirato and H. Hamasaki, in: Proc. 9th ICWE (1995).
[9] M. Matsumoto, H. Shirato and S. Hirai, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 687-698.
[10] Y. Kubo, K. Kato and S. Miyachi, in: Proc. 8th National Symp. on Wind Eng. (1984) [in Japanese].
[11] K.W. McAlister and L.W. Carr, J. Fluid Eng. ASME (1979).