Journal Home Online First Current Issue Archive For Authors Journal Information 中文版

Engineering >> 2017, Volume 3, Issue 6 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2017.11.008

A Comparative Assessment of Aerodynamic Models for Buffeting and Flutter of Long-Span Bridges

a Research Training Group 1462, Bauhaus-University Weimar, Weimar 99423, Germany
b Chair of Modeling and Simulation of Structures, Bauhaus-University Weimar, Weimar 99423, Germany

Received: 2017-06-15 Revised: 2017-08-21 Accepted: 2017-11-30 Available online: 2017-12-30

Next Previous

Abstract

Wind-induced vibrations commonly represent the leading criterion in the design of long-span bridges. The aerodynamic forces in bridge aerodynamics are mainly based on the quasi-steady and linear unsteady theory. This paper aims to investigate different formulations of self-excited and buffeting forces in the time domain by comparing the dynamic response of a multi-span cable-stayed bridge during the critical erection condition. The bridge is selected to represent a typical reference object with a bluff concrete box girder for large river crossings. The models are viewed from a perspective of model complexity, comparing the influence of the aerodynamic properties implied in the aerodynamic models, such as aerodynamic damping and stiffness, fluid memory in the buffeting and self-excited forces, aerodynamic nonlinearity, and aerodynamic coupling on the bridge response. The selected models are studied for a windspeed range that is typical for the construction stage for two levels of turbulence intensity. Furthermore, a simplified method for the computation of buffeting forces including the aerodynamic admittance is presented, in which rational approximation is avoided. The critical flutter velocities are also compared for the selected models under laminar flow.

SupplementaryMaterials

Figures

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

References

[ 1 ] Morgenthal G, Yamasaki Y. Behaviour of very long cable-stayed bridges during erection. Proc Inst Civ Eng—Bridge Eng 2010;163(4):213–24. link1

[ 2 ] Scanlan RH. The action of flexible bridges under wind, I: Flutter theory. J Sound Vib 1978;60(2):187–99. link1

[ 3 ] Scanlan RH. The action of flexible bridges under wind, II: buffeting theory. J Sound Vib 1978;60(2):201–11. link1

[ 4 ] Davenport AG. The response of slender, line-like structures to a gusty wind. Proc Inst Civ Eng 1962;23(3):389–408. link1

[ 5 ] Diana G, Bruni S, Cigada A, Collina A. Turbulence effect on flutter velocity in long span suspended bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 1993;48(2–3):329–42. link1

[ 6 ] Chen XZ, Kareem A. Advances in modeling of aerodynamic forces on bridge decks. J Eng Mech 2002;128(11):1193–205. link1

[ 7 ] Ge YJ, Xiang HF. Computational models and methods for aerodynamic flutter of long-span bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2008;96(10–11):1912–24. link1

[ 8 ] Morgenthal G, Corriols AS, Bendig B. A GPU-accelerated pseudo-3D vortex method for aerodynamic analysis. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2014;125:69–80. link1

[ 9 ] Larsen A, Walther JH. Aeroelastic analysis of bridge girder sections based on discrete vortex simulations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 1997;67–68:253–65. link1

[10] Kovacs I, Svensson HS, Jordet E. Analytical aerodynamic investigation of cable- stayed Helgeland Bridge. J Struct Eng 1992;118(1):147–68. link1

[11] Borri C, Costa C. Quasi-steady analysis of a two-dimensional bridge deck element. Comput Struct 2004;82(13–14):993–1006. link1

[12] Scanlan RH, B’eliveau JG, Budlong KS. Indicial aerodynamic functions for bridge decks. J Eng Mech 1974;100:657–72. link1

[13] Caracoglia L, Jones NP. Time domain vs. frequency domain characterization of aeroelastic forces for bridge deck sections. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2003;91 (3):371–402. link1

[14] Chen XZ, Matsumoto M, Kareem A. Time domain flutter and buffeting response analysis of bridges. J Eng Mech 2000;126(1):7–16. link1

[15] Wilde K, Fujino Y, Masukawa J. Time domain modeling of bridge deck flutter. J Struct Mech Earthquake Eng 1996;13(2):19–30. link1

[16] Øiseth O, Rönnquist A, Sigbjörnsson R. Simplified prediction of wind-induced response and stability limit of slender long-span suspension bridges, based on modified quasi-steady theory: a case study. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2010;98 (12):730–41. link1

[17] Chen XZ, Kareem A. Advanced analysis of coupled buffeting response of bridges: a complex modal decomposition approach. Probabilist Eng Mech 2002;17(2):201–13. link1

[18] Chen XZ, Kareem A. Nonlinear response analysis of long-span bridges under turbulent winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2001;89(14–15):1335–50. link1

[19] Diana G, Rocchi D, Argentini T. An experimental validation of a band superposition model of the aerodynamic forces acting on multi-box deck sections. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2013;113:40–58. link1

[20] Diana G, Resta F, Rocchi D. A new numerical approach to reproduce bridge aerodynamic non-linearities in time domain. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2008;96 (10–11):1871–84. link1

[21] Diana G, Rocchi D, Argentini T, Muggiasca S. Aerodynamic instability of a bridge deck section model: linear and nonlinear approach to force modeling. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2010;98(6–7):363–74. link1

[22] Wu T, Kareem A. A nonlinear convolution scheme to simulate bridge aerodynamics. Comput Struct 2013;128:259–71. link1

[23] Petrini F, Giuliano F, Bontempi F. Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability in long span suspension bridges. Comput Struct 2007;85(11–14):1032–48. link1

[24] Salvatori L, Borri C. Frequency- and time-domain methods for the numerical modeling of full-bridge aeroelasticity. Comput Struct 2007;85(11– 14):675–87. link1

[25] Lazzari M. Time domain modelling of aeroelastic bridge decks: a comparative study and an application. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2005;62(8):1064–104. link1

[26] Wu T, Kareem A. Revisiting convolution scheme in bridge aerodynamics: comparison of step and impulse response functions. J Eng Mech 2014;140 (5):1–13. link1

[27] Lazzari M, Vitalini RV, Saetta AV. Aeroelastic forces and dynamic response of long-span bridges. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2004;60(6):1011–48. link1

[28] Øiseth O, Rönnquist A, Sigbjörnsson R. Time domain modeling of self-excited aerodynamic forces for cable-supported bridges: a comparative study. Comput Struct 2011;89(13–14):1306–22. link1

[29] Wu T, Kareem A. Bridge aerodynamics and aeroelasticity: a comparison of modeling schemes. J Fluid Struct 2013;43:347–70. link1

[30] Katsuchi H, Jones NP, Scanlan RH, Akiyama H. Multi-mode flutter and buffeting analysis of the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 1998;77– 78:431–41. link1

[31] Abbas T, Kavrakov I, Morgenthal G. Methods for flutter stability analysis of long-span bridges: A review. Bridge Eng 2017;170(4):271–310. link1

[32] Tubino F. Relationships among aerodynamic admittance functions, flutter derivatives and static coefficients for long-span bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2005;93(12):929–50. link1

[33] Argentini T, Rocchi D, Muggiasca S, Zasso A. Cross-sectional distributions versus integrated coefficients of flutter derivatives and aerodynamic admittances identified with surface pressure measurement. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2012;104–106:152–8. link1

[34] Diana G, Bruni S, Cigada A, Zappa E. Complex aerodynamic admittance function role in buffeting response of a bridge deck. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2002;90(12–15):2057–72. link1

[35] Larose GL. Experimental determination of the aerodynamic admittance of a bridge deck segment. J Fluid Struct 1999;13(7–8):1029–40. link1

[36] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. 4th ed. London: Pearson; 2011.

[37] Chen ZQ, Han Y, Hua XG, Luo YZ. Investigation on influence factors of buffeting response of bridges and its aeroelastic model verification for Xiaoguan Bridge. Eng Struct 2009;31(2):417–31. link1

[38] Chen XZ, Kareem A. Aeroelastic analysis of bridges under multicorrelated winds: integrated state-space approach. J Eng Mech 2001;127(11):1124–34. link1

[39] Morgenthal G. Aerodynamic analysis of structures using high-resolution vortex particle methods [dissertation]. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; 2002. link1

[40] Scanlan RH. Motion-related body-force functions in two-dimensional low- speed flow. J Fluid Struct 2000;14(1):49–63. link1

[41] Ding QS, Zhu LD, Xiang HF. An efficient ergodic simulation of multivariate stochastic processes with spectral representation. Probabilist Eng Mech 2011;26(2):350–6. link1

[42] Solari G, Piccardo G. Probabilistic 3D turbulence modeling for gust buffeting of structures. Probabilist Eng Mech 2001;16(1):73–86. link1

[43] Ge YJ, Tanaka H. Aerodynamic flutter analysis of cable-supported bridges by multi-mode and full-mode approaches. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2000;86(2– 3):123–53. link1

[44] Larsen A, Walther JH. Discrete vortex simulation of flow around five generic bridge deck sections. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 1998;72–78:591–602. link1

[45] Matsumoto M, Daito Y, Yoshizumi F, Ichikawa Y, Yabutani T. Torsional flutter of bluff bodies. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 1997;69–71:871–82. link1

Related Research