Advertisement

Mean wind load induced incompatibility in nonlinear aeroelastic simulations of bridge spans

  • Zhitian ZhangEmail author
Research Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Mean wind response induced incompatibility and nonlinearity in bridge aerodynamics is discussed, where the mean wind and aeroelastic loads are applied simultaneously in time domain. A kind of incompatibility is found during the simultaneous simulation of the mean wind and aeroelastic loads, which leads to incorrect mean wind structural responses. It is found that the mathematic expectations (or limiting characteristics) of the aeroelastic models are fundamental to this kind of incompatibility. In this paper, two aeroelastic models are presented and discussed, one of indicial-function-denoted (IF-denoted) and another of rational-function-denoted (RF-denoted). It is shown that, in cases of low wind speeds, the IF-denoted model reflects correctly the mean wind load properties, and results in correct mean structural responses; in contrast, the RF-denoted model leads to incorrect mean responses due to its nonphysical mean properties. At very high wind speeds, however, even the IF-denoted model can lead to significant deviation from the correct response due to steady aerodynamic nonlinearity. To solve the incompatibility at high wind speeds, a methodology of subtraction of pseudo-steady effects from the aeroelastic model is put forward in this work. Finally, with the method presented, aeroelastic nonlinearity resulted from the mean wind response is investigated at both moderate and high wind speeds.

Keywords

bridge aerodynamics nonlinear aeroelastic model Pseudo-steady mean wind loads 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

For the work described in this paper, the author would like to express his gratitude to the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 51178182 and 51578233).

References

  1. 1.
    Boonyapinyo V, Lauhatanon Y, Lukkunaprasit P. Nonlinear aerostatic stability analysis of suspension bridges. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(5): 793–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang Z T, Ge Y J, Yang Y X. Torsional stiffness degradation and aerostatic divergence of suspension bridge decks. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, 40: 269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang Z T, Ge Y J, Chen Z Q. On the aerostatic divergence of suspension bridges: A cable-length-based criterion for the stiffness degradation. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2015, 52: 118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scanlan R H, Sabzevari A. Experimental Aerodynamic Coefficients in the Analytical Study of Suspension Bridge Flutter. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 1969, 11(3): 234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scanlan R H, Tomko J J. Airfoil and Bridge Deck Flutter Derivatives. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1971, 97(EM6): 1717–1737Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scanlan R H, Béliveau J G, Budlong K S. Indicial aerodynamic functions for bridge decks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1974, 100(EM4): 657–672Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu Y L, Sun D K, Ko J M, Lin J H. Buffeting analysis of long span bridges: a new algorithm. Computers & Structures, 1998, 68(4): 303–313CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cai C S, Albrecht P, Bosch H. Flutter and buffeting analysis. I: Finite-element and RPE solution. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1999, 4(3): 174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katsuchi H, Jones N P, Scanlan R H. Multimode coupled flutter and buffeting analysis of the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1999, 125(1): 60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen X, Matsumoto M, Kareem A. Aerodynamic coupling effects on flutter and buffeting of bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2000, 126(1): 17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones N P, Scanlan R H. Theory and full-bridge modeling of wind response of cable-supported bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2001, 6(6): 365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salvatori L, Borri C. Frequency- and time-domain methods for the numerical modeling of full-bridge aeroelasticity. Computers & Structures, 2007, 85(11-14): 675–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ge Y J, Xiang H F. Computational models and methods for aerodynamic flutter of long-span bridges. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2008, 96(10-11): 1912–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li Q C, Lin Y K. New stochastic theory for bridge stability in turbulent flow. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1995, 121(1): 102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scanlan R H. Motion-related body force functions in twodimensional low-speed flow. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2000, 14(1): 49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang Z T, Chen Z Q, Cai Y Y, Ge Y J. Indicial functions for bridge aero-elastic forces and time-domain flutter analysis. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2011, 16(4): 546–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zasso A, Stoyanoff S, Diana G, Vullo E, Khazem D, Serzan K, Pagani A, Argentini T, Rosa L, Dallaire P O. Validation analyses of integrated procedures for evaluation of stability, buffeting response and wind loads on the Messina Bridge. Journal ofWind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2013, 122: 50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arena A, Lacarbonara W, Valentine D T, Marzocca P. Aeroelastic behavior of long-span suspension bridges under arbitrary wind profiles. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2014, 50: 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scanlan R H. Problematics in formulation of wind-force models for bridge decks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1993, 119(7): 1353–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caracoglia L, Jones N P. Time domain vs. frequency domain characterization of aeroelastic forces for bridge deck sections. Journal ofWind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91(3): 371–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borri C, Costa C, Zahlten W. Non-stationary flow forces for the numerical simulation of aeroelastic instability of bridge decks. Computers & Structures, 2002, 80(12): 1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costa C, Borri C. Application of indicial functions in bridge deck aeroelasticity. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2006, 94(11): 859–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Miranda S, Patruno L, Ubertini F, Vairo G. Indicial functions and flutter derivatives: A generalized approach to the motion-related wind loads. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, 42: 466–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farsani H Y, Valentine D T, Arena A, Lacarbonara W, Marzocca P. Indicial functions in the aeroelasticity of bridge deck. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2014, 48: 203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bucher C G, Lin Y K. Stochastic stability of bridges considering coupled modes. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1988, 114(12): 2055–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cao B, Sarkar P P. Identification of Rational Functions using twodegree-of-freedom model by forced vibration method. Engineering Structures, 2012, 43: 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chowdhury A, Sarkar P P. Experimental identification of rational function coefficients for time-domain flutter analysis. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(9): 1349–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Caracoglia L, Jones N P. A methodology for the experimental extraction of indicial function for streamlined and bluff deck sections. Journal ofWind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91(5): 609–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen X, Kareem A. Nonlinear response analysis of long-span bridges under turbulent winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2001, 89(14-15): 1335–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lazzari M, Vitaliani R V, Saetta A V. Aeroelastic forces and dynamic response of long-span bridges. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 60(6): 1011–1048CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Øiseth O, Rönnquist A, Sigbjörnssön R. Time domain modeling of self-excited aerodynamic forces for cable-supported bridges: A comparative study. Computers & Structures, 2011, 89(13-14): 1306–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wind Engineering Research CenterHunan UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations