Effects of air relief openings on the mitigation of solitary wave forces on bridge decks

  • Sheng-chao Xiao (肖圣超)
  • An-xin Guo (郭安薪)Email author


For inverted T-type bridge decks, air entrapped in the chambers between adjacent girders could increase wave forces and lead to the destruction of bridge decks. This study presents the effects of air relief openings (ARO) on the mitigation of solitary wave-induced forces on bridge decks. Hydrodynamic experiments were conducted for three inverted T-type decks with four, five, and six girders with different wave properties and deck clearances. The open source computational fluid dynamics toolbox OpenFOAM was adapted to provide numerical insight into the effects of AROs. Since the numerical results correlate well with the measurements, the mechanism of wave-structure interaction is presented by the numerical flow fields. Furthermore, the relationship between the shape and volume of an ARO and wave forces on bridge decks, together with the importance of each ARO in the effect of wave force mitigation, was also presented from the numerical results of OpenFOAM. Experimental and numerical results demonstrated that AROs could effectively reduce the vertical wave forces on bridge decks significantly. The effects of AROs increased with increasing volume of the ARO, while the shape of the ARO had no effect on the reduction of wave forces.

Key words

Air entrapped hydrodynamic experiment solitary wave forces bridge decks OpenFOAM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Meng Y. Q., Chen G. P., Yan S. C. et al. An experimental study of impact loading on deck of shore-connecting jetties exposed to oblique waves and current [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2014, 26(2): 216–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Fang Q. H., Hong R. C., Guo A. X. et al. Analysis of hydrodynamic forces acting on submerged decks of coastal bridges under oblique wave action based on potential flow theory [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2018, 169: 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Ding Z., Wang G., Bing R. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of wave slamming on an open structure [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 2012, 24(4): 526–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Xu G., Cai, C. Wave forces on Biloxi bay bridge decks with inclinations under solitary waves [J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2014, 29(6): 4014150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bradner C., Schumacher T. Cox D. et al. Experimental setup for a large-scale bridge superstructure model subjected to waves [J]. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2011, 137(1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Mcpherson R.L. Hurricane induced wave and surge forces on bridge decks [D]? Kingsville, USA: Texas A&M University, 2008.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Cuomo G., Shimosako K., Takahashi S. Wave in deck loads on coastal bridges and the role of air [J]. Coastal Engineering, 2009, 56(8): 793–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Azadbakht M., Yim S. C. Simulation and estimation of tsunami loads on bridge superstructures [J]. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2014, 141(2): 04014031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Azadbakht M., Yim S. C. Effect of trapped air on wave forces on coastal bridge superstructures [J]. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy, 2016, 2(2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Bozorgnia M., Lee J., Raichlen F. Wave structure interaction: role of entrapped air on wave impact and uplift forces [C]. Coastal Engineering Proceedings, Shanghai, China, 2006, 1(32): 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Hayatdavoodi M., Seiffert B., Ertekin R. C. Experiments and computations of solitary-wave forces on a coastal-bridge deck. Part II: deck with girders [J]. Coastal Engineering, 2014, 88(6): 210–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Seiffert B. R., Ertekin R. C., Robertson I. N. Effect of entrapped air on solitary wave forces on a coastal bridge deck with girders [J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2015, 21(2): 04015036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Xu G., Cai C., Hu, P. et al. Component level–based assessment of the solitary wave forces on a typical coastal bridge deck and the countermeasure of air venting holes [J]. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 2016, 04016012.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Bricker J.D., Nakayama A. Contribution of trapped air, deck superelevation, and nearby structures to bridge deck failure during a tsunami [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2014, 140(5): 05014002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Goring D., Raichlen F. The generation of long waves in the laboratory [C]. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., ASCE, 1980, 1(17): 763–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Jacobsen N.G., Fuhrman D. R., Fredsøe J. A Wave generation toolbox for the open-source CFD library: Openfoam® [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2012, 70(9): 1073–1088.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Seiffert B., Hayatdavoodi M., Ertekin, R.C. Experiments and computations of solitary-wave forces on a coastal-bridge deck. Part I: flat plate [J]. Coastal Engineering, 2014, 88(6): 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rusche H. Computational fluid dynamics of dispersed two-phase flows at high phase fractions [D]. London, UK: Imperial College London, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    The OpenFOAM® Foundation. The open source CFD toolbox of OpenFOAM: user guider [M]. OpenCFD Limited, 2015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© China Ship Scientific Research Center 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheng-chao Xiao (肖圣超)
    • 1
    • 2
  • An-xin Guo (郭安薪)
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Ministry-of-Education Key Laboratory of Structural Dynamic Behavior and Control, School of Civil EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations