Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-968

2018 Impact Factor: 1.272

Front Arch Civil Eng Chin    2011, Vol. 5 Issue (4) : 510-517    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-011-0129-3
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Aerodynamic interference effects and mitigation measures on vortex-induced vibrations of two adjacent cable-stayed bridges
Xiaoliang MENG1(), Ledong ZHU1,2, Zhenshan GUO1,2
1. State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China; 2. Key Laboratory for Wind Resistance Technology of Bridges, Department of Bridge Engineering, Shanghai 200092, China
 Download: PDF(704 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

By examining the two neighboring Haihe Bridges with semi- and full-closed bridge decks, the aerodynamic interference between the two decks on the vortex-induced vibration (VIV) and the corresponding aerodynamic mitigation measures are investigated via a series of wind tunnel tests with a spring-suspended sectional model aided with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method. The results show that the VIV responses of both bridges can be significantly affected by the aerodynamic interference and that the extent of the influence varies with the shapes of the windward and leeward decks. The VIV amplitudes of the windward bridge are often fairly close to those of the single bridge. However, those of the leeward bridge are magnified substantially by aerodynamic interference if the same structural and aerodynamic configurations are adopted for the two bridges. Otherwise, the VIV responses are not significantly increased and may even be reduced by the aerodynamic interference if different configurations are employed for the two bridges. Furthermore, an effective combined measure of adding wind barriers and sharpening the wind fairing noses of the two box decks is presented for mitigating both the vertical and torsional VIV responses of the windward and leeward bridges.

Keywords separated parallel decks      vortex-induced vibration, aerodynamic interference, aerodynamic mitigation measure, semi-closed box deck, full-closed box deck     
Corresponding Author(s): MENG Xiaoliang,Email:xiaoliang678324@163.com   
Issue Date: 05 December 2011
 Cite this article:   
Xiaoliang MENG,Ledong ZHU,Zhenshan GUO. Aerodynamic interference effects and mitigation measures on vortex-induced vibrations of two adjacent cable-stayed bridges[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(4): 510-517.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-011-0129-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2011/V5/I4/510
Fig.1  Layouts of the existing Haihe Bridge and the new Haihe Bridge (unit: m)
Fig.2  Deck configurations of the existing bridge and the new bridge of Plan B (unit: m)
parametersexisting bridgenew bridge
m/(kg·m-1)1702018240
Jm/(kg·m2/m)873700906800
fv/Hz0.38350.3858
ft/Hz1.11031.4502
ξ/%0.50.5
Tab.1  Modal properties of the existing and new bridges
Fig.3  Sectional model in wind tunnel
Fig.4  VIV amplitudes vs. wind speed. (a) Vertical response of VIV; (b) torsional response of VIV
Fig.5  Maximal VIV amplitudes of the existing and new bridges. (a) Vertical VIV amplitudes; (b) torsional VIV amplitudes
Fig.6  Wind barrier shield (unit: mm)
Fig.7  Existing Br. Fairing
Fig.8  New Br. Fairing
Case No.fairing nose anglewind barrierspositionymax/mθmax/deg
existing bridgenew bridgewindwardleewardexisting bridgenew bridgeexisting bridgenew bridge
Case 380.5°80.5°nonew bridgeexisting bridge0.1250.0900.1710.304
Case 4existing bridgenew bridge0.1080.0630.388-
Case 580.5°40°yesnew bridgeexisting bridge0.1350.109
Case 6existing bridgenew bridge0.0940.085
Case 740°40vyesnew bridgeexisting bridge0.0540.074
Case 8existing bridgenew bridge0.2780.371
Case 970°40°yesnew bridgeexisting bridge0.0450.021
Case 10existing bridgenew bridge0.0660.065
Tab.2  Cases of wind tunnel tests for VIV mitigation
Fig.9  Vertical VIV responses of the two decks with mitigation countermeasures. (a) New bridge on windward side; (b) existing bridge on the windward side
Fig.10  Maximum vertical VIV responses of the decks in the presence of mitigation measures
Fig.11  Flow pattern around semi-closed box
Fig.12  Flow pattern around fully closed box
Fig.13  Flow pattern around double semi-closed decks
1 Kimura K, Shima K, Sano K, Kubo Y, Kato K, Ukon H. Effects of separation distance on wind-induced response of parallel box girders. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics , 2008, 96(6-7): 954-962
doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2007.06.021
2 Guo Z S, Meng X L, Zhou Q, Zhu L D. Aerodynamic interference effects of an existed bridge on aerodynamic coefficients of an adjacent new bridge. Engineering Mechanics , 2010, 27(9): 181-186 (in Chinese)
3 Honda A, Shiraishi N, Matsumoto M, Fuse Y, Sumi K, Sasaki N. Aerodynamic stability of Kansai International Airport access bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics , 1993, 49(1-3): 533-542
doi: 10.1016/0167-6105(93)90047-R
4 Larsen S V, Astiz M A, Larose G L. Aerodynamic interference between two closely spaced cable supported bridges. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications. Bochum , 2000, 33-37
5 Stoyanoff S, Kelly D, Irwin P, Bryson J, Abrahams M. Aerodynamic stability and wind loads of the Cooper River bridge replacement. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering. Rubbock , 2003, 147-154
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed