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. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (3) : 605-617    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-018-0499-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mean wind load induced incompatibility in nonlinear aeroelastic simulations of bridge spans
Zhitian ZHANG()
Wind Engineering Research Center, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
 Download: PDF(2602 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
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     
Corresponding Author(s): Zhitian ZHANG   
Online First Date: 02 July 2018    Issue Date: 05 June 2019
 Cite this article:   
Zhitian ZHANG. Mean wind load induced incompatibility in nonlinear aeroelastic simulations of bridge spans[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 605-617.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-018-0499-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I3/605
load type (I). buffeting load (II). Mean load 1 (III). Mean load 2 (IV). self-excited load
description Eq. (37) L(x)=12ρU2BCL[ α( x)] L*=12ρU2BCL( α0 ) Lse(x,s )=12ρU2B Cl?[s ϕLα(sσ) α(x,σ )dσ+ sϕL h(sσ)h( x,σ)B dσ]
mean properties no mean values depends on initial wind angle of attack and deck rotation depends on initial wind angle of attack Lseα(x)=E[lim?sLseα(x,s)]= 1 2ρU2BCL α|α0?α (x)
nonlinearity linear nonlinear, depend on actual mean wind angle of attack linear Linear, due to fixed CL α
Tab.1  Time-domain expressions for lift
cases Load combination
(I) + (II) + (IV) (I) + (III) + (IV)
small structural deflection incorrect, mean values of IV are double accounted in II applicable
large structural deflection incorrect, mean values of IV are double accounted in (II) results in large error, see Fig. 4 in the manuscript, since in this case CL[α(x)]CL (α 0)+ CLα|α 0? α(x)
compatibility incompatible compatible for small deflection, incompatible for large deflection
Tab.2  Issues arise from load combinations in time-domain simulation
load pattern mean wind loads motion-induced loads steady aerodynamic nonlinearity
without aeroelastic effects Eqs. (15)~ (17) not included complete
RF-denoted model Eqs. (15), (33), (34) Eqs. (11), (12) incorrect
IF-denoted model (method A) Eqs. (15), (33), (34) Eqs. (7), (8) linear
IF-denoted model (method B) Eqs. (15)~ (17) Eqs. (46), (47) complete
Tab.3  Load pattern descriptions
Fig.1  Step response to mean wind loads, U = 30 m/s: (a) Midspan torsional response; (b) Midspan vertical response
Fig.2  Flutter derivatives: fitted versus tested
Fig.3  Step response to mean wind loads, U= 90 m/s: (a) Midspan torsional response; (b) Midspan vertical response
Fig.4  Integrated response to turbulent wind, U= 30 m/s: (a) Midspan vertical oscillation; (b) Midspan torsional oscillation
Fig.5  Torsional time histories at the midspan: (a) mean wind response, U = 30 m/s; (b) mean wind response, U = 80 m/s; (c) buffeting, U = 30 m/s; (d) buffeting, U = 80 m/s; (e) mean wind response plus buffeting, U = 30 m/s; (f) mean wind response plus buffeting, U = 80 m/s; (g) integrated response using method B, U = 30 m/s; (h) integrated response using method B, U = 80 m/s.
Fig.6  Frequency spectrums of the torsional response at midspan: (a) Mean wind response plus buffeting, U = 30 m/s; (b) Integrated response using method B, U = 30 m/s; (c) Mean wind response plus buffeting, U = 80 m/s; (d) Integrated response using method B, U = 80 m/s
wind speed U=30 m/s U= 80 m/s
(1) mean response (a) (b)
+ + +
(2) buffeting (c) (d)
= = =
(3) = (1) + (2) (e) (f)
= or ≠?
(4) integrated response (g) (h)
Tab.4  Relations among Figs. 5 (a) – 5(h)
1 V Boonyapinyo, Y Lauhatanon, P Lukkunaprasit. Nonlinear aerostatic stability analysis of suspension bridges. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(5): 793–803
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.008
2 Z T Zhang, Y J Ge, Y X Yang. Torsional stiffness degradation and aerostatic divergence of suspension bridge decks. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, 40: 269–283
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.05.001
3 Z T Zhang, Y J Ge, Z Q Chen. On the aerostatic divergence of suspension bridges: A cable-length-based criterion for the stiffness degradation. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2015, 52: 118–129
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.10.005
4 R H Scanlan, A Sabzevari. Experimental Aerodynamic Coefficients in the Analytical Study of Suspension Bridge Flutter. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 1969, 11(3): 234–242
https://doi.org/10.1243/JMES_JOUR_1969_011_031_02
5 R H Scanlan, J J Tomko. Airfoil and Bridge Deck Flutter Derivatives. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1971, 97(EM6): 1717–1737
6 R H Scanlan, J G Béliveau, K S Budlong. Indicial aerodynamic functions for bridge decks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1974, 100(EM4): 657–672
7 Y L Xu, D K Sun, J M Ko, J H Lin. Buffeting analysis of long span bridges: a new algorithm. Computers & Structures, 1998, 68(4): 303–313
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(98)00072-8
8 C S Cai, P Albrecht, H Bosch. Flutter and buffeting analysis. I: Finite-element and RPE solution. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1999, 4(3): 174–180
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(1999)4:3(174)
9 H Katsuchi, N P Jones, R H Scanlan. Multimode coupled flutter and buffeting analysis of the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1999, 125(1): 60–70
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:1(60)
10 X Chen, M Matsumoto, A Kareem. Aerodynamic coupling effects on flutter and buffeting of bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2000, 126(1): 17–26
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:1(17)
11 N P Jones, R H Scanlan. Theory and full-bridge modeling of wind response of cable-supported bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2001, 6(6): 365–375
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:6(365)
12 L Salvatori, C Borri. Frequency- and time-domain methods for the numerical modeling of full-bridge aeroelasticity. Computers & Structures, 2007, 85(11-14): 675–687
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.023
13 Y J Ge, H F Xiang. Computational models and methods for aerodynamic flutter of long-span bridges. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2008, 96(10-11): 1912–1924
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.017
14 Q C Li, Y K Lin. New stochastic theory for bridge stability in turbulent flow. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1995, 121(1): 102–116
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:1(102)
15 R H Scanlan. Motion-related body force functions in two-dimensional low-speed flow. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2000, 14(1): 49–63
https://doi.org/10.1006/jfls.1999.0252
16 Z T Zhang, Z Q Chen, Y Y Cai, Y J Ge. Indicial functions for bridge aero-elastic forces and time-domain flutter analysis. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2011, 16(4): 546–557
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000176
17 A Zasso, S Stoyanoff, G Diana, E Vullo, D Khazem, K Serzan, A Pagani, T Argentini, L Rosa, P O Dallaire. Validation analyses of integrated procedures for evaluation of stability, buffeting response and wind loads on the Messina Bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2013, 122: 50–59
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.07.013
18 A Arena, W Lacarbonara, D T Valentine, P Marzocca. Aeroelastic behavior of long-span suspension bridges under arbitrary wind profiles. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2014, 50: 105–119.
19 R H Scanlan. Problematics in formulation of wind-force models for bridge decks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1993, 119(7): 1353–1375
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1993)119:7(1353)
20 L Caracoglia, N P Jones. Time domain vs. frequency domain characterization of aeroelastic forces for bridge deck sections. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91(3): 371–402
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00399-9
21 C Borri, C Costa, W Zahlten. Non-stationary flow forces for the numerical simulation of aeroelastic instability of bridge decks. Computers & Structures, 2002, 80(12): 1071–1079
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00066-4
22 C Costa, C Borri. Application of indicial functions in bridge deck aeroelasticity. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2006, 94(11): 859–881
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2006.06.007
23 S de Miranda, L Patruno, F Ubertini, G Vairo. Indicial functions and flutter derivatives: A generalized approach to the motion-related wind loads. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, 42: 466–487
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.08.009
24 H Y Farsani, D T Valentine, A Arena, W Lacarbonara, P Marzocca. Indicial functions in the aeroelasticity of bridge deck. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2014, 48: 203–215
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.02.015
25 C G Bucher, Y K Lin. Stochastic stability of bridges considering coupled modes. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1988, 114(12): 2055–2071
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1988)114:12(2055)
26 B Cao, P P Sarkar. Identification of Rational Functions using two-degree-of-freedom model by forced vibration method. Engineering Structures, 2012, 43: 21–30
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.003
27 A Chowdhury, P P Sarkar. Experimental identification of rational function coefficients for time-domain flutter analysis. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(9): 1349–1364
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.019
28 L Caracoglia, N P Jones. A methodology for the experimental extraction of indicial function for streamlined and bluff deck sections. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91(5): 609–636
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00473-7
29 X Chen, A Kareem. Nonlinear response analysis of long-span bridges under turbulent winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2001, 89(14-15): 1335–1350
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(01)00147-7
30 M Lazzari, R V Vitaliani, A V Saetta. Aeroelastic forces and dynamic response of long-span bridges. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 60(6): 1011–1048
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.987
31 O Øiseth, A Rönnquist, R Sigbjörnssön. Time domain modeling of self-excited aerodynamic forces for cable-supported bridges: A comparative study. Computers & Structures, 2011, 89(13-14): 1306–1322
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.03.017
[1] Hamid M. SEDIGHI, Hassen M. OUAKAD. Velocity gradient elasticity for nonlinear vibration of carbon nanotube resonators[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 1520-1530.
[2] Sang I. PARK, Sang-Ho LEE. Heuristic solution using decision tree model for enhanced XML schema matching of bridge structural calculation documents[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 1403-1417.
[3] Hanli WU, Hua ZHAO, Jenny LIU, Zhentao HU. A filtering-based bridge weigh-in-motion system on a continuous multi-girder bridge considering the influence lines of different lanes[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1232-1246.
[4] Aydin SHISHEGARAN, Behnam KARAMI, Timon RABCZUK, Arshia SHISHEGARAN, Mohammad Ali NAGHSH, Mohammreza MOHAMMAD KHANI. Performance of fixed beam without interacting bars[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1180-1195.
[5] Zhongwei ZHAO, Miao LIU, Haiqing LIU, Bing LIANG, Yongjing LI, Yuzhuo ZHANG. Pull-through capacity of bolted thin steel plate[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1166-1179.
[6] Jianling HOU, Weibing XU, Yanjiang CHEN, Kaida ZHANG, Hang SUN, Yan LI. Typical diseases of a long-span concrete-filled steel tubular arch bridge and their effects on vehicle-induced dynamic response[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 867-887.
[7] Shahaboddin SHAMSHIRBAND, Amir MOSAVI, Timon RABCZUK. Particle swarm optimization model to predict scour depth around a bridge pier[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 855-866.
[8] Wei HUANG, Minshan PEI, Xiaodong LIU, Ya WEI. Design and construction of super-long span bridges in China: Review and future perspectives[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 803-838.
[9] Alireza ARABHA NAJAFABADI, Farhad DANESHJOO, Hamid Reza AHMADI. Multiple damage detection in complex bridges based on strain energy extracted from single point measurement[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 722-730.
[10] Sajad JAVADINASAB HORMOZABAD, Amir K. GHORBANI-TANHA. Semi-active fuzzy control of Lali Cable-Stayed Bridge using MR dampers under seismic excitation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 706-721.
[11] Elmira SHOUSHTARI, M. Saiid SAIIDI, Ahmad ITANI, Mohamed A. MOUSTAFA. Pretest analysis of shake table response of a two-span steel girder bridge incorporating accelerated bridge construction connections[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 169-184.
[12] Hai-Bin MA, Wei-Dong ZHUO, Davide LAVORATO, Camillo NUTI, Gabriele FIORENTINO, Giuseppe Carlo MARANO, Rita GRECO, Bruno BRISEGHELLA. Probabilistic seismic response and uncertainty analysis of continuous bridges under near-fault ground motions[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1510-1519.
[13] Tugrul TALASLIOGLU. Optimal dome design considering member-related design constraints[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1150-1170.
[14] Mingjie ZHANG, Fuyou XU. Variational mode decomposition based modal parameter identification in civil engineering[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1082-1094.
[15] Qingtian SU, Changyuan DAI, Xu JIANG. Bending performance of composite bridge deck with T-shaped ribs[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 990-997.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed