Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
J. Rees
Flint&Neill, Gloucestershire, UK
J.Y. Chung
TESolution, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
ABSTRACT: Aeroelastic analysis of a pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge is conducted and
compared with its 2D/3D wind tunnel tests. Flutter derivatives are approximately estimated
from the steady state wind load coefficients obtained from the wind tunnel tests of the 2D section models of the pylon. Since the width of the pylon is varying along the elevation, three different section models are selected as the representative sections of the pylon. Aerodynamic
damping effect is considered by including the Scanlans flutter equation into the system matrix
of the state space equation for the pylon. Spatial coherence of fluctuating wind velocity is modeled with the Karman model, and the effect of the aerodynamic admittance function is considered with the Liepmann model. Aerodynamic stability analysis shows a good agreement with
the wind tunnel test result of the 2D section model. Since the parameters used in this analysis
are obtained from the 2D section model tests, the aerodynamic stability analysis of the 3D pylon
model doesnt match well with the wind tunnel test result of the 3D pylon model. The static and
RMS responses of the pylon from the 2D aeroelastic analysis shows a good agreement with the
2D wind tunnel test results. The aeroelastic analysis results of the 3D pylon model shows a good
agreement with the 3D wind tunnel test results, except the cases where the negative damping effect become dominant. Comparison results show the efficacy of the aeroelastic analysis for the
prediction of the wind responses of the pylon.
1 INTRODUCTION
Pylons of cable-stayed bridges are susceptible to strong wind. During the design process of a
cable-stayed bridge, wind tunnel test of the pylon is conducted to verify the stability against the
strong wind and to identify the excessive vibrations from the fluctuating wind velocity. Aeroelastic analysis can be used to predict the wind responses and the aerodynamic stability of the pylon. Wind-pylon interaction effects can be considered by self-excitation force term from the
Scanlans flutter equation. In this research, the flutter derivatives are approximately evaluated
from the steady state wind load coefficients as follows:
P* 2C
K
D
1
P*
C
K2
3 D
C C K
P*
L
5 D
H* C
C K
D
L
1
*
2
H
C
K
3
L
H * 2C K
L
5
A*
C
K
1 M
A*
C
K2
3 M
A* 2C
K
M
5
(1)
The structure studied in this research is a 125m height pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge.
The width across the bridge is constant with 3.5m (Fig. 1). The width along the bridge is decreasing with the elevation. Two kinds of model are considered, one is a 2D section model with
a constant width and the other one is a 3D free-standing pylon model with the decreasing width
along the elevation of the pylon. Both of the analysis models are constructed based on the
steady state wind load coefficients estimated from the wind tunnel test of the 2D section models.
To consider the 3D effects, 2D section models with three different representative widths are selected and the steady state wind load coefficients are estimated from the 2D wind tunnel tests.
Wind velocity, turbulence intensity, length scale, and power spectral density of the fluctuating
wind speed are modeled through the wind climate analysis (Fig. 2). Two different construction
stages of the pylon are considered: 1) erection stage with free standing pylon, 2) service stage
with connected deck and stay cables. Figure 3 shows the mode shapes of the pylon at the erection stage and service stage. Figure 4 shows the steady state wind load coefficients measured
from the wind tunnel tests of the 2D section models.
Figure 1. Typical section model of the pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge.
Figure 5. Power spectral density of the fluctuating wind velocity in model scale.
(a) zs (smooth)
(b) zs (turbulent)
(c) ys (smooth)
(d) ys (turbulent)
(a) ys (smooth)
(b) ys (turbulent)
(c) yRMS (turbulent)
Figure 7. Static and RMS response of the pylon in service stage (3D model).
4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Aeroelastic analysis of a pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge was conducted and compared
with its 2D/3D wind tunnel tests. Aerodynamic stability analysis results show a good agreement
with the dynamic wind tunnel test results of the 2D section model. However it should be careful
for the application to the 3D model. The static responses of the 2D/3D analysis show a good
agreement with the 2D/3D wind tunnel test results. The RMS response of the 3D aeroelastic
analysis shows a good agreement with the result of the wind tunnel test for the 3D pylon model,
except the cases where the negative damping effects become dominant. Comparison result
shows the efficacy of the aeroelastic analysis for the prediction of the wind responses of the pylon.
Figure 10. Flow pattern obtained from the CFD analysis of the 3D free standing pylon.
REFERENCES
Diana, G., Resta, F., Zasso, A., Belloli, M., Rocchi, D. 2004. Forced motion and free motion aeroelastic
tests on a new concept dynamometric section model of the Messina suspension bridge. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 92: 441-462.
Kim, S.B. & Chung, JY. 2013. Mersey Gateway Bridge Project: Evaluation of Turbulence Spectrum on
the TESolutions Wind-Tunnel for Section Model Test, Samsung C&T.
Melbourne, W.H. 1975. Probability distribution of response of BHP house to wind action and model
comparisons. Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics 1, 167175.
Sangchuwong, P., Yamada, H., Katsuchi, H. 2012. Study on turbulence effects on flow patterns around
rectangular cylinders. Seventh International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics & Applications.
Simiu, E. & Scanlan, R.H. 1996. Wind Effects on Structures: Fundamentals and Applications to Design,
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Strmmen, E. 2010. Theory of Bridge Aerodynamics. Springer.