Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 36 (1990) 927-936 927

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Wind Analysis of Pipeline Suspension Bridges

Ralph Alan Dusseau*

ABSTRACT
Two pipeline suspension bridges, with main spans of 850 feet
(259.1 meters) and 1008 feet (307.2 meters), were investigated for
wind load responses. Previously published findings indicated that
vortex shedding was the cause of vertical wind oscillations of the
former span which occurred shortly after i t s completion. These
wind oscillations are now prevented by diagonal cable stays that
have substantially increased structure damping. For the l a t t e r
span, which has no diagonal cable stays, the relatively rigid pro-
f i l e of the suspended pipe is the l i k e l y reason why vertical wind
oscillations of this span have not occurred. The responses of new
suspended pipe profiles, which further increase pipe r i g i d i t y and
hence decrease the risk of vertical wind oscillations of pipeline
suspension bridges, are reported here. Additional investigations
of the two original spans and new studies of two other pipeline
suspension bridges are currently being conducted.

INTRODUCTION

Research began at Wayne State University in 1985 on a project

entitled "Dynamic Analysis of Pipeline Suspension Bridges." This
ongoing research, which has been funded by grants from American
Natural Resources (ANR), is now in i t s fourth year. The work
began with a study of two ANR pipeline bridges located in southern
Louisiana near the Gulf of Mexico: the Patterson Loop Aerial
Crossing (PLAC) and the Avalon Extension Aerial Crossing (AEAC).
Previously reported findings of this research (Dusseau & Haddad,
1987) indicated that vortex shedding was the cause of vertical
wind oscillations of the PLACwhich occurred in steady winds of 5-
to 8-mph (8.0- to 12.g-kph) shortly after i t s completion in 1975.
These oscillations were in the form of a three-node or three-
segment motion which resembles 1½ sine waves. The subsequent
installation of diagonal cable stays has substantially increased
structure damping thus preventing further wind oscillations.
These results agree in large measure with the findings pertaining
to similar wind oscillations and diagonal cable r e t r o f i t t i n g of
the Coosa River Bridge in Clayton, Alabama (Steinman, 1952).

*Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Wayne State University,

Detroit, MI 48202, U.S.A.

0167-6105/90/$03.50 ©1990---Elsevier Science PublishersB.V.

928

Subsequent study findings indicated that the relatively rigid

pipe profile of the AEAC suspended pipe is the l i k e l y reason why
this span, which has no diagonal cable stays, has never been
observed to oscillate vertically in steady winds (Dusseau, et.al,
1988). In the present paper, recent findings pertaining to new
suspended pipe profiles, which further increase pipe r i g i d i t y and
hence reduce the likelihood of vertical wind oscillations of
pipeline suspension bridges, are presented. These proposed pipe
profiles could be used to obviate wind oscillations in new or
existing pipeline suspension bridges.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSEDPIPE PROFILES

As noted by David Steinman (Steinman, 1945), the structural
damping of a suspension bridge is directly related to the r i g i d i t y
of the suspended deck. In the case of a pipeline suspension
bridge, the deck is represented by the suspended pipe. The
equation presented by Steinman for determining the r i g i d i t y of a
suspended deck or pipe under a vertical sine-wave motion is as
follows:
K = 1.27 / [5 (L/n)4/ (384EI)] (1)

where L is the length of the suspended pipe, n is the number of

segments in the sine-wave motion, E is Young's modulus for the
pipe, and I is the moment of inertia of the pipe. The bracketed
term in the denominator of Equation 1 represents the maximum ver-
tical translation of a simply-supported beam of length L/n under
uniform unit loading. Thus for the three-segment motion that was
observed in the case of the PLAC, the denominator of Equation I
implies that the motion of the PLAC suspended pipe w i l l resemble
three simply-supported segments of pipe each with length L/3 and
with the middle segment moving equal but opposite to the two end
segments. While this assumption may be valid for the continuous
steel truss deck of a vehicular suspension bridge, because of the
unique and relatively rigid profile at the ends of suspended
pipes, this assumption is not accurate for a pipeline suspension
bridge.

Existin~ Profiles
The existing profile of the PLAC suspended pipe is shown in
Figure 1, while Figure 2 depicts the AEAC suspended pipe profile.

Fig. 1. Patterson Loop Aerial Crossing Suspended Pipe Profile

 929

Fig. 2. Avalon Extension Aerial Crossing Suspended Pipe Profile

The PLAC profile is characterized by a vertical curve with a

radius of approximately 5000 feet (1524 meters) ending in 60-foot
(18.3-meter) vertical sections at each end. The length of the
PLAC suspended pipe is 898 feet (273.7 meters) with the 850-foot
(259.l-meter) main span measured between the steel support towers.
In constrast, the AEAC suspended pipe has a f l a t profile over the
middle two-thirds of the span with much sharper 500-foot (152.4-
meter) radius vertical curves and lO-foot (3.05-meter) vertical
sections at each end. Previous study results (Dusseau e t . a l . ,
1988) indicated that the profile of the AEAC suspended pipe is
approximately twice as rigid as the PLAC pipe profile. Thus, the
AEAC suspended pipe profile was used as the starting point for
deriving new and potentially more rigid pipe profiles for pipeline
suspension bridges, such as the PLAC, that are prone to vertical
wind oscillations.

Proposed Pipe Profiles

Seven proposed profiles were applied to the PLAC suspended

pipe resulting in seven unique finite-element computer models.
All of these proposed pipe profiles included a region in the
center of the span where the suspended pipe was modeled as flat.
This region covered a distance of 566.7 feet (172.7 meters) which
is 66.7% of the PLACmain span length. Vertical curves began at
each end of this middle region and terminated with vertical end
sections which were 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 or 0 feet (18.29,
15.24, 12.19, 9.14, 6.10, 3.05 or 0.00 meters) in height. These
vertical curves are illustrated in Figure 3 and the radii of the
vertical curves corresponding to each vertical end section height
are listed in Table 1. For all of the proposed pipe profiles, the
vertical clearance between the middle of the suspended pipe and
the bottom of the pipe at each end was 74.32 feet (22.65 meters)
which is the same vertical clearance as the existing profile of
the PLAC suspended pipe.

For the existing PLAC pipe profile and for the proposed pipe
profiles with vertical end sections of 60, 50, 40, 30, and 20 feet
(18.29, 15.24, 12.19, 9.14, and 6.10 meters) in height, models
that incorporated diagonal truss stiffeners were also analyzed.
As illustrated in Figure 4, these diagonal stiffeners were orient-
ed at 45 degrees to the horizontal with one pair attached to the
vertical end sections of pipe at a distance of 10 feet (3.05
meters) from the top and a second pair attached midway between the
point of attachment of the top pair and the bottom of the vertical
section of pipe.
930

l O

0 ~'~

~-- i,O

O
~._J 4-
0
~..
~.~

Q
O ~9
r-t "0
C

e-
w -I
bO
lJ
x --J
O
E
0
~..

0
~J 0
e-
c0

O 0

%
e..-
o
N
"r. %
O U
O °r"

0 ~J

0r.- " 0 ~4
0'~0
d,
~.~ O 12
"~ ~n
"~

O~

• O
O CD Q O O O O O O
O0 ~ qD ¢O

UC w
° ~
 931

TABLE1. VERTICALCURVERADII OF PROPOSEDSUSPENDEDPIPE PROFILES

HeiBht of Vertical End Sections Radius of Vertical Curve

feet (meters) feet (meters)
60.0 (18.29) 967.92 (295.02)
50.0 (15.24) 577.87 (176.13)
40.0 (12.19) 418.04 (127.42)
30.0 (9.14) 332.59 (101.37)
20.0 (6.10) 289.44 (88.22)
10.0 (3.05) 246.06 (75.00)
0.0 (0.00) 222.28 (67.75)

10 ft (3.05 m)I I

45 d e g r e e s ~

/ /

Fig. 4. Bracing Configuration for Proposed Pipe Profiles

932

Vertical Analysis Results

In the actual PLAC, there are 30 panel points spaced at

intervals of 30 feet (9.14 meters) with vertical cable suspenders
attached at each panel point. To determine the rigidity of each
pipe profile with respect to three-segment vertical motion, the
ends of the pipe (which are buried in the ground) were fixed and
the panel points nearest the one-third points of the span were
restrained in the vertical direction as shown in Figure 5. Thus

TTT TTTTTT

Fig. 5. Boundary Conditions and Loading for Vertical Analyses

the suspended pipe was divided into three roughly equal segments,
consistent with the Steinman assumption represented by Equation 1.

Loading in the vertical direction was also chosen to match

the Steinman assumption of uniform loading. The pipe mass, which
was lumped at the panel points, was accelerated lg downward for
the two end segments of pipe and Ig upward for the middle segment.
Since the pipe cross-section is uniform along the length of the
pipe, the loads applied were uniform with the end segment loads
equal but opposite to the loads applied to the middle segment.

The results, which are shown in Table 2 for each pipe pro-
f i l e , were quite conclusive. The shorter the vertical sections of
pipe and the smaller the radii of the vertical curves at each end,
the smaller the vertical translations and hence the larger the
pipe rigidity with respect to three-node vertical motion. The
best profile would appear to be one in which the vertical curves
at each end of the pipe terminate at ground level with no vertical
end sections of pipe. With this pipe configuration, the vertical
translations are 72.2% and 72.9% less than the corresponding
translations of the existing pipe profile for the l e f t and right
segments of pipe, respectively. For the middle segment of pipe,
the vertical translation is 32.7% less than the existing pipe
profile, with an average decrease of 59.3% for all three segments.
Substituting these vertical translations into the denominator of
Equation 1, the rigidity of the new pipe profile would be larger
than the rigidity of the existing pipe profile by factors of 3.6,
3.7, and 1.5, respectively, with an average factor of 2.9.
 933

TABLE 2. VERTICALTRANSLATIONSOF SUSPENDEDPIPE PROFILES

Maximum Translation of Segments

D_escription of Pipe Profile
Left, M i d d l e , Right,
--~ feet
(me-~s) ( m e - ~ s ) (me-~s)
Existing Pipe Profile

60-ft (18.29-m) verticals -9.60 18.40 -9.95

without truss stiffeners (-2.93) (5.61) (-3.03)
60-ft (18.29-m) verticals -8.48 17.95 -8.78
with truss stiffeners (-2.58) (5.47) (-2.68)
Proposed Pipe Profiles
60-ft (18.29-m) verticals -8.22 17.25 -8.55
without truss stiffeners (-2.51 ) (5.26) (-2.61)
60-ft (18.29-m) verticals -5.37 14.95 -5.58
wlth truss stiffeners (-1.64 ) (4.56) (-1.70)
50-ft (15.24-m) verticals -6.58 16.04 -6.86
without truss stiffeners (-2.01 } (4.89) (-2.09)
50-ft (15.24-m) verticals -4.06 13.77 -4.26
with truss stiffeners (-1.24) (4.20) (-1.30)
40-ft (12.19-m) verticals -5.20 14.81 -5.41
without truss stiffeners (-1.58) (4.51) (-1.65)
40-ft (12.19-m) verticals -3.42 13.19 -3.61
wlth truss stiffeners (-1.04) (4.02) (-1.10)
30-ft (9.14-m) verticals -4.00 13.74 -4.20
without truss stiffeners (-1.22) (4.19) (-1.28)
30-ft (9.14-m) verticals -3.09 12.89 -3.27
wlth truss stiffeners (-0.94) (3.93) (-1.00)
20-ft (6.10-m) verticals -3.16 12.97 -3.34
without truss stiffeners (-0.96) (3.95) (-1.02)
20-ft (6.10-m) verticals -2.94 12.73 -3.09
with truss stiffeners (-0.90) (3.88) (-0.94)
lO-ft (3.05-m) verticals -2.78 12.54 -2.91
without truss stiffeners (-0.85) (3.82} (-0.89)
O-ft (O.O0-m) verticals -2.67 12.38 -2.70
without truss stiffeners (-0.81) (3.77} (-0.82)
934

Thermal Expansion Results

As noted above, the best suspended pipe profile with respect

to vertical rigidity would appear to be one in which the vertical
curve at each end of the suspended pipe terminates at ground level
with no vertical end sections of pipe. This configuration may be
too rigid in the longitudinal direction, however, thus inhibiting
the pipe from expanding and contracting under thermal loads and
during pipe pressurization and depressurization. To measure the
longitudinal f l e x i b i l i t y of each pipe profile, the same suspended
pipe models that were used to gage vertical rigidity were analyzed
under a 60 degree F (15.6 degree C) temperature differential.
Using the same pipe models, with vertical motion restrained near
the one-third points, may not be the most accurate representation,
but under thermal loading the pipe would be expected to deform in
a three-segment motion. As the vertical end sections of the sus-
pended pipe are bent outward under thermal expansion, for example,
the tops of these vertical end sections would rotate outward
forcing the two end segments of pipe upward and the middle segment
downward. Thus the results presented here can be regarded as a
rough measure of longitudinal f l e x i b i l i t y of the pipe profiles.

The maximum pipe longitudinal translations, bending moments,

and axial forces are listed in Table 3. Surprisingly, the most
rigid profile with respect to vertical motion, i.e. the profile
with no vertical end sections of pipe, gives very good results.
While the maximum longitudinal motion is 0.13 feet (0.04 meters)
outward, which is 23.5% less than the longitudinal motion for the
existing PLAC pipe profile, the maximum pipe bending moment is
28.7% less and the maximum pipe axial force is only 1.7% more.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results presented here, the best profile for

a suspended pipe would appear to be one in which the pipe is f l a t
over the middle two-thirds of the span and arcs downward with a
constant radius curve at each end that terminates at ground level.
This profile should have adequate vertical rigidity to resist ver-
tical wind oscillations while maintaining sufficient longitudinal
f l e x i b i l i t y to allow for the necessary expansion and contraction
of the pipe due to changes in temperature and pipe pressure.

CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS

In addition to the PLAC and the AEAC, two other pipeline

suspension bridges, the Mississippi River Pipeline Bridge and
Missouri River Pipeline Bridge, are also being investigated.
Finite-element computer models have been developed for a l l four
pipeline bridges and seismic analyses are currently being conduct-
ed. The detailed plans for performing these seismic analyses are
discussed in another recent publication (Ousseau, 1988).
 935

TABLE 3. RESPONSESOF SUSPENDEDPIPE PROFILES

UNDERDIFFERENTIAL THERMALEXPANSION

Horizontal Bendin9 Axial

Description of Pipe Profile Translation, Moment,
feet
(me~s) T~ -N)

Existing Pipe Profile

60-ft (18.29-m) verticals 0.170 170,800 3,545
without truss stiffeners (0.052) (231,574) (15,769)
60-ft (18.29-m) verticals 0.149 515,740 54,305
with truss stiffeners (0.045) (699,250) (241,561)
Proposed Pipe Profiles
60-ft (18.29-m) verticals 0.151 143,770 2,809
without truss stiffeners (0.046) (194,926) (12,495)
60-ft (18.29-m) verticals 0.128 350,080 45,880
with truss stiffeners (0.039) (474,645) (204,084)
50-ft (15.24-m) verticals 0.141 157,360 3,304
without truss stiffeners (0.043) (213,351) (14,697)
50-ft (15.24-m) verticals 0.129 258,620 45,989
with truss stiffeners (0.039) (350,642) (204,569)
40-ft (12.19-m) verticals 0.137 164,470 3,715
without truss stiffeners (0.042) (222,991) (16,525)
40-ft (12.19-m) verticals 0.130 200,650 46,123
with truss stiffeners (0.040) (272,045) (205,165)
30-ft (9.14-m) verticals 0.133 162,920 3,953
without truss stiffeners (0.041) (220,890) (17,584)
30-ft (9.14-m) verticals 0.131 163,810 46,234
with truss stiffeners (0.040) (222,097) (205,659)
20-ft (6.10-m) verticals 0.132 153,290 3,989
without truss stiffeners (0.040) (207,833) (17,744)
20-ft (6.10-m) verticals 0.131 139,940 46,319
with truss stiffeners (0,040) (189,733) (206,307)
lO-ft (3.05-m) verticals 0.131 138,390 3,850
without truss stiffeners (0.040) (187,632) (17,126)
O-ft (O.O0-m) verticals 0.129- 121,760 3,605
without truss stiffeners (0.039) (165,084) (16,306)
936

All four pipeline suspension bridge models will also be

analyzed under static lateral wind loads. The goal of this study
will be to determine the wind velocity required to cause failure
of key bridge components, especially the lateral wind cables which
are unique to pipeline suspension bridges and are designed to
resist lateral wind loads. Separate models of the steel support
towers have also been developed for all four bridges and are being
used to determine the tower responses to both seismic and lateral
wind loading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are extended to American Natural Resources and Wayne

State University for their generous support of this research.

REFERENCES
Dusseau, R. A. and Haddad, M. E., "Pipeline Suspension Bridge
Modal Analysis," Proceedings of the 1987 ANSYSConference,
Newport Beach, California, pp. 233-238, March-April 1987.
Dusseau, R. A., E1-Achkar, R., and Haddad, M. E., "Pipe Geometry
and Pipeline Bridge Wind Oscillations," Proceedings of the
ASCE International Conference on Pipeline Infrastructure,
Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 323-332, June 1988.
Dusseau, R. A., "Dynamic Analysis of Pipeline Suspension Bridges,"
Proceedings of the NSF Bridge Research in Progress Symposium,
Des Moines, Iowa, pp. 69-72, September 1988.
Steinman, D. B., "Rigidity and Aerodynamic Stability of Suspension
Bridges," ASCE Transactions, Vol. 110, pp. 439-580, 1945.
Steinman, D. B., "Pipeline Bridge Stabilized with Diagonal Rope
Stays," Civil En~ineerin 9 Magazine, pp. 25-27, March 1952.