This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
WIND TUNNEL STUDY ON AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION OF SUSPENSION BRIDGE DECK BASED ON FLUTTER STABILITY
Qi Wang1 Hai-li Liao2 and Ming-shui Li3 Rong Xian4 PhD Student, Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu Sichuan 610031, PR China, email@example.com 2 Professor, Civil engineering school, Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu Sichuan 610031, PR China, firstname.lastname@example.org 3 Professor, Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu Sichuan 610031, PR China, email@example.com 4 PhD Student, Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu Sichuan 610031, PR China, firstname.lastname@example.org
ABSTRACT Nanjing the 4th bridge of Yangtze River is a three span suspension bridge of main span lengths 1418m, and the flutter checking wind speed is up to 60.8m/s for the completed bridge. Through a 1:50 scale section model, more than 40 model cases were tested in order to obtain an optimized aerodynamic configuration of the girder. The influence of modifications of the accessory components and the geometry on the aerodynamic stability has been established through this study, which has been beneficial to the final design of the bridge. At last, this paper tries to discuss the mechanism of the flutter wind speed increasing. KEYWORDS: NANJING 4TH BRIDGE OF YANGTZE RIVER, TRAPEZOIDAL BOX SECTION, AERODYNAMIC CONFIGURATION, OPTIMIZATION, WIND TUNNE TEST,
Introduction Nanjing 4th bridge of Yangtze river in Jiangsu Province of southeast of China is a three span suspension bridge with main span 1418m. The original design of bridge deck is a trapezoidal steel box girder with overall width of 37.7m and a height of 3.4m, see Fig.1. According to the wind statistic data and the Chinese Code of Bridge Wind Resistance, the flutter checking wind speed of the bridge is up to 60.8m/s, the aerodynamic stability becomes a governing factor in the design. Unfortunately the flutter critical wind speed of the original girder is less than 45m/s, which was found by intensive wind tunnel testing of section model. Because of its intrinsic limit in the aspect of flutter instability, it is necessary to adopt some countermeasures to improve aerodynamic performance to meet the requirements of wind resistance code. Aerodynamic optimization of the deck configuration is hence definitely required to ensure the safety of the bridge. Through a 1:50 scale section model, more than 40 configuration cases of deck were tested in order to establish the influence of the accessory components and the geometrical modifications on the aerodynamic stability, such as the porosity of railing in the sideway, the position of inspection rail, the guide wing, the edge configuration of the section, the steepness of side wall slopes. Those countermeasures have been proved to be effective to improve the aerodynamic performance particular flutter instability of bridge by other researchers and engineering practices (A. Larsen, 1993; K. Wilde et al., 2001; B. Luca et al., 2002; Song Jinzhong et al., 2002; T. Miyata, 2003; Liu Cijun et al., 2008; Yongxin Yang et al., 2008 ). In
The work described in this paper was supported by the grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 90815016)
6 58. Comparing to the section configuration of old Tacoma Bridge deck.3 44. It is found that higher aerodynamic stability for the railing with higher porosity comparing to the lower one. Liu Cijun et al. November 8-12. The vortex creation and drift process will dramatic weaken the stability of the girder. The results has benefited for the final design of the bridge.2. the others are 5mm (prototype 250mm) and 10mm (prototype 500mm) from the sideway edge. which may lead to flow separation. Table 1: The Critical Wind Speed Varying With The Different Railing case 1 2 3 4 porosity 90% 60% 60% 60% position Initial position Initial position 5mm inside 10mm inside Flutter critical wind speed（m/s） －3° 0° +3° ＞74.8 ＞76. Figure 1: Outline of Nanjing Yangtze 4th Bridge The Influence of Railing on Flutter Critical Wind Speed In order to examine the influence of the different railing and its position on the critical wind speed. and other researchers (B. The results are given in table 1..2 73.6 57. Taipei. and other long span bridges. the critical wind speed of girder is not sensitive to the change of the position of railing.6 ＞75. However. Luca et al.3 ＞74. three locations of railing on deck. Larsen. one is on the edge (the original design). are chosen to be tested. 2002. 1993).8 42.4 44. Miyata. the low porosity of railing has made the deck configuration close to I-shape. 2003.0 Figure2: Vortex Movement of Tacoma Deck Figure3: Vortex Movement of Box Girder .9 61.0 57. T.. see fig. This similar finding was also reported by Allan Larsen in the aerodynamic design of Great belt East Bridge (A. and a vortex shedding in a rhythmic fashion will generate separation bubbles above the deck (see fig3). 2008). two kinds of railing with porosity 90% and 60%. Taiwan this paper their sensitivity relative to aerodynamic stability were investigated through a series of section model wind tunnel testing. 2009.The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering.
Wilde et al.1 The Influence of Guide Wing on Flutter Critical Wind Speed The guide wing on the edge of sideway can smooth airflow while passing through the section. Taiwan The Influence of Inspection Rail on Flutter Critical Wind Speed The aerodynamic stability of the girder may be sensitive to the distance between the rail top and the girder bottom (Yongxin Yang et al. 2009. Flutter wind speeds were obtained in the tests for the section model with attack angle +3 deg and 0 deg. and the maintenance cost will increase correspondingly. particularly in the location of rostra. the optimized guide wing should be selected by intensive wind tunnel tests. Miyata. 2002. Flutter critical speeds of these sections were measured and are summarized in table 2. Three different kind of adjustment were carried out to investigate the potential influence. Song Jinzhong et al. Hence the aerodynamic stability maybe strengthened (K. but disadvantage to the aerodynamic stability of the girder at +3°attack angle. The guide wing of the deck is not recommended in the design unless there is no alternative means to improve the aerodynamic performance. Taipei. Because the dominant factor of aerodynamic stability is the minimum value among three critical wind speeds. the guide wing will increase the complexity of the structure design and construction... The distance was increased by 1mm and 3mm (prototype 5cm and 15cm) in the tests (the porosity of railing is 90%). and the results are shown in Table 3. Because of the particularity of deck configuration. with different width and obliquity.6 Increment 3mm 8mm from the bottom >84 >82. On the other hand..5 58. November 8-12. 2003). The railing porosity is 60% for the section model in the tests. Figure 4: Outline of Guide Wing . It is observed that the wider and the positive obliquity guide wing can improve the aerodynamic stability distinctly although the railing has low porosity. the increasing of distance is not a good choice to strengthen the aerodynamic stability of the girder.The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering. 2001.0 >81 0° 73 >80 +3° 61. T. 2008). It is found that the increase of distance is benefit to the critical wind speed at 0°and -3°attack angle.3 59. Total nine different types of guide wings are applied in the tests. Table 2: The Critical Wind Speed Varying With The Change of Railway case Initial design Increment 1mm distance 5mm from the bottom 6mm from the bottom Flutter critical wind speed（m/s） －3° >79.
23 63.75 42.5 53. However.3m width：2.5 >71. T. rostra with different width and acutance is taken into account in the tests.6 63.6 >70. Taipei. correspondingly the width varying from 1.23 58.3 >70. November 8-12.7 58.77 45.0m width：3.2 >75. Song Jinzhong et al.8 >71.2 44.9m width：2.7 54.63 60. Total twenty-one model cases were tested.5 >72. Larsen. 2003).2 >70. Table 4: The Critical Wind Speed Varying With Different Section Rostra case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Type of the section rostra width：1.64 The Influence of Section Rostra on Flutter Critical Wind Speed Because the critical wind speed is sensitive to shape of section rostra (A.9 >72. 1993.96 52.8 .48 62. 2002.9 51. 2009.88 56. The results are shown in table 4.98 54.9m to 3. It is noted that the flutter critical wind speed increases along with the increasing of rostra width and acutance.1m width：2.2 >70..05 52.6 56.94 55.34 54. Taiwan Table 3: The Critical Wind Speed Varying With Different Guide Wings case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Guide wing width obliquity 50cm +15 50cm 0 50cm -42 100cm +15 100cm 0 100cm -42 125cm +15 125cm 0 125cm -42 Flutter critical wind speed（m/s） 0° 3° 52.5m width：2.5 >71. The acutance varies from 57 deg to 25 deg.3 >70.The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering.3m. Miyata.78 49.7 >71.3 >69.6 >70.78 50.7m width：3. the flutter critical wind speed comes down distinctly when the width of rostra exceeds 3m.4 59.47 41. The mechanism for rostra with a width more than 3m may weaken the stability will be discussed in the later chapter.3m Flutter critical wind speed（m/s） +3° －3° －3° 51.
Alternate way is to decrease the steepness of side wall slope. The results also lead to an optimized section of girder: shorter rostra. November 8-12. the flutter critical wind speed is up to 67m/s. low porosity railing. When the slope decreases to 15°. Taiwan 64 3m width flutter critical wind speed (m/s) 62 60 58 3. Table 5: The Critical Wind Speed (Slope Is 15°) case Section rostra Flutter critical wind speed（m/s） －3° －3° －3° 67. implying more cost in design and construction.5 >72.8m 61. which can make the deck cross section more streamlined.9m width 52 50 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 the acutance of rostra (degree) Figure 5: Flutter Wind Speed Varying With The Acutance of Rostra The Influence of Steepness of Lower Inclined Web Slope on Flutter Critical Wind Speed The wider and acuminate section rostra are more difficult to be fabricated and fixed.4.5 1 width：2.The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering.1m width 1. and it directly increases the flutter performance by 10%. see fig6. low cost.7m width 2. and more convenience.3 >73.8 >72.3m width 2. Taipei.4m 2 width：2.1 >71. and the width of section rostra is only 2.6m 62. Figure 6: The Lower Inclined Web Slope Decreased To 15° .3m width 54 2.5m width 56 2.0 >70. although it can strengthen the aerodynamic stability of the girder distinctly. It also satisfies different kinds of requirements: high security.1 >71.4m.7 3 width：2. The detailed test results are shown in table 5. 2009. without guide wing.
the negative vortex above the nose-tail line has been strengthen as powerful as the blow positive one. and gave a conclusion that the flow along the bottom plate would stay mainly attached if lower inclined web angle α is less than approximately 16 deg. November 8-12.6° and 29. 2000. When the wind speed is increasing. and under the flutter critical speed. respectively. Explicit vortex induced vibrations were observed for these bridges in full scale. lower inclined web slope angles are 26. When the wind speed is low. the counter vortices can’t give the girder powerful and efficient . and no vortex-induced vibration was observed in the wind tunnel testing. with 15. when the slope of the lower inclined web decreases to 15 deg(also less than 16 deg). see figure 7. in the flutter critical status. and close to the flutter critical speed.The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering.. which making more difficult for formation of a large vortex. The flow detaches from the suction side and forms a vortex while the airfoils are stalled. which can give the girder enough momentum to increase its amplitude in a shot time and finally make the girder instable. and the wind tunnel tests demonstrated that vortex induced vibration were absent. and once exceeding 16 deg. H. If the frequency and the phase of the fluctuated force are close to bridge’s. Larsen based on the experience from vortex shedding tests (Larsen A. Taiwan The Discussion on Mechanism of Aerodynamic Improvement According to the research results of airfoil (Abbott I. the flutter of girder will be occur soon. The contrary examples were box girders of the Great Belt East Bridge and Osterøy Bridge. because the little room gives the restrain to the forming of vortex.5°. 2008 ). see figure 8. there is a smaller dead air wake region below the nose-tail and the flow along the bottom plate will stay mainly attached the web.8 deg of lower side web angle.. Taipei. When the wind speed is increasing to the original flutter critical wind speed (former test girder with low critical wind speed). all classical airfoils are stalled at 16 deg. the lift decreases. whose lower inclined web angle is 14.. two vortices with counter direction have also been observed at the both sides of the nose tail line of Great Belt East Bridge section through the PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry) technique(Zhang et al. 2009). 1958). Another example was a new 1345 m suspension bridge in northern Norway.8 deg. the positive vortex blow the nose-tail line is more powerful than the above negative one. He also gave an example about the design study for a two span suspension bridge in Chile. see figure 9. The lift is increasing with increasing attack angle. the aerodynamic force is just a static lift force. 2009. et al. and the aerodynamic force becomes to fluctuated force. Figure 7: The Lift Coefficient of Wings Varying With Attack Angle Similarly to a box section in the vortex shedding vibration status. found that the trapezoidal box sections was similar to the airfoils. In this paper.
which is not propitious to the girder stability.The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering. The wider and acutance section rostra can strengthen the aerodynamic stability of the girder. This explains can also be extended to interpret the results show in table4. the higher . there is a lager room for formation of a large vortex. Further more. The lower is the slope. In the tests. Needing to point out is that the explain about the mechanism is based on the Larsen’s research on the vortex shedding vibration of Great Belt East Bridge. it only a assumption and a deduction of aerodynamic improvement. there would be a larger room for formation of a larger coherent vortex which made the flutter critical wind speed descend. when the width of rostra exceeded 3m. 2009. this explains are also applicable to the interpretation of results in table 5. but width can’t exceed 3m. Taiwan excitation. varying with the increasing of rostra width. When the slope of the lower inclined web is less than 16 deg. When the wind speed increasing to a higher one. Of course. it needs to be verified through the further study by the wind tunnel tests and CFD method in the future researches. The flutter critical wind speed is also sensitive to the steepness of blow inclined web slope. Taipei. which bring on aerodynamic instability to the girder again. November 8-12. Figure 8: Vortex Moment At The Low Wind Speed (Blow The Critical Speed) Figure 9: Vortex Moment At The High Wind Speed (Closing To Critical Speed) Conclusions The girders with high porosity railings have higher flutter critical wind speed than the ones with low porosity railings. and Zhang’s research on the flutter critical status of the same bridge by PIV technique. the equalization counter vortices will form again at the similar position and the rhythmic excitation is be back.
E.. China Journal of Highway and Transport. 5. Vol. Aerodynamic Stability and Vortex Shedding Excitation of Suspension Bridges. New York. 2009. J.Volume 48. 1 November 2002 . Volume 12. 289-294(6) K. Fujino. Wilde. 2008. Structural Engineering International. Suppression of bridge flutter by active deck-flaps control system. there is no vortex shedding vibration observed in the 1:50 and 1:20 section model testing.02 Yongxin Yang. Some Practices on Aerodynamic Flutter Control for Long-Span Cable Supported Bridges. Jeju. the final section has a good aerodynamic stability. Omenzetter. Number 4. Korea. Y. Korea. Of course. Eng. Ind. S. Storebælt suspension bridge .The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering. References Allan Larsen. Flow Field Mechanism of Wind Induced Vibration Response of Large Span Bridge Influenced by Guide Vanes. When the slope of lower inclined web is less than 16 deg. May 2002 Liu Cijun. Esdahl. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (2003) 1393–1410 Bruno Luca. pp. Taipei.May 2009 . Zhu Ledong. Taiwan is wind speed.1993. E. Dover Publications. 3. Yaojun Ge. A. Larsen.22 No. Lin Zhixing.vortex shedding excitation and mitigation by guide vanes. Issues 2-3. Oct. The 4th International Conference on AWAS’08. Through the wind tunnel tests. 283-296. Xu Jianying.88 (2000). Aerodyn. Journal Of Tongji University. T. Mancini Giuseppe. Song Jinzhong. and 79m/s in the later full scale aerodynamic model tests. Andersen. November 8-12. the flutter critical wind speed wind will increasing dramatically. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics... Influence of Railing Curbstone Structure on Flutter Stability of Box Main Girder. J. Aerodynamic aspects of the final design of the 1624m suspension bridge across the Great Belt. 1958. 30 No. Pages 261-285 Toshio Miyata. Importance of Deck Details in Bridge Aerodynamics. pp. Mech. Jeju. Vol. Wind Eng. Larsen. 2008 Zhang Wei. A. and Von Doenhoff A. Guo Zhenshan. H. Bridge Construction. Vejrum. Ge Yaojun. J.1m/s. The Keynote Paper of The 4th International Conference on AWAS’08. 127 (1) (2001) 80–89.. Research and Appliance of Aerodynamic Measure s about Wind resistance of Bridges. Historical view of long-span bridge aerodynamics. P. 2008 Abbott I. and the flutter critical wind speed is up to 67. Theory of Wing Sections.