Non-Stationary and Non-Linear Buffeting Response

Author(s):  
Jungao Wang ◽  
Etienne Cheynet ◽  
Jasna Bogunović Jakobsen ◽  
Jónas Snæbjörnsson

The present study compares the buffeting response of a suspension bridge computed in the time-domain with full-scale measurement data. The in-service Lysefjord Bridge is used as a study case, which allows a unique comparison of the computational results with full-scale buffeting bridge response observed during a one year monitoring period. The time-domain analysis is performed using a finite element approach. Turbulent wind field is simulated according to the governing bridge design standard in Norway for three different terrain categories. The time-domain analysis indicates that the non-linear components of the wind loading are of limited importance in the present case, contributing by less than 5% to the standard deviation of the lateral displacement. The contribution of the buffeting loads on the main cables, hangers and towers to the lateral dynamic response of the bridge girder is about 6%. With the time-domain method, mode coupling as well as the influence of cables and towers are well captured in the simulation results. The buffeting response, estimated in terms of the standard deviation of acceleration, is found to be in good agreement with the field measurement data. Comparison suggests that the proposed numerical method, with the non-linear force model, is able to predict the bridge response reasonably well.


1967 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 105-176
Author(s):  
Robert F. Christy

(Ed. note: The custom in these Symposia has been to have a summary-introductory presentation which lasts about 1 to 1.5 hours, during which discussion from the floor is minor and usually directed at technical clarification. The remainder of the session is then devoted to discussion of the whole subject, oriented around the summary-introduction. The preceding session, I-A, at Nice, followed this pattern. Christy suggested that we might experiment in his presentation with a much more informal approach, allowing considerable discussion of the points raised in the summary-introduction during its presentation, with perhaps the entire morning spent in this way, reserving the afternoon session for discussion only. At Varenna, in the Fourth Symposium, several of the summaryintroductory papers presented from the astronomical viewpoint had been so full of concepts unfamiliar to a number of the aerodynamicists-physicists present, that a major part of the following discussion session had been devoted to simply clarifying concepts and then repeating a considerable amount of what had been summarized. So, always looking for alternatives which help to increase the understanding between the different disciplines by introducing clarification of concept as expeditiously as possible, we tried Christy's suggestion. Thus you will find the pattern of the following different from that in session I-A. I am much indebted to Christy for extensive collaboration in editing the resulting combined presentation and discussion. As always, however, I have taken upon myself the responsibility for the final editing, and so all shortcomings are on my head.)


Optimization ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-559
Author(s):  
L. Gerencsér

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
George W. Howe ◽  
James H. Dalton ◽  
Maurice J. Elias
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document