Experimental Uncertainty Quantification of Flutter Derivatives for a PK Section Girder and Its Application on Probabilistic Flutter Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 04020034
Author(s):  
Genshen Fang ◽  
Jinxin Cao ◽  
Yongxin Yang ◽  
Lin Zhao ◽  
Shuyang Cao ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Noah Van Dam ◽  
Chris Rutland

Two uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques, latin-hypercube sampling (LHS) and polynomial chaos expansion (PCE), have been used in an initial UQ study to calculate the effect of boundary condition uncertainty on Large-eddy spray simulations. Liquid and vapor penetration as well as multidimensional liquid and vapor data were used as response variables. The Morris one-at-a-time (MOAT) screening method was used to identify the most important boundary conditions. The LHS and PCE methods both predict the same level of variability in the response variables, which was much larger than the corresponding experimental uncertainty. Nested grids were used in conjunction with the PCE method to examine the effects of subsets of boundary condition variables. Numerical modeling parameters had a much larger effect on the resulting spray predictions; the uncertainty in spray penetration or multidimensional spray contours from physically derived boundary conditions was close to the uncertainty of the measurements.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (23) ◽  
pp. 11376
Author(s):  
Zhouquan Feng ◽  
Yang Lin

This paper presents a novel parameter identification and uncertainty quantification method for flutter derivatives estimation of bridge decks. The proposed approach is based on free-decay vibration records of a sectional model in wind tunnel tests, which consists of parameter identification by a heuristic optimization algorithm in the sense of weighted least squares and uncertainty quantification by a bootstrap technique. The novel contributions of the method are on three fronts. Firstly, weighting factors associated with vertical and torsional motion in the objective function are determined more reasonably using an iterative procedure rather than preassigned. Secondly, flutter derivatives are identified using a hybrid heuristic and classical optimization method, which integrates a modified artificial bee colony algorithm with the Powell’s algorithm. Thirdly, a statistical bootstrap technique is used to quantify the uncertainties of flutter derivatives. The advantages of the proposed method with respect to other methods are faster and more accurate achievement of the global optimum, and refined uncertainty quantification in the identified flutter derivatives. The effectiveness and reliability of the proposed method are validated through noisy data of a numerically simulated thin plate and experimental data of a bridge deck sectional model.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 1399-1411
Author(s):  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Lin Zhao

Flutter derivatives identified from transient (free-decay) vibrations might not be suitable for the analysis of bridge flutter. The application of transient flutter derivatives in the flutter analysis relies on two assumptions: (1) transient flutter derivatives and steady-state flutter derivatives are equivalent and (2) aeroelastic effects are superposable. Both assumptions are challenged in this article. It is shown through transient vibration tests that (1) the aeroelastic-coupling between heaving and rotational motions may switch from one pattern to another as the wind speed varies and (2) some of the transient flutter derivatives may be time-varying. The former implies that the predicted flutter type based on transient flutter derivatives may not be unconditionally consistent with the experimentally observed flutter type; the latter implies the transient flutter derivatives may be physically different from the steady-state flutter derivatives. These two issues undermine the basic assumptions of the flutter analysis of bridges. A possible corollary to this study is that if free vibration is used to predict bridge flutter, we should resort to the steady-state (flutter state) vibration instead of the transient vibration of the sectional model. A revision to the aeroelastic force model is proposed to facilitate the discussion.


1992 ◽  
Vol 42 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 1279-1290 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Tanaka ◽  
N. Yamamura ◽  
M. Tatsumi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document