View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Materials Science,University of Stavanger,Norway
Etienne CheynetJasna Bogunović Jakobsen
Science Meets Industry, Stavanger, 29.3.2017
1
1.Overview of the Lysefjord Bridge response to wind turbulence
2.Role and modelling of the wind coherence
3.Consequence of an erroneous modelling of the wind coherence
2
3
Main span: 446 mTower height: 102 mAltitude at mid-span: 55 m
The Lysefjord Bridge Rogaland, Norway
Accelerometers
Anemometers
Moving GNSS station Reference GNSS station4
North tower
South tower
Instrumentation of the Lysefjord Bridge
Power spectral density of the lateral bridge response
1 h of acceleration record (26/10/2014)U = 11.2 m/sIu = 13.9 %
7
1 h of acceleration record (26/10/2014)U = 11.2 m/sIw = 7.5 %
Power spectral density of the vertical bridge response
8
The wind coherence
Wind coherence ≡ correlation function that takes into accountspatial dimensions and temporal variation of wind gusts
Longitudinal coherence ( = 1 if frozen turbulence)
Vertical coherence
Lateral coherence
u
10
Wind direction
Modelling of the wind coherence
Simplest model:
Davenport model [1]:
𝛾𝑢 = 𝑒−𝐶𝑓𝑑/𝑈
where:𝛾𝑢 = co-coherenceC = 7 f = frequency (Hz)d = cross-wind separation (m)U = mean wind speed (m/s)
Davenport model
11
Modelling of the wind coherence
Simplest model:
Davenport model [1]:
𝛾𝑢 = 𝑒−𝐶𝑓𝑑/𝑈
where:𝛾𝑢 = co-coherenceC = 7 f = frequency (Hz)d = cross-wind separation (m)U = mean wind speed (m/s)
12
Modelling of the wind coherence
Simplest model:
Davenport model [1]:
𝛾𝑢 = 𝑒−𝐶𝑓𝑑/𝑈
where:𝛾𝑢 = co-coherenceC = 7 f = frequency (Hz)d = cross-wind separation (m)U = mean wind speed (m/s)
13
Modelling of the wind coherence
More realistic models:
• Coherence calculated with Mann’s turbulence model [2]
14
The Davenport model may oversimplify the «real» wind coherence [7]
Modelling of the wind coherence
More realistic models:
• Coherence calculated with Mann’s turbulence model [2]• The Krenk coherence model [3]
15
The Davenport model may oversimplify the «real» wind coherence [7]
Modelling of the wind coherence
More realistic models:
• Coherence calculated with Mann’s turbulence model [2]• The Krenk coherence model [3]• The von Karman coherence model [4]
16
The Davenport model may oversimplify the «real» wind coherence [7]
Modelling of the wind coherence
More realistic models:
• Coherence calculated with Mann’s turbulence model [2]• The Krenk coherence model [3]• The von Karman coherence model [4]• The 4-parameter exponential decay function [5] 𝛾𝑢 = 𝑒
−𝑑𝑈 𝑐1𝑓 2+ 𝑐2 2
𝑐3
cos 𝑐4𝑑𝑓
𝑈
The Davenport model may oversimplify the «real» wind coherence [7]
17
Along-wind component
15 m/s > U > 10m/s
216 deg > Dir > 205 deg
73 samples
Markers: measured
Lines: fitted
𝑐1 = 8.5𝑐2 = 0.04 𝑠−1
𝑐3 = 1.1𝑐4 = 5.4
Coherence measured on the Lysefjord bridge (26/10/2014) for a wind from S-SW
18
Along-wind component
15 m/s > U > 10m/s
216 deg > Dir > 205 deg
73 samples
Markers: measured
Lines: fitted
Coherence measured on the Lysefjord bridge (26/10/2014) for a wind from S-SW
𝑐1 = 5.8𝑐2 = 0.2 𝑠−1
𝑐3 = 1.4𝑐4 = 5.2
19
How does an inaccurate modelling of the wind coherence affect the structural
response of a suspension bridge ?
20
Inaccurate modellingAccurate modelling
Case study with U = 15 m/s; 𝐿𝑢 = 160 𝑚
𝑐1 = 9.0𝑐2 = 0.1 𝑠−1
𝑐3 = 1.00𝑐4 = 4.7
𝐶 = 13.7
21
Consequence of an inappropriate coherence modelling on the bridge response ?
• Buffeting response of a long-span suspension bridge using:• U = 15 m/s• Wind spectrum from N400 handbook ( terrain category 2)• Simplified Bridge model (SBM) [6]• 10 min averaging time• Uncoupled motion of the bridge deck (lateral motion)• Quasi steady theory
22
Case 1: Lysefjord Bridge simplified Bridge model (SBM). Main span length: L = 446 m
Response at mid-span
23
Conclusions
An inaccurate description of the wind coherence may lead to :• An overall small difference for the dynamic response.
24
Conclusions
An inaccurate description of the wind coherence may lead to :• An overall small difference for the dynamic response.• A considerable discrepancy for the background response.
25
Conclusions
An inaccurate description of the wind coherence may lead to :• An overall small difference for the dynamic response.• A considerable discrepancy for the background response.• A small discrepancy for the resonant response.
26
Conclusions
An inaccurate description of the wind coherence may lead to :• An overall small difference for the dynamic response.• A considerable discrepancy for the background response.• A small discrepancy for the resonant response.
A larger span leads to :• An overall response dominated by the resonant part• Resonant peaks that may be affected to a greater extent by the coherence
27
References
[1] Davenport, A. G. (1961). The spectrum of horizontal gustiness near the ground in high winds. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 87(372), 194-211.[2] Mann, J. (1994). The spatial structure of neutral atmospheric surface-layer turbulence. Journal of fluid mechanics, 273, 141-168.[3] Krenk, S. (1996). Wind field coherence and dynamic wind forces. In IUTAM symposium on advances in nonlinear stochastic mechanics (pp. 269-278). Springer Netherlands.[4] von Karman, T. (1948). Progress in the statistical theory of turbulence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 34(11), 530-539.[5] Cheynet, E., Jakobsen, J. B., & Snæbjörnsson, J. (2016). Buffeting response of a suspension bridge in complex terrain. Engineering Structures, 128, 474-487.[6] Cheynet, E. (2016). Wind-induced vibrations of a suspension bridge: A case study in full-scale. PhD thesis. University of Stavanger.[7] Kristensen, L., & Jensen, N. O. (1979). Lateral coherence in isotropic turbulence and in the natural wind. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 17(3), 353-373.
28
Recommended