Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = measured actual buffeting responses

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
25 pages, 5991 KB  
Article
Wind Tunnel Tests and Buffeting Response Analysis of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Arch Ribs During Cantilever Construction
by Qing Hu, Xinrong Wu, Shilong Zhang and Dagang Lu
Buildings 2025, 15(11), 1837; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15111837 - 27 May 2025
Viewed by 1103
Abstract
During the construction of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) arch bridges, hollow steel tube arch ribs are typically erected using the cantilever method with cable hoisting. In this construction stage, the arch ribs exhibit low out-of-plane stiffness and are thus highly susceptible to wind-induced [...] Read more.
During the construction of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) arch bridges, hollow steel tube arch ribs are typically erected using the cantilever method with cable hoisting. In this construction stage, the arch ribs exhibit low out-of-plane stiffness and are thus highly susceptible to wind-induced vibrations, which may lead to cable failure or even collapse of the structure. Despite these critical risks, research on the aerodynamic performance of CFST arch ribs with different cross-sectional forms during cantilever construction remains limited. Most existing studies focus on individual bridge cases rather than generalized aerodynamic behavior. To obtain generalized aerodynamic parameters and buffeting response characteristics applicable to cantilevered CFST arch ribs, this study investigates two common cross-sectional configurations: four-tube trussed and horizontal dumbbell trussed sections. Sectional model wind tunnel tests were conducted to determine the aerodynamic force coefficients and aerodynamic admittance functions (AAFs) of these arch ribs. Comparisons with commonly used empirical AAF formulations (e.g., the Sears function) indicate that these simplified models, or assumptions equating aerodynamic forces with quasi-steady values, are inaccurate for the studied cross-sections. Considering the influence of the curved arch axis on buffeting behavior, a buffeting analysis computational program was developed, incorporating the experimentally derived aerodynamic characteristics. The program was validated against classical theoretical results and practical measurements from an actual bridge project. Using this program, a parametric analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of equivalent AAF formulations, coherence functions, first-order mode shapes, and the number of structural modes on the buffeting response. The results show that the buffeting response of cantilevered hollow steel arch ribs is predominantly governed by the first-order mode, which can be effectively approximated using a bending-type mode shape expression. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Concrete Filled Steel Materials in Building Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 8024 KB  
Article
In-Situ Data-Driven Buffeting Response Analysis of a Cable-Stayed Bridge
by Sehoon Kim, Hyunjun Jung, Min Joon Kong, Deok Keun Lee and Yun-Kyu An
Sensors 2019, 19(14), 3048; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19143048 - 10 Jul 2019
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 4204
Abstract
To analytically evaluate buffeting responses, the analysis of wind characteristics such as turbulence intensity, turbulence length, gust, and roughness coefficient must be a priority. The analytical buffeting response is affected by the static aerodynamic force coefficient, flutter coefficient, structural damping ratio, aerodynamic damping [...] Read more.
To analytically evaluate buffeting responses, the analysis of wind characteristics such as turbulence intensity, turbulence length, gust, and roughness coefficient must be a priority. The analytical buffeting response is affected by the static aerodynamic force coefficient, flutter coefficient, structural damping ratio, aerodynamic damping ratio, and natural frequencies of the bridge. The cable-stayed bridge of interest in this study has been used for 32 years. In that time, the terrain conditions around the bridge have markedly changed from the conditions when the bridge was built. Further, the wind environments have varied considerably due to climate change. For these reasons, the turbulence intensity, length, spectrum coefficient, and roughness coefficient of the bridge site must be evaluated from full-scale measurements using a structural health monitoring system. Although the bridge is located on a coastal area, the evaluation results indicated that the wind characteristics of bridge site were analogous to those of open terrain. The buffeting response of the bridge was analyzed using the damping ratios, static aerodynamic force coefficients, and natural frequencies obtained from measured data. The analysis was performed for four cases. Two case analyses were performed by applying the variables obtained from measured data, while two other case analyses were performed based on the Korean Society of Civil Engineers (KSCE) Design Guidelines for Steel Cable Supported Bridges. The calculated responses of each analysis case were compared with the buffeting response measured at wind speeds of less than 25 m/s. The responses obtained by numerical analysis using estimated variables based on full-scale measurements agreed well with the measured buffeting responses measured at wind speeds of less than 25 m/s. Moreover, an extreme wind speed of 44 m/s, corresponding to a recurrence interval of 200 years, was derived from the Gumbel distribution. Therefore, the buffeting responses at wind speeds of 45 m/s were also determined by applying the estimated variables. From these results, management criteria based on measurement data for in-service bridge are determined and each level of management is proposed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart City and Smart Infrastructure)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop