Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long...
-
Upload
franco-bontempi -
Category
Engineering
-
view
196 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long...
![Page 1: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Fourth M.I.T. Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid
Mechanics – Focus: Fluid-Structure Interactions
Boston, June 13-15, 2007
Comparison of time domain techniques
for the evaluation
of the response and the stability
of long span suspension bridges
F.Petrini, F.Giuliano, F.Bontempi*
*Professor of Structural Analysis and Design
University of Rome La Sapienza - ITALY
![Page 2: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
FB 2
![Page 3: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PART #1
CONTEXT
![Page 4: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
FB 4
![Page 5: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
FB 5
![Page 6: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
3300183 183777 627
960 3300 m 810
+77.00 m
+383.00 +383.00
+54.00+118.00
+52.00 +63.00
3300183 183777 627
960 3300 m 810
+77.00 m
+383.00 +383.00
+54.00+118.00
+52.00 +63.00
STRUCTURAL MODEL
LOADING SYSTEM
GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL
UNCERTAINTY
![Page 7: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
3300183 183777 627
960 3300 m 810
+77.00 m
+383.00 +383.00
+54.00+118.00
+52.00 +63.00
3300183 183777 627
960 3300 m 810
+77.00 m
+383.00 +383.00
+54.00+118.00
+52.00 +63.00
CONTROL DEVICES
SOIL BEHAVIORMATERIAL NONLINEARITY
SOIL/STRUCTURE INTERFACE CONTACT
HANGERS
TOWERS
MAIN CABLES
GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY
NONLINEARITY
![Page 8: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
3300183 183777 627
960 3300 m 810
+77.00 m
+383.00 +383.00
+54.00+118.00
+52.00 +63.00
TRAFFIC – STRUCTURE
WIND - STRUCTURE
SOIL - STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
GLOBAL/LOCAL STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR
![Page 9: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
FB 9
DECISIONNEGOTIATION & REFRAMING
WIND & TEMPERATURE
EARTHQUAKE
AN
TR
OP
IC A
CT
ION
S
(RA
ILW
AY
& H
IGH
WA
Y)
ST
RU
CT
UR
AL
BE
HA
VIO
R &
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E A
SS
ES
SM
EN
T
MODEL
![Page 10: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
FB 10
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Performance level assessing in response problem
Wind Vel
(m/s)
Return
Period
(years)
Performance to be furnished Level of
performance
21 50 Complete serviceability
(roadway and railway traffic)
High
45 200 Partial serviceability (railway
traffic)
Medium
57 2000 Maintaining the structural
integrity
Low
![Page 11: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
a) COMPOUND DECK
structural complexity
![Page 12: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
FB 12
deck arrangement
![Page 13: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
FB 13
deck arrangement
![Page 14: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
FB 14
highway girder section
![Page 15: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
FB 15
railway girder section
![Page 16: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
FB 16
![Page 17: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
FB 17
transverse element section
![Page 18: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
FB 18
![Page 19: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FB 19
![Page 20: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
FB 20
![Page 21: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
FB 21
![Page 22: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
FB 22
![Page 23: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
FB 23
![Page 24: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
FB 24
![Page 25: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
FB 25
![Page 26: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
FB 26
![Page 27: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
b) RESTRAINT DEVICES
localized nonlinearities
![Page 28: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
FB 28
![Page 29: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
FB 29
![Page 30: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
FB 30
![Page 31: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
FB 31
![Page 32: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
FB 32
![Page 33: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
FB 33
![Page 34: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
FB 34
![Page 35: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
FB 35
![Page 36: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
FB 36
![Page 37: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
FB 37
![Page 38: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
FB 38
![Page 39: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
FB 39
![Page 40: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
FB 40
![Page 41: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
FB 41
WIND
HG
TG
SICILIA’S TOWER LEG
WIND
SICILIA’S TOWER LEG CALABRIA’S TOWER LEG
CALABRIA’S TOWER LEG
TS
LS
Sicilia Calabria
RG
HG
TG
LS
TS
WIND
HG
TG
SICILIA’S TOWER LEG
WIND
SICILIA’S TOWER LEG CALABRIA’S TOWER LEG
CALABRIA’S TOWER LEG
TS
LS
Sicilia Calabria
RG
HG
TG
LS
TS
Transversal slack (TS) and longitudinal slack (LS) arrangement
along the suspension bridge.
(HG: Highway box girder; RG: Railway box girder; TG: Transverse box girder.)
![Page 42: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
FB 42
TRANSVERSAL DISPLACEMENTS
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-192 180 540 900 1260 1620 1980 2340 2700 3060 3420
L [m]
Uy [
m]
0 cm 30 cm 50 cm
![Page 43: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
FB 43
HORIZONTAL CURVATURE
-2.0E-05
0.0E+00
2.0E-05
4.0E-05
6.0E-05
-120 240 600 960 1320 1680 2040 2400 2760 3120
L [m]
c
[m-1
]
0 cm 30 cm 50 cm
![Page 44: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
(i)
ANALYSIS
strategies
![Page 45: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
FB 45
STRATEGY #1: SENSITIVITY
governance of priorities
![Page 46: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
FB 46
STRATEGY #2: BOUNDING
behavior governance
p
(p)
p
(p)
![Page 47: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
FB 47
Super
ControlloreProblema Risultato
Solutore #1
Solutore #2
Voting System
STRATEGY #3: REDUNDANCY
factors governance
![Page 48: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
PART #2
FLUID-STRUCTURE
INTERACTIONS
![Page 49: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
FB 49
Equation of dynamic equilibrium
By discretizing the body to a finite number of degrees of freedom (DOFs), the
equation governing the body motion is the dynamic equilibrium equation:
);;;,,;( ntVqqqshapebodyFqKqCqM (1)
where
M mass matrix of the system,
C damping matrix of the system,
K stiffness matrix of the system,
qqq ,, DOFs of the system and their first an second time derivates,
V incident wind velocity,
t time,
n oscillation frequencies of the system.
![Page 50: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
FB 50
Classification (I):
Collar
![Page 51: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
FB 51
Classification (II):
Naudascher / RockwellFLOW-INDUCED VIBRATIONS
caused by fluctuations in
flow velocity or
pressures that are
independent of any flow
instability originating
from the structure
considered and
independent of structural
movements except for
added-mass and
fluid-damping effects
brought about by a flow
instability that is intrinsic
to the flow system; in
other words, the flow
instability is inherent to
the flow created by the
structure considered
due to fluctuating forces
that arise from
movements of the
vibrating body; a
dynamic instability of the
body oscillator can gives
rise to energy transfer
from the main flow to the
oscillator
EIEExtraneously
induced excitation
MIEMovement-induced
excitation
IIEInstability-induced
excitation
es.
TURBULENCE
BUFFETING
es.
VORTEX
SHEDDING
es.
FLUTTER
![Page 52: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
FB 52
if F(t) contains negative flow-induced damping
FLOW-INDUCED FORCES
ON STATIONARY BODY
MOVEMENT-INDUCED FORCES
IN STAGNANT FLUID
Fmean
mean value
F'(t)
due to
fluctuating
fluid
F''(t)
due to
vibrating body
Extraneous
sourceFlow instability
In phase with
body velocity
In phase with
body
displacement
or acceleration
Mean
loading
systemEIE IIE MIE
Alteration of
body dynamic
characteristics
![Page 53: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
(ii)
WIND VELOCITIES
factors
![Page 54: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
FB 54
Vento = f(t)
Vento = f(s,t)
LAMINAR / TURBOLENT
![Page 55: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
FB 55
Atmosferic turbulence
Time variation
Spatial
variation
Three spatial
componentMean
component
Turbulent
component
![Page 56: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
FB 56
Componente verticale
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
T (secondi)
Vz (m
/s)
Velo
cit
y
time
j
kk
j
kkjk tItR sincos2(t)mc
1k
jjY
Time Histories generation by harmonic functions
superposition
Checking the spectral
compatibility
Wind velocity time histories generation (III)
![Page 57: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
FB 57
![Page 58: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
FB 58
![Page 59: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
FB 59
![Page 60: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
FB 60
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Wind velocity fieldAeroelastic
theories
From
the wind
velocities
to
the sectional
forces
)()(2
1)(
2tcBtVtD Da
)(*)(2
1)(
2tcBtVtL La
)(*)(2
1)( 22
tcBtVtM Ma
a) Laminar
b) Turbulent
t1
t2
Computing of instantaneous wind forces
Velocities are stationary
Velocities are uniform at the same altitude
Velocities are non stationary and non uniform
Loading system
![Page 61: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
(iii)
AERODYNAMIC THEORIES
factors
![Page 62: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
FB 62
LES – Flow around Nude Section
![Page 63: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
FB 63
LES – Flow around a Realistic Section
![Page 64: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
FB 64
Aeroelastic theories:
qntRqntQqntPnqqqF se ),(),(),();,,(
Approximated Formulation for Aeroelastic Forces (1)
Non aeroelastic
(NO)
![Page 65: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
FB 65
(NO) AEROELASTIC THEORY
Umean U’(t)
W’(t)
α(t)
α(t)
α(t)
undeformed configuration
E )()(
2
1)(
2tcBtVtD Da
)()(2
1)( 0
2tKBtVtL La
)()(2
1)( 0
22tKBtVtM Ma
![Page 66: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
FB 66
(t)
t
0
no influence
NO
STRUCTURAL MOTION
![Page 67: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
FB 67
STEADY THEORY (ST)
Umean U’(t)
W’(t)
α(t)
α(t)α(t)
θ(t)
θ(t)
γ(t)
γ(t)
undeformed configuration
E
E
)()(2
1)(
2tcBtVtD Da
)()(2
1)(
2tcBtVtL La
)()(2
1)( 22
tcBtVtM Ma
![Page 68: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
FB 68
(t)
t
t
influence for instantaneous
effects of generalized
displacements
STRUCTURAL MOTION
![Page 69: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
FB 69
QUASI STEADY THEORY (QS) - 1
Umean
U’(t) W’(t)
β(t)
α(t)
β(t)
θ(t)
θ(t)
γ(t)
γ(t)
undeformed configuration
E
E
-p(t)
-hA(t) )()(
2
1)(
2tcBtVtD Dai
)()(2
1)(
2tcBtVtL Lai
)()(2
1)( 22
tcBtVtM Mai
![Page 70: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
FB 70
QUASI STEADY THEORY (QS) - 2
θ(t)
θ(t)
undeformed configuration
E
E
p
p(t)
hA(t)
A
A
B
biB
hA(t)=h(t)+biBθ(t)
h(t)
p(t)
![Page 71: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
FB 71
(t)
t
t
influence for instantaneous
effects of generalized
displacements and velocities(t)
STRUCTURAL MOTION
![Page 72: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
FB 72
MODIFIED QS THEORY (QSM) - 1
In respect to the QS theory, the only changes concern the aerodynamic coefficients for
the Lift and the Moment, which become dynamic as measured by wind tunnel tests.
Aeroelastic forces are expressed by the following expressions:
)()(2
1)(
2tcBtVtD DaL
)(*)(2
1)(
2tcBtVtL LaL (10)
)(*)(2
1)( 22
tcBtVtM MaM
where )(ti , 2
)(tVai ( MLi , ) and Dc , have the same meaning as the previous
expressions included in QS theory.
![Page 73: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
FB 73
MODIFIED QS THEORY (QSM) - 2In the expressions (10), aerodynamic coefficients Lc * and Mc * are dynamic and they
are computed like below:
0
0
)(*
)(*
0
0
dKcc
dKcc
MMM
LLL
(11)
where )( 0Lc e )( 0Mc are the static aerodynamic coefficients computed in the mean
equilibrium configuration ( 0 ), and LK , MK are the “dynamic derivatives”
computed like below:
M
M
L
L
caK
chK
3
3
(12)
where 3h and 3a are the Zasso’s theory coefficients [15], assessed by dynamic wind
tunnel tests. These coefficients are similar to the Scanlan’s motion derivatives (2), and
they depend both from the rotation deck angle and the “reduced wind velocity”
BVVred (depending from , which is the motion frequency).
![Page 74: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
FB 74
(t)
tt
influence of
delay/memory effects
STRUCTURAL MOTION
![Page 75: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
FB 75
Complexity
Aeroelastic theories
qntRqntQqntPnqqqF se ),(),(),();,,(
Approximated formulation for aeroelastic forces (2)
![Page 76: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
PART #3
RESULTS
![Page 77: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
(iv)
STABILITY RESULTS
for non turbulent wind
Vento = f(t)
![Page 78: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
FB 78
0,500
0,505
0,510
0,515
0,520
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
t (sec)
stable (positive damping)
0,500
0,505
0,510
0,515
0,520
0,525
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
t (sec)
critical (zero damping)
0,300
0,400
0,500
0,600
0,700
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
t (sec)
unstable (negative damping)
V<Vcrit – δ>0
V~Vcrit – δ~0
V>Vcrit – δ<0
![Page 79: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
FB 79
Uz
Theta
start
final
Uz
Theta
start
final
V<Vcrit – δ>0
![Page 80: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
FB 80
V~Vcrit – δ~0
Uz
Theta
start
final
Uz
Theta
start
final
![Page 81: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
FB 81
V>Vcrit – δ<0
Uz
Theta
start
final
Uz
Theta
start
final
start
final
![Page 82: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
FB 82
Mid span oscillation envelope
to evaluate damping
0,500
0,505
0,510
0,515
0,520
0,525
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
t (sec)
teqqq
0
Uz; Theta
q
q+q0
0,500
0,505
0,510
0,515
0,520
0,525
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
t (sec)
teqqq
0
Uz; Theta
q
q+q0
V<Vcrit
0
![Page 83: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
FB 83
Damping and Vcrit
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Wind Velocity (m/s)
Da
mp
ing
(%
)
Total Structural Aerodynamic
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Wind Velocity (m/s)
Da
mp
ing
(%
)Total Structural Aerodynamic
![Page 84: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
FB 84
66m/s 70m/s 85m/s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
NO ST QS QSM
V (
m/s
)
NO
FL
UT
TE
R
![Page 85: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
(v)
RESPONSE RESULTS
for turbulent wind
Vento = f(s,t)
![Page 86: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
FB 86
![Page 87: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
FB 87
Time history Frequencies Probability density
NO
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uy (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2,41
3,91
5,42
6,92
8,43
9,93
11,4
3
12,9
4
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
ST
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uy (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2,41
3,91
5,42
6,92
8,43
9,93
11,4
3
12,9
4
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
QS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uy (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2,41
3,91
5,42
6,92
8,43
9,93
11,4
3
12,9
4
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
QS
M
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uy (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2,41
3,91
5,42
6,92
8,43
9,93
11,4
3
12,9
4
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
Mean wind velocity = 45 m/s
![Page 88: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
FB 88
Time history Frequencies Probability density
NO
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uz (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-1,7
9
-1,0
2
-0,2
50,
531,
302,
072,
843,
61
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
ST
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uz (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-1,7
9
-1,0
2
-0,2
50,
531,
302,
072,
843,
61
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
QS
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uz (
m)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
-1,7
9
-1,0
2
-0,2
50,
531,
302,
072,
843,
61
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
QS
M
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uz (
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
-1,7
9
-1,0
2
-0,2
50,
531,
302,
072,
843,
61
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
Mean wind velocity = 45 m/s
![Page 89: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
FB 89
Time history Frequencies Probability density
NO
-0,055
-0,045
-0,035
-0,025
-0,015
-0,005
0,005
0,015
0,025
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Ro
t (R
AD
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-0,0
47
-0,0
36
-0,0
25
-0,0
14
-0,0
03
0,00
8
0,01
9
0,03
0
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
ST
-0,055
-0,045
-0,035
-0,025
-0,015
-0,005
0,005
0,015
0,025
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Ro
t (R
AD
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-0,0
47
-0,0
36
-0,0
25
-0,0
14
-0,0
03
0,00
8
0,01
9
0,03
0
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
QS
-0,055
-0,045
-0,035
-0,025
-0,015
-0,005
0,005
0,015
0,025
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Ro
t (R
AD
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
-0,0
47
-0,0
36
-0,0
25
-0,0
14
-0,0
03
0,00
8
0,01
9
0,03
0
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
QS
M
-0,055
-0,045
-0,035
-0,025
-0,015
-0,005
0,005
0,015
0,025
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Ro
t (R
AD
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
-0,0
47
-0,0
36
-0,0
25
-0,0
14
-0,0
03
0,00
8
0,01
9
0,03
0
Class
Fre
qu
en
cy
Mean wind velocity = 45 m/s
![Page 90: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
FB 90
Time history Probability density Mean values
Tra
ns
ve
rsa
l
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uy (
m)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
NO ST QS QSM Experim
Ve
rtic
al
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Uz (
m)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
NO ST QS QSM Experim
Ro
tati
on
-0,055
-0,045
-0,035
-0,025
-0,015
-0,005
0,005
0,015
0,025
400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
time (sec)
Ro
t (R
AD
)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
-0,6
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
NO ST QS QSM ExperimR
ota
tio
n(D
EG
)
-0,6
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
NO ST QS QSM ExperimR
ota
tio
n(D
EG
)
Mean wind velocity = 45 m/s
![Page 91: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
![Page 92: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
![Page 93: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
![Page 94: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
![Page 95: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
FB 95
Envelope transv. velocity
NO_V45
ST_V45QS_V45
QSM_V45
-1,8
-0,8
0,2
1,2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
abscissa (m)
Vy (
m/s
)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
![Page 96: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
FB 96
Envelope transv. acceleration
NO_V45ST_V45
QS_V45
QSM_V45
-0,9
-0,5
-0,1
0,3
0,7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
abscissa (m)
ay (
m/s
^2)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
![Page 97: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
FB 97
Envelope vert. velocity
NO_V45
ST_V45
QS_V45
QSM_V45
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
abscissa (m)
Vy (
m/s
)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
![Page 98: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
FB 98
Envelope vert. acceleration
NO_V45
ST_V45
QS_V45
QSM_V45
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
abscissa (m)
az (
m/s
^2)
NO_V45 ST_V45 QS_V45 QSM_V45
![Page 99: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
FB 99
Tiro cavi all'ancoraggio
115000
120000
125000
130000
135000
140000
600 1100 1600 2100 2600 3100
Tempo (s)
Tir
o (
To
n)
Sponda siciliana, lato nord Sponda calabrese, lato nord
Sponda siciliana, lato sud Sponda calabrese, lato sud
AXIAL FORCE IN THE MAIN CABLES (1)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
![Page 100: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
FB 100
Tiro cavi all'ancoraggio
115000
120000
125000
130000
135000
140000
600 1100 1600 2100 2600 3100
Tempo (s)
Tir
o (
To
n)
Sponda siciliana, lato nord Sponda calabrese, lato nord
Sponda siciliana, lato sud Sponda calabrese, lato sud
AXIAL FORCE IN THE MAIN CABLES (2)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
Vento = f(s,t)
![Page 101: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
FB 101
CONCLUSIONS - stability
1. NO formulation can not compute the flutter phenomenon, while the other formulations can;
2. increasing the complexity of the aeroelastic forces representation, the value of the critical velocity increases;
3. the variation of aeroelastic damping with the wind incident velocity has been assessed using QS formulation, where the aerodynamic damping increases its value from zero velocity to a certain value of the wind velocity; beyond this value it starts to decrease and finally it becomes negative.
![Page 102: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
FB 102
CONCLUSIONS - response
1. with non turbulent wind, the QS and QSM formulations have a damping greater than linear; concerning the time envelopes of deck displacements, the results obtained from different formulations are very similar;
2. with turbulent incident wind, the differences between the oscillations amplitude computed by different formulations become significant.
In general, increasing the complexity of the aeroelastic forces representation (following the succession NO, ST, QS, QSM), the maximum response decrease. These differences increase with the increase of the wind mean velocity.
![Page 103: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
FB 103
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• The authors thank Professors R. Calzona, P.G. Malerba, and K.J. Bathe for fundamental supports related to this study.
• Thanks to the Reviewers of the present paper.
• The financial supports of University of Rome “La Sapienza”, COFIN2004 and Stretto di Messina S.p.A. are acknowledged.
• Nevertheless, the opinions and the results presented here are responsibility of the authors and cannot be assumed to reflect the ones of University of Rome “La Sapienza” or of Stretto di Messina S.p.A.
![Page 104: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
Fourth M.I.T. Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid
Mechanics – Focus: Fluid-Structure Interactions
Boston, June 13-15, 2007
Comparison of time domain techniques
for the evaluation
of the response and the stability
of long span suspension bridges
F.Petrini, F.Giuliano, F.Bontempi*
*Professor of Structural Analysis and Design
University of Rome La Sapienza - ITALY
![Page 105: Comparison of time domain techniques for the evaluation of the response and the stability of long span suspension bridges](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050919/5484b752b4af9f8c0d8b4cff/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
FB 105