Comparative and sensitivity study of flutter derivatives of selected bridge deck sections, Part 1: Analysis of inter-laboratory experimental data

An enhanced forced vibration rig for wind tunnel testing of bridge deck section models in arbitrary motion

“…Significant progress has been made since Ukeguchi et al, (1966) presented the first experimental results for bridge decks in 1966, and an impressive amount of forced vibration rigs used in research can be found in the literature (e.g. Cao and Sarkar, 2012;Chen et al, 2005;Diana et al, 2004Diana et al, , 2010Diana et al, , 2015Falco et al, 1992;Han et al, 2014;Lee and Kwon, 2009;Li, 1995;Matsumoto et al, 1993;Matsumoto, 1996;Neuhaus et al, 2009;Sarkar et al, 2009). Forced vibration tests considering vertical and pitching motions are now routinely conducted when designing bridges, occasionally allowing for coupling between the two motions (Cao and Sarkar, 2012;Diana et al, 2004;Falco et al, 1992;Han et al, 2014).…”

“…There are several alternative methods for identifying aerodynamic derivatives from forced vibration test data. The aerodynamic derivatives are commonly determined from forced vibration tests by studying the phase angle between the self-excited forces and the motion of the section (Lee and Kwon, 2009;Matsumoto, 1996;Matsumoto et al, 1993;Neuhaus et al, 2009;Sarkar et al, 2009Sarkar et al, , 2007. Another option is to consider the complex Fourier amplitudes of the self-excited forces and how these are related to the aerodynamic derivatives; see (Chen et al, 2005;Li, 1995;Siedziako et al 2016) for further details.…”

“…Thus, free vibration tests are considered to provide more realistic in-wind motion of the bridge deck and are easier to perform and less expensive; however, it is far more challenging to identify the aerodynamic derivatives from free vibration data; see (Bogunović Jakobsen and Hjorth-Hansen, 1995;Brownjohn and Jakobsen, 2001;Chowdhury and Sarkar, 2003;Sarkar et al, 1994;Scanlan, 1978) for an overview of the methodology available. The forced vibration technique provides higher data reliability (Diana et al, 2015) and is more suitable for higher velocities, larger motion amplitudes and higher turbulence intensities (Cao and Sarkar, 2012;Sarkar et al, 2009). However, the ability to consider a realistic bridge deck motion might be important for some cross sections.…”

On the applicability of 2D URANS and SSTk-ωturbulence model to the fluid-structure interaction of rectangular cylinders

“…The adopted sign criterion has been the one reported in Sarkar et al (2009) that is aeroelastic lift force and heave displacement positive downwards, moment and pitch rotation positive in the clock-wise direction, for a flow coming from the left side.…”

“…As a consequence, these parameters have been traditionally identified using wind tunnel tests, and more recently from numerical-based simulations. According to Sarkar, Caracoglia, Haan, Sato, and Murakoshi (2009) and Simiu and Scanlan (1996), the aeroelastic forces on a bridge deck, considering two degrees of freedom (heave and pitch) can be written as follows, using Scanlan's formulation: [ Assuming prescribed harmonic forced oscillations h = h 0 sin(ω h t) and α = α 0 sin(ω α t), where h 0 and α 0 are the amplitudes of the oscillations, and also that motioninduced forces are linear functions of the movement; after some manipulation, the following expressions are obtained for the identification of the flutter derivatives:…”