George Washington Bridge: Design of Superstructure

Dana, Allston; Andersen, Aksel; Rapp, G.M.

doi:10.1061/taceat.0004401

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ANSYS Mechanical APDL numerical models were realized with the geometrical properties found in literature [38][39][40]. The suspension cables were modeled as beam elements (BEAM188), with a circular cross-section of radius 0.573 m. An equivalent elastic modulus of 1.07 × 11 Pa was adopted in order to take in to account the influence of the side spans.…”

Section: Finite Element Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Point mass elements (MASS21) were attached to the upper chords and to the equivalent longitudinal beams, both lower and upper, in order to model the inertial contribution of the sidewalk slabs, roadway slabs and other secondary elements. According to Dana et al [39], a total dead load of 417 kN/m and 569 kN/m were obtained for the single-deck and the double-deck configurations, respectively. Lastly, the MATRIX27 elements were attached to each node of the equivalent longitudinal beams to model the aeroelastic forces in terms of aeroelastic stiffness and damping.…”

Section: Finite Element Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preliminary Flutter Stability Assessment of the Double-Deck George Washington Bridge

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We deal with the flutter analysis of the George Washington bridge, in both the single- and double-deck configurations of 1931 and 1962, respectively. The influence of the additional lower deck on the aerodynamic behavior is investigated. To overcome the lack of aerodynamic data, a simplified approach is followed based on Fung’s formulation, in which the flutter derivatives are expressed in terms of the real and imaginary parts of the Theodorsen function and of the steady-state aerodynamic coefficients of the deck cross-section. The latter are obtained by Computational Fluid Dynamics simulations conducted in ANSYS FLUENT, whereas the ANSYS Mechanical APDL finite element package is used to perform the flutter analyses. Two different methods for the application of the aeroelastic forces are employed for the double-deck configuration: (i) self-excited forces, based on flutter derivatives related to the whole cross-section, acting on the upper deck; and (ii) self-excited forces, based on flutter derivatives related to the single deck, simultaneously applied to the upper and lower decks. The obtained results are critically compared with theoretical predictions of simple formulas available from the literature; it is suggested that laboratory tests are needed since no experimental results seem to be available.

show abstract