3.9 Article

Analyzing Wind Effects on Long-Span Bridges: A Viable Numerical Modelling Methodology Using OpenFOAM for Industrial Applications

Journal

INFRASTRUCTURES
Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/infrastructures8090130

Keywords

bridge; wind; aerodynamic; modelling; simulation; framework

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aerodynamic performance is crucial for the design of long-span bridges. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling offers a method to investigate this performance during both the design phase and operation of the bridge. This paper presents a framework using open-source software to analyze wind effects on long-span bridges, and validates the methodology with field data from two bridges.
Aerodynamic performance is of critical importance to the design of long-span bridges. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling offers bridge designers an opportunity to investigate aerodynamic performance for long-span bridges during the design phase as well as during operation of the bridge. It offers distinct advantages when compared with the current standard practice of wind tunnel testing, which can have several limitations. The proposed revisions to the Eurocodes offer CFD as a methodology for wind analysis of bridges. Practicing engineers have long sought a computationally affordable, viable, and robust framework for industrial applications of using CFD to examine wind effects on long-span bridges. To address this gap in the literature and guidance, this paper explicitly presents a framework and demonstrates a workflow of analyzing wind effects on long-span bridges using open-source software, namely FreeCAD, OpenFOAM, and ParaView. Example cases are presented, and detailed configurations and general guidance are discussed during each step. A summary is provided of the validation of this methodology with field data collected from the structural health monitoring (SHM) systems of two long-span bridges.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available