4.5 Article

Torsional stiffness degradation and aerostatic divergence of suspension bridge decks

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUIDS AND STRUCTURES
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 269-283

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.05.001

关键词

Suspension bridge; Aerostatic; Torsional divergence; Vertical motion; Turbulence

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [51178182, 90915002]
  2. state key laboratory of disaster reduction in civil engineering [SLDRCE10-MB-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanism of aerostatic torsional divergence (ATD) of long-span suspension bridges is investigated. A theoretical analysis on the basis of a generalized model is presented, showing that the vertical motion of a bridge deck is crucial to the torsional stiffness of the whole suspended system, and that the vertical motion of either cable with a magnitude beyond a certain threshold could result in a sudden degradation of the torsional stiffness of the system. This vertical motion-induced degradation of stiffness is recognized as the main reason for the ATD. Long-span suspension bridges are susceptible to such a type of divergence, especially when they are immersed in turbulent wind fields. The divergences that occur in turbulent wind fields differ significantly from those in smooth wind fields, and the difference is well explained by the generalized model that the loosening of any one cable could result in the vanishing of the part of stiffness provided by the whole cable system. The mechanism revealed in this paper leads to a definition of the critical wind speed of the ATD in a turbulent flow; that is, the one resulting in a vertical motion so large as to loosen either cable to a stressless state. Numerical results from the nonlinear finite-element (FE) analysis of the Xihoumen suspension bridge, in conjunction with observations from wind tunnel tests on an aero-elastic full bridge model, are in support of the viewpoint presented in this study. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据