Comparison study of aeroelastic analysis of a pylon of the

Mersey Gateway Bridge with its 2D/3D wind tunnel tests

S.B. Kim
Samsung C&T, Seoul, Korea

J. Rees
Flint&Neill, Gloucestershire, UK

J.Y. Chung
TESolution, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

S.H. Jang, G.D. Moir, J.H. Seo

Merseylink, Warrington, UK

ABSTRACT: Aeroelastic analysis of a pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge is conducted and
compared with its 2D/3D wind tunnel tests. Flutter derivatives are approximately estimated
from the steady state wind load coefficients obtained from the wind tunnel tests of the 2D section models of the pylon. Since the width of the pylon is varying along the elevation, three different section models are selected as the representative sections of the pylon. Aerodynamic
damping effect is considered by including the Scanlans flutter equation into the system matrix
of the state space equation for the pylon. Spatial coherence of fluctuating wind velocity is modeled with the Karman model, and the effect of the aerodynamic admittance function is considered with the Liepmann model. Aerodynamic stability analysis shows a good agreement with
the wind tunnel test result of the 2D section model. Since the parameters used in this analysis
are obtained from the 2D section model tests, the aerodynamic stability analysis of the 3D pylon
model doesnt match well with the wind tunnel test result of the 3D pylon model. The static and
RMS responses of the pylon from the 2D aeroelastic analysis shows a good agreement with the
2D wind tunnel test results. The aeroelastic analysis results of the 3D pylon model shows a good
agreement with the 3D wind tunnel test results, except the cases where the negative damping effect become dominant. Comparison results show the efficacy of the aeroelastic analysis for the
prediction of the wind responses of the pylon.

1 INTRODUCTION
Pylons of cable-stayed bridges are susceptible to strong wind. During the design process of a
cable-stayed bridge, wind tunnel test of the pylon is conducted to verify the stability against the
strong wind and to identify the excessive vibrations from the fluctuating wind velocity. Aeroelastic analysis can be used to predict the wind responses and the aerodynamic stability of the pylon. Wind-pylon interaction effects can be considered by self-excitation force term from the
Scanlans flutter equation. In this research, the flutter derivatives are approximately evaluated
from the steady state wind load coefficients as follows:
P* 2C
K
D
1

P*
C
K2
3 D
C C K
P*
L
5 D

H* C
C K
D
L
1

*
2
H
C
K
3
L
H * 2C K
L
5

A*
C
K
1 M

A*
C
K2
3 M
A* 2C
K
M
5

(1)

The structure studied in this research is a 125m height pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge.
The width across the bridge is constant with 3.5m (Fig. 1). The width along the bridge is decreasing with the elevation. Two kinds of model are considered, one is a 2D section model with

a constant width and the other one is a 3D free-standing pylon model with the decreasing width
along the elevation of the pylon. Both of the analysis models are constructed based on the
steady state wind load coefficients estimated from the wind tunnel test of the 2D section models.
To consider the 3D effects, 2D section models with three different representative widths are selected and the steady state wind load coefficients are estimated from the 2D wind tunnel tests.
Wind velocity, turbulence intensity, length scale, and power spectral density of the fluctuating
wind speed are modeled through the wind climate analysis (Fig. 2). Two different construction
stages of the pylon are considered: 1) erection stage with free standing pylon, 2) service stage
with connected deck and stay cables. Figure 3 shows the mode shapes of the pylon at the erection stage and service stage. Figure 4 shows the steady state wind load coefficients measured
from the wind tunnel tests of the 2D section models.

Figure 1. Typical section model of the pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge.

(a) Wind velocity, turbulence intensity, length

scale
Figure 2. Wind characteristics at the bridge site.

(b) Power spectral density

(a) Erection stage

Figure 3. Mode shapes of the pylon.

(b) Service stage

(a) Drag coefficient

Figure 4. Steady state wind load coefficients.

(b) Lift coefficient

2 WIND RESPONSE ANLAYSIS OF PYLON

2.1 Similarity of turbulence intensity based on the small-scale turbulence

The wind tunnel test for the 2D section model of the pylon was conducted at a small-scale wind
tunnel. Since the small-scale turbulence at the high frequency range dominates the flow pattern
around the structure (Melbourne 1975), the turbulent intensity at the wind tunnel was scaled
based on the similarity law for small-scale turbulence (Sangchuwong et al. 2012). Figure 5
shows that the power spectral density (PSD) of the fluctuating wind velocity at the wind tunnel
is matched well with the Karmans PSD model at the high frequency range, while the magnitude
of the wind tunnels PSD at the 1st natural frequency of the pylon is much smaller than the magnitude of the Karman models PSD.

Figure 5. Power spectral density of the fluctuating wind velocity in model scale.

2.2 Wind response analysis of 2d section model of pylon in erection stage

Figure 6 shows the static and RMS response of the pylon. Especially the responses at the wind
speed of 40m/s are compared with the results of the wind tunnel tests. Since the static response
is dominated by the drag force, the maximum response along the bridge (z-axis) occurs when
the wind incident angle is 90 degree and the maximum response across the bridge (y-axis) occurs when the incident angle is 0 degree. Comparison of static responses shows a good agreement between the analysis results and wind tunnel test results. Figure 6e, f shows the abrupt increase of the RMS responses at the zero degree of the incident angle for the z-axis and at the 90
degree for the y-axis, which indicates that the aerodynamic damping is drastically decreased
around these regions. Aerodynamic stability of the 2D section model of the pylon will be explained later.

(a) zs (smooth)

(b) zs (turbulent)

(c) ys (smooth)

(d) ys (turbulent)

(e) zRMS (turbulent)

(f) yRMS (turbulent)
Figure 6. Static and RMS response of the pylon in erection stage (2D model).

2.3 Aeroelastic analysis of 3d model of pylon in service stage

Figure 7 shows the static and RMS response of the pylon. The responses at the wind speed of
40m/s are compared with the results of the wind tunnel tests. Comparison of static responses
shows a small difference between the analysis results and wind tunnel test results. The 3D model used in the wind tunnel test was tuned to match the dynamic parameters of the proto-type
model, and only the wind load coefficients of three representative 2D section models at the elevations of 105m, 85m, and 65m are used for the analysis. The RMS responses of the analysis
show a good agreement with the results of the wind tunnel tests. Figure 8 shows the RMS response of the pylon as a function of wind speed. In the case of the wind incident angle of 40 degree shows a good agreement between the analysis and the wind tunnel test. However at the incident angle of 90 degree, the RMS response of the analysis increases rapidly after the wind
speed of 33 m/s where the total damping of the wind-pylon system goes negative.

(a) ys (smooth)
(b) ys (turbulent)
(c) yRMS (turbulent)
Figure 7. Static and RMS response of the pylon in service stage (3D model).

(a) Wind incident angle: 40 degree

(b) Wind incident angle: 90 degree
Figure 8. RMS response of the pylon in service stage as a function of wind speed.

3 AERODYNAMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS

Aerodynamic stability analysis of the pylon is conducted and compare with the dynamic wind
tunnel tests. Figure 9a shows the results of the aerodynamic stability analysis of the 2D section
model of the pylon in erection stage. In the case of the vibration along the z-axis (along the
bridge), the instability occurs at the incident angles of 5 and 10 degrees at smooth flow and 0
and 5 degrees at turbulent flow. For the vibration of the y-axis (across the bridge), the instability
occurs at the incident angles of 85 and 90 degrees at both of the smooth and turbulent flows.
These results are almost same as the wind tunnel tests of the 2D section model. Figure 9b shows
the results of the aerodynamic stability analysis of the 3D free-standing pylon model in service
stage. The instability occurs at the incident angles of 85 and 90 degrees, which is almost same
with the results of the 2D analysis of erection stage. Only the critical wind speeds are slightly
changed. However, the dynamic wind tunnel test of the 3D free-standing pylon model shows
that the pylon is stable for all incident angles. Figure 10 shows the flow pattern of the 3D freestanding pylon from the CFD analysis. We can find a movement of vortex at the rear slit of the
pylon along the vertical direction, which indicates that the flow of the 3D free standing pylon
has a strong 3D characteristic.

(a) Erection stage (2D)

Figure 9. Wind stability analysis result of the pylon.

(b) Service stage (3D)

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Aeroelastic analysis of a pylon of the Mersey Gateway Bridge was conducted and compared
with its 2D/3D wind tunnel tests. Aerodynamic stability analysis results show a good agreement
with the dynamic wind tunnel test results of the 2D section model. However it should be careful

for the application to the 3D model. The static responses of the 2D/3D analysis show a good
agreement with the 2D/3D wind tunnel test results. The RMS response of the 3D aeroelastic
analysis shows a good agreement with the result of the wind tunnel test for the 3D pylon model,
except the cases where the negative damping effects become dominant. Comparison result
shows the efficacy of the aeroelastic analysis for the prediction of the wind responses of the pylon.

Figure 10. Flow pattern obtained from the CFD analysis of the 3D free standing pylon.

REFERENCES
Diana, G., Resta, F., Zasso, A., Belloli, M., Rocchi, D. 2004. Forced motion and free motion aeroelastic
tests on a new concept dynamometric section model of the Messina suspension bridge. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 92: 441-462.
Kim, S.B. & Chung, JY. 2013. Mersey Gateway Bridge Project: Evaluation of Turbulence Spectrum on
the TESolutions Wind-Tunnel for Section Model Test, Samsung C&T.
Melbourne, W.H. 1975. Probability distribution of response of BHP house to wind action and model
comparisons. Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics 1, 167175.
Sangchuwong, P., Yamada, H., Katsuchi, H. 2012. Study on turbulence effects on flow patterns around
rectangular cylinders. Seventh International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics & Applications.
Simiu, E. & Scanlan, R.H. 1996. Wind Effects on Structures: Fundamentals and Applications to Design,
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Strmmen, E. 2010. Theory of Bridge Aerodynamics. Springer.