Aerodynamic Effect of Non-uniform Wind Profiles for Long-Span Bridges

  • T. M. LystadEmail author
  • A. Fenerci
  • O. Øiseth
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 27)


Long-span bridges are often designed based on the assumption of wind field homogeneity. At the Hardanger Bridge, the wind field along the bridge span is monitored though 8 triaxial ultrasonic anemometers. Simultaneously recorded profiles for mean wind velocity and turbulence intensity along the span are used to investigate the effect of non-uniform wind profiles on the aerodynamic behaviour of the Hardanger Bridge. Extreme non-uniformity is considered using Monte Carlo simulations to generate extreme, but realistic wind profiles based on the variability of the measured wind field. When the buffeting response of the Hardanger Bridge is considered, significant effects on the behaviour is found.


Long-span bridge Non-uniform wind field Field measurements Complex terrain 



The research presented in this study has been financed by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA), the Norwegian Research Council and Norconsult AS. The authors appreciate all these contributions.


  1. Arena A, Lacarbonara W, Valentine DT, Marzocca P (2014) Aeroelastic behavior of long-span suspension bridges under arbitrary wind profiles. J Fluids Struct 50:105–119. Scholar
  2. Chen X, Kareem A, Matsumoto M (2001) Multimode coupled flutter and buffeting analysis of long span bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 89:649–664. Scholar
  3. Dassault Systèmes, Waltham (n.d.) ABAQUSGoogle Scholar
  4. Davenport AG (1962) Buffeting of a suspension bridge by storm winds. J Struct Div 88:233–270Google Scholar
  5. Fenerci A, Øiseth O (2017) Measured buffeting response of a long-span suspension bridge compared with numerical predictions based on design wind spectra. J Struct Eng 143. Scholar
  6. Fenerci A, Øiseth O, Rönnquist A (2017) Long-term monitoring of wind field characteristics and dynamic response of a long-span suspension bridge in complex terrain. Eng Struct 147:269–284. Scholar
  7. Hu L, Xu Y, Zhu Q, Guo A, Kareem A (2017) Tropical storm – induced buffeting response of long-span bridges: enhanced nonstationary buffeting force model. J Struct Eng 143:04017027. Scholar
  8. Jain A, Jones NP, Scanlan RH (1996a) Coupled aeroelastic and aerodynamic response analysis of long-span bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 60:69–80. Scholar
  9. Jain A, Jones NP, Scanlan RH (1996b) Coupled flutter and buffeting analysis. J Struct Eng 122:716–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lystad TM, Fenerci A, Øiseth O (2018) Evaluation of mast measurements and wind tunnel terrain models to describe spatially variable wind field characteristics for long-span bridge design. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 179:558–573. Scholar
  11. Scanlan RH, Tomko JJ (1971) Airfoil and bridge deck flutter derivatives. J Eng Mech Div 97:1717–1737Google Scholar
  12. Siedziako B, Øiseth O, Rønnquist A (2017) An enhanced forced vibration rig for wind tunnel testing of bridge deck section models in arbitrary motion. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 164:152–163. Scholar
  13. Zhang X (2007) Influence of some factors on the aerodynamic behavior of long-span suspension bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95:149–164. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bridge DepartmentNorconsult ASSandvikaNorway
  2. 2.Department of Structural EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations