Long-Span Cable-Supported Bridges Performance

Improvements in Extreme Winds: Five Case Studies

Jon D. Raggett, PhD, SE, Pres., West Wind Laboratory, Inc., Monterey, CA, USA. Contact: raggett@westwindlaboratory.com
DOI: 10.2749/101686616X14480232444487

Abstract existing bridges. In all cases, the bridge

deck geometries were changed to elim-
Long-span cable-supported bridges are very flexible and are susceptible to a inate the aerodynamic mechanisms
dynamic, instability in strong windsflutter. Discussed in this paper are five case that caused the anticipated excessive
studies where the anticipated critical flutter wind speeds were low in the original motions.
design, but increased dramatically by making small changes to the geometry of
the deck cross-section. In none of the cases were excessive motions observed; they For all cases, static aerodynamic coef-
were only anticipated in the design phase. Four of the five aerodynamic improve- ficients and aeroelastic flutter deriva-
ments described in this paper were designed and have been implemented. The tives were obtained in a wind tunnel
improvements to the Golden Gate Bridge, the fifth, have been designed and are using large-scale section models of the
expected to be installed soon. bridge deck and towers. The turbulent
wind flow field was generated analyti-
Keywords: long-span bridges; flutter wind speeds; aerodynamic improvements. cally. Bridge response time histories
were then generated analytically using
the static and dynamic aerodynamic
coefficients obtained experimentally
Introduction trouble-causing aerodynamic mecha- based on turbulent wind speed flow
nism. Geometric changes to the bridge field,1 using the dynamic response
Long-span cable-supported bridges deck are the typical changes made. characteristics of the bridge structure,
are very flexible and, as a consequence, and a numerical simulation procedure
can experience large wind-induced Buffeting motions are difficult to
reduce through changes in the bridge in the time domain similar to that
motions. These motions are typically described in Ref. [2] (except that the
caused by buffeting from random tur- deck geometry alone. A bridge deck
section can be streamlined to reduce flutter derivatives were used instead of
bulence in the wind and wake, caused the impulse response functions used in
by periodic vortices shed into the lateral sway. However, that stream-
lining can make the section more the cited reference).
wake, or caused by aeroelastic instabil-
ity because of the shape of the bridge airfoil-like, which may increase
deck cross-section. This last aerody- the vertical and torsional buffeting Airfoil Behavior
namic mechanism was responsible for response. Aeroelastic instabilities and
the catastrophic failure of the Tacoma vortex-induced motions are more eas- Consider first the behavior of an air-
Narrows Bridge in 1940, and is the ily reduced by making small changes in foil (a wing) in a horizontal wind with
subject of this paper. the bridge deck geometry. speed U. Assume that the airfoil has
been disturbed and is moving down-
Motion can be reduced by increas- Discussed in this paper are five case
ward with a speed of dw/dt. The appar-
ing the bridge stiffness, by increas- studies performed in the last 37 years
ent angle of incidence of the wind with
where potential motions in extreme
ing mechanical damping (often with respect to the airfoil is a = tan1(dw/
tuned mass dampers), or by making winds were identified, and then elimi-
dt/U). The aerodynamic lift per unit
small changes to the bridge geom- nated by making small changes to
length of the airfoil will be:
etry that can eliminate the expected, the bridge deck geometry. In no case
were actual wind-induced motions Lift = (1/2rU2)(2pa)(c) (1)
experienced. The potential for wind-
where r is the density of air, and c is
This paper is being published posthu- generated problems was identified in
the chord of the airfoil.
mously. Dr. Jon D. Raggett passed away the design phase of new bridges, or in
on 26 September 2015 shortly after having the design phase of modifications to This is shown schematically in Fig. 1.
completed the revised version of the paper,
which was subsequently accepted for Lift
publication. The Editorial Board wishes to
express its sincere condolences to his family,
and would like to recognise Jon's contribu-
tions to the journal and to the profession as
a whole. U

dw dw
Peer-reviewed by international ex- dt dt
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board
C
Paper received: April 16, 2015
Paper accepted: September 30, 2015 Fig. 1: Flow over airfoil

6 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016

For small angles of incidence, a is
approximately dw/dt/U. Therefore, the
magnitude of the lift will be approxi-
mately proportional to the vertical
velocity of the airfoil, and it will be
directed opposite to the vertical veloc-
ity of the airfoil. The lift will tend to
resist the vertical airfoil motion. In a
horizontal wind, the airfoil will act
as an aerodynamic damper, adding
damping to the mechanical damping,
to resist downward vertical motions.
Using the same arguments, in a hori-
zontal wind, the airfoil is equally effec-
tive as a damper that resists upward
airfoil motions. There will be a down-
ward lift tending to resist the upward
vertical motion of the airfoil. For
upward or downward airfoil motions
in a horizontal wind, the airfoil will act
as an aerodynamic damper tending to
resist the airfoil motion.
If airfoils are placed at the edges of
a bridge deck in clear air, as shown
in Fig. 2, they will act as an aerody-
namic damper to resist both vertical
and torsional deck motions.3 If the
deck moves down in a wind with speed
U, both airfoils will generate a lift up,
resisting the downward deck motion
a vertical aerodynamic damper. If the
deck is rotating counterclockwise in a
wind U, the windward airfoil will go
down (generating a lift up), and the
leeward airfoil will go up (generat-
ing a lift down). Those two opposing
lifts multiplied by the moment arm
between them will generate an aerody-
namic moment that resists that coun-
terclockwise deck motiona torsional
aerodynamic damper.
Presented below is a discussion of
five case studies where the princi-
pals described in this section have to
be used to improve the performance
of the bridge design in strong winds,
by making small changes in the deck
geometries that increase aerodynamic
damping (which in turn increases the
critical flutter wind speed of the bridge
dramatically).
William Preston Lane
Westbound BridgeBaltimore,
Maryland, USA
The studied bridge is one of a pair of
suspension bridges, each with a main
span length of 485 m. Both are truss-
stiffened suspension bridges. In the
Westbound Bridge, the roadway is
on top of the stiffening trusses; in the
Eastbound Bridge, the roadway passes
through the stiffening trusses.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016
Lift
Translation
Lift
U
Force = (two lift)
Moment = (two lift)(r)
Lift
U
Lift
Rotation
r
Fig. 2: Winglet pair
The design for re-doing the deck of specify a critical flutter wind speed cri-
the Westbound Bridge included two terion during construction lower than
changes, the closing of grilled openings the critical flutter wind speed criterion
in the road deck, and the addition of for the completed bridge. The critical
solid traffic barriers. Before the deck flutter wind speed criterion during
modifications were made, the critical construction was 34 m/s with a mean
flutter wind speed of the bridge was 46 recurrence interval (MRI) of approxi-
m/s. Both changes degraded the aero- mately 1000 years. This specification is
dynamic performance of the bridge. typical. What was not typical was that
With the modifications made to the the construction wind speed criterion
deck (closing of the deck openings and of 34 m/s was greater than the criti-
the addition of solid barriers), the criti- cal flutter wind speed for the existing
cal flutter wind speed was predicted to bridge, that is, 33 m/s. In order for the
be only 27 m/s. At this location (across contractor to begin any construction,
the Chesapeake Bay), at the bridge the existing bridge had to be enhanced
deck elevation, it was determined that aerodynamically to bring its critical
the critical flutter wind speed criterion flutter wind speed up to the construc-
for a new bridge would be 69 m/s. It tion stage criterion.
was proposedand implemented in
The existing bridge had three lanes
the designto add 1.37 m wide winglet
of traffic and no dedicated walk-
aerodynamic dampers below the road-
ways. There were narrow walkways
way, in the truss space. These aerody-
namic dampers are shown in Fig. 3.
The winglets on the windward side
are in clear air and will be effective in
resisting both upward and downward
deck motions. The winglets on the lee-
ward side are in disturbed air, but mov-
ing air nonetheless, and are somewhat
effective in resisting both upward and
1.37 m
downward motions, as described in
the previous section. The pair of wing-
4.68 m
lets will act as vertical and torsional
aerodynamic dampers, as described in
Ref. [3].
Aerodynamic damper
Lions Gate Bridge
ReconstructionVancouver,
British Columbia, Canada
The reconstruction (total deck and Modified section with solid barrier,
hanger replacement) of the Lions Gate solid deck, and winglet
Bridge posed an interesting prob- Fig. 3: Westbound William Preston lane
lem to the contractors. It is typical to bridge
Scientific Paper 7
on both sides of the bridge, and to
protect the workers using them, tem-
porary railings were added between
the walkways and the traffic lanes. It
was recommended that the tempo-
rary railings be extended upward, and
that a 1.22 m wide cover be installed
over the walkways. It rains frequently
in Vancouver, so the walkway covers
were a welcome addition for weather
protection. The true intended purpose
of the walkway covers was to act as
an aerodynamic damper that would
resist vertical, and most importantly,
torsional motions. The torsional aero-
dynamic damping became negative
damping for wind speeds >33 m/s. With
the addition of the walkway covers
(winglets), the torsional aerodynamic
damping was found to be positive for
all expected wind speeds. With the
winglets installed over 176.8 m in the
middle of the 473 m main span, the
increased aerodynamic damping did
raise the critical flutter wind speed
of the bridge during construction to
35 m/s, greater than the criterion dur-
ing construction of 34 m/s. The section
of the bridge deck, with and without
the winglets, is shown in Fig. 4.
The walkway covers were in rela-
tively clear air, both on the windward
12.19 m
Pre-reconstruction typical deck section
1.22 m
Covered walkway
(aerodynamic
damper)
Covered walkway detail
Fig. 4: Lions Gate Bridge
8 Scientific Paper
and leeward sides of the bridge deck.
Again the pair of walkway covers
acted exactly as the pair of wing-
lets were described previously and in
Ref. [3]. Both covered walkways were
effective as aerodynamic dampers for
vertical and torsional motions in both
directions.
As the existing deck was replaced, the
walkway covers (the winglet pair aero-
dynamic dampers) were replaced with
a new deck section, which met all con-
struction and final critical flutter wind
speed criteria.
Kap Shui Mun Bridge
Hong Kong
The Kap Shui Mun Bridge is a three-
span, steel and concrete cable-stayed
bridge with a main span length of
430 m and a wide (32.3 m) and deep
(7.2 m) boxsection deck. There are
traffic lanes and rail tracks for high-
speed trains within the box.
The specified critical flutter wind
speed criterion was very high at 95 m/s.
The original design had a sharp cor-
ner at the upper deck surface and the
large cable anchor covers. The original
design also had a critical torsional flut-
ter wind speed of 71.9 m/s, well below
the criterion of 95 m/s.
The winglet pair discussed previously
is an extremely powerful aerodynamic
damper, for both vertical and torsional
motions. One single winglet located
windward is also a powerful damper,
for both upward and downward
motions. Would one winglet by itself,
that is effective as an aerodynamic
damper for downward motions only, be
a powerful enough damper to increase
the critical flutter wind speed above
the criterion? In order to increase the
critical flutter wind speed of the pro-
posed Kap Shui Mun Bridge to the
criterion of 95 m/s, it was proposed to
modify the upper corner of the bridge
deck section, to make the flow up over
the leading edge to be more airfoil-
like, for downward motions only of the
leading edge.
It was proposed (and was included in
the final design) to bevel that upper
corner with a 0.484 0.484 m bevel.
If a strong wind disturbance should
make the leading edge of the bridge
deck rotate downward, the apparent
angle of attack of that wind would be
upward, and with the beveled lead-
ing edge corner, the flow up over the
corner and top surface of the bridge
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016
would be much more airfoil-like. A
rounded corner would be most effec-
tive to allow the upward angled flow to
attach to the upper deck surface, creat-
ing an upward lift. However, the bev-
eled corner was found to be effective
enough, and easier to construct. With
that bevel, for all reasonable wind
speeds, the torsional aerodynamic
damping on the bridge deck was posi-
tive, eliminating the possibility of tor-
sional flutter instability. The originally
designed sharp corner and the beveled
corner design are shown in Fig. 5. The
bridge, with that modified edge, was
aerodynamically stable for wind speeds
in excess of the criterion of 95 m.
Shortly after the Kap Shui Mun Bridge
was completed, it did experience,
without a problem, the full force of a
typhoon.
Ironton Russell Bridge
Russell, Ohio, USA
The Ironton Russell Bridge is a three-
span concrete cable-stayed bridge with
a main span length of 274 m and a nar-
row deck width of only 13 m. Narrow
bridges are particularly prone to aero-
elastic instabilities. The original design
had wide edge girders (1.35 m) with a
pointed exterior where the point was
at mid-height. For this configuration,
the critical flutter wind speed was
found to be only 28.8 m/s, well below
the critical flutter wind speed criterion
of 38.3 m/s.
The effectiveness of the modifications
made to the Kap Shui Mun Bridge,
resisting downward motions of the lead-
ing edge only, influenced the proposed
modification to the Ironton Russell
Bridge. It was proposed to move the
point of the edge beam down to 16.5%
of the height, to smoothen and accel-
erate the flow under the edge girder,
making it airflow-like. When the lead-
ing edge of the bridge rotated upward
(from any undefined disturbance) in a
horizontal wind, the apparent angle of
attack of the flow would act downward
generating a lift downward, thereby
resisting the initial upward motion.
The originally designed, and the modi-
fied edge configurations are shown in
Fig. 6. For this design, the critical flut-
ter wind speed was increased to 37.6
m/s (a 30% increase in the critical flut-
ter wind speed because of the minor
geometric change in the exterior pro-
file of the edge girder). A slightly more
open traffic barrier was used in the
final design that increased the critical

7.2 m
Original deck cross-section
Fig. 5: Kap Shui Mun Bridge
Original edge girder section
Fig. 6: Ironton Russell bridge
flutter wind speed to 48 m/s, well above
the criterion of 38.3 m/s.
The aerodynamic damping would have
been stronger yet if the lower edge
beam shape had been curved instead
of beveled. However, the curved shape
would have been more expensive to
cast, and the added effectiveness was
not needed.
Golden Gate Bridge
San Francisco, California, USA
The Golden Gate Bridge (GGB), built
in 1938, is a suspension bridge with
a main span length of 1280 m. It is
27 m wide, with a roadway on top of
a 7.62 m deep stiffening truss. It was
originally built without a horizon-
tal stiffening truss across the bottom,
between the bottom chords of the stiff-
ening trusses. The bridge axis is almost
exactly northsouth.
In 1952, in winds with gust wind speeds
of 31 m/s, the bridge experienced exces-
sive torsional motions. Shortly there-
after, a horizontal stiffening truss was
installed across the bottom, effectively
creating a stiff, trussed box-section.
Even with the torsionally stiffened
deck, the bridge is quite flexible and
could experience large torsional
motions at a relatively low mean wind
speed of 30 m/s. For winds from the
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016
U
Modified deck cross-section with beveled edge
U U
Modified edge girder section
west, this is a wind speed with a mean
recurrence interval (MRI) of approxi-
mately 100 years. The strongest mean
wind speed ever recorded in San
Francisco in modern times is only about
27 m/s. It was proposed to make modi-
fications to the Golden Gate Bridge to
increase its critical flutter wind speed
to a wind speed with an MRI of 10 000
years (the typical standard for new
bridges). A wind speed of 30 m/s has
an MRI of approximately 10 000 years
for winds from the east. However, for
winds from the west, a mean wind
speed, at the bridge deck elevation of
70 m, with an MRI of 10 000 years is
approximately 45 m/s. Modifications
to the bridge deck geometry were pro-
posed, to the west side of the bridge
deck only, to increase the critical flut-
ter wind speed of winds from the west,
from 30 to 45 m/s.
It was proposed to make slight modi-
geometry (as mentioned) to be mod-
fications to the deck section, on the
west side of the bridge only, to make
the flow over the leading edge more
airfoil-like (like a single winglet wind-
ward, and for downward motions only
of the leading edge). To make the
flow more airfoil-like, a small fair-
ing (with a radius of 0.3 m) placed on
the outboard edge of the west walk-
way was proposed. Furthermore, it
was proposed to streamline the flow
through the pedestrian railing, on
the west side of the bridge only. With
Beveled edge,
0.484 m 0.484 m
U
1.37 m
0.23 m
Lowered point
these modifications, air flows are fairly
smooth over the leading edge, acceler-
ating over the walkway, and generating
a lift that resists the original downward
motion. The original section at an
upper corner and the proposed modi-
fied section are shown in Fig. 7. These
modifications are capable of increas-
ing the critical flutter wind speed from
30 to 45 m/s, and a wind speed with an
MRI of 10 000 years.
The aerodynamic enhancements will
be installed soon.
Conclusions
All the potential problems in the cases
described were identified from wind
tunnel tests using large-scale models of
a section of the bridge deck. The use
of large-scale section models allows
very small changes in the bridge deck
eled accurately. The solutions were
also designed from these wind tun-
nel tests. Again, in none of the cases
were unacceptable wind-induced
motions ever observed; they were only
anticipated and the potential for their
occurrence was eliminated before any
of the motions occurred.
Four of the five projects have been
completed (in the last 36 years) and
one of the projects will be constructed
soon.
Scientific Paper 9
 Opened railing

New fairing
Radius = 0.32 m

U
U

Existing walkway detail Modified walkway detail

Fig. 7: Golden Gate Bridge

In this paper, details of the bridge
deck geometry are identified that
can be highly beneficial in increasing
expected critical flutter wind speeds
of long-span, cable-supported bridges.
In essence, this paper is the beginning
of a database of geometric details for
improving the performance of new or
existing bridges in extreme winds.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following
individuals for their support in making this
paper possible: Denis J. Mulligan, General
Manager, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and
Transportation District (Golden Gate Bridge);
Dr Steven P. Stroh, VP, URS Corporation
(Ironton Russell Bridge and the Kap Shui
Mun Bridge); Ronald Crockett, Vice President
Engineering, American Bridge Company
(Lions Gate Bridge Reconstruction); and
William Pines, Division of Engineering
and Construction Management, Maryland
Transportation Authority (William Preston
Lane Bridge).
References
[1] Cao Y, Xiang H, Zhou Y. Simulation of sto-
chastic wind velocity field on long-span bridges.
J. Eng. Mech. 2000; 126(1): 16.
[2] Chen X, Matsumoto M, Kareem A. Time
domain flutter and buffeting response analysis
of bridges. J. Eng. Mech. 126(1): 110.
[3] Raggett, JD. Stabilizing winglet pair for slen-
der bridge decks. Proceedings of the 6th Annual
ASCE Structural Division Structures Congress,
August 1720, 1987.
[4] Anderson JD. Fundamentals of
Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill, 2007.
[5] Batchelor GK. An Introduction to Fluid
Mechanics. Cambridge, 1967; 467471.
[6] Simiu E, Scanlan RH. Wind Effects on
Structures, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons: New
York, 1996.

.FNCFSTIJQ
#FOFUT
XXXJBCTFPSHBQQMJDBUJPO
t



8PSMEXJEF
OFUXPSL
JO
SFTFBSDI
BOE
QSBDUJDF
t



'SFF
TVCTDSJQUJPO
UP
RVBSUFSMZ
KPVSOBM
4&*


t



'SFF
BDDFTT
UP
FMFDUSPOJD
BSDIJWF
PG
4&*
TJODF

t



'SFF
TVCTDSJQUJPO
UP
&CPPLT
4USVDUVSBM
&OHJOFFSJOH
%PDVNFOUT 4&%


t



3FEVDFE
QSJDFT
GPS
*"#4&
1VCMJDBUJPOT
t



3FEVDFE
SFHJTUSBUJPO
GFFT
GPS
*"#4&
$POGFSFODFT

t



1PTTJCJMJUZ
UP
KPJO
5FDIOJDBM
(SPVQT

t



0QQPSUVOJUZ
UP
KPJO
BDUJWJUJFT
PG
/BUJPOBM
(SPVQT
t



'SFF
+PC
"EWFSUJTJOH
PO
XXXJBCTFPSH
t



"DDFTT
UP
.FNCFST
"SFB
PO
XXXJBCTFPSH
JODMVEJOH
.FNCFST
%JSFDUPSZ

10 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016