The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

Influence of wind spectrum formula choice

on footbridge response
Jarosław Bęca
a
Lublin University of Technology, Lublin, Poland, j.bec@pollub.pl

ABSTRACT: Influence of the wind spectrum formula used in aerodynamic analysis on the re-
sponse of a structure has been presented in the paper. Five models of wind spectra have been sub-
jected to analysis. The calculations have been performed for the 140 m long footbridge across
Vistula river in Cracow, Poland. The aerodynamic analysis has been carried out with use of the
FEM system Algor. The wind field simulation and introduction of time varying wind forces has
been realized with use of the own software. Maximum horizontal displacements of the footbridge
in each of 30 analyzed cases (6 for each analyzed spectrum model), and average displacement for
each of the five used wind spectra models have been compared. It has been found that the ana-
lyzed spectra models may produce significantly differing results.

1 INTRODUCTION

Different wind spectra are widely used in wind field simulation software. The most commonly
used spectra are Davenport’s, Kaimal’s and von Karman’s ones, but they refer to the climatic
conditions for some specific locations and to various mean wind speeds. The question is, if they
can be applied equally for different climatic conditions or locations. Influence of the used spec-
trum formula on the response of a structure has been analyzed here in this paper.

2 WIND SPECTRA MODELS

Two main types of formulae describing wind spectra may be distinguished:

 height independent and
 height dependent ones.
In the first group of height independent spectra formulae, the following ones may be named
(Flaga and Wrana, 1987; Flaga et al., 1993):
 Davenport’s model
f Gu  f  x12 Lf
4 ; x1  ; (1)
1  x 
2 4/3 u 10 
2
u* 1

where L = 1200 m; u 10  = mean wind speed at the height of 10 m; f = frequency; Gu  f  =

wind spectrum; and u* = shear wind speed.
 Harris’s spectrum
f Gu  f  x2 1800 f
4 ; x2  . (2)
1  x 
2 5/6 u 10 
2
u* 2
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

The main formulae in the second group of height dependent ones (ESDU, 1985; Flaga and
Wrana, 1987; Flaga et al., 1993) are:
 Kaimal’s spectrum
f Gu  z , f  105 x
 ; (3)
1  33x 
2 5/3
u *

 Simiu’s spectrum
f Gu  f  200 x
 ; (4)
1  50 x 
2 5/3
u *

 von Kárman’s spectrum

f Gu  f  24 xu
 ; (5)
1  70.7 x  2 5/6
2
u * u

1
 z k 1
where xu  Lux x ; Lux  300   ; and  0.437  0.153log z0 . (6)
 350  k
In the formulae above:
fz
x (7)
u z
is a non-dimensional frequency (Monin’s similarity coefficient).
The spectra models analyzed in this paper have been compared on the graphs presented in Fig-
ure 1. These graphs have been prepared for the mean wind speed at the height of 10 m equal to
22 m/s and the terrain roughness parameter z0 equal to 0.25 m.
2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

f Gu  f 
von Kárman
1 Davenport 1
Kaimal
2 Harris
u* Simiu
0.5 0.5

0 0
0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000

Frequenzy [Hz} Frequenzy [Hz]

Figure 1. Comparison of spectra models – height independent (left) and height dependent ones (right).

3 STRUCTURAL MODEL DESCRIPTION

The model used in analysis is the footbridge located near Cracow in Poland over Vistula river. Its
span of 140 m consists of three decks: two external decks in the arch shape for pedestrians and
bicycles and the internal sine wave deck for pedestrians only. The decks’ structure is built of steel
and concrete and they are tied with use of the steel frame. The geometrical scheme of the struc-
ture has been presented in Figure 2.
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

Vistula River

Figure 2. The footbridge geometry: a) front view, b) exemplary cross-section.

4 WIND MODEL

The 3-D wind field has been generated with use of software WindSym made Ewa Błazik-Borowa
at Department of Structural Mechanics of Lublin University of Technology. It allows various
spectra to be used during the generation and, additionally, freely chosen own formula describing
wind model may be introduced, as well.
Cross-spectrum values Gij  f  for two points i and j in space have been obtained by supposi-
tion that it is nearly equal to its real part Cij  f  (imaginary part has been neglected) and on the
basis of the auto power spectrum functions in these points and the coherence function:

Gij  f   Cij  f   Gii  zi , f  G jj  z j , f Cohij  f  (8)

where Gii  zi , f  = auto power spectrum function for the point i at the height zi.
The coherence function has been calculated with use of the following formula:
    
2 f Cx2 xi  x j  C y2 yi  y j  C z2 zi  z j 

 
u  zi   u z j
Cohij  f   e (9)
where Cx, Cy, Cz,= empirical coefficients (accepted after Borri et al., 1995) with the values 6, 16
and 10, respectively.
Five wind spectra formulae described by Equations 1-5 have been subjected to analysis. Six
processes have been modeled for each of the wind spectrum formula. The following wind para-
meters have been used:
 simulation method - WAWS (Weighted Amplitude Waves Superposition) based on Shi-
nozuka-Jan algorithm (Shinozuka, 1987);
 mean wind speed - 22 m/sec;
 exponential wind profile;
 turbulence length scale - 100 m.
The process parameters used in each of the realizations are as follows:
 number of time steps - 32768;
 time step - 0.01 s;
 spectrum resolution - 0.02 Hz;
 number of spectrum bands - 100.
The wind field simulation process has been made for 40 points (“supernodes”) presented in Fig-
ure 3. The locations of these points have been assumed in the geometrical centre of each foot-
bridge cross-section, i.e. in the planes where all three decks are connected by steel frame ele-
ments.
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

Figure 3. Locations of simulation points – “supernodes”.

Exemplary wind series for one of the process realizations for two wind spectra models have been
presented in Figure 4. Three components of wind speed have been presented there: x – along-
wind horizontal (acting across the bridge), y – cross-wind horizontal (parallel to main footbridge
axis) and z – vertical, respectively from top to bottom of this figure.
35 36

30 32

Win d spee d [m/s]

Win d spee d [m/s]

28
25
24
20
20
15 16

10 12
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Time [s] Time [s]
12 20

8
Wind spee d [m/s]
Win d spee d [m/s]

10
4

0 0

-4
-10
-8

-12 -20
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Time [s] Time [s]
8 15

4 10
Wind spe ed [m/s]
Wind spe ed [m/s]

5
0
0
-4
-5
-8 -10

-12 -15
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Tim e [s] Time [s]

Figure 4. Exemplary wind speed series simulated with use of von Karman’s spectrum model (left), and Kaimal’s
spectrum model (right).

On the basis of the simulated series of wind speed components, the wind forces acting on the
footbridge section have been calculated with standard formulae as three components: drag (10a),
lift (10b) and aerodynamic moment (10c) (Flaga, 1994):

Wx  t    V 2  t  Cx   t   D ,
1
(10a)
2

Wy  t    V 2  t  C y   t   D ,
1
(10b)
2

Wm  t    V 2  t  Cm   t   D 2 .
1
(10c)
2
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

The aerodynamic coefficients measured in the Wind Engineering Laboratory in Cracow have
been used to calculate these forces. The appropriate functions of the coefficients for three sections
of the footbridge have been applied according to the different colors representing “supernodes” in
Figure 3. The actual values of the aerodynamic coefficients have been taken on the basis of the
wind attack angle evaluated at each time step of the calculations.
The total forces have been distributed to the three decks of the structure to make it represent re-
sultant wind action. The aerodynamic drag and lift have been distributed to all nodes of bridge
model proportionally to the decks’ heights and widths, respectively. The moment produced by
vertical forces is equal to zero due to the bridge cross-section symmetry. However, horizontal
forces are not distributed symmetrically, and the obtained moment against the axis of aerodynam-
ic balance is not equal to aerodynamic moment. To make it equal, additional force couple correct-
ing moment’s value has been introduced. The scheme for calculation of the wind forces applied to
the nodes of the structure has been presented in Figure 5. Distribution of horizontal forces (Fig.
5a), vertical forces (Fig. 5b) and calculation of additional vertical forces correcting the value of
the aerodynamic moment (Fig. 5c) have been presented.

a) b) c) x A W yadd
W xA W xA W yA W yA

z A
M Wx  0 M Wy  0 Wyadd add
M Wy  Wm  M Wx
z D

W xD1 W xD1 W yD1 W yD1

Figure 5. Aerodynamic forces distribution procedure.

5 ANALYSIS

Each of the wind spectra has been used six times to generate the wind speed series. There has
been a total number of 30 analyzed cases. The time-dependent forces representing the wind have
been calculated in “supernodes” and distributed to the nodes of the structure according to the pro-
cedure presented above with use of specially prepared software. These forces have been applied
in commercial FEM software Algor. Direct integration analysis has been performed with use of
SSAP4 processor to obtain the response of the structure. The time step equal to 0.01 s has been
taken and the number of time steps is equal to 32768. The damping of the bridge has been intro-
duced by using logarithmic decrement of damping equal to 0.06.

Figure 6. Mode shapes of the footbridge corresponding to the two lowest natural frequencies – f1=1.1587 Hz (hori-
zontal bending – left) and f1=1.1587 Hz (vertical bending – right).
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

Only two mode shape are corresponding to natural frequencies lower than 2 Hz. These mode
shapes have been presented in Figure 6. The other mode shapes with frequency values significant-
ly higher have been found much less important to the structure response, because the wind spectra
values are much lower for the frequencies higher than 2 Hz.
Spectra models together with the two natural frequencies corresponding to these most influential
mode shapes have been presented in Figure 7. As it may be clearly seen, the values of spectra in
analyzed models are different at the natural frequencies of the bridge. The values for Simiu’s and
Kaimal’s spectra are almost equal, while other three are much lower, with the Harris’s formula
producing the lowest values at that point.
2.5

1.5 von Kárman

Kaimal

f Gu  f  Simiu
Davenport
u*2 1
Harris
f1
f2

0.5

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Frequenzy [Hz]

Figure 7. Wind spectra compared to the natural frequencies of the footbridge.

6 RESULTS

As the results, the displacement variation in time, as well as varying internal forces in the struc-
ture members have been obtained. Exemplary displacements of one of the nodes in the middle
cross-section of the footbridge have been presented in Figure 8 (x, y and z components from top
to bottom of the figure). The most dangerous variants have been selected from all time steps.
The extreme horizontal and vertical displacements have been compared here in this paper.
These results are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Maximum cross-bridge (along mean wind speed –
y) horizontal and vertical displacements from all time steps have been shown for each of the cal-
culated cases. Additionally, average displacement for each of the wind spectra models has been
put in the tables, as well.

Table 1. Maximum along-wind horizontal displacement of the footbridge [cm]

Spectrum Model Process realization
1 2 3 4 5 6 Average
von Kárman 0.97 0.92 1.04 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.03
Kaimal 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.15 1.14 0.99 1.09
Simiu 1.09 1.14 1.00 1.13 1.12 1.04 1.08
Davenport 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.93 1.02 1.02 0.98
Harris 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.96 0.95
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

Table 2. Maximum vertical displacement of the footbridge [cm]

Spectrum Model Process realization
1 2 3 4 5 6 Average
von Kárman 1.40 1.29 1.06 1.38 1.05 1.47 1.27
Kaimal 1.28 1.26 1.04 1.02 1.16 1.14 1.15
Simiu 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.14 1.12 1.25 1.17
Davenport 1.12 0.97 1.30 1.04 1.05 1.27 1.12
Harris 0.98 1.08 0.99 1.00 1.05 0.87 0.99

0.0004 0.0004

Displacement [m]
Displacement [m]

0.0002 0.0002

0 0

-0.0002 -0.0002

-0.0004 -0.0004
60 80 100 120 60 80 100 120
Time [s] Time [s]
0.01 0.01
Displacement [m]

Displacement [m]
0.008 0.008

0.006 0.006

0.004 0.004
60 80 100 120 60 80 100 120
Time [s] Time [s]
0.004 0.004

0 0
Displacement [m]

Displacement [m]

-0.004 -0.004

-0.008 -0.008

-0.012 -0.012

-0.016 -0.016
60 80 100 120 60 80 100 120
Tim e [s] Time [s]

Figure 8. Exemplary displacements series – von Kárman’s model (left), Kaimal’s model (right).

7 CONCLUSIONS

Significant influence of the wind spectrum formula used in the wind field simulation on the ob-
tained results has been observed. The results obtained in analysis have repeated the pattern ob-
served in the wind spectrum. The highest average values of maximum horizontal displacement
have been obtained for Kaimal’s and Simiu’s models, while the lowest – for Harris’s one. Similar
tendency may be observed in most cases for vertical displacements, however the values obtained
with the von Karman's formulae are remarkably higher than the rest.
The differences between the spectra models in the obtained average maximum displacement
exceed 10%. However, it is important to notice, that the difference between two realizations of
the wind speed series obtained with the same spectrum formula used may result with the similar
variation. In Figure 9 there has been made a comparison of the target spectrum according to von
Kárman and the spectrum calculated for one of the process realizations simulated with WindSym.
As it may be seen, the single process gives spectrum values strongly varying from the ones that
has been wished to obtain. Of course it approaches the target values, as the values are averaged.
Here in this figure, moving average filter of 5 data points width has been introduced to make the
comparison, but similar graphs may be put down for the spectrum averaging over the number of
processes.
 The Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010)
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010

1.5

f Gu  f 
1 Simulated spectrum
Target spectrum
u*2 Moving average
0.5

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 9. Comparison of simulated wind spectrum and the target spectrum.

Summing up, the results observed for different wind spectra models significantly vary depend-
ing on the used spectrum formula. However, these differences from the engineering point of view
are not that much important. The safety factors used when the structures are analyzed at the de-
sign stage produce much higher results, than the ones obtained even for the most unfavorable
spectrum formula.
As it may be seen in the Figure 7, the spectrum values order may be reversed for other natural
frequencies of the analyzed structure. It may be expected that for structures characterized by low-
er natural frequencies, similar analysis may produce different results. Moreover, there may occur
much higher differences between results obtained with various spectra models.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper has been prepared as a part of the project N N506 267337: ”Influence of wind parame-
ters on wind action on structures and verification of the mathematical models for selected prob-
lems of dynamic wind action on slender structures and rod-cable structures” sponsored by the
Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

9 REFERENCES

Borri, C. , Crocchini, F., Facchini, L., Spinelli, P., 1995. Numerical simulation of stationary and non-stationary sto-
chastic processes: a comparative analysis for turbulent wind fields. Ninth International Conference on Wind En-
gineering, Retrospect and Prospect, vol.1, 47-55. New Delhi.
ESDU 85020, 1985. Characteristics of atmospheric turbulence near the ground. Part II: single point data for strong
winds (neutral atmosphere).
Flaga A., Wrana B., 1987. Analysis of Empiric Formulae of Power Spectral Densities of Three Wind Velocity Vector
Components, 7th International Conference On Wind Engineering, Preprints vol. 5.
Flaga, A., Jóźwiak, R., Kacprzyk, J., Kawecki, J. ,1993. Analysis of the influence of wind structure and aeqrodynam-
ic interference on the wind action on structures as a study for the research in the wind tunnel, Prace Instytutu Lot-
nictwa (in Polish).
Flaga A., 1994. Quasisteady theory in aerodynamics of slender structures. Sonderforschungsbereich 151 – Trag-
werksdynamik, Berichte Nr. 25, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany.
Shinozuka, M., 1987. Stochastic Mechanics, v. 1. Dep. of Civil Eng. & Eng. Mech. Columbia Univ., NY, USA.