Publicacións

@article{diana_iabse_2023,

title = {IABSE Task Group 3.1 Benchmark Results. Numerical Full Bridge Stability and Buffeting Simulations},

author = {Giorgio Diana and Stoyan Stoyanoff and Andrew Allsop and Luca Amerio and Michael Styrk Andersen and Tommaso Argentini and Filippo Calamelli and Miguel Cid-Montoya and Vincent Goyet and Santiago Hernández-Ibáñez and José Ángel Jurado-Albarracín-Martinón and Igor Kavrakov and Guy Larose and Allan Larsen and Guido Morgenthal and Daniele Rocchi and Martin N. Svendsen and Teng Wu},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2022.2104188},

doi = {10.1080/10168664.2022.2104188},

issn = {1016-8664},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-01},

urldate = {2026-08-10},

journal = {Structural Engineering International},

volume = {33},

number = {4},

pages = {623–634},

publisher = {Taylor & Francis},

abstract = {Aerodynamic stability and buffeting response due to turbulent wind have a fundamental importance for long-span bridge design. However, there are no benchmark cases that can be used as a reference estimate for an independent validation of the numerical methods and theoretical approximations. Therefore, the IABSE Task Group 3.1 proposal is to fill this gap by defining a reasonably well predicted set case for the response to wind of long-span bridges, both in terms of aerodynamic stability and buffeting. Specifically, a statistical analysis was performed on the numerical results collected by the task group participants, who used their own methodology and tools (either in time domain and/or frequency domain) to predict the bridge stability to flutter and buffeting response to wind, sharing the same input data (wind conditions, bridge structural properties, and deck aerodynamic coefficients). The benchmark results presented in this paper can be used as a point of reference for other numerical codes, and they include the onset of flutter speed, damping ratio variation with mean wind speed and the root mean square of the displacements as a function of mean wind speed, power spectral density values, and time histories of displacements.},

keywords = {aeroelasticity, Benchmark, Buffeting, flutter, long-span bridge, simulation, Validation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{diana_prof_iabse_2020,

title = {IABSE Task Group 3.1 Benchmark Results. Part 1: Numerical Analysis of a Two-Degree-of-Freedom Bridge Deck Section Based on Analytical Aerodynamics},

author = {Giorgio Diana Prof. and Stoyan Stoyanoff Dr and Ketil Aas-Jakobsen Dr and Andrew Allsop Dr and Michael Andersen Dr and Tommaso Argentini Dr and Miguel Cid Montoya Dr and Santiago Hernández-Ibáñez and José Ángel Jurado-Albarracín-Martinón and Hiroshi Katsuchi Prof. and Igor Kavrakov Dr and Ho-Kyung Kim Prof. and Guy Larose Dr and Allan Larsen Dr and Guido Morgenthal Prof. and Ole Øiseth Prof. and Simone Omarini Dr and Daniele Rocchi Prof. and Martin Svendsen Dr and Teng Wu Prof.},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2019.1639480},

doi = {10.1080/10168664.2019.1639480},

issn = {1016-8664},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-01},

urldate = {2026-08-06},

journal = {Structural Engineering International},

volume = {30},

number = {3},

pages = {401–410},

publisher = {Taylor & Francis},

abstract = {IABSE Task Group 3.1 has the mandate to define reference results for the validation of methodologies and programs used to study both stability and buffeting responses of long-span bridges. These tools for the simulation of the aeroelastic behaviour are fundamental in the safe design of bridges and they should be validated. The working group decided to set up a benchmark procedure consisting of several steps to define reference results for this validation. For each step, contributors use their own methodology to simulate the bridge behaviour using the same input data. All the results are then compared, and reference values are defined through statistical analysis. The benchmark procedure is considered as a three-step problem with substeps of increasing difficulty: Step 1 compares numerical results only, Step 2 is validation against wind tunnel experiments, and Step 3 is validation against full-scale data. In this paper, the contributions and the reference results of the simplest initial substep (1.1a) are presented. It consists of the simulation of the aeroelastic response of a two-degree-of-freedom bridge deck section, with analytical aerodynamic coefficients, forced by turbulent wind. Despite the problem’s simplicity, differences in some contributions are significant, confirming the necessity of having solid references to validate software programs.},

keywords = {aeroelasticity, Benchmark, Buffeting, flutter, long-span bridge, Validation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{diana_chair_of_task_group_31_iabse_2020,

title = {IABSE Task Group 3.1 Benchmark Results. Part 2: Numerical Analysis of a Three-Degree-of-Freedom Bridge Deck Section Based on Experimental Aerodynamics},

author = {Giorgio Diana Chair of Task Group 3.1 and Stoyan Stoyanoff Vice-Chair of Task Group 3.1 and Ketil Aas-Jakobsen and Andrew Allsop and Michael Andersen and Tommaso Argentini and Miguel Cid Montoya and Santiago Hernández-Ibáñez and José Ángel Jurado-Albarracín-Martinón and Hiroshi Katsuchi and Igor Kavrakov and Ho-Kyung Kim and Guy Larose and Allan Larsen and Guido Morgenthal and Ole Øiseth and Simone Omarini and Daniele Rocchi and Martin Svendsen and Teng Wu},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2019.1661331},

doi = {10.1080/10168664.2019.1661331},

issn = {1016-8664},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-01},

urldate = {2026-08-06},

journal = {Structural Engineering International},

volume = {30},

number = {3},

pages = {411–420},

publisher = {Taylor & Francis},

abstract = {IABSE Task Group 3.1 has the mandate to define reference results for the validation of methodologies and programs used to study both stability and buffeting responses of long-span bridges. To this end, the working group set up a benchmark procedure consisting of several steps with increasing complexity to define reference results useful for this validation. The simplest step (1.1a) was presented in Part 1. In this paper (Part 2), the contributions and reference results of the second sub-step (1.1c) are discussed. It consists of the simulation of the aeroelastic response of a three-degree-of-freedom bridge deck section forced by turbulent wind, using experimental aerodynamic coefficients measured in a wind tunnel. The increase in complexity, compared to the previous step, involves the experimental definition of unsteady force coefficients that are defined in a limited range of reduced velocities, and inclusion of the lateral motion and horizontal turbulent wind velocity components. Comparison of the different outputs, obtained by Task Group 3.1 participants with the same input data, is presented, revealing differences that are not always negligible. Moreover, the increase in complexity of the test case results in larger spreads of the results compared to the fully analytical case, analysed in Part 1.},

keywords = {aeroelasticity, Benchmark, Buffeting, flutter, long-span bridge, Validation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}