2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107499
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental and 3D numerical investigation of solitary wave forces on coastal bridges

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The demand, i.e., the maximum vertical wave loads acting upon the deck, can be assessed by the CFD modeling. Twodimensional CFD models are commonly adopted in fragility analysis (Li et al, 2020;Zhu and Dong, 2020). Although the two-dimensional numerical model reduces the computation cost, the analysis of the fluid-structure interaction is limited to the longitudinal axis, thus providing less accurate results.…”
Section: Vulnerability Analysis Under Hurricanesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The demand, i.e., the maximum vertical wave loads acting upon the deck, can be assessed by the CFD modeling. Twodimensional CFD models are commonly adopted in fragility analysis (Li et al, 2020;Zhu and Dong, 2020). Although the two-dimensional numerical model reduces the computation cost, the analysis of the fluid-structure interaction is limited to the longitudinal axis, thus providing less accurate results.…”
Section: Vulnerability Analysis Under Hurricanesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of these bridges were simply supported and destroyed due to wave and surge forces, thus resulting in unseating of bridge superstructures (Padgett et al, 2008). Such unseating failure occurs when the uplift wave force on the deck exceeds vertical capacity (Ataei and Padgett, 2013;Mondoro et al, 2017;Zhu and Dong, 2020). Subsequently, the impact of hurricanes on coastal infrastructure and bridges is widely investigated, in terms of the vulnerability assessment (Ataei and Padgett, 2013;Saeidpour et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A completed SHM system usually consists of 6 modules including sensory system, data acquisition and transmission system, data processing and control system, structural health evaluation system, structural health data management system, and inspection and maintenance system [6][7][8]. It can provide realtime information about structural conditions of bridges (environmental loads and status, operation loads, bridge features, and structural responses) by integrating various state-of-art technologies such as sensory technology, deep learning, big data, and machine vision [9,10]. ese valuable information can provide decision-making references for managers in maintenance and management of bridges.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A significant number of laboratory tests have been carried out to study the wavedeck interaction since the turning point (e.g., Douglass et al 2006;IEMURA et al 2007;Sugimoto and Unjoh 2007;Bradner 2008;McPherson 2008;Cuomo et al 2009;Sheppard and Marin 2009;Bradner et al 2011;Lau et al 2011;Lukkunaprasit et al 2011;Hayatdavoodi et al 2014;Rahman et al 2014;Seiffert et al 2014;Seiffert et al 2015;Guo et al 2015a;Chen et al 2016;Chen et al 2018;Xiao and Guo 2018;Huang, Zhu, Cui, Duan, and Cai, 2018;Zhu et al 2018;Huang, Duan, et al, 2019;Fang et al 2019;Xiang et al 2020;Zhu and Dong 2020). To gain a better understanding of the wave-deck interaction, Douglass et al (2006) conducted experimental tests with a scale model (1:15) hit by normally incident waves under various water conditions, and some additional understandings of the magnitude of the forces that occurred for a set of wave conditions and given bridge geometry were provided.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the incident wave directly hits the elevated bridge deck, wave breaking occurs, resulting in wave overtopping above the deck surface and air bubbles forming in the water. The conventional potential flow method faces a difficult challenge in accurately predicting the highly nonlinear wave-deck interaction, and such cases are best studied by the use of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers regardless of the submerged or elevated condition of the bridge deck (e.g., Huang and Xiao 2009;Bozorgnia et al 2010;Xiao et al 2010;Jin and Meng 2011;Bricker et al 2012;Bozorgnia and Lee 2012;Yim and Azadbakht 2013;Azadbakht 2013;Azadbakht and Yim 2014;Hayatdavoodi et al 2014;Xu and Cai 2014;Ataei and Padgett 2014;Seiffert et al 2015;Xu and Cai 2015;Xu and Cai 2015;Chen et al 2016;Xu et al 2018a;Xu et al 2018b;Xiao and Guo 2018;Huang, Yang, et al, 2019;Istrati and Buckle 2019;Qu et al 2019;Moideen et al 2019;Montoya et al 2019;Greco et al 2020;Hu et al 2020;Qu et al 2020a;Qu et al 2020b;Xiang et al 2020;Yang et al 2020;Zhao et al 2020aZhao et al , 2020bZhu and Dong 2020).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%