1 / 36

Numerical and Wind-Tunnel Simulation of Wind Loads on Smooth and Rough Domes

Numerical and Wind-Tunnel Simulation of Wind Loads on Smooth and Rough Domes. R.N. Meroney C.W. Letchford P.P. Sarkar. Powerpoint Presentations!. Structural Domes . Domes are commonly used to enclose large spaces because of their structural efficiency and economic benefit.

zenevieva
Download Presentation

Numerical and Wind-Tunnel Simulation of Wind Loads on Smooth and Rough Domes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Numerical and Wind-Tunnel Simulation of Wind Loads on Smooth and Rough Domes R.N. Meroney C.W. Letchford P.P. Sarkar

  2. Powerpoint Presentations!

  3. Structural Domes • Domes are commonly used to enclose large spaces because of their structural efficiency and economic benefit. • Domes are excellent at resisting symmetric loading, but • Asymmetric loading may cause structural distress and failure.

  4. Domed Sports Halls & Stadiums Pepsi Center, Denver Hubert H. Humphrey Metro-Dome, Min Houston Astrodome Little Sports Palace, Rome Sun Dome, Fukui, Japan

  5. Assembly Hall Dome Assembly Hall, U. of Illinois Urbana/Champ

  6. Domed Public Buildings Museums and Halls, Barlow Planetarium, CA ^ ^ Public Exhibition Halls Millennium Dome, London, 320 m diameter, 80,000 sq m floor space

  7. US Pavilion, Osaka Exposition 1970 RCA (Hoosier) Dome Indianapolis, IN Carrier Stadium, Syracuse University Georgia Dome, Atlanta Silverdome, Pontiac, MI Inflated Domes

  8. Inflated Domes (contd) Tokyo Dome “Big Egg” Stadium, Tokyo, Japan

  9. Bulk Storage: Dust Supression, Water and Wastewater Treatment Covers Temcor Aluminum Domes Triangulated space truss system with triangulated panels

  10. Bulk Storage: Coke Piles Pittsburgh, CA Marine Terminal Coke Storage Domes Three 55 m (180 ft) diameter hemispheres Los Angeles, CA Export Terminal Coke Storage Domes Construction Two 73 m (240 ft) diameter hemispheres, Shotcrete applied to interior of inflated airform mounted on footer and stem wall

  11. Rough Surface Hemispheres Sometimes construction technique leaves surface texture rough!

  12. WIND RESEARCH & DESIGN

  13. CFD Validation Using Physical ModelingVERIFICATION BEFORE PROGNOSTICATION

  14. Wind Effects on Hemispherical Domes • Inflated domes require internal pressures exceeding external pressures to avoid buckling. • Internal pressures must not be too large or excessive membrane or tensile forces occur, and membrane tears.

  15. Wind-tunnel Study of Inflated Domes • Newman, Ganguli and Shrivastava (1984) studied pressure distributions on three inflatable domes in a boundary layer. • H/D = 0.5, 0.37 & 0.25, H/=0.12-0.13, U=7.5 m/s, Re=UD/=226,000 • FEM calculations show buckling occurs on plane of symmetry and upwind when the internal inflation pressures < 0.7-0.44 of the dynamic pressure at the dome top. 1 2 3

  16. CSU WEFL Industrial Aerodynamics Wind Tunnel Hot Film Anemometer Postprocess Software PC-NT Computer Pressure Transducer Pressure Scanner CSU WEFL Wind Tunnel Experiment

  17. 20 m 2 m 1.8 m Grid: 86,000 cells Z = 1m Z = 0.8 m ASCE 7-98C Windtunnel Velocity Contours: Umax = 15 m/s Wind-Tunnel Initial Conditions

  18. 18,000 Cells 33,000 Cells 16,400 Cells 43,000 Cells Grid Systems: One and Two Domes

  19. Boundary layer & Hex Grid Boundary layer & Tet Grid Hemisphere Grids

  20. Velocity & Turbulence Profiles:Single Dome Comparisons

  21. Single Dome Comparisons: Pressure Profiles

  22. Single Dome Comparisons: Reynolds Number Variation • Reynolds Number = (U H/) = 185,000 • Reynolds Number = (U H/) = 1,440,000 • Conclusion: No significant difference

  23. Single Dome Comparisons: Turbulence Models • Standard kappa-epsilon model (2 equations) • Reynolds stress model (7 equations) • Spalart Allmaras model (1 equation) • Conclusion: No significant difference

  24. Single Dome Comparisons: Pressure Profiles

  25. Single Dome Comparisons: Smooth vs Rough

  26. Double Dome ComparisonsApproach wind at 90o

  27. Double Dome ComparisonsApproach wind at 90o

  28. Surface Pressures: Angles 0o, 45o & 90o

  29. Cp Contours: numerical Cp Contours: experimental Pressure Coefficient Contours: Experimental vs Numerical:Approach wind at 0o 39

  30. Double Dome ComparisonsApproach wind at 0o

  31. Double Dome ComparisonsApproach wind at 45o

  32. Pressure Coefficient Contours: Experimental vs Numerical:Approach wind at 90o Cp Contours: numerical Cp Contours: experimental

  33. Double Dome ComparisonsApproach wind at 90o

  34. Conclusions • CFD calculations reproduced mean Cp behavior over smooth, rough and paired domes. • CFD calculations using k-, RNG, and Rey turbulence models gave similar results. • CFD calculations at high and low Reynolds numbers gave similar results.

  35. GOOD LUCK WHALE WATCHING IS NOT AN EMERGENCY KEEP DRIVING Approaching the End

  36. The End

More Related