Objective: Proposal to form an international organization that focuses on bridge aerodynamics

1. Nick Jones called the meeting to order at 10:30 am. An attendance list was circulated (attached), with attendees asked to indicate their interest relative to the five working groups.

After welcoming remarks, a brief history of the events, efforts and circumstances leading up to the meeting by Jones. This overview discussed generally independent efforts by Professors Matsumoto and Jones, Professors Miyata and Diana to form an international organization focused on bridge wind engineering/aerodynamics. At the Copenhagen meeting in 1998, four working groups were informally formed in the closing session to address the performance of a benchmark study, stay cable vibration, computational fluid dynamics in wind engineering, and vehicle aerodynamics issues relative to bridges. The notion of an umbrella organization was also discussed at this time.

Over the past year, discussions among the four working group leaders (Diana, Matsumoto, Larsen, and Baker), and Miyata and Jones led to the scheduling of this meeting and development of the agenda. This group certainly concurred that such a group was necessary and timely, and that the somewhat independent efforts could be coordinated and combined into a single effort. In addition, this group specifically also suggested the formation of a fifth working group that focuses on codification issues (Professor Miyata offered to lead this working group.).

Recently discussed possible developments regarding the structure and operation of IAWE may influence the ultimate "positioning" of this group relative to a parent organization, but at this time it was considered appropriate and timely to proceed regardless, and address this issue at a later time as necessary.

2. Need and role for organization:

There was a clear consensus that there was a need for this group. In response to a suggestion that the "organization:" could be part of IABSE, it was emphasized that IABSE does not have a specific focus in this area, and that the group – as envisioned – would be more research than practice oriented, although roles in both were clearly seen. The "parenting" of the organization by IABSE or IAWE was briefly discussed, with further discussion tabled until a future meeting.

The meeting chair suggested a number of roles for the organization. These included:

• A parent committee for the working groups outlined above.
• The development of an active web site that includes links to the individual working group sites, as well as other useful/relevant information.
• The development of a (preferably online) newsletter.
• A role in the organization of independent bridge aerodynamics conferences (like the Copenhagen conferences of 1992 and 1998) or alternatively a role in organizing tracks that focus on bridge aerodynamics at ICWE and other meetings.
• A forum (primarily through working group/subcommittee structure) for consensus building among members of the community on various issues, including the identification of research needs.
• Suggestions from attendees included
  • That the organization be able to provide supporting letters for groups seeking research support on related topics.
  • That consideration be given to forming an additional working group on structural health monitoring.
  • Provide a forum for the validation of CFD models (this is considered a role for the computational fluid dynamics working group.

3. Adoption of steering committee and working groups:

It was suggested and approved that the interim steering committee consist of the working group chairs, including the newly suggested working group chair, and Nick Jones. The initial working groups and leaders were therefore agreed to be:

• Benchmark study – Giorgio Diana
• Computational fluid dynamics – Allan Larsen
• Stay cable vibration – Masaru Matsumoto
• Vehicle aerodynamics – Chris Baker
• Codification issues – Toshio Miyata

The steering committee’s intended tasks over the next year are reported later. It was noted that the present steering committee is indeed "interim" and as the organization is formed "formally", this steering committee will evolve to an elected executive committee.

4. Nick Jones agreed to serve the role of secretary of the interim steering committee until the formal establishment. There was consensus that Bob Scanlan be asked to be the initial honorary chair of the organization (update: he has willingly agreed to serve in this role).

5. Brief reports from working group leaders:

• Benchmark study – Giorgio Diana

While there have been no formal developments since the establishment of the working group, Professor Diana articulated the goals of the group and intends to move forward over the coming year. The study as presently envisioned will focus on one or two structures for which (preferably) wind tunnel test data, finite element data, aeroelastic model data and full-scale (including wind environment) data are available. The first comparison would be model vs. model i.e., a comparison among different approaches. The second would be to compare predictions against full-scale data, or full aeroelastic model data if available. Candidate structures were identified as Akashi-Kaikyo, Messina, Humber, Hoga Kusten, and Normandie. The feasibility of obtaining all required data for these structures was an issue that the working group would need to address. It was suggested that this group try to the extent possible to coordinate with the CFD group in terms of providing benchmark data for that focus also.

• Computational fluid dynamics – Allan Larsen

Nick Jones presented a summary due to a prior commitment of Allan Larsen. With the focus on the conference over the past year, there has been little progress. He an Guy Larose are beginning to compile data from the East Bridge that will form a set o benchmark data for comparison to results from computational techniques. In addition, he envisions that a focus of the group will be the development of consensus regarding reporting of results of analyses in a format that facilitates comparison among different methods.

• Stay cable vibration – Masaru Matsumoto

Professor Matsumoto reported on the successful meeting that was held on Tuesday, June 22 at the 10ICWE Conference. A number of video presentations were made, and results of the survey conducted by Prof. Matsumoto presented. The group also identified a number of issues that require focused research and resolution. A web site is being established by Soren Esdahl at COWI/DTU and will be actively used for communication among group members. Meeting minutes will be circulated via email to interested individuals, and posted on the web site soon after its creation.

• Vehicle aerodynamics – Chris Baker

Professor Baker noted that he had moved during the past year which affected his ability to initiate much activity with the working group. He did note that is was evident that the working group was needed, as the large number of current issues in this area are loosely addressed and not well coordinated.

The major issues involved in the study of wind effects on vehicles on bridges are

a) Determination of vehicle cross wind aerodynamic characteristics; b) Determination of wind structure over bridges; c) Wind fence design and wind structure in fence wakes; d) Modeling of vehicle behavior in cross winds, including driver reaction; e) Development of traffic restriction strategies; f) Bridge vehicle interaction.

The main point is that whilst many of these issues are peripheral to the interests of bridge engineers, and indeed to the more general wind engineering community, there are nevertheless a number of investigators working on different aspects of this problem, in a variety of engineering disciplines. The major work of the study group will be to draw together the information that exists, present it in a form appropriate for those interested in the aerodynamics of bridges, and to identify areas where further research is necessary.

• Codification issues – Toshio Miyata

This working group on codification of bridge aerodynamics and related subjects was proposed in the occasion of a preparatory meeting, on June 22, for the workshop on Bridge Aerodynamics. To kick off the activity, the first chair is played by Prof. T. Miyata, Yokohama National University, Japan. Professor Miyata noted that as this group had only very recently been suggested, he had not had time to coordinate any activity, or to put together a formal report.

To begin the activity on this topic, it is essential to collect many of existing codes, standards, requirements as well as design manuals on specified bridge constructions, distributed and experienced so far all over the world. An attempt to develop a common terminology among professionals in the area was considered desirable. It was suggested that coordination with the building code community be attempted since some of the issues (e.g., wind environment) are potentially common to both areas.

As the second step, it is necessary to perform analytical studies on those materials, for instance, in the form of matrices to compare each item, providing description or commentary appropriately.

To finalize the activity over the next two or three years (tentatively), recommendations or a summary on possible codification is to be provided with all the members interested with this topic, which may be investigated, for instance, on the performance design oriented concept.

Volunteers were actively sought to assist in the collection of the code materials.

6. Issues, goals and objectives

The objectives for the next 1-2 years were discussed and are summarized below:

• The steering committee will transition to an elected executive committee
• The honorary chair will become an elected chair with primary responsibility for leading the executive committee.
• Draft bylaws will be developed for presentation to the potential membership.
• Membership structure and fees will be discussed.
• A name for the organization will be proposed.
• The next formal meeting of the committee will be in Bochum at the BBAA Conference in Summer, 2000.

7. Open discussion

There were no additional items of discussion.

8. Closure

The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

List of Attendees: