ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Large-eddy simulation of ows past complex truss structures

A. Nakayama a,, D. Okamoto b, H. Takeda c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan
b
Nomura Research Institute, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005, Japan
c
Ishikawa Prefectural Ofce, Kuratsuki, Kanazawa 920-8580, Japan

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Numerical simulation of turbulent ows past typical truss structures that are common in bridges and
Received 9 May 2008 towers has been conducted. Large-eddy simulation (LES) method is used that has been veried in
Received in revised form computing ows past simple bodies at moderate Reynolds numbers. Truss structures consist of thin
5 October 2009
members that are too small to be accurately resolved by numerical grids that can be handled by most
Accepted 8 October 2009
computer systems. It has been found that when the individual members are long angular bars, the
Available online 10 November 2009
overall ow can be reproduced fairly well by approximating the members with rectangular cylinders
Keywords: whose cross sections are resolved by more than 2  2 computational cells and by taking computational
LES regions extending at least four structure heights downstream and about three heights across the
Truss structure
vertical and spanwise directions. The drag coefcient and the vortex shedding characteristics along with
Drag coefcient
the complex wake structures associated with the truss structures are reproduced reasonably well.
Strouhal number
Rectangular cylinders & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Wake

1. Introduction allowances are given for those congurations with overlapping

Turbulent ows past simple bodies at moderate Reynolds
numbers can now be reproduced with reasonable accuracy and
reliability (e.g. Launder and Sandham, 2002 or Leschziner, 2007).
Particularly, the large eddy simulation (LES) method has gained
popularity for reproducing unsteady mean and uctuating ows
past simple bluff bodies (e.g. Rodi, 1997, 1998; Lubcke et al. 2001;
Murakami and Mochida, 1995; Kuroda et al., 2007). LES calculates
large-scale turbulent ow based on the ltered equations of
motion by modeling the effects of small-scale motions. LES has
been intensively studied in recent years and its capabilities and
limitations have been investigated in various ows (e.g. Sagaut,
2006; Grinstein et al., 2007). Application to ows past realistic
structures such as bridges and towers, however, is limited to fairly
simple geometries (e.g. Selvam et al., 1998; Constantinides et al.,
2006) and, as far as the authors know, no numerical computations
of the three-dimensional ows past frame structures like trusses
have been reported.
Aerodynamic properties of truss structures have so far been
obtained by wind tunnel experiments. They are limited to gross
characteristics such as the total mean drag, lift and moments.
Since the resistance is strongly dependent on the frontal area
facing the oncoming wind, the drag coefcient is correlated with
what is called the solidity (e.g. Scruton and Newberry, 1963) and
 Corresponding author. Tel./fax: + 8178 803 6011.
E-mail address: nakayama@kobe-u.ac.jp (A. Nakayama).
portions of the structure (e.g. Briggs, 1954; Nakaguchi, 1964.)
Effects of member shapes, rounded or angular, roughness, and
Reynolds number and angle of incidence are separately consid-
ered. Computational methods such as LES will have chances of
including most of the geometric effects that can be represented by
numerical methods. Basic studies of LES methods (e.g. Piomelli
and Balaras, 2002; Pope, 2002) indicate that a signicant part of
the kinetic energy of the turbulent motion must be resolved by
the numerical method to obtain accurate results. Since the
energy-containing motions near solid walls, that play an im-
portant role in generation and maintenance of turbulence, are
small at high Reynolds numbers, ows past real-scale structures
require a large number of computational points. It is this
limitation that has deterred applications of this method to real
structures. Fortunately, ows past bluff bodies or ows over rough
surfaces, which characterize many real structures, are known to
be insensitive to the Reynolds number. This is because most of the
turbulent motion in these ows is generated by ow separation
and vortex shedding rather than by the viscosity-originated shear
in wall layers of smooth surfaces of simple bodies.
A second reason that simulation of ows past complex
structures like truss bridges has not even been attempted is that
they have complicated geometric details that again require a large
number of computational points to represent even approximately.
However, it is also known that when there are a variety of
irregularities, the largest irregularity and roughness dominate the
turbulence generation (Miyake et al., 2000; Ikeda and Durbin,
2002) and smaller irregularities or objects just break up large

0167-6105/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2009.10.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
134 A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144
motions and transfer energy to smaller scales for ultimate
dissipation. These concepts suggests that numerical calculation
methods, that resolve large geometric shapes that are responsible
for generation of turbulence but model small-scale irregularities
without resolving the exact structure details or viscous scales,
may be able to reproduce the aerodynamic characteristics of the
high-Reynolds number ows past complex structures for engi-
neering purposes, hence the choice of LES.
The present work is concerned with examining whether or not
ows past complex truss structures may be satisfactorily
simulated by existing LES methods with computer resources
presently available to engineers. The problems are (a) how much
of the geometrical details should be represented and (b) how
nely the ow should be resolved. The ow past a real truss
structure has the largest scale comparable to the size of the
structure envelope. A truss structure consists of collections of thin
members with thicknesses much smaller than the envelope, and
these members further include smaller objects like brackets and
bolts or rivets with roughness on them, all of which are related to
motions with corresponding scales. LES methods simulate
turbulent motions of various scales depending on the degree of
resolution of the numerical grid and the numerical model. If more
details are resolved, there will be less amount of modeled
geometry and the ow, and the inaccuracies and uncertainties
of the results will correspondingly be less.
Reasonably successful simulations are being made for ows
past simple bluff bodies like rectangular cylinders at moderate
Reynolds numbers with one million or so grid points. Turbulent
ows past complex bodies are not much more complex than
already complex turbulent ows around simple bodies; hence
similar simulations with similar computational loads should, in
principle, be possible to produce similar results. In this sense, it
should be noted that wakes of bluff bodies, including the vortex
shedding characteristics and the velocity defect in the far wake,
was found to be reproduced with only one or two grid points used
to represent the wake-generating body (Kuwahara, 1999).
We conduct LES calculations of ows past complete truss
structures marginally resolving the individual structure members
with total of less than a million grid points, and examine how
much of the ow characteristics can be reproduced. The calcula-
tion method we use is the one that has been veried for ows past
simple bodies. Numerical simulation of ows past these complex
structures have hitherto not been attempted, so we base our
judgment mostly by comparing with wind-tunnel measurement
results and associated empirical relations.
2. Basic approach
Fig. 1 shows a simplied solid model of a typical truss structure
used in bridges. Real structures are much more complicated with
many more parts and many more details. The members are long
bars of H- or I-shaped cross sections with brackets and bolts or
rivets at their joints. The important elements will be represented
with rectangular grids of a size that can be easily handled by
readily available computer systems. Calculation using such
simplied structures will give answers to the main questions
raised in the previous section.
Present design methods of estimating wind loads on such
frame structures are mostly based on empirical relations. The drag
coefcients of plane truss structure and mesh structures with
large openings are usually correlated with the lling ratio
(Nakaguchi, 1964; Architecture Institute of Japan (AIJ), 2004) for
members with rectangular and circular cross sections. For
structures with angular members, the lling ratio j is the key
parameter and is dened by the area of the solid parts projected in
Fig. 1. A model of a typical truss structure.
the direction of the wind divided by the area of the envelope of
the entire structure again projected in the wind direction. The
drag of truss structures consisting of two parallel plane trusses
perpendicular to the wind direction is estimated by adding the
drag on the downstream truss obtained by multiplying a factor
to the upstream structure (Ower, 1948). Allowances are given to
the cases where more than two plane structures are combined
(Scruton and Newberry, 1963; Japanese Electrical Committee,
1979). Briggs (1954) correlated the drag coefcient with the
width to height ratio for different angles of attack. None of
these gives the dynamic properties or three-dimensional ow
characteristics.
In contrast to the empirical macroscopic approach, the
numerical simulation has a chance to reproduce the ows past
individual members and the way they develop and interact with
each other. It allows examination of static and dynamic loads on
individual members. Reproducibility of ows past individual
members is, of course, important to reproduce the overall ow,
so we rst examine how accurately we should represent the thin
members and the ows past them. Fig. 2a shows the drag
coefcient of rectangular cylinders and the cylinders with H- and
I-shaped cross sections. Fig. 2b shows the Strouhal numbers of
rectangular cylinders with various breadth to depth ratios. The
drag coefcient is seen to depend more on b/d than on the section
shapes. It is also known that aerodynamic properties of such
structures do not depend very much on the Reynolds number;
hence, a numerical simulation assuming all the members replaced
by rectangular cylinders should reproduce the high-Reynolds
number ows past real structures with members having H- or
I-shaped cross sections. We examine what is the minimum
requirement on the resolution of the individual members,
keeping in mind that the entire structure is much larger than
the dimensions of the members and we cannot afford to resolve
them as one would when computing ows past single cylinders.
If we restrict ourselves to the case when the smooth wind
approaches the structure from its side as shown in Fig. 1, there are
basically three aerodynamically different member orientations.
Individual members are aligned either (a) across the oncoming
ow, (b) along it or (c) inclined typically by 451 to the ow
direction. The members that are in the ow direction or even
those inclined are known to contribute relatively little to the total
drag; thus, we only consider the members that are placed across
the ow but with different resolutions and orientations with
respect to the numerical gridlines. The results of the complete
structure can then be interpreted as the combination of these
basic ows with interaction effects. Although there are methods
that are more exible to represent general boundaries such as the
overset grid or immersed boundary methods (e.g. Fadlun et al.,
2000), the present rectangular grid is the simplest and easy to
implement. We consider several test cases with ows past
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144
Fig. 2. Experimental data of drag coefcients and Strouhal numbers of cylinders of
different cross sections and different aspect ratios of rectangular cross sections:
(a) drag coefcient (Japan Road Association, 1991) and (b) Strouhal number
(Nakaguchi et al., 1964; Washizu et al., 1978; Okajima, 1983).
truss A
truss B
truss C
Fig. 3. Typical trussed structures.
individual members with different resolution and different
orientation with respect to the gridlines.
After examining the reproducibility of the ows past individual
members, we consider the plane trussed structures in which all
135
Table 1
Congurations for simulation.
Case Conguration
Names starting with M Individual cylindrical members
Names starting with A2d, B2d, C2d Plane truss structure
Names starting with A3d, B3d, C3d Three-dimensional truss structures
members lie in one plane perpendicular to the ow direction.
Fig. 3 shows different types of truss structures used in bridges.
Truss A shown in Fig. 3a corresponds to a Warren truss with
vertical members, truss B (Fig. 3b) to a Warren truss and truss
C to a Double Warren Truss. Truss C has more joint-inuenced
regions than the other two congurations. These calculation cases
provide an idea about how well the effects of the lling ratio and
the congurations of the joints can be reproduced when there are
no effects of wakes of upstream members. After this we consider
simplied three-dimensional congurations like that shown in
Fig. 1. The summary of the three different groups of test cases are
given in Table 1. In each test case, we examine the details of the
simulated ow such as the instantaneous velocity eld and the
spectra as well as the drag and lift forces on the different
members and the entire structure.
3. Calculation method
The calculation method used here is the LES method developed
and veried by the present authors, Nakayama and Noda (2000)
and Nakayama and Vengadesan (2002). It uses an upwind
difference scheme for the convective terms but also uses the
standard Smagorinsky model for the subgrid scale terms. It may
be called a numerical LES or implicit LES (Grinstein et al., 2007)
which optimizes the accuracy and the efciency. The algorithm is
that based on a HSMAC method of Hirt and Cook (1972)
implemented in the staggered grid system on the rectangular
coordinates. Each computational cell has a ag indicating whether
it is a solid or uid cell and the solid surface is identied by those
surfaces bordered by the uid and solid cells. No-slip boundary
condition is applied on all solid surfaces and no wall model is
used. This means that the velocity gradient in the thin viscous
layer on the solid surface is not correctly represented and the
shear stresses on the solid surfaces are not correctly accounted for
but the no-slip condition assures the velocity defect downstream
which is related to the drag of the body. The summary of the
elements used in this method is given in Table 2. It has been used
to simulate ows past square cylinders and similar simple bodies,
and its performance when the body is well-resolved has been
examined in detail. The drag coefcient and the vortex shedding
characteristics were conrmed to agree with the corresponding
experiments, and, when the wake is resolved by more than
20  20 grid points, the velocity proles and the turbulent stresses
in the wake were also found to be predicted at least as well as
other existing LES calculation methods.
The calculation region and the boundary conditions we apply
are shown in Fig. 4. The uniform inow of U in x or x1 direction is
imposed at the upstream plane. The radiation outow condition is
assumed at the downstream plane to allow smooth advection of
the generated vortices. The top and bottom planes are assumed to
be slip walls but a periodicity is assumed in the spanwise
direction since we consider a basic section cut out from structures
of long span.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
136 A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144

Table 2 Table 3
Elements of the calculation method. Summary of test cases with individual members.

Grid Variable interval rectangular grid Case Orientation Aspect Reynolds Number of Total number
(deg) ratio number cells in cross of grid points
Variable arrangement Staggered mesh b/d based on d section (Nx  Ny  Nz)
Pressure coupling HSMAC Red =Ud/v (Mz  Mx)
Convective terms 3rd-order upwind difference
Time advancing 2nd-order AdamsBashforth M00102 0.0 1.0 25,000 22 128  32  96
Subgrid model Standard Smagorinsky with Cs =0.13 M00104 0.0 1.0 50,000 44 128  32  96
Wall model No model M00106 0.0 1.0 75,000 66 128  32  96
M00152 0.0 1.5 25,000 23 128  32  96
M00154 0.0 1.5 50,000 46 128  32  96
M00202 0.0 2.0 25,000 24 128  32  96
M00204 0.0 2.0 50,000 48 128  32  96
M45142 45.0 1.4 35,000 22 128  32  96
M45143 45.0 1.4 44,000 33 128  32  96
M60153 60.0 1.5 37,500 22 128  32  96
M60202 60.0 2.0 50,000 33 128  32  96

dependency of the position of formation of alternating vortex

Fig. 4. Calculation region and boundary conditions.
4. Calculation of ow past basic individual members
In the present LES of truss structures, we resolve congurations
of the main members and the ows past them, but not with the
sufcient resolution like that one would use in simulating
individual cylinders. So we rst examine the accuracies of
simulation of ows past individual members which are assumed
to be rectangular cylinders. The ow past rectangular cylinders
placed across uniform ows has been the most basic benchmark
test case of many calculation methods (Rodi, 1997). The method
we use here has also been validated in this conguration
(Nakayama and Vengadesan, 2002) but with grids that resolve
the body much more nely than we can afford here where the
entire structure has to be covered. So we consider grids that
contain sufciently large region anticipating that it will be used to
simulate the ow past the entire structure, but may not be ne
enough to represent the cylinder members and the near-surface
ow. Table 3 represents the test calculation cases, and Fig. 4 shows
the grids used in these calculations. Cases starting with M00 are
the cases in which the cylinder side surfaces coincide with the
gridlines, cases with M45 are those in which the cylinder is
inclined by 451 from the gridlines and those with M60 are those in
which the cylinder is inclined by 601. In each case two to three
different values of the aspect ratios b/d of the cross section are
considered, which are indicated by the following two digits in the
case names. Then a few different resolutions of the cylinder cross
sections are considered. The minimum number of cells to
represent the cylinder cross section is as few as 2  2 and the
maximum is 6  6.
Fig. 5 shows samples of simulation results of instantaneous
ows visualized by the grayscale representing the magnitude of
the spanwise vorticity component in a plane perpendicular to the
cylinder. The shapes of the cylinder members are drawn by tracing
the surfaces bordered by the uid cells and the solid cells and are
not quite accurate and sharp. The results of the cases that resolve
the cross section by 2  2 cells are not as sharp as the better
resolved cases but the results appear reasonable. Especially,
street in the near wake on the aspect ratio known from high-
resolution calculations (Okajima, 1983) is well reproduced by the
present calculations.
Table 4 summarizes the calculation results of the drag
coefcient, CD and the Strouhal number, Std dened by the
height d of the cylinder together with the experimental values
taken from Fig. 2. The only aerodynamic difference of these test
cases is the aspect ratio, so if calculation results are grid
independent, those cases with the same b/d should give the
same results. It is noted that accurate denition of b and d for the
members inclined from the grid lines is not possible and they
are dened by the average height and width. It is seen that the
calculated drag coefcient is within or very close to the range of
the experimental data except for the two cases (M00152 and
M45142), in both of which the member width is resolved by only
two cells. The Strouhal number is also calculated well for cases
where the member cross section is resolved by more than two
cells. The results with 2  2 cells show larger CD coefcient
and lower Std. For the aspect ratio 1.5 and 2.0 or 1.4 for the
inclined cases, the calculation with the poorest resolution show
smaller CD and Std. When the members are resolved by three cells
in one direction the drag coefcient and the Strouhal number
are calculated quite satisfactorily. The cases with 2  2 cells
representing the member cross section are not generally too far
off and we use at least 2  2 cell representation in the calculations
of full truss structures (Table 5).
5. Calculation of ow past plane truss structures
Now we combine the basic members in one plane perpendi-
cular to the ow direction to form plane truss structures. The
three different trusses shown in Fig. 3 are named with 2d added
next to the truss conguration, A, B and C and for each case two
different grid representations of the members are considered.
Cases with 2  2 cell representations are indicated by 2 added at
the end of the case names and 3  3 indicated by 3. The main
aerodynamic differences are the differences in the geometric
shapes and the number of joints in one basic period of span and
the lling ratio j. Therefore, the purpose here is to examine if the
effects of the lling ratio and the different interactions near and
behind the joints with different congurations can be reproduced
correctly.
Computational grids used for these ows past the planar
structures are shown in Fig. 6. Individual members are resolved
either by 2  2 or 3  3 cells over the cross section to insure
correct drag and vortex shedding characteristics at least in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144 137

Fig. 5. Instantaneous wake structures of cylindrical members: (a) M00102, (b) M00104, (c) M00152, (d) M00154, (e) M45142 and (f) M45202.

Table 4 Table 5
Results of calculation, mean drag coefcient and Strouhal number. Calculation cases of plane truss structures.

Case Orientation Calculated results Experimental values Cases Filling Main Rey- Number Total number Block-
(deg) ratio j frame nolds of cells of grid points age
CD Std CD Std mem- number in main (Nx  Ny  Nz) ratio
ber b/d based on member (%)
M00102 0.0 2.21 0.083 2.07 0.3 0.13 7 0.01 D ReD = cross
M00104 0.0 1.78 0.143 2.07 0.3 0.13 7 0.01 UD/v section
M00106 0.0 1.75 0.146 2.07 0.3 0.13 7 0.01 (Mz  Mx)
M00152 0.0 1.23 0.094 1.77 0.1 0.11 7 0.01
M00154 0.0 1.58 0.128 1.77 0.1 0.11 7 0.01 A2d3 0.48 1.0 4.0  105 33 128  32  96 14.6
M00202 0.0 1.25 0.094 1.57 0.2 0.087 0.01 or B2d2 0.18 1.0 4.0  105 22 128  32  96 5.5
0.12 7 0.01 B2d3 0.34 1.0 4.0  105 33 128  32  96 10.4
M00204 0.0 1.43 0.128 1.57 0.2 C2d3 0.39 1.0 4.0  105 33 128  32  96 11.9
M45142 45.0 1.46 0.080 1.77 0.1 0.11 7 0.01
M45143 45.0 1.61 0.099 1.77 0.1 0.11 7 0.01
M60153 60.0 1.53 0.086 1.57 0.2 0.11 7 0.01
M60202 60.0 1.34 0.054 1.57 0.2 0.087 0.01 or
0.12 7 0.01 The calculation results of the drag coefcient for these plane
trusses are shown in Fig. 7. Since the plane structure is more like
porous screens, the results are compared with that of the
regions away from the joints. The Reynolds numbers based on the empirical design criteria given by the AIJ (2004) for porous
height D of the structure are 4.0  105 which corresponds to the structures. It is seen that the present results are close to the AIJ
Reynolds number obtained at typical wind tunnel tests. In terms criteria and the trend of the effects of the lling ratio is consistent
of the width d of the individual member is about 2.5  104 for with the AIJ line. The drag coefcient of case C2d is largest and
which validation calculations of individual members are done. appears to be due to the effects of the large joint areas.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
138 A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144

Fig. 6. Computational grids used for computing ow past plane truss structures: (a) A2d3, (b) B2d3 and (c) C2d3.

Fig. 7. Drag coefcient of plane truss structures. Fig. 8. Instantaneous drag coefcient of plane truss structures.

The time variation of the instantaneous drag coefcient is shown though not shown here. This is due to the fact that vortex sheddings
in Fig. 8. There are uctuations but the magnitude is smaller than off members of different sizes and orientations have different
those of the instantaneous drag coefcients of individual members, frequencies and phases and tend to cancel each other out.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144
Fig. 9. Instantaneous ow past plane truss structures, surfaces of constant velocity
magnitude: (a) A2d3, (b)B2d3 and (c) C2d3.
The instantaneous ow structures are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
Fig. 9 shows the surfaces of constant velocity magnitudes
 q
v u21 u22 u23 1:2U. Fig. 10 is a plot of velocity vectors
and their magnitudes indicated by grayscale. From these gures, it
is seen that the wakes of the individual members of A2d3 have
larger wake decits and cause stronger turbulence while C2d3
indicates weaker wakes but the interaction at the joints appears to
generate turbulence in the near wake.
6. Calculation of ow past three-dimensional truss structures
Now we consider the ow past three dimensional trussed
structures. Real structures are almost all three dimensional and if
the results obtained here are veried, the whole method
developed here has a good chance to be applied to design
purposes.
Calculation cases are summarized in Table 6. For each of the
three different three-dimensional truss congurations, A3d, B3d
and C3d, different thicknesses of the members giving rise to
different lling ratios are considered. Cases with member cross
sections resolved by 2  2 cells are the baseline cases. 3  3
resolution is preferable but it results in larger lling ratios unless
139
Fig. 10. Instantaneous ow past plane truss structures, instantaneous velocity
distribution: (a) A2d3, (b) B2d3 and (c) C2d2.
the total number of grid points is increased. As has been seen in
the calculation of ows past individual members, it is more
important to correctly represent the aspect ratio b/d of the
member cross sections than the resolution. For the A3d cases, a
case A3d2w with the span twice as wide as the basic A3d2 case is
included to examine the effects of the width of the span. The
computational grids for these calculation cases are shown in
Fig. 11. They are all 128  64  96 except for the wide-span case of
A3d2w. The overall blockage ratio dened by the area of the solid
members projected in the ow divided by the total area of the
ow cross section perpendicular to the ow direction, is listed in
the same table since this can be a parameter that may inuence
the calculation results.
6.1. Drag and lift
The calculated mean drag coefcients are plotted in Fig. 12
together with the empirical relation with respect to the lling
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
140 A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144

Table 6
Calculation cases of three-dimensional truss structures.

Cases B/D L/D Filling ratio j Main member Reynolds number Total number of grid
thickness b/D based on D ReD = UD/v points (Nx  Ny  Nz)

A3d2 1.0 2.0 0.29 2/32 4.0  105 128  64  96

A3d3 1.0 2.0 0.48 3/32 4.0  105 128  64  96
A3d2w 1.0 4.0 0.29 2/32 4.0  105 128  128  96
B3d2 1.0 2.0 0.18 2/32 4.0  105 128  64  96
B3d3 1.0 2.0 0.34 3/32 4.0  105 128  64  96
C3d2 1.0 2.0 0.39 2/32 4.0  105 128  64  96
C3d3 1.0 2.0 0.23 3/32 4.0  105 128  64  96

Fig. 11. Computational grids used for computing ow past three-dimensional truss structures: (a) A3d2, (b) B3d2 and (c) C3d3.

ratio j given by Scruton and Newberry (1963), Pagon (1958), and
AIJ design standard (2004). It is seen that the calculated values are
generally in agreement with these empirical relations, although
the trend with respect to j of cases A3d and C3d are opposite of
the correlations. In case C3d, it may be due to large diagonal
members crossing each other. The short-span case A3d2 and
wide-span case A3d2w show little difference implying the basic
span taken for the other short span cases is sufcient.
Time uctuations of the instantaneous drag coefcients for the
three different truss congurations with the member cross section
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144 141

Fig. 15. Instantaneous lift coefcient of three-dimensional truss structures.

Fig. 12. Mean drag coefcient of three-dimensional truss structures (Japan Road
Association, 1991; Scruton and Newberry, 1963; Pagon, 1958).

Fig. 13. Instantaneous drag coefcient of three-dimensional truss structures.

Fig. 14. Instantaneous drag on different members of case A3d2.

resolved by 2  2 cells are shown in Fig. 13. It is seen that the drag
coefcients of these three-dimensional trusses uctuate in time
considerably more compared with the drags on plane truss
structures shown in Fig. 8. This is due to the effects of the
wakes of the upstream members inuencing the downstream
ones which do not exist in plane trusses. In order to see this, time
uctuations of the drag forces on individual members are shown
in Fig. 14. cDm is the contribution to the total drag coefcient from
individual members. The magnitudes of the drag forces on the
downstream members are signicantly smaller than those on the
upstream members but the amplitudes of the uctuations are an Fig. 16. Instantaneous lift force on different members of case A3d2: (a) upwind
order of magnitude larger. It is also seen that the frequencies of members, (b) downwind members and (c) connecting members.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
142 A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144
Fig. 17. Power spectra of uctuating total lift forces.
Fig. 18. Surfaces of constant instantaneous velocity magnitudes: (a) A3d2,
(b) B3d2 and (c) C3d2.
dominant ow uctuations are different between the cord and the
diagonal members.
The instantaneous lift coefcients of the whole structures are
shown in Fig. 15. The uctuation characteristics are seen to be
different for different struss congurations. A3d2 which has the
least number of diagonal members shows the largest uctuations.
B3d2 which has more diagonal members appears to have a
beating harmonic. The case C3d2 which has the most diagonal
members shows smallest uctuations. Also the dominant
uctuations of A3d2 have larger periods than those of B3d2 and
C3d2. Details of spectral characteristics of uctuating lift
coefcient are discussed later.
Fig. 16 shows the time uctuations of the lift forces on
individual members of case A3d2. It is seen that the downstream
members receive an order of magnitude larger lift forces than the
upstream members, and the connecting members get yet smaller
lift than the upstream ones. Larger uctuations of cLm of
downstream members start only sometime after the calculation
is started. It implies that they are caused by the wakes and
vortices shed by the upstream members that take time to develop
and convect downstream to make an inuence. There are not
appreciable differences between the magnitudes of the lift forces
on horizontal and diagonal members.
The power spectra of the instantaneous lift coefcients are
shown in Fig. 17. There are two distinct peaks in case of A3d2 but
one broad one in case B3d2 and no clear peaks in case of C3d2.
The peak at about fD/U= 0.2 seen in case A3d2 appears the
oscillation due to ow structures of size comparable to D but not
quite low enough for vortex shedding off solid body of size
D. Since d/D= 0.062 for all these cases, this and other peaks in the
other cases are much lower than the Strouhal frequencies of the
individual members rather than their own wakes. This implies
that the uctuations on the lift that mainly come from the
unsteady ow past the downstream members are induced by the
wake of the upstream members. The upstream members do shed
vortices at their characteristic frequencies related to their
thicknesses but the stronger unsteadiness of the lift forces
comes from the undulation of the wakes of the upstream
members on the scale of the whole structure. These will be seen
better in instantaneous ow pictures discussed below.
6.2. Instantaneous ow structure
The calculated instantaneous ow structures of the ow past
the three-dimensional trusses are visualized by the surfaces of
constant values of instantaneous velocity magnitude in Fig. 18. It
is seen that the structures with smaller lling ratio produce near
wakes breaking quicker into small scale motions and decaying
faster, while those with larger lling ratio with thicker members
tend to show wake structures extending greater distances from
the body. It is seen that the areas of the ow regions inuenced by
the structures are about the same as those of the solid bodies with
sizes comparable to the overall size of the structure envelope, but
the dominant scale of the instantaneous ow structure is smaller
than the overall size. The uctuations corresponding to the sizes
of the individual members are not as signicant.
6.3. Velocity at selected points
The mean velocity distributions around the truss structures
can be examined in detail from the computed results. It is not the
purpose of the present paper to show all the details and only
samples at selected positions are shown here. The velocity
distributions across the wake at three downstream positions of
the three trusses are shown in Fig. 19. They are the distributions
along the vertical section midpoint between the main vertical
members so that the velocity defects downstream of the upper
chord and the bottom chord members and that downstream of the
diagonal members are seen. The velocity defect naturally is larger
and persists longer in the downstream direction in the case of
C3d2 with thicker members than the other cases. In cases of A3d2
and B3d2, at one tenth of the structure height D downstream the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144 143

simulate the entire ow fairly well. The calculated mean drag

coefcient generally agrees with the existing empirical relations
although the trend with the lling ratio is not the same as the
correlations in some cases. The dynamic uctuations of the drag
and the lift forces of the entire structure and of the individual
members are obtained and they appear reasonable. Furthermore,
instantaneous ow features and the local velocity distributions,
which are hard to be measured experimentally, are obtained from
the numerical simulations and presented. Thus even if the body
geometry is very complex, it is sufcient to resolve the gross
character of the truss and the external ow, so that the overall
ow properties and the related aerodynamic characteristics of
complex real structures can be predicted. The LES simulation
method like the present one now has another application area and
can be utilized in estimating aerodynamic characteristics of
bridges and towers with trussed structures.

List of symbols

B breadth of truss structure

b width of member cross section
Cs Smagorinsky constant
CD drag coefcient
cD instantaneous drag coefcient
cDm contribution to instantaneous drag coefcient of
individual members
cL instantaneous uctuating lift coefcient
cLm contribution to instantaneous lift coefcient of
individual members
D total height of the truss structure
d height of member cross section
FD drag force on unit length of a member
FL lift force on unit length of a member or on unit
pitch of truss structure
f vortex shedding frequency
Lp width of one pitch of main frame
Mx number of grid cells in x direction across
rectangular section
Mz number of grid cells in z direction across
rectangular section
Nx number of grid points in x direction across
calculation domain
Ny number of grid points in y direction across
calculation domain
Nz number of grid points in z direction across
calculation domain
PS power spectrum density
Fig. 19. Velocity proles in the near wakes of three-dimensional truss structures: ReD Reynolds number UD/n dened by U and D
(a) A3d2, (b) B3d2 and (c) C3d2. Red Reynolds number Ud/n dened by U and d
StD Strouhal number fD/U
Std Strouhal number fd/U
wakes of individual members are seen and the velocity variation t time
across the wake is very large. At two heights downstream the U approach ow velocity
individual wakes have merged and the minimum velocity is u, u1 velocity component in the direction of approach
recovered to about 0.7 of the oncoming ow. The other details can ow
be examined as required in real applications. u2 spanwise velocity component
u3 vertical velocity component
v velocity magnitude
7. Conclusions x, x1 coordinate in the approach ow direction
y, x2 span-wise coordinate
The ow past complex truss structure has been simulated z, x3 vertical coordinate
using the LES technique. By resolving individual members at least j lling ratio dened by the projected area of solid
by 2  2 cells and representing the ow in the region three members divided by the projected area of
structure heights downstream, one structure height upstream and structure envelope
two structure heights in the spanwise direction with the total oz vorticity component in z direction
number of grid points of about one million points, it is possible to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
144 A. Nakayama et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 133144
References
Architectural Institute of Japan, 2004. Recommendations for loads on buildings,
Maruzen, Japan.
Biggs, J.M., 1954. Wind loads on truss bridges. Transactions of the American Society
of Civil Engineers 119, 879898.
Constantinides, Y., Oakley, O.H. Jr., Holmes, S., 2006. Analysis of turbulent ows
and VIV of truss spar risers. In: Proceedings of the 25th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2006-92674.
Fadlun, E.A., Verzicco, R., Orlandi, P., Mohd-Yusof, J., 2000. Combined immersed-
boundary nite-difference methods for three-dimensional complex ow
simulations. Journal of Computational Physics 161, 3560.
Grinstein, F.F., Margolin, L.G., Rider, W.J. (Eds.), 2007. Implicit Large Eddy
Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Hirt, C.W., Cook, J.L., 1972. Calculating three-dimensional ow around structure
and over rough terrain. Journal of Computational Physics 10, 324340.
Ikeda, T., Durbin, P.A., 2002. Direct simulations of a rough wall channel ow. Report
TF-81, Stanford University, Mechanical Engineering.
Japan Road Association, 1991. Handbook of wind loads on road bridges, Maruzen,
Japan, pp. 5461.
Kuroda, M., Tamura, T., Suzuki, M., 2007. Applicability of LES to the turbulent wake
of arectangular cylindercomparison with PIV data. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 95, 12421258.
Kuwahara, K., 1999. Rearrangement of Karman vortex street. In: Proceedings of the
13th Symposium of Numerical Fluid Dynamics, JSFM, Tokyo. pp. 227228.
Launder, B., Sandham, N., 2002. Closure Strategies for Turbulence and Transitional
Flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leschziner, M. A., 2007. Statistical modelling and simulation of turbulent separated
ows: limits, hard lessons and symbiotic relationships. In: Proceedings of the
JSFM Annual Symposium, Paper AM07-00-000.
Lubcke, H., Schmidt, S., Rung, T., Thiele, F., 2001. Comparison of LES and RANS in
bluff-body ows. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89,
14711485.
Miyake, Y., Tsujimoto, K., Agata, Y., 2000. A DNS of a turbulent ow in a rough-wall
channel using roughness elements model. JSME International Journal 43 (2),
232242.
Murakami, S., Mochida, A., 1995. On turbulent vortex shedding ow past 2D square
cylinder predicted by CFD. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 5455, 191211.
Nakaguchi, H., Arai, I., Matsuzaka, M., 1964. Static wind loads on towers of frame
work structure. Journal of Aeronautical Society of Japan 12 (121), 18.
Nakayama, A., Noda, H., 2000. LES simulation of ow around a bluff body tted
with a splitter plate. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
7778, 643651.
Nakayama, A., Vengadesan, S.N., 2002. On the inuence of numerical schemes and
subgrid-stress models on large-eddy simulation of turbulent ow past a square
cylinder. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids 38 (3), 227253.
Okajima, A., 1983. Flow around rectangular cylinders of various breath to depth
ratio. Journal of Wind Engineering 17, 119.
Ower, E., 1948. The wind resistance of lattice girder bridges. Institution of Civil
Engineers, vol. R7556.
Pagon, W.W., 1958. Wind forces on structures. In: Proceedings of the A.S.C.E.
Structural, vol. 84(4), p. 1711. Journal of the Structural division.
Piomelli, U., Balaras, E., 2002. Wall-layer models for large-eddy simulations.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 34, 349374.
Pope, S.B., 2002. Turbulence 2002. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodi, W., 1997. Comparisons of LES and RANS calculations of the ow around bluff
bodies. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 69, 5575.
Rodi, W., 1998. Large eddy simulation of the ow past bluff bodies, State-of-the-art.
JSME International Journal Series B, Fluids and Thermal Engineering 41,
361374.
Sagaut, P., 2006. Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows, third ed Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg.
Scruton, C., Newberry, C.W., 1963. On the estimation of wind loads for building and
structural design. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 25, 97126.
Selvam, R.P., Tarini, M.J., Larsen, A., 1998. Computer modeling of ow around
bridges using LES and FEM. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 7778, 643651.
The Japanese Electrotecnical Committee, 1979. Design standard on structures for
transmissions, JEC-127-1979, Denkishoin, Japan.
Washizu, K., Ohya, A., Otsuki, Y., Fujii, K., 1978. Aeroelastic instability of
rectangular cylinders in a heaving mode. Journal of Sound and Vibration 59
(2), 195210.