为研究柔性光伏支架的风振响应和脉动风荷载特性, 该文首先设计了双排三跨柔性光伏支架气弹模型, 并进行了风洞试验; 其次, 通过在不同倾角(-30°~30°)、风向角(-60°~60°)和流场(均匀流场和湍流场)下进行测振试验, 分析了双排三跨柔性光伏支架的上下游干扰效应和流场对光伏支架的风振影响; 最后, 采用包络值法计算了不同工况的风振系数, 并对比5个国家和地区的抗风规范, 提出了风振系数建议值。研究结果表明：上游光伏板会影响下游光伏板的风荷载方向, 在非0°倾角工况下, 上游光伏板的影响使下游光伏板的平均位移响应降低约30.00%;此外, 湍流场中柔性光伏支架的平均位移增长规律复杂, 但响应值较小, 脉动位移振幅整体大于均匀流场; 采用包络值法通过竖向位移和扭转角位移指标分析设计风振系数发现, 扭转振动主导动力响应, 风振系数随倾角的增加呈“降低—升高—降低”趋势, 0°倾角下风振系数在±45°风向角时达到峰值且大致呈对称分布; 试验所得风振系数在不同倾角的取值为1.50~3.00, 在不同风向角的取值为4.50~5.50。该文研究结果可为实际工程中风振系数的取值和柔性光伏支架的抗风设计提供参考。

Objective: Existing specifications inadequately address the determination of wind vibration coefficients for flexible photovoltaic supports, and research on interference effects in multi-row structures as well as coupled vibrations with multiple degrees of freedom is limited. This study investigates the wind-induced vibration response and fluctuating wind loads on flexible photovoltaic supports through wind tunnel experiments. Furthermore, a method for determining wind vibration coefficients is developed by considering the coupling effects of torsion, vertical, and bending modes, and the results are compared with those of five international codes. The aim is to provide a highly accurate scientific basis for evaluating wind vibration coefficients in practical engineering applications and to support the wind-resistant structural design of highly flexible photovoltaic systems. Methods: An aeroelastic model of a double-row, three-span photovoltaic system was designed, fabricated, and installed in a wind tunnel test environment. Vibration measurement tests were performed under a wide range of inclination angles (from -30° to 30°), attack angles (from -60° to 60°), and flow conditions, including uniform and turbulent flow fields. The tests were designed to systematically examine the interference effects among upstream and downstream photovoltaic rows and the influence of flow characteristics on the wind-induced vibration behavior of the structure. Using vertical and torsional displacements as primary indicators, the wind vibration coefficient was determined by the envelope value method to capture the maximum response range. Results: For nonzero inclination angles, the presence of upstream photovoltaic panels reduced the average displacement response of downstream panels by approximately 30.00% because of shielding and aerodynamic interference. Under turbulent flow conditions, the average displacement trend of the photovoltaic supports was highly complex and irregular, but overall response amplitudes were relatively small. The pulsating displacement amplitudes in the turbulent fields were generally greater than those under uniform flow conditions. Torsional vibration dominated the dynamic response characteristics, while the wind vibration coefficient exhibited a distinctive "decrease-increase-decrease" pattern with varying inclination angles, peaked at attack angles of ±45°, and showed a clear symmetrical distribution. The measured wind vibration coefficients ranged from 1.50-3.00 at different inclination angles, mostly falling between the Japanese and British code values. The values under varying attack angles ranged from 4.50-5.50, which significantly exceeded those calculated according to the existing specifications. Conclusions: The wind vibration coefficient value prescribed by the Chinese standard (1.00) is significantly underestimated and does not reflect the actual wind-induced dynamic behavior of flexible photovoltaic structures. For highly flexible photovoltaic systems, it is strongly recommended that wind tunnel tests or dynamic time-history analyses be conducted to determine the wind vibration coefficient accurately. In addition, adequate safety redundancy must be incorporated into the structural design process. Existing design codes should incorporate structural flexibility correction factors to improve the accuracy and applicability of the prescribed wind vibration coefficient values. In regions frequently affected by typhoons, conservative values from Japanese standards are recommended as a reference. In typical wind zones, an intermediate value between experimental values and those provided by British and American standards is advised for reliable and efficient design.