Measured suspension bridge tower and girder vibration

under strong-wind excitation

Dionysius Siringoringoa, Yozo Fujino b
a
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, dion@bridge.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
b
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, fujino@civil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1 INTRODUCTION

Wind-induced vibration of Hakucho Suspension Bridge (HSB) in northern part of Japan during
strong-winds events are discussed in this paper. The bridge is instrumented permanently with
vibration sensors and data collected during strong wind events has been used to monitor the
bridge condition. Monitoring system revealed a unique tower in-plane vibration recorded under
moderate wind velocity between 13m/s and 24m/s. At this wind velocity range, the downstream
leg of the tower oscillates on its strong axis. The along-wind oscillation is characterized by a
single-frequency harmonic-like response that resembles the in-line vortex shedding response.
Influence of the tower in-plane vibration also seen on the girder as the girder lateral vibrations
increase within the wind velocity range.

2 DESCIPTION OF BRIDGE AND MONITORING SYSTEM

HSB is one of the largest suspension bridges in Japan. Located in the Muroran Gulf Hokkaido
Prefecture, Japan, the bridge connects the Muroran Port in the south and the Muroran City in the
north (Figure 1). Total length of the bridge is 1380m consisting of 720m center span and two
symmetric side spans of 330m each. The girder is a streamlined steel box with the width of 23m
and maximum web height of 2.5m. The towers, also made of steel box, are 132.5m high and 21m
wide, giving a sag ratio of 1:10. Each tower leg has a dimension of 5m x 3.6m on the base and
gradually tapered to 3.2m x 3.6m on the top. The three bridge spans are discontinuous, connected
by bearings and extension devices, and simply supported at the towers. The bridge has a
permanent wind and seismic monitoring system that consists of 27 channels of accelerometers
and displacement sensors placed on fourteen locations (Figure1(c)). To monitor wind velocity
and direction, two ultrasonic anemometers (DA-600, Kaijo Denki) were installed on the center of
mid-span and on the top of north tower. They are referred to as F1 and F2, respectively hereafter.
All sensors measured the response simultaneously and the data were recorded every 10 minutes
with the sampling frequency of 20Hz.

2.1 Description of wind measurement

Six data sets of wind and bridge response are analyzed in this paper. The records consist of two
measurement in March 1999 (i.e. 6 and 22), denoted as 990306 and 990233, respectively; and
four measurements in December 2005 (i.e.25,26,27 and 28) denoted as 051225, 051226,051227,
and 051228, respectively. The average wind directions for most of the strong winds are around
250-320o suggesting that majority of strong winds originate from the Uchiura Bay on the west
side of the bridge. These are eastwardly winds that formed certain inclination angle to the bridge

by comparing the root mean square (RMS) of the fluctuating wind velocity (i.e.  u ) and the 10-
deck (the bridge’s transverse axis is about 277o from the north). Turbulence intensity evaluated

minute wind average velocity (U) yields to small intensity with the maximum around 10% for
wind speed larger than 15m/s. This low intensity can be attributed to the surrounding topography
considering that most of the recorded wind originated from an open sea.

Figure 1. (a) View of HSB, (b) Map of HSB location, (c) Sensor layout for permanent monitoring, and (d) Detail
Tower dimension.

3 GLOBAL STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR

The structure global dynamic behavior is investigated by employing two system identification
techniques, namely, the Natural Excitation Technique (NExT)-Eigensystem Realization
Algorithm (ERA), and Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD)-Hilbert-Huang Transform
(HHT). Previous research (Nagayama et al 2005, Siringoringo and Fujino 2008) has shown the
merit of the NEXT-ERA system identification for the structure with closely-spaced modes such
as a suspension bridge. In addition, the EMD-HHT approach is implemented in this study to
enhance the performance of modal identification amid the presence of nonstationarity response
during strong wind excitation.
Table 1 shows the complete results of identification from girder accelerations. It is well-
known that the natural frequencies and damping ratios vary with respect to wind velocity as
shown in the previous research so that the results listed in Table 1 are representative example
from one data set recorded at wind velocity 24m/s. The system identification generates 12 modes
in the frequency range of 0 – 1.5Hz, where the girder mode shapes dominate the overall bridge
mode shapes. In this frequency range, the modes consist of one lateral mode, eight vertical
modes and three torsional modes. The lowest mode was found to be the lateral mode at 0.089Hz,
while the first vertical and first torsional mode was 0.12Hz and 0.502Hz, respectively. In general
natural frequencies identified from strong wind responses agree well with those analytically
predicted by FEM. In addition to global modes, the system identifications also result in two
modes with tower dominant local mode shapes identified at 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz. As will be shown
in the following section, the two modes correspond to the occurrence of single-frequency in-
plane response of the tower. The maximum modal displacements of these modes are located on
the top of the tower. Both modes seem to be pure tower local in-plane mode with small
participation of modal displacement girder in lateral direction.
4 WIND-INDUCED VIBRATION OF TOWER

It should be mentioned that only the south tower is instrumented with accelerometers; the north
tower is instrumented with anemometer. For this reason, response and wind characteristics at the
same tower locations cannot be directly compared. However, investigation on wind velocity and
direction time histories of both anemometers has shown that wind characteristics on both
locations are very similar. As a result, wind property measured from anemometers on the center
of midspan (F1) at elevation 62m is utilized in analysis. Furthermore, considering that wind in
direction normal to the bridge axis is dominant in most of occasions, this direction is taken as the
standard wind direction in that bridge response normal to bridge axis is denoted as along-wind
and the response parallel to bridge axis is denoted as crosswind. Acceleration responses analyzed
in this study are obtained from two levels, namely, the deck level at elevation 42m (node AM2),
and on the top of the tower (node AM3 and AM4). Of all accelerometers, only AM4 is placed on
the west leg, the rests are on the east leg. To quantify bridge response, root-mean-square (RMS)
of acceleration responses was computed for every ten minutes. The tower responses were
analyzed separately in two directions: 1) out-of-plane, in which the tower oscillates in its weak
axis parallel to the bridge axis due to crosswind, and 2) in-plane, where the tower oscillates on its
strong axis due to along-wind in direction perpendicular to the bridge axis.
Table 1. Identified global modal parameters under wind velocity 24 m/s
Modes Frequency (Hz) Damping (%)
HHT NEXT-ERA FEM HHT NEXT-ERA
1-L-S 0.089 0.090 0.09 4.07 2.31
1-V-S-B 0.119 0.121 0.126 3.00 2.82
1-V-A-B 0.148 0.153 0.151 3.27 4.56
2-V-S-B 0.218 0.22 0.22 2.12 2.88
2-V-A-B 0.318 0.319 0.322 1.61 1.29
3-V-S-B 0.444 0.449 0.439 1.5 2.22
1-T-S 0.502 0.504 0.472 1.05 1.91
3-V-A-B 0.57 0.584 0.57 0.48 1.63
4-V-S-B 0.734 0.737 0.722 0.37 1.43
2-T-A 0.813 0.813 0.778 0.77 1.65
5-V-S-B 1.105 1.110 1.160 0.49 1.01
3-T-S 1.200 1.197 1.290 0.19 1.06
Note: V: Vertical, L: Lateral, T: Torsion, A: Asymetric, S: Symetric, B: Bending
4.1 Relationship between wind velocity and tower out-of-plane acceleration
Figure 2(a) and (b) show the relationship between tower out-of-plane response and the across-
wind velocity. From the three locations of accelerometers, a clear trend was observed in which
the tower out-of-plane acceleration increases as the wind velocity increases. Evaluation of the
trend shows that the relationship between wind and tower out-of-plane motion is similar to what
commonly expected in buffeting response.
4.2 Relationship between wind velocity and tower in-plane acceleration
Figure 3 shows the relationship between tower in-plane acceleration and the alongwind mean
velocity in term of RMS. Similar to the out-of-plane acceleration the in-plane acceleration
increases as the wind velocity increases. Note however, there are three regions with noticeable
patterns. At lower wind velocity (less than 13m/s) and higher wind velocity (more than 24m/s),
the relationship is somewhat similar to that of the crosswind motion, where the acceleration
increase proportionally with wind velocity following a quadratic equation. However, for wind
velocity between 13 and 24m/s there is a sudden acceleration increase.
Figure 2 Relationship between mean wind velocity and RMS of tower out-of-plane acceleration measured in (a)
AM3X, and (b) AM4X.

Figure 3. Relationship between mean wind velocity and RMS of tower in-plane acceleration measured in AM3Y
along-wind (note: trend line drawn according to the result on wind region 1 and 3 only)

To clarify the responses characteristics of the three wind regions, time and frequency
domain characteristics of the responses are analyzed. The results are as follow.
1. In the first wind velocity region (<13 m/s), accelerations are quite random with relatively
small amplitude. Frequency spectra are characterized by multiple peaks dominated by four
frequency peaks within the range of 0-2Hz (i.e. 0.48 Hz, 0.6 Hz, 0.8Hz and 1.01 Hz). In the
wind velocity region 3 (>24 m/s), the accelerations amplitude become larger than that of
region 1 but generally smaller than those in region 2. The time-domain responses have similar
random characteristics as in wind region 1. The frequency domain response is characterized
by multiple frequency peaks similar to the peaks that appear in the first wind region. In short,
similar the first region, the response can be typically described as buffeting (Figure 4).
2. In the wind region 2, where the wind velocity is between 13 and 24 m/s, the responses are
characterized by the dominant single frequency peak at either 0.6Hz or 0.8 Hz. Figure 5
shows representative examples of the response. In this region the time domain acceleration
response is relatively constant for several minutes and the responses of AM3Y and AM2Y are
in-phase with constant amplitude proportion.
The characteristics of tower in-plane motion for all available record are examined in time
domain and frequency-domain. It was observed that:
1. In the wind region 1 (wind velocity smaller than 13 m/s), the accelerations are characterized
by random vibration with relatively small amplitude. The frequency spectra are characterized
 by multiple peaks. When wind velocity larger than 24 m/s (wind region 3), accelerations
amplitude become larger than that of the wind region 1 but generally smaller than those in
wind region 2. The time-domain responses tend to be more random, while the frequency
domain is characterized by multiple peaks similar to the peaks on the first wind region. In
short, similar the wind region 1, the response on wind region 3 can be typically described as
buffeting.

Figure 4. Example of tower in-plane acceleration with multiple frequency peaks characteristics measured at: (a)
wind region 1, (b) wind region 3.

2. In the wind region 2 (wind velocity from 13 to 24 m/s), the responses are characterized by
the dominant single frequency peak at either 0.6Hz or 0.8Hz. These frequencies correspond
to the local tower-dominant modes (i.e. 0.6Hz and 0.8 as suggested by system identification
results). Figure 4 show representative examples of the response in this wind region. Both
accelerations measured at AM3Y and AM2Y have equal frequency characteristics and their
time-domain responses are in-phase, and their amplitude proportions are relatively constant.
It is noted that the responses with single-frequency peak 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz occur at the
reduced wind velocity(Vr=V/fD) around 7-8.
3. All responses with 0.8Hz single‐frequency peak were caused by wind originated from
south‐west quadrant with the direction of 28±5.5o away from the bridge transverse axis.
Meanwhile, most of the responses with 0.6Hz single‐frequency peak were caused by wind
originated from west‐north quadrant with the direction of 14±10o from the bridge transverse
axis.
Most of the responses with single-frequency characteristics have low turbulence intensity (i.e.
around 10%). The low turbulence intensity is attributed to the fact that all of the responses were
excited by the wind that come from the open sea at Uchiura Bay.

5 WIND-INDUCED VIBRATION OF GIRDER

The relationship between vertical girder acceleration and the wind velocity is similar to the
response due to buffeting observed on other long-span bridges (Figure 6(a)). In lateral direction,
girder acceleration also increases as wind velocity increases. However, lateral responses
acceleration at wind region 13–24m/s and 17-24m/s for AK1Y and AK5Y, respectively are
significantly higher than trend line. For the midspan (AK1Y), the rms of lateral acceleration
increases abruptly after 13m/s and reaches the peak at 17m/s (see Figure 6(b)). For the sidespan
acceleration (AK5Y), the RMS increases abruptly after 17m/s and reaches the peak at 20m/s
(Figure 6(c)). In both spans, the acceleration increase is confined within the wind velocity of 13-
24m/s that coincides with the wind region where the south tower experiences the single-
frequency dominant in-plane motion. Frequency spectra analysis of the girder lateral acceleration
confirms that the presence of frequency peaks at 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz are related to the tower in-
plane acceleration.

Figure 5. Example of tower in-plane acceleration with single frequency peak characteristics measured at wind region
2: (a) 0.6Hz dominant-response and (b) 0.8Hz dominant response

Figure 6.Relationship between girder accelerations and wind velocity measured in (a) AK1Z (vertical direction,
center of mid-span). (b) AK1Y (lateral direction, center of mid-span). (c) AK5Y (lateral direction, center of side-
span) Note: Except for (a), all data points are made according to the frequency characteristics (i.e.MF: multiple
frequency peaks, SF 0.6Hz: Single Frequency peak at 0.6Hz, SF 0.8Hz: Single Frequency peak at 0.8Hz, and the
trend line drawn according to the result on wind region 1 and 3 only.
Figure 7. FEM-generated modes with dominant modal
displacement of towers that correspond to tower in-plane
motions observed in the measurement. (Both mode shapes
are viewed from top)(NT: north tower, ST: south tower).
Figure 8. Two wind directions that induce single-
mode along-wind tower vibration at two different
frequencies, namely, 0.6Hz with mean wind
direction 291o, and 0.8Hz with mean wind
direction 248o.

Finite element model is utilized to explain the tower and girder lateral vibration. The model
indicates that in the vicinity of 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz exist two local modes whose modal
displacement are dominated by tower in-plane motion (Figure 7). In both modes, the highest
modal mass ratio that indicates the largest modal displacement is from the tower, followed by
suspension cables. The first mode is 0.603Hz mode, which is dominated by tower in-phase and
in-plane motion with small participation of motions from other structural components. This
mode is also characterized by noticeable lateral modal displacement in the midpoint of the main
span. The other tower dominant mode is the 0.775Hz mode. It is a local tower mode
characterized by tower out-of-phase motion. This mode has a stationary point (i.e. zero lateral
modal displacement) in the middle of girder main span. Unfortunately, the in-phase and out-of-
phase characteristics of the finite-element modes of the north and south towers cannot be
confirmed by measurement since only the south tower is instrumented with accelerometers.
The difference in girder lateral modal displacement at the midpoint of the main span
between the 0.603Hz and the 0.775Hz mode can be used to explain the relationships between
wind velocity and girder lateral acceleration depicted in Figure 6. When wind excites the 0.6Hz
mode (velocity 13-17m/s) significant increase is observed on the girder lateral vibration, since
the mode has the lateral modal displacement at the midpoint of the main span. Meanwhile during
the 0.8Hz motion (wind velocity 17-24 m/s), there is no significant increase on the girder lateral
vibration, given that this mode has a zero modal displacement at the main span midpoint.

6 DISCUSION

The single-frequency harmonic-like excitation that occurs on a relatively moderate wind velocity
is somewhat similar to the condition of resonance often observed during vortex-shedding
oscillations. While vortex shedding of bridge tower is not uncommon during construction when
tower is in a free-standing stage, its occurrence on a tower of a completed bridge, especially on
its strong axis is not commonly observed. A similar phenomenon of single-frequency along-wind
vibration of a long-span bridge tower is reported by Larose et al. (1998) from observation on the
Storebaelt Bridge tower during construction free-standing stage. Wake interference of the
downstream structure due to staggered arrangement of the tower legs is thought as a possible
mechanism behind the tower single-frequency oscillation. This phenomenon has been observed
on the vibration of two tall cylinders placed in proximity, in which flow separation that occurs on
the upstream structure excites vibration of the downstream structure.As pointed out by
Zdravkovich (1985) for cylindrical structures and by Godwa et al.(2006) for rectangular
structures, the occurrence of this flow-interference oscillation depends on the ratio between
longitudinal and transversal spacing between the structure.In the case of Hakucho Bridge tower
the ratio between longitudinal spacing of the tower legs (L) and the width of the tower in
direction normal to the wind (D) (L/D ratio) is around 5.5. In transverse direction, two spacings
(T) may be considered since the 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz single-frequency oscillation are excited by
winds from different directions, namely 291o and 248o, respectively (Figure 8). These give the
ratio (T/D) of 1.3 and 2.1 for 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz single-frequency oscillation, respectively. With
these ratios, the downstream tower leg may experience oscillation caused by wake interference.
The downstream tower leg was submerged in the wake created by vortex-shedding behind the
upstream tower leg, and this caused fluctuation of drag force. When the downstream tower leg is
fully submerged in the wake the drag force decreases. Meanwhile the force increases when it is
less submerged. This fluctuation is thought to cause significant streamwise in-plane oscillation of
the tower and was transferred to the girder through the suspension cable. Further investigation is
still carried out by wind tunnel testing and simulation on computation fluid dynamics.

7 CONCLUSION

In this paper we have described an interesting wind-induced vibration of a long-span suspension

bridge tower observed from a permanent monitoring system. The main finding is the unique
tower in-plane and the girder lateral vibration in a moderate wind velocity (13-24 m/s). In this
wind region, tower in-plane accelerations are characterized by single-frequency harmonic-like
response at 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz. The onsets for two responses are different according to the wind
direction and the velocity. These frequencies correspond to the local tower-dominant modes. The
tower single-frequency in-plane oscillation also influences girder lateral responses. Comparisons
of the Fourier spectra between tower and girder response suggest that both phenomena are
closely related. Combination of in-line vortex shedding and wake interference is thought as a
possible mechanism of the tower single-frequency oscillation, considering the spacing ratio of
the tower legs and the reduced velocity when it occurred.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge Muroran Road Office of the Hokkaido Development
Bureau, MILT Japan for providing access to bridge, Mr.Toshiya Sugawara of Decon Consultant
Co.Ltd for data consultation and Mr. Shigehiro Fukaya from Chodai Engineering for discussion
on the finite element model. Opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are
those of the authors and do not represent any of institutions mentioned above.

References
Gowda B.H.L. and Kumar R.A., 2006, Flow-induced oscillations of a square cylinder due to interference effects, J.
Sound and Vibration Vol.297, pp.842-864
Larose G.L., Zasso A., Melelli S., and Casanova D., 1998, Field measurements of the wind-induced response of a
254 m high free-standing bridge pylon, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics Vol. 74-76,pp
891-902
Nagayama T., Abe M., Fujino Y., Ikeda K., 2005, Structural Identification of a Nonproportionally Damped System
and Its Application to a Full-Scale Suspension Bridge, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No.
10, , pp. 1536-1545.
Siringoringo D.M. and Fujino Y., 2008. System identification of suspension bridge from ambient vibration response,
Engineering Structures Vol.30 (2), pp. 462–477.
Zdravkovich, M.M., 1985, Flow-induced oscillations of two interfering circular cylinders, Journal of Sound and
Vibration Vol.101, pp.511–521.