Risk Assessment of Wind-Induced Vehicle Accidents on

Long-Span Bridges Using Onsite Wind and Traffic Data

Sejin Kim 1; MohammadReza Seyedi 2; and Ho-Kyung Kim, M.ASCE 3

Abstract: A systematic approach was proposed to assess vehicle accident risk over sea-crossing bridges under strong winds. The annual
frequency of an accident was evaluated as a risk index using the information on daily traffic volumes, the ratio of high-sided vehicles, and the
long-term distribution of the speed and direction of the wind at the bridge site. The approach considered the effect that deck shapes and road
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

alignments exert on vehicle stability. The risk index was estimated by accounting for the entire road sections of the examined bridge,
including approach spans. The proposed method successfully identified the vulnerable positions along the bridge and the vehicle types.
The application on a sea-crossing bridge demonstrated the usefulness of the proposed risk-assessment approach in determining a preferable
mitigation strategy with less traffic intervention or minimized windscreen installation by quantitative comparisons between risk indices of
several possible measures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003455. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Risk assessment; Onsite data; Vehicle stability; Vehicle accident; Wind; Sea-crossing bridge; Wind-tunnel test.

Introduction
Sea-crossing long-span bridges are essential in providing continu-
ous mobility and minimizing logistics costs by accommodating
daily traffic. However, because of their high location in an open
space, vehicles are more likely to be exposed to strong side winds.
Several risk-reduction plans have been adopted for most bridges,
including traffic-control scenarios and windscreen installation. How-
ever, those strategies were implemented using a heuristic decision
rather than a systematic assessment process with theoretical back-
grounds. The technical components regarding vehicle safety include
a wide range of engineering knowledge, such as vehicle dynamics,
aerodynamic evaluation of wind loads on vehicles over bridge decks,
and wind environment analysis for the specific bridge site.
Over the last 2 decades, extensive research has been performed
for vehicle safety under strong crosswinds on a bridge. As men-
tioned by Reymert et al. (2022), who performed a systematic search
and filtering process for recent technical articles, most literature
focused on numerical simulation of vehicle motion (Chen and Cai
2004; Chen et al. 2015; Kim and Kim 2019; Kim et al. 2021) and
wind-tunnel testing technique to measure aerodynamic forces on
1
Postdoctoral Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Florida A&M Univ.-Florida State Univ. College of Engineering, 2035
E. Paul Dirac Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32310. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0001-7262-6510. Email: skim@eng.famu.fsu.edu
2
Postdoctoral Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Florida A&M Univ.-Florida State Univ. College of Engineering, 2035
E. Paul Dirac Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32310. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0001-8963-6336. Email: reza.seyedi@fsu.edu
3
POSCO Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Seoul National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, South
Korea; Professor, Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering,
Seoul National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, South Korea
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1294-125X.
Email: hokyungk@snu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 7, 2021; approved on
May 12, 2022; published online on July 28, 2022. Discussion period open
until December 28, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
vehicles (Suzuki et al. 2003; Zhu et al. 2012; Dorigatti et al. 2012;
Chen et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2020). In recent
years, challenging technologies also have been reported, such as
the wind-tunnel technique for moving vehicle tests (Wang et al.
2022; Xiang et al. 2018) and numerical dynamic analysis consid-
ering bridge–vehicle–wind interaction (Hou et al. 2019; Zhou and
Chen 2016; Wang and Xu 2015). All those accomplishments en-
able us to estimate the critical wind speeds of vehicles on a bridge
and determine when to close the bridge or lower the vehicle speed
limit during windy conditions. Kim et al. (2021) also proposed a
traffic-control strategy based on critical wind speeds obtained
through wind-tunnel tests and numerical analysis.
However, most of these studies do not provide answers on how
often bridges would be exposed to traffic-vulnerable conditions and
whether or where risk-mitigation measures should be applied. To
answer these questions, we need to estimate the risk level, which
can represent the vulnerability of bridges to wind-induced accidents
reflecting onsite wind and traffic environmental characteristics.
Also, based on the obtained risk information, it should be able to
identify the dominant factors of the risk level and determine
practical and economic decisions to secure sufficient vehicle safety.
Unfortunately, although previous studies have provided excellent
ways to assess the key components of risk, i.e., aerodynamic co-
efficients and critical wind speeds of vehicles, they barely ad-
dressed the problem of how to calculate the risk level itself.
Various geometric and environmental factors contribute to the
overall accident risk of bridges. Geometric characteristics of a long-
span bridge, such as deck shape, elevation, curvature, and slope,
change along the entire driving path, which results in varying wind
conditions that vehicles experience according to their location. For
example, Kim et al. (2021) reported a considerable reduction in the
critical wind speed of a truck on a curved approach span compared
with that on the cable-supported bridge in their case study due to
the unique deck shape and road alignment. Also, two environmen-
tal factors, wind and traffic characteristics, can affect the risk. For
example, even if the critical wind speed is low, the actual risk
remains acceptable when traffic volume is low or strong winds
are not frequent enough. Accordingly, the risk analysis needs an
engineered procedure to accommodate all these uncertain factors

© ASCE 04022155-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155

 that govern the risk evaluation and identify the dominant sources
of vulnerability and their significance on the estimated risks.
This information enables us to establish an effective risk-mitigation
strategy via comparative risk analyses for potential measures.
As far as we can ascertain, available studies on the risk assess-
ment of vehicle accidents on bridges are limited. For example,
Baker (1987, 1991, 2015) and Coleman and Baker (1992) sug-
gested several risk-assessment methods that consider the onsite
wind environment; however, these studies focused on the interac-
tions between vehicles and winds on flat ground and did not con-
sider the geometric factors of road infrastructures. Therefore, these
methods could not consider the aerodynamic impact on vehicle sta-
bility caused by the geometric characteristics of bridges such as deck
shape, curvature, cant, road alignment, and exposed length. Kim
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
et al. (2016) also discussed the vulnerability of wind-induced acci-
dents on bridges, but the following points were not properly incor-
porated. First, data such as daily traffic volume and the ratio of heavy
vehicles were not considered in estimating the risk of accidents.
Second, the risk assessment focused only on the cable-supported
spans of the sea-crossing bridge, although the approach spans also
could increase the overall risk of accidents (Kim et al. 2020).
Therefore, this study proposed a quantitative risk-assessment
methodology of vehicle instability to strong winds reflecting geo-
metric characteristics of entire roadways of sea-crossing spans and
onsite wind and traffic properties. Guidance was provided for se-
lecting geometric parameters of a bridge roadway—deck shapes
and road alignments—and reflecting them during wind-tunnel tests
and vehicle analysis. The annual frequency of wind-induced acci-
dents was adopted as a risk measure. Because the total risk index is
calculated as the sum of component risks from each lane, span, and
vehicle type, the risk-assessment procedure can provide informa-
tion on vulnerable positions and contributing factors. Accordingly,
by evaluating the risk indices for available mitigation strategies, the
proposed methodology enables the bridge operator to decide on an
optimal risk-reduction measure with a solid technical background.
The proposed risk-assessment method was applied to the Gwangan
Bridge, South Korea, where several overturning accidents were re-
ported (Kim et al. 2020, 2021). The application successfully iden-
tified the source of vulnerability and compared the countermeasure
effectiveness in terms of risk index, demonstrating the engineering
significance of the proposed method.
Fig. 1. Procedure for risk assessment and mitigation measures.
© ASCE 04022155-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
Risk-Assessment Procedure
The suggested risk-assessment procedure consists of four main
parts shown in Fig. 1. The first part is a wind-tunnel test to evaluate
the influence that deck shape exerts on the aerodynamic character-
istics of vehicles. During the experiment, the cross sections of a
cable-stayed bridge and the approach ramps of bridges were tested
to measure the variable wind loads according to a vehicle’s location
on the bridge. In the second part, a series of vehicle analyses were
performed considering road alignments to obtain a vehicle’s fragil-
ity curve according to the wind speed. The third part uses onsite
wind speed and statistical traffic data to compose a risk index and
a fragility curve of vehicles, which could be used to predict the
annual frequency of accidents. The probability density functions
of wind speed were estimated through wind environment analysis
using long-term wind data. In the last stage, risk-mitigation mea-
sures were applied, if necessary.
Evaluation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Vehicles
Calculating vehicle wind loads on a deck is essential for evaluating
fragility curves. The wind forces and moments of vehicles on a
bridge deck can be calculated by Eq. (1) (Dorigatti et al. 2015;
Kim et al. 2020; Zhu et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2015)
1 1
Fi ¼ ρCi V 2a A; M j ¼ ρCj V 2a Ah ð1Þ
2 2
where Ci (i ¼ D; S; L) = drag, side, and lift force coefficients; Cj
(j ¼ R; P; Y) = rolling, pitching, and yawing moment coefficients
of a vehicle on a bridge deck; Fi and Mj = corresponding six aero-
dynamic loads in the Cartesian coordinates; ρ = air density; A and
h = reference vehicle area and height, respectively; and V a and
ψ =apparent wind speed (vectorial summation of upcoming wind
speed and negative vehicle speed) and direction, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 2. They can be estimated using Eq. (2) and (3)
V 2a ðtÞ ¼ ðv þ ðU þ uðtÞÞ cos βÞ2 þ ðU þ uðtÞÞ2 sin2 β ð2Þ


ðU þ uðtÞÞ sin β
ψðtÞ ¼ tan−1 ð3Þ
v þ ðU þ uðtÞÞ cos β
J. Struct. Eng.

Fig. 2. Estimation of apparent wind speed and direction. (Reprinted
from Kim et al. 2021, © ASCE.)
where U and uðtÞ = mean and fluctuating components of upcoming
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wind speed, respectively; v = vehicle speed; and β = upcoming
wind incident angle measured clockwise from the direction of
vehicle movement.
The aerodynamic coefficients of vehicles on a bridge deck Ci
can be expressed using two additional parameters Bi and CU i as
shown in Eq. (4)
Ci ðβ; ψÞ ¼ Bi ðβÞCU
i ðψÞ
where CU
i = aerodynamic coefficient of a vehicle under undisturbed
wind conditions on a flat plate, which is the univariate function of
the apparent wind direction, ψ (Baker 1987; Batista and Perkovič
2014); and Bi = deck influence factor (DIF), representing the
influence of a deck shape on each aerodynamic coefficient of a
vehicle according to the wind direction. The DIF was assumed
to be the univariate function of the upcoming wind direction β be-
cause the wind-speed profile and its distribution over a deck, which
govern wind loads of vehicles, are highly dependent on the upcom-
ing wind direction regardless of the vehicle’s movement.
These two aerodynamic characteristics, Bi and CU
i , can be esti-
mated from wind-tunnel testing. First, CU
i can be measured by im-
plementing an undisturbed wind application on a scaled vehicle
model located on a flat plate in the wind tunnel. Using a force-
balance sensor, the wind loads of vehicle models under undisturbed
wind conditions, FU U considers wind fluctuations and road alignment.
i and M j , can be measured. Then correspond-
ing coefficients are calculated using Eq. (5). These coefficients can
also be found in the literature without testing if the vehicle shape is
similar
2FU
i ¼
i
CU
ρU 2T A
2M U j
j ¼
CU
ρU 2T Ah
where U T = wind speed in the tunnel section. Once the six coef-
ficients, CUi , are estimated for all wind directions, the DIFs, Bi ,
should be assessed using a deck-section model. Considering
v ¼ 0 (accordingly, ψ ¼ β and V a ¼ U T ) during the wind-tunnel
test, the DIFs can be obtained using Eq. (6), derived from Eqs. (1),
(4), and (5). Aerodynamic loads of vehicles, Fi and M j , can be
measured on a deck-section model using a force-balanced sensor
2Fi ðβÞ 2M j ðβÞ
Bi ðβÞ ¼ ; Bj ðβÞ ¼
ρCU 2
i ðβÞU T A ρCU 2
j ðβÞU T Ah
Because the wind-speed profile and distribution significantly
changes over the deck, the DIFs must be estimated for each traffic
lane. In addition, the DIF should be obtained for each vehicle type
because the influence of deck shape can be different according to
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
the vehicle shape (Zhu et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2020). Based on the
wind-tunnel test results, the wind loads can be estimated for a spe-
cific wind speed, direction, and vehicle speed, as shown in Eq. (7),
which is derived from Eq. (1) and (4)
1 1
Fi ¼ ρBi ðβÞCU 2
i ðψÞV a A; M j ¼ ρBj ðβÞCU 2
j ðψÞV a Ah
ð7Þ
2 2
Eq. (4) assumes that the DIF is not significantly affected by a
vehicle’s movement. Several studies have confirmed that the
vehicle movement on a flat ground did not meaningfully affect
the side force and rolling moment under the same apparent wind
speed and direction, which are the governing factors of vehicle
safety under strong-wind conditions (Baker and Humphreys 1996;
Dorigatti et al. 2015; Sterling et al. 2010). Similar test results could
be found in other experimental studies, which conducted moving
vehicle tests on a bridge girder (Wang et al. 2022; Xiang et al.
2018). According to Wang et al. (2022), the difference between
the two testing methods was less than 10% when the vehicle speed
was lower than half the wind speed. However, the gap between the
static and moving vehicle tests increased even for the side force and
rolling moment when the vehicle speed became comparable to the
ð4Þ upcoming wind speed. Therefore, an improvement in evaluating
DIFs that consider vehicle movement needs to be made where nec-
essary. In this study, however, Eq. (4) was applied to evaluate the
aerodynamic characteristics of vehicles on a bridge deck, assuming
the effect of the vehicle’s movement would be minor because the
vehicle speeds were generally much lower than the wind speeds in
severe weather conditions like typhoons.
Estimation of Fragility Curves
The critical wind speed follows a probability distribution that is
highly affected by the maximum gust due to the random fluctuating
components of wind. Also, unlike flat ground, on a bridge, the
heading direction of a vehicle continuously changes, which can
cause significant variations in wind loads on a vehicle. Therefore,
a fragility curve was calculated using a probabilistic approach that
Criteria for Wind-Induced Accidents
The criteria for a wind-induced accident should be defined based
on a vehicle’s response, and specified criteria are used to calculate
the critical wind speed. In this study, the criteria were determined
based on the tire reactions of vehicles. Two accident types of over-
ð5Þ
turning and sideslip were considered. The thresholds were defined
as follows:
• Overturning accident: when a roll safety factor (RSF) exceeds
0.9 (Liu 1999).
• Sideslip accident: when one of the vehicle axles reaches its
friction limit (Batista and Perkovič 2014; Kim and Kim 2019;
Kim et al. 2021).
An index proposed by Liu (1999) for RSF was adopted to de-
termine overturning accidents. The RSF indicates the transfer ratio
of vertical wheel loads from the windward to the leeward side. The
RSF can be calculated using Eq. (8)
ð6Þ  Pn 
 Fl − Fwzk 
RSF ¼ Pnk¼1 lzk w
ð8Þ
k¼1 Fzk þ Fzk
where Fwzk and Flzk = vertical reaction forces on the windward and
leeward tires of the kth axle; and n = total number of axles of a
vehicle. The RSF increases when the overall reaction forces of
04022155-3 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Calculation algorithm for critical wind speeds. (Wind load calculation and vehicle analysis reproduced from Kim et al. 2021, © ASCE.)

the windward tires approach zero and reach one when the windward Estimating the Fragility Curve
tires are entirely lost. A threshold value of 0.9 was selected to
The stochastic distribution for the critical wind speed was obtained
determine the occurrence of overturning accidents.
using 100 different sets of random-phase angles. Fig. 4 shows two
Sideslip accidents are supposed to occur when the friction force
examples of critical wind-speed distributions in a cumulative form
applied to one of the axles exceeds the friction limit, as shown in
obtained for the same truck, albeit for different turbulence inten-
Eq. (9)
sities of 11.8% and 14.4%. The wind direction was 90°, and the
truck was moving at 80 km=h. As shown in Fig. 4, the critical wind
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F2yk þ ðT k − f R ðFwzk þ Flzk ÞÞ2 > μðFwzk þ Flzk Þ ð9Þ speed for turbulence intensity, 14.4%, had a smaller averaged criti-
cal wind speed and a higher standard deviation. This is because
high-intensity turbulence resulted in greater amplitude for the fluc-
where Fyk and T k = lateral friction and traction forces of the kth tuation in wind speeds and larger maximum instantaneous wind
axle, respectively; f R = rolling friction coefficient; and μ = friction loads on vehicles.
coefficient. The obtained critical wind-speed distribution can be expressed
by a probabilistic function. In the present study, a Gaussian func-
tion was applied, and the solid line and dotted red line in Fig. 4
Calculating the Critical Wind Speed mark the estimated probabilistic distribution functions for each
wind condition. These functions provide the accident probability
A series of vehicle analyses were conducted for 100 different wind-
speed histories to obtain a stochastic distribution of critical wind of a single-vehicle trip for a specific mean wind speed. The esti-
speed. The critical wind speed was obtained for each wind history mated functions can be regarded as a fragility curve Fiv ðUÞ where
according to the algorithm shown in Fig. 3, as suggested by Kim
et al. (2021). A set of random phase angles was defined before the
algorithm started. One-dimensional time histories of horizontal
wind velocity fluctuations were artificially generated via the
wave superposition method (Shinozuka 1971) to satisfy the target
Von-Karman spectrum using predefined random phase angles. The
algorithm in Fig. 3 began with an initial mean value of the wind
speed Uð¼5 m=sÞ and the interval dUð¼5 m=sÞ. Wind fluctuation
was artificially generated for a given mean wind-speed value based
on the determined phase set. The wind data were then generated at a
reference height for a bridge using the corresponding turbulence
intensity and length scale.
Next, the wind load histories were calculated via the obtained
wind history and the DIFs using Eq. (7). The tire reaction forces
were estimated by considering the aerodynamic, gravitational, and
centrifugal forces. In the case of no accident, the average wind
speed was increased via the dU, and the vehicle analysis was per-
formed again. Once the reaction forces reached the limiting state,
the analysis was performed by decreasing the average wind speed
by dU=2. This iteration was repeated until the dU became smaller
than 0.2 m=s (Kim et al. 2021). This allowed us to obtain the criti-
Fig. 4. Fragility curves of a truck for two different turbulence
cal average wind speed, U c , which was determined as U for the
intensities. Vehicle speed = 80 km=h.
examined wind-speed history.

© ASCE 04022155-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155

 the superscripts i and v represent the ith wind direction and the
vehicle speed, respectively.
Risk Assessment
The annual frequency of wind-induced accidents was chosen as the
risk index based on a probabilistic approach. The risk index can be
evaluated using the fragility curves and onsite wind and traffic data.
Wind Environment Analysis
The first step in the wind environmental analysis involved measur-
ing the probability density functions for the wind speed. Long-term
wind-speed data were collected from an anemometer on a bridge.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The use of data measured at the height of the girder is preferred, but
if not possible, data obtained from the top of the pylon can also be
used via multiplication with a correction factor. The correction
factor, CU , is calculated according to the power law in Eq. (10)

α
z
CU ¼ ref ð10Þ
zpyl
where zpyl = height of the anemometer on a pylon.
Next, the probability density functions of wind speed were ob-
tained for various wind directions. Weibull or generalized extreme
value (GEV) functions were usually utilized to estimate the prob-
ability density functions of wind speed (Kim et al. 2011, 2016;
Baker 2015). These functions were a good fit for the overall
wind-speed distribution; however, the goodness of fit for the
right-tail side of the wind distribution could be low due to a lack
of measured data, which could result in a considerable error in
probabilities for high wind speeds. Therefore, a histogram was
adopted to obtain empirical probability density functions. Using
Eq. (11), the empirical density was obtained for each wind-speed
bin and direction
PðU ∈ ½U j − ΔU=2; U j þ ΔU=2Þ
fiU ðU j Þ ¼
ΔU
where i and j = wind direction and bin number; ΔU = bin size;
U j = median wind speed of the jth bin; and PðU ∈ ½U j − ΔU=2;
U j þ ΔU=2Þ = probability that a wind speed is between U j −
ΔU=2 and U j þ ΔU=2. This probability is calculated by dividing
the number of measurements in the jth bin by the total number of
measurements. The empirical density accurately reflects the rela-
tive frequency of each bin for the wind speed, thus minimizing
the loss of strong wind information.
Estimating Accident Probability
The accident probability for a single-vehicle trip on a bridge, PE ,
can be estimated by incorporating the estimated probability density
functions of the wind speed and fragility curves. To reflect an actual
traffic situation during strong winds, the probability was calculated
by considering the traffic-control strategy of a particular bridge.
First, the PEjdir¼i was calculated. This is the conditional accident
probability when the wind blows from the ith direction. Because
the vehicle speed limit on a bridge changes according to the traffic-
control strategy, the probability PEjdir¼i can be expressed based on
the total probability rule using Eq. (12)
X
N level
PEjdir¼i ¼ PkEjdir¼i
k¼1
where N level = total number of control levels of the wind speed in
the strategy; superscript k = each level; and PkEjdir¼i = conditional
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
probability for level k that is calculated by using the fragility curve
Fivk ðU j Þ and Eq. (13)
P
PkEjdir¼i ¼ Fivk ðU j Þ · fiU ðU j ÞΔU
U ∈½U k ;Uk 
ð13Þ
j min max
where U kmin and U kmax =lower and upper boundaries for wind speed
at control level k in the strategy; and vk = corresponding vehicle
speed limit. Based on Eq. (12) and (13), the conditional accident
probability, PEjdir¼i , can be obtained for the ith wind direction,
which reflects the traffic-control strategy of an examined bridge.
Finally, considering all 16 wind directions, the accident proba-
bility of a single-vehicle trip on a bridge, PE , can be estimated
using Eq. (14)
X
16
PE ¼ Pi · PEjdir¼i ð14Þ
i¼1
where Pi = probability of wind blowing from the ith direction, ob-
tained via frequency analysis of the wind data.
Two assumptions were made to calculate this probabilistic
model. First, each wind data sample is independent, and the second
assumption was that all vehicles are fully compliant with a particu-
lar traffic-control strategy. If the vehicle speed limit is 40 km=h, all
vehicles were assumed to move at 40 km=h for a conservative risk
assessment. These assumptions allow us to define wind-induced
accidents as a Bernoulli process wherein the accident probability
PE is applied equally to all vehicle trips. This probability must
be estimated for each traffic lane and vehicle type.
Estimating the Risk Index
The annual frequency of wind-induced accidents can be evaluated
using available statistical traffic data. Two traffic databases were
used: the annual average daily traffic (AADT) and the vehicle
composition ratio. Because we defined an accident event using the
Bernoulli process, the risk index can be calculated using Eq. (15)
ð11Þ
N E ¼ 365Qd RL Rv PE ð15Þ
where N E = annual frequency of wind-induced accidents for the
examined vehicle type and traffic lane; Qd = AADT of the exam-
ined bridge; RL = ratio of traffic volume that the interested traffic
lane occupies; and Rv =composition ratio of the interested vehicle
type. If we assume that RL is constant for all traffic lanes, Eq. (15)
can be rewritten as Eq. (16), where N L = number of traffic lanes on
the examined bridge. The risk index N E should be estimated for all
lanes and vehicle types, and by adding all results, the total number
of accidents per year for a specific bridge can be measured


Qd
N E ¼ 365 R P ð16Þ
NL v E
To consider the effects of a payload on vehicle stability, two
identical vehicle models were regarded as different vehicle types
if the loading rates (payload/capacity) were different. For example,
two identical trucks with 0% and 80% loading rates were consid-
ered to be different vehicle types.
Mitigation Measures
ð12Þ
Modifying a Traffic-Control Strategy
The risk can be effectively reduced by modifying a traffic-control
strategy. Five main control factors can be considered: vehicle speed
04022155-5 J. Struct. Eng.
 and type, wind speed and direction, and traffic lane. A traffic-
control strategy can be divided into several levels, and each level
can implement certain aspects of these five control factors.
There have been several approaches in the literature to deter-
mine the control factors (Baker 1987; Imai et al. 2002; Kim et al.
2021). For example, Imai et al. (2002) calculated the critical wind
speed for each wind direction. They established a train control
strategy by applying wind-speed restrictions to a westerly wind
(240°–300°) that differed from other wind directions. Kim et al.
(2021) estimated fragility curves for vehicle types, speeds, and
wind directions. Then, they selected a representative wind speed
from each fragility curve corresponding to a specific accident prob-
ability (e.g., 5%). They established a four-level strategy according
to vehicle type and wind speed, referencing existing control wind
speeds. The effectiveness of these strategies must be evaluated us-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing the proposed risk index to ensure the safety of vehicles traveling
on the bridge.
Most traffic-control strategies have been implemented by con-
trolling vehicle speed, wind speed, and vehicle type. Operational
personnel, feasibility, and monitoring capability need to be consid-
ered to avoid complexity. Although an optimum design should
provide an adequate safe operating situation for any bridge, other
aspects such as mobility and economic loss, among others, must
also be considered.
Windscreen Installation
Windscreen installation is an optional risk-mitigation method. This
method can physically protect vehicles from wind hazards without
modifying an existing traffic-control strategy. However, this can
cause some deficiencies in terms of the aerodynamic characteristics
of a girder, such as increasing the drag coefficient of the girder sec-
tion or reducing the flutter stability of the bridge. Such steps can
also result in high costs for installation and maintenance. Therefore,
finding an optimized installation location is essential to reduce the
risk level at minimum expense efficiently. To this end, the five-step
Fig. 5. Main and approach spans of the example bridge. (Map data © 2022 TMap Mobility, Imagery © 2022, CNES/Airbus, Landsat/Copernicus,
Maxar Technologies, NSPO 2022/ Spot Image.)
© ASCE 04022155-6
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
procedure listed here is suggested to evaluate the effectiveness of
windscreens and determine installation locations.
• Step 1. Determine the configuration of a windscreen.
• Step 2. Perform wind-tunnel testing for girders with wind-
screens installed.
• Step 3. Select candidate locations on the bridge for windscreen
installation.
• Step 4. Calculate the risk index for each installation scenario.
• Step 5. Determine final installation location based on the esti-
mation results.
Numerical Example
A double-deck truss-type suspension bridge in Busan, South Korea,
was selected to apply the proposed method. This bridge has two
representative types of girders. The first is a double-deck truss
girder that constitutes the main span of the bridge. The second
is a simple double-deck girder for the approach spans with no truss
members between the two decks.
According to the wind-tunnel testing results of Kim et al.
(2020), wind acceleration was observed between the upper and
lower decks in the approach span due to a tunneling effect. In fact,
during the last 10 years, there have been three overturning accidents
of high-sided vehicles on the lower deck in the approach span.
These accidents indicate the necessity of a reliable risk assessment
and proper mitigation measures.
Bridge Characteristics
The total road length of the bridge is 4,447 m. This bridge consists
of one main and two approach spans, as shown in Fig. 5. The
orientation of the main span is tilted about 37° from the north.
Each approach span has a curved section with a radius of about
450–500 m. The highest elevations of the upper and lower deck
of the bridge reach 44 and 35 m, respectively. Assuming that
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Geometric parameters of the main and the approach spans analyses. As shown in Fig. 6, the traffic lanes of the upper and
Approach Main Approach lower decks are southbound and northbound, respectively. There
Geometric information span (south) span span (north) are eight traffic lanes on the bridge, and each has a width of 3.5 m.
For simplicity, the lanes of the upper and lower decks were num-
Road length (m) 1,204 1,680 1,563
Road length for curved section (m) 384 — 480
bered from the land side to the sea side.
Radius of curved section (m) 500 — 450
Cant (%) 2 2 2 Wind Data
Cant of curved section (%) 5 — 5
Slope (%) 1 0 1 Field-measured wind data were obtained from an anemometer lo-
cated at the top of the pylon at 120 m. The recorded period spanned
11 years (2003–2013), and all wind data were multiplied by a cor-
the anemometer for traffic control is located 5 m from the main rection factor of 0.9 based on Eq. (10) by considering the bridge
span, 50 m was selected as the reference height. The corresponding site to be a coastal area (α ¼ 0.12). The 10-min averaged wind data
turbulence intensity and length scale were determined as 11.7% and were used for the analysis.
162 m, respectively, according to Korean Society of Civil Engi- Fig. 7(a) demonstrates the wind rose at the bridge site, and it
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

neers (KSCE) (2006) and Strømmen (2010). Table 1 summarizes depicts winds blowing mainly from south-southwest (SSW) to
the geometric parameters of all road sections used for vehicle northwest (NW). Fig. 7(b), however, shows a wind rose for wind

Fig. 6. Traffic lane numbers and traffic direction. (Reprinted from Kim et al. 2021, © ASCE.)

Fig. 7. Wind roses for (a) entire data; and (b) data exceeding 20 m=s.

© ASCE 04022155-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155


Fig. 8. AADT of the example bridge for 2003–2020.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
data exceeding 20 m=s, which is in contrast with that in Fig. 7(a)
with a strong wind direction from north-northeast (NNE) to south-
southeast (SSE).
Traffic Data Information
AADT data from the upper and lower decks of the bridge were col-
lected separately for 18 years (2003–2020) and are plotted in Fig. 8.
According to the results, the AADT value for the lower deck is almost
three times higher than that of the upper deck. From 2003 to 2017, the
AADT of both decks increased linearly, but there was a significant
decrease in traffic volumes during the recent 3 years. Therefore, we
used the average AADT value for the last 5 years to reflect only the
current traffic trends in the risk assessment (27,641 per day for the
upper deck and 82,312 per day for the lower deck).
According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport
(2020), the composition ratio of vehicle types in Busan city was
classified into three large categories: cars (64.4%), buses (0.7%),
and lorries (trucks and tractor-trailers) (34.9%). The ratio of the
lorry class was further classified into three categories according to
capacity: small-sized (56.4%), medium-sized (31.7%), and large-
sized (11.8%) (Korea Transport Institute 2016). Small-sized lorries
are two-axle trucks with a loading capacity of 1–2.5 t, and medium
lorries are trucks with a 2.5–8-t capacity. Large-sized lorries are
tractor-trailers that have a capacity of more than 8 t. According to
the reports, the ratios of the loaded and empty lorries were 57.9%
and 42.1%, respectively, and the average loading rate of the laden
lorries was 79.1%. The loading rate information for sedans and
buses was not available.
Vehicle Model Information
Three vehicle types, namely a sedan, a truck, and a tractor-trailer,
were selected for the present case study. These are considered the
Fig. 9. Wind-tunnel setup for (a) main span; and (b) approach span. (Images by Sejin Kim.)
© ASCE 04022155-8
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
most common vehicle types in South Korea, and the vehicle param-
eters provided by Kim et al. (2021) were utilized in the analysis.
The sedan and truck were modeled as a single body, whereas the
tractor-trailer was modeled as a multibody. This was because
tractor-trailers are two bodies that are connected at a hitch point by
a roll spring. The payload capacities of the truck and the tractor-
trailer were assumed to be 5,000 and 11,000 kg. The aerodynamic
coefficients of vehicles under undisturbed wind conditions, CU j ,
were provided by Kim et al. (2020).
In this analysis, the composition ratio of sedans was assumed to
be 64.4% based on the traffic data information. They were consid-
ered to have crossed the bridge with only the driver as an occupant.
The composition ratios of empty and loaded trucks were 13.2% and
18.2%, and those of empty and loaded tractor-trailers were 1.8%
and 2.4%, respectively. Because the average loading rate was
79.1%, the payloads were assumed to be 3,955 and 8,701 kg for
loaded trucks and tractor-trailers, respectively.
As a vehicle analysis method, we adopted an enhanced quasi-
static approach developed by Kim (2020), which could consider the
effect of road alignments, including cant and curvature, and addi-
tional rolling moment induced by lateral deflection of the sprung
mass along the roll center. The interactions between bridge–wind
and bridge–vehicle were not considered in the analysis because the
wind-induced or vehicle-induced vibration of the example bridge
seemed not to affect the vehicle instability under the traffic-
operating wind speeds.
Wind-Tunnel Test
The DIFs of the vehicle models were estimated for the main and
approach spans through a series of wind-tunnel tests at Seoul Na-
tional University. The length scale of the girder models was 1=70,
and the tunnel wind speed was set to 10 m=s. The aerodynamic
loads on the vehicles were measured at the center of gravity using
a small-size six-axis load cell.
Figs. 9(a and b) show the experimental setups for each span. The
factors of the main span were estimated for perpendicular wind,
the most critical direction in wind-induced accidents. However,
in the case of the approach span, additional measurements were
taken for the directions plus or minus 15°, 30°, and 40° using a
particular jig system. This consideration reflected that the lower
deck in the approach span was exposed to a high-level vulnerabil-
ity, as Kim et al. (2020) reported.
Fig. 10 shows the DIFs of the side force and the rolling moment
for trucks on the approach span as an example because these are the
most critical factors in vehicle safety. Here, the wind was consid-
ered to blow from the land-side to the sea-side as such lane one
would be the windward lane. According to Fig. 10, the DIFs reflect
the wind distribution on the deck. First, based on the wind direction
and vehicle position, the DIFs of side-force provided information
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Experiment results of a truck on the approach span.
regarding either the wind speed acceleration or deceleration. On the
lower deck in the approach span, the DIFs of side-force always
exceeded 1.0, which indicated the acceleration of wind speed. Ac-
cording to Kim et al. (2020), this phenomenon was explained as a
wind-tunneling effect caused by the reduced gap between the upper
and lower decks.
This tunneling effect was not observed on the main span, as
shown in Fig. 11(b), because the truss members blocked the wind
Fig. 11. Comparison of the estimated influence factors of side force
between the approach and main spans: (a) upper deck; and (b) lower
deck.
© ASCE 04022155-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
flow and decreased the wind speed on the lower deck. The factor
was maintained at around 0.8 on all traffic lanes on the lower deck
of the main span. In the case of the upper deck, the factors were
lower than 1.0, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11(a), which reflected the
wind deceleration. Also, the factor decreased rapidly as the truck
moved to the leeward. This was caused by the disturbance from
the guardrail that spreads the wind flow into the open space.
Accordingly, wind speeds dramatically decreased according to
the vehicle’s position.
Second, the DIFs of rolling-moment provided information re-
garding the wind-speed variation over the deck. On the upper deck,
the factors of the rolling moment were much larger than those of
side force. For example, it was doubled on lane four when the wind
direction was 90°. This indicated that the wind speed over this traf-
fic lane increased rapidly according to height, which induced the
significant DIF of the rolling moment compared with the side force.
Sharp wind profiles on the upper deck were also reported by Kim
et al. (2020) due to the disturbance from the guardrail.
On the other hand, the DIFs of the rolling moment on the lower
deck were similar to those of the side force, except for Lane1. This
translated to a nearly uniform wind profile for all traffic lanes and
wind directions. These comparable results were due to the existence
of the upper deck, which prevented the wind flow from spreading
into the open space.
Applying these new parameters, the wind-speed distribution over
the deck could be evaluated considering a vehicle’s height with no
need to measure the wind speed, which was the case in previous
research (Kim et al. 2020). At the same time, the effects of wind
distribution on the wind loads of vehicles were successively as-
sessed according to the vehicle position and wind direction.
Fragility Curves
Fragility curves were estimated based on the algorithm shown in
Fig. 3. Vehicle speeds of 40 and 80 km=h were examined consid-
ering the two-step speed-reduction strategy. It was assumed that all
vehicles move on the bridge at the specified speed in evaluating
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Fragility curves of the five vehicle types for wind direction NE and vehicle speed 40 km=h: (a) upper deck; and (b) lower deck.

fragility curves. In this way, the control effectiveness at the speci-
fied speeds was examined. Dry road conditions with a coefficient of
friction of 0.85 were chosen. Fig. 12 shows the fragility curves of
the five vehicle types in lane four on the upper and lower decks for
the NE direction at a vehicle speed of 40 km=h.
According to Fig. 12, the fragility depends highly on the vehicle
type. Two high-sided vehicles, i.e., trucks and tractor-trailers,
showed higher levels of fragility than the sedan. The fragility of
the sedan was extremely low on the upper deck due to protection
by the guardrail. In the case of loaded vehicles, fragilities were
smaller than those of empty vehicles because the payloads pre-
vented the vehicles from overturning. There were also considerable
differences in the fragility curves between the upper and lower
decks because of the wind-tunneling effect. The fragility of all ve-
hicle types was higher on the lower deck due to the wind-speed
acceleration.
The probabilities on Lane 4 were generally higher than other
traffic lanes because it was the windward lane for wind directions
from NNE to SSE. Also, the accident probabilities were higher on
the lower deck due to the tunneling effect and the different restric-
tions on wind speed. For example, the probability of empty trucks
on Lane 4 was 5.34 × 10−16 on the upper deck, whereas it was
1.50 × 10−6 on the lower deck. According to the results, empty
trucks on Lane 4 moving on the lower deck had the highest accident
risk.
According to Eq. (16), the annual frequency of wind-induced
accidents was evaluated for each vehicle and traffic lane. Table 3
summarizes the estimated risk indexes of all vehicle types.

Risk Assessment Results

Risk indexes were calculated for each vehicle type using the esti-
mated fragility curves. First, based on Eqs. (12)–(14), accident
probabilities per single-vehicle trip, PE , were estimated by consid-
ering the traffic-control strategy of the example bridge. The strategy
of the examined bridge appears in Table 2. This strategy controlled
traffic on the bridge based on a 10-min average wind speed.
Fig. 13 shows the estimated PE for five vehicle types. As the
results show, the accident probability of an empty truck was higher
than other vehicle types in all traffic lanes. The difference between
empty tractor-trailers and trucks was more than 108 -fold, even
though they had a similar level of fragility (Fig. 12). This large
gap was due to the different limits that regulators implemented for
tractor-trailers (15 m=s) and trucks (25 m=s). These results show
that early traffic closure can significantly reduce the risk of acci-
dents. Sedans also had smaller accident probabilities because of the
protection by the guardrail. The accident probabilities of high-sided
vehicles with payloads were more than 106 -fold less than those of
empty vehicles due to higher levels of rolling resistance.

Table 2. Traffic-control strategies for the example bridge

Control level Wind speed (m=s)
1 10
2 15
3 20
4 25
Response
Limit vehicle speed to 40 km=h
Close all lanes for tractor-trailers
Close the upper deck for all vehicles Fig. 13. Accident probability per single trip: (a) upper deck; and
Close all lanes for all vehicles (b) lower deck.

© ASCE 04022155-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155

 Table 3. Estimated risk index for each vehicle type
Vehicle Truck Truck Tractor-trailer Tractor-trailer
position Sedan (empty) (loaded) (empty) (loaded)
Upper deck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lower deck 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
According to the results, empty trucks were prone to 1.79 times per
year on the lower deck, whereas the risk index was zero for other
vehicle types or positions. As a result, the total risk index of the
bridge was calculated to be 1.79 times per year. Empty trucks mov-
ing on the lower deck of Lanes 3 and 4 contributed the most to the
total risk index due to the wind-tunneling effect and to the overall
wind environment at the bridge site.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Only dry road conditions were considered during the risk as-
sessment in this study. Because the probability of sideslip accidents
increases as the friction coefficient decreases, it is necessary to con-
sider the various type of road conditions, such as icy and wet roads,
for a more accurate risk assessment. To this end, however, a stat-
istical relationship among road conditions, road friction coeffi-
cients, and other environmental factors such as temperature and
precipitation should be investigated, which is beyond the scope
of this paper. These additional factors could be incorporated in
future works.
Modifying Traffic-Control Strategies
The bridge operation agency has implemented a new form of traffic
control as a mitigation strategy since 2020. Also, Kim et al. (2021)
suggested a new traffic-control strategy for this bridge based on the
vehicle analysis results. In this section, the effectiveness of these
two strategies (Table 4) in reducing the risk level of the bridge
was evaluated. The agency has applied Strategy 1 to the bridge
since September 2020, and Strategy 2 was suggested by Kim et al.
(2021). In Strategy 1, a speed limit of 64 km=h was enforced, and
the bridge closure wind speed was reduced from 25 to 20 m=s.
However, in the second strategy, the lower deck lanes were closed
only for high-sided vehicles at wind speeds of 18 m=s without
changing the vehicle speed limit.
The risk index of the bridge was estimated for the two strategies
and is presented in Table 5. The results show that the two strategies
effectively reduced the risk index by more than 98%. Both ap-
proaches effectively reduced the risk by closing the lower deck
for winds of 20 and 18 m=s, respectively, which prevented the
overturning of the high-sided vehicles. Based on the second strat-
egy, sedan vehicle types can be excluded from all the enforced
closings because the risk of overturning for sedans was much lower
than that for high-sided vehicles.
Windscreen Installation
As another mitigation method, the installation of windscreens
was also examined. Fig. 14(a) shows the windscreen configuration.
Table 4. New traffic-control strategies
Strategy 1
Control
level Wind speed (m=s) Response
1 7 Limit vehicle speed to 64 km=h
2 10 Limit vehicle speed to 40 km=h
3 15 Close all lanes for tractor-trailers
4 20 Close all lanes for all vehicles
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
Table 5. Risk assessment results for the new strategies
Strategy Risk index
Previous strategy 1.79
Strategy 1 0.00
Strategy 2 0.03
The screen height was about 4 m on a prototype scale, which could
cover the trucks, and the ventilation ratio was 47.3%. The wind-
screen model was attached on both sides of the lower deck in
the approach span model during the wind-tunnel test, as shown
in Fig. 14(b).
Fig. 15 shows the six different locations on the bridge that were
picked to check the windscreen performance. Overall, the risk
index decreased as its installation point was changed (Fig. 16).
The results show a maximum reduction of 42% was the risk index
when the windscreen was installed at road section five. The average
risk index reduction was about 10%–25% for the other sections.
This can be explained by the onsite wind distribution when the
strong wind frequently came from NNE, northeast (NE), and east-
northeast (ENE) directions, which created a vulnerable wind angle
for vehicles in road section five. In addition, road section five
featured a curved road where the heading direction of vehicles con-
tinually changed. Therefore, vehicles moving on this section were
more prone to facing vulnerable wind conditions. When the wind-
screens were installed on road sections four and five together, the
risk index was estimated as 0.49 times per year, which was 72%
lower than when there were no mitigation measures.
In this case study, we made several assumptions to simplify the
problem. For example, all vehicles were classified into one of five
types. Also, the traffic ratio in all lanes was considered constant.
These results could be improved by using more detailed infor-
mation on vehicle types and traffic conditions. Despite the men-
tioned limitations, the case study showed that the proposed method
provides useful quantitative information for risk assessment. In par-
ticular, the process reflects the geometric characteristics of vehicles
and bridges and onsite wind and traffic data. In addition, the esti-
mated risk indexes were consistent with the real-world accident
data collected for this particular bridge. Therefore, the proposed
method could provide helpful insight into the wind-hazard analysis
and risk assessment and aid the decision-making process for mit-
igation strategies.
Conclusions
This research focused on providing a systematic procedure that
could assess the wind-induced car accident risk on bridges and
manage the risk level by applying proper mitigation measures. The
proposed method can estimate annual accident frequencies by con-
sidering deck shapes, road alignment, and onsite wind and traffic
conditions. To this end, wind-tunnel tests, vehicle analyses, and
probabilistic risk assessments were incorporated into the procedure.
Strategy 2 (Kim et al. 2021)
Wind speed (m=s) Response
16 Limit vehicle speed to 40 km=h
18 Close the lower deck for high-sided vehicles
21 Close the upper deck for high-sided vehicles
25 Close all lanes for all vehicles
04022155-11 J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 14. Configuration of a windscreen model (unit: mm). (Image by Sejin Kim.)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Six road sections for windscreen installation. (Map data © 2022 TMap Mobility, Imagery © 2022, CNES/Airbus, Landsat/Copernicus,
Maxar Technologies, NSPO 2022/Spot Image.)

Fig. 16. Risk index for each installation scenario.

The effectiveness of the method was evaluated for an actual bridge.
Based on the results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The risk index and annual accident frequency were evaluated for
each vehicle type and location. This index enabled us to quan-
titatively compare the relative effectiveness among the potential
measures for risk reduction and resulted in a more systematic
decision-making process.
• The proposed method successfully estimated the risk level by
considering the effect of deck shape and road alignment on
vehicle stability. The change of wind distribution over a girder

© ASCE 04022155-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155

 according to wind direction was reflected through wind-tunnel
tests. The relative angle between the main wind direction and
the vehicle heading direction on bridges was also reflected in
the risk index, which significantly affected the frequency of ve-
hicle exposure to vulnerable wind directions.
• The application of the proposed method to the examined bridge
demonstrated that the risk to a vehicle was maximized on the
lower deck in the approach span. The estimated risk indexes
were consistent with the three accident cases observed over the
last decade, which showed the effectiveness of the proposed
method for assessing the risk level of bridges.
• The mitigation strategies examined in the case study showed
that road closure of the lower deck or the limited windscreen
installation in a critical position could significantly reduce the
risk level by 98% and 72%, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• The proposed procedure provides a general approach for assess-
ing the risk of wind-induced accidents and determining mitiga-
tion actions, which could account for the unique features of each
bridge. Considering the increasing importance of risk manage-
ment for social infrastructure, the proposed method is expected
to play an essential role in managing the vehicle-accident risks
in sea-crossing bridges against strong winds.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a Grant (21SCIP-B119963-06)
from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of the
Korean Government. The authors are thankful to Principal Engi-
neer Young-Kook Kim, the Bridge Management Team Leader of
Busan Infrastructure Corporation, for field-measured wind data
and his comments on this study.
References
Baker, C. 1987. “Measures to control vehicle movement at exposed sites
during windy periods.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 25 (2): 151–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(87)90013-4.
Baker, C. 1991. “Ground vehicles in high cross winds part III: The inter-
action of aerodynamic forces and the vehicle system.” J. Fluids Struct.
5 (2): 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-9746(91)90478-8.
Baker, C. 2015. “Risk analysis of pedestrian and vehicle safety in windy
environments.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 147 (Dec): 283–290. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.10.001.
Baker, C., and N. Humphreys. 1996. “Assessment of the adequacy of
various wind tunnel techniques to obtain aerodynamic data for ground
vehicles in cross winds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 60 (Apr): 49–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(96)00023-2.
Batista, M., and M. Perkovič. 2014. “A simple static analysis of moving
road vehicle under crosswind.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 128 (May):
105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.02.009.
Chen, N., Y. Li, B. Wang, Y. Su, and H. Xiang. 2015. “Effects of wind
barrier on the safety of vehicles driven on bridges.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 143 (Aug): 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.04
.021.
Chen, S., and C. Cai. 2004. “Accident assessment of vehicles on long-span
bridges in windy environments.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92 (12):
991–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2004.06.002.
© ASCE 04022155-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155
Coleman, S., and C. Baker. 1992. “The reduction of accident risk for
high sided road vehicles in cross winds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
44 (1–3): 2685–2695. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90060-N.
Dorigatti, F., M. Sterling, C. J. Baker, and A. D. Quinn. 2015. “Crosswind
effects on the stability of a model passenger train—A comparison of
static and moving experiments.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 138 (Mar):
36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.11.009.
Dorigatti, F., M. Sterling, D. Rocchi, M. Belloli, A. Quinn, C. Baker,
and E. Ozkan. 2012. “Wind tunnel measurements of crosswind loads
on high sided vehicles over long span bridges.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 107 (Aug): 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2012
.04.017.
Hou, G., S. Chen, and F. Chen. 2019. “Framework of simulation-based
vehicle safety performance assessment of highway system under
hazardous driving conditions.” Transp. Res. Part C Emerging Technol.
105 (Aug): 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.035.
Imai, T., T. Fujii, K. Tanemoto, T. Shimamura, T. Maeda, H. Ishida, and Y.
Hibino. 2002. “New train regulation method based on wind direction
and velocity of natural wind against strong winds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 90 (12–15): 1601–1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105
(02)00273-8.
Kim, D. H., S. D. Kwon, I. K. Lee, and B. W. Jo. 2011. “Design criteria of
wind barriers for traffic—Part 2: Decision making process.” Wind.
Struct. 14 (1): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2011.14.1.071.
Kim, S., J.-Y. Lim, and H.-K. Kim. 2021. “Decision framework for
traffic control on sea-crossing bridges during strong winds.” J. Bridge
Eng. 26 (8): 04021048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0001741.
Kim, S.-J. 2020. “Probabilistic stability evaluation of vehicles under strong
winds for bridge traffic control.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Seoul National Univ.
Kim, S.-J., and H.-K. Kim. 2019. “Feasibility of a quasi-static approach in
assessing side-wind hazards for running vehicles.” Appl. Sci. 9 (16):
3377. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9163377.
Kim, S.-J., J.-H. Shim, and H.-K. Kim. 2020. “How wind affects vehicles
crossing a double-deck suspension bridge.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
206 (Nov): 104329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104329.
Kim, S.-J., C.-H. Yoo, and H.-K. Kim. 2016. “Vulnerability assessment for
the hazards of crosswinds when vehicles cross a bridge deck.” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 156 (Sep): 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia
.2016.07.005.
Korea Transport Institute. 2016. National freight O/D preliminary survey.
Seoul: Korea Transport Database.
KSCE (Korean Society of Civil Engineering). 2006. Design guidelines for
steel cable-supported bridges. Seoul: KSCE.
Liu, P. 1999. “Analysis, detection and early warning control of dynamic
rollover of heavy freight vehicles.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering, Concordia Univ.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. 2020. Statistical yearbook
of MOLIT. Seoul: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport.
Reymert, S., A. Rönnquist, and O. Øiseth. 2022. “Systematic metadata
analysis of wind-exposed long-span bridges for road vehicle safety as-
sessments.” J. Bridge Eng. 27 (2): 04021104. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001822.
Shinozuka, M. 1971. “Simulation of multivariate and multidimensional
random processes.” J. Acoust. Soc. 49 (1B): 357–368. https://doi.org/10
.1121/1.1912338.
Sterling, M., A. Quinn, D. Hargreaves, F. Cheli, E. Sabbioni, G. Tomasini,
D. Delaunay, C. Baker, and H. Morvan. 2010. “A comparison of differ-
ent methods to evaluate the wind induced forces on a high sided lorry.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (1): 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jweia.2009.08.008.
Strømmen, E. 2010. Theory of bridge aerodynamics. Berlin: Springer.
Suzuki, M., K. Tanemoto, and T. Maeda. 2003. “Aerodynamic character-
istics of train/vehicles under cross winds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
91 (1–2): 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00346-X.
Wang, B., and Y. L. Xu. 2015. “Safety analysis of a road vehicle passing
by a bridge tower under crosswinds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
137 (Feb): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.11.017.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Wang, M., X.-Z. Li, J. Xiao, Q.-Y. Zou, and H.-Q. Sha. 2018.
“An experimental analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of a
high-speed train on a bridge under crosswinds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 177 (Jun): 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2018
.03.021.
Wang, M., Z. Wang, X. Qiu, X. Li, and X. Li. 2022. “Windproof
performance of wind barrier on the aerodynamic characteristics of
high-speed train running on a simple supported bridge.” J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 223 (Apr): 104950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2022
.104950.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Xiang, H., Y. Li, S. Chen, and G. Hou. 2018. “Wind loads of moving
vehicle on bridge with solid wind barrier.” Eng. Struct. 156 (Feb):
188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.009.
Zhou, Y., and S. Chen. 2016. “Vehicle ride comfort analysis with whole-
body vibration on long-span bridges subjected to crosswind.” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 155 (Aug): 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia
.2016.05.001.
Zhu, L., L. Li, Y.-L. Xu, and Q. Zhu. 2012. “Wind tunnel investigations of
aerodynamic coefficients of road vehicles on bridge deck.” J. Fluids Struct.
30 (Apr): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2011.09.002.

© ASCE 04022155-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(10): 04022155