ABSTRACT: Monitoring and permanent instrumentation of long span bridges provide excellent opportunity to gain insight on

the bridge vibration under various loading conditions. One of such bridges is the Hakucho Suspension Bridge (HSB). The bridge
is instrumented permanently with wind and seismic monitoring system, and vibration data has been collected during seismic,
strong wind events, as well as ambient vibration to monitor the bridge condition. This paper presents a vibration analysis of
HSB tower and girder with the main focus on the relationship between vibration amplitude and wind velocity. Main finding is
the tower in-plane vibration under moderate wind velocity between 14 to 24m/s, where the downstream leg of the 132.5m 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 is also observed on the girder, where
larger girder lateral vibrations were measured within the same range of wind velocity.
KEY WORDS: wind-induced vibration, full-scale measurement, suspension bridge, tower vibration, vortex-induced vibration,
along-wind vibration.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Hakucho Suspension Bridge (HSB) monitoring system
has been in operation since its opening in 1998 and data
collected during seismic, strong-wind events as well as
ambient excitation has been used to monitor the bridge
condition. This paper presents the observation results on
wind-induced vibration of the bridge during six strong-wind
events, where a wide range of wind velocity up to 30m/s was
recorded. During these occasions, significant tower in-plane
and girder lateral vibrations were measured. Characteristics of
tower in-plane and girder lateral vibration and their
relationships with wind velocity are studied in detail in this
paper.
2 DESCRIPTION OF BRIDGE AND MONITORING
SYSTEM
HSB is the largest suspension bridge in the eastern part of
Japan. The bridge, located in Muroran Gulf Hokkaido
Prefecture northern part of Japan, connects the Muroran Port
in the south and Muroran City in the north. Total length of the
bridge is 1380m consisting of 720m center span and two
symmetric side spans of 330m each (Figure1). Bridge towers
are made of steel box and connected by welding. Both towers
are 132.5m high and 21m wide, giving a sag ratio of 1:10. The
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 girder is a
streamlined steel box with the width of 23m and maximum
web height of 2.5m. The bridge was opened to public on June
13, 1998.
Since located at the entrance of a bay, the bridge is exposed
to relatively strong wind especially from the Uchiura Bay on
the west side. The bridge has permanent wind and seismic
monitoring system that consists of 27 channels of vibration
sensor placed on fourteen locations.






Figure 1. Hakucho Suspension Bridge and Sensors layout
for monitoring system
Along-wind Vibration of a Suspension Bridge Tower and Girder: Full-Scale
Measurement
Dionysius M. Siringoringo, and Yozo Fujino

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Email: dion@bridge.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, fujino@civil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011
G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. M uller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4
1467
Vibration sensors consist of twenty-two channels of
uniaxial accelerometer, two uniaxial displacement sensors,
and a triaxial free-field strong-motion accelerometer. 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.
Six data sets of wind and bridge response are analyzed in
this paper. Two data sets are from measurement in 1999;
namely March 6, 1999 (990306), and March 22, 1999
(990233), and the other four are from measurements in
December 2005; 25, 26, 27 and 28) (i.e. 051225,
051226,051227, and 051228). The wind velocity and direction
recorded in the six occasions are measured by anemometer F1
and F2, located on the center of midspan and on the top of the
north tower, respectively. The average wind direction for most
of the strong wind is around 250-300
o
indicating the easterly
wind originated from the Uchiura Bay which direction is
almost orthogonal to the bridge deck (the bridge transverse
axis is about 275
o
from the north).
3 GLOBAL STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR
In order to clarify the global behavior during wind-induced
vibration, the modal identification is conducted. For this
purpose the Natural Excitation Technique (NExT) and
Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA) and Empirical
Mode Decomposition (EMD) and Hilbert-Huang Transform
(HHT) are employed. A previous research [1] 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 [2] approach is
implemented in this study to enhance the performance of
modal identification amid the presence of non-stationarity
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 [1] so that the
results listed in Table 1 are representative example form one
data set recorded at wind velocity 24 m/s. The system
identification generates 12 modes in the frequency range of 0
1.5 Hz, where the girder mode shapes dominate the overall
bridge mode shapes. In this frequency region, 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 0.12 and 0.502 Hz, respectively. In general natural
frequencies identified from typhoon responses agree well with
those analytically predicted by FEM.
In addition to global modes, the system identifications also
give two modes with local mode shapes with tower dominant
lateral modal displacement identified at 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz. As
will be shown later on, the two modes correspond to the
occurrence of single-frequency in-plane response of the tower.
In these modes the maximum modal displacement is the in-
plane displacement on the top of the tower. Both modes seem
to be pure tower local in-place mode accompanied by small
coupling with girder in lateral direction.


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 0.09 0.090 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 0.220 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 1.50 2.22
1-T-S 0.502 0.504 0.472 1.05 1.91
3-V-A-B 0.570 0.584 0.570 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:
Symmetric, B: Bending
4 WIND-INDUCED VIBRATION OF TOWER
The bridge towers are made of steel box girder and connected
by welding. Both towers are 132.5m high, with the width of
21m on the base and 18 m on the top. Each tower column has
dimension of 5 x 3.5 m on the base and gradually tapered to
3.2 x 3.5m on the top. From the two bridge towers, only the
south tower is instrumented with accelerometers, whereas the
north tower is instrumented with anemometer. For this reason
unfortunately the tower response and wind characteristics at
the same location cannot be directly compared. However,
investigation has shown that wind characteristics on both
anemometers are very similar. Accordingly, wind property of
anemometers on the center of midspan (F1) at elevation 62m
is utilized for the 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
named along-wind and the response parallel to bridge axis is
named crosswind.
The acceleration responses analyzed in this study are
obtained from two levels: 1) on the deck level: node AM2 (42
m from water level), and 2) on the top of the tower: node
AM3 and AM4 (139.5m from water level). Of all
accelerometers, only AM4 is placed on the west leg, the rests
are on the east leg. In order to observe bridge response during
the two events the root-mean-square (RMS) of 10-minute
acceleration responses were computed. The tower responses
were analyzed separately in two directions: 1) out-of-plane
motion, in which the tower oscillates in its weak axis parallel
to the bridge axis due to crosswind, and 2) the in-plane
motion, where the tower oscillates on its strong axis due to
along-wind in direction perpendicular to the bridge axis.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1468
4.1 Relationship between wind velocity and tower out-of-
plane acceleration
Figure 2 shows the tower out-of-plane response with respect
to 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 can be best
described by a quadratic equation.


Figure 2. Tower out-of-plane acceleration with respect to
wind velocity.

4.2 Relationship between wind velocity and tower in-plane
acceleration
Figure 3 shows the relationship between tower in-plane
acceleration and the average wind velocity in term of root
mean square (rms). One can observe a general trend in that
tower acceleration increases as the wind velocity increases.
Note however, there are three regions with noticeable
patterns. In the lower (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
buffeting trend. For wind velocity between 13 and 24m/s,
however, there is an abrupt change in acceleration, and
significantly larger accelerations can be observed.
In order to clarify the responses characteristics of the three
wind regions, the time-domain and frequency-domain
characteristics of the responses are analyzed. The results are
as follow.
1. In the first wind velocity region (less than 13m/s)
accelerations of tower 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 (higher than
24m/s), the acceleration amplitude becomes larger than
that of the Region 1 but generally smaller than that in
Region 2. The time-domain responses tend to be more
random. Meanwhile, the frequency domain response is
characterized by multiple frequency peaks similar to the
peaks that appear in the wind Region 1. In short, similar
the first region, the response can be typically described
as buffeting (Figure 4).
2. In the region of moderate wind velocity with velocity
between 14 and 24 m/s (Region 2), 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 of the single-frequency peak
response is relatively constant for several minutes and
both accelerations at AM3Y and AM2Y are in-phase
with constant amplitude proportion.

Figure 3. Tower in-plane acceleration with respect to wind
velocity.
The characteristics of tower in-plane motion for all
available record are examined and the results are categorized
into four categories (Figure 6), namely: 1)random-like
response with multiple frequency peaks, 2)harmonic-like
response with single-frequency peak at 0.6 Hz, 3)harmonic-
like response with single-frequency peak at 0.8 Hz, and 4)
response dominated by two frequency peaks (0.6 Hz and 0.8
Hz). The following trends were observed.
1. Tower in-plane motions with random-like multiple-peaks
response characteristic generally have smaller rms
compared to other responses in the same wind velocity
region. Relationship between the rms of acceleration
with respect to wind velocity of the random-like response
can be described using quadratic equation similar to the
tower out-of-plane motion.
2. In wind Region 2 (velocity between 13m/s and 24 m/s),
the accelerations were characterized by harmonic-like
single-frequency oscillations at 0.6Hz or 0.8Hz.
Oscillations with the later frequency appear at higher
wind velocity range (17-24 m/s), while the former appear
at lower wind velocity range (1317 m/s).
3. The response with single-frequency peak 0.6Hz and
0.8Hz occur at the reduced wind velocity / Vr V fD =
around 7-8.
4. All responses with 0.8Hz single-frequency peak were
caused by wind originated from West-Southwest
quadrant and confined within 10 to 30 degree from the
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1469
bridge transverse axis. Meanwhile, the responses with
0.6Hz single-frequency peak were primarily caused by
wind originated from West-Northwest within 20 degree
of the bridge transverse axis.
5. 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.



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



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
5 WIND-INDUCED VIBRATION OF GIRDER
The relationship between vertical girder acceleration and the
wind velocity is similar to the response due to buffeting. The
maximum root-mean-square of vertical acceleration measured
on the middle of midspan and side span is about 16cm/s
2
and
12cm/s
2
, respectively. In the lateral direction, girder
acceleration increases as the wind velocity increases. This
trend, however, is not proportional for all range of wind
velocity. There exist wind velocity regions, where abrupt
change in acceleration was observed.
.

Figure 6. Tower in-plane acceleration with respect to wind
velocity categorized based on frequency characteristics.(MF:
multiple frequency peaks, SF 0.6Hz: Single Frequency peak at
0.6Hz, SF 0.8Hz: Single frequency peak at 0.8Hz, DF
0.6Hz&0.8Hz: Double Frequency peaks at 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz)



Figure 7. Girder lateral acceleration of the main span with
respect to wind velocity

Girder lateral responses due to wind velocity range of 14-
24m/s and 17-24m/s for AK1Y and AK5Y, respectively are
significantly higher than those due to other wind velocity
ranges. For the midspan acceleration (AK1Y), the rms
increases abruptly after 13m/s and reaches the peak at 17m/s.
For the side-span acceleration (AK5Y), the rms increases
abruptly after 17m/s and reaches the peak at 20m/s. For both
spans, the increase in acceleration is confined within the wind
velocity of 14-24 m/s. This wind region coincides with the
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1470
wind region where the tower experiences the single-frequency
dominant in-plane oscillation. Moreover, spectra of girder
lateral acceleration confirm that the presences of 0.6Hz and
0.8Hz frequency peaks are related to the tower in-plane
motions.

Figure 8. Girder lateral acceleration of the side-span with
respect to wind velocity

6 COMPARISON WITH FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
AND TOWER DISPLACEMENT



Figure 9. Finite Element modes with dominant modal
displacement of towers that correspond to the tower in-plane
motion observed from measurement. (Both mode shapes
viewed from top)


A finite element model is constructed using design drawing
and vibration modes related to the tower and girder are
analyzed. The FEM indicates two local modes whose modal
displacements are dominated by tower in-plane motion at the
frequencies of 0.603Hz and 0.775Hz (Figure 9). The 0.603Hz
mode is the tower in-phase mode, in which both the south and
north tower oscillate on its strong axis and in the same phase.
In this mode, the tower oscillation dominates the response
with only small participation of motion come 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
oscillation. 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 north and south towers cannot be confirmed from
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 0.577Hz mode and the
0.78Hz mode is considered to cause the different peaks in
acceleration of the main and side span, as shown in Figure 7
and Figure 8. When the 0.6Hz mode is excited at velocity 13-
17m/s, significant increase is observed on the main span
girder lateral vibration (AK1Y), since the mode has the lateral
modal displacement at the midpoint of the main span.
Meanwhile, there is no significant increase in girder lateral
motion during wind velocity 17-24 m/s, since this wind
velocity range correspond to 0.8Hz mode that has a zero
modal displacement at the main span midpoint.
Tower maximum in-plane accelerations were mainly caused
by the single-frequency oscillation. Therefore, the maximum
displacement can be computed using the following relation:
2
/(2 )
i
a f =
, where is the maximum amplitude of
displacement, a is maximum amplitude of acceleration, and
i
f

denotes the tower frequency, namely 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz.
Observation shows that the maximum in-plane acceleration
was 28cm/s
2
and 32cm/s
2
caused by the single-frequency
oscillation at 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz, respectively. Accordingly, the
maximum displacement amplitude calculated by equation (1)
is about 2cm and 1.3cm for 0.6Hz and 0.8Hz, respectively.
Considering the height of tower 132.5m the single-frequency
in-plane oscillations produce only small in-plane tower
inclination, suggesting that although the in-plane single-
frequency oscillation creates significant increase of
acceleration, it does not produce excessive displacement.
7 DISCUSSION
The single-frequency harmonic-like excitation that occurs
during relatively moderate wind velocity is similar to the
condition of resonance often observed during vortex-shedding
oscillations. While vortex shedding of bridge tower is not
uncommon during free-standing construction stage, the
occurrence on a tower of a completed bridge, especially on its
strong axis is not commonly observed. The similar single-
frequency along-wind vibration on a long-span bridge tower is
reported by Larose et al. [3] from observation of the
Storebaelt Bridge tower during construction stage.
Considering the inclination angle between predominant
wind and the tower, wake interference of the downstream
structure due to staggered arrangement of the tower legs is
thought as the possible mechanism of 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 [4] for cylindrical structures and by Godwa et
al.[5] for rectangular structures, the occurrence of this flow-
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1471
interference oscillation depends on the ratio between
longitudinal and transversal spacing between the structures.
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 290
o
and 250
o
, respectively. 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 but 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.
This study also shows that through monitoring and
permanent instrumentation of long span bridges, one can gain
insight into vibration of bridge component more
comprehensively and examine various types of vibration that
are not commonly observed. The lessons learned from
monitoring are expected to enhance our understanding in
vibration of long-span bridges.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Shigehiro Fukaya
from Chodai Engineering Consultant for discussion on the
finite element model.
REFERENCES
[1] Siringoringo DM, and Fujino Y, (2008). System identification of
suspension bridge from ambient vibration response, Engineering
Structures Vol.30 (2), pp. 462477.
[2] Huang NE, Shen Z, Long SR, Wu MC, Shis HH, Zheng Q, Yen N,
Tung CC, Liu HH, (1998). The empirical mode decomposition and
Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and nonstationary time series analysis,
Proceeding of Royal society London A Vol.454, pp.903-995.
[3] Larose GL, 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.
[4] Zdravkovich, MM, 1985, Flow-induced oscillations of two interfering
circular cylinders, Journal of Sound and Vibration Vol.101, pp.511521.
[5] Gowda BHL and Kumar RA, 2006, Flow-induced oscillations of a
square cylinder due to interference effects, J. Sound and Vibration
Vol.297, pp.842-864
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1472