Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Revisions
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
DECEMBER 2009
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2015
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Revision
444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5800 phone/202-624-5806 fax
www.transportation.org
2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is
a violation of applicable law.
ISBN: 978-1-56051-619-4 Pub Code: GSDPB-2-I1
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2015
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Revision
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
ii
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Table of Contents
1GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1Scope ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2Manufacturer-Designed Systems...................................................................................................................... 1
1.3Collision Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2PHILOSOPHY ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
3LOADS....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1Pedestrian Loading (PL) ................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2Vehicle Load (LL) ............................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3Equestrian Load (LL) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4Wind Load (WS) .............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.5Fatigue Load (LL) ............................................................................................................................................ 6
3.6Application of Loads ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.7Combination of Loads ...................................................................................................................................... 6
4FATIGUE ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1Resistance ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.2Fracture............................................................................................................................................................. 7
5DEFLECTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
6VIBRATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
7STABILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
7.1Half-Through Trusses....................................................................................................................................... 8
7.1.1Lateral Frame Design Force ................................................................................................................... 8
7.1.2Top Chord Stability ................................................................................................................................ 9
7.1.3Alternative Analysis Procedures .......................................................................................................... 11
7.2Steel Twin I-Girder and Single Tub Girder Systems ...................................................................................... 12
7.2.1General ................................................................................................................................................. 12
7.2.2Lateral-Torsional Buckling ResistanceTwin I-Girder ...................................................................... 12
7.2.3Lateral-Torsional Buckling ResistanceSingly Symmetric Sections ................................................. 13
9DESIGN EXAMPLE................................................................................................................................................ 16
Illustrative Example of Key Provisions of Guide Specifications ............................................................................ 16
General Information ................................................................................................................................................ 16
v
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
Truss Members: All Rectangular HSS .................................................................................................................... 17
Floorbeams .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Dead Load ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Pedestrian Live Load .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Vehicle Load ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Wind Load .............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Total Vertical Loads per Truss ................................................................................................................................ 21
Truss Member Design Loads .................................................................................................................................. 21
Truss Top Chord Lateral Support ........................................................................................................................... 21
Top Chord Compressive Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 23
Lateral Force to Be Resisted by Verticals ............................................................................................................... 24
End Posts................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Deflection................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Vibrations................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Vertical Direction ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Lateral Direction .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Fatigue .................................................................................................................................................................... 27
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................... 29
vi
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
1GENERAL
1.1SCOPE C1.1
These Guide Specifications address the design and This edition of the Guide Specifications was
construction of typical pedestrian bridges which are developed from the previous Allowable Stress Design
designed for and intended to carry primarily (ASD)- and Load Factor Design (LFD)-based first
pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrian riders, and light edition (AASHTO 1997). An evaluation of available
maintenance vehicles, but not designed for and foreign specifications covering pedestrian bridges, and
intended to carry typical highway traffic. Pedestrian failure investigation reports, as well as research results
bridges with cable supports or atypical structural related to the behavior and performance of pedestrian
systems are not specifically addressed. bridges was performed during the development of the
LRFD Guide Specifications.
These Guide Specifications provide additional
guidance on the design and construction of pedestrian
bridges in supplement to that available in the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD).
Only those issues requiring additional or different
treatment due to the nature of pedestrian bridges and
their loadings are addressed. In Article 3 of this
document, the load definitions and abbreviations are
taken from AASHTO LRFD. Aluminum and wood
structures are adequately covered in AASHTO LRFD,
and as such are not specifically addressed herein.
Where manufacturer-designed systems are used for a It is important to clearly delineate the
pedestrian bridge crossing, the engineer responsible for responsibilities of each party when proprietary bridge
the design of the system shall submit sealed systems are used. All portions of the design must be
calculations prepared by a licensed Professional supported by sealed calculations, whether from the
Engineer for that system. bridge manufacturer, or the specifying engineer. The
interface between the manufacturer-designed system
and the project-specific substructures and foundations
needs careful attention.
AASHTO LRFD Article 2.3.3.2 specifies an In most cases, increasing vertical clearance is the
increased vertical clearance for pedestrian bridges most cost-effective method of risk mitigation.
1.0 ft higher than for highway bridges, in order to
1
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
2 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
2PHILOSOPHY
Pedestrian bridges shall be designed for specified
limit states to achieve the objectives of safety;
serviceability, including comfort of the pedestrian user
(vibration); and constructability with due regard to
issues of inspectability, economy, and aesthetics, as
specified in AASHTO LRFD. These Guide
Specifications are based on the LRFD philosophy.
Mixing provisions from specifications other than those
referenced herein, even if LRFD based, should be
avoided.
3LOADS
Pedestrian bridges shall be designed for a uniform This article modifies the pedestrian loading
pedestrian loading of 90 psf. This loading shall be provisions of the Fourth Edition of AASHTO LRFD,
patterned to produce the maximum load effects. through the 2009 Interim. The previous edition of these
Consideration of dynamic load allowance is not Guide Specifications used a base nominal loading of
required with this loading. 85 psf, reducible to 65 psf based on influence area for
the pedestrian load. With the LFD load factors, this
results in factored loads of 2.17(85) = 184 psf and
2.17(65) = 141 psf. The Fourth Edition of AASHTO
LRFD specified a constant 85 psf regardless of
influence area. Multiplying by the load factor, this
results in 1.75(85) = 149 psf. This falls within the
range of the previous factored loading, albeit toward
the lower end.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 3
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
4 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Where vehicular access is not prevented by The vehicle loading specified is equivalent to the H-
permanent physical methods, pedestrian bridges shall trucks shown in Article 3.6.1.6 of AASHTO LRFD
be designed for a maintenance vehicle load specified in 2009 Interim and contained in previous versions of the
Figure 1 and Table 1 for the Strength I Load AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Combination unless otherwise specified by the Owner. Bridges.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 5
14 ft 0 in.
H10 4.0 kips 16.0 kips
H5 2.0 kips 8.0 kips
0.2W
0.8W
14 ft 0 in.
W = Total Weight of Truck and Load
0.1W 0.4W
6 ft
0.1W 0.4W
Decks intended to carry equestrian loading shall be The equestrian load is a live load and intended to
designed for a patch load of 1.00 kip over a square area ensure adequate punching shear capacity of pedestrian
measuring 4.0 in. on a side. bridge decks where horses are expected. The loading
was derived from hoof pressure measurements reported
in Roland et. al. (2005). The worst loading occurs
during a canter where the loading on one hoof
approaches 100 percent of the total weight of the horse.
The total factored load of 1.75 kips is approximately
the maximum credible weight of a draft horse. This
loading is expected to control only deck design.
Pedestrian bridges shall be designed for wind loads The wind loading is taken from AASHTO Signs
as specified in AASHTO Signs, Articles 3.8 and 3.9. specification rather than from AASHTO LRFD due to
Unless otherwise directed by the Owner, the Wind the potentially flexible nature of pedestrian bridges,
Importance Factor, Ir, shall be taken as 1.15. The and also due to the potential for traffic signs to be
loading shall be applied over the exposed area in front mounted on them.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
6 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
The fatigue loading used for the fatigue and fracture Wind loads are not part of the Fatigue I load
limit state (Fatigue I) shall be as specified in Section 11 combination for vehicular bridges. This article
of AASHTO Signs. The Natural Wind Gust specified in designates wind as a live load for pedestrian bridges,
Article 11.7.3 and the Truck-Induced Gust specified in via the designation LL. Wind should be considered a
Article 11.7.4 of that specification need only be fatigue live load for pedestrian bridges.
considered, as appropriate.
Neither the pedestrian live load nor the maintenance
vehicle load used for strength and serviceability is
appropriate as a fatigue design loading due to the very
infrequent nature of this loading. The fatigue loading
specified is consistent with the treatment of sign
support structures. For bridges crossing roadways, the
truck-induced gust loading should be considered. The
other loadings specified in AASHTO Signs are not
applicable to pedestrian bridges due to their decreased
susceptibility to galloping or vortex shedding
vibrations.
When determining the application of the pedestrian The dimension given is meant to represent a single
live loading which maximizes or minimizes the load line of pedestrians; any width less than this would not
effect on a given member, the least dimension of the represent a practical loading scenario.
loaded area shall be greater than or equal to 2.0 ft.
The types of bridges identified in Article 1.1 shall be Load combination Strength II is meant for special
designed for the load combinations and load factors permit trucks, which is not applicable to pedestrian
specified in AASHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-1, with the bridges. Strength IV is for dead load dominant
following exceptions: structures such as long span trusses, and would not
likely apply to pedestrian bridges. Strength V addresses
Load combinations Strength II, Strength IV, and the case of strong wind combined with reduced live
Strength V need not be considered. loading, which is not likely to occur for pedestrian
bridges. For unusual cases where the excluded load
The load factor for the Fatigue I load combination combinations have a reasonable chance of occurring,
shall be taken as 1.0, and the Fatigue II load they should be considered in the design. The fatigue
combination need not be considered. loading specified in AASHTO Signs and referenced
Where main gravity load carrying elements also form herein was calibrated for a load factor of 1.0 and the
part of the railing system, railing loads as specified in design condition of infinite life.
Article 13.8.2 of AASHTO LRFD shall be applied
concurrently with all other live loads for the Strength
Limit States.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 7
4FATIGUE
4.1RESISTANCE C4.1
The fatigue resistance for steel components and CIDECT Design Guides are a foreign specification
details shall be as specified in AASHTO LRFD, Article available through the AISC. See Zhao et al., 2001.
6.6.1.2.5 for the Fatigue I load combination. For round
HSS components and details not covered in AASHTO
LRFD, the nominal fatigue resistance may be taken
from Table 11.3 of AASHTO Signs or Figure 2.13 of
AWS D1.1 Structural Welding CodeSteel. For square
and rectangular HSS components and details, the
nominal fatigue resistance may be taken from the
provisions of the Design Guide 8 of the International
Committee for the Development and Study of Tubular
Structures (CIDECT).
4.2FRACTURE C4.2
Except as specified herein, all of the provisions For pedestrian bridges crossing low-volume traffic
specified in Article 6.6.2 of AASHTO LRFD relating to waterways and roads, or areas not accessible to the
Charpy V-notch (CVN) fracture toughness general public, FCM treatment may not be appropriate.
requirements, including Fracture Critical Member
(FCM) and Main Member designation, shall apply to
steel pedestrian bridges. Design of tubular members
shall also satisfy the provisions of Article 8.2. If
supported by the characteristics of the site and
application, the Owner may waive the FCM
requirements, including Article 8.2.3 of these
specifications.
5DEFLECTIONS C5
Deflections should be investigated at the service Table 2.5.2.6.3-1 of AASHTO LRFD contains
limit state using load combination Service I in Table guidance on span-to-depth ratios that may be invoked
3.4.1-1 of AASHTO LRFD. For spans other than by an Owner.
cantilever arms, the deflection of the bridge due to the
unfactored pedestrian live loading shall not exceed The 1/360 criteria is consistent with the increased
1/360 of the span length. Deflection in cantilever arms pedestrian loading compared to previous versions of
due to the pedestrian live loading shall not exceed AASHTO pedestrian bridge guidance. See also Article
1/220 of the cantilever length. Horizontal deflections 2.5.2.6.2 of AASHTO LRFD for bridges carrying both
under unfactored wind loading shall not exceed 1/360 roadway and pedestrian traffic.
of the span length.
6VIBRATIONS C6
Unless waived by the Owner, vibrations shall be Due to the vibration problems experienced in
investigated as a service limit state using load London on the Millennium bridge, there have been
combination Service I in Table 3.4.1-1 of AASHTO many publications in the technical literature, primarily
LRFD. Vibration of the structure shall not cause in Europe, on this topic. Despite this large body of
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
8 L M D GUIDESPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE DESIGN
OF PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES
discomfort or concern to users of a pedestrian bridge. knowledge, it does not appear there has been
Except as specified herein, the fundamental frequency convergence toward one method of evaluation, or
in a vertical mode of the pedestrian bridge without live development of any specification that adequately
load shall be greater than 3.0 hertz (Hz) to avoid the covers this issue.
first harmonic. In the lateral direction, the fundamental
frequency of the pedestrian bridge shall be greater than These provisions address the issue of vibration from
1.3 Hz. If the fundamental frequency cannot satisfy two directions: maintaining a minimum natural
these limitations or if the second harmonic is a vibration frequency above those induced by
concern, an evaluation of the dynamic performance pedestrians, and specifying a minimum weight to limit
shall be made. This evaluation shall consider: vibration amplitudes if the frequency limits are not
met. Although somewhat outdated, both of these
The frequency and magnitude of pedestrian approaches are still viable and have the great advantage
footfall loadings of simplicity.
The phasing of loading from multiple pedestrians The technical guide published by SETRA (Service
on the bridge at the same time, including the d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes) (2006)
"lock-in" phenomena appears to present a relatively straightforward method
Appropriate estimation of structural damping for addressing vibration issues when the frequencies of
the bridge fall within the pacing frequencies of
Frequency-dependent limits on acceleration andlor pedestrians.
velocity
The "lock-in" phenomenon refers to the tendency of
In lieu of such evaluation in the vertical direction, the people to synchronize their pacing frequency to the
bridge may be proportioned such that either of the lateral frequency of the bridge when the lateral
following criteria are satisfied: displacements begin to grow. In other words, instead of
random frequencies and phasing among the loading
from pedestrians on the bridge, the frequencies and
phases becomes fully correlated with the bridge
motion.
where:
7.1-HALF-THROUGH TRUSSES
O 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 9
The procedure for determining the resistance of a Interpolation of values between those given in the table
compression member in AASHTO LRFD may be used is acceptable.
to determine the resistance of the compression chord
with a value for the effective length factor, K, based on
a lateral U-frame and obtained from Table 1. In this
table,
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
10 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
P P
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 11
1/K n =4 n =6 n =8 n = 10 n = 12 n = 14 n = 16
1.000 3.686 3.616 3.660 3.714 3.754 3.785 3.809
0.980 3.284 2.944 2.806 2.787 2.771 2.774
0.960 3.000 2.665 2.542 2.456 2.454 2.479
0.950 2.595
0.940 2.754 2.303 2.252 2.254 2.282
0.920 2.643 2.146 2.094 2.101 2.121
0.900 3.352 2.593 2.263 2.045 1.951 1.968 1.981
0.850 2.460 2.013 1.794 1.709 1.681 1.694
0.800 2.961 2.313 1.889 1.629 1.480 1.456 1.465
0.750 2.147 1.750 1.501 1.344 1.273 1.262
0.700 2.448 1.955 1.595 1.359 1.200 1.111 1.088
0.650 1.739 1.442 1.236 1.087 0.988 0.940
0.600 2.035 1.639 1.338 1.133 0.985 0.878 0.808
0.550 1.517 1.211 1.007 0.860 0.768 0.708
0.500 1.750 1.362 1.047 0.847 0.750 0.668 0.600
0.450 1.158 0.829 0.714 0.624 0.537 0.500
0.400 1.232 0.886 0.627 0.555 0.454 0.428 0.383
0.350 0.530 0.434 0.352 0.323 0.292 0.280
0.300 0.121 0.187 0.249 0.170 0.203 0.183 0.187
0.293 0
0.259 0
0.250 0.135 0.107 0.103 0.121 0.112
0.200 0.045 0.068 0.055 0.053 0.070
0.180 0
0.150 0.017 0.031 0.029 0.025
0.139 0
0.114 0
0.100 0.003 0.010
0.097 0
0.085 0
The use of a second-order numerical analysis Given the increasing availability of software that is
procedure to evaluate the stability of the top chord of a capable of second order analyses, such an analysis is a
half-through truss is acceptable in lieu of the procedure practical alternative to the method given in Article 7.1.2.
above, provided the following aspects are included in However, the design equations in AASHTO LRFD
the model: account for the issues identified, and any alternative
method should also address these. One method that
might be followed would be to use the second order
Effects of initial out-of-straightness, both between
elastic analysis to determine the K factor for a given
panel points and across the entire length of the
chord size and panel point frame stiffness, and then the
compression chord
design equations of AASHTO LRFD to determine the
Effects of residual stresses in compression corresponding resistance.
members due to fabrication and construction
Effects of the stiffness of vertical to floorbeam
connections
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
12 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
7.2.1General C7.2.1
For potentially torsionally flexible systems such as Several incidents have highlighted the need for a
twin I-girder and single tub girder structural systems, careful evaluation of the stability of pedestrian bridges,
the designer shall consider: especially during the construction stages. Structural
systems consisting of two parallel girders can exhibit
The out-of-plane stiffness of twin I-girders, prior to very different behavior during construction, depending
becoming composite with a concrete deck, can be on the bracing systems used. Lateral bracing contributes
significantly smaller than the in-plane, or vertical, significantly to the lateral-torsional buckling capacity of
stiffness. This can lead to a lateral-torsional the beam. For girders without lateral bracing during
buckling instability during construction. construction, lateral-torsional buckling capacity should
be carefully evaluated. After the deck is cast, the section
Single tub girders, prior to becoming composite is effectively a C shape, which is singly symmetrical.
with a concrete deck, behave as singly symmetric Use of the appropriate lateral-torsional buckling equation
sections with a shear center below the bottom is critical, and reference should be made to Galambos
flange. AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.5.3 requires top (1998). Further information is contained in Yura and
lateral bracing in tub section members to prevent Widianto (2005), as well as Kozy and Tunstall (2007).
lateral torsional buckling of these sections.
Prior to becoming composite with a concrete deck,
twin I-girders with bottom flange bracing will
behave as a tub girder and will exhibit the same
tendencies toward lateral-torsional buckling. Top
lateral bracing shall be provided as for tub sections,
or the stability shall be checked as a singly
symmetric member.
2 sE
M n = M cr = I yo I xo M px (7.2.2-1)
L2
where:
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 13
8.1ARCHES
8.2.1General C8.2.1
The capacities or resistances of connections for steel AISC has partnered with CIDECT to publish a set of
HSS members shall be in accordance with the Chapter HSS Design Guides. These guides are published
K of the specifications and commentary of AISC (2005) internationally and have not been reviewed by AISC and
or AASHTO Signs. Resistances for fatigue design shall are not necessarily in accordance with the AISC
be in accordance with Section 2.20.6 of Structural Specifications. However, the documents are a good
Welding CodeSteel ANSI/AWS D1.1 or Section 11 of resource on HSS connections and systems.
AASHTO Signs. All loads, load factors, and resistance
factors shall be as specified by AASHTO LRFD and
these Guide Specifications. For member design other
than connections:
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
14 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
8.2.2Detailing C8.2.2
The minimum nominal metal thickness of closed Different philosophies exist on how best to protect
structural tubular members shall be 0.25 in. Corrosion tubular members from corrosion. One method of
mitigation shall be considered. corrosion protection is to vent the interior of the tube
adequately and to provide some form of surface
treatment, often a galvanized finish, to prevent corrosion.
Issues to consider include the size of the field pieces to
be galvanized, the size of local galvanizing kettles, and
the service environment of the bridge.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 15
The minimum thickness of closed structural FRP For design of FRP members in pedestrian bridges,
members (such as tubes) shall be 0.25 in. The minimum reference may be made to the AASHTO Guide
thickness of open structural FRP members (such Specifications for Design of FRP Pedestrian Bridges
as channels), including connection plates, shall be (2008). Little information is currently available regarding
0.375 in. resistance equations or resistance factors for this material
used in bridge structures. Several design specifications
covering FRP pultruded shapes are currently under
development by the American Society of Civil Engineers
and may be of use in the future for the design of FRP
pedestrian bridges.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
16 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
9DESIGN EXAMPLE
GENERAL INFORMATION
Specifications Used:
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2007 with 2008 Interims (AASHTO LRFD)
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals,
2008 (AASHTO Signs)
AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges (Specification)
Geometry:
Span = 72 ft
S ym m @
CL S pa n
U0 0 U0 1 U02 U0 3 U0 4 U0 5 U0 6
5 ft 0 in.
L0 0 L01 L0 2 L0 3 L0 4 L0 5 L06
F lo orb e am
10 ft 6 in. C
LC
L Trusses
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 17
A = 4.68 in.2
w = 16.93 plf
End Posts:
A = 4.68 in.2
w = 16.93 plf
Vertical Posts:
A = 4.1 in.2
w = 14.8 plf
Ix = Ic = 12.6 in.4
Diagonals:
A = 2.91 in.2
w = 10.48 plf
FLOORBEAMS:
Section: W8 10
Ix = Ib = 30.8 in.4
Sx = 7.81 in.3
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
18 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
DEAD LOAD:
= 450 plf
Vehicular access is not prevented by fixed physical methods; therefore, the pedestrian bridge should be designed
for an occasional single maintenance vehicle load.
The vehicular load shall not be placed in combination with the pedestrian load. Consideration of impact is not
included with this vehicular loading.
Use the following vehicle for a clear deck width between 7 ft and 10 ft:
Axle spacing = 14 ft
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 19
Wheel spacing = 6 ft
Note: For this example, the pedestrian load controls for the truss design; however, the vehicle load will control for
the floor system design.
Use wind load as specified in AASHTO Signs, Articles 3.8 and 3.9.
The design life shall be taken as 50 years for the purpose of calculating the wind loading.
Pz = design wind pressure on superstructure using AASHTO Signs, Eq. 3-1 or Table 3-7 (psf)
where:
Kz = height and exposure factor from AASHTO Signs, Eq. C3-1 or Table 3-5
= 1.00 (conservatively taken from Table 3-5 for a height of 32.8 ft)
= 1.14 (minimum)
= 100 mph
= 1.00
= 2.00
Pz = 58.4 psf (Alternatively, AASHTO Signs, Table 3-7 may be used with a Cd value of 2.0 applied.)
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
20 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
= 169 plf
Note: The full lateral wind loads must be resisted by the entire superstructure. Appropriate portions of the design
wind loads must also be distributed to the truss top chord for design lateral forces on the truss verticals.
WSV = vertical wind load on the full projected area of the superstructure applied at the
windward quarter point (plf)
= PV(wdeck)
where:
= 0.020 ksf
= 10.0 ft
Therefore,
= 200 plf
Vertical load on leeward truss = 200 plf (7.5 ft + (0.5 in. + 2.5 in.)/12 in./ft)/10.50 ft
= 147.6 plf
Vertical load on windward truss = 200 plf (2.5 ft + (0.5 in. + 2.5 in.)/12 in.ft)/10.50 ft
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 21
(
STRENGTH I LIMIT STATE DC1 + DC2 ( DC1 + DC2 ) + PL PL = 1, 038 plf )
(
STRENGTH III LIMIT STATE DC1 + DC2 ( DC1 + DC2 ) + WS WSV = 457 plf )
(
SERVICE I LIMIT STATE DC1 + DC2 ( DC1 + DC2 ) + PL PL + WS WSV = 694 plf )
TRUSS MEMBER DESIGN LOADS:
Panel point load from controlling load comb. = 1.038 klf 6.0 ft panel = 6.23 kip/panel
Assume the truss verticals are adequate to resist the lateral force per Specification, Article 7.1.1. (Must verify
assumption; see Article 7.1.1, Lateral Frame Design Force.)
Lateral support is provided by a transverse U-frame consisting of the floorbeam and truss verticals.
Determine the design effective length factor, K, for the individual top chord members supported between the truss
verticals using Specification, Table 7.1.2-1.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
22 L W D GUIDE
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE DESIGNOF PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES
C = transverse frame spring constant, can be found from separate computer analysis, or from equation below
-
-
E (from Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures,
edited by T. V. Galambos, 1968)
h2[(h/3~,)+(b/2~b)]
where:
= 29,000 ksi
C = 2.863kiplin.
where:
C = PlA
= 2.917 kiplin. (from a separate 2D analysis)
Use C = 2.863.
-
L - unbraced length of the chord in compression (i.e., length between panel points) (in.)
-
- 72 in.
P C
-
- desired critical buckling load (i.e., factored compressive force) multiplied by
1.33 (kips) (SpeciJication, Article 7.1.2)
-
- 178.98 kips
CLIP, -
- 1.15
n -
- number of panels
-
12
Therefore.
O 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 23
A = 4.68 in.2
= 2.07 in.
= 1.19 in.
K = 1.47
L = 72 in.
where:
= 0.9
If 2.25, then:
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
24 L W D GUIDE
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE DESIGNOF PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES
4.68 in.2
46 ksi
29,000 ksi
Maximum of KLlrx,KLlry
61
= 0.0 1IK(Pav,)
where:
K = 1.47
Pavg
= average design compressive force in adjacent chord members (kips)
= 134.57 kips
O 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 25
Therefore,
= 0.91 kip
Apply Hf as the lateral force at the top of the Truss Verticals. Apply Hf concurrently with other primary forces in
the Verticals (combined compression plus bending analysis). Include lateral wind forces for AASHTO LRFD Load
Combination Strength III.
Apply the lateral force, C, at the top end of post and design as a cantilever combined with axial load. The lateral
force, C, is taken as 1.0 percent of the end post axial load.
Note: All other truss members are analyzed using conventional methods per AASHTO LRFD.
Maximum pedestrian LL Deflection = 1/360 of the span length = 72.00 ft 12/360 = 2.40 in.
From Truss Analysis, LL Deflection (wLL = 0.450 kip/ft) = 1.20 in. < L/360 OK
Vertical Direction:
Estimate the fundamental frequency in the vertical direction, f, by approximating the truss as a simply supported
uniform beam.
The fundamental frequency in a vertical mode without consideration of live load should be greater than 3.0 Hz to
avoid the first harmonic.
g
f = 0.18
DL
where:
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
26 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
= 32.2 ft/s2
DL = maximum vertical deflection of the truss due to the dead load (ft)
32.2
f = 0.18 = 4.85 Hz > 3.0 Hz minimum desirable OK
0.0444
For illustration purposes, assume higher harmonics (second, third, etc.) are a concern. The bridge should be
proportioned such that the following criteria are satisfied:
f = 2.86 ln (180/W)
where:
Possible modifications include using a heavier deck system or increasing the depth of the truss.
Lateral Direction:
Estimate the fundamental frequency in the lateral direction, flat, by approximating the truss as a simply supported
uniform beam rotated 90 degrees.
The fundamental frequency in a lateral mode without consideration of live load should be greater than 1.3 Hz to
avoid the first harmonic.
g
f = 0.18
DLlat
where:
= 32.2 ft/s2
DLlat = maximum lateral deflection of the truss due to the dead load (ft)
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 27
32.2
f = 0.18 = 3.52 Hz > 1.3 Hz minimum desirable OK
0.0844
AASHTO Signs, Article 11.7.4Not used as it is assumed that the pedestrian bridge is not over a highway.
PNW = 5.2 Cd IF
= 2.00
= 1.00
= 31 plf
f = Stress Range
= 1.20 ksi
where:
f = 1.20 ksi
where:
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
28 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
(1.0)(1.20) 16
1.20 < 16 OK
Welded member connections and fracture toughness requirements are outside the limits of this pedestrian bridge
design example. They will be the responsibility of the Designer.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
20082009
Voting Members
Officers:
Regional Representatives:
Nonvoting Members
iii
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
HIGHWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, 2009
ALABAMA, John F. Buddy Black, William Tim OHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi
Colquett, George H. Conner OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Gregory D. Allen,
ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt John A. Schmiedel
ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj
ARKANSAS, Phil Brand PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Harold C. Hal
CALIFORNIA, Kevin Thompson, Susan Hida, Barton J. Rogers, Jr., Lou Ruzzi
Newton PUERTO RICO, (Vacant)
COLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. Salamon RHODE ISLAND, David Fish
CONNECTICUT, Julie F. Georges SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore
DELAWARE, Jiten K. Soneji, Barry A. Benton SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin Goeden
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Nicolas Galdos, L. Donald TENNESSEE, Edward P. Wasserman
Cooney, Konjit Connie Eskender TEXAS, David P. Hohmann, Keith L. Ramsey
FLORIDA, Marcus Ansley, Sam Fallaha, Jeff Pouliotte U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim
GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr. UTAH, (Vacant)
HAWAII, Paul T. Santo VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds
IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar VIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasad L.
ILLINOIS, Ralph E. Anderson, Thomas J. Domagalski Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr.
INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan
IOWA, Norman L. McDonald Khaleghi
KANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst, James J. Brennan, Loren R. WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey, James D. Shook
Risch WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, William
KENTUCKY, Mark Hite Dreher
LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul WYOMING, Gregg C. Fredrick, Keith R. Fulton
Fossier
MAINE, David B. Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Folsom GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt
MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. Healy N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski
MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow, Shirley N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. Moreau
Eslinger PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump
MICHIGAN, Steven P. Beck, David Juntunen
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MINNESOTA, Daniel L. Dorgan, Kevin Western DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Christopher H.
MISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith Carr Westbrook
MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Michael Harms U.S. COAST GUARD, Hala Elgaaly
MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST
NEBRASKA, Mark J. Traynowicz, Mark Ahlman, Fouad SERVICE, John R. Kattell, Scott F. Mitchell
Jaber
NEVADA, Mark P. Elicegui, Todd Stefonowicz ALBERTA, Tom Loo
NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. Scott NEW BRUNSWICK, Doug Noble
NEW JERSEY, Richard W. Dunne NOVA SCOTIA, Mark Pertus
NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, Jimmy D. Camp ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala
NEW YORK, George A. Christian, Donald F. Dwyer, SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea
Arthur P. Yannotti
NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDWaseem
Dekelbab
NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland
iv
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 29
REFERENCES
AASHTO. 1997. Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. 2001. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, 4th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. 2007. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, 2008 and 2009 Interim. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. 2008. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of FRP Pedestrian Bridges, 1st Edition. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AISC. 2005. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
Allen, D. E. and T. M. Murray. 1993. Design Criterion for Vibrations Due to Walking. In AISC Journal, 4th
Quarter. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL., pp. 117129.
AWS. 2008. Bridge Welding Code, AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2008. American Welding Society, Miami, FL.
AWS. 2006. Structural Welding CodeSteel, AASHTO/AWS D1.1M/D1.1M:2006. American Welding Society,
Miami, FL.
Bachmann, H. 2002. Lively footbridgesa real challenge. Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Design and Dynamic Behavior of Footbridges, November 2022, 2002, Paris, France, pp.1830.
Blekherman, A. N. 2007. Autoparametric Resonance in a Pedestrian Steel Arch Bridge: Solferino Bridge, Paris. In
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 12, Issue 6. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
pp. 669676.
Dallard, P., T. Fitzpatrick, A. Flint, Low A., R. R. Smith, M. Willford, and M. Roche. 2001. London Millennium
Bridge: Pedestrian-Induced Lateral Vibration. In Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 6. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 412417.
Dallard, P., et al. 2001. The London Millennium Footbridge. In The Structural Engineer, 79(22). The Institute of
Structural Engineers, London, pp. 1733.
FHWA. 1989. Uncoated Weathering Steel in Structures, Technical Advisory T 5140.22. Federal Highway
Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Galambos, T. V. 1998. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 5th Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
Kozy, B. and S. Tunstall. 2007. Stability Analysis and Bracing for System Buckling in Twin I-Girder Bridges. In
Bridge Structures: Assessment, Design and Construction, Volume 3, No. 34. Routledge Journals, Florence, KY,
pp 149163.
Nettleton, D. A. 1977. Arch Bridges. Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Nowak, A. S. and K. R. Collins. 2000. Reliability of Structures, McGraw-Hill International Editions, Civil
Engineering Series. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Singapore.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
30 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Poston, Randall W. and Jeffery S. West. 2005. Investigation of the Charlotte Motor Speedway Bridge Collapse,
Metropolis & Beyond 2005. Proceedings of ASCEs 2005 Structures Congress and the 2005 Forensic Engineering
Symposium, April 2024, 2005, New York, NY.
Roberts, T. M. 2005. Lateral Pedestrian Excitation of Footbridges. In Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 10,
Issue 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 107112.
Roland, E. S., M. L.Hull, and S. M. Stover. 2005. Design and Demonstration of a Dynamometric Horseshoe for
Measuring Ground Reaction Loads of Horses during Racing Conditions. In Journal of Biomechanics,
Volume 38, No. 10. Elsevier Inc., The Nerherlands, pp. 21022112.
Willford, M. 2002. Dynamic actions and reactions of pedestrians. Proceedings of the International Conference on
the Design and Dynamic Behavior of Footbridges, November 2022, 2002, Paris, France.
Yura, J. A. and Widianto. 2005. Lateral Buckling and Bracing of BeamA Re-evaluation after the Marcy Bridge
Collapse. 2005 Annual Technical Session Proceedings, April 69, 2005 in Monreal, Quebec, Canada, Structural
Stability Research Council. Rolla, MO.
Zhao, X.-L., S. Herion, J. A. Packer, R. S. Puthli, G. Sedlacek, J. Wardenier, K. Weynand, A. M. van Wingerde,
and N. Yoemans. 2001. Design Guide 8for CHS and RHS Welded Joints Under Fatigue Loading. CIDECT, TV
Verlag, Germany.
Zivanovic, S., A. Pavic, and P. Reynolds. 2005. Vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-induced
excitation: a literature review. In Journal of Sound and Vibration, 279(1-2). Elsevier Inc., The Nerherlands,
pp. 174.
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
2015 INTERIM TO LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES, SECOND EDITION
General
AASHTO has issued interim revisions to AASHTO LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges
(2009). This packet contains the revised pages.
Affected Articles
Underlined text indicates revisions that were approved in 2014 by the AASHTO Highways Subcommittee on
Bridges and Structures. Strikethrough text indicates any deletions that were likewise approved by the Subcommittee. A
list of affected articles is included below.
All interim pages are printed on pink paper to make the changes stand out when inserted in the second edition
binder. They also have a page header displaying the section number affected and the interim publication year. Please
note that these pages may also contain non-technical (e.g., editorial) changes made by AASHTO publications staff; any
changes of this type will not be marked in any way so as not to distract the reader from the technical changes.
iii
2015
2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Revision
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.