“DESIGN OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CROSSING OVER COLISEUM BOULEVARD”






Group Members: Renan Constantino
Chris Ripke
James Welch


Faculty Advisor: Mohammad Alhassan, Ph. D.



Civil Engineering Program-Department of Engineering
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne





December 11, 2009
i
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ vii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii
1. Section I: Problem Statement.................................................................................. 1
1.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 1
1.2. Background ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Crossroads Partnership .............................................................................. 2
1.2.2. Rivergreenway Trail .................................................................................. 2
1.3. Requirements, Specifications, and Given Parameters ...................................... 5
1.4. Design Variables............................................................................................... 5
1.4.1. Aesthetic Considerations (Bridge Type) ................................................... 5
1.4.2. Construction Materials .............................................................................. 6
1.4.3. Coliseum Expansion .................................................................................. 6
1.4.4. Connect to Ivy Tech .................................................................................. 6
1.4.5. Covered or Open ....................................................................................... 6
1.5. Limitations and Constraints .............................................................................. 6
1.5.1. Cost............................................................................................................ 6
1.5.2. Natural Conditions .................................................................................... 7
1.5.3. Construction Issues ................................................................................... 7
1.5.4. Additional Considerations ......................................................................... 7
1.6. SAP2000 ........................................................................................................... 7
2. Section II: Conceptual Design .............................................................................. 12
2.1. Location of Bridge .......................................................................................... 12
2.2. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge ..................................................................... 14
2.3. Concept II: Truss Bridge ................................................................................ 14
2.4. Concept III: Suspension Bridge ...................................................................... 15
2.5. Concept IV: Arch Bridge ................................................................................ 16
3. Section III: Summary of the Evaluation of Different Conceptual Designs .......... 16
3.1. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge ..................................................................... 16
3.1.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 16
3.1.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 16
3.2. Concept II: Truss Bridge ................................................................................ 16
3.2.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 16
3.2.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17
3.3. Concept III: Suspension Bridge ...................................................................... 17
3.3.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 17
3.3.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17
3.4. Concept IV: Arch Bridge ................................................................................ 17
3.4.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 17
3.4.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17
3.5. Decision Matrix .............................................................................................. 18
3.6. Selected Design .............................................................................................. 20
3.6.1. Background ............................................................................................. 20
3.6.2. Meeting with Greg Justice....................................................................... 21
ii
3.6.3. Meeting with Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. .......................................... 22
4. Section IV: Detailed Design of the Selected Conceptual Design ......................... 24
4.1. Arch without Angled Members ...................................................................... 24
4.1.1. Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................. 24
4.1.2. Arch Bridge Design ................................................................................. 24
4.1.3. SAP2000 Analysis .................................................................................. 25
4.1.4. Hand Check of Calculations .................................................................... 25
4.1.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 26
4.2. Arch with Angled Members ........................................................................... 27
4.2.1. Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................. 27
4.2.2. Loads ....................................................................................................... 35
4.2.3. Summary of Loads Applied to Structure................................................. 41
4.3. Structural Analysis ......................................................................................... 41
4.3.1. Deformed Shapes .................................................................................... 42
4.3.2. Joint Loading ........................................................................................... 47
4.3.3. Frame/Cable Loads ................................................................................. 52
4.3.4. Shell Stresses ........................................................................................... 55
4.3.5. Influence Lines ........................................................................................ 56
4.4. Structural Design ............................................................................................ 59
4.4.1. Design Load Combinations ..................................................................... 59
4.4.2. Design Members ..................................................................................... 64
4.4.3. Slab Design ............................................................................................. 66
4.4.4. Concrete Edge Beams ............................................................................. 67
4.4.5. Footing Design ........................................................................................ 68
4.4.6. Vibrations ................................................................................................ 69
4.4.7. Deflection ................................................................................................ 70
4.5. Final Design .................................................................................................... 71
4.5.1. SAP2000 Report ...................................................................................... 71
4.5.2. Final Design Drawings ............................................................................ 71
4.6. Alternate Design Considerations .................................................................... 75
4.6.1. Enclosing the Walkway ........................................................................... 75
4.6.2. Smart Bridge ........................................................................................... 75
4.6.3. Mastodon Tusks ...................................................................................... 76
4.6.4. Construction Materials ............................................................................ 77
5. Section V: Cost Analysis/Estimation .................................................................... 77
5.1. Construction Techniques ................................................................................ 77
5.2. Cost Estimation............................................................................................... 79
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 81
7. References ............................................................................................................. 82
8. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 83
8.1. Hand Calculations........................................................................................... 83
8.1.1. Angle Member Hand Calculations .......................................................... 83
8.1.2. Arch Hand Calculations .......................................................................... 84
8.1.3. Concrete Slab Design .............................................................................. 85
8.1.4. Edge beams to support the concrete deck ............................................... 87
8.1.5. Footing Design ........................................................................................ 90
iii
8.1.6. Tension Cable Design ............................................................................. 93
8.2. Sample SAP2000 Data ................................................................................... 93

iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Decision Matrix .................................................................................................. 19
Table 2. Summary of loads applied to structure. .............................................................. 41
Table 3. Design load combinations used for the steel design of the bridge. ..................... 60
Table 4. General cost breakdown for pedestrian bridge. .................................................. 79
Table 5. Detailed cost breakdown for construction of pedestrian bridge. ........................ 80


v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Rivergreenway Trail Map.................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Rivergreenway Project Status Map as of 4/29/09. .............................................. 4
Figure 3. Proposed Location of Pedestrian Bridge (from previous TE application). ....... 12
Figure 4. Conceptual design of cable-stayed bridge over Coliseum Boulevard. .............. 14
Figure 5. Computer generated design of Venderly Family Bridge. .................................. 14
Figure 6. Design of truss bridge from CE 375 class project. ............................................ 14
Figure 7. Example of pedestrian truss bridge utilizing weathering steel members. ......... 15
Figure 8. Computer rendering of pedestrian suspension bridge. ...................................... 15
Figure 9. Computer rendering of arch bridge over Coliseum. .......................................... 16
Figure 10. SAP2000 Model of Arch Bridge without angled members............................. 25
Figure 11. Arch members drawn in the user defined grid. ............................................... 29
Figure 12. Arch members at an angle of 23º from perpendicular. .................................... 30
Figure 13. Structural frame for pedestrian bridge. ............................................................ 31
Figure 14. Bridge with deck drawn in (cables removed for clarity). ................................ 33
Figure 15. Complete Model of Pedestrian Bridge (Extruded view). ................................ 34
Figure 16. H5 Service Vehicle (www.dot.state.fl.us) ....................................................... 37
Figure 17. Design wind speeds (ASCE 7-02 Standard) (www.standarddesign.com). ..... 39
Figure 18. XZ-plane view of deformed shape under dead and live loads. ....................... 43
Figure 19. 3d view of the deformed bridge under dead and live loads. ............................ 43
Figure 20. Deformed shape for both the H5 and H5-2 load cases. ................................... 44
Figure 21. Deformed view for WIND............................................................................... 45
Figure 22. Deformed view for WIND looking down length of bridge. ............................ 46
Figure 23. Deformed view for WIND2 looking down length of bridge. .......................... 46
Figure 24. Deformed view for WIND3 looking down the walkway of the structure. ...... 47
Figure 25. Side view of the deformed shape from WIND3. ............................................. 47
Figure 26. Joint reactions for DEAD load case (symmetric at each end). ........................ 48
Figure 27. Joint reactions corresponding to LIVE load case (symmetric at each end). ... 48
Figure 28. Joint reactions at starting end for WIND loading case. ................................... 49
Figure 29. Joint reactions at the end of the arch for WIND loading case. ........................ 49
Figure 30. Joint reactions at the start of bridge span for WIND2 load case. .................... 50
Figure 31. Joint reactions at end of span for WIND2 load case. ...................................... 50
Figure 32. Joint reactions at the start of the span for WIND3 load case. ......................... 51
Figure 33. Joint reactions at the end of the span for WIND3 load case. .......................... 51
Figure 34. Overview of frame forces from DEAD load case. .......................................... 52
Figure 35. Frame axial force for DEAD load case at the base. ........................................ 53
Figure 36. Overview of frame forces for LIVE load case. ............................................... 53
Figure 37. Close up view of frame forces for LIVE load case. ........................................ 54
Figure 38. Overview of frame forces from WIND load case. .......................................... 54
Figure 39. Overview of frame forces from WIND2 load case. ........................................ 55
Figure 40. Overview of frame forces from WIND3 load case. ........................................ 55
Figure 41. Maximum shell stress in concrete deck (scale is in kip). ................................ 56
Figure 42. Influence line for the joint reaction at the start of the span. ............................ 57
Figure 43. Influence line for the axial force in the cable member at the mid-span. ......... 57
Figure 44. Influence line for axial force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. ...... 57
vi
Figure 45. Influence line for moment force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. . 58
Figure 46. Influence line for shear force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. ...... 58
Figure 47. Influence line for torsion force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. ... 58
Figure 48. Influence line for axial force for frame member at apex of the arch. .............. 58
Figure 49. Influence line for moment force for frame member at apex of the arch. ........ 59
Figure 50. Influence line for shear force for frame member at apex of the arch. ............. 59
Figure 51. Maximum axial force from DSTL2. ................................................................ 64
Figure 52. Typical section of arch member. ..................................................................... 65
Figure 53. Typical rebar spacing. ..................................................................................... 66
Figure 54. Typical slab cross section. ............................................................................... 67
Figure 55. Edge beam design. ........................................................................................... 67
Figure 56. Typical cross sections for edge beam. ............................................................. 68
Figure 57. Base reactions for DSTL2 load case. .............................................................. 68
Figure 58. 3-d rendering of the final design. .................................................................... 72
Figure 59. Front dimensional view of the pedestrian bridge. ........................................... 73
Figure 60. Side dimensional view of the bridge. .............................................................. 73
Figure 61. Top dimensional view of the bridge. ............................................................... 74
Figure 62. Rendering of cable connecting to edge beam. ................................................. 74
Figure 63. Arch members enclosed to form Mastodon Tusks. ......................................... 76
Figure 64. Free body diagram of typ. slab section. ........................................................... 83
Figure 65. Free body diagram of parbolic arch................................................................. 84
Figure 66. Screen shot displaying joint coordinate table from SAP2000 report. ............. 93
Figure 67. SAP2000 report table of material properties. .................................................. 94
Figure 68. SAP2000 report: joint displacements. ............................................................. 95
Figure 69. SAP2000 screen shot for max design force in HSS member. ......................... 96
Figure 70. SAP2000 steel section check (critical member). ............................................. 97
vii
Acknowledgments
The group would like to thank a few people for without them, this project would
not have been possible. First, we would like to thank our faculty advisor, Dr. Mohammad
Alhassan, for not only his help with the project, but also for preparing us to endeavor on
such a project through the multiple structural courses in which he has previously
instructed the group. Without the extensive background in structural analysis software
that was taught in each of his courses, the group would not have been able to complete
such an innovative design such as is proposed in this paper.
Another person whom the group would like to thank is Greg Justice, Senior
Project Manager at the IPFW Physical Plant. It was through a meeting with him that the
group gathered information on various projects that the campus has, or is planning on
pursuing in the future. The information that the group received from him helped guide the
group in designing a pedestrian bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard which had
previously been applied for by the university.
Finally, the group would like to thank Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. taking time
out of his busy schedule to meet with the group early on in our design process. Mr.
Heidenreich is President/Founder of Engineering Resources, a civil engineering firm here
in Fort Wayne. His company is responsible for the design of the two pedestrian bridges
that are currently on the IPFW campus: the Willis Family Bridge and the Venderly
Family Bridge. The group was able to reap vast amounts of knowledge about pedestrian
bridge designs through the meeting with Mr. Heidenreich, and it was through his initial
sketch that led the group to their final design.

viii
Abstract

A major obstacle for pedestrians south of the IPFW campus is Coliseum
Boulevard: a main arterial for the city of Fort Wayne which has an average daily traffic
(ADT) of 50,000 vehicles a day. With this high of an ADT value, crossing by foot can
not only be challenging, but it also can be dangerous. Thus, the civil engineering senior
design group has proposed to build a pedestrian bridge over Coliseum Boulevard which
would allow for easy, safe travel over this busy roadway. Cohering to the innovative
design concepts of both the Willis Family Bridge and the Venderly Family Bridge which
already exist on the campus, the new structure should be designed so that it too can be
transformed into a landmark for the IPFW campus as the other two bridges have become.
1
1. Section I: Problem Statement
1.1. Problem Statement
The two higher education institutions of Indiana University-Purdue University
Fort Wayne (IPFW) and Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana-Northeast have
joined together to form the Crossroads partnership, an excellent opportunity that
helps students achieve their goal of receiving a college degree faster by allowing
the student to enroll in courses at both institutions simultaneously. Since the start
of the Crossroads partnership, the number of students participating has steadily
grown to the point where now there are 650 students participating in this program.
Also of interest to the city of Fort Wayne, as well as to these two
campuses, is the River Greenway Trail; a great design that connects 17 parks into
a 20 mile linear park system along the three rivers that Fort Wayne is well known
for: the St. Joseph, St. Mary’s, and Maumee Rivers. With the campuses of IPFW
and Ivy Tech lying on the banks of the St. Joseph River, these campuses have
both been integrated into the design of the River Greenway Trail system.
Both of these projects face a common foe, Coliseum Boulevard (State
Route 930). This multilane highway is a major route in the city of Fort Wayne
which poses great difficulties when trying to cross in a vehicle as well as on foot.
The best way to circumvent this problem is by constructing a pedestrian bridge to
cross over Coliseum Boulevard which would allow for easy travel back and forth
between IPFW and Ivy Tech, as well as to connect the River Greenway Trail to
Shoaff Park to the northwest of the IPFW campus. This new bridge should be
aesthetically pleasing, completely functional, and within the proposed budget for
the project.





2
1.2. Background
1.2.1. Crossroads Partnership
The Crossroads Partnership, a collaborative effort between Ivy Tech
Community College of Indiana-Northeast and IPFW, is an exciting
opportunity for students in northeast Indiana. In an attempt to circumvent the
normal difficulties students face when transferring credits from one
university to another, the two higher learning institutions have worked
together to insure that certain courses are completely transferable between
the two schools. By doing this, they have made it less likely for students to
waste time, credits, and money as they pursue their degree.
A big draw for this program is by allowing students earn a two-year
degree at Ivy Tech, and then transferring to IPFW to earn their four-year
degree. Another way students can participate in the Crossroads Partnership
is by taking classes at one institution and then the other, or the student could
even enroll in courses at both institutions at the same time. Allowing
students to take classes at both institutions simultaneously, the partnership
lets students earn their degree faster than they may have previously
expected.
1.2.2. Rivergreenway Trail
Located in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the Rivergreenway Trail is a 20 mile long
linear park system that connects 16 parks and other attractions throughout
the cities of Fort Wayne and New Haven (Figure 1). The trail is located
along the three rivers that the city is well known for: the Saint Mary’s, Saint
Joseph, and Maumee Rivers. Although the trail is situated in an urban
environment, it gives the user the pleasure of many outdoor recreational
activities while offering both spectacular natural landscapes and other scenic
overlooks along the three rivers. In addition to the recreational use of the
trails, the Rivergreenway also creates a natural overflow to assist in holding
back the river waters and hence reduce flooding (a problem that has often
plagued the city of Fort Wayne).
3











































Figure 1. Rivergreenway Trail Map.

4

Much of the Rivergreenway has been funded by the State of Indiana and
the federal Land and Conservation Fund; however, the system is owned and
maintained by the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department and the
City of Fort Wayne Public Works Department.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the Rivergreenway Trail has yet to cross over
Coliseum Boulevard. This has left Shoaff Park to the north of the IPFW
campus isolated from the trail system. In the future, the city of Fort Wayne
has planned for a crossing at Coliseum in the vicinity of the IPFW campus.
The location of this crossing, shown on the “Project Status Map” in Figure 2,
would then allow for Shoaff Park to become a part of the linear park chain.

Figure 2. Rivergreenway Project Status Map as of 4/29/09.
5
1.3. Requirements, Specifications, and Given Parameters
The following is a list of the specifications for the bridge project:
a) The bride must clear span Coliseum Boulevard due to minimal width of
median in the roadway
b) Need to cohere to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which sets
a maximum slope of 5% for the walkway (including sidewalk on
approach)
c) Right of Way (R/W) is 80’ from each direction of the centerline of
Coliseum
d) Bridge shall be designed for a minimum life span of 50 years
e) Clearance height of at least 17.55’ from the top of the existing pavement
f) Minimum live load of 85 psf
g) Design wind speed of 90 mph for a 3 s wind gust
h) Design according to American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Indiana Department of
Transportation (INDOT) requirements
i) Width of bridge to be 10’ wide (controls the design vehicle to be used)
1.4. Design Variables
In addition to meeting all requirements and specifications, there are also
numerous design variables that must be considered for this project, which include:
1.4.1. Aesthetic Considerations (Bridge Type)
In addition to being able to safely support any and all expected loads on
the bridge, the structure should also have an innovative design to mesh
with the other two pedestrian bridges on the IPFW campus. The main
types of bridges that will be considered for this project are:
a) Truss
b) Suspension
c) Cable Stayed
d) Arch

6
1.4.2. Construction Materials
Materials used in the structural design of the bridge will be the most
common materials used in the field of civil engineering. These include:
a) Steel
b) Reinforced Concrete
c) Soil (the most widely used material in civil engineering)
1.4.3. Coliseum Expansion
Even though the right of way of Coliseum Boulevard is taken into
consideration, before construction commences, it should be determined if
there are any plans for Coliseum Boulevard to be expanded in the future.
1.4.4. Connect to Ivy Tech
With the main classroom building for Ivy Tech being close to the road, the
design could include an additional or even incorporated structure that
would connect the bridge with the building. This would allow for ease of
use for students as now they would be directly in the Ivy Tech building
once they cross Coliseum Boulevard.
1.4.5. Covered or Open
Another design variable is if the design of the bridge will included a
covered path, or if it will remain uncovered. If the walkway remains
uncovered, a system such as some sort of fencing will need to be put in
place to provide safety to both the pedestrians using the bridge as well as
vehicles passing underneath.
1.5. Limitations and Constraints
1.5.1. Cost
With the tough economic times that this country is now facing, cost has
become an ever increasing factor when considering construction of any
new structure. The proposed design must be optimized in order to satisfy
all requirements while minimizing the cost of the structure.

7
1.5.2. Natural Conditions
There are many factors of the local environment that must be taken into
account during the design of the bridge which include:
a) Soil bearing pressure
b) Natural contours for slope on each side of the bridge
c) Weather conditions
1.5.3. Construction Issues
Although this project does not include the detailed construction process,
there are aspects of construction that must be taken into account during the
design stages. A few of these are:
a) 50,000 vehicles a day on Coliseum (main arterial) – need to
minimize the adverse effects of closing the road down for long
periods of time
b) Steel lengths – want to make sure that the design members are able
to be shipped by tractor trailer to the jobsite. Will need to make
sure that the members are less than 100’ long and 14’ tall (when
loaded on trailer).
1.5.4. Additional Considerations
In additional to the information above, there are further details that must
be considered in the design of the bridge.
a) Driver’s ability to view the IPFW sign from the road
b) Serviceability of the structure
c) Addition of items to enhance the aesthetic properties of the bridge
1.6. SAP2000
Founded in 1975 by now company President Ashraf Habibullah,
Computers & Structures, Inc. (CSI) is a worldwide leader in the development of
software used in the design and analysis of civil engineering structures. Instead
of producing software that can be used for a generalized range of structures, CSI
tailors their programs to be tailored to specific classes of structures. SAP2000,
the software used in the analysis of the pedestrian bridge, is intended for use on
8
structures such as bridges, dams, stadiums, industrial structures, and buildings.
Other titles produced by CSI include: ETABS, software used mainly for building,
and the SAFE System, a powerful program used to design and analyze concrete
slabs and foundations.
SAP2000’s power comes in its amazing flexibility. From the simplest
design of a two dimensional frame, to a complicated bridge in three dimensions,
to the “Bird’s Nest” (Chinese National) Stadium from the Games of the XXIX
Olympiad, it can be seen that vast power that lies within this software package.
Its true strength is in its various analysis options: linear, nonlinear, static and
dynamic analysis of two and three dimensional structures. The advanced features
of SAP2000 allow for a structure to be analyzed even when a material no longer
falls in the linear range where Hooke’s Law is valid (stress is no longer
proportional to strain).
Students in the civil engineering program at IPFW are first introduced to
SAP2000 in CE 375: Structural Analysis and then further explore the depths of
the software in two more courses: CE 376: Design of Concrete Structures, and
CE 475 Design of Steel Structures. In addition to these three courses, the
software was used extensively in the entire Senior Design Project. Throughout
these courses, the basic steps in designing a structure are taught while learning
the interface of the SAP2000 software. Any structural design which can be
completed in SAP2000 may be broken into four steps:
a) Modeling
Upon creating a new file, the software prompts the user with a
screen asking for the user to define a new model. The user can either
define a new model and grid system themselves, or they can choose a
predefined template such as a beam, 2-d or 3-d truss, 3-d frame, etc. If
creating a new model with a user defined 3-d grid, it is advised to
carefully define a grid that allows for the model to be correctly
defined. By taking a few extra minutes setting up the initial grid, the
user can save a tremendous amount of time later on in the modeling of
the structure.
9
After the grid is set, it is now time for the user to start the actual
design of the structure. Prior to placing members in the model, the
materials the user wishes to use in the structure must be defined.
Defining materials is easily done through the software which has built
into the system a database that has numerous shapes and sizes of steel
and aluminum members that are used by different agencies throughout
the world. Once the materials are defined, a members shape or
material can simply be changed by a dialog box which will then
modify the mechanical properties of the member. In addition to frame
members, cables, and tendons, the user can also define shells and
planes that may be used in a structure. The materials that are defined
for use in the shell or plane are also easily defined through the built in
database.
Once all members and materials are defined (they can be revised at
any time), the structure can then be drawn on the grid system. After
the correctly dimensioned structure is on the grid, pre-analysis
activities are completed to accurately model the structure. These steps
include: meshing any objects together so that they act like one
continuous member, correctly setting any constraints, and/or restraints
to joints to precisely model the joint if it may be a pinned or fixed
connection for example, and applying any releases to the members in
order to apply internal force releases at a given point.
The last step in modeling the structure is to determine the loads
that will be applied to it. SAP2000 allows for live, dead (which
includes the structures self weight), moving, earthquake, wind, etc.
loads that can be analyzed both separately as well as concurrently
according to AASHTO LRFD specifications. With these loads in
place, the user can then proceed to the analysis of the structure.

b) Analysis
10
If the user has taken the time to meticulously set up an accurate
model of the structure, analysis of the structure becomes streamlined.
With the loading conditions already applied to the model, all the user
must do is determine which load cases they would like to run (any or
all of them), and then they simply press the “Run Now” button.
While SAP2000 is analyzing the structure, a dialog box is
displayed on the computer screen showing the status of the analysis. It
is on this screen that the program will inform the user whether the
structure was successfully analyzed, or if there was an error. If the user
is just performing a linear, static analysis, the program may only take a
few seconds before the analysis output may be displayed; however, if a
nonlinear or dynamic analysis is performed, the user may wait much
longer for the structural analysis to be completed. In some cases,
numerous iterations may be needed in order for an acceptable
convergence value to be established.

c) Display
Following the completed analysis of the structure, the user is then
able to view the mechanical behavior of the structure. For every
different display options that can be selected, the user is given the
option to view the results per the selected loading condition. Once the
analysis finishes the default view of the structure is its deformed
shape. This display can be extremely convenient to visualize the
effects of the applied loads on the structure, and if the deformation
agrees with the anticipated results of the loading. If there is an error in
how the model is designed, it may be obvious by erratic results of the
deformed shape of the structure.
The other option for the display is to show the resultant forces for
the joints, frames/cables, and shells. If the “Joint” display is chosen,
the forces acting on that joint for the given loading condition is
displayed on the screen. These results can then be used for the design
11
of the supporting structure, whether it be a foundation, or any other
type of support required.
For the frames/cables force option, the user is given various
options to view different forces acting on the member which include:
axial force, torsion, shear 2-2, shear 3-3, moment 2-2, and moment 3-
3. An additional option for the forces is to either show the actual
values on the structure itself, or to just display a filled diagram
representing the corresponding force acting on the member. Much like
the deformed shape display, this view allows the user to visually
determine if the structure is acting accordingly to the design load cases
acting on it.
If the designed structure has any shell objects, the final display
option is to view the forces acting on these shell elements. Options for
the shell force diagram include: the component types may it be
resultant forces, shell stresses, or concrete design; output type for
visible, top, or bottom face as well as whether they are the maximum
or minimum values; and, the forces in the components, whether they
be the various layers of concrete, or the reinforcement steel in the
concrete.

d) Design
If the mechanical behavior of the structure is deemed to be
accurate, the final step in SAP2000 is the actual design of the
structure. An extremely useful feature of the software is that the user
can define a list of member shapes and sizes that the program can
chose between to safely support the forces per the given loading
combinations. This feature eliminates the need for the user to manually
go back and forth choosing different sized members by a trial and error
approach. Instead, the user can allow the program to optimize the steel
design members. This can save the designer hours of their time.
12
All the user has to do when they feel that they are ready to start the
design of the structure is to select the correct design option (steel
frame, concrete frame, or aluminum frame), and the software will go
through and design the structure. After all members are analyzed, the
resulting screen will show the corresponding size of the member as
well as, judging by the members color, whether or not the member
passed the design standards. When the design is complete, it is highly
advised to run the option, “Verify Analysis vs. Design Section” to
determine if the analyzed members are the same as the design sizes
which will affect the dead load of the structure. If the members are
found to differ, all the user needs to do is rerun the analysis as well as
the design of the structure, repeating these two steps until the analysis
and design members converge.
2. Section II: Conceptual Design
2.1. Location of Bridge


Figure 3. Proposed Location of Pedestrian Bridge (from previous TE application).

Figure 3 shows the proposed location of the pedestrian bridge as
determined by the IPFW Physical Plant in the TE Application completed in
August of 2008. This location helps serve many of the functions required in the
13
bridge design. First, the location is in an open area where there are currently no
structures that would need to be razed in order to construct the new bridge. Also,
this point allows for a maximum use of the natural topography on the IPFW side
of Coliseum (the north side) to help maintain the maximum 5% slope without
having to build another structure (i.e. elevator) that would be used to lower the
sidewalk from the bridge deck to ground level. Using the natural topography for
the slope requirements minimizes the need for massive amounts of soil brought
into the site also. For the Ivy Tech side of the bridge (south side of Coliseum),
there is not enough space to allow for the sidewalk to drop directly from the
bridge and to the classroom building with no curves in the sidewalk. Instead, the
sidewalk will need to come off of the bridge and run parallel to Coliseum
Boulevard until the at grade level is reached using the ADA requirements. An
option that can be pursued for pedestrians who do not want to walk the extra
distance needed to meet ADA requirements is tha a stairway may be constructed
next to the bridge which can give the pedestrians a direct exit from the bridge to
the Ivy Tech campus.
In addition to using the natural slope to help in the slope of the sidewalk
leading to the bridge, the location shown in Figure 3 also minimizes the impact on
vehicular traveler’s view of the brick IPFW sign off of the roadway. The location
does block some of the view of the IPFW as travelers move west on Coliseum
Boulevard, however at this location the view should not be hindered too much.
This location also allows for pedestrians to access the pedestrian bridge
from the Rivergreenway Trail that is just to the west of Ivy Tech. As long as there
is a sidewalk designed to connect the bridge to a sidewalk leading towards the
Rivergreenway Trail. By doing this, the Rivergreenway Trail would finally be
able to connect to the parks and trails to the north of Coliseum Boulevard.
14

2.2. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge

Figure 4. Conceptual design of cable-stayed bridge over Coliseum Boulevard.



Figure 5. Computer generated design of Venderly Family Bridge.

2.3. Concept II: Truss Bridge


Figure 6. Design of truss bridge from CE 375 class project.
15


Figure 7. Example of pedestrian truss bridge utilizing weathering steel members.

2.4. Concept III: Suspension Bridge


Figure 8. Computer rendering of pedestrian suspension bridge.



16

2.5. Concept IV: Arch Bridge


Figure 9. Computer rendering of arch bridge over Coliseum.

3. Section III: Summary of the Evaluation of Different Conceptual Designs
3.1. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge
3.1.1. Advantages
a) Aesthetically pleasing
b) Ability for long clear spans
c) Modern style of bridge construction
3.1.2. Disadvantages
a) Need adequate spacing on either side of columns to reduce
eccentric loading
b) Covering takes away from the appeal of the design
c) More cost effective for long spans/not for this short of a span
d) Difficult to construct
e) Already one on the IPFW campus (crossing the St. Joseph River)
3.2. Concept II: Truss Bridge
3.2.1. Advantages
a) Low cost
b) Ease of construction
c) Minimizes the amount of material needed for structure
17
d) Able to be covered while maintaining original appearance
3.2.2. Disadvantages
a) NOT aesthetically pleasing
b) Would not be compatible with the innovative design of the other
two bridges already on the IPFW campus
3.3. Concept III: Suspension Bridge
3.3.1. Advantages
a) Aesthetically pleasing
b) Comparable design to other bridges on campus (Willis Family
Bridge)
c) Ability for long spans
3.3.2. Disadvantages
a) Needs to have adequate distance for anchorage points on either
side of main supporting columns (space is limited on Ivy Tech side
of the bridge)
b) Difficult and unattractive to cover if “normal” suspension bridge
c) Expensive to construct
d) Would need to close Coliseum Boulevard for an extended period
of time
3.4. Concept IV: Arch Bridge
3.4.1. Advantages
a) Aesthetically pleasing
b) Design has yet to be done on the IPFW campus
c) Can easily be covered
d) Construction can be formed to minimize the impact to traffic on
Coliseum Boulevard – many of the pieces can be prefabricated
e) Due to span, cost effective given the bridges requirements
f) If designed as a parabolic arch, all forces in the arch axial
3.4.2. Disadvantages
a) Large horizontal forces applied to the foundations from the arch
b) Uses large amounts of steel
18




3.5. Decision Matrix
To help assist the group in what bridge design they would go with
for the crossing of Coliseum Boulevard, the group used a decision matrix
as shown in Table 1. The matrix was designed with a set of standard
guidelines used in bridge design, taken from the Handbook of Structural
Engineering. Each item is given a priority 1 to 5 (1 = low, 2 = standard, 3
= high, 4 = very high, and 5 = extremely high) as well as a quality rating
on a scale 1 to 5 (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, and 5 =
excellent). The weighted average is then taken by multiplying the priority
value by the quality rating with these values summed to find the total
rating of the proposed design.

19

Table 1. Decision Matrix
Bridge
Type
Structural Constructability
Maintenance
and Inspection
Construction
Schedule Impact
Aesthetics Cost
Total
Rating
Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality
Cable-
Stayed 1 5 3 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 2 70
Truss 1 5 3 4 2 4 4 2 5 1 5 5 63
Suspension 1 5 3 3 2 2 4 4 5 5 5 3 74
Arch 1 5 3 4 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 85

As is shown in the decision matrix in Table 1, the top rated bridge design is the Arch. This design had a total
weighted rating of 85, compared to the next closest, the suspension bridge, which rated 74. Based upon the results of
the decision matrix, the group determined to proceed with the arch as the base design of the pedestrian bridge. It is here
that a note should be made about what the group found out about cost comparisons of different bridge designs in the
Bridge Engineering Handbook. In this text, the author stated that costs between an arch bridge and a truss bridge a
comparable, and that if all other factors remain equal, the best choice is usually an arch bridge due to its aesthetic
superiority.
20
3.6. Selected Design
3.6.1. Background
An arch is an excellent choice in supporting long span structures
due to their ability to reduce bending moments in the structure while
carrying the load mainly in compression. A general rule of thumb is that
when designing a steel bridge, “the arch system is expedient to use for
spans longer than 160 ft” (Chen and Duan). By limiting the bending
stresses induced on the arch structure, member sizes may be reduced since
the chief load that they are supporting is the compression forces applied to
it while the other forces are minor. With compression forces being the
main load that the arch is supported, care must be taken in the structural
design of the members to ensure that it will not buckle under the
potentially large compression forces enacting on the structure. In order to
reduce the chance of a catastrophic failure associated with buckling, the
structural members must be sized accordingly using shapes that utilize
large moments of inertia as is seen with hollow structural sections (HSS).
Depending on its given application, various types of arches may be
chosen to support a given loading condition. The first, a fixed arch, is
commonly used when the arch is to be constructed of reinforced concrete.
Although it may require less material to construct than the other types of
arches, the fixed arch does pose some potential problems since due to its
geometry it is statically indeterminate to the third degree. Being statically
indeterminate leaves the arch prone to additional stresses if there is any
settlement of the foundation. Thus, if using a fixed arch the designer must
make certain that solid foundation abutments are used to minimize the
likelihood of the foundation settling.
The next type of commonly used arch is the two-hinged arch.
Usually constructed of wood or timber, the two-hinged arch is less
sensitive to settling since the structure is only indeterminate to the first
degree. A modification to the two-hinged arch is the tied-arch. By
21
connecting the supports with a cable, the arch can behave like a rigid unit
since the tie carries the load in the horizontal direction. If the tie is used,
the second support can then be a roller which allows the structure to
become statically determinate.
Similar to the two-hinged arch, the three-hinged arch is basically a
two-hinged arch with another hinge placed at the apex of the arch. Since
there are three hinges, the structure can be disassembled which allows the
arch to be statically determinate due to the fact that there are now six
equations with six unknowns. With the arch being statically determinate,
the structure is not affected by either settlement or temperature change
leading to the three-hinged arch being an excellent option when designing
an arched structure. Thus the analysis and design of this pedestrian bridge
will utilize the three-hinged arch concept (Hibbeler).
3.6.2. Meeting with Greg Justice
Early on in the senior design process, the group knew that they
wanted to perform the structural design of a project that would benefit the
IPFW campus, but were unsure of what type of structure to design. This
uncertainty led the group to schedule a meeting with Greg Justice, a
Senior Project Manager at the IPFW Physical Plant. The group was
surprised by the amount of projects that were currently in some phase of
the construction process. With many options in front of the group, it was
now time to determine which route to take: should the group design an
entire building, or a pedestrian bridge?
It was at this meeting that Mr. Justice spoke with the team
members about a pedestrian bridge that was in the proposal stage. Being
designed to cross over Coliseum Boulevard, the bridge had just recently
been sent to the university for approval; however, due to lack of funding,
the bridge construction was postponed for now. Not necessarily wanting to
perform the design of a building, the group made a decision to pursue the
more challenging avenue of designing a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Justice was
kind enough to forward us the completed Transportation Enhancement
22
(TE) Application for the bridge that was submitted to Purdue University.
In addition to providing us access to this information, Mr. Justice also
suggested we contact Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E., whom not only
collaborated with Mr. Justice on the application, but who is also the
engineer that designed the other two pedestrian bridges on the IPFW
campus.
3.6.3. Meeting with Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E.
On February 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. the entire group met at the
offices of Engineering Resources, Inc. to talk about the proposed bridge
design with company President Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. The group
brought Mr. Heidenreich up to date about our meeting with Greg Justice at
the IPFW Physical Plant, and how he had given us the bid proposal that
had already been turned down. Mr. Heidenreich made it clear to the group
that in this proposal, all drawings and information were of the very
preliminary thought concept stage and that the ideas that he and Mr.
Justice presented in the proposal were entirely “rough ideas”.
After the group informed Mr. Heidenreich about the background
information the group had collected, the conversation shifted to the other
two pedestrian bridges that are on the IPFW campus; both of which were
designed by Mr. Heidenreich. The first bridge he did on the campus, the
Willis Family Bridge, was designed to allow students to travel from the
student housing complex on the Waterford Campus, over Crescent
Avenue, to the heart of the IPFW campus. As any passerby is aware, this
bridge has a unique design that is a keystone of the IPFW campus.
Representing the suspension bridge design, the Willis Family Bridge relies
upon the two cables that are suspended from the triangular-shaped
supports to carry the bridge deck.
The conversation then briefly turned to the other bridge on the
campus that Mr. Heidenreich designed, the Venderly Family Bridge that
crosses over the Saint Joseph River. This bridge is a cable-stayed bridge
23
consisting of the two main towers that have cables anchored into them.
These cables are what support the bridge structure.
Discussion of the previously designed bridges on campus turned to
the newly proposed bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard which is the
main purpose of the meeting. It was during this that Mr. Heidenreich gave
us a peak into the mind of what a structural engineer must consider before
the design process commences. With aesthetic considerations always
playing a pivotal role in any idea, other details such as construction
techniques, impact on the environment, various loading conditions, and
height requirements were discussed with the group. Mr. Heidenreich also
brought out his copy of the AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge
Design Specifications: 2008 Interim Revisions which is a massive volume
of design specifications used for pedestrian bridge projects in the United
States. He recommended for the future engineers in front of him to take a
look at this book, and design the proposed bridge in accordance with it.
As the meeting came to a close, the group inquired of Mr.
Heidenreich of why Mr. Justice and he were leaning towards the arch
bridge design in comparison with the other choices. He let us know that
the main reason that at the required span (160’), the arch would be the
most cost effective option in comparison with the others while a truss
bridge was not an option per the request of the University. Also, neither a
suspension nor cable-stayed bridge were good choices since the Ivy Tech
side of Coliseum offers little space for an area to anchor cables to. With
this valuable insight, the group became heavily swayed in the choice of an
arched pedestrian bridge as the selected conceptual design.






24
4. Section IV: Detailed Design of the Selected Conceptual Design
4.1. Arch without Angled Members
In order to begin the detailed design of the arch bridge, the group must
first design the bridge using a normal arch designed without any modifications,
and then continue to the final design. Designing the arch in the xz plane allows
the group to easily perform hand calculations to verify that the structure is
accurately modeled in SAP2000.
4.1.1. Modeling of Bridge
The complete steps in modeling the arched bridge design are
outlined in 4.2 Arch with Angled Members. This design is only used to
serve as a check of if the SAP2000 model has any issues or irregularities
associated with it. Although this is not the final design, all of these settings
will be in place to allow for an easy transition to the final design using the
same template.
4.1.2. Arch Bridge Design
Shown in Figure 10 is the model of the arch bridge in SAP2000.
This drawing displays the complete structural outline of the arch bridge
that is used as a verification of the model used prior to proceeding to the
final design of the pedestrian bridge.

25

Figure 10. SAP2000 Model of Arch Bridge without angled members
4.1.3. SAP2000 Analysis
In order to verify the final model, the bridge was modeled as an in
plane arch as shown in Figure 10. For this design, the bridge members are
all defined as those described in section 4.2 Arch with Angled Members.
The area is modeled as a 9” thick concrete deck with equal spans of
13.125’. After all of the members were drawn in accordance with section
4.2, the group set the live and dead load cases to be analyzed in SAP2000.
All analysis and design information for the arch bridge without angled
members can be found, upon request, in the SAP2000 report.
4.1.4. Hand Check of Calculations
4.1.4.1. Supporting Cables (Angle Members)
The first step in making sure that the bridge is modeled
correctly is by verifying that the load on the deck is transferred
correctly to the arch members. This is accomplished by verifying
the loads supported by the angles that support the deck.
Detailed in the appendix in 8.1.1, the group performed hand
calculations verifying both the live and dead loads supported by
the angle members. Using the tributary of a single concrete deck
26
piece (10’ x 13.125’), the group found that the difference in the
analysis by SAP2000 from what hand calculations showed are a
difference of +5.6% for the live load, and -2.5% for the dead load.
4.1.4.2. Arch
Since the group determined to go with the three-hinged
arch, hand calculations were easily carried out with their being six
unknown forces and six equations to solve for these forces. The
steps used in calculating the forces are shown in 8.1.2 where the
loading condition used is that of the dead load of the 9” concrete
slab. After performing the hand calculations, the group compared
these values to those obtained through the SAP2000 analysis.
These values were off approximately -8.3% for all of the loads in
the x-direction while the values were off +8.9% for the loads in the
y-direction.
4.1.5. Conclusion
Based upon the comparison of values from those obtained
through the analysis in SAP2000 to those derived from the hand
calculations, the group has determined that this model is an
accurate representation of the proposed pedestrian bridge (without
the angled arch members). With all of the values within an
acceptable range compared to any hand calculations (largest
difference of 8.9%), the proposed model supported loads as the
group determined it should.
The group has determined that the differences calculated
for the arch itself are larger than that of the angled members due to
the shape of the arch. Although the arch is drawn as a parabolic
arch, the shape is not completely parabolic for reasons further
discussed in section 4.2. Instead of being a completely smooth
parabola from the initial point to its end, the arch is broken down
into 16 equally sized portions. Because of this, although the arch is
27
close to being parabolic, there are some slight differences along the
shape of the arch which allows for shear and moment forces to be
introduced into the arch. It is the effects of these forces that cause
the variance in the SAP2000 analysis versus the hand calculations.
4.2. Arch with Angled Members
4.2.1. Modeling of Bridge
The process of modeling the bridge that must span over Coliseum
Boulevard is completed in accordance to the four steps detailed in 1.6.1.
Upon creating a new model, the group chose to design the bridge by
utilizing a user defined grid system. By previously calculating the required
span, length, and height for the bridge in order to meet the height
requirements specified (17.55’ from top of pavement to bottom of lowest
bridge member), the group determined that the bridge would span 210’,
and have a maximum height of 44’. This height was chosen because it
falls within the normal rise-to-span ratios of 1:4.5 to 1:6 that are
commonly used for the design of arch bridges (Chen and Duan). Hence,
the grid was set up as follows: 211 X-units at 1’ spacing (210’), 2 Y-units
at 10’ spacing (10’ width), and 45 Z-units at 1’ spacing (44’).
4.2.1.1. Frame Members
Since the group is familiar with the SAP2000 program,
immediately after the grid is defined, the group began to define the
materials and members used in the model. This allows for the
design to go smoothly since all member shapes and sizes are
defined prior to drawing any of the structure’s members.
4.2.1.1.1. Arch Members
By using an arched structure, the group knew in advance
that the main forces carried in the structure would be compression
forces. With this being the case, the group chose HSS members for
the main arch supports for their known performance in supporting
28
large compressive forces. Opening the accompanying database
included in SAP2000, the group was able to import various HSS
sizes (diameter and thickness) into the model.
Once the sizes were brought into the model, the next step
was to define an auto select list named “HSS”. Defining an auto
select list allows the user to draw the members in the grid with the
initial size being the median size of all of the selected members.
The advantage of defining an auto select list comes when the
design process in SAP2000 takes place: now, during the design
process, the software will optimize the member size eliminating
the need for a “trial and error” approach in designing the structure.
Easily accomplished in SAP2000, the arch members can be
drawn in the model through the application of two point-and-clicks
with the mouse, and a few user inputs. Going to the draw frame
member option, the user is prompted for what type of member is to
be drawn: straight frame, curved frame, cable, or tendon. In
addition to the member type, the user determines the section type,
in this case the “HSS” auto-shape, and whether the member
experiences any moment releases, selecting either “Continuous” if
it is to be modeled as one solid member, or “Pinned”, if there is to
be pinned connections at transition points. For the arch members,
the “Curved Frame”, “HSS”, and “Continuous” are selected in this
menu.
The next step was to actually draw in the member. Clicking
on the initial reference point (0,0,0), and then dragging the mouse
to (210,0,0), another dialog box appears prompting the user for
some information in determining the shape of the curved frame
member. In the box for curve type, the “Parabolic Arch – 3
rd
Point
Coordinates” is selected in order to draw a parabolic arch (the
reasoning behind this is detailed in Section 3.6.1.). Selecting the 3
rd

point coordinate as (0,105,44) allows for the arch to be designed in
29
accordance with the calculations previously determined to yield the
correct distance and height requirements for the location of the
bridge. Figure 11 shows the arch members drawn in SAP2000 on
the XZ gridlines.


Figure 11. Arch members drawn in the user defined grid.

With the points of the arch determined, the next step was to
determine how the software would mesh the members together.
Previously doing trial designs for the bridge, the group knew that
keeping the arch as a single object leads to inaccurate analysis
results in SAP2000. Instead of keeping as a single object, the arch
members are modeled as multiple equal length objects. Not only
does this allow for accurate analysis in SAP2000, it also allows for
ease in construction due to ability to manufacture similar members,
and not having to construct numerous unique pieces. For the
design of the parabolic arch, the group decided to use 16 similar
sized members to form the main arches, and deciding to use each
of these connections as the joints where the cables would transfer
the bridge deck loads to the arch. In addition, the group defined an
internal pin connection at the apex of the arch so that the structure
could be analyzed as a three-hinged arch.
With this first arch member in place, all the group had to do
to draw in the other member was to replicate the entire shape. The
30
second arch was replicated linearly at a distance of 42.36 ft in the
Y-direction. If the arch was to remain in the XZ plane (as the
model used in the verification process was) the group would be
able to move on to the next step; however, the final design is to be
composed of arched members that angle into the center of the
walkway to give a more aesthetically pleasing look. Angling the
members is similar to replicating the arch along the Y-axis only
this time the group replicated the arch 23º into the center along the
line that makes up the base of the structure. Figures 12 and 13
show what the arch members look like when they have been
angled into the center which gives the entire structure a more
aesthetically appealing look.


Figure 12. Arch members at an angle of 23º from perpendicular.

31

Figure 13. Structural frame for pedestrian bridge.

4.2.1.1.2. Cables
In the model, what will be the cable members in the final
design are modeled as L shaped angle pieces in SAP2000.
Substituting a straight line object like an angle for a cable was a tip
that the group found in the CSI Analysis Reference Manual. The
group determined to follow this tip after numerous failed attempts
at accurately modeling the cables in SAP2000. Knowing that
cables can only support tensile stresses, all the group had to do was
assign a frame compression limit of zero to all of the angled
members. The only catch is that to analyze these members without
the ability to carry compression forces is that the software must
execute a nonlinear analysis for the compression limit to be taken
into effect. For the DEAD and LIVE load cases, these limits do
not need to be set since the only forces that are applied to the
structure will be gravitational forces; however, for all of the
dynamic loading cases (all three wind load cases as well as the
32
moving vehicle load cases) the compression limits must be set to
force the cables to carry only tensile forces.
Much like the arch members, the frame objects used are
selected from an auto select list, only this time they are defined as
“ANGLE”. Drawing the angled members in was made amazingly
easier since prior to drawing in any members, the group spent a
great deal of time in defining a grid system that makes for drawing
the model quickly. Since the grid is in place, all the group has to do
is draw the angles from the arch down to where the bridge deck
will be. Also during this step, the lateral supports in between the
arch members were drawn in, but instead of using angles for these
members, the members are defined to be HSS since they will be
carrying both compression and tensile forces depending on the
loading conditions.

4.2.1.2. Areas
As stated in section 1.4.2, the other material used in the design of
the bridge is concrete. During the structural analysis, the self weight of
the bridge is what contributes to the applied dead load on the structure,
so before drawing the concrete deck in the group had to determine an
approximate thickness for the bridge deck. By using the tables found in
Design of Concrete Structures the group was able to determine an
approximate thickness of 6”. The calculations used to determine this
thickness are detailed further in section 4.5 Slab Design.
All of the deck sections were drawn in with the “Quick Area” tool
in SAP2000. Drawing the areas in the XY plane, all of the deck
sections are the same with dimensions of 10’ wide and 13.125’ long.
Just as was explained for the beams and the arch members, this allows
for ease of construction both at the plant as well as in the field. Figure
14 shows the bridge with the cables removed to allow for the deck to be
easily seen.
33


Figure 14. Bridge with deck drawn in (cables removed for clarity).
Once all of the area sections have been drawn in the model, the
next step is to define them. As will be shown in section 4.5 Slab
Design, the concrete slab is 6” thick with a compressive strength of 4
ksi. The concrete slab can be accurately defined in the “Areas Section:
Shell Section Data”. In this menu, the group defined the slab to be 6”
thick, constructed with f

c
of 4000 psi, as well as defining the
reinforcing steel thickness and cover distances. For a more accurate
analysis of the slab, the group defined the slab as a layered shell
element which takes into account the composite nature of the concrete
slab. In defining the slab as a layered shell, the group had to determine
potential covers for top and bottom layers of reinforcing steel, along
with the material used for the steel.
After defining what the slab would be constructed of, the next step
was to adjust the stiffness modification factors of the deck. For this, the
group lowered the factor for Membrane Modifiers f11 and f12 to zero
34
(from one where the others remained). The finalized model with the
concrete deck is shown in Figure 15.


Figure 15. Complete Model of Pedestrian Bridge (Extruded view).
Now that all of the members are drawn in the model, the next step
is to define how the objects are meshed with each other. By selecting
all of the members (frame and area) at once, the meshing function is
completed efficiently. The first area that is meshed is all of the frame
objects which are meshed with joints as well as at intersections with
other frames and area objects. The same is done for the area objects;
areas are meshed with intersection with other frame objects and with
point objects on the area’s edges.
4.2.1.3. Restraints and Releases
As shown in Figure 15, the complete bride structure has all exterior
restraints positioned at the joint locations where the bridge will come in
contact with exterior supports. The restraints at all four points of the
arch are modeled as pinned-connections, effectively eliminating any
moment forces in the connection as well as maintaining the desired
three-hinged arch for analysis purposes. Exterior supports for the
35
concrete slab consist of a pinned-connection at one end with the other
end being modeled as a roller-connection which allows for temperature
expansion and contraction in the concrete deck.
In addition to the restraints used for modeling the exterior
supports, various conditions and restraints are used for modeling of the
frame members of the structure. The first condition that needed to be
altered was the internal moment release at the apex of the arches.
Approaching both sides of the apex, the ends of the final members are
released from any moment forces. This release then allows for the
software to analyze the joint as a pinned-connection.
Another restraint used for all of the cable (angle) members, the
horizontal supporting HSS members, as well as for the beams is they
are all released from any moment forces developing in the members.
By releasing these members from both the major and minor moments at
each of their ends changes these members to be analyzed as pin-pin
connections at all joint locations.
The final modification used in the model was the release from any
compression forces from forming in the cable members, as discussed
earlier in section 4.2.1.1.2 Cables. Performing the action of both
releasing the cable members from developing any compression forces
in them (by setting the compression limit to “0”), and performing a
nonlinear analysis on the bridge under certain loading conditions results
in the angle members being analyzed as if they were drawn in the
model as actual cables.
4.2.2. Loads
4.2.2.1. Dead Load
Dead loads are those loads that are permanently applied to the
structure. For the pedestrian bridge that is being designed, there are
three sources for the dead load: the weight of the concrete deck, the
weight of any railing/supports on the side of the walkway, and the self
weight of the structure. The group decided to use normal weight
36
concrete for the decking which has an average weight of 150 pcf. Since
the deck will be made from pre-cast concrete, once the bridge is built
on the site some kind of overlay will need to be added in order to allow
for the bridge to have a smooth, continuous surface. For this, the
contractor may decide to coat the top of the concrete with an overlay,
so an additional load of 10 psf has been added to take this overlay into
account. In addition to the load from the deck, there was also a 90 plf
load applied on either side of the walkway that takes into account any
railing/fencing that will be built on the bridge. The railing/fencing load
was transferred to the structure by a user defined load of 90 plf on the
edge beams that support the concrete deck. Since the edge beams were
designed through hand calculations performed by the group, a load was
also applied by the group to the edge of the deck for the self weight of
this beam. With the edge beam being later calculated to be a 10” x 16”
rectangular beam, the group had to add 300 plf to either side of the
deck to account for this weight. Finally, the self weight of the structure
itself, including all HSS, Angles, and Beams, is calculated in SAP2000.
4.2.2.2. Live Load
The live loads applied to the bridge are variable loads applied to
the bridge that are in addition to the dead loads on the structure. There
are three live loads applied to the bridge: that of pedestrians, wind
loading (Section 4.2.2.4), and a moving service vehicle load (Section
4.2.2.3). As described in the Reference 8 revised LRFD code, the
specified live load for a pedestrian bridge can be taken as 90 psf.
Previously, the LRFD design specified that use of a 85 psf; however,
with the changing factors that the LRFD has used over the years, it has
been found that a 90 psf live load multiplied by the factor of 1.75 (the
current factor for a live load on a pedestrian bridge) is sufficient for
pedestrian bridges. By using this load, the LRFD revised code states
that, “Consideration of dynamic load allowance is not required with
this loading [90 psf live load]” (LRFD Guides Specifications for
37
Pedestrian Bridges). For the design of the pedestrian bridge crossing
over Coliseum Boulevard, the group has decided to use a live load of
85 psf with a check on the dynamic response of the structure being
performed later.
4.2.2.3. Service Vehicle Load
In addition to the uniform live and dead loads applied to the
bridge, the bridge must also be designed to carry the loading of a
moving service vehicle. A designated service vehicle is needed in the
design of the bridge in case there is an emergency vehicle needs to
cross over the structure, or if a maintenance vehicle needs to access the
walkway (i.e. removal of snow on the concrete deck). As detailed in
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, with the walkway on the
bridge being only 10 ft wide, the code recommends using an H5 design
service vehicle, as shown in Figure 16. Further, the AASHTO code
states that the service vehicle load is not applied in combination to the
pedestrian live load.


Figure 16. H5 Service Vehicle (www.dot.state.fl.us)
In order to apply the service vehicle load, the group first had to
define lanes on the bridge deck that the vehicle would travel on. The
group decided to define two lanes on the bridge each of which were
38
centered at 2.5 ft from the exterior edge of the deck. These lanes are the
paths on which the design vehicle will travel.
After defining the lanes on the bridge, the next step was to model
the design vehicle in SAP2000. The group created a new service
vehicle in the software since the H-5 vehicle was not a standard vehicle
in the software. Defining the vehicle as shown in Figure 16 allows for
the loads to be correctly applied to the bridge deck, and hence
transferred correctly to the structure.
4.2.2.4. Wind Loading
For any structure, the force applied to it by the wind is a major
concern in the design of the structure. Unlike the loads previously
discussed, the wind loading is applied perpendicular to the structure,
and not in the direction of the force of gravity. To determine the force
from the wind, the group first had to find out what the maximum wind
speed that the bridge should be designed for. Figure 17 below, shows
the eastern 2/3 of the United States and the design values for wind
speeds in these locations. The wind speeds shown are for a 3-second
gust, and are based on the ASCE 7-02 standard.

39


Figure 17. Design wind speeds (ASCE 7-02 Standard) (www.standarddesign.com).
Based on the map in Figure 17, the group determined that the
design wind speed for the structure would be 90 mph. Applying the wind
load to the bridge was easily performed in SAP2000 through the user
defined loading patterns. In this menu, the group defined three different
wind load conditions: WIND, WIND2, and WIND3. While entering the
three conditions, the group defined each in SAP2000 as wind loads, and
based the conditions on the ASCE 7-05 standards.
After entering the three load patterns, the group had to modify the
wind load through the “Modify Lateral Load” tab. In this dialog box, the
group could model the bridge based on characteristics of the structure. The
first step was to determine what surfaces of the structure would be
40
exposed, and in this the group entered the frame and area objects of the
bridge would be exposed while the structure itself would be open. This
accurately analyzes the bridge as it is to be designed over Coliseum
Boulevard.
The next step in this box was to define the direction at which the
wind is hitting the structure. This is what the difference between the three
wind patterns is, with the angles for WIND, WIND2, and WIND3 being:
0º, 90 º, and 45 º, respectively. The final step to complete in this box is to
determine the wind coefficients for the structure. As described above, the
design wind speed is 90 mph based on the wind speed map. The exposure
type of the bridge was defined to be “B”, since the bridge would be
located in an urban environment (Hibbeler).
As described in section 4.2.1.1.2 Cables, in order for the
compression limit of 0 to be taken into effect, the wind loading has to be
calculated using a nonlinear analysis. This step was also simple to perform
in SAP2000 with the group simply having to go in the “Define Load
Case” box, and then defining each of the wind load patterns to be
performed at a nonlinear analysis. By doing this, the group could model
the bridge cables accurately using angle members in place of actual cables.
41
4.2.3. Summary of Loads Applied to Structure
Table 2 shows a detailed summary of the loads applied to the
structure. It is through these loads, and various combinations of them, that
the final design of the structure was determined.
Table 2. Summary of loads applied to structure.
Loading Pattern Weight
Dead Load
Self Weight of Structure
Concrete = 150 pcf
Overlay/Surface = 10 psf
Railing/Fencing = 90 plf
Live Load 85 psf (pedestrian/snow)
Moving Load H5 Service Vehicle = 10,000 lb
Wind Loading Conditions
Auto Lateral Load
Pattern ASCE 7-05
Wind Speed 90 mph, 3 second gust
Exposure B
Importance Factor 1.0
Topographical Factor, K
zt
1.0
Gust Factor 0.85
Directionality Factor, K
d
0.85
Solid/Gross Area Ratio 0.2

4.3. Structural Analysis
Once the bridge’s geometry and the loads that it will incur are modeled in
SAP2000, the next step is to perform the structural analysis on the bridge. When
moving to this step, the user has the option of analyzing all, or only one, of the
42
loading cases. The group ran all of the loading cases at one time which takes the
software under 10 s to do (depends on the computer the user is working on).
Following is a summary of the information the group received after SAP2000
analyzed the modeled loading conditions from section 4.2.3.
4.3.1. Deformed Shapes
As stated earlier in the software review of SAP2000, one of the
easiest ways to verify if the structure is modeled correctly is to compare
the deformed shape given in SAP2000 with what the user anticipates the
deformed shape to be. If the deformed shape of the structure is abnormal,
then the user knows that something is modeled incorrectly; however, if the
deform shaped looks accurate the chances are high that the structure was
modeled correctly.
An example of a deformed shape where the user realizes
something is wrong happened to the group while first trying to accurately
model the parabolic arch in SAP2000. After setting up the model, the
group felt that everything was entered correctly. The group determined
there was an error after performing the structural analysis through
SAP2000 and then viewing the deformed shape of the bridge. In this
window, the group saw what looked like one of the arches caving into the
other arch. Additionally, the concrete deck and other members of the
structure remained in place without experiencing any deformations. This
was a sure sign that the structure was modeled incorrectly which made the
group go back to fixing the modeling of the bridge.
The subsequent subsections display various deformations
according to the different load cases that the bridge endures.
4.3.1.1. Dead and Live Loads
The deformed shapes for both the dead and live load cases
are similar with the only difference being the magnitude of the
deflection in each case. Figure 18 shows an XZ-plane view of the
bridges deformation after being analyzed with the dead and live
43
loads. Note the two lines running down the length of the bridge
which are the user designed lanes for the service vehicles to
traverse. It should be noted that all of the deformed shapes shown
are not actual deformations, but are instead magnified to give the
engineer an exaggerated view of how the bridge is expected to
deform.

Figure 18. XZ-plane view of deformed shape under dead and live loads.


Figure 19. 3d view of the deformed bridge under dead and live loads.

44
4.3.1.2. Service Vehicle Load
There were two differences between the H5 and H5-2 load
cases: first, the service vehicle begins its movement along the
bridge at opposite ends, and second, the bridge stiffness is
modified on the H5-2 load case. For the H5-2 load case, the initial
stiffness of the bridge prior to the service vehicle moving across
the bridge was taken to be the stiffness of the bridge at the end of
the load case WIND. By applying the load pattern this way, it
helps model the bridge as if a moving vehicle load is on the bridge
during high wind conditions. It will be shown later, that this load
case controls the steel design of the structure based upon the
fatigue loading introduced to the structure during this load case.

Figure 20. Deformed shape for both the H5 and H5-2 load cases.






45
4.3.1.3. Wind Loading
The various wind loading conditions WIND, WIND2, and
WIND3 all have different deformations associated with them since
each case represents a different angle at which the wind acts on the
bridge. Angles of loading for WIND, WIND2, and WIND3 are 0º,
90 º, and 45 º, respectively. Following are some screen captures
from SAP2000 for the different wind loading cases.


Figure 21. Deformed view for WIND.
46

Figure 22. Deformed view for WIND looking down length of bridge.


Figure 23. Deformed view for WIND2 looking down length of bridge.
47

Figure 24. Deformed view for WIND3 looking down the walkway of the structure.

Figure 25. Side view of the deformed shape from WIND3.
4.3.2. Joint Loading
After viewing the deformed shapes for the various loading
conditions, the next option was to view the loads at the exterior joints. The
following screen shots from SAP2000 display the forces at the pinned
48
connections supporting the arch. Each of the figures is labeled according
to the corresponding loading condition.

Figure 26. Joint reactions for DEAD load case (symmetric at each end).

Figure 27. Joint reactions corresponding to LIVE load case (symmetric at each end).
49

Figure 28. Joint reactions at starting end for WIND loading case.


Figure 29. Joint reactions at the end of the arch for WIND loading case.






50





Figure 30. Joint reactions at the start of bridge span for WIND2 load case.



Figure 31. Joint reactions at end of span for WIND2 load case.
51

Figure 32. Joint reactions at the start of the span for WIND3 load case.




Figure 33. Joint reactions at the end of the span for WIND3 load case.



52
4.3.3. Frame/Cable Loads
Another great feature of SAP2000 is once the analysis is
completed, the user can view the forces that each member of the structure
is experiencing. In the following figures, compression forces are in red
whereas tension forces are in yellow. A quick check of the cable members
shows that they all do carry tension loads only, so the group was able to
easily identify that the compression limit of zero was executed correctly.
As viewed in the close up pictures of the structure, as per the view is set
up, the forces are shown in accordance to their magnitude and have the
maximum force labeled on the diagram.


Figure 34. Overview of frame forces from DEAD load case.


53

Figure 35. Frame axial force for DEAD load case at the base.


Figure 36. Overview of frame forces for LIVE load case.
54

Figure 37. Close up view of frame forces for LIVE load case.


Figure 38. Overview of frame forces from WIND load case.

55

Figure 39. Overview of frame forces from WIND2 load case.


Figure 40. Overview of frame forces from WIND3 load case.

4.3.4. Shell Stresses
Another display option is actually viewing the intensity
distributions for the area in the model which in this case is the concrete
deck. Figure 40 shows the uniform loads in different intensities by using
various colors for the different strengths of the force. In this figure, the
maximum force is in the color blue whereas the minimum force is shown
in a light green. For each loading case, there are numerous options for
displaying the area forces which includes displaying shell forces, shell
56
stresses, and resultant forces for each component of the shell along with
the different layers in the shell. Figure 40 was used just for an idea of the
shell force display since many figures could be incorporated into the
report.


Figure 41. Maximum shell stress in concrete deck (scale is in kip).


4.3.5. Influence Lines
Yet another powerful tool with SAP2000 is its ability to easily
display influence lines for joints and structural members. An influence
line, “represents the variation of either the reaction, shear, moment, or
deflection at a specific joint in a member as a concentrated force moves on
the member” (Hibbeler). A quick glance at this line serves as an aide to
where on the structure the member is most affected by the moving load.
The influence line is constructed by calculating the mechanical behavior
of the structure when a unit load traverses the structure. The following
57
subsections show influence lines for various members of the bridge, with
the member and mechanical behavior shown in the figure’s caption.
4.3.5.1. Joint

Figure 42. Influence line for the joint reaction at the start of the span.

4.3.5.2. Cable

Figure 43. Influence line for the axial force in the cable member at the mid-span.

4.3.5.3. Arch

Figure 44. Influence line for axial force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.

58

Figure 45. Influence line for moment force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.


Figure 46. Influence line for shear force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.


Figure 47. Influence line for torsion force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.


Figure 48. Influence line for axial force for frame member at apex of the arch.

59

Figure 49. Influence line for moment force for frame member at apex of the arch.


Figure 50. Influence line for shear force for frame member at apex of the arch.

4.4. Structural Design
4.4.1. Design Load Combinations
The group used the default load design combinations for bridges
that are saved in the SAP2000 program to perform the steel design of the
pedestrian bridge. These combinations adhere to the AASHTO-LRFD
design combinations used by DOT’s around the country. As can be seen
by the different names of the load case combinations, some of the
combinations are used for strength design while others are used to
determine the design per serviceability issues, and some others are
designed for fatigue of the structure. Table 3 names the combinations as
well as details the load combinations used for each case.
Of the 150 different load case combinations, the one predominately
used in the steel design structure is DSTL2 which multiplies the dead load
by a factor of 1.2 and the live load by a factor of 1.75; however, in some
instances, the controlling load case combination is due to fatigue loading.
As can be seen in the deformed shape videos, and drawings, there can be
60
large deformations found in the arch from the portion where the deck rests
on top of the arch to where the first lateral support is located. When
performing in advanced dynamic analysis of the structure, it was found
that fatigue loading would control the steel design of the arch for the H5
service vehicle load. This was due to the fact that the group analyzed the
H5 moving load by using the stiffness found at the end of the nonlinear
wind loading. Performing this analysis leads the size of the arch to be
increased from an HSS 16 x 0.375 to HSS 18 x 0.375. Through these load
increases, the structure can safely be designed in accordance with the
LRFD specifications.

Table 3. Design load combinations used for the steel design of the bridge.
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
DSTL1 1.4D
DSTL2 1.2D + 1.75L
DSTL3 1.2D + 1.6L
DSTL4 1.0D
DSTL5 1.0D + 1.0L
STR-I1 1.25D
STR-I2 0.9D
STR-I3 1.25D + 1.75MODAL
STR-I4 1.25D + 1.75H5
STR-I5 1.25D + 1.75H5-2
STR-I6 0.9D + 1.75MODAL
STR-I7 0.9D + 1.75H5
STR-I8 0.9D + 1.75H5-2
STR-II1 1.25D
STR-II2 0.9D
STR-II3 1.25D + 1.35MODAL
STR-II4 1.25D + 1.35H5
STR-II5 1.25D + 1.35H5-2
STR-II6 0.9D + 1.35MODAL
STR-II7 0.9D + 1.35H5
STR-II8 0.9D + 1.35H5-2
STR-III1 1.25D + 1.4WIND
STR-III2 1.25D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III3 1.25D - 1.4WIND
STR-III4 1.25D - 1.4WIND2
STR-III5 0.9D + 1.4WIND
STR-III6 0.9D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III7 0.9D - 1.4WIND
STR-III8 0.9D - 1.4WIND2
61
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
STR-III9 0.9D + 1.4WIND3
STR-III10 1.25D + 1.4WIND
STR-III11 1.25D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III12 1.25D + 1.4WIND3
STR-III13 1.25D - 1.4WIND
STR-III14 1.25D - 1.4WIND2
STR-III15 1.25D - 1.4WIND3
STR-III16 0.9D + 1.4WIND
STR-III17 0.9D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III18 0.9D + 1.4WIND3
STR-III19 0.9D - 1.4WIND
STR-III20 0.9D - 1.4WIND2
STR-III21 0.9D - 1.4WIND3
STR-IV1 1.5D
STR-IV2 0.9D
STR-IV3 1.25D
STR-IV4 0.9D
STR-V1 1.25D + 0.4WIND
STR-V2 1.25D + 0.4WIND2
STR-V3 1.25D - 0.4WIND
STR-V4 1.25D - 0.4WIND2
STR-V5 0.9D + 0.4WIND
STR-V6 0.9D + 0.4WIND2
STR-V7 0.9D - 0.4WIND
STR-V8 0.9D - 0.4WIND2
STR-V9 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V10 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V11 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V12 1.25D +0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V13 1.25D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V14 1.25D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V15 1.25D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V16 1.25D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V17 1.25D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V18 1.25D - 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V19 1.25D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V20 1.25D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V21` 1.25D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V22 1.25D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V23 1.25D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V24 1.25D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V25 1.25D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V26 1.25D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V27 0.9D + 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V28 0.9D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V29 0.9D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V30 0.9D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
62
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
STR-V31 0.9D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V32 0.9D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V33 0.9D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V34 0.9D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V35 0.9D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V36 09.D - 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V37 09.D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V38 0.9D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V39 09.D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V40 0.9D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V41 0.9D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V42 09.D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V43 09.D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V44 0.9D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
EE-I1 1.25D
EE-I2 0.9D
EE-I3 1.25D + 1.0MODAL
EE-14 1.25D + 1.0H5
EE-I5 1.25D + 1.0H5-2
EE-I6 0.9D + 1.0MODAL
EE-I7 09D + 1.0H5
EE-I8 0.9D + 1.0H5-2
EE-II1 1.25D
EE-II3 1.25D + 1.0MODAL
EE-II4 1.25 + 1.0H5
EE-II5 1.25D + 1.0H5-2
EE-II6 0.9D + 1.0MODAL
EE-II7 0.9D + 1.0H5
EE-II8 0.9 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I1 1.0D + 0.3WIND
SER-I2 1.0D + 0.3WIND2
SER-I3 1.0D - 0.3WIND
SER-I4 1.0D - 0.3WIND2
SER-I5 1.0D + 0.4WIND3
SER-I6 1.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.0MODAL
SER-I7 1.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.0H5
SER-I8 1.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.0H5-2
SER-I9 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I10 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5
SER-I11 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I12 1.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I13 1.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5
SER-I14 1.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I15 1.0D - 0.3WIND + 1.0MODAL
SER-I16 1.0D - 0.3WIND + 1.0H5
SER-I17 1.0D - 0.3WIND + 1.0H5-2
63
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
SER-I18 1.0D - 0.3WIND2 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I19 1.0D - 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5
SER-I20 1.0D - 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I21 1.0D - 0.3WIND3 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I22 1.0D - 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5
SER-I23 1.0D - 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5-2
SER-II1 1.0D
SER-II2 1.0D + 1.3MODAL
SER-II3 1.0D + 1.3H5
SER-II4 1.0D + 1.35H5-2
SER-III2 1.0D + 0.8MODAL
SER-III3 1.0D + 0.8H5
SER-III4 1.0D + 0.8H5-2
SER-IV1 1.0D + 0.7WIND
SER-IV2 1.0D + 0.7WIND2
SER-IV3 1.0D - 0.7WIND
SER-IV4 1.0D - 0.7WIND2
SER-IV5 1.0D + 0.7WIND3
SER-IV6 1.0D - 0.7WIND3
SER-IV7 1.0D + 0.7WIND
SER-IV8 1.0D + 0.7WIND2
SER-IV9 1.0D + 0.7WIND3
SER-IV10 1.0D - 0.7WIND
SER-IV11 1.0D - 0.7WIND2
SER-IV12 1.0D - 0.7WIND3
FAT1 0.75MODAL
FAT2 0.75H5
FAT3 0.75H5-2
64

4.4.2. Design Members
4.4.2.1. Arch Members
Using the steel design function in SAP2000, the group
adequately sized the steel arch members for the pedestrian bridge.
Since the arch members were initially designed as an automatically
selected HSS member, when the design commences the program
optimizes the design members in accordance to the load case
combinations shown in Table 3. As shown in Figure 51, the
maximum axial force in the arch members was calculated to be
329.93 kip (compression). In order to support this load, the
software selected an HSS 18 x 0.375 to be used as the main
structural shapes for arch members.
As stated previously, when using only the DSTL2 loads,
the arch was designed for an HSS 16 x 0.375, but by performing an
advanced dynamic analysis of the moving vehicle load, SAP2000
designed the arch members to be the larger 18” diameter HSS.
Figure 52 shows this design.


Figure 51. Maximum axial force from DSTL2.
65

Figure 52. Typical section of arch member.
4.4.2.2. Cross Members on Arch
When designing the structure, the group allowed SAP2000
to optimize all of the members used in the arch. During this steel
design, the program designed the cross members that are used for
the lateral support to be designed at the same dimensions as what
the arch members are, HSS 18 x 0.375. Although this size of
structural shape is way more than adequate for the loads that are in
the cross supports, the group determined that it was aesthetically
pleasing to use the same size for these members as what is found in
the main arch supports.
4.4.2.3. Cables
Since the cable members were modeled as angle members
in SAP2000, the group needed to perform hand calculations to
determine the size of cables needed to support the bridge deck. The
maximum force applied to the cables was determined in SAP2000
and used for the calculations that are detailed in the Appendix.
Based upon a maximum tensile force of 26.719 kips, which is from
66
the Load Case DSTL2, the required diameter of the cable members
is 1 in.
4.4.3. Slab Design
As described in the Bridge Engineering Handbook, loads applied
to the slab can be distributed to effective slab widths which can then be
analyzed as a simply supported beam. By doing this, the group was able to
perform a set of hand calculations to determine all relevant design
information for the concrete deck. These hand calculations are shown in
the Appendix.
Using the calculations from the Appendix shows that the deck
should be constructed of a 6” deep concrete slab. The reinforcement steel
required for the longitudinal direction is No. 3 rebar, placed 7” o.c. while
the reinforcement steel that is needed to control the shrinkage and
temperature was calculated to be No. 3 rebar, placed 10” o.c.

Figure 53. Typical rebar spacing.

67

Figure 54. Typical slab cross section.
4.4.4. Concrete Edge Beams
Concrete edge beams will effectively carry the loading transferred
from the concrete deck to the cables hanging from the arch members. This
beam will be designed to support 1.6 k/ft (from factored live and dead
loads) which transfers the loading from the decks to the beams, a 0.09 k/ft
for railing, and the self weight of the concrete beam.
Calculations from the Appendix show that the beam should be
constructed of a 10” wide and 16” deep rectangular concrete beam. The
beam shall be reinforced with 3 No. 4 steel reinforcement on the bottom
and 2 No. 4 bars on the top to allow for anchorage for the cables tying into
the beams. As far as the shear reinforcement that is required, No. 3 stirrups
will be used. Figure

Figure 55. Edge beam design.

68

Figure 56. Typical cross sections for edge beam.


4.4.5. Footing Design


Figure 57. Base reactions for DSTL2 load case.
The supports for each of the four arches are to be designed from
concrete using a design compressive strength of 4000 psi and yield
strength Figure 57. of the reinforcing steel of 60,000 psi, and the base
reaction forces found in . Using the support reactions shown in Figure 57,
the steps taken for the design of the concrete footers is shown in the
Appendix. When designing only for the reaction coming directly into the
footer (since footer will be placed at same angle as arch tying into it) the
design for each of the footers would be 8’ x 11’ x 2’. This design is
69
adequate for the arch bridge since the bridge has a large horizontal force at
the foundation. Thus, the design in the Appendix takes into account the
thrust force in the horizontal direction, and assumes that the footer itself
will be able to support this force. The subsequent design for the footer is
calculated to be a 10’ x 12’ x 11’ with 6’ of the footer being below grade.
4.4.6. Vibrations
As described in section 6 of the LRFD Guide Specifications for the
Design of Pedestrian Bridges, “Vibration of the structure shall not cause
discomfort or concern to users of a pedestrian bridge”. The code later
prescribes a limit to the fundamental frequency of the first vertical mode
to be greater than 3.0 Hertz (Hz), in the absence of any applied live loads.
If the fundamental frequency does not satisfy this limit than a more in
depth look at the dynamic performance of the bridge must be undertaken.
To alleviate any problems that these oscillations may cause, the
response of the bridge can be held in check simply by adding more mass
to the bridge, if it is needed. Since the frequency of the bridge is controlled
by Newton’s equation:
ma F =
¿

By rearranging it can easily be shown that,
m
F
a
¿
=
Thus, increasing the mass will decrease the acceleration of the structure.
The LRFD Guide has a simple formula to determine the
fundamental frequency of a pedestrian bridge. The formula is:
|
.
|

\
|
>
W
f
180
ln 86 . 2
Where;
f = fundamental frequency (Hz)
W = total weight of the supported structure (kips)
70
As stated above, if this frequency is greater than 3.0 Hz, then no further
investigation is required.
With the only weight that is calculated in the frequency equation
being that of the supported structure, the group had to determine the
approximate weight of the concrete deck. As long as the deck’s weight is
large enough, the frequency of the bridge can be estimated to be large
enough that the structure will not vibrate under its first mode. Since the
final deck was designed to be regular concrete that is 6” thick, the weight
of the deck was calculated by:
W = = ft x
ft
k
x
ft
210
5 . 0 * 150 . 0
1
25 . 131
2
2
2067 k
Using this weight in the frequency equation gives:
|
.
|

\
|
>
2067
180
ln 86 . 2 f
f = -6.98 Hz
When dealing with a frequency, the sign convention is similar to
everything else where the sign of the value describes the direction of the
vibration. Thus, a natural frequency of 6.98 Hz exceeds the minimum
value of 3.0 Hz, so no further vibration analysis is required for the
structure.
4.4.7. Deflection
When designing a structure, one must first analyze the structure
based on strength conditions. If the structure is capable of carrying the
loads safely, the next step is to verify that the structure meets
serviceability requirements. In SAP2000, deflection limits are taken into
consideration when the software performs the steel design of the given
structure. When printing the report directly from SAP2000, joint
deflections are given in table format according to each of the individual
load combinations.
71
The appendix shows a portion of one such table that shows the
maximum joint deflection. As is shown in this table, the maximum
deflection was found to be just under ¼” (0.240 in). Using the maximum
allowable deflection per Ref. 8 for a pedestrian bridge being L/500, it is
easily determined that this pedestrian bridge meets the deflection
requirements. (This was calculated from the maximum member length of
the concrete being 13.125’ leading to a maximum allowable deflection of
0.315 in.) The small values found for the deflection of the bridge confirm
the earlier statement that the deformed shapes that the software produces
are exaggerated to help the user better visualize what has happening with
the structure.

4.5. Final Design
4.5.1. SAP2000 Report
Another feature of the SAP2000 is software is its ability to prepare
advanced technical reports for the structure that the engineer is designing.
In the appendix, there are a few samples of the types of tables that the
software prepares. It should be noted that the complete SAP2000 report
was not included with this project since the final report was in excess of
500 pages.
In the report, the user can find information pertaining to the
coordinates of each joint, property of the materials that are used for the
design of the structure, the actual displacements of each joint, etc. The
report serves as another way that the engineer can verify the analysis of
the structure as well as allowing them to have all of the design information
in convenient table form. This allows for easy reference of the mechanical
behavior of the designed structure.
4.5.2. Final Design Drawings
For the final design of the structure, the group imported the final
model of the bridge from SAP2000 into AutoCAD where the structure
72
was rendered as is shown in Figure 58. This design shows the structure
designed with the properly sized members calculated previously.


Figure 58. 3-d rendering of the final design.
In addition to doing the renderings in AutoCAD, the group also
dimensioned the bridge in this software. Figures 59-61 display the plan
views for the front, side, and top of the bridge, respectively.

73

Figure 59. Front dimensional view of the pedestrian bridge.


Figure 60. Side dimensional view of the bridge.


74

Figure 61. Top dimensional view of the bridge.
Figure 62 shows how the cables will tie into the concrete edge beams. For
each connection, the cables will be wrapped around a steel eyelet that is
embedded into the concrete edge beam. The excess steel cable will be cut
and crimped as shown.


Figure 62. Rendering of cable connecting to edge beam.
75
4.6. Alternate Design Considerations
The final design could be altered in order to allow for alterations that may
be requested by the structure’s owner. Three possible design alternates could
include: enclosing the walkway, making the structure “smart”, and/or applying a
wrap to represent the mascot of IPFW.
4.6.1. Enclosing the Walkway
The final design could easily be altered to allow for the bridge
deck to be completely enclosed instead of open as the final design
portrays. If requested by the owner, the design could entail a covering over
the sidewalk, much like the design of the Willis Family Bridge. Minor
changes in the dead load as well as how the wind affects the structure
would be the only concerns in the structural analysis of the covered
bridge. By covering the bridge, there would be a tremendous increase in
surface area that the wind force would affect, so the design would need to
be altered to accommodate the increases in horizontal forces that would
come from the larger wind force.
4.6.2. Smart Bridge
Another minor design alteration could lead to the bridge becoming
a “smart” structure. Implementing a structural health monitoring system
(SHM) to the bridge would allow for the owners to actively monitor the
state in which the bridge finds itself. By relaying information about the
bridge’s mechanical behavior through a system of sensors attached to the
bridge, the university would be able to maintain the bridge when
maintenance is needed. SHM technology has recently gained the support
of the engineering community in helping manage the issue with the
nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The system would allow for the owners
to know what condition the bridge is in at any given time, and not have to
rely on visual inspections to determine the health of the bridge.
There would be few changes that would need to be made in order
to apply SHM sensors to the bridge structure. Only if conduits were run in
76
the concrete deck would any considerations need to be taken on the
structural end of the design. With this bridge being designed by members
of the university, all forces as well as any potential problem areas on the
bridge are easily known; allowing for sensors to be placed in the exact
locations that are needed the most. By adding an SHM system to this new
bridge, not only would the IPFW campus be at the forefront of this
innovative technology, but it could also provide a valuable learning tool to
the campus’s engineering students.
4.6.3. Mastodon Tusks
Another option that the group considered would be completely for
IPFW, and do little to help Ivy Tech. What the group thought was to
somehow apply a wrap to the arch members that would take the form of
mastodon tusks coming up from opposite sides of the foundation. By
doing this, the bridge could become a cornerstone of the IPFW campus,
and provide more exposure to the various IPFW sports programs. Figure
63 shows how the group envisioned wrapping the arch members to form
two-pairs of mastodon tusks.

Figure 63. Arch members enclosed to form Mastodon Tusks.



77
4.6.4. Construction Materials
Instead of building the walkway of the bridge completely out of
concrete, the design could be modified so that the deck is constructed out
of a combination of both concrete and steel. In order to decrease the
weight of the bridge, as well as the concrete that would be needed for the
bridge, the deck could be constructed out of a thinner concrete deck
underlain by corrugated steel. The steel would then serve as structural
support for the concrete with the major difference between this design and
the proposed design being that the corrugated steel would also need to be
supported by a steel beams. Although more pieces would be required for
this design, this approach would lessen the weight of the walkway. Since
the natural frequency of the bridge (7.0 Hz) is much greater than the
minimum frequency required before a dynamic analysis needs to be
performed on the bridge, the weight can be decreased before any
unwanted oscillations may appear.

5. Section V: Cost Analysis/Estimation
5.1. Construction Techniques
As described in detail in 45.13 of the Bridge Engineering Handbook, there
are some difficulties contractors are faced with when constructing a steel arch
bridge. When it comes to constructing a steel arch structure, matching up the
curved arch pieces in order to make the correct continuous radius is difficult to
say the least. It has been found that workers on the construction site have had
troubles making field-measured geometric and stress conditions agree with those
that are calculated theoretically by the bridge designers.
78
There are two general practices used in steel arch bridge design: the field
adjustment procedure and the shop control procedure. In the field adjustment
procedure, it is required for the workers on the site to carry out a program of
steelwork surveys and measurements as the erection of the steel arches
progressives. It is then the steelworkers’ requirement to make any field
adjustments needed to maintain the arch dimensions within the previously
defined overall tolerances of the arch.
The second procedure, the shop control procedure, puts all of the trust in
the initial site survey and uses these measurements as the basis for the
dimensions used in the construction of all the parts of the bridge. With this
approach, the field workers are assumed to not have to make any field
adjustments during the construction of the bridge. For the proposed pedestrian
bridge over Coliseum Boulevard, the group has determined to use the shop
control procedure due to the relatively short span used in the design of the bridge.
In addition to the design procedures, there are also two general methods of
arch bridge construction: the tie back and the false frame work methods. In the
tie back method, piers on either side of the span of the bridge are used to support
the main ribs used in the arch structure. The cables are directly connected to the
arch pieces as well as the pier to support any loads carried by the members.
For the false frame work method, a set of supports are constructed
underneath the bridge to carry the arches as they protrude from either side of the
main bridge span. Since this pedestrian bridge is crossing over a major arterial
road, the group has decided the best construction method to be used would be the
tie back method which allows for a minimal impact on travelers on Coliseum
Boulevard.
79
5.2. Cost Estimation
For an accurate cost breakdown of the bridge, one can not only look at the
price for the materials, but must add in all factors involved when building a new
structure such as this. The figures shown in Table 4 were taken from the TE
Application that the IPFW physical plant submitted in August 2008. At the time,
the project was not approved; however, much of the pricing information should
still be valid slightly over a year later.

Table 4. General cost breakdown for pedestrian bridge.
Activity Estimated Cost
Project Development and Environmental Studies $30,000
Engineering and Final Plans Preparation Work $330,000
Construction $3,600,000
Construction Engineering and Inspection Activities $540,000

Table 5 shows a more detailed cost breakdown for the construction of the
pedestrian bridge. As stated above, there are more factors involved in building
the bridge other than the cost of materials and labor needed for the structure.
These figures were also compiled from the TE Application filed in 2008.

80
Table 5. Detailed cost breakdown for construction of pedestrian bridge.
Activity Estimated Cost
Archeological Study $30,000
Engineering and Final Plan Prep $330,000
Mobilization and Demobilization $50,000
Site Clearing and Traffic Control $100,000
Sitework and Excavation $300,000
Structural Piling $200,000
Reinforcing Steel $300,000
Concrete Work $600,000
Structural Steel $1,500,000
Utilities $200,000
Electrical Work and Lighting $250,000
Restoration $100,000
Construction Engineering/Inspection $540,000
Estimated Total Cost $4,500,000
81
6. Conclusion
With pedestrian travel over Coliseum Boulevard being as dangerous as it is, the
group feels that the best possible way in ensuring safe travel over this roadway is by
constructing a new pedestrian bridge. In addition to helping pedestrians safely cross
over Coliseum Boulevard, the structure should be of an innovative design of the same
caliber as the other two pedestrian bridges located on the IPFW campus.
Based upon the extensive research put forth by this senior design group, the most
suitable type of bridge to meet the needs of this structure is of an arch style design.
With a overall span of 210’ and a height off of the footer of 40.5’, the structure is not
only safely able to carry all of the forces that it would be exposed to, but it will also
be of the same level of design as is to be expected by administrators at IPFW.
Utilizing steel and concrete for the major design members, erection of the
structure would proceed quickly due to the ability of most of the main components
being prefabricated off of the job site. Utilizing this design method would greatly
minimize the effects that the construction of the bridge would have to travelers who
use Coliseum Boulevard on a daily basis.

82
7. References
[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications: 2008
Interim Revisions. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 2008.
[2] American Institute of Steel Construction. Steel Construction Manual. 13
th

Edition. Chicago: AISC, 2007.
[3] Chen, W.F. and E.M. Lui. Handbook of Structural Engineering. 2
nd
Edition.
NewYork: CRC Press, 2005.
[4] Chen, W.F. and Lian Duan. Bridge Engineering Handbook. New York: CRC
Press, 1999.
[5] Computers and Structures, Inc. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Berkeley.
CSI, 2008.
[6] “Crossroads”. Ivy Tech Community College – Fort Wayne.
http://www.ivytech.edu/fortwayne/crossroads/ 28May 2009
[7] Hibbeler, R.C. Structural Analysis. 6
th
Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006.
[8] NCHRP 20-07 Task 244. LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of
Pedestrian Bridges, Final Draft. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2009.
[9] Nilson, Arthur, et. al. Design of Concrete Structures. 13
th
Edition. Burr Ridge,
IL: McGraw Hill, 2004.
[10] Parkman, Kathy. “River Greenway”. City of Fort Wayne Parks &
Recreation Website.
http://www.fortwayneparks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&Itemid=34. 28
may 2009
[11] Pedestrian Bridges. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/StructuresManual/CurrentRelease/Design
Guidelines/SDG10PedestrianBridges.htm. 7 Aug 2009.
[12] “Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles”. 2008 Indiana
Department of Transportation, Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application.
83

8. Appendix
8.1. Hand Calculations
8.1.1. Angle Member Hand Calculations


Figure 64. Free body diagram of typ. slab section.

Using 100 psf live load; slab thickness of 9” and slab length of 13.125 ft
Live Load
With 500 plf

LL = 6.56 k
[SAP2000 = 6.21 k; difference 5.6%]

Dead Load
49.21875 ft
3

DL = 7.38k
[SAP2000 = 7.57 k; difference 2.5%]




84
8.1.2. Arch Hand Calculations

Figure 65. Free body diagram of parbolic arch.

Calculated with 9” concrete slab for the deck

33 . 3052 105 44 0
) 0625 . 59 )( 6797 . 51 ( 105 44 0
; 0 ) (
÷ ÷ =
÷ ÷ =
= ¿ +
y x
y x
A
C C
C C
M CCW


33 . 3052 105 44 0
) 0625 . 59 )( 6797 . 51 ( 105 44 0
; 0 ) (
÷ + =
÷ + =
= ¿ +
y x
y x
B
C C
C C
M CW


M
A
into M
B

66 . 6104 88
66 . 6104 88 0
=
÷ =
x
x
C
C


A
x
= B
x
= C
x
= 69.37 k

[SAP2000 = 75.67 k; difference of 8.3%]

CHECK C
y

33 . 3052 105 ) 4 . 69 )( 44 ( 0 ÷ + ÷ =
y
C
C
y
= 58.15 k

A
y
= B
y
= 51.68 k

[SAP2000 = 56.73 k; difference of 8.9%]



85
8.1.3. Concrete Slab Design
Assumptions:
f
y
= 60 ksi
f

c
= 4 ksi
Minimum cover, d = 6” – 1.0 = 5.0”
Unit Weight of Concrete = 150 lb/ft
3


Minimum slab thickness (from Table 13.1 Ref. “concrete design”)
Simply supported slab h
min
= l/20
" 0 . 6
20
12 10
20
min
= = =
x l
h
Use h
min
= 6”

Since one-way slab, load per 1’ width


Design Load Calculation:


Dead Load:

Self-Weight of Slab = 75 / 150
12
6
3
= ft lb x lb/ft
2


Superimposed Dead Load = 20 lb/ft
2


Total Dead Load = 95 lb/ft
2
x 1 ft = 95 lb/ft


Live Load:

Total Live Load = 90 lb/ft
2
x 1 ft = 90 lb/ft



Design Load Combination:
1.2D+1.6L
Wu = 1.2 (95 lb/ft) + 1.6 (90 lb/ft) = 258 lb/ft

Each slab, simply supported:
ft k
wl
M ÷ = = = 225 . 3
8
10 * 258
8
2 2
max

k
wl
V 29 . 1
2
10 * 258 . 0
2
max
= = =
86

From Table A.9 Ref. “Concrete Design”
ρ = 0.003 and | Mn = 3.9 k - ft
A
s
= ρbd
A
s
= 0.003x12x5 = 0.18 in
2
/ft
A
s,min
= 0.0018bh
A
s,min
= 0.0018x12x6 = 0.1296 in
2
/ft
A
s
> A
s,min


From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design”

Bar No. 3 at 7.5” spacing, A
s
= 0.18 in
2
/ft
Bar No. 3 at 7.0” spacing, A
s
= 0.19 in
2
/ft

Choose Bar No. 3 at 7.0” spacing for ease of construction

Spacing Requirement:
3” ≤ s ≤ min {3h,12}
3” ≤ 7” ≤ 12”

Use Bars No. 3 at 7” spacing

Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement:

A
s,min
= 0.1296 in
2
/ft
From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design”
Bar No. 3 at 10” spacing, A
s
= 0.13 in
2
/ft
A
s
> A
s,min

Spacing Requirement:
3” ≤ s ≤ min {5h,18}
3” ≤ 10” ≤ 18”

Use Bars No. 3 at 10” spacing for shrinkage and temperature

Shear Design:

V
max
= 1.29k
V
c
= = = 0 . 5 12 4000 2 2
'
x x d b f
w c
7590 lb
V
c
= 7.59 k
No stirrups required if:
c
V V | <
max

= = 59 . 7 * 75 . 0
c
V | 5.69 k

Therefore no stirrups are required
87
8.1.4. Edge beams to support the concrete deck



Reaction due to Dead Load = k
wl
475
2
10 * 95
2
= =

Reaction due to Live Load = k
wl
450
2
10 * 90
2
= =


Assumptions:
f
y
= 60 ksi
f

c
= 4 ksi
Dead Load due to Railing = 90 lb/ft
Unit Weight of Concrete = 150 lb/ft
3

Try 10”x16” (dimension of beam)


Design Load Calculation:

Dead Load:

Self-Weight of Beam = 167 / 150
12
16
12
10
3
= ft lb x x lb/ft

Railing = 90 lb/ft

Total Dead Load = 167 + 475 + 90 = 732 lb/ft

Live Load:

Total Live Load = 450 lb/ft
88

Design Load Combination:
1.2D+1.6L
Wu = 1.2 (732 lb/ft) + 1.6 (450 lb/ft) = 1.6 k/ft



Reactions = k
wl
5 . 10
2
125 . 13 * 6 . 1
2
= =


ft k
wl
M ÷ = = = 45 . 34
8
125 . 13 * 6 . 1
8
2 2
max

psi
bd
Mu
R
R bd
Mu 227
5 . 13 * 10
45 . 34 * 12000 12000
12000
2 2
2
= = = = =

From Table A.5a Ref. “Concrete Design”
ρ = 0.0039 > ρ
min
= 0.0033
A
s
= 0.0039x10x13.5 = 0.5262 in
2

From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design”

Use 3 bars No. 4 (A
s
= 0.60 in
2
)
Use 2 bars No. 4 on top of beam for anchorage

89
Shear Reinforcement:

| V
c
= = = 5 . 13 10 4000 2 75 . 0 2 75 . 0
'
x x x d b f x
w c
12.8 k
From similar triangles method, V
max
= 8.7 k
k 4 . 6
2
8 . 12
2
Vc
= =
|

Since V
max
>
2
Vc |
minimum amount of stirrups is needed

Recommended minimum beam width to accommodate different stirrup sizes:
Stirrup Size Minimum beam width
# 3 10”
# 4 12”
# 5 14”
Use No. 3 stirrups (A
v
= 0.22in
2
)

Minimum spacing is needed:

s
1
}
50
' 75 . 0
min{
b
AvFy
or
b c f
AvFy
=
s
1
} " 4 . 26
10 * 50
60000 * 22 . 0
" 83 . 27
10 * 4000 75 . 0
60000 * 22 . 0
min{ = = = or
s
1
=26.4in

According to ACI (section 11.5.5.1) the maximum allowable spacing when
2
Vc |
< V
max
< Vc | :
s
max
= min {s
1
, d/2, 24in}
s
max
= min {26.4”, 6.75”, 24”} = 6.75”

This ensures each 45° crack is intercepted by at least one stirrup

Use 6.5” spacing for ease of construction










90
8.1.5. Footing Design
Using the reaction forces from DSTL2 load case (Figure 53):
F
x
= 257.39 k
F
y
= 80.64 k
F
z
= 190.03 k



Assuming f’
c
= 4 ksi & Allowable soil bearing capacity, q
a
= 4.5 k/ft
2

Effective bearing capacity:
Assuming a maximum of 4’ of concrete,
q
e
= 4500 – (150 x 4) = 3900 k/ft
2


2
/ 9 . 3
330
ft k
k
A
req
= = 84.62 ft
2

Use a 8’ x 11’ rectangle, A = 88 ft
2

q
u
=
ft
k
8
330
= 3.78 k/ft
2

Design for punching shear:
Perimeter:
b
o
= 4(24 + 20) = 176 in

V
u1
= 3.78 k/ft
2
(88 – (44/12)
2
)
V
u1
= 281.82 k

Available shear strength:
V
c
= d b f
o c
' 4



Assuming d = 20”
V
c
=
|
.
|

\
|
1000
20
) 176 ( 4000 4 =890.5 k
ø = 0.75
ø V
c
= (0.75)(890.5) = 667.87 k


91
V
a2
= (3.78)(3.67)(8’) = 110.99 k = 111 k
V
c
= 2
|
.
|

\
|
1000
20
) 12 )( 8 ( 4000 = 242.86 k
ø V
c
= (0.75)(242.86) = 182 k


Reinforcing steel design (f
y
= 60 ksi):
Across critical sections of the footer:
M
u
= ft in
ft
ft ft k / 12
2
5 . 4
* 8 * / 78 . 3
2
2
|
|
.
|

\
|
= 3674 k-in
A
s
=
)) 1 20 ( 60 ( 9 . 0
3674
÷
÷in k
= 3.58 in
2


A
s,Min
= in inx x 20 96
60000
4000 3
= 6.07 in
2

But no less than,
A
s,Min
= in inx x 20 96
60000
200
= 6.4 in
2


Use A
s
= 6.4 in
2


Using #7 rebar (A
b
= 0.60 in
2
):

(11) #7 rebar @ 8.5 in spacing for the 11 ft length



For the 8 ft length:

M
u
= ft in
ft
ft ft k / 12
2
3
* 11 * / 78 . 3
2
2
|
|
.
|

\
|
= 2245 k-in

A
s
=
)) 1 20 ( 60 ( 9 . 0
2245
÷
÷in k
= 2.188 in
2


A
s,Min
= in inx x 20 132
60000
4000 3
= 8.35 in
2

But no less than,
A
s,Min
= in inx x 20 132
60000
200
= 8.8 in
2


Use A
s
= 8.8 in
2

92

Using #7 rebar (A
b
= 0.60 in
2
):
(15) #7 rebar @ 8.5 in spacing for the 8 ft length


Height of footer:
ACI recommends a minimum of 3” cover when concrete is in contact with the
ground,

Diameter of #7 rebar = 0.875 in

3” + 0.4375” = 3.4375 in
With d = 20 in

Use h = 24 in.

The above detailed design is for the soil to be able to support the footings in the vertical
direction; however, with such a large thrust force (269.73 k), additional design
considerations must be made in order to resist this force. Either the soil can support this,
or concrete can. The group decided to go with concrete supporting it and calculated this
by:

h = 2.11 ft
Thus, the height at which the force from the arch members comes into the footing shall
be 2.11 ft above the center of gravity of the footing. With this, can calculate the weight of
the footer needed:

Weight of the support = 190.03 k
190.03 = 0.150 lb/ft
3
* 12’ * 10’ * h
H = 10.56’
Use a height of 11’
Note: the dimensions of the footer (12’ x 10’) were modified in order to shorten the
above height.
The final footer shall be designed as:
10’ x 12’ x 11’
With 6’ of the footer being below grade.


93
8.1.6. Tension Cable Design
Assumptions:
P
u
= 26.719k
Steel A36 (F
u
= 58 ksi)

A
D
= 82 . 0
58 * 75 . 0 * 75 . 0
719 . 26
75 . 0
= =
u
u
F
P
|
in
2

A =
2
4
d
t

d= 02 . 1
82 . 0 * 4 4
= =
t t
A
in


8.2. Sample SAP2000 Data


Figure 66. Screen shot displaying joint coordinate table from SAP2000 report.


94

Figure 67. SAP2000 report table of material properties.




















95

Figure 68. SAP2000 report: joint displacements.
96

Figure 69. SAP2000 screen shot for max design force in HSS member.



















97

Figure 70. SAP2000 steel section check (critical member).

Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ vii Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii 1. Section I: Problem Statement.................................................................................. 1 1.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 1 1.2. Background ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. Crossroads Partnership .............................................................................. 2 1.2.2. Rivergreenway Trail .................................................................................. 2 1.3. Requirements, Specifications, and Given Parameters ...................................... 5 1.4. Design Variables............................................................................................... 5 1.4.1. Aesthetic Considerations (Bridge Type) ................................................... 5 1.4.2. Construction Materials .............................................................................. 6 1.4.3. Coliseum Expansion.................................................................................. 6 1.4.4. Connect to Ivy Tech .................................................................................. 6 1.4.5. Covered or Open ....................................................................................... 6 1.5. Limitations and Constraints .............................................................................. 6 1.5.1. Cost............................................................................................................ 6 1.5.2. Natural Conditions .................................................................................... 7 1.5.3. Construction Issues ................................................................................... 7 1.5.4. Additional Considerations ......................................................................... 7 1.6. SAP2000 ........................................................................................................... 7 2. Section II: Conceptual Design .............................................................................. 12 2.1. Location of Bridge .......................................................................................... 12 2.2. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge ..................................................................... 14 2.3. Concept II: Truss Bridge ................................................................................ 14 2.4. Concept III: Suspension Bridge ...................................................................... 15 2.5. Concept IV: Arch Bridge ................................................................................ 16 3. Section III: Summary of the Evaluation of Different Conceptual Designs .......... 16 3.1. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge ..................................................................... 16 3.1.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 16 3.1.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 16 3.2. Concept II: Truss Bridge ................................................................................ 16 3.2.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 16 3.2.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17 3.3. Concept III: Suspension Bridge ...................................................................... 17 3.3.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 17 3.3.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17 3.4. Concept IV: Arch Bridge ................................................................................ 17 3.4.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 17 3.4.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17 3.5. Decision Matrix .............................................................................................. 18 3.6. Selected Design .............................................................................................. 20 3.6.1. Background ............................................................................................. 20 3.6.2. Meeting with Greg Justice....................................................................... 21

i

3.6.3. Meeting with Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. .......................................... 22 4. Section IV: Detailed Design of the Selected Conceptual Design ......................... 24 4.1. Arch without Angled Members ...................................................................... 24 4.1.1. Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................. 24 4.1.2. Arch Bridge Design ................................................................................. 24 4.1.3. SAP2000 Analysis .................................................................................. 25 4.1.4. Hand Check of Calculations .................................................................... 25 4.1.5. Conclusion............................................................................................... 26 4.2. Arch with Angled Members ........................................................................... 27 4.2.1. Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................. 27 4.2.2. Loads ....................................................................................................... 35 4.2.3. Summary of Loads Applied to Structure................................................. 41 4.3. Structural Analysis ......................................................................................... 41 4.3.1. Deformed Shapes .................................................................................... 42 4.3.2. Joint Loading ........................................................................................... 47 4.3.3. Frame/Cable Loads ................................................................................. 52 4.3.4. Shell Stresses ........................................................................................... 55 4.3.5. Influence Lines ........................................................................................ 56 4.4. Structural Design ............................................................................................ 59 4.4.1. Design Load Combinations ..................................................................... 59 4.4.2. Design Members ..................................................................................... 64 4.4.3. Slab Design ............................................................................................. 66 4.4.4. Concrete Edge Beams ............................................................................. 67 4.4.5. Footing Design ........................................................................................ 68 4.4.6. Vibrations ................................................................................................ 69 4.4.7. Deflection ................................................................................................ 70 4.5. Final Design .................................................................................................... 71 4.5.1. SAP2000 Report...................................................................................... 71 4.5.2. Final Design Drawings ............................................................................ 71 4.6. Alternate Design Considerations .................................................................... 75 4.6.1. Enclosing the Walkway........................................................................... 75 4.6.2. Smart Bridge ........................................................................................... 75 4.6.3. Mastodon Tusks ...................................................................................... 76 4.6.4. Construction Materials ............................................................................ 77 5. Section V: Cost Analysis/Estimation .................................................................... 77 5.1. Construction Techniques ................................................................................ 77 5.2. Cost Estimation............................................................................................... 79 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 81 7. References ............................................................................................................. 82 8. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 83 8.1. Hand Calculations........................................................................................... 83 8.1.1. Angle Member Hand Calculations .......................................................... 83 8.1.2. Arch Hand Calculations .......................................................................... 84 8.1.3. Concrete Slab Design .............................................................................. 85 8.1.4. Edge beams to support the concrete deck ............................................... 87 8.1.5. Footing Design ........................................................................................ 90

ii

.........6.............................. Tension Cable Design ... 93 8....... 93 iii .......2.............................. Sample SAP2000 Data ............................................8......1..............................

................................ 19 Table 2.................... ........................................................... 60 Table 4.. ........ 41 Table 3.. Design load combinations used for the steel design of the bridge..... General cost breakdown for pedestrian bridge.....................List of Tables Table 1....................... Summary of loads applied to structure............. 80 iv .... 79 Table 5..... .................... Decision Matrix ...... Detailed cost breakdown for construction of pedestrian bridge.......... ...................................

..................... Deformed view for WIND. 47 Figure 26.................... 49 Figure 29......................... 54 Figure 39....dot.......................... 31 Figure 14......... Deformed view for WIND2 looking down length of bridge....... 57 v ... ..... 49 Figure 30... 53 Figure 36....... .state............ .. Frame axial force for DEAD load case at the base..... H5 Service Vehicle (www.... SAP2000 Model of Arch Bridge without angled members......... 57 Figure 43........... .. Deformed view for WIND3 looking down the walkway of the structure.......... .............. ...... 51 Figure 34. 14 Figure 7..... Rivergreenway Project Status Map as of 4/29/09.. ................. .... 54 Figure 38....us) ... 47 Figure 25.... ......... ...... ......... Overview of frame forces from DEAD load case............. ............................................ Proposed Location of Pedestrian Bridge (from previous TE application).................................. .. ........... .........................fl...... 25 Figure 11........ Conceptual design of cable-stayed bridge over Coliseum Boulevard.......................List of Figures Figure 1......................... .... ............. 37 Figure 17........ Joint reactions at the start of bridge span for WIND2 load case............ Influence line for the joint reaction at the start of the span............ ..... Computer generated design of Venderly Family Bridge................ Joint reactions at the end of the arch for WIND loading case...... Side view of the deformed shape from WIND3................................................................. 14 Figure 5............... ......... 16 Figure 10... ....... Joint reactions at end of span for WIND2 load case. ..................... .. 51 Figure 33......... 48 Figure 27.......... ... 3d view of the deformed bridge under dead and live loads... Deformed view for WIND looking down length of bridge.. 56 Figure 42... Joint reactions for DEAD load case (symmetric at each end)................ 34 Figure 16........... Maximum shell stress in concrete deck (scale is in kip)..................... 50 Figure 32................... 44 Figure 21.........standarddesign................ Design wind speeds (ASCE 7-02 Standard) (www.................. 50 Figure 31.. 57 Figure 44................................. Overview of frame forces from WIND3 load case........ Influence line for axial force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.......... Structural frame for pedestrian bridge......................... 55 Figure 40........ Design of truss bridge from CE 375 class project..... ....... ................ ....... ........ Deformed shape for both the H5 and H5-2 load cases....... Overview of frame forces from WIND2 load case.............. ....... Rivergreenway Trail Map.............................. ................. Overview of frame forces for LIVE load case................................ 52 Figure 35........... Influence line for the axial force in the cable member at the mid-span.................. ...com)......... 3 Figure 2......... ........... Arch members drawn in the user defined grid... 29 Figure 12...................... Joint reactions corresponding to LIVE load case (symmetric at each end)......... 12 Figure 4.... ........ Arch members at an angle of 23º from perpendicular.... ......... Joint reactions at the start of the span for WIND3 load case.. Example of pedestrian truss bridge utilizing weathering steel members........ ..................... Joint reactions at starting end for WIND loading case.................. Complete Model of Pedestrian Bridge (Extruded view)....... 43 Figure 19.. 30 Figure 13.......... ...... .... 46 Figure 23.. Computer rendering of pedestrian suspension bridge.............. 43 Figure 20.. .............. 45 Figure 22..... . Computer rendering of arch bridge over Coliseum....... Overview of frame forces from WIND load case. Bridge with deck drawn in (cables removed for clarity)...... XZ-plane view of deformed shape under dead and live loads....... 4 Figure 3............ .................. 39 Figure 18............ ...... 33 Figure 15........................... 14 Figure 6............................................ 53 Figure 37............................... Joint reactions at the end of the span for WIND3 load case......... 15 Figure 8. 46 Figure 24........................... 48 Figure 28................ 55 Figure 41.... Close up view of frame forces for LIVE load case................................. 15 Figure 9..

. Influence line for moment force for 2nd arch member in from start of span............ 64 Figure 52....... 97 vi ........ ... ..................... ....... ................. 96 Figure 70.... .......... 65 Figure 53................. Typical section of arch member.................. ................................................... Influence line for shear force for frame member at apex of the arch. 58 Figure 47............. 59 Figure 50........ Influence line for shear force for 2nd arch member in from start of span...................................... Front dimensional view of the pedestrian bridge.......... SAP2000 report table of material properties....... 94 Figure 68................. Typical cross sections for edge beam............... 74 Figure 62... .......................... 84 Figure 66...................................Figure 45........ 83 Figure 65.. ........ Free body diagram of typ............................................................. .......... Influence line for moment force for frame member at apex of the arch............... Typical rebar spacing.......... Rendering of cable connecting to edge beam............. ..... 67 Figure 56.... Top dimensional view of the bridge....................................... ..... ................ ........ Base reactions for DSTL2 load case....................... Arch members enclosed to form Mastodon Tusks......................................... .. 66 Figure 54................. 58 Figure 48. 68 Figure 57............. .. Influence line for axial force for frame member at apex of the arch............. 3-d rendering of the final design.... 93 Figure 67...... slab section... ..................... ....... ............................ . 73 Figure 60..................... 58 Figure 49.......................... Typical slab cross section...... Influence line for torsion force for 2nd arch member in from start of span........................................................ Screen shot displaying joint coordinate table from SAP2000 report....... .. SAP2000 report: joint displacements........................................ ........... 76 Figure 64........................................ 67 Figure 55........ ...................................................... 72 Figure 59........ 68 Figure 58....... .............. SAP2000 steel section check (critical member).................... .. SAP2000 screen shot for max design force in HSS member........... 58 Figure 46............ Edge beam design.................... Maximum axial force from DSTL2.............. ................................. 74 Figure 63.................. 59 Figure 51............................ Side dimensional view of the bridge......................... 73 Figure 61. Free body diagram of parbolic arch....... 95 Figure 69...........................

a civil engineering firm here in Fort Wayne. vii . this project would not have been possible. Without the extensive background in structural analysis software that was taught in each of his courses. taking time out of his busy schedule to meet with the group early on in our design process.E. the group would not have been able to complete such an innovative design such as is proposed in this paper. The information that the group received from him helped guide the group in designing a pedestrian bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard which had previously been applied for by the university. Dr.. First. Heidenreich is President/Founder of Engineering Resources. Another person whom the group would like to thank is Greg Justice. Heidenreich. Heidenreich. His company is responsible for the design of the two pedestrian bridges that are currently on the IPFW campus: the Willis Family Bridge and the Venderly Family Bridge. The group was able to reap vast amounts of knowledge about pedestrian bridge designs through the meeting with Mr. we would like to thank our faculty advisor. but also for preparing us to endeavor on such a project through the multiple structural courses in which he has previously instructed the group. S. Finally.E.Acknowledgments The group would like to thank a few people for without them. and it was through his initial sketch that led the group to their final design. for not only his help with the project. Senior Project Manager at the IPFW Physical Plant. P. Mohammad Alhassan. the group would like to thank Kurt J. Mr. or is planning on pursuing in the future. It was through a meeting with him that the group gathered information on various projects that the campus has.

Thus. the civil engineering senior design group has proposed to build a pedestrian bridge over Coliseum Boulevard which would allow for easy. safe travel over this busy roadway. the new structure should be designed so that it too can be transformed into a landmark for the IPFW campus as the other two bridges have become. but it also can be dangerous. Cohering to the innovative design concepts of both the Willis Family Bridge and the Venderly Family Bridge which already exist on the campus.000 vehicles a day.Abstract A major obstacle for pedestrians south of the IPFW campus is Coliseum Boulevard: a main arterial for the city of Fort Wayne which has an average daily traffic (ADT) of 50. viii . With this high of an ADT value. crossing by foot can not only be challenging.

Joseph River. 1 . Problem Statement The two higher education institutions of Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) and Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana-Northeast have joined together to form the Crossroads partnership. an excellent opportunity that helps students achieve their goal of receiving a college degree faster by allowing the student to enroll in courses at both institutions simultaneously. as well as to connect the River Greenway Trail to Shoaff Park to the northwest of the IPFW campus.1. a great design that connects 17 parks into a 20 mile linear park system along the three rivers that Fort Wayne is well known for: the St.1. the number of students participating has steadily grown to the point where now there are 650 students participating in this program. and Maumee Rivers. Section I: Problem Statement 1. This multilane highway is a major route in the city of Fort Wayne which poses great difficulties when trying to cross in a vehicle as well as on foot. Joseph. Mary’s. completely functional. Since the start of the Crossroads partnership. The best way to circumvent this problem is by constructing a pedestrian bridge to cross over Coliseum Boulevard which would allow for easy travel back and forth between IPFW and Ivy Tech. and within the proposed budget for the project. Coliseum Boulevard (State Route 930). St. With the campuses of IPFW and Ivy Tech lying on the banks of the St. is the River Greenway Trail. Both of these projects face a common foe. Also of interest to the city of Fort Wayne. as well as to these two campuses. This new bridge should be aesthetically pleasing. these campuses have both been integrated into the design of the River Greenway Trail system.

the partnership lets students earn their degree faster than they may have previously expected. In an attempt to circumvent the normal difficulties students face when transferring credits from one university to another. A big draw for this program is by allowing students earn a two-year degree at Ivy Tech.2.2. 1. the two higher learning institutions have worked together to insure that certain courses are completely transferable between the two schools. Allowing students to take classes at both institutions simultaneously. a collaborative effort between Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana-Northeast and IPFW. The trail is located along the three rivers that the city is well known for: the Saint Mary’s. 2 . the Rivergreenway also creates a natural overflow to assist in holding back the river waters and hence reduce flooding (a problem that has often plagued the city of Fort Wayne). Another way students can participate in the Crossroads Partnership is by taking classes at one institution and then the other. Crossroads Partnership The Crossroads Partnership. credits. Saint Joseph. the Rivergreenway Trail is a 20 mile long linear park system that connects 16 parks and other attractions throughout the cities of Fort Wayne and New Haven (Figure 1). and then transferring to IPFW to earn their four-year degree. or the student could even enroll in courses at both institutions at the same time. they have made it less likely for students to waste time.1. By doing this. it gives the user the pleasure of many outdoor recreational activities while offering both spectacular natural landscapes and other scenic overlooks along the three rivers. In addition to the recreational use of the trails. Rivergreenway Trail Located in Fort Wayne.1. and money as they pursue their degree. Background 1.2. Although the trail is situated in an urban environment. and Maumee Rivers. Indiana. is an exciting opportunity for students in northeast Indiana.2.

Figure 1. 3 . Rivergreenway Trail Map.

however. the city of Fort Wayne has planned for a crossing at Coliseum in the vicinity of the IPFW campus. Figure 2. Rivergreenway Project Status Map as of 4/29/09. the system is owned and maintained by the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Fort Wayne Public Works Department. In the future. the Rivergreenway Trail has yet to cross over Coliseum Boulevard. shown on the “Project Status Map” in Figure 2. would then allow for Shoaff Park to become a part of the linear park chain. 4 .Much of the Rivergreenway has been funded by the State of Indiana and the federal Land and Conservation Fund. As can be seen in Figure 1. The location of this crossing. This has left Shoaff Park to the north of the IPFW campus isolated from the trail system.

3.4.55’ from the top of the existing pavement f) Minimum live load of 85 psf g) Design wind speed of 90 mph for a 3 s wind gust h) Design according to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) requirements i) Width of bridge to be 10’ wide (controls the design vehicle to be used) 1. Design Variables In addition to meeting all requirements and specifications. Requirements. and Given Parameters The following is a list of the specifications for the bridge project: a) The bride must clear span Coliseum Boulevard due to minimal width of median in the roadway b) Need to cohere to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which sets a maximum slope of 5% for the walkway (including sidewalk on approach) c) Right of Way (R/W) is 80’ from each direction of the centerline of Coliseum d) Bridge shall be designed for a minimum life span of 50 years e) Clearance height of at least 17. Aesthetic Considerations (Bridge Type) In addition to being able to safely support any and all expected loads on the bridge. the structure should also have an innovative design to mesh with the other two pedestrian bridges on the IPFW campus. which include: 1. Specifications.4.1. The main types of bridges that will be considered for this project are: a) Truss b) Suspension c) Cable Stayed d) Arch 5 . there are also numerous design variables that must be considered for this project.1.

Limitations and Constraints 1.1. This would allow for ease of use for students as now they would be directly in the Ivy Tech building once they cross Coliseum Boulevard. The proposed design must be optimized in order to satisfy all requirements while minimizing the cost of the structure. Covered or Open Another design variable is if the design of the bridge will included a covered path.1. before construction commences.5. 6 . If the walkway remains uncovered. Cost With the tough economic times that this country is now facing. it should be determined if there are any plans for Coliseum Boulevard to be expanded in the future. These include: a) Steel b) Reinforced Concrete c) Soil (the most widely used material in civil engineering) 1.4.4.2.3. Connect to Ivy Tech With the main classroom building for Ivy Tech being close to the road.5. 1. or if it will remain uncovered. 1. 1. the design could include an additional or even incorporated structure that would connect the bridge with the building.4. cost has become an ever increasing factor when considering construction of any new structure. Construction Materials Materials used in the structural design of the bridge will be the most common materials used in the field of civil engineering. a system such as some sort of fencing will need to be put in place to provide safety to both the pedestrians using the bridge as well as vehicles passing underneath.4.5. Coliseum Expansion Even though the right of way of Coliseum Boulevard is taken into consideration.4.

there are aspects of construction that must be taken into account during the design stages. Natural Conditions There are many factors of the local environment that must be taken into account during the design of the bridge which include: a) Soil bearing pressure b) Natural contours for slope on each side of the bridge c) Weather conditions 1.1.4.6. Additional Considerations In additional to the information above. CSI tailors their programs to be tailored to specific classes of structures.5. 1. Inc.5. SAP2000 Founded in 1975 by now company President Ashraf Habibullah. Construction Issues Although this project does not include the detailed construction process.3. is intended for use on 7 . Will need to make sure that the members are less than 100’ long and 14’ tall (when loaded on trailer). SAP2000.5.2.000 vehicles a day on Coliseum (main arterial) – need to minimize the adverse effects of closing the road down for long periods of time b) Steel lengths – want to make sure that the design members are able to be shipped by tractor trailer to the jobsite. A few of these are: a) 50. Instead of producing software that can be used for a generalized range of structures. a) Driver’s ability to view the IPFW sign from the road b) Serviceability of the structure c) Addition of items to enhance the aesthetic properties of the bridge 1. the software used in the analysis of the pedestrian bridge. Computers & Structures. there are further details that must be considered in the design of the bridge. (CSI) is a worldwide leader in the development of software used in the design and analysis of civil engineering structures.

Throughout these courses. etc.structures such as bridges. Its true strength is in its various analysis options: linear. If creating a new model with a user defined 3-d grid. 8 . By taking a few extra minutes setting up the initial grid. the user can save a tremendous amount of time later on in the modeling of the structure. Other titles produced by CSI include: ETABS. The advanced features of SAP2000 allow for a structure to be analyzed even when a material no longer falls in the linear range where Hooke’s Law is valid (stress is no longer proportional to strain). and CE 475 Design of Steel Structures. a powerful program used to design and analyze concrete slabs and foundations. industrial structures. it can be seen that vast power that lies within this software package. dams. or they can choose a predefined template such as a beam. stadiums. 3-d frame. the software was used extensively in the entire Senior Design Project. and the SAFE System. The user can either define a new model and grid system themselves. In addition to these three courses. the software prompts the user with a screen asking for the user to define a new model. to the “Bird’s Nest” (Chinese National) Stadium from the Games of the XXIX Olympiad. it is advised to carefully define a grid that allows for the model to be correctly defined. to a complicated bridge in three dimensions. From the simplest design of a two dimensional frame. Any structural design which can be completed in SAP2000 may be broken into four steps: a) Modeling Upon creating a new file. 2-d or 3-d truss. static and dynamic analysis of two and three dimensional structures. the basic steps in designing a structure are taught while learning the interface of the SAP2000 software. software used mainly for building. SAP2000’s power comes in its amazing flexibility. nonlinear. and buildings. Students in the civil engineering program at IPFW are first introduced to SAP2000 in CE 375: Structural Analysis and then further explore the depths of the software in two more courses: CE 376: Design of Concrete Structures.

These steps include: meshing any objects together so that they act like one continuous member. loads that can be analyzed both separately as well as concurrently according to AASHTO LRFD specifications. With these loads in place. pre-analysis activities are completed to accurately model the structure. cables. and/or restraints to joints to precisely model the joint if it may be a pinned or fixed connection for example. In addition to frame members. SAP2000 allows for live. and tendons.After the grid is set. and applying any releases to the members in order to apply internal force releases at a given point. After the correctly dimensioned structure is on the grid. Prior to placing members in the model. dead (which includes the structures self weight). the user can then proceed to the analysis of the structure. it is now time for the user to start the actual design of the structure. earthquake. wind. the structure can then be drawn on the grid system. the materials the user wishes to use in the structure must be defined. a members shape or material can simply be changed by a dialog box which will then modify the mechanical properties of the member. Defining materials is easily done through the software which has built into the system a database that has numerous shapes and sizes of steel and aluminum members that are used by different agencies throughout the world. The materials that are defined for use in the shell or plane are also easily defined through the built in database. correctly setting any constraints. b) Analysis 9 . The last step in modeling the structure is to determine the loads that will be applied to it. Once the materials are defined. moving. Once all members and materials are defined (they can be revised at any time). etc. the user can also define shells and planes that may be used in a structure.

frames/cables. If the “Joint” display is chosen. the user is then able to view the mechanical behavior of the structure. For every different display options that can be selected. With the loading conditions already applied to the model. If the user is just performing a linear. If there is an error in how the model is designed. This display can be extremely convenient to visualize the effects of the applied loads on the structure. however. it may be obvious by erratic results of the deformed shape of the structure. Once the analysis finishes the default view of the structure is its deformed shape. It is on this screen that the program will inform the user whether the structure was successfully analyzed. and shells. or if there was an error. The other option for the display is to show the resultant forces for the joints. While SAP2000 is analyzing the structure. numerous iterations may be needed in order for an acceptable convergence value to be established. the user may wait much longer for the structural analysis to be completed. if a nonlinear or dynamic analysis is performed. static analysis. the program may only take a few seconds before the analysis output may be displayed. the user is given the option to view the results per the selected loading condition. the forces acting on that joint for the given loading condition is displayed on the screen. In some cases. and then they simply press the “Run Now” button. These results can then be used for the design 10 . all the user must do is determine which load cases they would like to run (any or all of them). and if the deformation agrees with the anticipated results of the loading. c) Display Following the completed analysis of the structure. a dialog box is displayed on the computer screen showing the status of the analysis. analysis of the structure becomes streamlined.If the user has taken the time to meticulously set up an accurate model of the structure.

Options for the shell force diagram include: the component types may it be resultant forces. shell stresses. the final display option is to view the forces acting on these shell elements. whether they be the various layers of concrete. the final step in SAP2000 is the actual design of the structure. and. d) Design If the mechanical behavior of the structure is deemed to be accurate. This can save the designer hours of their time. or bottom face as well as whether they are the maximum or minimum values. Instead. An additional option for the forces is to either show the actual values on the structure itself. If the designed structure has any shell objects. output type for visible. Much like the deformed shape display. This feature eliminates the need for the user to manually go back and forth choosing different sized members by a trial and error approach. the user is given various options to view different forces acting on the member which include: axial force. 11 . or any other type of support required. the user can allow the program to optimize the steel design members. this view allows the user to visually determine if the structure is acting accordingly to the design load cases acting on it. the forces in the components. and moment 33. or concrete design. torsion. An extremely useful feature of the software is that the user can define a list of member shapes and sizes that the program can chose between to safely support the forces per the given loading combinations. shear 3-3. or the reinforcement steel in the concrete.of the supporting structure. or to just display a filled diagram representing the corresponding force acting on the member. moment 2-2. whether it be a foundation. top. shear 2-2. For the frames/cables force option.

the resulting screen will show the corresponding size of the member as well as. After all members are analyzed. Design Section” to determine if the analyzed members are the same as the design sizes which will affect the dead load of the structure. If the members are found to differ. all the user needs to do is rerun the analysis as well as the design of the structure. 2. When the design is complete. whether or not the member passed the design standards. concrete frame. or aluminum frame). This location helps serve many of the functions required in the 12 . Location of Bridge Figure 3. Figure 3 shows the proposed location of the pedestrian bridge as determined by the IPFW Physical Plant in the TE Application completed in August of 2008. repeating these two steps until the analysis and design members converge. judging by the members color.1. and the software will go through and design the structure. Proposed Location of Pedestrian Bridge (from previous TE application). Section II: Conceptual Design 2. “Verify Analysis vs. it is highly advised to run the option.All the user has to do when they feel that they are ready to start the design of the structure is to select the correct design option (steel frame.

this point allows for a maximum use of the natural topography on the IPFW side of Coliseum (the north side) to help maintain the maximum 5% slope without having to build another structure (i. Using the natural topography for the slope requirements minimizes the need for massive amounts of soil brought into the site also. An option that can be pursued for pedestrians who do not want to walk the extra distance needed to meet ADA requirements is tha a stairway may be constructed next to the bridge which can give the pedestrians a direct exit from the bridge to the Ivy Tech campus. there is not enough space to allow for the sidewalk to drop directly from the bridge and to the classroom building with no curves in the sidewalk. The location does block some of the view of the IPFW as travelers move west on Coliseum Boulevard. 13 . the sidewalk will need to come off of the bridge and run parallel to Coliseum Boulevard until the at grade level is reached using the ADA requirements. By doing this.e. As long as there is a sidewalk designed to connect the bridge to a sidewalk leading towards the Rivergreenway Trail. elevator) that would be used to lower the sidewalk from the bridge deck to ground level. In addition to using the natural slope to help in the slope of the sidewalk leading to the bridge. Instead. the location is in an open area where there are currently no structures that would need to be razed in order to construct the new bridge. however at this location the view should not be hindered too much. This location also allows for pedestrians to access the pedestrian bridge from the Rivergreenway Trail that is just to the west of Ivy Tech. Also. the Rivergreenway Trail would finally be able to connect to the parks and trails to the north of Coliseum Boulevard. the location shown in Figure 3 also minimizes the impact on vehicular traveler’s view of the brick IPFW sign off of the roadway. For the Ivy Tech side of the bridge (south side of Coliseum). First.bridge design.

3. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge Figure 4. Concept II: Truss Bridge Figure 6. Conceptual design of cable-stayed bridge over Coliseum Boulevard. 2. Computer generated design of Venderly Family Bridge. 14 .2. Figure 5. Design of truss bridge from CE 375 class project.2.

Concept III: Suspension Bridge Figure 8. 15 . 2.4. Example of pedestrian truss bridge utilizing weathering steel members.Figure 7. Computer rendering of pedestrian suspension bridge.

1.1.5. Concept IV: Arch Bridge Figure 9.2. Advantages a) Low cost b) Ease of construction c) Minimizes the amount of material needed for structure 16 .1.2. Joseph River) 3.1. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge 3. Concept II: Truss Bridge 3.2. Disadvantages a) Need adequate spacing on either side of columns to reduce eccentric loading b) Covering takes away from the appeal of the design c) More cost effective for long spans/not for this short of a span d) Difficult to construct e) Already one on the IPFW campus (crossing the St.1. Advantages a) Aesthetically pleasing b) Ability for long clear spans c) Modern style of bridge construction 3. Computer rendering of arch bridge over Coliseum. 3. Section III: Summary of the Evaluation of Different Conceptual Designs 3.2.

1. Concept III: Suspension Bridge 3. Concept IV: Arch Bridge 3. Disadvantages a) Needs to have adequate distance for anchorage points on either side of main supporting columns (space is limited on Ivy Tech side of the bridge) b) Difficult and unattractive to cover if “normal” suspension bridge c) Expensive to construct d) Would need to close Coliseum Boulevard for an extended period of time 3.1.2.3.2.d) Able to be covered while maintaining original appearance 3.2.4.4. Advantages a) Aesthetically pleasing b) Design has yet to be done on the IPFW campus c) Can easily be covered d) Construction can be formed to minimize the impact to traffic on Coliseum Boulevard – many of the pieces can be prefabricated e) Due to span.4.3. Disadvantages a) Large horizontal forces applied to the foundations from the arch b) Uses large amounts of steel 17 . Advantages a) Aesthetically pleasing b) Comparable design to other bridges on campus (Willis Family Bridge) c) Ability for long spans 3. all forces in the arch axial 3. Disadvantages a) NOT aesthetically pleasing b) Would not be compatible with the innovative design of the other two bridges already on the IPFW campus 3.2.3. cost effective given the bridges requirements f) If designed as a parabolic arch.

taken from the Handbook of Structural Engineering. 2 = fair. and 5 = extremely high) as well as a quality rating on a scale 1 to 5 (1 = poor. The matrix was designed with a set of standard guidelines used in bridge design. 4 = very good.5. 3 = good. 2 = standard. 18 . the group used a decision matrix as shown in Table 1.3. 3 = high. 4 = very high. The weighted average is then taken by multiplying the priority value by the quality rating with these values summed to find the total rating of the proposed design. and 5 = excellent). Decision Matrix To help assist the group in what bridge design they would go with for the crossing of Coliseum Boulevard. Each item is given a priority 1 to 5 (1 = low.

19 . Based upon the results of the decision matrix. Decision Matrix Bridge Type CableStayed Truss Suspension Arch Structural Priority 1 1 1 1 Quality 5 5 5 5 Constructability Priority 3 3 3 3 Quality 2 4 3 4 Maintenance and Inspection Priority 2 2 2 2 Quality 2 4 2 4 Construction Schedule Impact Priority 4 4 4 4 Quality 5 2 4 5 Aesthetics Priority 5 5 5 5 Quality 5 1 5 4 Cost Priority 5 5 5 5 Quality 2 5 3 4 Total Rating 70 63 74 85 As is shown in the decision matrix in Table 1. the top rated bridge design is the Arch. the author stated that costs between an arch bridge and a truss bridge a comparable. This design had a total weighted rating of 85. compared to the next closest. It is here that a note should be made about what the group found out about cost comparisons of different bridge designs in the Bridge Engineering Handbook.Table 1. the best choice is usually an arch bridge due to its aesthetic superiority. the group determined to proceed with the arch as the base design of the pedestrian bridge. In this text. and that if all other factors remain equal. which rated 74. the suspension bridge.

A general rule of thumb is that when designing a steel bridge. Although it may require less material to construct than the other types of arches. A modification to the two-hinged arch is the tied-arch. is commonly used when the arch is to be constructed of reinforced concrete. various types of arches may be chosen to support a given loading condition. Being statically indeterminate leaves the arch prone to additional stresses if there is any settlement of the foundation. the fixed arch does pose some potential problems since due to its geometry it is statically indeterminate to the third degree. Usually constructed of wood or timber. Selected Design 3. “the arch system is expedient to use for spans longer than 160 ft” (Chen and Duan).3. Thus. Background An arch is an excellent choice in supporting long span structures due to their ability to reduce bending moments in the structure while carrying the load mainly in compression. the structural members must be sized accordingly using shapes that utilize large moments of inertia as is seen with hollow structural sections (HSS). The next type of commonly used arch is the two-hinged arch. member sizes may be reduced since the chief load that they are supporting is the compression forces applied to it while the other forces are minor. With compression forces being the main load that the arch is supported. The first. if using a fixed arch the designer must make certain that solid foundation abutments are used to minimize the likelihood of the foundation settling. By limiting the bending stresses induced on the arch structure. By 20 . a fixed arch.6. Depending on its given application. the two-hinged arch is less sensitive to settling since the structure is only indeterminate to the first degree. care must be taken in the structural design of the members to ensure that it will not buckle under the potentially large compression forces enacting on the structure.1.6. In order to reduce the chance of a catastrophic failure associated with buckling.

The group was surprised by the amount of projects that were currently in some phase of the construction process. however. Thus the analysis and design of this pedestrian bridge will utilize the three-hinged arch concept (Hibbeler). the arch can behave like a rigid unit since the tie carries the load in the horizontal direction. the structure is not affected by either settlement or temperature change leading to the three-hinged arch being an excellent option when designing an arched structure. the structure can be disassembled which allows the arch to be statically determinate due to the fact that there are now six equations with six unknowns. Being designed to cross over Coliseum Boulevard. due to lack of funding. the group made a decision to pursue the more challenging avenue of designing a pedestrian bridge. the bridge had just recently been sent to the university for approval. the three-hinged arch is basically a two-hinged arch with another hinge placed at the apex of the arch. Since there are three hinges. With many options in front of the group. it was now time to determine which route to take: should the group design an entire building. This uncertainty led the group to schedule a meeting with Greg Justice. Mr. the second support can then be a roller which allows the structure to become statically determinate. the bridge construction was postponed for now. With the arch being statically determinate. Similar to the two-hinged arch. Justice spoke with the team members about a pedestrian bridge that was in the proposal stage. Justice was kind enough to forward us the completed Transportation Enhancement 21 . but were unsure of what type of structure to design.connecting the supports with a cable. the group knew that they wanted to perform the structural design of a project that would benefit the IPFW campus. Not necessarily wanting to perform the design of a building. 3.6. or a pedestrian bridge? It was at this meeting that Mr. Meeting with Greg Justice Early on in the senior design process. If the tie is used. a Senior Project Manager at the IPFW Physical Plant.2.

Mr. all drawings and information were of the very preliminary thought concept stage and that the ideas that he and Mr. the Willis Family Bridge relies upon the two cables that are suspended from the triangular-shaped supports to carry the bridge deck. This bridge is a cable-stayed bridge 22 . Heidenreich.E. Heidenreich about the background information the group had collected.E. The conversation then briefly turned to the other bridge on the campus that Mr. Heidenreich.E. Inc. the entire group met at the offices of Engineering Resources... Heidenreich made it clear to the group that in this proposal. 2009 at 3:00 p.. the Willis Family Bridge. In addition to providing us access to this information.(TE) Application for the bridge that was submitted to Purdue University. the Venderly Family Bridge that crosses over the Saint Joseph River. P. The group brought Mr. Heidenreich designed. Heidenreich up to date about our meeting with Greg Justice at the IPFW Physical Plant. After the group informed Mr. Justice also suggested we contact Kurt J. to talk about the proposed bridge design with company President Kurt J. P. and how he had given us the bid proposal that had already been turned down. 3. both of which were designed by Mr. to the heart of the IPFW campus. Representing the suspension bridge design.3. whom not only collaborated with Mr. On February 23. was designed to allow students to travel from the student housing complex on the Waterford Campus. Heidenreich. The first bridge he did on the campus. the conversation shifted to the other two pedestrian bridges that are on the IPFW campus. Mr. As any passerby is aware. P. Justice presented in the proposal were entirely “rough ideas”. S. Meeting with Kurt J. over Crescent Avenue. this bridge has a unique design that is a keystone of the IPFW campus.E. Heidenreich.. S.E. Justice on the application.6.E. but who is also the engineer that designed the other two pedestrian bridges on the IPFW campus.m. S.

neither a suspension nor cable-stayed bridge were good choices since the Ivy Tech side of Coliseum offers little space for an area to anchor cables to. As the meeting came to a close. Mr. Heidenreich gave us a peak into the mind of what a structural engineer must consider before the design process commences. He let us know that the main reason that at the required span (160’). other details such as construction techniques. and design the proposed bridge in accordance with it. Justice and he were leaning towards the arch bridge design in comparison with the other choices. It was during this that Mr. impact on the environment. Discussion of the previously designed bridges on campus turned to the newly proposed bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard which is the main purpose of the meeting. and height requirements were discussed with the group. the group became heavily swayed in the choice of an arched pedestrian bridge as the selected conceptual design. Also. With aesthetic considerations always playing a pivotal role in any idea. These cables are what support the bridge structure. the group inquired of Mr.consisting of the two main towers that have cables anchored into them. various loading conditions. Heidenreich of why Mr. With this valuable insight. He recommended for the future engineers in front of him to take a look at this book. Heidenreich also brought out his copy of the AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications: 2008 Interim Revisions which is a massive volume of design specifications used for pedestrian bridge projects in the United States. 23 . the arch would be the most cost effective option in comparison with the others while a truss bridge was not an option per the request of the University.

1. Arch Bridge Design Shown in Figure 10 is the model of the arch bridge in SAP2000. Arch without Angled Members In order to begin the detailed design of the arch bridge. and then continue to the final design.4.1. all of these settings will be in place to allow for an easy transition to the final design using the same template.2.2 Arch with Angled Members. Modeling of Bridge The complete steps in modeling the arched bridge design are outlined in 4. 24 . 4. the group must first design the bridge using a normal arch designed without any modifications. This design is only used to serve as a check of if the SAP2000 model has any issues or irregularities associated with it.1.1. This drawing displays the complete structural outline of the arch bridge that is used as a verification of the model used prior to proceeding to the final design of the pedestrian bridge. Section IV: Detailed Design of the Selected Conceptual Design 4. Although this is not the final design. Designing the arch in the xz plane allows the group to easily perform hand calculations to verify that the structure is accurately modeled in SAP2000. 4.

1. Using the tributary of a single concrete deck 25 . the bridge members are all defined as those described in section 4. Hand Check of Calculations 4. SAP2000 Analysis In order to verify the final model. SAP2000 Model of Arch Bridge without angled members 4.4. the bridge was modeled as an in plane arch as shown in Figure 10. For this design. Detailed in the appendix in 8.1.1.1. Supporting Cables (Angle Members) The first step in making sure that the bridge is modeled correctly is by verifying that the load on the deck is transferred correctly to the arch members. the group performed hand calculations verifying both the live and dead loads supported by the angle members.2 Arch with Angled Members.1. the group set the live and dead load cases to be analyzed in SAP2000.Figure 10. All analysis and design information for the arch bridge without angled members can be found.1. upon request.4.3.125’. 4. in the SAP2000 report. This is accomplished by verifying the loads supported by the angles that support the deck.2. After all of the members were drawn in accordance with section 4. The area is modeled as a 9” thick concrete deck with equal spans of 13.

the group found that the difference in the analysis by SAP2000 from what hand calculations showed are a difference of +5.piece (10’ x 13.2 where the loading condition used is that of the dead load of the 9” concrete slab. With all of the values within an acceptable range compared to any hand calculations (largest difference of 8.9%). These values were off approximately -8. Conclusion Based upon the comparison of values from those obtained through the analysis in SAP2000 to those derived from the hand calculations. Instead of being a completely smooth parabola from the initial point to its end.1.2. After performing the hand calculations. the arch is broken down into 16 equally sized portions. hand calculations were easily carried out with their being six unknown forces and six equations to solve for these forces. the group compared these values to those obtained through the SAP2000 analysis.2. 4.1.9% for the loads in the y-direction. The steps used in calculating the forces are shown in 8. the group has determined that this model is an accurate representation of the proposed pedestrian bridge (without the angled arch members). 4.6% for the live load. the proposed model supported loads as the group determined it should.4. The group has determined that the differences calculated for the arch itself are larger than that of the angled members due to the shape of the arch. Arch Since the group determined to go with the three-hinged arch.3% for all of the loads in the x-direction while the values were off +8. Although the arch is drawn as a parabolic arch.1. the shape is not completely parabolic for reasons further discussed in section 4. and -2.5. Because of this. although the arch is 26 .125’).5% for the dead load.

1. With this being the case. This height was chosen because it falls within the normal rise-to-span ratios of 1:4.2. the grid was set up as follows: 211 X-units at 1’ spacing (210’). the group chose HSS members for the main arch supports for their known performance in supporting 27 . Modeling of Bridge The process of modeling the bridge that must span over Coliseum Boulevard is completed in accordance to the four steps detailed in 1. By previously calculating the required span. Upon creating a new model. 4. Hence. the group began to define the materials and members used in the model. This allows for the design to go smoothly since all member shapes and sizes are defined prior to drawing any of the structure’s members.55’ from top of pavement to bottom of lowest bridge member). 4.1. Arch Members By using an arched structure.2. there are some slight differences along the shape of the arch which allows for shear and moment forces to be introduced into the arch. Frame Members Since the group is familiar with the SAP2000 program.2. the group knew in advance that the main forces carried in the structure would be compression forces. the group chose to design the bridge by utilizing a user defined grid system. It is the effects of these forces that cause the variance in the SAP2000 analysis versus the hand calculations. and have a maximum height of 44’. 4. 2 Y-units at 10’ spacing (10’ width).close to being parabolic.1. the group determined that the bridge would span 210’.1.1.5 to 1:6 that are commonly used for the design of arch bridges (Chen and Duan).1.6. Arch with Angled Members 4.2. and 45 Z-units at 1’ spacing (44’). and height for the bridge in order to meet the height requirements specified (17. length. immediately after the grid is defined.1.

1. Selecting the 3rd point coordinate as (0. the next step was to define an auto select list named “HSS”. In the box for curve type. Once the sizes were brought into the model. the arch members can be drawn in the model through the application of two point-and-clicks with the mouse. Defining an auto select list allows the user to draw the members in the grid with the initial size being the median size of all of the selected members. the “Parabolic Arch – 3rd Point Coordinates” is selected in order to draw a parabolic arch (the reasoning behind this is detailed in Section 3. the user is prompted for what type of member is to be drawn: straight frame. during the design process.6. and a few user inputs. “HSS”.large compressive forces. and whether the member experiences any moment releases. the software will optimize the member size eliminating the need for a “trial and error” approach in designing the structure. cable. another dialog box appears prompting the user for some information in determining the shape of the curved frame member. and “Continuous” are selected in this menu. Opening the accompanying database included in SAP2000. In addition to the member type. or “Pinned”.44) allows for the arch to be designed in 28 .0.0). if there is to be pinned connections at transition points.0). or tendon. selecting either “Continuous” if it is to be modeled as one solid member. The advantage of defining an auto select list comes when the design process in SAP2000 takes place: now. The next step was to actually draw in the member.105. Going to the draw frame member option. Easily accomplished in SAP2000. in this case the “HSS” auto-shape. the group was able to import various HSS sizes (diameter and thickness) into the model. the user determines the section type. and then dragging the mouse to (210. the “Curved Frame”. curved frame.0.). Clicking on the initial reference point (0. For the arch members.

the group decided to use 16 similar sized members to form the main arches. and deciding to use each of these connections as the joints where the cables would transfer the bridge deck loads to the arch. Figure 11. all the group had to do to draw in the other member was to replicate the entire shape. The 29 .accordance with the calculations previously determined to yield the correct distance and height requirements for the location of the bridge. Instead of keeping as a single object. the next step was to determine how the software would mesh the members together. Not only does this allow for accurate analysis in SAP2000. With this first arch member in place. With the points of the arch determined. the group defined an internal pin connection at the apex of the arch so that the structure could be analyzed as a three-hinged arch. For the design of the parabolic arch. it also allows for ease in construction due to ability to manufacture similar members. Figure 11 shows the arch members drawn in SAP2000 on the XZ gridlines. In addition. Arch members drawn in the user defined grid. the arch members are modeled as multiple equal length objects. and not having to construct numerous unique pieces. Previously doing trial designs for the bridge. the group knew that keeping the arch as a single object leads to inaccurate analysis results in SAP2000.

second arch was replicated linearly at a distance of 42. Figures 12 and 13 show what the arch members look like when they have been angled into the center which gives the entire structure a more aesthetically appealing look. Figure 12. however. If the arch was to remain in the XZ plane (as the model used in the verification process was) the group would be able to move on to the next step. the final design is to be composed of arched members that angle into the center of the walkway to give a more aesthetically pleasing look. Arch members at an angle of 23º from perpendicular.36 ft in the Y-direction. Angling the members is similar to replicating the arch along the Y-axis only this time the group replicated the arch 23º into the center along the line that makes up the base of the structure. 30 .

Cables In the model. Structural frame for pedestrian bridge. all the group had to do was assign a frame compression limit of zero to all of the angled members. Knowing that cables can only support tensile stresses. these limits do not need to be set since the only forces that are applied to the structure will be gravitational forces.1. 4.1. for all of the dynamic loading cases (all three wind load cases as well as the 31 .2.Figure 13. however. The only catch is that to analyze these members without the ability to carry compression forces is that the software must execute a nonlinear analysis for the compression limit to be taken into effect. The group determined to follow this tip after numerous failed attempts at accurately modeling the cables in SAP2000. Substituting a straight line object like an angle for a cable was a tip that the group found in the CSI Analysis Reference Manual. what will be the cable members in the final design are modeled as L shaped angle pieces in SAP2000. For the DEAD and LIVE load cases.2.

all of the deck sections are the same with dimensions of 10’ wide and 13. During the structural analysis. the group spent a great deal of time in defining a grid system that makes for drawing the model quickly. the other material used in the design of the bridge is concrete. the self weight of the bridge is what contributes to the applied dead load on the structure. the members are defined to be HSS since they will be carrying both compression and tensile forces depending on the loading conditions. Just as was explained for the beams and the arch members.2. the lateral supports in between the arch members were drawn in. but instead of using angles for these members. Drawing the angled members in was made amazingly easier since prior to drawing in any members. Much like the arch members.1. so before drawing the concrete deck in the group had to determine an approximate thickness for the bridge deck. this allows for ease of construction both at the plant as well as in the field. 4. Areas As stated in section 1. Figure 14 shows the bridge with the cables removed to allow for the deck to be easily seen. The calculations used to determine this thickness are detailed further in section 4.2. By using the tables found in Design of Concrete Structures the group was able to determine an approximate thickness of 6”.125’ long. All of the deck sections were drawn in with the “Quick Area” tool in SAP2000. the frame objects used are selected from an auto select list. all the group has to do is draw the angles from the arch down to where the bridge deck will be. 32 . only this time they are defined as “ANGLE”.4.2.moving vehicle load cases) the compression limits must be set to force the cables to carry only tensile forces.5 Slab Design. Also during this step. Since the grid is in place. Drawing the areas in the XY plane.

As will be shown in section 4. Once all of the area sections have been drawn in the model. the group had to determine potential covers for top and bottom layers of reinforcing steel. For this.5 Slab Design. as well as defining the reinforcing steel thickness and cover distances. After defining what the slab would be constructed of. the group lowered the factor for Membrane Modifiers f11 and f12 to zero 33 . the group defined the slab to be 6” thick. constructed with f’c of 4000 psi. along with the material used for the steel. the group defined the slab as a layered shell element which takes into account the composite nature of the concrete slab. the next step was to adjust the stiffness modification factors of the deck. Bridge with deck drawn in (cables removed for clarity).Figure 14. the concrete slab is 6” thick with a compressive strength of 4 ksi. In this menu. In defining the slab as a layered shell. For a more accurate analysis of the slab. The concrete slab can be accurately defined in the “Areas Section: Shell Section Data”. the next step is to define them.

(from one where the others remained). The finalized model with the concrete deck is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Complete Model of Pedestrian Bridge (Extruded view).

Now that all of the members are drawn in the model, the next step is to define how the objects are meshed with each other. By selecting all of the members (frame and area) at once, the meshing function is completed efficiently. The first area that is meshed is all of the frame objects which are meshed with joints as well as at intersections with other frames and area objects. The same is done for the area objects; areas are meshed with intersection with other frame objects and with point objects on the area’s edges. 4.2.1.3. Restraints and Releases As shown in Figure 15, the complete bride structure has all exterior

restraints positioned at the joint locations where the bridge will come in contact with exterior supports. The restraints at all four points of the arch are modeled as pinned-connections, effectively eliminating any moment forces in the connection as well as maintaining the desired three-hinged arch for analysis purposes. Exterior supports for the 34

concrete slab consist of a pinned-connection at one end with the other end being modeled as a roller-connection which allows for temperature expansion and contraction in the concrete deck. In addition to the restraints used for modeling the exterior supports, various conditions and restraints are used for modeling of the frame members of the structure. The first condition that needed to be altered was the internal moment release at the apex of the arches. Approaching both sides of the apex, the ends of the final members are released from any moment forces. This release then allows for the software to analyze the joint as a pinned-connection. Another restraint used for all of the cable (angle) members, the horizontal supporting HSS members, as well as for the beams is they are all released from any moment forces developing in the members. By releasing these members from both the major and minor moments at each of their ends changes these members to be analyzed as pin-pin connections at all joint locations. The final modification used in the model was the release from any compression forces from forming in the cable members, as discussed earlier in section 4.2.1.1.2 Cables. Performing the action of both releasing the cable members from developing any compression forces in them (by setting the compression limit to “0”), and performing a nonlinear analysis on the bridge under certain loading conditions results in the angle members being analyzed as if they were drawn in the model as actual cables. 4.2.2. Loads 4.2.2.1. Dead Load Dead loads are those loads that are permanently applied to the

structure. For the pedestrian bridge that is being designed, there are three sources for the dead load: the weight of the concrete deck, the weight of any railing/supports on the side of the walkway, and the self weight of the structure. The group decided to use normal weight 35

concrete for the decking which has an average weight of 150 pcf. Since the deck will be made from pre-cast concrete, once the bridge is built on the site some kind of overlay will need to be added in order to allow for the bridge to have a smooth, continuous surface. For this, the contractor may decide to coat the top of the concrete with an overlay, so an additional load of 10 psf has been added to take this overlay into account. In addition to the load from the deck, there was also a 90 plf load applied on either side of the walkway that takes into account any railing/fencing that will be built on the bridge. The railing/fencing load was transferred to the structure by a user defined load of 90 plf on the edge beams that support the concrete deck. Since the edge beams were designed through hand calculations performed by the group, a load was also applied by the group to the edge of the deck for the self weight of this beam. With the edge beam being later calculated to be a 10” x 16” rectangular beam, the group had to add 300 plf to either side of the deck to account for this weight. Finally, the self weight of the structure itself, including all HSS, Angles, and Beams, is calculated in SAP2000. 4.2.2.2. Live Load The live loads applied to the bridge are variable loads applied to

the bridge that are in addition to the dead loads on the structure. There are three live loads applied to the bridge: that of pedestrians, wind loading (Section 4.2.2.4), and a moving service vehicle load (Section 4.2.2.3). As described in the Reference 8 revised LRFD code, the specified live load for a pedestrian bridge can be taken as 90 psf. Previously, the LRFD design specified that use of a 85 psf; however, with the changing factors that the LRFD has used over the years, it has been found that a 90 psf live load multiplied by the factor of 1.75 (the current factor for a live load on a pedestrian bridge) is sufficient for pedestrian bridges. By using this load, the LRFD revised code states that, “Consideration of dynamic load allowance is not required with this loading [90 psf live load]” (LRFD Guides Specifications for 36

as shown in Figure 16. H5 Service Vehicle (www. the group first had to define lanes on the bridge deck that the vehicle would travel on. A designated service vehicle is needed in the design of the bridge in case there is an emergency vehicle needs to cross over the structure.dot.state. removal of snow on the concrete deck). the code recommends using an H5 design service vehicle. Service Vehicle Load In addition to the uniform live and dead loads applied to the bridge. The group decided to define two lanes on the bridge each of which were 37 . Further. the bridge must also be designed to carry the loading of a moving service vehicle.fl. For the design of the pedestrian bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard.2.3. 4. or if a maintenance vehicle needs to access the walkway (i.us) In order to apply the service vehicle load. the AASHTO code states that the service vehicle load is not applied in combination to the pedestrian live load.Pedestrian Bridges). the group has decided to use a live load of 85 psf with a check on the dynamic response of the structure being performed later.e.2. with the walkway on the bridge being only 10 ft wide. Figure 16. As detailed in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

centered at 2. 38 . the wind loading is applied perpendicular to the structure. The wind speeds shown are for a 3-second gust. Defining the vehicle as shown in Figure 16 allows for the loads to be correctly applied to the bridge deck. and not in the direction of the force of gravity. the group first had to find out what the maximum wind speed that the bridge should be designed for. After defining the lanes on the bridge. and hence transferred correctly to the structure. shows the eastern 2/3 of the United States and the design values for wind speeds in these locations. the next step was to model the design vehicle in SAP2000.2. and are based on the ASCE 7-02 standard.4. These lanes are the paths on which the design vehicle will travel. Wind Loading For any structure. the force applied to it by the wind is a major concern in the design of the structure.5 ft from the exterior edge of the deck. Unlike the loads previously discussed. 4. Figure 17 below. The group created a new service vehicle in the software since the H-5 vehicle was not a standard vehicle in the software. To determine the force from the wind.2.

WIND2. the group had to modify the wind load through the “Modify Lateral Load” tab. In this menu. the group determined that the design wind speed for the structure would be 90 mph.com). In this dialog box. The first step was to determine what surfaces of the structure would be 39 . the group defined three different wind load conditions: WIND. Applying the wind load to the bridge was easily performed in SAP2000 through the user defined loading patterns. While entering the three conditions. the group defined each in SAP2000 as wind loads. and based the conditions on the ASCE 7-05 standards. Based on the map in Figure 17. and WIND3.standarddesign.Figure 17. After entering the three load patterns. the group could model the bridge based on characteristics of the structure. Design wind speeds (ASCE 7-02 Standard) (www.

respectively. and in this the group entered the frame and area objects of the bridge would be exposed while the structure itself would be open. in order for the compression limit of 0 to be taken into effect. the design wind speed is 90 mph based on the wind speed map. WIND2. This accurately analyzes the bridge as it is to be designed over Coliseum Boulevard. the group could model the bridge cables accurately using angle members in place of actual cables. As described above. 40 .exposed. As described in section 4. The next step in this box was to define the direction at which the wind is hitting the structure. the wind loading has to be calculated using a nonlinear analysis. since the bridge would be located in an urban environment (Hibbeler). The final step to complete in this box is to determine the wind coefficients for the structure. By doing this.2.2 Cables. with the angles for WIND. and 45 º. and then defining each of the wind load patterns to be performed at a nonlinear analysis.1. and WIND3 being: 0º.1. This step was also simple to perform in SAP2000 with the group simply having to go in the “Define Load Case” box. The exposure type of the bridge was defined to be “B”. This is what the difference between the three wind patterns is. 90 º.

Structural Analysis Once the bridge’s geometry and the loads that it will incur are modeled in SAP2000.85 0. Table 2. and various combinations of them.85 0.2. that the final design of the structure was determined. 3 second gust B 1. Loading Pattern Weight Self Weight of Structure Dead Load Concrete = 150 pcf Overlay/Surface = 10 psf Railing/Fencing = 90 plf Live Load 85 psf (pedestrian/snow) Moving Load H5 Service Vehicle = 10.0 1. the user has the option of analyzing all. the next step is to perform the structural analysis on the bridge. Summary of Loads Applied to Structure Table 2 shows a detailed summary of the loads applied to the structure.3.4.0 0. of the 41 .000 lb Wind Loading Conditions Auto Lateral Load Pattern ASCE 7-05 Wind Speed Exposure Importance Factor Topographical Factor. or only one.3. Kzt Gust Factor Directionality Factor.2 4. Summary of loads applied to structure. It is through these loads. When moving to this step. Kd Solid/Gross Area Ratio 90 mph.

loading cases. An example of a deformed shape where the user realizes something is wrong happened to the group while first trying to accurately model the parabolic arch in SAP2000. Following is a summary of the information the group received after SAP2000 analyzed the modeled loading conditions from section 4. 4. In this window. one of the easiest ways to verify if the structure is modeled correctly is to compare the deformed shape given in SAP2000 with what the user anticipates the deformed shape to be.3. the group saw what looked like one of the arches caving into the other arch. This was a sure sign that the structure was modeled incorrectly which made the group go back to fixing the modeling of the bridge. After setting up the model.1. If the deformed shape of the structure is abnormal. Additionally. The subsequent subsections display various deformations according to the different load cases that the bridge endures. then the user knows that something is modeled incorrectly. the concrete deck and other members of the structure remained in place without experiencing any deformations. The group ran all of the loading cases at one time which takes the software under 10 s to do (depends on the computer the user is working on). if the deform shaped looks accurate the chances are high that the structure was modeled correctly.1.3. The group determined there was an error after performing the structural analysis through SAP2000 and then viewing the deformed shape of the bridge.3.2. however. the group felt that everything was entered correctly. Dead and Live Loads The deformed shapes for both the dead and live load cases are similar with the only difference being the magnitude of the deflection in each case. 4.1. Figure 18 shows an XZ-plane view of the bridges deformation after being analyzed with the dead and live 42 . Deformed Shapes As stated earlier in the software review of SAP2000.

loads. It should be noted that all of the deformed shapes shown are not actual deformations. 43 . 3d view of the deformed bridge under dead and live loads. XZ-plane view of deformed shape under dead and live loads. Figure 18. Note the two lines running down the length of the bridge which are the user designed lanes for the service vehicles to traverse. Figure 19. but are instead magnified to give the engineer an exaggerated view of how the bridge is expected to deform.

By applying the load pattern this way. it helps model the bridge as if a moving vehicle load is on the bridge during high wind conditions. Service Vehicle Load There were two differences between the H5 and H5-2 load cases: first. the initial stiffness of the bridge prior to the service vehicle moving across the bridge was taken to be the stiffness of the bridge at the end of the load case WIND. the bridge stiffness is modified on the H5-2 load case.1. For the H5-2 load case. It will be shown later.3. 44 . Figure 20. and second. Deformed shape for both the H5 and H5-2 load cases. the service vehicle begins its movement along the bridge at opposite ends.4.2. that this load case controls the steel design of the structure based upon the fatigue loading introduced to the structure during this load case.

3. Angles of loading for WIND.4.3. and 45 º. Deformed view for WIND. and WIND3 are 0º. WIND2. Wind Loading The various wind loading conditions WIND. 45 . Figure 21. and WIND3 all have different deformations associated with them since each case represents a different angle at which the wind acts on the bridge. WIND2. 90 º. Following are some screen captures from SAP2000 for the different wind loading cases.1. respectively.

Figure 23. 46 . Deformed view for WIND2 looking down length of bridge.Figure 22. Deformed view for WIND looking down length of bridge.

4. Figure 25. Joint Loading After viewing the deformed shapes for the various loading conditions. The following screen shots from SAP2000 display the forces at the pinned 47 . the next option was to view the loads at the exterior joints.Figure 24.3.2. Side view of the deformed shape from WIND3. Deformed view for WIND3 looking down the walkway of the structure.

Each of the figures is labeled according to the corresponding loading condition. Figure 26. Joint reactions for DEAD load case (symmetric at each end).connections supporting the arch. 48 . Figure 27. Joint reactions corresponding to LIVE load case (symmetric at each end).

Figure 29. Joint reactions at starting end for WIND loading case. Joint reactions at the end of the arch for WIND loading case.Figure 28. 49 .

50 . Joint reactions at end of span for WIND2 load case. Figure 31. Joint reactions at the start of bridge span for WIND2 load case.Figure 30.

51 . Joint reactions at the start of the span for WIND3 load case.Figure 32. Figure 33. Joint reactions at the end of the span for WIND3 load case.

Figure 34.4. so the group was able to easily identify that the compression limit of zero was executed correctly. Frame/Cable Loads Another great feature of SAP2000 is once the analysis is completed. the user can view the forces that each member of the structure is experiencing.3. the forces are shown in accordance to their magnitude and have the maximum force labeled on the diagram. As viewed in the close up pictures of the structure. In the following figures. as per the view is set up. 52 .3. compression forces are in red whereas tension forces are in yellow. Overview of frame forces from DEAD load case. A quick check of the cable members shows that they all do carry tension loads only.

53 .Figure 35. Frame axial force for DEAD load case at the base. Overview of frame forces for LIVE load case. Figure 36.

Close up view of frame forces for LIVE load case. Figure 38. 54 . Overview of frame forces from WIND load case.Figure 37.

In this figure. shell 55 . Overview of frame forces from WIND2 load case.Figure 39.3. Overview of frame forces from WIND3 load case. Figure 40. Figure 40 shows the uniform loads in different intensities by using various colors for the different strengths of the force. Shell Stresses Another display option is actually viewing the intensity distributions for the area in the model which in this case is the concrete deck. there are numerous options for displaying the area forces which includes displaying shell forces. the maximum force is in the color blue whereas the minimum force is shown in a light green.4. For each loading case. 4.

The influence line is constructed by calculating the mechanical behavior of the structure when a unit load traverses the structure. Influence Lines Yet another powerful tool with SAP2000 is its ability to easily display influence lines for joints and structural members. Figure 41. Figure 40 was used just for an idea of the shell force display since many figures could be incorporated into the report. moment. An influence line.3. or deflection at a specific joint in a member as a concentrated force moves on the member” (Hibbeler). Maximum shell stress in concrete deck (scale is in kip). “represents the variation of either the reaction.5. The following 56 .stresses. 4. A quick glance at this line serves as an aide to where on the structure the member is most affected by the moving load. and resultant forces for each component of the shell along with the different layers in the shell. shear.

5.3. Influence line for axial force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.3.5.5. 4. Joint Figure 42.3. Influence line for the joint reaction at the start of the span. 4.3. Influence line for the axial force in the cable member at the mid-span. with the member and mechanical behavior shown in the figure’s caption.2.1. Cable Figure 43. 4.subsections show influence lines for various members of the bridge. 57 . Arch Figure 44.

Influence line for shear force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. Figure 48. 58 .Figure 45. Figure 46. Influence line for axial force for frame member at apex of the arch. Influence line for moment force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. Influence line for torsion force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. Figure 47.

Figure 49. These combinations adhere to the AASHTO-LRFD design combinations used by DOT’s around the country. however.75. there can be 59 . As can be seen by the different names of the load case combinations. in some instances.4. and drawings. Influence line for shear force for frame member at apex of the arch. some of the combinations are used for strength design while others are used to determine the design per serviceability issues. the one predominately used in the steel design structure is DSTL2 which multiplies the dead load by a factor of 1. and some others are designed for fatigue of the structure.1. As can be seen in the deformed shape videos. Design Load Combinations The group used the default load design combinations for bridges that are saved in the SAP2000 program to perform the steel design of the pedestrian bridge. Table 3 names the combinations as well as details the load combinations used for each case. Figure 50. the controlling load case combination is due to fatigue loading.2 and the live load by a factor of 1.4. Structural Design 4. Of the 150 different load case combinations. 4. Influence line for moment force for frame member at apex of the arch.

1.1.9D + 1.25D + 1.9D + 1.35H5 0.25D 0.35H5-2 0.75H5 0.25D .1. it was found that fatigue loading would control the steel design of the arch for the H5 service vehicle load.4WIND 0. the structure can safely be designed in accordance with the LRFD specifications.2D + 1.25D + 1.9D + 1.25D + 1.9D + 1.25D + 1.25D .0L 1.9D .4WIND2 0.25D + 1.6L 1.0D + 1.9D + 1.35H5 1.9D 1. Design load combinations used for the steel design of the bridge.4D 1.4WIND 1.25D + 1.375 to HSS 18 x 0.25D + 1. Performing this analysis leads the size of the arch to be increased from an HSS 16 x 0.35H5-2 1.9D + 1.375. This was due to the fact that the group analyzed the H5 moving load by using the stiffness found at the end of the nonlinear wind loading.75MODAL 1.25D + 1.4WIND2 1.9D 1.4WIND2 0.75H5-2 0. Through these load increases. When performing in advanced dynamic analysis of the structure.1.2D + 1.9D + 1. Table 3.75H5-2 1.4WIND2 60 .0D 1.75H5 1. Load Case Combination DSTL1 DSTL2 DSTL3 DSTL4 DSTL5 STR-I1 STR-I2 STR-I3 STR-I4 STR-I5 STR-I6 STR-I7 STR-I8 STR-II1 STR-II2 STR-II3 STR-II4 STR-II5 STR-II6 STR-II7 STR-II8 STR-III1 STR-III2 STR-III3 STR-III4 STR-III5 STR-III6 STR-III7 STR-III8 Scale Factor 1.4WIND 1.large deformations found in the arch from the portion where the deck rests on top of the arch to where the first lateral support is located.35MODAL 0.75MODAL 0.4WIND 0.75L 1.9D + 1.35MODAL 1.9D .25D 0.

35MODAL 1.35H5-2 0.4WIND 0.4WIND2 + 1.0.0.25D 0.4WIND2 0.25D + 0.35H5 1.4WIND 1.9D + 0.35H5 1.25D .25D .25D +0.9D + 0.4WIND3 1.35H5 0.4WIND3 + 1.4WIND + 1.4WIND2 0.Load Case Combination STR-III9 STR-III10 STR-III11 STR-III12 STR-III13 STR-III14 STR-III15 STR-III16 STR-III17 STR-III18 STR-III19 STR-III20 STR-III21 STR-IV1 STR-IV2 STR-IV3 STR-IV4 STR-V1 STR-V2 STR-V3 STR-V4 STR-V5 STR-V6 STR-V7 STR-V8 STR-V9 STR-V10 STR-V11 STR-V12 STR-V13 STR-V14 STR-V15 STR-V16 STR-V17 STR-V18 STR-V19 STR-V20 STR-V21` STR-V22 STR-V23 STR-V24 STR-V25 STR-V26 STR-V27 STR-V28 STR-V29 STR-V30 Scale Factor 0.1.4WIND3 + 1.0.35MODAL 1.4WIND 1.4WIND2 1.9D + 0.35H5 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.25D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2 1.35MODAL 1.35MODAL 1.4WIND + 1.4WIND2 1.4WIND2 1.35H5-2 1.35MODAL 1.25D .4WIND 1.1.25D .25D + 0.1.9D + 1.25D + 0.25D .25D + 0.4WIND3 1.25D + 0.25D .0.25D + 1.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2 1.4WIND + 1.0.4WIND + 1.4WIND + 1.25D .0.35H5 1.0.9D + 1.9D + 1.9D + 0.25D + 0.25D .35H5-2 0.25D .1.4WIND + 1.0.5D 0.4WIND3 + 1.9D + 0.9D .35MODAL 1.9D .4WIND3 + 1.4WIND3 + 1.4WIND3 0.25D .9D 1.0.0.1.35H5-2 1.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL 61 .25D .4WIND2 + 1.4WIND2 1.4WIND 0.25D .4WIND2 + 1.4WIND3 1.9D + 1.35MODAL 0.4WIND 1.35H5 1.25D .4WIND + 1.9D .9D .25D + 1.9D .0.25D .4WIND2 + 1.35H5 1.25D + 0.4WIND 0.4WIND2 0.4WIND2 + 1.4WIND2 0.25D + 0.35H5-2 1.4WIND 0.9D + 0.25D + 1.4WIND + 1.9D 1.0.0.1.4WIND3 0.

3WIND + 1.0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2 09.D .35H5-2 0.9D .0.0.0H5 1.35MODAL 0.9D 1.25D + 1.0D + 0.9D + 1.D .0H5-2 1.0.0.9D .25D + 1.4WIND2 + 1.0.25D 0.0.3WIND + 1.0D .0.0H5 1.3WIND + 1.4WIND3 + 1.3WIND2 1.3WIND2 1.0H5-2 1.0D .0MODAL 1.0D .0D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2 1.4WIND2 + 1.4WIND + 1.25D 1.0MODAL 1.3WIND3 + 1.0H5-2 1.0H5-2 0.0D + 0.35H5-2 09.35H5 0.9D + 0.3WIND 1.0MODAL 0.0H5-2 62 .4WIND2 + 1.3WIND + 1.9D + 0.0H5 1.0MODAL 09D + 1.0MODAL 1.4WIND3 + 1.0D + 0.0H5 1.D .0D + 0.0D .9D + 0.25 + 1.3WIND2 + 1.0.9D + 1.0H5 0.0D + 0.35H5 0.D .3WIND2 + 1.0H5-2 1.3WIND3 + 1.35MODAL 09.4WIND2 + 1.25D + 1.0D + 0.0MODAL 1.0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5 0.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.9D + 1.4WIND3 + 1.9D .35H5 0.0.0.3WIND 1.0D + 0.9 + 1.9D + 1.35H5 0.0H5 1.25D + 1.0D + 0.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.35MODAL 09.35H5-2 09.9D + 0.0MODAL 1.3WIND + 1.0D .35H5 0.9D + 0.0H5 1.35MODAL 0.4WIND + 1.9D .4WIND3 1.4WIND + 1.4WIND2 + 1.0.0.D .0MODAL 1.25D + 1.0D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.0H5-2 0.0H5-2 1.Load Case Combination STR-V31 STR-V32 STR-V33 STR-V34 STR-V35 STR-V36 STR-V37 STR-V38 STR-V39 STR-V40 STR-V41 STR-V42 STR-V43 STR-V44 EE-I1 EE-I2 EE-I3 EE-14 EE-I5 EE-I6 EE-I7 EE-I8 EE-II1 EE-II3 EE-II4 EE-II5 EE-II6 EE-II7 EE-II8 SER-I1 SER-I2 SER-I3 SER-I4 SER-I5 SER-I6 SER-I7 SER-I8 SER-I9 SER-I10 SER-I11 SER-I12 SER-I13 SER-I14 SER-I15 SER-I16 SER-I17 Scale Factor 0.

7WIND3 1.0.7WIND3 1.0D .75MODAL 0.3H5 1.0.Load Case Combination SER-I18 SER-I19 SER-I20 SER-I21 SER-I22 SER-I23 SER-II1 SER-II2 SER-II3 SER-II4 SER-III2 SER-III3 SER-III4 SER-IV1 SER-IV2 SER-IV3 SER-IV4 SER-IV5 SER-IV6 SER-IV7 SER-IV8 SER-IV9 SER-IV10 SER-IV11 SER-IV12 FAT1 FAT2 FAT3 Scale Factor 1.0MODAL 1.7WIND 1.0D + 1.0D .0.0H5-2 1.8H5 1.8H5-2 1.0D .0D + 0.0D + 0.7WIND3 0.0.0.0D + 0.0D .0H5 1.7WIND 1.0.3WIND3 + 1.7WIND3 1.35H5-2 1.0.0D + 1.0.0H5 1.0D .7WIND 1.7WIND2 1.75H5 0.0.7WIND2 1.3WIND2 + 1.0D + 0.7WIND2 1.0D + 0.8MODAL 1.0D .75H5-2 63 .0D .3WIND3 + 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.3WIND2 + 1.0D + 0.7WIND 1.0.0D .3WIND3 + 1.0D .0H5-2 1.0D 1.0D .0D + 1.0D + 0.3MODAL 1.0.0MODAL 1.0D .0D .7WIND2 1.0.0D + 0.

Arch Members Using the steel design function in SAP2000.2. As stated previously. the arch was designed for an HSS 16 x 0.375. In order to support this load. but by performing an advanced dynamic analysis of the moving vehicle load. Design Members 4. SAP2000 designed the arch members to be the larger 18” diameter HSS. the maximum axial force in the arch members was calculated to be 329. the software selected an HSS 18 x 0.1. 64 . when using only the DSTL2 loads.4. Since the arch members were initially designed as an automatically selected HSS member.4. Maximum axial force from DSTL2.375 to be used as the main structural shapes for arch members. As shown in Figure 51.4. Figure 52 shows this design. Figure 51. the group adequately sized the steel arch members for the pedestrian bridge.2. when the design commences the program optimizes the design members in accordance to the load case combinations shown in Table 3.93 kip (compression).

HSS 18 x 0.3. which is from 65 .375. the group allowed SAP2000 to optimize all of the members used in the arch. Typical section of arch member.2. Although this size of structural shape is way more than adequate for the loads that are in the cross supports. Based upon a maximum tensile force of 26. During this steel design. the program designed the cross members that are used for the lateral support to be designed at the same dimensions as what the arch members are.2. Cables Since the cable members were modeled as angle members in SAP2000. the group determined that it was aesthetically pleasing to use the same size for these members as what is found in the main arch supports. The maximum force applied to the cables was determined in SAP2000 and used for the calculations that are detailed in the Appendix.2. the group needed to perform hand calculations to determine the size of cables needed to support the bridge deck.719 kips.4. 4.Figure 52. Cross Members on Arch When designing the structure. 4.4.

4. placed 10” o. Using the calculations from the Appendix shows that the deck should be constructed of a 6” deep concrete slab. Figure 53. Typical rebar spacing. Slab Design As described in the Bridge Engineering Handbook. 66 . 3 rebar.4. The reinforcement steel required for the longitudinal direction is No. while the reinforcement steel that is needed to control the shrinkage and temperature was calculated to be No. loads applied to the slab can be distributed to effective slab widths which can then be analyzed as a simply supported beam.the Load Case DSTL2. These hand calculations are shown in the Appendix.c. placed 7” o.3. 3 rebar.c. By doing this. the required diameter of the cable members is 1 in. the group was able to perform a set of hand calculations to determine all relevant design information for the concrete deck.

09 k/ft for railing. a 0. Figure Figure 55. and the self weight of the concrete beam.4. No. Typical slab cross section. Edge beam design. As far as the shear reinforcement that is required. 4. The beam shall be reinforced with 3 No.Figure 54. 4 steel reinforcement on the bottom and 2 No. 3 stirrups will be used. Concrete Edge Beams Concrete edge beams will effectively carry the loading transferred from the concrete deck to the cables hanging from the arch members. 67 . This beam will be designed to support 1. Calculations from the Appendix show that the beam should be constructed of a 10” wide and 16” deep rectangular concrete beam.6 k/ft (from factored live and dead loads) which transfers the loading from the decks to the beams.4. 4 bars on the top to allow for anchorage for the cables tying into the beams.

5. Footing Design Figure 57.4.Figure 56. of the reinforcing steel of 60. and the base reaction forces found in . Typical cross sections for edge beam. Base reactions for DSTL2 load case.000 psi. 4. This design is 68 . When designing only for the reaction coming directly into the footer (since footer will be placed at same angle as arch tying into it) the design for each of the footers would be 8’ x 11’ x 2’. Using the support reactions shown in Figure 57. the steps taken for the design of the concrete footers is shown in the Appendix. The supports for each of the four arches are to be designed from concrete using a design compressive strength of 4000 psi and yield strength Figure 57.

in the absence of any applied live loads.4. Vibrations As described in section 6 of the LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. The subsequent design for the footer is calculated to be a 10’ x 12’ x 11’ with 6’ of the footer being below grade. the response of the bridge can be held in check simply by adding more mass to the bridge. The code later prescribes a limit to the fundamental frequency of the first vertical mode to be greater than 3. f = fundamental frequency (Hz) W = total weight of the supported structure (kips) 69 . The formula is:  180  f  2. If the fundamental frequency does not satisfy this limit than a more in depth look at the dynamic performance of the bridge must be undertaken. Thus.adequate for the arch bridge since the bridge has a large horizontal force at the foundation. a F m Thus. and assumes that the footer itself will be able to support this force. Since the frequency of the bridge is controlled by Newton’s equation:  F  ma By rearranging it can easily be shown that. if it is needed. “Vibration of the structure shall not cause discomfort or concern to users of a pedestrian bridge”. increasing the mass will decrease the acceleration of the structure. 4.0 Hertz (Hz). the design in the Appendix takes into account the thrust force in the horizontal direction.6. To alleviate any problems that these oscillations may cause. The LRFD Guide has a simple formula to determine the fundamental frequency of a pedestrian bridge.86 ln   W  Where.

When printing the report directly from SAP2000. As long as the deck’s weight is large enough.As stated above. one must first analyze the structure based on strength conditions. a natural frequency of 6.86 ln    2067  f = -6.7. the group had to determine the approximate weight of the concrete deck. Since the final deck was designed to be regular concrete that is 6” thick.150k * 0. so no further vibration analysis is required for the structure.5 x x 210 ft  2067 k 1 ft 2 Using this weight in the frequency equation gives:  180  f  2. 70 . With the only weight that is calculated in the frequency equation being that of the supported structure.0 Hz.98 Hz When dealing with a frequency. the frequency of the bridge can be estimated to be large enough that the structure will not vibrate under its first mode.0 Hz. If the structure is capable of carrying the loads safely. In SAP2000. Deflection When designing a structure. 4. then no further investigation is required. the next step is to verify that the structure meets serviceability requirements. the sign convention is similar to everything else where the sign of the value describes the direction of the vibration.4. if this frequency is greater than 3. joint deflections are given in table format according to each of the individual load combinations.25 ft 2 0. the weight of the deck was calculated by: W 131.98 Hz exceeds the minimum value of 3. deflection limits are taken into consideration when the software performs the steel design of the given structure. Thus.

Using the maximum allowable deflection per Ref. (This was calculated from the maximum member length of the concrete being 13. Final Design 4. Final Design Drawings For the final design of the structure. SAP2000 Report Another feature of the SAP2000 is software is its ability to prepare advanced technical reports for the structure that the engineer is designing. In the report.5. property of the materials that are used for the design of the structure.240 in). As is shown in this table. the actual displacements of each joint.The appendix shows a portion of one such table that shows the maximum joint deflection. In the appendix. the group imported the final model of the bridge from SAP2000 into AutoCAD where the structure 71 . the maximum deflection was found to be just under ¼” (0. It should be noted that the complete SAP2000 report was not included with this project since the final report was in excess of 500 pages.1. 4. 4.5.) The small values found for the deflection of the bridge confirm the earlier statement that the deformed shapes that the software produces are exaggerated to help the user better visualize what has happening with the structure.5. there are a few samples of the types of tables that the software prepares. the user can find information pertaining to the coordinates of each joint.2.125’ leading to a maximum allowable deflection of 0. This allows for easy reference of the mechanical behavior of the designed structure.315 in. etc. it is easily determined that this pedestrian bridge meets the deflection requirements. 8 for a pedestrian bridge being L/500. The report serves as another way that the engineer can verify the analysis of the structure as well as allowing them to have all of the design information in convenient table form.

side. and top of the bridge. 3-d rendering of the final design. respectively. the group also dimensioned the bridge in this software. Figures 59-61 display the plan views for the front. In addition to doing the renderings in AutoCAD. Figure 58. 72 . This design shows the structure designed with the properly sized members calculated previously.was rendered as is shown in Figure 58.

Side dimensional view of the bridge. 73 .Figure 59. Front dimensional view of the pedestrian bridge. Figure 60.

Top dimensional view of the bridge. For each connection. Figure 62 shows how the cables will tie into the concrete edge beams. Rendering of cable connecting to edge beam. 74 . The excess steel cable will be cut and crimped as shown. the cables will be wrapped around a steel eyelet that is embedded into the concrete edge beam. Figure 62.Figure 61.

The system would allow for the owners to know what condition the bridge is in at any given time. so the design would need to be altered to accommodate the increases in horizontal forces that would come from the larger wind force. and not have to rely on visual inspections to determine the health of the bridge. 4.1. Alternate Design Considerations The final design could be altered in order to allow for alterations that may be requested by the structure’s owner. the design could entail a covering over the sidewalk.4. Three possible design alternates could include: enclosing the walkway. There would be few changes that would need to be made in order to apply SHM sensors to the bridge structure. 4. much like the design of the Willis Family Bridge.2. Smart Bridge Another minor design alteration could lead to the bridge becoming a “smart” structure. Enclosing the Walkway The final design could easily be altered to allow for the bridge deck to be completely enclosed instead of open as the final design portrays. the university would be able to maintain the bridge when maintenance is needed. SHM technology has recently gained the support of the engineering community in helping manage the issue with the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Minor changes in the dead load as well as how the wind affects the structure would be the only concerns in the structural analysis of the covered bridge.6. Implementing a structural health monitoring system (SHM) to the bridge would allow for the owners to actively monitor the state in which the bridge finds itself. By relaying information about the bridge’s mechanical behavior through a system of sensors attached to the bridge. Only if conduits were run in 75 .6. and/or applying a wrap to represent the mascot of IPFW. If requested by the owner. making the structure “smart”. there would be a tremendous increase in surface area that the wind force would affect. By covering the bridge.6.

allowing for sensors to be placed in the exact locations that are needed the most.3. 76 .6.the concrete deck would any considerations need to be taken on the structural end of the design. 4. all forces as well as any potential problem areas on the bridge are easily known. the bridge could become a cornerstone of the IPFW campus. Figure 63. By adding an SHM system to this new bridge. What the group thought was to somehow apply a wrap to the arch members that would take the form of mastodon tusks coming up from opposite sides of the foundation. and provide more exposure to the various IPFW sports programs. Mastodon Tusks Another option that the group considered would be completely for IPFW. Figure 63 shows how the group envisioned wrapping the arch members to form two-pairs of mastodon tusks. and do little to help Ivy Tech. Arch members enclosed to form Mastodon Tusks. By doing this. but it could also provide a valuable learning tool to the campus’s engineering students. With this bridge being designed by members of the university. not only would the IPFW campus be at the forefront of this innovative technology.

Although more pieces would be required for this design.0 Hz) is much greater than the minimum frequency required before a dynamic analysis needs to be performed on the bridge. the design could be modified so that the deck is constructed out of a combination of both concrete and steel. Section V: Cost Analysis/Estimation 5. It has been found that workers on the construction site have had troubles making field-measured geometric and stress conditions agree with those that are calculated theoretically by the bridge designers. the deck could be constructed out of a thinner concrete deck underlain by corrugated steel. this approach would lessen the weight of the walkway.1. 77 . When it comes to constructing a steel arch structure. 5. Since the natural frequency of the bridge (7.4. there are some difficulties contractors are faced with when constructing a steel arch bridge.6. as well as the concrete that would be needed for the bridge. The steel would then serve as structural support for the concrete with the major difference between this design and the proposed design being that the corrugated steel would also need to be supported by a steel beams. In order to decrease the weight of the bridge. matching up the curved arch pieces in order to make the correct continuous radius is difficult to say the least.13 of the Bridge Engineering Handbook. Construction Materials Instead of building the walkway of the bridge completely out of concrete. Construction Techniques As described in detail in 45.4. the weight can be decreased before any unwanted oscillations may appear.

a set of supports are constructed underneath the bridge to carry the arches as they protrude from either side of the main bridge span. the group has determined to use the shop control procedure due to the relatively short span used in the design of the bridge. With this approach. the shop control procedure. Since this pedestrian bridge is crossing over a major arterial road. it is required for the workers on the site to carry out a program of steelwork surveys and measurements as the erection of the steel arches progressives. The second procedure. the group has decided the best construction method to be used would be the tie back method which allows for a minimal impact on travelers on Coliseum Boulevard. piers on either side of the span of the bridge are used to support the main ribs used in the arch structure. It is then the steelworkers’ requirement to make any field adjustments needed to maintain the arch dimensions within the previously defined overall tolerances of the arch. In addition to the design procedures. 78 . In the field adjustment procedure.There are two general practices used in steel arch bridge design: the field adjustment procedure and the shop control procedure. puts all of the trust in the initial site survey and uses these measurements as the basis for the dimensions used in the construction of all the parts of the bridge. For the proposed pedestrian bridge over Coliseum Boulevard. For the false frame work method. there are also two general methods of arch bridge construction: the tie back and the false frame work methods. The cables are directly connected to the arch pieces as well as the pier to support any loads carried by the members. In the tie back method. the field workers are assumed to not have to make any field adjustments during the construction of the bridge.

000 Table 5 shows a more detailed cost breakdown for the construction of the pedestrian bridge.5.000 $3. The figures shown in Table 4 were taken from the TE Application that the IPFW physical plant submitted in August 2008.000 $330. but must add in all factors involved when building a new structure such as this. These figures were also compiled from the TE Application filed in 2008. Table 4. much of the pricing information should still be valid slightly over a year later. General cost breakdown for pedestrian bridge.600.2. Cost Estimation For an accurate cost breakdown of the bridge. however. Activity Project Development and Environmental Studies Engineering and Final Plans Preparation Work Construction Construction Engineering and Inspection Activities Estimated Cost $30. At the time. the project was not approved. 79 . As stated above. there are more factors involved in building the bridge other than the cost of materials and labor needed for the structure. one can not only look at the price for the materials.000 $540.

000 $250.000 $200.000 80 .000 $600.000 $50. Activity Archeological Study Engineering and Final Plan Prep Mobilization and Demobilization Site Clearing and Traffic Control Sitework and Excavation Structural Piling Reinforcing Steel Concrete Work Structural Steel Utilities Electrical Work and Lighting Restoration Construction Engineering/Inspection Estimated Total Cost Estimated Cost $30.500.000 $100.000 $300.000 $1.Table 5.000 $100.000 $540.000 $200.000 $330. Detailed cost breakdown for construction of pedestrian bridge.500.000 $300.000 $4.

Utilizing this design method would greatly minimize the effects that the construction of the bridge would have to travelers who use Coliseum Boulevard on a daily basis. With a overall span of 210’ and a height off of the footer of 40. Based upon the extensive research put forth by this senior design group.5’. but it will also be of the same level of design as is to be expected by administrators at IPFW. 81 . the group feels that the best possible way in ensuring safe travel over this roadway is by constructing a new pedestrian bridge. erection of the structure would proceed quickly due to the ability of most of the main components being prefabricated off of the job site. Utilizing steel and concrete for the major design members. the most suitable type of bridge to meet the needs of this structure is of an arch style design. In addition to helping pedestrians safely cross over Coliseum Boulevard. the structure is not only safely able to carry all of the forces that it would be exposed to.6. the structure should be of an innovative design of the same caliber as the other two pedestrian bridges located on the IPFW campus. Conclusion With pedestrian travel over Coliseum Boulevard being as dangerous as it is.

fortwayneparks.dot. [6] “Crossroads”. Arthur. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Kathy. 2008 Indiana Department of Transportation. [3] Chen. 2005. 2007. IL: McGraw Hill. and E. DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 13th Edition.7. 13th Edition. Steel Construction Manual. al. NewYork: CRC Press. [5] Computers and Structures. http://www. Bridge Engineering Handbook. http://www. “River Greenway”.ivytech.edu/fortwayne/crossroads/ 28May 2009 [7] Hibbeler. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). R.F.C. 2008. et. [8] NCHRP 20-07 Task 244. Lui. Inc. [4] Chen. 6th Edition. DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.org/index. Ivy Tech Community College – Fort Wayne. 2009. W. Chicago: AISC. 2nd Edition. 2006. References [1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications: 2008 Interim Revisions.state. 1999. [12] “Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles”. Final Draft. CSI. Upper Saddle River.M. [10] Parkman. Washington. LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&Itemid=34. and Lian Duan. 82 . Washington.us/structures/StructuresManual/CurrentRelease/Design Guidelines/SDG10PedestrianBridges. Burr Ridge. [2] American Institute of Steel Construction. City of Fort Wayne Parks & Recreation Website.fl. 2008.htm.F. 2004. W. New York: CRC Press. NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Berkeley. Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application. Structural Analysis. http://www. Handbook of Structural Engineering. [9] Nilson. 7 Aug 2009. 28 may 2009 [11] Pedestrian Bridges. Design of Concrete Structures.

1.5%] 83 . Using 100 psf live load.8.1.38k [SAP2000 = 7.56 k [SAP2000 = 6. Angle Member Hand Calculations Figure 64.125 ft Live Load With 500 plf LL = 6. Hand Calculations 8.57 k.21875 ft3 DL = 7. difference 2. slab thickness of 9” and slab length of 13. slab section. Appendix 8.6%] Dead Load 49.21 k. difference 5. Free body diagram of typ.1.

66 Ax = Bx = Cx = 69.37 k [SAP2000 = 75.68 k [SAP2000 = 56. 0  44C x  105C y  (51.33 MA into MB 0  88C x  6104.1. 0  44C x  105C y  (51.8. Free body diagram of parbolic arch.67 k.9%] 84 . Calculated with 9” concrete slab for the deck CCW ()  M A  0.0625) 0  44C x  105C y  3052.6797)(59.73 k.0625) 0  44C x  105C y  3052. difference of 8.33 Cy = 58.3%] CHECK Cy 0  (44)(69.15 k Ay = By = 51.2. Arch Hand Calculations Figure 65. difference of 8.33 CW ()  M B  0.66 88C x  6104.6797)(59.4)  105C y  3052.

8.1.3. Concrete Slab Design Assumptions: fy = 60 ksi f’c = 4 ksi Minimum cover, d = 6” – 1.0 = 5.0” Unit Weight of Concrete = 150 lb/ft3 Minimum slab thickness (from Table 13.1 Ref. “concrete design”) Simply supported slab hmin = l/20 l 10 x12 hmin    6.0" 20 20 Use hmin = 6” Since one-way slab, load per 1’ width

Design Load Calculation:

Dead Load: Self-Weight of Slab =
6 x150lb / ft 3  75 lb/ft2 12

Superimposed Dead Load = 20 lb/ft2 Total Dead Load = 95 lb/ft2 x 1 ft = 95 lb/ft

Live Load: Total Live Load = 90 lb/ft2 x 1 ft = 90 lb/ft

Design Load Combination: 1.2D+1.6L Wu = 1.2 (95 lb/ft) + 1.6 (90 lb/ft) = 258 lb/ft Each slab, simply supported: wl 2 258 *10 2 M max    3.225k  ft 8 8 wl 0.258 *10 Vmax    1.29k 2 2 85

From Table A.9 Ref. “Concrete Design” ρ = 0.003 and  Mn = 3.9 k - ft As = ρbd As = 0.003x12x5 = 0.18 in2/ft As,min = 0.0018bh As,min = 0.0018x12x6 = 0.1296 in2/ft As > As,min From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design” Bar No. 3 at 7.5” spacing, As= 0.18 in2/ft Bar No. 3 at 7.0” spacing, As= 0.19 in2/ft Choose Bar No. 3 at 7.0” spacing for ease of construction Spacing Requirement: 3” ≤ s ≤ min {3h,12} 3” ≤ 7” ≤ 12” Use Bars No. 3 at 7” spacing Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement: As,min = 0.1296 in2/ft From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design” Bar No. 3 at 10” spacing, As= 0.13 in2/ft As > As,min Spacing Requirement: 3” ≤ s ≤ min {5h,18} 3” ≤ 10” ≤ 18” Use Bars No. 3 at 10” spacing for shrinkage and temperature Shear Design: Vmax = 1.29k Vc  2 f c' bw d  2 4000 x12 x5.0  7590 lb Vc = 7.59 k No stirrups required if: Vmax  Vc Vc  0.75 * 7.59  5.69 k Therefore no stirrups are required 86

8.1.4. Edge beams to support the concrete deck

Reaction due to Dead Load =

wl 95 *10   475k 2 2

Reaction due to Live Load =

wl 90 *10   450k 2 2

Assumptions: fy = 60 ksi f’c = 4 ksi Dead Load due to Railing = 90 lb/ft Unit Weight of Concrete = 150 lb/ft3 Try 10”x16” (dimension of beam)

Design Load Calculation: Dead Load: Self-Weight of Beam = Railing = 90 lb/ft Total Dead Load = 167 + 475 + 90 = 732 lb/ft Live Load: Total Live Load = 450 lb/ft 87
10 16 x x150lb / ft 3  167 lb/ft 12 12

5262 in2 From Table A.6 (450 lb/ft) = 1.45 Mu  R   227 psi 12000 bd 2 10 *13.125 2   34.45k  ft 8 8 bd 2 R 12000Mu 12000 * 34.0039 > ρmin = 0.5a Ref.2D+1. 4 on top of beam for anchorage 88 .6 *13.5 2 M max  From Table A.3 Ref.Design Load Combination: 1.0033 As = 0.6L Wu = 1.6 k/ft Reactions = wl 1. “Concrete Design” ρ = 0. “Concrete Design” Use 3 bars No.125   10.5k 2 2 wl 2 1. 4 (As = 0.0039x10x13.5 = 0.2 (732 lb/ft) + 1.60 in2) Use 2 bars No.6 *13.

7 k  Vc 12.8 k From similar triangles method. 6.5.4”.1) the maximum allowable spacing when  Vc < Vmax<  Vc : 2 smax= min {s1. d/2.4in  27.75x2 f c' bw d  0.5.5  12.5” spacing for ease of construction 89 .Shear Reinforcement:  Vc  0. 24”} = 6.75x2 4000 x10 x13.75”.75 4000 *10 s1=26.83" or 0.75” This ensures each 45° crack is intercepted by at least one stirrup Use 6.22 * 60000 0.75 f ' cb or AvFy } 50b 0.4k 2 2  Vc Since Vmax > minimum amount of stirrups is needed 2 Recommended minimum beam width to accommodate different stirrup sizes: Stirrup Size Minimum beam width #3 10” #4 12” #5 14” 2 Use No.4"} 50 *10 According to ACI (section 11.22in ) Minimum spacing is needed: s1  min{ s1  min{ AvFy 0. 24in} smax = min {26. 3 stirrups (Av = 0.8   6. Vmax = 8.22 * 60000  26.

5.64 k Fz = 190.1.82 k Available shear strength: Vc = 4 f ' c bo d Assuming d = 20”  20  Vc = 4 4000 (176)  =890. Footing Design Using the reaction forces from DSTL2 load case (Figure 53): Fx = 257.78 k/ft2(88 – (44/12)2) Vu1 = 281.9k / ft Use a 8’ x 11’ rectangle.03 k Assuming f’c = 4 ksi & Allowable soil bearing capacity.78 k/ft2 8 ft Design for punching shear: Perimeter: bo = 4(24 + 20) = 176 in Vu1 = 3.5 k  1000  ø = 0.87 k 90 .5 k/ft2 Effective bearing capacity: Assuming a maximum of 4’ of concrete.62 ft2 2 3. qe = 4500 – (150 x 4) = 3900 k/ft2 Areq  330k = 84.75 ø Vc = (0. qa = 4.39 k Fy = 80. A = 88 ft2 330k qu = = 3.8.75)(890.5) = 667.

Min = 3 4000 x96inx 20in = 6.9(60(20  1)) As.99 k = 111 k  20  Vc = 2 4000 (8)(12)  = 242.07 in2 60000 But no less than.4 in2 60000 Use As = 6.78k / ft 2 *11 ft *   2 12in / ft = 2245 k-in    As = 2245k  in = 2.Min = x96inx 20in = 6.60 in2): (11) #7 rebar @ 8.67)(8’) = 110.Va2 = (3.9(60(20  1)) As.Min = 3 4000 x132inx 20in = 8.5 ft 2  Mu = 3.8 in2 60000 Use As = 8.4 in2 Using #7 rebar (Ab = 0.Min = x132inx 20in = 8.35 in2 60000 But no less than.78)(3.78k / ft 2 * 8 ft *   2 12in / ft = 3674 k-in    As = 3674k  in = 3. 200 As.58 in2 0.86 k  1000  ø Vc = (0.8 in2 91 .5 in spacing for the 11 ft length For the 8 ft length:  3 ft 2  Mu = 3.75)(242. 200 As.86) = 182 k Reinforcing steel design (fy = 60 ksi): Across critical sections of the footer:  4.188 in2 0.

or concrete can.150 lb/ft3 * 12’ * 10’ * h H = 10. the height at which the force from the arch members comes into the footing shall be 2.875 in 3” + 0. The final footer shall be designed as: 10’ x 12’ x 11’ With 6’ of the footer being below grade. 92 .60 in2): (15) #7 rebar @ 8.5 in spacing for the 8 ft length Height of footer: ACI recommends a minimum of 3” cover when concrete is in contact with the ground. With this.Using #7 rebar (Ab = 0. Either the soil can support this. The group decided to go with concrete supporting it and calculated this by: h = 2. however.11 ft above the center of gravity of the footing.03 = 0.73 k).4375 in With d = 20 in Use h = 24 in. The above detailed design is for the soil to be able to support the footings in the vertical direction.03 k 190.11 ft Thus. with such a large thrust force (269.56’ Use a height of 11’ Note: the dimensions of the footer (12’ x 10’) were modified in order to shorten the above height. Diameter of #7 rebar = 0.4375” = 3. additional design considerations must be made in order to resist this force. can calculate the weight of the footer needed: Weight of the support = 190.

1.719k Steel A36 (Fu= 58 ksi) AD = Pu 26.75 * 0.75 * 58 A= d=  4A   4 4 * 0. 93 .02 in 8.2. Screen shot displaying joint coordinate table from SAP2000 report.8.719   0.6. Tension Cable Design Assumptions: Pu= 26.75Fu 0.82 d2   1. Sample SAP2000 Data Figure 66.82 in2  0.

SAP2000 report table of material properties. 94 .Figure 67.

Figure 68. 95 . SAP2000 report: joint displacements.

96 . SAP2000 screen shot for max design force in HSS member.Figure 69.

97 . SAP2000 steel section check (critical member).Figure 70.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful