You are on page 1of 38

2015 Interim

Revisions

LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

DECEMBER 2009

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY


AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2015
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Revision
444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5800 phone/202-624-5806 fax
www.transportation.org

2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is
a violation of applicable law.
ISBN: 978-1-56051-619-4 Pub Code: GSDPB-2-I1

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2015
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Revision
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.

ii
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

Table of Contents

1GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1Scope ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2Manufacturer-Designed Systems...................................................................................................................... 1
1.3Collision Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2PHILOSOPHY ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

3LOADS....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1Pedestrian Loading (PL) ................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2Vehicle Load (LL) ............................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3Equestrian Load (LL) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4Wind Load (WS) .............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.5Fatigue Load (LL) ............................................................................................................................................ 6
3.6Application of Loads ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.7Combination of Loads ...................................................................................................................................... 6

4FATIGUE ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1Resistance ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.2Fracture............................................................................................................................................................. 7

5DEFLECTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

6VIBRATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

7STABILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
7.1Half-Through Trusses....................................................................................................................................... 8
7.1.1Lateral Frame Design Force ................................................................................................................... 8
7.1.2Top Chord Stability ................................................................................................................................ 9
7.1.3Alternative Analysis Procedures .......................................................................................................... 11
7.2Steel Twin I-Girder and Single Tub Girder Systems ...................................................................................... 12
7.2.1General ................................................................................................................................................. 12
7.2.2Lateral-Torsional Buckling ResistanceTwin I-Girder ...................................................................... 12
7.2.3Lateral-Torsional Buckling ResistanceSingly Symmetric Sections ................................................. 13

8TYPE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.............................................................................................................................. 13


8.1Arches ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
8.2Steel HSS Members........................................................................................................................................ 13
8.2.1General ................................................................................................................................................. 13
8.2.2Detailing ............................................................................................................................................... 14
8.2.3Tubular Fracture Critical Members ...................................................................................................... 14
8.3Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Members.................................................................................................... 15

9DESIGN EXAMPLE................................................................................................................................................ 16
Illustrative Example of Key Provisions of Guide Specifications ............................................................................ 16
General Information ................................................................................................................................................ 16

v
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
Truss Members: All Rectangular HSS .................................................................................................................... 17
Floorbeams .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Dead Load ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Pedestrian Live Load .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Vehicle Load ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Wind Load .............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Total Vertical Loads per Truss ................................................................................................................................ 21
Truss Member Design Loads .................................................................................................................................. 21
Truss Top Chord Lateral Support ........................................................................................................................... 21
Top Chord Compressive Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 23
Lateral Force to Be Resisted by Verticals ............................................................................................................... 24
End Posts................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Deflection................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Vibrations................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Vertical Direction ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Lateral Direction .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Fatigue .................................................................................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................... 29

vi
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

1GENERAL

1.1SCOPE C1.1

These Guide Specifications address the design and This edition of the Guide Specifications was
construction of typical pedestrian bridges which are developed from the previous Allowable Stress Design
designed for and intended to carry primarily (ASD)- and Load Factor Design (LFD)-based first
pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrian riders, and light edition (AASHTO 1997). An evaluation of available
maintenance vehicles, but not designed for and foreign specifications covering pedestrian bridges, and
intended to carry typical highway traffic. Pedestrian failure investigation reports, as well as research results
bridges with cable supports or atypical structural related to the behavior and performance of pedestrian
systems are not specifically addressed. bridges was performed during the development of the
LRFD Guide Specifications.
These Guide Specifications provide additional
guidance on the design and construction of pedestrian
bridges in supplement to that available in the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD).
Only those issues requiring additional or different
treatment due to the nature of pedestrian bridges and
their loadings are addressed. In Article 3 of this
document, the load definitions and abbreviations are
taken from AASHTO LRFD. Aluminum and wood
structures are adequately covered in AASHTO LRFD,
and as such are not specifically addressed herein.

Implementation of the wind loading and fatigue


loading provisions require reference to the AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals
(AASHTO Signs).

1.2MANUFACTURER-DESIGNED SYSTEMS C1.2

Where manufacturer-designed systems are used for a It is important to clearly delineate the
pedestrian bridge crossing, the engineer responsible for responsibilities of each party when proprietary bridge
the design of the system shall submit sealed systems are used. All portions of the design must be
calculations prepared by a licensed Professional supported by sealed calculations, whether from the
Engineer for that system. bridge manufacturer, or the specifying engineer. The
interface between the manufacturer-designed system
and the project-specific substructures and foundations
needs careful attention.

1.3COLLISION MITIGATION C1.3

AASHTO LRFD Article 2.3.3.2 specifies an In most cases, increasing vertical clearance is the
increased vertical clearance for pedestrian bridges most cost-effective method of risk mitigation.
1.0 ft higher than for highway bridges, in order to

1
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
2 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

mitigate the risk from vehicle collisions with the


superstructure. Should the owner desire additional
mitigation, the following steps may be taken:

Increasing vertical clearance in addition to that


contained in AASHTO LRFD
Providing structural continuity of the
superstructure, either between spans or with the
substructure
Increasing the mass of the superstructure
Increasing the lateral resistance of the
superstructure

2PHILOSOPHY
Pedestrian bridges shall be designed for specified
limit states to achieve the objectives of safety;
serviceability, including comfort of the pedestrian user
(vibration); and constructability with due regard to
issues of inspectability, economy, and aesthetics, as
specified in AASHTO LRFD. These Guide
Specifications are based on the LRFD philosophy.
Mixing provisions from specifications other than those
referenced herein, even if LRFD based, should be
avoided.

3LOADS

3.1PEDESTRIAN LOADING (PL) C3.1

Pedestrian bridges shall be designed for a uniform This article modifies the pedestrian loading
pedestrian loading of 90 psf. This loading shall be provisions of the Fourth Edition of AASHTO LRFD,
patterned to produce the maximum load effects. through the 2009 Interim. The previous edition of these
Consideration of dynamic load allowance is not Guide Specifications used a base nominal loading of
required with this loading. 85 psf, reducible to 65 psf based on influence area for
the pedestrian load. With the LFD load factors, this
results in factored loads of 2.17(85) = 184 psf and
2.17(65) = 141 psf. The Fourth Edition of AASHTO
LRFD specified a constant 85 psf regardless of
influence area. Multiplying by the load factor, this
results in 1.75(85) = 149 psf. This falls within the
range of the previous factored loading, albeit toward
the lower end.

European codes appear to start with a higher nominal


load (approx 105 psf), but then allow reductions based
on loaded length. Additionally, the load factor applied
is 1.5, resulting in a maximum factored load of
(1.5)105 = 158 psf. For a long loaded length, this load
can be reduced to as low as 50 psf, resulting in a
factored load of (1.5)50 = 75 psf. The effect of
resistance factors has not been accounted for in the
above discussion of the European codes. There are,

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 3

however, warnings to the designer that a reduction in


the load based on loaded length may not be appropriate
for structures likely to see significant crowd loadings,
such as bridges near stadiums.

Consideration might be given to the maximum credible


pedestrian loading. There is a physical limit on how
much load can be applied to a bridge from the static
weight of pedestrians. It appears that this load is
around 150 psf, based on work done by Nowak (2000)
from where Figures C1 through C3 were taken.
Although there does not appear to be any available
information relating to the probabilistic distribution of
pedestrian live loading, knowing the maximum
credible load helps to define the limits of the upper tail
of the distribution of load. The use of a 90 psf nominal
live load in combination with a load factor of 1.75
results in a loading of 158 psf, which provides a
marginal, but sufficient, reserve compared with the
maximum credible load of 150 psf.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
4 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

Figure C3.1-1Live Load of 50 psf

Figure C3.1-2Live Load of 100 psf

Figure C3.1-3Live Load of 150 psf

3.2VEHICLE LOAD (LL) C3.2

Where vehicular access is not prevented by The vehicle loading specified is equivalent to the H-
permanent physical methods, pedestrian bridges shall trucks shown in Article 3.6.1.6 of AASHTO LRFD
be designed for a maintenance vehicle load specified in 2009 Interim and contained in previous versions of the
Figure 1 and Table 1 for the Strength I Load AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Combination unless otherwise specified by the Owner. Bridges.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 5

A single truck shall be placed to produce the maximum


load effects and shall not be placed in combinations
with the pedestrian load. The dynamic load allowance
need not be considered for this loading.

Table 3.2-1Design Vehicle

Clear Deck Width Design Vehicle


7 to 10 ft H5
Over 10 ft H10

14 ft 0 in.
H10 4.0 kips 16.0 kips
H5 2.0 kips 8.0 kips
0.2W

0.8W

14 ft 0 in.
W = Total Weight of Truck and Load
0.1W 0.4W
6 ft

0.1W 0.4W

Figure 3.2-1Maintenance Vehicle Configurations

3.3EQUESTRIAN LOAD (LL) C3.3

Decks intended to carry equestrian loading shall be The equestrian load is a live load and intended to
designed for a patch load of 1.00 kip over a square area ensure adequate punching shear capacity of pedestrian
measuring 4.0 in. on a side. bridge decks where horses are expected. The loading
was derived from hoof pressure measurements reported
in Roland et. al. (2005). The worst loading occurs
during a canter where the loading on one hoof
approaches 100 percent of the total weight of the horse.
The total factored load of 1.75 kips is approximately
the maximum credible weight of a draft horse. This
loading is expected to control only deck design.

3.4WIND LOAD (WS) C3.4

Pedestrian bridges shall be designed for wind loads The wind loading is taken from AASHTO Signs
as specified in AASHTO Signs, Articles 3.8 and 3.9. specification rather than from AASHTO LRFD due to
Unless otherwise directed by the Owner, the Wind the potentially flexible nature of pedestrian bridges,
Importance Factor, Ir, shall be taken as 1.15. The and also due to the potential for traffic signs to be
loading shall be applied over the exposed area in front mounted on them.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
6 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

elevation including enclosures. Wind load on signs


supported by the pedestrian bridge shall be included.

In addition to the wind load specified above, a vertical


uplift line load as specified in AASHTO LRFD Article
3.8.2 and determined as the force caused by a pressure
of 0.020 ksf over the full deck width, shall be applied
concurrently. This loading shall be applied at the
windward quarter point of the deck width.

3.5FATIGUE LOAD (LL) C3.5

The fatigue loading used for the fatigue and fracture Wind loads are not part of the Fatigue I load
limit state (Fatigue I) shall be as specified in Section 11 combination for vehicular bridges. This article
of AASHTO Signs. The Natural Wind Gust specified in designates wind as a live load for pedestrian bridges,
Article 11.7.3 and the Truck-Induced Gust specified in via the designation LL. Wind should be considered a
Article 11.7.4 of that specification need only be fatigue live load for pedestrian bridges.
considered, as appropriate.
Neither the pedestrian live load nor the maintenance
vehicle load used for strength and serviceability is
appropriate as a fatigue design loading due to the very
infrequent nature of this loading. The fatigue loading
specified is consistent with the treatment of sign
support structures. For bridges crossing roadways, the
truck-induced gust loading should be considered. The
other loadings specified in AASHTO Signs are not
applicable to pedestrian bridges due to their decreased
susceptibility to galloping or vortex shedding
vibrations.

3.6APPLICATION OF LOADS C3.6

When determining the application of the pedestrian The dimension given is meant to represent a single
live loading which maximizes or minimizes the load line of pedestrians; any width less than this would not
effect on a given member, the least dimension of the represent a practical loading scenario.
loaded area shall be greater than or equal to 2.0 ft.

3.7COMBINATION OF LOADS C3.7

The types of bridges identified in Article 1.1 shall be Load combination Strength II is meant for special
designed for the load combinations and load factors permit trucks, which is not applicable to pedestrian
specified in AASHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-1, with the bridges. Strength IV is for dead load dominant
following exceptions: structures such as long span trusses, and would not
likely apply to pedestrian bridges. Strength V addresses
Load combinations Strength II, Strength IV, and the case of strong wind combined with reduced live
Strength V need not be considered. loading, which is not likely to occur for pedestrian
bridges. For unusual cases where the excluded load
The load factor for the Fatigue I load combination combinations have a reasonable chance of occurring,
shall be taken as 1.0, and the Fatigue II load they should be considered in the design. The fatigue
combination need not be considered. loading specified in AASHTO Signs and referenced
Where main gravity load carrying elements also form herein was calibrated for a load factor of 1.0 and the
part of the railing system, railing loads as specified in design condition of infinite life.
Article 13.8.2 of AASHTO LRFD shall be applied
concurrently with all other live loads for the Strength
Limit States.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 7

4FATIGUE

4.1RESISTANCE C4.1

The fatigue resistance for steel components and CIDECT Design Guides are a foreign specification
details shall be as specified in AASHTO LRFD, Article available through the AISC. See Zhao et al., 2001.
6.6.1.2.5 for the Fatigue I load combination. For round
HSS components and details not covered in AASHTO
LRFD, the nominal fatigue resistance may be taken
from Table 11.3 of AASHTO Signs or Figure 2.13 of
AWS D1.1 Structural Welding CodeSteel. For square
and rectangular HSS components and details, the
nominal fatigue resistance may be taken from the
provisions of the Design Guide 8 of the International
Committee for the Development and Study of Tubular
Structures (CIDECT).

The fatigue resistance for steel reinforcement in


concrete structures shall be as specified in AASHTO
LRFD Article 5.5.3.

4.2FRACTURE C4.2

Except as specified herein, all of the provisions For pedestrian bridges crossing low-volume traffic
specified in Article 6.6.2 of AASHTO LRFD relating to waterways and roads, or areas not accessible to the
Charpy V-notch (CVN) fracture toughness general public, FCM treatment may not be appropriate.
requirements, including Fracture Critical Member
(FCM) and Main Member designation, shall apply to
steel pedestrian bridges. Design of tubular members
shall also satisfy the provisions of Article 8.2. If
supported by the characteristics of the site and
application, the Owner may waive the FCM
requirements, including Article 8.2.3 of these
specifications.

5DEFLECTIONS C5

Deflections should be investigated at the service Table 2.5.2.6.3-1 of AASHTO LRFD contains
limit state using load combination Service I in Table guidance on span-to-depth ratios that may be invoked
3.4.1-1 of AASHTO LRFD. For spans other than by an Owner.
cantilever arms, the deflection of the bridge due to the
unfactored pedestrian live loading shall not exceed The 1/360 criteria is consistent with the increased
1/360 of the span length. Deflection in cantilever arms pedestrian loading compared to previous versions of
due to the pedestrian live loading shall not exceed AASHTO pedestrian bridge guidance. See also Article
1/220 of the cantilever length. Horizontal deflections 2.5.2.6.2 of AASHTO LRFD for bridges carrying both
under unfactored wind loading shall not exceed 1/360 roadway and pedestrian traffic.
of the span length.

6VIBRATIONS C6

Unless waived by the Owner, vibrations shall be Due to the vibration problems experienced in
investigated as a service limit state using load London on the Millennium bridge, there have been
combination Service I in Table 3.4.1-1 of AASHTO many publications in the technical literature, primarily
LRFD. Vibration of the structure shall not cause in Europe, on this topic. Despite this large body of

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
8 L M D GUIDESPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE DESIGN
OF PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES

discomfort or concern to users of a pedestrian bridge. knowledge, it does not appear there has been
Except as specified herein, the fundamental frequency convergence toward one method of evaluation, or
in a vertical mode of the pedestrian bridge without live development of any specification that adequately
load shall be greater than 3.0 hertz (Hz) to avoid the covers this issue.
first harmonic. In the lateral direction, the fundamental
frequency of the pedestrian bridge shall be greater than These provisions address the issue of vibration from
1.3 Hz. If the fundamental frequency cannot satisfy two directions: maintaining a minimum natural
these limitations or if the second harmonic is a vibration frequency above those induced by
concern, an evaluation of the dynamic performance pedestrians, and specifying a minimum weight to limit
shall be made. This evaluation shall consider: vibration amplitudes if the frequency limits are not
met. Although somewhat outdated, both of these
The frequency and magnitude of pedestrian approaches are still viable and have the great advantage
footfall loadings of simplicity.
The phasing of loading from multiple pedestrians The technical guide published by SETRA (Service
on the bridge at the same time, including the d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes) (2006)
"lock-in" phenomena appears to present a relatively straightforward method
Appropriate estimation of structural damping for addressing vibration issues when the frequencies of
the bridge fall within the pacing frequencies of
Frequency-dependent limits on acceleration andlor pedestrians.
velocity
The "lock-in" phenomenon refers to the tendency of
In lieu of such evaluation in the vertical direction, the people to synchronize their pacing frequency to the
bridge may be proportioned such that either of the lateral frequency of the bridge when the lateral
following criteria are satisfied: displacements begin to grow. In other words, instead of
random frequencies and phasing among the loading
from pedestrians on the bridge, the frequencies and
phases becomes fully correlated with the bridge
motion.

where:

W = the weight of the supported structure,


including only dead load (kips)

f = the fundamental frequency in the vertical


direction (Hz)

7.1-HALF-THROUGH TRUSSES

7.1.1-Lateral Frame Design Force


The vertical truss members, the floorbeams, and This article modifies the provisions of AASHTO
their connections shall be proportioned to resist a LRFD by replacing the 300 pounds per linear foot
lateral force applied at the top of the truss verticals. design requirement for truss verticals with provisions
The lateral force shall not be less than 0.01lK times the based on research reported in Galambos (1998). These
average factored design compressive force in the two provisions establish the minimum lateral strength of the
adjacent top chord members, where K is the design verticals based on the degree of lateral support
effective length factor for the individual top chord necessary for the top chord to resist the maximum
members supported between the truss verticals. In no design compressive force.
case shall the value for 0.01lK be less than 0.003 when

O 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 9

determining the minimum lateral force, regardless of


the K-value used to determine the compressive capacity
of the top chord. The lateral frame design force shall be
applied concurrently with the loading used to
determine the average compressive force above.

End posts shall be designed as a simple cantilever to


carry their applied axial load combined with a lateral
load of 1.0 percent of the end post axial load, applied
laterally at the upper end.

7.1.2Top Chord Stability C7.1.2


The top chord shall be considered as a column with The use of the 1.33 factor applied to the factored
elastic lateral supports at the panel points. Except as compression load to determine Pc is in recognition that
noted herein, the contribution of the connection for uniformly loaded structures there is a higher
stiffness between the floorbeam and the vertical probability of the maximum compression force
member shall be considered in determining the occurring simultaneously in adjacent truss panels. For
stiffness of the elastic lateral supports. further discussion, refer to Galambos (1998). To utilize
the procedures given here for top chord stability design
When the following criteria are satisfied, the without modification for cross-frame connection
connection may be assumed rigid for the purpose of stiffness, proper detailing must be used to ensure that
U-frame stiffness calculation: the connection is fully rigid at service loads; if not,
the stiffness of the connections must be incorporated
Matched member widths in simple unreinforced into the overall stiffness of the U-frames in order to
HSS connections of the floorbeam to vertical as correctly predict top chord buckling.
applicable (no deformation allowed due to tube
wall plastification of member faces at service It has been seen that if a stepped connection is used,
loads). the stiffness of U-frames in pony truss bridges are less
than that predicted when using member stiffness only.
The connection of the floorbeam to the vertical
Additionally, welding to two faces of an HSS member
shall not include the HSS chord member, i.e., the
that are at 90 degrees to each other causes the chord to
vertical and floorbeam shall not be connected to
go into the shape of a parallelogram or ovalize when
different sides of a HSS chord.
trying to pass moment between the members. This too
Fixed end moments in the floorbeams and verticals affects the cross-frame stiffness.
due to floorbeam rotations in addition to the loads
derived from a U-frame analysis have been See AISC guidance for the strength design of HSS
accounted for in strength design of the connections.
connections.
The proposed design and details for the connection of
the floorbeam demonstrating satisfaction of the criteria
specified herein shall be submitted to the Owner for
review. The Owners decision as to acceptability shall
be final.

The procedure for determining the resistance of a Interpolation of values between those given in the table
compression member in AASHTO LRFD may be used is acceptable.
to determine the resistance of the compression chord
with a value for the effective length factor, K, based on
a lateral U-frame and obtained from Table 1. In this
table,

C = lateral stiffness of the U-frame made of the


truss verticals and the floorbeam taken as P/
(kip/in.)

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
10 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

P = arbitrary lateral load as shown schematically


in Figure 1 (kips)

= lateral deflection resulting from lateral load P


and shown schematically in Figure 1 (in.)

L = length of the chord between panel points (in.)

Pc = desired critical buckling load (kips) of the


truss chord member, which shall be taken as
1.33 times the factored compressive load

n = number of panels in the truss

P P

Figure 7.1.2-1Lateral U-Frame

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 11

Table 7.1.2-1Values of 1/K for Various Values of CL/Pc and n

1/K n =4 n =6 n =8 n = 10 n = 12 n = 14 n = 16
1.000 3.686 3.616 3.660 3.714 3.754 3.785 3.809
0.980 3.284 2.944 2.806 2.787 2.771 2.774
0.960 3.000 2.665 2.542 2.456 2.454 2.479
0.950 2.595
0.940 2.754 2.303 2.252 2.254 2.282
0.920 2.643 2.146 2.094 2.101 2.121
0.900 3.352 2.593 2.263 2.045 1.951 1.968 1.981
0.850 2.460 2.013 1.794 1.709 1.681 1.694
0.800 2.961 2.313 1.889 1.629 1.480 1.456 1.465
0.750 2.147 1.750 1.501 1.344 1.273 1.262
0.700 2.448 1.955 1.595 1.359 1.200 1.111 1.088
0.650 1.739 1.442 1.236 1.087 0.988 0.940
0.600 2.035 1.639 1.338 1.133 0.985 0.878 0.808
0.550 1.517 1.211 1.007 0.860 0.768 0.708
0.500 1.750 1.362 1.047 0.847 0.750 0.668 0.600
0.450 1.158 0.829 0.714 0.624 0.537 0.500
0.400 1.232 0.886 0.627 0.555 0.454 0.428 0.383
0.350 0.530 0.434 0.352 0.323 0.292 0.280
0.300 0.121 0.187 0.249 0.170 0.203 0.183 0.187
0.293 0
0.259 0
0.250 0.135 0.107 0.103 0.121 0.112
0.200 0.045 0.068 0.055 0.053 0.070
0.180 0
0.150 0.017 0.031 0.029 0.025
0.139 0
0.114 0
0.100 0.003 0.010
0.097 0
0.085 0

7.1.3Alternative Analysis Procedures C7.1.3

The use of a second-order numerical analysis Given the increasing availability of software that is
procedure to evaluate the stability of the top chord of a capable of second order analyses, such an analysis is a
half-through truss is acceptable in lieu of the procedure practical alternative to the method given in Article 7.1.2.
above, provided the following aspects are included in However, the design equations in AASHTO LRFD
the model: account for the issues identified, and any alternative
method should also address these. One method that
might be followed would be to use the second order
Effects of initial out-of-straightness, both between
elastic analysis to determine the K factor for a given
panel points and across the entire length of the
chord size and panel point frame stiffness, and then the
compression chord
design equations of AASHTO LRFD to determine the
Effects of residual stresses in compression corresponding resistance.
members due to fabrication and construction
Effects of the stiffness of vertical to floorbeam
connections

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
12 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

7.2STEEL TWIN I-GIRDER AND SINGLE TUB


GIRDER SYSTEMS

7.2.1General C7.2.1
For potentially torsionally flexible systems such as Several incidents have highlighted the need for a
twin I-girder and single tub girder structural systems, careful evaluation of the stability of pedestrian bridges,
the designer shall consider: especially during the construction stages. Structural
systems consisting of two parallel girders can exhibit
The out-of-plane stiffness of twin I-girders, prior to very different behavior during construction, depending
becoming composite with a concrete deck, can be on the bracing systems used. Lateral bracing contributes
significantly smaller than the in-plane, or vertical, significantly to the lateral-torsional buckling capacity of
stiffness. This can lead to a lateral-torsional the beam. For girders without lateral bracing during
buckling instability during construction. construction, lateral-torsional buckling capacity should
be carefully evaluated. After the deck is cast, the section
Single tub girders, prior to becoming composite is effectively a C shape, which is singly symmetrical.
with a concrete deck, behave as singly symmetric Use of the appropriate lateral-torsional buckling equation
sections with a shear center below the bottom is critical, and reference should be made to Galambos
flange. AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.5.3 requires top (1998). Further information is contained in Yura and
lateral bracing in tub section members to prevent Widianto (2005), as well as Kozy and Tunstall (2007).
lateral torsional buckling of these sections.
Prior to becoming composite with a concrete deck,
twin I-girders with bottom flange bracing will
behave as a tub girder and will exhibit the same
tendencies toward lateral-torsional buckling. Top
lateral bracing shall be provided as for tub sections,
or the stability shall be checked as a singly
symmetric member.

7.2.2Lateral-Torsional Buckling Resistance 2015 Revision


Twin I-Girder
For evaluating the stability of twin I-girder systems
without a composite deck or lateral bracing, the
equation given by Yura and Widianto (2005) may be
used:

2 sE
M n = M cr = I yo I xo M px (7.2.2-1)
L2
where:

Mn = nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one


girder (kip-in.)

Mcr = critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling


moment of one girder (kip-in.)

s = spacing between girders (in.)

E = modulus of elasticity of steel (ksi)

L = effective buckling length for lateral-torsional


buckling (ft)

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 13

Iyo = out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder


(in.4)

Ixo = in-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4)

Mpx = in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.)

Where a concrete deck is used, continuous twin I-girder


systems shall be made composite with the deck for the
entire length of the bridge.

7.2.3Lateral-Torsional Buckling Resistance C7.2.3


Singly Symmetric Sections
The lateral-torsional stability of singly symmetric Equations for the determination of the lateral-torsional
sections not covered in Article 7.2.2 shall be buckling moment in singly symmetric sections are given
investigated using information available in the in the Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal
literature. Structures by Galambos (1998), specifically in
Chapter 5. Equation 5.10 of that chapter presents the
general formula for singly symmetric members where
bending is in the plane of symmetry. Methods for
accounting for location of loading with respect to the
shear center are provided, as well as for determining the
appropriate buckling lengths considering rotational
restraints.

8TYPE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

8.1ARCHES

Arches shall be designed in accordance with the


provisions of AASHTO LRFD with guidance from
Nettleton (1977).

8.2STEEL HSS MEMBERS

8.2.1General C8.2.1
The capacities or resistances of connections for steel AISC has partnered with CIDECT to publish a set of
HSS members shall be in accordance with the Chapter HSS Design Guides. These guides are published
K of the specifications and commentary of AISC (2005) internationally and have not been reviewed by AISC and
or AASHTO Signs. Resistances for fatigue design shall are not necessarily in accordance with the AISC
be in accordance with Section 2.20.6 of Structural Specifications. However, the documents are a good
Welding CodeSteel ANSI/AWS D1.1 or Section 11 of resource on HSS connections and systems.
AASHTO Signs. All loads, load factors, and resistance
factors shall be as specified by AASHTO LRFD and
these Guide Specifications. For member design other
than connections:

Flexure resistance of steel HSS members shall be


according to AASHTO LRFD Article 6.12 as box
sections.
Shear resistance of steel HSS members shall be
according to AASHTO LRFD Article 6.11.9 as box
sections.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
14 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

Tension and compression resistance shall be


according to AASHTO LRFD Articles 6.8.2 and
6.9.2, respectively.

For electric-resistance-welded HSS members, the


design wall thickness shall be taken as 0.93 times the
nominal wall thickness.

8.2.2Detailing C8.2.2
The minimum nominal metal thickness of closed Different philosophies exist on how best to protect
structural tubular members shall be 0.25 in. Corrosion tubular members from corrosion. One method of
mitigation shall be considered. corrosion protection is to vent the interior of the tube
adequately and to provide some form of surface
treatment, often a galvanized finish, to prevent corrosion.
Issues to consider include the size of the field pieces to
be galvanized, the size of local galvanizing kettles, and
the service environment of the bridge.

Another method is to use a weathering steel material to


provide corrosion protection. Adequate drainage and
ventilation of the interior must be provided, and
consideration of the suitability of the operating
environment must be made. FHWA Technical Advisory
T 5140.22 (1989) provides guidance in the use of
weathering steels. An increase in the minimum thickness,
when relying on weathering steel as the corrosion
protection, should be considered.

A third, and often less successful, method is to


completely seal the interior of the member from the
atmosphere. This requires careful detailing of the
connections, as even a small opening will allow
moisture-laden air into the interior, and over time this
can result in a large accumulation of water. Box
members in a large truss that were supposedly sealed to
the atmosphere have been found to contain several feet
of water.

8.2.3Tubular Fracture Critical Members C8.2.3


The AASHTO/AWS Fracture Control Plan for No current specification adequately covers the use of
Nonredundant Members contained in AASHTO/AWS tubular members in a fracture critical capacity.
D1.5, Section 12, shall be applied to tubular members AASHTO/AWS D1.5 specifically excludes tubular
(HSS members), where required by AASHTO LRFD members. It appears significant research is required to
Articles 6.6.2 and C6.6.2, with the following address the unique aspects of both the longitudinal weld
modifications: used to create the closed shape, as well as the one-sided
groove welds without backing bars used in the
ASTM A500, A501, A847, and A618 shall be connections of HSS. Until such time as this research is
added to those standards listed in Article 12.4.1 of performed, the procedure specified herein represents the
AASHTO/AWS D1.5. best available method for addressing fracture critical
issues in HSS construction.
For the purposes of determining preheat and
interpass temperatures, the values for AASHTO
M 270M/M 270 or ASTM A709 Grade 50 shall be
used.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 15

Steel for tubular sections (HSS) shall conform to


the Charpy V-notch requirements defined in
A709-07. Filler metal shall be treated as A709 and
conform to the requirements of AWS D1.5
Table 12.1.
Welding details for cyclically loaded tubular
members specified by AASHTO/AWS D1.1 shall
be used.
All welds require qualification using AWS D1.1
Article 4.8.

8.3FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER (FRP) C8.3


MEMBERS

The minimum thickness of closed structural FRP For design of FRP members in pedestrian bridges,
members (such as tubes) shall be 0.25 in. The minimum reference may be made to the AASHTO Guide
thickness of open structural FRP members (such Specifications for Design of FRP Pedestrian Bridges
as channels), including connection plates, shall be (2008). Little information is currently available regarding
0.375 in. resistance equations or resistance factors for this material
used in bridge structures. Several design specifications
covering FRP pultruded shapes are currently under
development by the American Society of Civil Engineers
and may be of use in the future for the design of FRP
pedestrian bridges.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
16 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

9DESIGN EXAMPLE

HALF-THROUGH TRUSS BRIDGE WITH HSS MEMBERS


ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF KEY PROVISIONS OF GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN

GENERAL INFORMATION

Specifications Used:

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2007 with 2008 Interims (AASHTO LRFD)
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals,
2008 (AASHTO Signs)
AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges (Specification)

Geometry:
Span = 72 ft

Deck width, wdeck = 10 ft

CL-CL trusses = 10.5 ft

A500, Gr. B, Fy = 46 ksi

S ym m @
CL S pa n

U0 0 U0 1 U02 U0 3 U0 4 U0 5 U0 6
5 ft 0 in.

L0 0 L01 L0 2 L0 3 L0 4 L0 5 L06

12 Panels @ 6 ft 0 in. = 72 ft 0 in. Span


L Chords
4 ft 6 in.
5 ft 0 in.

10 ft 0 in. Deck Width


CL C

F lo orb e am

10 ft 6 in. C
LC
L Trusses

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 17

TRUSS MEMBERS: ALL RECTANGULAR HSS

Top and Bottom Chords:

Section: HSS6 3 5/16

A = 4.68 in.2

w = 16.93 plf

End Posts:

Section: HSS6 3 5/16

A = 4.68 in.2

w = 16.93 plf

Vertical Posts:

Section: HSS5 3 5/16

A = 4.1 in.2

w = 14.8 plf

Ix = Ic = 12.6 in.4

Diagonals:

Section: HSS4 3 1/4

A = 2.91 in.2

w = 10.48 plf

FLOORBEAMS:

Section: W8 10

Ix = Ib = 30.8 in.4

Sx = 7.81 in.3

Spacing = 6 ft at each panel point

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
18 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

DEAD LOAD:

Weight of each truss = 62 plf per truss

Assumed deck loading = 25 psf

Weight of deck and floor system = 25 psf 10.50 ft/2

= 132 plf per truss

Total dead load = 62 plf + 132 plf

= 194 plf Use 200 plf

PEDESTRIAN LIVE LOAD (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 3.1):

For Design of Main Truss Members:


The deck area may be used to compute design pedestrian live load for all main member components (truss
members). The deck area is the non-zero influence surface for all such components.

Use 90 psf without impact.

Live load per truss = pedestrian loading deck width/2

= 90 psf 10.0 ft/2

= 450 plf

For Design of Secondary MembersDeck, Stringers, Floorbeams:


Use 90 psf without impact.

VEHICLE LOAD (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 3.2):

Vehicular access is not prevented by fixed physical methods; therefore, the pedestrian bridge should be designed
for an occasional single maintenance vehicle load.

Use Table 3.2-1 for Minimum Axle Loads and Spacings.

The vehicular load shall not be placed in combination with the pedestrian load. Consideration of impact is not
included with this vehicular loading.

Use the following vehicle for a clear deck width between 7 ft and 10 ft:

Front axle = 2 kips

Rear axle = 8 kips

Axle spacing = 14 ft

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 19

Wheel spacing = 6 ft

Note: For this example, the pedestrian load controls for the truss design; however, the vehicle load will control for
the floor system design.

WIND LOAD (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 3.4):

Assume 100 mph design wind.

Use wind load as specified in AASHTO Signs, Articles 3.8 and 3.9.

Neglect wind load on the live load vehicle.

The design life shall be taken as 50 years for the purpose of calculating the wind loading.

Horizontal Wind Loading:


Apply the design horizontal wind pressure on the truss components.

Pz = design wind pressure on superstructure using AASHTO Signs, Eq. 3-1 or Table 3-7 (psf)

= 0.00256KzGV2IrCd (AASHTO Signs, Eq. 3-1)

where:

Kz = height and exposure factor from AASHTO Signs, Eq. C3-1 or Table 3-5

= 1.00 (conservatively taken from Table 3-5 for a height of 32.8 ft)

G = gust effect factor

= 1.14 (minimum)

V = basic wind velocity

= 100 mph

Ir = wind importance factor from AASHTO Signs, Table 3-2

= 1.00

Cd = wind drag coefficient from AASHTO Signs, Table 3-6

= 2.00

Pz = 58.4 psf (Alternatively, AASHTO Signs, Table 3-7 may be used with a Cd value of 2.0 applied.)

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
20 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

Projected vertical area per linear foot:

Chords: 2 @ 3 in./12 6 ft/6 ft 0.50 ft2


Verticals: 3 in./12 4.75 ft long/6 ft 0.20 ft2
Diagonals: 3 in./12 7.81 ft long/6 ft 0.33 ft2
Total per Truss: 1.03 ft2

Deck + Stringers: 10 in./12 0.83 ft2

WSH = total horizontal wind on superstructure (plf)

= (2 trusses 1.03 ft2 + 0.83 ft2) 58.4 psf

= 169 plf

Note: The full lateral wind loads must be resisted by the entire superstructure. Appropriate portions of the design
wind loads must also be distributed to the truss top chord for design lateral forces on the truss verticals.

Vertical Wind Loading:


Apply a vertical pressure of 0.020 ksf over the full deck width concurrently with the horizontal loading. This
loading shall be applied at the windward quarter point of the deck width.

WSV = vertical wind load on the full projected area of the superstructure applied at the
windward quarter point (plf)

= PV(wdeck)

where:

PV = vertical wind loading on superstructure (ksf)

= 0.020 ksf

wdeck = total deck width (ft)

= 10.0 ft

Therefore,

WSV = 0.020 ksf 1000 10.00 ft

= 200 plf

Vertical load on leeward truss = 200 plf (7.5 ft + (0.5 in. + 2.5 in.)/12 in./ft)/10.50 ft

= 147.6 plf

Vertical load on windward truss = 200 plf (2.5 ft + (0.5 in. + 2.5 in.)/12 in.ft)/10.50 ft

= 52.4 plf (uplift)

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 21

TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS PER TRUSS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 3.7):

DEAD LOAD (DC1+DC2): 200 plf

LIVE LOAD (Pedestrian, PL): 450 plf

WIND (Overturning, WS): 148 plf

Load Factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.4.1-1):

Limit State: DC1 & DC2 PL WS


Str I 1.25 1.75 0
Str III 1.25 0 1.40
Ser I 1.00 1.00 0.30

(
STRENGTH I LIMIT STATE DC1 + DC2 ( DC1 + DC2 ) + PL PL = 1, 038 plf )
(
STRENGTH III LIMIT STATE DC1 + DC2 ( DC1 + DC2 ) + WS WSV = 457 plf )
(
SERVICE I LIMIT STATE DC1 + DC2 ( DC1 + DC2 ) + PL PL + WS WSV = 694 plf )
TRUSS MEMBER DESIGN LOADS:

Panel point load from controlling load comb. = 1.038 klf 6.0 ft panel = 6.23 kip/panel

Maximum Truss Member Axial Loads (from separate truss analysis):

Chord (U05-U06) 134.57 kips (compression)

End Post (U00-L00) 34.27 kips (compression)

Diagonal (U00-L01) 53.52 kips (tension)

Vertical (U01-L01) 28.04 kips (compression)

TRUSS TOP CHORD LATERAL SUPPORT (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1):

Assume the truss verticals are adequate to resist the lateral force per Specification, Article 7.1.1. (Must verify
assumption; see Article 7.1.1, Lateral Frame Design Force.)

Lateral support is provided by a transverse U-frame consisting of the floorbeam and truss verticals.

Determine the design effective length factor, K, for the individual top chord members supported between the truss
verticals using Specification, Table 7.1.2-1.

Compute CL/Pc for use in Table 7.1.2-1.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
22 L W D GUIDE
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE DESIGNOF PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES

C = transverse frame spring constant, can be found from separate computer analysis, or from equation below

-
-
E (from Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures,
edited by T. V. Galambos, 1968)
h2[(h/3~,)+(b/2~b)]

where:

E = modulus of elasticity (ksi)

= 29,000 ksi

Floorbeam span: b = 126.0 in.

Effective height of vertical: h = 54.0 in.

Floorbeam: W8 x 10 Ib = 30.8 in.4

Vertical: HSS5 x 3 x 5/16 I, = 12.6 in.4

C = 2.863kiplin.

Alternatively, perform a 2-D computer analysis of the U-Frame

where:

C = PlA
= 2.917 kiplin. (from a separate 2D analysis)

Use C = 2.863.
-
L - unbraced length of the chord in compression (i.e., length between panel points) (in.)
-
- 72 in.

P C
-
- desired critical buckling load (i.e., factored compressive force) multiplied by
1.33 (kips) (SpeciJication, Article 7.1.2)
-
- 178.98 kips

CLIP, -
- 1.15

n -
- number of panels

-
12

Therefore.

(Specification, by interpolation of Table 7.1.2-1)

O 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 23

TOP CHORD COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE (AASHTO LRFD, ARTICLE 6.9.2):

Check the slenderness ratio against the limiting value.

For main members: KL/r 120

For bracing members: KL/r 140

Section: HSS6 3 5/16

A = 4.68 in.2

rx = radius of gyration about the x-axis (in.)

= 2.07 in.

ry = radius of gyration about the y-axis (in.)

= 1.19 in.

K = 1.47

L = 72 in.

KL/rx = (1.47 72 in.)/2.07 in.

= 51.3 < 120 OK

KL/ry = (1.00 72 in.)/1.19 in.

= 60.5 < 120 OK

Pr = factored resistance of components in compression (kips)

= cPn (AASHTO LRFD, Eq. 6.9.2.1-1)

where:

c = resistance factor for compressive per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.5.4.2

= 0.9

Pn = nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips)

Determine the nominal compressive resistance, Pn

If 2.25, then:

Pn = 0.66FyAs (AASHTO LRFD, Eq. 6.9.4.1-1)

If > 2.25, then:

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
24 L W D GUIDE
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE DESIGNOF PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES

(AASHTO LRFD, Eq. 6.9.4.1-2)

(AASHTO LRFD, Eq. 6.9.4.1-3)

gross cross-sectional area (in.2)

4.68 in.2

specified minimum yield strength (ksi)

46 ksi

modulus of elasticity (ksi)

29,000 ksi

Maximum of KLlrx,KLlry

61

Therefore, the top chord factored resistance is:

pn = 0.660.59 x 46 ksi x 4.68 in.2


= 168 kips

LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1):

Hf = minimum lateral force (kips)

= 0.0 1IK(Pav,)

where:

K = 1.47

Pavg
= average design compressive force in adjacent chord members (kips)

= 134.57 kips

Verify limit 0.0111.47 = 0.007 > 0.003 OK

O 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 25

Therefore,

Hf = 0.01/1.47 134.57 kips

= 0.91 kip

Apply Hf as the lateral force at the top of the Truss Verticals. Apply Hf concurrently with other primary forces in
the Verticals (combined compression plus bending analysis). Include lateral wind forces for AASHTO LRFD Load
Combination Strength III.

Length of vertical = 54.0 in.

Lateral Moment in Vertical = 0.91 kip 54.0 in. = 49.27 kip-in.

Only load development is shown, check of capacity follows typical procedures.

END POSTS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1):

Apply the lateral force, C, at the top end of post and design as a cantilever combined with axial load. The lateral
force, C, is taken as 1.0 percent of the end post axial load.

Lateral Force: C = 0.01 34.27 kips = 0.34 kip

Note: All other truss members are analyzed using conventional methods per AASHTO LRFD.

Only load development is shown, check of capacity follows typical procedures.

DEFLECTION (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 5):

Maximum pedestrian LL Deflection = 1/360 of the span length = 72.00 ft 12/360 = 2.40 in.

From Truss Analysis, LL Deflection (wLL = 0.450 kip/ft) = 1.20 in. < L/360 OK

VIBRATIONS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 6):

Vertical Direction:
Estimate the fundamental frequency in the vertical direction, f, by approximating the truss as a simply supported
uniform beam.

The fundamental frequency in a vertical mode without consideration of live load should be greater than 3.0 Hz to
avoid the first harmonic.

g
f = 0.18
DL

where:

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
26 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2)

= 32.2 ft/s2

DL = maximum vertical deflection of the truss due to the dead load (ft)

= 0.0444 ft (from a separate analysis with w = 0.20 klf per truss)

32.2
f = 0.18 = 4.85 Hz > 3.0 Hz minimum desirable OK
0.0444

For illustration purposes, assume higher harmonics (second, third, etc.) are a concern. The bridge should be
proportioned such that the following criteria are satisfied:

f = 2.86 ln (180/W)

where:

W = full weight of the supported structure including dead load (kips)

= 2 trusses 0.20 klf 72.00 ft

= 28.8 kips (Dead Load Only)

2.86 ln (180/28.80) = 5.24 Hz

f = 4.85 Hz is not greater than 5.24 Hz. Modifications required.

Possible modifications include using a heavier deck system or increasing the depth of the truss.

Lateral Direction:

Estimate the fundamental frequency in the lateral direction, flat, by approximating the truss as a simply supported
uniform beam rotated 90 degrees.

The fundamental frequency in a lateral mode without consideration of live load should be greater than 1.3 Hz to
avoid the first harmonic.

Assume the lateral wind bracing is 3 3 1/4 in. structural tubing.

g
f = 0.18
DLlat

where:

g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2)

= 32.2 ft/s2

DLlat = maximum lateral deflection of the truss due to the dead load (ft)

= 0.0844 ft (from a separate analysis)

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 27

32.2
f = 0.18 = 3.52 Hz > 1.3 Hz minimum desirable OK
0.0844

FATIGUE (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 3.5):

Use AASHTO Signs, Article 11.7.3.

AASHTO Signs, Article 11.7.4Not used as it is assumed that the pedestrian bridge is not over a highway.

PNW = 5.2 Cd IF

Cd = wind drag coefficient per AASHTO Signs, Table 3-6

= 2.00

IF = wind importance factor per AASHTO Signs, Table 3-2

= 1.00

PNW = 10.4 psf

WSHfat = total horizontal wind on superstructure for fatigue (plf)

= (2 trusses 1.03 ft2 + 0.83 ft) 10.4 psf

= 31 plf

Maximum Member Force from Wind:

Bottom Chord, Member L05-L06 = 5.6 kips (from a separate analysis)

f = Stress Range

= (5.6 kips/4.68 in.2)

= 1.20 ksi

(f ) (F)n (AASHTO LRFD, Eq. 6.6.1.2.2-1)

where:

= 1.0 (Specification, Article 3.7)

f = 1.20 ksi

(F)n = (F)TH (Specification, Article 4.1)

where:

(F)n = 16 ksi (Category Bbase metal) (AASHTO Signs, Table 11-3)

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
28 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

(1.0)(1.20) 16

1.20 < 16 OK

Welded member connections and fracture toughness requirements are outside the limits of this pedestrian bridge
design example. They will be the responsibility of the Designer.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
20082009

Voting Members

Officers:

President: Larry L. Butch Brown, Sr., Mississippi

Vice President: Susan Martinovich, Nevada

Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Braceras, Utah

Regional Representatives:

REGION I: Joseph Marie, Connecticut, One-Year Term

Gabe Klein, District of Columbia, Two-Year Term

REGION II: Dan Flowers, Arkansas, One-Year Term

Mike Hancock, Kentucky, Two-Year Term

REGION III: Nancy J. Richardson, Iowa, One-Year Term

Thomas K. Sorel, Minnesota, Two-Year Term

REGION IV: Paula Hammond, Washington, One-Year Term

Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Texas, Two-Year Term

Nonvoting Members

Immediate Past President: Allen Biehler, Pennsylvania

AASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC

iii
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
HIGHWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, 2009

MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Chair


KEVIN THOMPSON, Vice Chair
M. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary
RAJ AILANEY, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant Secretary
KEN KOBETSKY, AASHTO Liaison
KELLEY REHM, AASHTO Liaison

ALABAMA, John F. Buddy Black, William Tim OHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi
Colquett, George H. Conner OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Gregory D. Allen,
ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt John A. Schmiedel
ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj
ARKANSAS, Phil Brand PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Harold C. Hal
CALIFORNIA, Kevin Thompson, Susan Hida, Barton J. Rogers, Jr., Lou Ruzzi
Newton PUERTO RICO, (Vacant)
COLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. Salamon RHODE ISLAND, David Fish
CONNECTICUT, Julie F. Georges SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore
DELAWARE, Jiten K. Soneji, Barry A. Benton SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin Goeden
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Nicolas Galdos, L. Donald TENNESSEE, Edward P. Wasserman
Cooney, Konjit Connie Eskender TEXAS, David P. Hohmann, Keith L. Ramsey
FLORIDA, Marcus Ansley, Sam Fallaha, Jeff Pouliotte U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim
GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr. UTAH, (Vacant)
HAWAII, Paul T. Santo VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds
IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar VIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasad L.
ILLINOIS, Ralph E. Anderson, Thomas J. Domagalski Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr.
INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan
IOWA, Norman L. McDonald Khaleghi
KANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst, James J. Brennan, Loren R. WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey, James D. Shook
Risch WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, William
KENTUCKY, Mark Hite Dreher
LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul WYOMING, Gregg C. Fredrick, Keith R. Fulton
Fossier
MAINE, David B. Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Folsom GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt
MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. Healy N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski
MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow, Shirley N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. Moreau
Eslinger PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump
MICHIGAN, Steven P. Beck, David Juntunen
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MINNESOTA, Daniel L. Dorgan, Kevin Western DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Christopher H.
MISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith Carr Westbrook
MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Michael Harms U.S. COAST GUARD, Hala Elgaaly
MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST
NEBRASKA, Mark J. Traynowicz, Mark Ahlman, Fouad SERVICE, John R. Kattell, Scott F. Mitchell
Jaber
NEVADA, Mark P. Elicegui, Todd Stefonowicz ALBERTA, Tom Loo
NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. Scott NEW BRUNSWICK, Doug Noble
NEW JERSEY, Richard W. Dunne NOVA SCOTIA, Mark Pertus
NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, Jimmy D. Camp ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala
NEW YORK, George A. Christian, Donald F. Dwyer, SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea
Arthur P. Yannotti
NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDWaseem
Dekelbab
NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland

iv
2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 29

REFERENCES

AASHTO. 1997. Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2001. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, 4th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2007. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, 2008 and 2009 Interim. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2008. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of FRP Pedestrian Bridges, 1st Edition. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AISC. 2005. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.

Allen, D. E. and T. M. Murray. 1993. Design Criterion for Vibrations Due to Walking. In AISC Journal, 4th
Quarter. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL., pp. 117129.

AWS. 2008. Bridge Welding Code, AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2008. American Welding Society, Miami, FL.

AWS. 2006. Structural Welding CodeSteel, AASHTO/AWS D1.1M/D1.1M:2006. American Welding Society,
Miami, FL.

Bachmann, H. 2002. Lively footbridgesa real challenge. Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Design and Dynamic Behavior of Footbridges, November 2022, 2002, Paris, France, pp.1830.

Blekherman, A. N. 2007. Autoparametric Resonance in a Pedestrian Steel Arch Bridge: Solferino Bridge, Paris. In
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 12, Issue 6. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
pp. 669676.

Dallard, P., T. Fitzpatrick, A. Flint, Low A., R. R. Smith, M. Willford, and M. Roche. 2001. London Millennium
Bridge: Pedestrian-Induced Lateral Vibration. In Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 6. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 412417.

Dallard, P., et al. 2001. The London Millennium Footbridge. In The Structural Engineer, 79(22). The Institute of
Structural Engineers, London, pp. 1733.

FHWA. 1989. Uncoated Weathering Steel in Structures, Technical Advisory T 5140.22. Federal Highway
Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

Galambos, T. V. 1998. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 5th Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.

Kozy, B. and S. Tunstall. 2007. Stability Analysis and Bracing for System Buckling in Twin I-Girder Bridges. In
Bridge Structures: Assessment, Design and Construction, Volume 3, No. 34. Routledge Journals, Florence, KY,
pp 149163.

Nettleton, D. A. 1977. Arch Bridges. Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

Nowak, A. S. and K. R. Collins. 2000. Reliability of Structures, McGraw-Hill International Editions, Civil
Engineering Series. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Singapore.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
30 LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

Poston, Randall W. and Jeffery S. West. 2005. Investigation of the Charlotte Motor Speedway Bridge Collapse,
Metropolis & Beyond 2005. Proceedings of ASCEs 2005 Structures Congress and the 2005 Forensic Engineering
Symposium, April 2024, 2005, New York, NY.

Roberts, T. M. 2005. Lateral Pedestrian Excitation of Footbridges. In Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 10,
Issue 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 107112.

Roland, E. S., M. L.Hull, and S. M. Stover. 2005. Design and Demonstration of a Dynamometric Horseshoe for
Measuring Ground Reaction Loads of Horses during Racing Conditions. In Journal of Biomechanics,
Volume 38, No. 10. Elsevier Inc., The Nerherlands, pp. 21022112.

SETRA. 2006. Technical Guide: FootbridgesAssessment of Vibrational Behaviour of Footbridges under


Pedestrian Loading. Service dEtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Association Francaise De Genie Civil,
Paris, France.

Willford, M. 2002. Dynamic actions and reactions of pedestrians. Proceedings of the International Conference on
the Design and Dynamic Behavior of Footbridges, November 2022, 2002, Paris, France.

Yura, J. A. and Widianto. 2005. Lateral Buckling and Bracing of BeamA Re-evaluation after the Marcy Bridge
Collapse. 2005 Annual Technical Session Proceedings, April 69, 2005 in Monreal, Quebec, Canada, Structural
Stability Research Council. Rolla, MO.

Zhao, X.-L., S. Herion, J. A. Packer, R. S. Puthli, G. Sedlacek, J. Wardenier, K. Weynand, A. M. van Wingerde,
and N. Yoemans. 2001. Design Guide 8for CHS and RHS Welded Joints Under Fatigue Loading. CIDECT, TV
Verlag, Germany.

Zivanovic, S., A. Pavic, and P. Reynolds. 2005. Vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-induced
excitation: a literature review. In Journal of Sound and Vibration, 279(1-2). Elsevier Inc., The Nerherlands,
pp. 174.

2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Edition
2015 INTERIM TO LRFD GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES, SECOND EDITION

INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION

General
AASHTO has issued interim revisions to AASHTO LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges
(2009). This packet contains the revised pages.

Affected Articles
Underlined text indicates revisions that were approved in 2014 by the AASHTO Highways Subcommittee on
Bridges and Structures. Strikethrough text indicates any deletions that were likewise approved by the Subcommittee. A
list of affected articles is included below.
All interim pages are printed on pink paper to make the changes stand out when inserted in the second edition
binder. They also have a page header displaying the section number affected and the interim publication year. Please
note that these pages may also contain non-technical (e.g., editorial) changes made by AASHTO publications staff; any
changes of this type will not be marked in any way so as not to distract the reader from the technical changes.

2014 Changed Articles

SECTION 7: STEEL TWIN I-GIRDER AND SINGLE TUB GIRDER SYSTEMS


7.2.2

iii
2015
2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Revision
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.