Characterization of Polyester-Rope Suspended Footbridges

)
CHARACTERIZATION OF POLYESTER-ROPE
SUSPENDED FOOTBRIDGES
Edward Matthew Segal
A DISSERTATION
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY
OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Adviser: Sigrid Adriaenssens
June 2015
ProQuest Number: 3728851
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 3728851
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
)
© Copyright by Edward Matthew Segal, 2015. All rights reserved.

)
Abstract
In rural parts of the world, lack of access to roads that are useable year-round
significantly contributes to poverty. Suspended footbridges can improve access at
locations that require medium span crossings (15 m to 64 m). This dissertation challenges
the idea that modern bridges of this type must use steel rope, a well-established material
for this application. Polyester rope, an unconventional bridge material, is investigated as
an alternative to steel rope for rural suspended footbridges. The specific goals of this
research are to: (i) characterize the static and dynamic behavior of polyester-rope bridges
and (ii) determine which design criteria and system parameters will influence future
design guidelines for these structures.
Numerical and analytical, static, natural frequency, and pedestrian excitation
computations are performed to investigate the influence of polyester rope’s material
stiffness on the static and dynamic response of polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
Polyester rope’s low stiffness leads to larger static bridge deflections than occur for steel-
rope structures. These deflections are accompanied by a nonlinear increase in a bridge’s
geometric stiffness and lead to high levels of safety against overloading. Polyester rope’s
low stiffness also requires that these bridges be prestressed to meet static and dynamic
serviceability (pedestrian comfort) limits specified in footbridge guidelines. The damping
ratios that are utilized in the pedestrian excitation analyses follow from the first set of
full-scale physical tests that have been performed on a medium-span polyester-rope
bridge.
iii
)
Multi-objective optimization is utilized to find minimum volume polyester-rope and
steel-rope suspended footbridge designs across the medium span range when subject to
in-plane static and dynamic strength and serviceability constraints. The optimization
problems are evaluated with a novel methodology that combines a genetic algorithm with
static, natural frequency, and pedestrian excitation analyses. The impact of cross-
sectional area, material stiffness, prestress, damping, mass, and stiffening stay elements
on rope volume requirements for these bridges are investigated. Minimum volume results
are presented graphically as functions of span to provide visual design aids that can be
included in future bridge guidelines to facilitate comparisons between different systems
under a range of constraint combinations.
iv
)
Acknowledgements
I am very thankful to my adviser, Professor Sigrid Adriaenssens, as well as Theodore P.
Zoli (HNTB, USA), Landolf Rhode-Barbarigos, Professor Rajan Filomeno Coelho
(Université libre de Bruxelles), Professor Maria Garlock and Professor Branko Glisic.
Professor Adriaenssens allowed me to pursue a project of my own interest and then
provided continual support and guidance. She challenged my ideas and helped me to shift
my focus from that of a designer to that of a researcher. Zoli had the inspired idea to
study polyester-rope suspended footbridges, brought me onboard with the project, lent his
technical advice, and funded materials and equipment. Landolf was a constant source of
optimism, energy, and support. Professor Filomeno Coelho fielded many questions
related to structural optimization. Professor Garlock and Professor Glisic were always
generous with their time and offered much appreciated advice and assistance.
A set of Princeton fellowships provided me with financial support: the Sherrerd
Fellowship, the Norman J. Sollenberger Fellowship, and the Upton Graduate Fellowship
in Engineering. Additionally, the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
generously funded my travel to conferences to present my research.
John Flory (Tension Technology International, USA), Maria Gibbs (University of
Notre Dame, USA), Amin Karbassi (Basler and Hofmann AG, Switzerland), Mitchell A.
Nahmias, Professor Paul Prucnal, Bhavin J. Shastri, Justin Steinhouse (HNTB, USA),
Joseph Vocaturo, and Ryan Woodward (HNTB, USA) offered technical advice on a
range of topics. Colin Barrett (Carollo Engineers, USA) and a group of Columbia
v
)
University Engineers Without Borders students and U.S. Peace Corps volunteers assisted
with setting up and performing the dynamic tests described in this dissertation.
My colleagues at Princeton, Islam Elnaggar, Minmin Fan, Kendall Schmidt, and Jane
Soohoo provided crucial technical and administrative assistance. My fellow graduate
students, Negar Elhami Khorasani, Jonathan Glassman, Julio Herrera Estrada, Daniel
Reynolds, and Dorotea Sigurdardottir were always available to talk things through.
Finally, I have my family, especially my loves, K and M, to thank. M’s constant cheer
never failed to lift my spirits. K’s endless and selfless support made this all possible.
vi
)
Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 3
1.3 Dissertation Layout .............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Prior Publications and Presentations Contributing to this Dissertation ............... 6
2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Suspended Bridge Systems .................................................................................. 8
2.3 Synthetic Rope Material Selection..................................................................... 14
2.4 Serviceability Design Criteria ............................................................................ 16
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................ 19
3 Characterization of Geometric Nonlinear Static Behavior 20
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 20
3.2 Detailed Model: Numerical Static Analysis ...................................................... 21
3.2.1 Case Study Bridge Description .............................................................. 21
3.2.2 Numerical Model ................................................................................... 24
3.2.2.1 Model Components and Boundary Conditions ....................... 24
vii
)
3.2.2.2 Material Properties .................................................................. 25
3.2.2.3 Load Definitions ..................................................................... 26
3.2.3 Numerical Calculations .......................................................................... 28
3.2.4 Numerical Results and Discussion......................................................... 28
3.2.4.1 Lower Bound Material Stiffness Case, Results and
Discussion............................................................................... 28
3.2.4.2 Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Material Stiffness
Cases, Results and Discussion ................................................ 30
3.3 Single Suspended Rope Model: Analytical Evaluation ..................................... 35
3.3.1 Analytical Model ................................................................................... 35
3.3.2 Analytical Calculations .......................................................................... 36
3.3.3 Analytical Results and Discussion ......................................................... 36
3.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 37
4 Characterization of Modal Parameters 39
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 39
4.2 Natural Frequency Analyses .............................................................................. 40
4.2.1 Detailed Model: Numerical Natural Frequency Analysis ...................... 41
4.2.1.1 Numerical Model Properties ................................................... 41
4.2.1.2 Numerical Calculations ........................................................... 42
4.2.1.3 Numerical Results and Discussion.......................................... 43
4.2.2 Taut String Model: Analytical Natural Frequency Evaluation .............. 44
4.2.2.1 Analytical Model .................................................................... 44
4.2.2.2 Analytical Calculations ........................................................... 45
viii
)
4.2.2.3 Analytical Results and Discussion .......................................... 45
4.3 Experimentally Found Natural Frequencies ...................................................... 47
4.3.1 Accelerometer Details ............................................................................ 48
4.3.2 Free Vibration Tests ............................................................................... 49
4.3.3 Ambient Vibration Tests ........................................................................ 52
4.3.4 Discussion of Natural Frequencies ........................................................ 53
4.4 Damping Estimation .......................................................................................... 56
4.4.1 Damping Estimation Procedure ............................................................. 57
4.4.2 Damping Estimation Results and Discussion ........................................ 60
4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 63
5 Bridge Response to Pedestrian Excitation 65
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 65
5.2 Load Definitions ................................................................................................ 66
5.3 Detailed Model: Numerical Dynamic Analysis ................................................. 68
5.3.1 Numerical Model Properties .................................................................. 68
5.3.2 Numerical Calculations .......................................................................... 69
5.3.3 Numerical Results and Discussion......................................................... 72
5.3.3.1 Lower Bound Material Stiffness Case, Results and
Discussion ............................................................................... 72
5.3.3.2 Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Material Stiffness
Cases, Results and Discussion ................................................ 76
5.4 Taut String Model: Analytical Dynamic Evaluation ......................................... 77
5.4.1 Analytical Model ................................................................................... 78
ix
)
5.4.2 Analytical Calculations .......................................................................... 78
5.4.3 Analytical Results and Discussion ......................................................... 78
5.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 80
6 Multi-Objective Optimization with Stress, Slope, and Natural Frequency
Constraints 82
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 82
6.2 Structural Model Features .................................................................................. 84
6.2.1 Model Configurations ............................................................................ 84
6.2.2 Material Properties ................................................................................. 86
6.2.3 Load Definitions .................................................................................... 87
6.3 Optimization Problems ...................................................................................... 88
6.3.1 Problem Formulation ............................................................................. 88
6.3.2 Objective Functions ............................................................................... 89
6.3.3 Static Constraints ................................................................................... 89
6.3.4 Natural Frequency Constraint ................................................................ 90
6.3.5 Design Variables .................................................................................... 90
6.4 Optimization Methodology ................................................................................ 94
6.4.1 Optimization Algorithm ......................................................................... 94
6.4.2 Structural Analysis Algorithms.............................................................. 96
6.4.3 Objective Function and Constraint Calculations ................................... 97
6.4.3.1 Objective Function Calculations .............................................. 97
6.4.3.2 Constraint Calculations for the Problem with Static
Constraints Only ...................................................................... 98
x
)
6.4.3.3 Constraint Calculations for the Unstayed Configurations in
the Problem with Static and Natual Frequency Constraints .... 98
6.4.3.4 Constraint Calculations for the Stayed Configurations in the
Problem with Static and Natural Frequency Constraints ......... 98
6.4.4 Performance Measurement Algorithm ................................................... 99
6.5 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 100
6.5.1 Results and Discussion for the Problem with Static Constraints
Only...................................................................................................... 101
6.5.2 Results and Discussion for the Problem with Static and Natural
Freqeuncy Constraints ......................................................................... 103
6.5.3 Comparison of Polyester-Rope and Steel-Rope Live Load Overload
Factors .................................................................................................. 106
6.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 107
7 Multi-Objective Optimization with Stress, Slope, Natural Frequency, and
Acceleration Constraints 110
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 110
7.2 Structural Model Features ................................................................................ 111
7.2.1 Model Configuration ............................................................................ 111
7.2.2 Material and System Properties ........................................................... 112
7.2.3 Load Definitions .................................................................................. 113
7.3 Optimization Problems .................................................................................... 114
7.3.1 Problem Formulations.......................................................................... 115
7.3.2 Objective Functions ............................................................................. 116
xi
)
7.3.3 Static Constraints ................................................................................. 117
7.3.4 Dynamic Constraints ............................................................................ 117
7.3.5 Design Variables .................................................................................. 119
7.4 Optimization Methodology .............................................................................. 119
7.4.1 Algorithm Summary ............................................................................ 120
7.4.2 Objective Function Calculations .......................................................... 121
7.4.3 Constraint Calculations ........................................................................ 121
7.5 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 122
7.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 127
8 Conclusions and Future Work 129
8.1 Research Contributions .................................................................................... 129
8.1.1 Static and Dynamic Bridge Behavior .................................................. 129
8.1.2 Damping Characteristics ...................................................................... 131
8.1.3 Key Design Criteria and System Parameters ....................................... 132
8.2 Areas for Future Research ............................................................................... 134
8.2.1 Polyester-Rope Material Characterization for Suspended
Footbridges .......................................................................................... 134
8.2.2 Extensions to the Presented Optimization Methodology ..................... 135
8.2.2.1 Alternative Objective Function ............................................. 135
8.2.2.2 Additional Constraints .......................................................... 136
8.2.2.3 Additional Configurations .................................................... 137
8.2.2.4 Robust Optimization ............................................................. 137
8.2.3 Large-Scale Physical Testing ............................................................... 138
xii
)
8.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 140
A Comprehensive Analytical Static Calculations for the Single Suspended
Rope Model Presented in Chapter 3 141
A.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 141
A.2 Analytical Model.............................................................................................. 142
A.3 Analytical Calculations .................................................................................... 143
A.3.1 Calculations for Load Combination 2 ................................................. 143
A.4 Summary of Analytical Results ....................................................................... 147
B Accelerometer Alignment 148
B.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 148
B.2. Discussion of Small Angle Misalignments ...................................................... 148
C Equations for the Dynamic Analysis Presented in Chapter 5 151
C.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 151
C.2 Dynamic Load Calculations ............................................................................. 151
C.3 Steady-State Displacement and Acceleration Equations ................................. 153
C.4 Rope Force Equations ...................................................................................... 155
C.5 Taut String Acceleration Equation ................................................................... 156
D Initial Pedestrian Excitation Tests Performed on the Ait Bayoud Bridge 158
D.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 158
xiii
)
D.2 Accelerometer Details ...................................................................................... 159
D.3 Single Pedestrian Walking Tests...................................................................... 160
D.3.1 Procedure for Single Pedestrian Walking Tests .................................. 160
D.3.2 Results and Discussion for Single Pedestrian Walking Tests ............. 161
D.4 Group Walking Tests ....................................................................................... 164
D.4.1 Procedure for Group Walking Tests ................................................... 164
D.4.2 Results and Discussion for Group Walking Tests .............................. 164
D.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 167
Figure Credits 168
Works Cited 172
xiv
)
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Motivation
Footbridges provide essential connections in a range of environments and are especially
crucial for those living in rural parts of the world (Bang 2009). The World Bank (2007)
estimates that over 1 billion people living in these areas lack access to roads that are
useable year-round. This lack of access significantly contributes to poverty (Roberts et al.
2006). For a poor community, the only financially viable option for improving its
infrastructure may be the enhancement of non-motorized access within existing transport
networks using structures such as footbridges (Lebo and Schelling 2001). Building
suspended bridges can improve access at sites that require spans longer than those
achievable with simple beams (Bridges to Prosperity 2011) or trusses.
Steel-rope (i.e., steel-cable) suspended bridges are currently built worldwide by
humanitarian groups such as Helvetas (HMG, TBSSP/Helvetas 2003), Bridges to
Prosperity (2011), and Bridging the Gap Africa (Bloss et al. 2014). While there are
historic examples of alternative materials such as iron chains (Gerner 2007) and natural
fibers (Ochsendorf 2004) being utilized in bridges, there are few contemporary suspended
1
)
footbridges that have been built with rope material other than steel. This dissertation
investigates the use of polyester rope, a material that is novel to bridge applications, as an
alternative to steel rope for medium-span rural suspended footbridges. In this dissertation,
15 m to 64 m bridge spans are classified as medium spans.
Polyester rope offers a combination of low cost, low creep, low weight, and high
durability (McKenna et al. 2004) that makes it a better alternative than other synthetic
rope materials such as aramid, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), high-modulus
polyethylene (HMPE), and nylon, for this bridge application. Low cost is essential if
those living in rural areas are to afford these bridges. A low creep rate ensures that the
ropes are not susceptible to excessive strain under sustained prestress. Low weight is
advantageous because transportation of materials and construction equipment to rural
sites is challenging. High material durability is crucial to ensure that bridges do not
deteriorate quickly and can remain in service.
One key property that distinguishes polyester rope from steel rope is material
stiffness. Polyester rope has low material stiffness compared to steel rope. Consequently,
polyester-rope suspended footbridges are inherently more flexible than steel-rope bridges.
This dissertation examines the potential for this more flexible polyester-rope system to
serve as an alternative to stiffer steel-rope systems by addressing the following research
questions:
i. How does polyester rope’s material stiffness influence the static and dynamic
behavior of suspended footbridges built with this material?
ii. What advantages does the high flexibility of the polyester-rope system provide
over less flexible systems?
2
)
iii. Which static and dynamic strength and serviceability limits will be key design
criteria for polyester-rope structures?
iv. What are the important system parameters for polyester-rope suspended
footbridges?
1.2 Research Goals and Objectives

The research goals associated with the research questions posed in Section 1.1 are to:
i. Characterize the in-plane vertical static and dynamic behavior of polyester-rope
suspended footbridges.
ii. Establish the key static and dynamic criteria as well as important system
parameters for polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
By meeting these goals this dissertation will contribute to the limited design guidelines
available for polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
To achieve the research goals, a combination of structural analysis, physical testing,
and multi-objective optimization techniques is utilized. The five specific objectives of
this research are to:
i. Characterize the effect of polyester rope’s material stiffness on the geometric
nonlinear static behavior of polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
ii. Investigate the influence of polyester rope’s material stiffness on the natural
frequencies of polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
iii. Determine the approximate damping characteristics of a polyester-rope suspended
footbridge.
3
)
iv. Examine the impact of mass, damping, and polyester-rope’s material stiffness on
the accelerations and rope tensions of polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
v. Identify the key parameters that lead to minimum volume designs for medium-
span polyester-rope suspended footbridges by applying a novel multi-objective
optimization methodology to a set of problems involving various bridge
configurations subject to static and dynamic strength and serviceability
constraints.
1.3 Dissertation Layout

The remainder of this dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 establishes the
current state of knowledge of polyester-rope suspended footbridges and this dissertation’s
contribution in this area. This chapter includes a review of suspended bridge systems,
synthetic rope materials, and design criteria.
Chapter 3 addresses research objective i. This chapter investigates the effect of
polyester rope’s material stiffness on the geometric nonlinear static behavior of polyester-
rope suspended footbridges. This task is accomplished by performing two-dimensional
numerical analyses on a model of a 64 m case study bridge. Analytical calculations are
also performed on a simplified, single suspended rope model. These analytical
calculations are conducted to demonstrate the ability of the simplified model to serve as a
surrogate for the detailed numerical model.
Chapter 4 addresses research objectives ii and iii. This chapter examines the impact of
polyester rope’s material stiffness on natural frequencies for polyester-rope suspended
footbridges. This task is carried out with a combination of two-dimensional numerical
4
)
and analytical computations. Additionally, this chapter presents approximate damping
ratios determined from full-scale testing on the case study bridge introduced in Chapter 3.
Chapter 5 addresses research objective iv. This chapter investigates how mass,
damping, and polyester rope’s material stiffness influences the dynamic response, namely
the accelerations and rope tensions of polyester-rope suspended footbridges. This task is
completed using two-dimensional numerical and analytical calculations.
Chapters 6 and 7 address research objective v. These chapters identify parameters
that aid in minimizing rope volume across the medium span range. This task is
accomplished by evaluating a set of optimization problems. Chapter 6 presents a novel
methodology that combines a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm with nonlinear
static and natural frequency computations that utilize dynamic relaxation and
eigenanalysis algorithms. The methodology is used to evaluate problems with static
stress, slope, and natural frequency constraints. Chapter 7 presents an extension to the
optimization methodology. The modified methodology includes modal calculations to
evaluate cases that are subject to acceleration and dynamic stress constraints in addition
to static stress, slope, and natural frequency constraints. A range of systems including
two-dimensional polyester-rope and steel-rope bridges with or without prestress and with
or without below-deck stays are optimized.
Chapter 8 summarizes this dissertation’s contributions and suggests potential areas
for future numerical and experimental research related to polyester-rope suspended
footbridges.
5
)
1.4 Prior Publications and Presentations Contributing
to this Dissertation
Portions of this dissertation have appeared previously in or are under review for inclusion
in a series of journal and conference papers. With the permission of the respective
publishers, these sections, with edits and additions to provide continuity, have been
included in the dissertation. The citations for the papers along with a reference to the
primary dissertation chapter(s) in which sections of the papers appear, are listed below.
Additional text from these papers may also appear in other locations within the
dissertation. This section serves as the only explicit reference in the dissertation to these
publications.
Refereed journal publications:
i. Segal, E. M., Rhode-Barbarigos, L., Adriaenssens, S., and Filomeno Coelho, R.
D. “Multiobjective Optimization of Polyester-Rope and Steel-Rope Suspended
Footbridges.” Engineering Structures. [accepted for publication]. (Sections of this
manuscript appear primarily in Chapters 2 and 6.)
Conference publications (underline indicates the presenter and * indicates the paper
was displayed as a poster, not presented):
ii. *Segal, E. M., Adriaenssens, S., Zoli, T. P., and Flory, J. F. (2013). “Polyester
Rope, an Alternative to Steel Cable for Pedestrian Suspended Bridges.” Structures
Congress 2013: Bridging Your Passion with Your Profession – Proceedings of the
2013 Structures Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston,
VA, 2837-2847. (Sections of this publication appear primarily in Chapter 2.)
6
)
iii. Segal, E. M., Rhode-Barbarigos, L., Filomeno Coelho, R. D., and Adriaenssens,
S. (2014). "An Automated Robust Design Methodology for Suspended
Structures." Proceedings of the IASS-SLTE 2014 Symposiuim - Shells,
Membranes, and Spatial Structures: Footprints, International Association for
Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS), Brasília, Brazil. (Sections of this publication
appear primarily in Chapter 8.)
iv. Segal, E. M., Adriaenssens, S., and Rhode-Barbarigos, L. (2015). “Strategies for
Improving the Dynamic Response of Suspended Footbridges in the Developing
World.” IABSE Geneva Conference 2015: Structural Engineering – Providing
Solutions to Global Challenges, International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Geneva, Switzerland. [abstract accepted]. (Sections of this
manuscript appear primarily in Chapter 1.)
Conference presentation without publication:
v. Segal, E. M., Rhode-Barbarigos, L., Adriaenssens, S. and Zoli, T. (2015). “Design
and Development of Polyester-Rope Suspended Footbridges.” Structures
Congress 2015, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) and ASCE, Portland, OR.
(Sections of the presentation are elaborated on in many of the chapters.)
The author of this dissertation was the first and primary author of the listed
publications and presentations. The co-authors for these works served primarily as
advisers and edited the manuscripts.
7
)
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to provide the context for this dissertation’s contributions
to future design guidelines for medium-span (15 m to 64 m) polyester-rope suspended
footbridges built in rural areas. First, this chapter describes what a suspended footbridge
is, what configurations these structures have taken, and what materials these structures
have been built with. Next, the reasons why this dissertation investigates polyester rope
as opposed to other synthetic rope materials are discussed. Then, the serviceability
criteria likely to influence the designs for polyester-rope bridges are presented.
2.2 Suspended Bridge Systems

This section describes various suspended bridge systems that have been built and shows
that there are few polyester-rope suspended footbridge precedents. The terms
“suspended” and “suspension” are often used interchangeably when describing bridge
systems. In this dissertation, a suspended bridge (Figure 2.1) is defined as having a deck
that sits directly on draped below-deck ropes and may have additional draped ropes that
8
)
also serve as handrails (hand ropes). In contrast, a suspension bridge has a deck that is
hung from one or more draped ropes that pass over towers. A suspended bridge’s hand
ropes also span between towers. These towers are shorter than those of suspension
bridges because of the low sag-to-span ratios of the hand ropes.
Figure 2.1. Polyester-rope suspended footbridge in Ait Bayoud, Morocco showing the
below-deck and hand draped ropes, deck, and towers.
Schematic elevations for three suspended bridge configurations that have been built
are presented in Figure 2.2.
a. Suspended ropes only. b. Suspended ropes with c. Suspended ropes with below-
underslung ropes forming a deck stays.
truss.
Figure 2.2. Elevations showing geometry and components for three suspended bridge
configurations.
The configurations in Figure 2.2 are characterized by: (a) suspended ropes only, (b)
suspended ropes with underslung ropes forming a truss, and (c) suspended ropes with
9
)
below-deck stays. For each configuration in Figure 2.2 only a single suspended rope at
the below-deck level is shown. Suspended hand ropes, decking, etc. have been excluded
for clarity.
For all three configurations the primary features are the suspended ropes. The
mechanics of suspended ropes have been well studied. Irvine (1981) provided a historic
discussion on the development of the static catenary equations. He also presented an
approximate theory for static calculations performed on flat sag ropes (sag-to-span ratios
less than 1:8) and described the linear theory of free vibration of ropes. Gimsing and
Georgakis (2012) presented static and dynamic equations for a single rope and described
how to analyze suspension bridges. Conventional suspension bridges are similar to
suspended bridges whose ropes are not prestressed. Figure 2.3a presents a steel-rope
suspended bridge of this kind. Suspended bridges whose ropes are prestressed may be
referred to as stress ribbons. These structures could include a prestressed concrete deck
whose composite stiffness is greater than the ropes on their own (Strasky 2005). Figure
2.3b presents a stress ribbon with steel ropes and a concrete deck.
10
)
a. Collpatomaico Bridge with nonprestressed b. David Kreitzer Lake Hodges stress ribbon
ropes. Photograph courtesy of Bridges to with concrete deck. Photograph courtesy of
Prosperity (Wikimedia Commons). Susan Williams (Flikr).
c. Suspended bridge with below-deck truss. d. Nepalese bridge with below-deck stays.
Photgraph courtesy of Lev Yakupov (Flikr). Photgraph courtesy of John Pavelka (Flikr).
Figure 2.3. Built examples of steel-rope suspended footbridges.
An alternative way to stiffen a suspended rope in a suspended or suspension bridge is
to provide a prestressed supplemental rope with opposite curvature that acts with the
suspended rope to form a rope truss (configuration b). The trusses can be biconcave or
biconvex where the upper and lower truss chords are connected by elements subject to
tension in the former and compression in the latter (Irvine 1981). Various biconcave truss
footbridge configurations have been proposed and evaluated statically (Huang et al.
2005a; Chen et al. 2014) and dynamically (Huang et al. 2005b; Huang et al. 2005c). As
shown in Figure 2.3c, these trusses may be inclined from vertical to increase a bridge’s
lateral stiffness in addition to its vertical stiffness.
11
)
While discrete stays are most commonly provided as the primary load carrying
members in a cable-stayed system (Billington and Nazmy 1990), these elements can also
be used instead of a rope truss to stiffen suspension and suspended (configuration c)
bridges. A prominent example of a hybrid cable-stayed/suspension system (Gimsing and
Georgakis 2012) in which both suspension ropes and above-deck stays in addition to a
stiffening truss are utilized is John A. Roebling’s Brooklyn Bridge (Buonopane 2006). In
another Roebling structure, the Niagara Railroad Bridge, the suspension ropes, above-
deck stays, and stiffening truss are supplemented with below-deck stays to stiffen against
wind effects (Buonopane 2012). Figure 2.3d presents an example of a suspended
footbridge with below-deck stays.
Historic examples of suspended footbridges date back to at least the 15th century and
include Tibetan and Bhutanese iron chain (Gerner 2007) and Incan natural fiber-rope
(Ochsendorf 2004) bridges (Figures 2.4a and 2.4b, respectively). Modern suspended
bridges such as the ones shown in Figures 2.3 are typically constructed with steel ropes.
There are few contemporary examples of suspended bridge built with rope material other
than steel. Two temporary, laboratory-scale prototypes that do not use steel rope include
a 13 m span stress ribbon (Figure 2.5a) that has carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP)
ropes and a concrete deck (Bleicher et al. 2011) and a 13.7 m polyester-rope truss (Figure
2.5b) (Sarner et al. 2010). One larger scale example is the 64 m span, 1.02 m wide
polyester-rope suspended footbridge (Ait Bayoud, Morocco, 2013) shown in Figure 2.1.
12
)
a. Iron chains from the Chakzam Bridge b. Keshwa-chaka natural fiber-rope bridge near
crossing the Yarlung Tsangpo River in Huinchiri, Peru. Photograph courtesy of Rutahsa
Tibet. Photograph courtesy of Edmund Adventures (Wikimedia Commons).
Candler (Wikimedia Commons).
Figure 2.4. Historic examples of suspended footbridges.
a. 13 m span CFRP and concrete stress ribbon. b. 13.7 m span polyester-rope truss.
Photograph courtesy of William Plunkett.
Figure 2.5. Laboratory-scale suspended footbridges.
While the 64 m span structure suggests that polyester rope has potential as an
alternative to steel rope for medium-span footbridges, its design was limited to meeting a
strength criterion only (Woodward 2012a). The smaller-scale polyester rope truss
demonstration bridge does not provide additional insight into the behavior of polyester-
rope bridges. Sarner et al. (2010) in their design report for this truss bridge described the
13
)
selection of the truss arrangement and the construction process, but did not include any
analysis. There has not been research on how meeting designated serviceability criteria
such as deflections, natural frequencies, and accelerations, influences the required
parameters for polyester-rope suspended footbridges. These parameters include prestress
and cross-sectional area for suspended ropes and stiffening elements such as truss or stay
ropes, as well as supplemental mass.
2.3 Synthetic Rope Material Selection

This section compares cost and material properties for various synthetic rope materials
such as aramid, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), high-modulus polyethylene
(HMPE), nylon, and polyester. This comparison is performed to show that polyester rope
has greater potential than the other synthetic ropes for use in bridge applications in rural
areas. Qualitative cost and material property descriptions for the synthetic ropes are listed
in Table 2.1. Qualitative data are provided in Table 2.1 because the variety of grades
available for each material makes reporting exact quantitative data difficult.
Table 2.1. Qualitative cost and material property descriptions for aramid, CFRP, HMPE,
nylon, and polyester ropes.
Strength-to- Creep Abrasion Performance when
Material Cost Stiffness
weight performance resistance wet vs. dry i
Aramid ii High High High Very good Poor Decreased
CFRP iii High High High -- iv -- iv -- iv
HMPE ii High High High Poor Fair Similar
Nylon ii Low Low Low Fair Excellent Decreased
Polyester ii Low Low Low Very good Very good Similar
i. Performance qualifiers refer to changes to some or all of the other properties listed
in the table.
ii. Qualifiers follow from McKenna et al. (2004) directly or through interpretation of
their test results and discussions.
iii. Qualifiers follow from Burgoyne (2001).
iv. Cost is so high for CFRP (Burgoyne 2001), that it was eliminated for this
application (suspended footbridges in rural areas) before compiling these properties.
14
)
For pedestrian bridges in rural areas, minimizing cost is critical (Lebo and Schelling
2001). While rope materials such as aramid (Burgoyne 1993; Burgoyne and Head 1993)
and CFRP (Ding et al. 2011; Meier 2012) have been implemented as stays and
prestressing tendons, the high costs of these materials precludes their use in rural bridge
applications. HMPE has not been used in bridge applications, but Gupte et al. (2010) in
their study of potential synthetic ropes for rural footbridges concluded that HMPE,
primarily because of its high strength, was the best alternative to steel rope. However,
this study did not consider creep performance; HMPE is susceptible to creep failure
(McKenna et al. 2004). Since the ropes of a suspended bridge are under constant tensile
stress due to dead loads and possibly prestress, creep can occur. The combination of high
cost and potential for creep failure indicates that HMPE is not an appropriate rope
material for this application.
Polyester and nylon are both low cost options. Table 2.1 indicates that polyester has
better creep performance (lower creep rates) and performance when wet (its properties do
not change significantly when the rope is wet) than nylon. Additionally, most polyester
grades have strength and stiffness values that while low compared to aramid or CFRP are
greater than those of most nylon grades (McKenna et al. 2004). Polyester rope’s
combination of low cost, low creep, and high durability (very good resistance to abrasion
and little degradation of material properties when wet) makes it the most suitable
synthetic material for rural suspended footbridges.
Polyester rope’s frequent use in other applications previously dominated by steel
rope, such as deep water mooring (Flory et al. 2007), suggests that polyester-rope bridges
may also be competitive with steel-rope bridges. Direct comparisons between steel-rope
15
)
and polyester-rope bridges are required to show the advantages that polyester rope offers
over steel rope. A comprehensive comparison of all material properties and the influence
of these properties on the performance of polyester-rope and steel-rope bridges is beyond
the scope of this dissertation. This dissertation examines material stiffness and its impact
on the static and dynamic behavior of suspended footbridges.
2.4 Serviceability Design Criteria

In Section 2.2 it was noted that polyester-rope suspended footbridges have not been
designed to meet serviceability criteria such as deflections, natural frequencies, and
accelerations. It is anticipated that serviceability criteria will influence design
requirements for these structures because suspended footbridges have low stiffness
compared to other bridge types like trusses and arches and polyester rope’s material
stiffness is low relative to that of steel rope. This section presents static and dynamic live
load serviceability criteria for pedestrian bridges. Since it is anticipated that polyester-
rope suspended footbridges will be constructed in rural areas, these criteria are discussed
in the context of rural bridges.
Walking slope rather than deflection limits are more directly linked to pedestrian
comfort on a footbridge. For the rural bridges constructed by Bridges to Prosperity
(2011), the maximum allowable sag under full loading for bridges up to 80 m in span
results in a maximum walking slope of 20%.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) guidelines (2009) include natural frequency limits that follow from the range
susceptible to pedestrian vibrations (less than 1.3 Hz and 3 Hz in the lateral and vertical
16
)
directions, respectively). The AASHTO guidelines (2009) require that either the natural
frequencies are shifted outside the range of vulnerability or a dynamic pedestrian
excitation analysis is performed. AASHTO (2009) cites the Service d’Études Techniques
des Routes et Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide (2006) as providing a potential method
for the dynamic analysis. Per Sétra’s methodology, a bridge can be considered
serviceable from a pedestrian comfort perspective if accelerations found during the
dynamic analysis are below certain limits (Sétra 2006). Table 2.2 lists lateral and vertical
accelerations corresponding to ranges of pedestrian comfort presented by Sétra.
Acceleration limits for minimum comfort are 0.082 g and 0.255 g in the lateral and
vertical directions, respectively (Sétra 2006).
Table 2.2. Sétra’s (2006) lateral and vertical acceleration pedestrian comfort limits.
Pedestrian comfort ranges defined by acceleration (g)
Acceleration direction
Maximum Mean Minimum Not acceptable
Lateral 0 – 0.015 0.015 – 0.031 0.031 – 0.082 > 0.082
Vertical 0 – 0.051 0.051 – 0.102 0.102 – 0.255 > 0.255
Information about a structure’s damping characteristics is required when performing a
dynamic analysis to evaluate accelerations. A footbridge’s damping is dependent on
multiple factors including the materials, structural system, bearing conditions (fib 2005),
and connections (Sétra 2006). A few of the aspects that have potential to contribute to the
damping of polyester-rope suspended footbridges have been studied previously.
McKenna et al. (2004) described how polyester loses heat due to hysteresis during load
cycling. Hennessey et al. (2005) examined the snap load response of synthetic ropes,
including polyester ropes, to determine the potential for these ropes to dissipate energy
when going from slack to taut. Ramberg and Griffin (1977) showed that slack cables
subject to an excitation followed by free vibration have greater damping ratios than taut
17
)
cables. To estimate the total damping of a structure requires full-scale testing (Sétra
2006). Testing of polyester-rope suspended footbridges has not been done previously.
Test results presented in this dissertation are the first available damping values for
polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
Sétra (2006), in addition to providing acceleration comfort limits, presents footbridge
classes based on anticipated traffic levels on a structure. This classification recognizes
that for rural bridges with limited traffic, considering pedestrian vibrations and meeting
even minimum comfort limits may not be necessary for the communities that the bridge
serves. While polyester-rope suspended footbridges are likely to be built in rural rather
than urban areas, this dissertation still considers natural frequency and minimum
acceleration comfort criteria to establish how requirements for bridge parameters such as
rope prestress, cross-sectional area, and superimposed mass change with the inclusion of
these limits. These analyses are restricted to vertical in-plane behavior and two-
dimensional analytical and numerical models are used throughout the dissertation to
examine this behavior. A future study can use the optimization methodology presented in
this dissertation to consider three-dimensional structures and their associated torsional
and lateral (i.e., out-of-plane) behavior. For these cases, additional pedestrian-induced
lateral vibration issues such as crowd synchronization (“lock-in”) with the bridge
response (Fujino et al. 1993; Dallard et al. 2001; Roberts T. M. 2005; Fujino and
Siringoringo 2014) could be examined.
18
)
2.5 Summary
This chapter established that there are few polyester-rope suspended footbridge
precedents and that limited analysis of these structures has been completed.
Consequently, there are many areas of potential research. This dissertation focuses on
characterizing the in-plane vertical static and dynamic behavior of these polyester-rope
structures and identifying the key design criteria and system parameters that will inform
future design guidelines for medium-span bridges.
19
)
Chapter 3
Characterization of Geometric
Nonlinear Static Behavior
3.1 Introduction
Chapter 2 showed that there has been limited analysis performed on polyester-rope
suspended footbridges. This chapter characterizes the static behavior while Chapters 4
and 5 examine the dynamic behavior of these bridges.
Suspended bridges are more flexible than other bridge types like trusses and arches.
The flexibility of the suspended bridge system combined with polyester rope’s low
material stiffness suggests that polyester-rope suspended footbridges will undergo large
deflections. A geometric nonlinear static analysis should be performed for structures that
undergo large deflections to account for the influence of geometry changes on the system.
The primary objective of this chapter is to characterize how polyester rope’s material
stiffness impacts the geometric nonlinear static behavior of polyester-rope suspended
footbridges. This task is carried out by performing a set of numerical computations on a
20
)
detailed two-dimensional model of a case study bridge. The numerical static calculations
introduced in this chapter will also be incorporated into the analyses appearing in
Chapters 4 – 7.
A secondary objective is to identify the single suspended rope as a surrogate model
that approximates the maximum rope tensions and deflections of the numerical model.
Simplified configurations such as this single rope, rather than their more computationally
expensive detailed counterparts are optimized in Chapters 6 and 7.
3.2 Detailed Model: Numerical Static Analysis

This section presents the numerical static analysis performed on a detailed two-
dimensional model of a case study bridge to evaluate the influence of material stiffness
on the geometric nonlinear behavior of the structure. First, the case study bridge is
described. Then, the numerical model, calculations and results are presented.
3.2.1 Case Study Bridge Description
This section describes the case study bridge that is investigated in this chapter as well as
in Chapters 4 and 5. The case study structure is a 64 m span, 1.02 m wide polyester-rope
suspended footbridge built in Ait Bayoud, Morocco in 2013. This structure spans
between two reinforced concrete towers that differ in elevation by 2.51 m (Figures 3.1
and 3.2).
21
)
Figure 3.1. Realized 64 m span Ait Bayoud footbridge.
Figure 3.2. South elevation of the Ait Bayoud bridge showing the hand and below-deck
suspended ropes, backstays, suspenders (typical layout), towers, and grade beams. The
nonstructural mesh fencing is omitted for clarity. Drawing courtesy of Ryan Woodward.
The suspended rope system consists of ten 18 mm (nominal) diameter (Ø) polyester
ropes, each prestressed to 24.5 kN and with midspan sags of approximately 1.15 m. Four
of these ropes are located below the deck and the remaining six ropes are bundled in two
sets of three to form hand ropes, located 1.22 m above the lower ropes and 0.40 m outside
the deck (Figure 3.3). All suspended ropes pass over the tower in saddles to form
backstays that are anchored to steel reinforcing bars, which extend through reinforced
concrete grade beams into solid rock. The anchorage points are at the same elevations as
the below-deck tower saddles. The resulting back spans are 6.1 m and 3.05 m at the low
(west) and high (east) ends of the bridge, respectively.
The deck consists of 6 cm x 20 cm timber planks attached to 10 cm x 10 cm timber
cross beams, typically spaced at 1.22 m. These cross beams connect directly to the four
22
)
below-deck suspended ropes. Additionally, inclined 9 mm (nominal) diameter (Ø)
polyester-rope suspenders attach to the ends of each cross beam and transfer a portion of
the load to the bundled hand ropes above the deck. Each suspender forms a “V-shape” in
elevation; the suspender begins at the hand ropes, wraps around a cross beam, and then
ends at the hand ropes. Also, attached to the suspended ropes is a non-structural mesh
fencing.
Figure 3.3. Typical Ait Bayoud bridge section showing the bundled hand ropes, below-
deck ropes, suspenders, deck planks, and a cross beam. Drawing courtesy of Ryan
Woodward.
The rope prestress values and all dimensions presented for the case study bridge,
except for the midspan sag, follow from the bridge designer’s structural drawings
(Woodward 2012b). The midspan sag value shown in Figure 3.2 (1.15 m) is determined
during numerical analysis of the bridge under the combination of prestress and dead load
while assuming the rope stiffness is equivalent to the lower bound “modulus of elasticity”
value defined in Section 3.2.2.2.
23
)
3.2.2 Numerical Model

This section describes the two-dimensional representation of the realized bridge that is
analyzed numerically. Model components, boundary conditions, material properties, and
design loads are presented.
3.2.2.1 Model Components and Boundary Conditions
To transform from the three-dimensional realized structure to the two-dimensional model
that is analyzed numerically, the ropes (e.g., hand, below-deck, suspender, and backstay
ropes) at the same elevations are grouped together into a single element (Figure 3.4). The
rope cross-sectional areas (A) used in the detailed model are summarized in Table 3.1.
Since the deck is not designed to influence the global behavior of the system, it is not
included in the detailed model, aside from its contribution to the system dead load.
Figure 3.4. Elevation of the detailed model of the case study.
Table 3.1. Rope areas used in the detailed model.

Rope A (cm2)
Hand rope and adjacent backstays 12.43
Below-deck rope and adjacent backstays 8.28
Suspenders 0.93
The model includes rope clusters which are groups of adjacent rope elements that
form sliding (i.e., continuous) ropes (Moored and Bart-Smith 2009). All elements in a
24
)
cluster have the same internal force. In the model, the suspenders consist of two element
clusters forming a “V-shape” in elevation. Both suspended ropes are segmented into
elements. The lengths for these elements are typically 0.61 m which is equivalent to half
of the typical cross beam spacing in the realized design. Each of the four backstays is a
single element clustered with its adjacent suspended rope element.
Pin supports are used at the backstay anchorages. Towers are not modeled directly.
Instead, pin supports are used at the locations of the hand rope and below-deck saddles.
In the model, the ropes are free to slide over these supports. Replacing the towers with
pin supports overestimates the system’s stiffness, which leads to lower deflections and
consequently, higher rope tensions than what will be present in the realized design.
Therefore, this modeling approach provides conservative force results.
3.2.2.2 Material Properties
The ropes are commercially available, 12-strand, single braid polyester-rope products
(Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5. 12-strand single braid polyester rope.
Polyester is a viscoelastic material and the rope exhibits nonlinear stress-strain
behavior (Flory et al. 2004). While considering a single complete stress-strain curve in
the structural analyses would account for the varying stiffness, this approach has its
limitations. Due to polyester’s viscoelastic properties, the rope’s stiffness is dependent on
load duration, magnitude, and history (ABS 2011). Therefore, a single stress-strain curve
25
)
does not capture the rope’s behavior. Rather than utilizing a more complex stiffness
model that considers all these factors, the approach in this dissertation is to use lower
bound and upper bound “modulus of elasticity” values and then investigate the influence
of these values on the bridge response (i.e., rope forces, deflections, etc.). Material
stiffness cases c1 and c2 evaluated in the calculations performed in Chapter 3 - 5 use the
lower bound and upper bound values of 2.86 GPa (El) and 5.96 GPa (Eu), respectively
across the entire stress range. These modulus of elasticity values are found by drawing
lower bound and upper bound secant lines on a stress-strain curve generated from the
manufacturer’s data. The polyester-rope stiffness model that considers two bounding
stiffness values is known as the upper-lower bound model (ABS 2011).
Polyester rope’s strength limits are taken as the manufacturer’s listed minimum break
forces (noted as splice strengths). The 9 mm suspenders and the 18 mm suspended ropes
have strength limits of 24.5 kN and 99.2 kN, respectively.
3.2.2.3 Load Definitions
The analyses consider prestress, dead (DL), and service live (LL) loads. In section 3.2.1
it was noted that each of the ten suspended ropes is prestressed to 24.5 kN. The
equivalent strains (εp) for cases c1 and c2 are 0.0413 and 0.0198, respectively. In the
numerical model, holding the prestress forces in the suspended ropes constant, but
varying the prestress strain is done because the prestress forces and not the strains were
measured directly during bridge construction. While the suspenders were not prestressed
during bridge construction, in this analysis a small amount of prestress is applied to avoid
numerical errors. The strain in the suspender is set to 0.001 (which is 2.4% and 5.1% of
26
)
the suspended rope strains in cases c1 and c2). Table 3.2 summarizes the rope prestress
strains used in the numerical model.
Table 3.2. Prestress strains used in the detailed model.

εp
Rope
Case c1 Case c2
Hand rope and adjacent backstays 0.0413 0.0198
Below-deck rope and adjacent backstays 0.0413 0.0198
Suspenders 0.0010 0.0010
Both DL and LL are uniformly distributed gravity loads applied across the entire
span. The DL includes the contributions from the suspended ropes, suspenders, deck,
cross beams, and mesh fencing (Woodward 2012a). This value is 0.56 kN/m (qDL). The
service LL is the area load, 3.78 kN/m2 multiplied by the bridge width, 1.02 m. This
value is 3.84 kN/m (qLL). The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) reduction method based on the loaded deck area
(AASHTO 2002), provides the area load in the LL calculation (Woodward 2012a).
Concentrated loads translated from the uniformly distributed DL and LL are applied
vertically downward to below-deck suspended rope element nodes spaced at locations
where cross beams are positioned in the realized design. The typical cross beam spacing
is 1.22 m.
The following working stress load combinations (LCs) are used to investigate the
geometric nonlinear behavior of the bridge under service (unfactored) loads:
LC1: prestress
LC2: prestress + DL
LC3: prestress + DL + LL
27
)
3.2.3 Numerical Calculations

The numerical calculations performed on the detailed model utilize a dynamic relaxation
algorithm (Barnes 1999; Bel Hadj Ali et al. 2011). In this algorithm, suddenly applying
the loads sets the structure into motion. The structure’s geometry is tracked, until due to
fictitious damping, static equilibrium is reached (Day 1965).
3.2.4 Numerical Results and Discussion
This section first presents the tensions and deflections for case c1 (El = 2.86 GPa) under
LC3 to provide a representative set of results in detail. The LC3 results are presented
because by inspection, the forces and deflections under this load combination are greater
than the corresponding values under LC1 and LC2. Then, the minimum factor of safety,
maximum LL deflections, and maximum slope results from the two stiffness cases c1 (El
= 2.86 GPa) and c2 (Eu = 5.96 GPa) under all three load combinations are compared to
show how material stiffness influences the structure’s geometric nonlinear behavior.
3.2.4.1 Lower Bound Material Stiffness Case, Results and Discussion
Rope tensions and the deflected shape for case c1 (lower bound material stiffness case, El
= 2.86 GPa) under LC3 are shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. Rope tensions and deflected shape for case c1 under LC3.
28
)
The minimum tensions in the hand and below-deck ropes are 220.3 kN and 145.1 kN,
respectively. Figure 3.6 shows that these minimum tensions occur near midspan where
the bridge slope is approximately zero. The maximum tensions (T) are 235.7 kN and
161.3 kN in the hand and below-deck ropes, respectively. Figure 3.6 shows that these
maximum tensions occur at the right side of the model where the maximum bridge slope,
42.8%, is located. As expected, based on the clustering, the backstays have the same
tension forces as their adjacent suspended rope elements. Suspender tensions range from
1.5 kN to 1.8 kN (Tmax). Figure 3.6 shows the minimum suspender tension occurs at the
right side of the model and the maximum suspender tension occurs near midspan.
Maximum tension results for the ropes are summarized in Table 3.3.
Factors of safety for the ropes are calculated using the equation:
Tult
FS = (3.1)
Tmax
where Tult is the lumped rope strength limit (i.e., combined strength limit for all ropes
grouped together). These strength limits and factors of safety are summarized in Table
3.3. Among all of the ropes, the hand rope and its adjacent backstay on the right side of
the model have the overall minimum factor of safety (FSmin), namely 2.46.
Table 3.3. Rope tension and factor of safety numerical results for case c1 under LC3.
Rope Tmax (kN) Tult (kN) FS
Hand rope and adjacent backstays 235.7 595.2 2.53
Below-deck rope and adjacent backstays 161.3 396.8 2.46
Suspenders 1.8 49.0 27.22
The maximum vertical LL deflections (δLL) in the hand and below-deck ropes shown
in Figure 3.5 occur near midspan and are both 5.05 m. The maximum walking slope
corresponds to the 42.8% bridge slope at the right side of the model. This slope is 2.14
29
)
times larger than the 20% rural walking slope criterion (Bridges to Prosperity 2011)
presented in Chapter 2. The large LL deflections and corresponding walking slopes for
the case study bridge may deter crowds from forming on the bridge making it unlikely
that the bridge will ever experience the full service LL.
3.2.4.2 Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Material Stiffness Cases, Results
and Discussion
The results presented in Section 3.2.4.1 are now supplemented with a comprehensive
summary of the results for static numerical analyses performed for the two material
stiffness cases (c1: El = 2.86 GPa and c2: Eu = 5.96 GPa). Comparing the factor of safety
and deflection results for these two cases provides insight into how polyester rope’s
material stiffness is influencing the bridge’s static behavior.
Table 3.4 presents minimum factors of safety (FSmin) among all ropes (i.e., hand,
below-deck, backstay, and suspender ropes) as well as maximum LL deflections (δLL),
and maximum slopes (smax) in the below-deck rope for the three load combinations (LCs)
defined in Section 3.2.2.3. Load combinations that include additional LL beyond the
service LL of 3.84 kN/m are also presented in Table 3.4 (labeled LC4 – LC7) to show
how the structure behaves up until the strength limit is reached (i.e., FSmin = 1). The final
load combination in Table 3.4 for each material stiffness case corresponds to when the
bridge has reached its strength limit. These load combinations are LC7 for case c1 and
LC6 for case c2. The coefficient that appears before the LL term in each load
combination in Table 3.4 represents the LL overload factor (γ) applied. For example, for
LC4, an overload factor of 2 indicates that 200% of the service LL or 7.68 kN is included
in the analyses performed with that load combination.
30
)
Table 3.4. Minimum factors of safety, maximum live load deflections, and maximum
slopes from the numerical calculations for cases c1 and c2.
Case c1 Case c2
LC
FSmin δLL (m) smax (%) FSmin δLL (m) smax (%)
1: prestress 4.06 0 4.0 4.06 0 4.0
2: prestress + DL 3.96 0 11.0 3.89 0 10.8
3: prestress + DL + 1.00(LL) 2.46 5.05 42.8 2.16 4.09 36.5
4: prestress + DL + 2.00(LL) 1.75 7.62 59.7 1.50 6.05 49.3
5: prestress + DL + 3.00(LL) 1.37 9.48 72.2 1.17 7.44 58.4
6: prestress + DL + 3.84(LL) 1.23 10.77 81.0 1.00 8.39 64.8
7: prestress + DL + 4.75(LL) 1.00 11.99 89.3 - - -
Table 3.4 shows that under LC3 where the service LL (3.84 kN/m) is applied, cases
c1 and c2 have minimum factors of safety of 2.46 and 2.16, respectively. No factor of
safety for polyester-rope bridges exists, but these values are close to the typical value for
steel rope, 2.2 (Gimsing and Georgakis 2012). The factors of safety for cases c1 and c2
are 11.8% greater and 1.8% less than the value for steel rope, respectively.
The plot in Figure 3.7a illustrates how the factor of safety results listed in Table 3.4
vary with the applied LL. For both cases c1 and c2, there is a nonlinear decrease in factor
of safety that occurs as LL is increased (i.e., increasing the overload factor, γ). The
decrease in factor of safety is not linear with the load applied because of the change in
geometry that occurs during loading. As LL on the bridge increases, the suspended ropes
deflect and the geometric stiffness of the system increases (Irvine 1981). The plot in
Figure 3.7b shows for both cases the LL deflections that lead to this geometric nonlinear
stiffening.
31
)
4.5 12
4 c1 (El = 2.86 GPa)
c2 (E = 5.96 GPa) 10
3.5 u
3 8
(m)
min
2.5
6
FS
LL
2
δ
1.5 4
1 c1 (El = 2.86 GPa)
2
0.5 c2 (Eu = 5.96 GPa)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
γ γ
a. Minimum factors of safety versus b. Maximum LL deflections versus

overload factors. overload factors.
Figure 3.7. Minimum factor of safety and maximum LL deflection results for cases c1
and c2.
The concept of geometric stiffening can be illustrated by examining a single
suspended rope with level pin supports subject to a uniformly distributed load, q (Figure
3.8).
a. Elevation.
b. Free body diagram.

Figure 3.8. Single suspended rope subject to a uniformly distributed load.
32
)
The equations for the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) components of the maximum
rope tension (Tmax) are:
qL2
H= (3.2)
8d
qL
V= (3.3)
2
where L is the rope span, d is the rope sag under the applied loads, and q is the uniformly
distributed load. The maximum rope tension (T) is found with the expression:
2 2 2 2
⎛ qL2 ⎞ ⎛ qL ⎞ ⎛ L2 ⎞ ⎛L⎞
T = H + V = ⎜⎜
2 2
⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ =q ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ (3.4)
⎝ 8d ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 8d ⎠ ⎝2⎠
Equation 3.4 indicates that the maximum rope tension is inversely related to the rope
sag (d). In a linear analysis, rope sag is held constant and there is a linear relationship
between the applied load (q) and the maximum rope tension (T). However, in a nonlinear
analysis, such as the one used in the numerical calculations, the rope sag and
consequently, the geometric stiffness of the system increases as the applied load increases
and the system deflects. This change in sag creates a nonlinear relationship between the
applied load and the maximum rope tension.
The amount of overload that a structure can support is an alternative measure of
safety. Table 3.4 indicates that at their strength limits (FSmin = 1), cases c1 and c2 have
overload factors of 4.75 (LC7) and 3.84 (LC6), respectively. These overload factors are
equivalent to LL of 18.24 kN/m and 14.74 kN/m, respectively. Therefore, case c1 can
carry 23.7% more LL than case c2 before the bridge reaches its strength limit. Case c1
has a higher overload factor because the case’s lower material stiffness (El = 2.86 GPa
versus Eu = 5.96 GPa) results in greater deflections and greater geometric nonlinear
33
)
stiffening. At their strength limits case c1’s maximum LL deflection (δLL = 11.99 m) is
43% larger than case c2’s maximum LL deflection (δLL = 8.39 m). The concept of lower
material stiffness leading to higher overload factors is examined further in Chapter 6
where a comparison of overload factors for polyester-rope and steel-rope bridges is
included. Steel rope has a modulus of elastic of 196.5 GPa, which is approximately 68.7
times greater than the lower bound polyester-rope stiffness value (El = 2.86 GPa).
The high overload factors developed by the polyester-rope bridge, suggests that it will
be difficult to load this structure to its strength limit. Additionally, at the strength limit
the resulting walking slopes are 89.3% and 64.8% for case c1 and c2, respectively. These
slopes are more than 3.2 times larger than the 20% rural walking slope criterion (Bridges
to Prosperity 2011) and further suggest that the bridge’s strength limit is not likely to be
reached. As was discussed in section 3.2.4.1, steep slopes are likely to deter additional
people from walking onto the structure until others have finished crossing. Consequently,
the deflections and associated walking slopes may limit the LL on the bridge.
To aid in visualizing the magnitudes of the rope deflections, Figure 3.9 presents the
deflected shapes for case c1 under LC2, LC3, and LC7 (load combination at the strength
limit).
Figure 3.9. Case c1 deflected shapes under LC2, LC3, and LC7.
34
)
3.3 Single Suspended Rope Model: Analytical
Evaluation
This section presents a nonlinear static analysis performed on a single suspended rope
representation of the case study bridge to demonstrate the ability of this model to rapidly
provide results that approximate the global behavior of the more computationally
expensive model investigated in Section 3.2.
Woodward (2012a) performed similar computations to the analytical calculations
presented in this dissertation in addition to utilizing elastic catenary equations (Irvine
1981) when designing the Ait Bayoud footbridge. In his design, Woodward did not
complete any numerical calculations. The comparison of the analytical calculations
performed on the simple model to the numerical calculations performed on the detailed
model is unique to this dissertation.
3.3.1 Analytical Model
This section describes the model evaluated analytically. The simplified model includes a
single suspended rope spanning 64 m (L) between pinned end supports (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10. Elevation of the single suspended rope model. The geometry is for case c1
under LC2.
Under LC2 (prestress + DL) the rope has a 1.15 m sag (d). All suspended ropes in the
three-dimensional realized bridge are grouped together in this single suspended rope. The
35
)
assigned area is 20.71 cm2 (ten 18 mm diameter ropes). Only one representative case,
namely the lower bound stiffness case c1 (El = 2.86 GPa), is evaluated. The three load
combinations (LC1 – LC3) defined in Section 3.2.2.3 are considered.
3.3.2 Analytical Calculations
The calculations utilize Irvine’s approximate theory flat cable theory (Irvine 1981) which
is intended for cables (ropes) with shallow profiles (sag-to-span ratios less than 1:8). In
this theory, the prestress is not directly applied; instead the desired sag under the applied
DL (qDL) is set, which indirectly accounts for the rope prestress. This theory includes
equations for calculating rope tensions and deflections under uniformly distributed loads.
The comprehensive calculations performed using these equations are provided in
Appendix A.
3.3.3 Analytical Results and Discussion
This section compares the case c1 (El = 2.86 GPa) analytical results for the single
suspended rope model to the numerical results for the detailed model. Minimum factor of
safety results for the two models under LC1 – LC3 are presented in Table 3.5. The
numerical results appearing in Table 3.5 were previously presented in Table 3.4. For all
three load combinations, the analytical and numerical factors of safety differ by less than
1%.
Table 3.5. Minimum factor of safety results from the analytical and numerical
calculations.
FSmin
LC
Numerical Analytical
1: prestress 4.06 4.07
2: prestress + DL 3.96 3.97
3: prestress + DL + LL 2.46 2.45
36
)
The maximum LL defection (δLL) of the single suspended rope evaluated analytically
(4.79 m) is 5.1% less than the deflection of the detailed model evaluated numerically
(5.05 m). Neglecting the back stays that are present in the detailed model creates a stiffer
system that consequently has lower deflections. The small differences in factor of safety
and deflection results indicate that the single suspended rope model can serve as a
surrogate for approximating the detailed model’s static behavior.
3.4 Conclusions
This chapter characterized the impact of polyester rope’s material stiffness on the
geometric nonlinear static behavior of polyester-rope suspended footbridges. Numerical
calculations were performed on a detailed model of a 64 m case study bridge using lower
bound (El = 2.86 GPa) and upper bound (Eu = 5.96 GPa) elastic moduli for the polyester
ropes. The calculations demonstrated that for the low and high material stiffness values,
the bridge deflected significantly under service loads (deflections of 5.05 m and 4.09 m,
respectively) and at the bridge’s strength limits (deflections of 11.9 m and 8.39 m,
respectively). These deflections corresponded to increased rope sags which led to the
systems having increased geometric stiffness. Due to the nonlinear relationship that arises
between the applied load and the rope tensions because of the change in sag, the bridge is
able to carry high levels of LL beyond the service LL. At the bridge’s strength limit the
LL overload factors (ratio of applied LL-to-service LL) were 4.75 and 3.84 for the low
and high stiffness material cases. Since deflections and consequently the geometric
nonlinear stiffening is inversely related to material stiffness, the upper bound modulus of
37
)
elasticity value for polyester-rope provides a conservative estimate for the structure’s
overload capacity.
For the case study, the walking slopes found under service loads and at the bridge’s
strength limit were significant. For example, the slopes for the low and high stiffness
material cases under service loads were 42.8% and 36.5% compared to the 20% criterion
used in rural areas (Bridges to Prosperity 2011). It will be difficult for the strength limit
to be reached because groups of pedestrians will not likely attempt to traverse the bridge
in this condition. Establishing that these structures have high LL overload factors and/or
can be designed to use deflections to control the amount of LL on the bridge indicates
that even without prescribed factors of safety for polyester rope in this application,
designers can make informed decisions about the safety of these structures.
This chapter also demonstrated that the rope system for the case study bridge can be
reduced to a single suspended rope model that can be evaluated analytically to
approximate the structure’s global static behavior. Neglecting the influence of the
suspenders, backstays, and minor elevation difference at the ends of the span (the bridge
has a 4% slope in elevation) in the simple model had little impact on the results. The
numerical and analytical minimum factor of safety and maximum LL deflection results
differed by less than 1% and 6%, respectively. Designers can utilize the presented
surrogate model with little computational effort during the conceptual design of a more
complex suspended bridge.
38
)
Chapter 4
Characterization of Modal Parameters
4.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 investigated the impact of polyester rope’s low material stiffness on the static
behavior of polyester-rope suspended footbridges. This low material stiffness in
combination with the flexibility of the suspended bridge system suggests that polyester-
rope suspended footbridges will have low natural frequencies. The American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) pedestrian bridge guidelines
(2009) indicate that bridges with natural frequencies less than 3 Hz in the vertical
direction may be susceptible, from a serviceability standpoint, to pedestrian vibrations.
Bridges with vertical natural frequencies less than 3 Hz may still be acceptable for
pedestrian comfort (serviceability) if their accelerations are less than prescribed limits
(Sétra 2006). In order to compute a polyester-rope suspended footbridge’s accelerations,
as is done in Chapters 5 and 7, the structure’s damping characteristics must be
established. Currently, there are no documented damping values for polyester-rope
suspended footbridges
39
)
This chapter characterizes the modal parameters (i.e., natural frequencies and
damping ratios) of polyester-rope suspended footbridges. The first objective of this
chapter is to examine the influence of material stiffness on the vertical natural
frequencies for polyester-rope suspended footbridges. This task is completed by
performing numerical and analytical natural frequency calculations on the Ait Bayoud
case study bridge (introduced in Chapter 3). The numerical computations utilize an
eigenanalysis that will also be used in the analyses performed in Chapters 5 – 7. The
analytical evaluation is performed using taut string equations.
The second objective of this chapter is to present damping ratios for the case study
bridge. These damping ratios are determined from full-scale free vibration tests
performed on the structure. The bridge’s natural frequencies have to be established
experimentally prior to finding the structure’s damping ratios. The natural frequencies
found in the free vibration tests are compared to results from ambient vibration tests to
verify that the natural frequencies have been determined.
4.2 Natural Frequency Analyses

This section first describes the numerical analysis performed on the case study bridge to
show the impact of material stiffness on natural frequencies. Then, an analytical
evaluation of a taut string model representation of the case study bridge is presented to
show the potential for this simple model to serve as a surrogate for the detailed model
analyzed numerically.
40
)
4.2.1 Detailed Model: Numerical Natural Frequency Analysis
This section presents the calculations and results from the numerical analysis of the case
study bridge.
4.2.1.1 Numerical Model Properties
This section describes the model evaluated and the methodology used to perform the
numerical calculations. The detailed model analyzed in Chapter 3 is used in this analysis
and the model’s geometry and boundary conditions are presented again in Figure 4.1.The
two material stiffness cases (c1 and c2) introduced in Chapter 3 are considered in the
calculations. Cases c1 and c2 use polyester-rope’s lower-bound (El) and upper-bound
(Eu) modulus of elasticity values, namely 2.86 GPa and 5.96 GPa, respectively.
Figure 4.1. Elevation of the detailed model of the case study. The geometry is for case c1
subject to LC1.
Load combination LC1: prestress + dead load (DL) is considered in this analysis.
Concentrated DL masses are applied along the below-deck suspended rope at nodes
typically spaced at 1.22 m (i.e., the cross beam spacing in the realized design). These
masses are derived from the concentrated DLs used in the static analysis presented in
Chapter 3. Those concentrated loads are calculated from a uniformly distributed DL of
0.56 kN/m that represents the combined weight of the ropes, deck, cross beams, and mesh
fencing (Woodward 2012a).
41
)
4.2.1.2 Numerical Calculations
The calculations are performed by combining dynamic relaxation (Day 1965; Barnes
1999; Bel Hadj Ali et al. 2011) and eigenanalysis algorithms. First, dynamic relaxation is
utilized as a nonlinear geometric solver to find the structure’s static equilibrium under the
combination of prestress and DL. Next, the system’s lumped mass and stiffness matrices
are assembled. To limit the results to natural frequencies that are predominately in the
vertical direction, mass contributions in the in-plane horizontal (i.e., longitudinal
direction) degrees of freedom are set to a small value (0.0001 kN). Small, rather than
nonzero mass contributions are used to avoid numerical errors. In Chapter 5, the same
mass matrix will be used while Chapters 6 and 7 introduce variations to this mass matrix.
The stiffness matrix used in this chapter, as well as in Chapter 5 – 7, is generated for the
static equilibrium position and therefore, accounts for prestress and dead load impacts on
rope stresses and bridge geometry.
Then, the system’s stiffness and lumped mass matrices are used in the eigenanalysis
performed with MATLAB’s (2012) “eig” function to find the system’s eigenvalues
{λ1, λ2, . . .} and eigenvectors {φ1, φ2, . . .}. The stiffness matrix in these calculations is
assembled using a formulation that accounts for element clusters (Moored and Bart-
Smith 2009). The natural frequencies (fn) are then calculated from the eigenvalues:
λn
fn = , for n = 1, 2, . . . (4.1)
2π
where n is the mode number.
42
)
4.2.1.3 Numerical Results and Discussion
This section presents the numerical results for the detailed model. For case c1 (El = 2.86
GPa), the natural frequencies ( f ) for the first three in-plane modes are 0.52 Hz, 1.03 Hz,
and 1.54 Hz, respectively. The second and third natural frequencies are approximate
harmonics of the fundamental (i.e., 1st) frequency. Figure 4.2 presents the mode shapes
that follow from the eigenvectors that accompany these natural frequencies. Minor
longitudinal displacements between the mode shapes and the undeformed shape indicate
that the eigenvectors have some in-plane longitudinal components in addition to vertical
components. While the modes are not purely vertical and are instead some combination
of longitudinal and vertical, it is apparent from the mode shapes in Figure 4.2 that these
in-plane modes are predominately vertical. Therefore, these in-plane modes are referred
to as “vertical modes” throughout this chapter.
Figure 4.2. Mode shapes for the first three vertical modes from the numerical
calculations.
The natural frequencies ( f ) for case c2’s (Eu = 5.96 GPa) first three vertical mode are
0.54 Hz, 1.04 Hz, and 1.56. These values are within 4% of the case c1 results. The
43
)
similarities in the results indicate that the difference in elastic moduli values for the
lower-bound (c1) and upper-bound (c2) material stiffness cases is not having a significant
impact on the natural frequencies. In both cases, the fundamental frequency as well as the
subsequent two frequencies fall below the AASHTO (2009) limit of 3 Hz in the vertical
direction. Table 4.1 summarizes the natural frequency results for cases c1 and c2.
Table 4.1. Numerical natural frequency results.

f (Hz)
Mode
Case c1 Case c2
1st 0.52 0.54
2nd 1.03 1.04
3rd 1.54 1.56
4.2.2 Taut String Model: Analytical Natural Frequency Evaluation
This section presents a set of analytical calculations performed on a model that represents
the case study bridge as a single, flat taut string. The results both establish the key
variables that are influencing the structure’s global behavior and indicate that this model
can be used as a surrogate for the detailed model analyzed numerically in Section 4.2.1.
4.2.2.1 Analytical Model
The two-dimensional model used in the numerical calculations is transformed into a taut
string model by: (1) lumping all the hand rope and below-deck ropes together, (2)
omitting the back spans, and (3) assuming the rope sag and incline are negligible. Figure
4.3 shows the geometry and boundary conditions for the taut string model.
Figure 4.3. Elevation of the taut string model.
44
)
4.2.2.2 Analytical Calculations
Natural frequencies ( fn) for a taut string are defined by (McConnell and Varoto 2008):
n T
fn = , for n = 1, 2, . . . (4.2)
2L m
where L is the rope span, T is the rope tension, m is the uniformly distributed mass, and n
is the mode number. Span and rope tension are the two variables in this expression that
influence the structure’s stiffness.
4.2.2.3 Analytical Results and Discussion
This section compares the analytical results for the simple model to the numerical
material stiffness case c1 (El = 2.86 GPa) results for the detailed model. Table 4.2
presents the analytical natural frequency results assuming the tension in the lumped ropes
is equivalent to the maximum rope tension found numerically for case c1 under (i) just
prestress or (ii) LC1: prestress + DL. The numerical results presented in Section 4.2.1.3
are also summarized in the table.
Table 4.2. Natural frequency results from the analytical and numerical calculations.
Calculation Applied loads T (kN) f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz) f3 (Hz)
Analytical Prestress 244.7 0.51 1.02 1.53
Analytical LC1: Prestress + DL 250.4 0.52 1.03 1.55
Numerical (case c1) LC1: Prestress + DL 250.4 0.52 1.03 1.54
Table 4.2 indicates that the analytical and numerical natural frequency results for LC1
are nearly identical. Additionally, the analytical results with and without the contribution
of DL to the rope tension are within 2% of each other. This occurs because the
contribution of prestress to the total rope tension dominates the contribution from DL
under LC1. The tension due to prestress makes up 97.7% of the rope tension.
Consequently, prestress is the primary feature that provides the system with its dynamic
45
)
stiffness. Rope area and material stiffness do not influence the results. These variables do
not appear in the taut string expression or influence the prestress (which is defined
directly in the analyses as a force to correspond with how prestress was measured during
construction). Using the taut string equation with the prestress force set as the rope
tension reveals that the prestress force has to increase by 34.6 times to meet AASHTO’s
(2009) 3 Hz limit. This significant increase in force will require that the rope’s cross-
sectional area increase to meet other criteria such as stress limits. Optimization studies in
Chapters 6 and 7 look at the impact of meeting natural frequency constraints on the
required rope volumes across the range corresponding to medium-span bridges (15 m to
64 m).
Investigating the more general case of a suspended rope that may or may not be taut
provides insight into the applicability of the taut string equation to bridges other than the
case study evaluated. Irvine (1981) presents a set of natural frequency equations for a
suspend rope that follow from the linear theory of free vibrations. These equations
simplify to those of a flat taut string when Irvine’s stiffness parameter (λ2) approaches
zero. This parameter is defined by the equation (Irvine 1981):
2
⎛ qDL L ⎞
⎜ ⎟ L
⎝ H ⎠
λ =
2
(4.3)
⎛ HLe ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ EA ⎠
where qDL = is the uniformly distributed DL, L is the rope span, H is the horizontal rope
reaction under the uniformly distributed DL, E is the modulus of elasticity, A is the rope
46
)
cross-sectional area, and Le is the length parameter. The equation for the length
parameter is:
⎛ ⎛d ⎞ ⎞
2
Le ≅ L⎜1 + 8⎜ ⎟ ⎟ (4.4)
⎜ ⎝ L ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝
where d is the rope sag.
In Appendix A, λ2 is found to be 0.49 for the case study bridge modeled as a single
suspended rope when the case c1 modulus of elasticity (2.86 GPa) is used. The
similarities in the analytical and numerical results presented above for this case study
indicate that for a stiffness parameter of 0.49 the taut string model is applicable. Equation
4.3 shows that the system stiffness parameter (λ2) is inversely proportional to the
horizontal rope reaction cubed (H3). Consequently, for more highly prestressed bridges
such as those attempting to meet AASHTO’s (2009) 3 Hz limit, this stiffness parameter
will decrease further and the taut string equation will still be applicable.
4.3 Experimentally Found Natural Frequencies

Before determining the damping ratios for the case study bridge, the structure’s natural
frequencies need to be established experimentally. This section describes the full-scale
free and ambient vibration tests that were performed to find these natural frequencies.
Free and ambient vibration tests have been frequently used to characterize the modal
parameters of pedestrian suspension bridges (Meng et al. 2007; Gentile and Gallino
2008) and stress ribbons (Caetano and Cunha 2004; Magalhães et al. 2007).
In this section, the accelerometers used to measure the bridge response during all of
the tests are described first. Then, the free vibration and ambient vibration test procedures
47
)
and results are presented. The free vibration results are also used when determining the
damping ratios in Section 4.4. The ambient vibration test results are presented to verify
that the bridge’s natural frequencies have been identified. This section concludes with a
discussion of the experimental and computed natural frequency results.
4.3.1 Accelerometer Details

Six tri-axial micro-electro mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers (SENSR 2014)
recording with a sampling rate of 100 Hz were used in the physical tests. These
accelerometers collected data independently of each other; there was no time
synchronization between sensors. The accelerometers were fastened to the top of the deck
at positions along the suspended span to coincide approximately with the peak locations
in the Figure 4.2 mode shapes. Figure 4.4 shows in plan, the accelerometer locations on
the bridge.
Figure 4.4. Plan showing the accelerometer locations on the bridge. Note that the
drawing is not to scale.
Typically, the accelerometers were located along the longitudinal axis (centerline) of
the bridge. At midspan, one accelerometer was placed near each deck edge (Figure 4.5).
Placement of the accelerometers near the edges was done to aid in distinguishing between
vertical and torsional vibration modes.
48
)
Figure 4.5. Accelerometers fastened to the top of the bridge near the deck edges at
midspan.
While small angle misalignments between the accelerometer’s axes with the global
vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions may have occurred, the impact on the results
should not significantly impact the results presented in this dissertation. Appendix B
provides additional discussion regarding the effect of misalignments on the results. To
account for any initial accelerometer deviation from zero, the recorded acceleration time
series are shifted based on average acceleration readings taken over a 30 second interval
that occurred before performing the tests.
4.3.2 Free Vibration Tests
This section describes the free vibration test procedure and results. Five tests (fv1 – fv5),
ranging in duration from 22 to 45 seconds were performed. In each free vibration test, a
vertical impulse was applied near the midspan of the bridge by having two people pull
and release a hanging rope attached to the deck. The bridge then vibrated freely until
coming to rest. The damping characteristics that dictate how quickly the bridge stops
vibrating are determined from the free vibration test results in Section 4.4. Figure 4.6
shows a similar setup to the one used during the tests.
49
)
a. Hanging rope attached to the bridge deck. b. Two people pulling on the rope prior to
releasing.
Figure 4.6. Setup similar to the one employed in the free vibration tests.
Figure 4.7 presents the acceleration time series for accelerometer a3b during test fv4
to demonstrate the typical trend in the results. The spike early in the results represents the
applied impulse. After this spike, the acceleration decays back to the ambient vibration
level. Due to the shape of the time series, it is apparent that more than one mode was
excited during the test.
0.3
a3b
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
−0.1
−0.2
−0.3
−0.4
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
Figure 4.7. Acceleration time series for accelerometer a3b during free vibration test fv4.
The acceleration time series for every accelerometer in the five tests are transformed
from the time domain to the frequency domain to allow for the identification of the
50
)
structure’s natural frequencies. Specifically, the power spectral density (PSD) is
calculated for every accelerometer in all of the tests. The PSD indicates how the signal’s
power is distributed across the frequency range (Press et al. 1992). MATLAB’s (2012)
“periodogram” function is used to calculate the PSD for each data series. This function
performs a single discrete Fourier transform on the entire data series (Press et al. 1992).
The typical frequency resolution is 0.0244 Hz which is sufficient relative to the spacing
of the bridge’s frequencies.
The Peak Picking method (Zimmerman et al. 2008) is used to determine the natural
frequencies. On each of the plots, the peak PSD amplitudes among all accelerometers are
identified. Frequencies that correspond to the peak amplitudes represent the bridge’s
natural frequencies. Visual inspection of the results from all data series indicates that
there are peak amplitudes in the frequency ranges of [0.65, 0.72] Hz, [1.27, 1.34] Hz, and
[2.03, 2.27] Hz. The presence of multiple peaks confirms that more than one mode was
excited during the test. Figure 4.8 shows how the PSD varies with frequency for test fv4,
the test providing the overall (from all tests and accelerometers) maximum peak
amplitudes within these ranges.
−3
x 10
3
a1
2.5 1.32 Hz a2
0.68 Hz
a3a
2 a3b
PSD (g /Hz)
a4
2
1.5 a5
1
2.12 Hz
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.8. PSD versus frequency for the six accelerometers in free vibration test fv4.
51
)
The peak values in the Figure 4.8 plot occur at 0.68 Hz, 1.32 Hz, and 2.12 Hz. The
second and third frequencies are approximate harmonics of the fundamental frequency.
4.3.3 Ambient Vibration Tests
This section describes the ambient vibration test procedure and results. Two tests (av1
and av2) were performed. The test durations were 28 and 15 minutes in the first and
second tests, respectively. During these tests, pedestrians were not allowed on the bridge
and wind loading was the only excitation. These tests complement the free vibration tests
by providing acceleration results obtained under lower levels of excitation.
As was done for the free vibration tests, the ambient vibration acceleration time series
are transformed into the frequency domain to identify the natural frequencies.
Specifically, the average PSD is determined for every data series. The average PSD
determined for the ambient vibration tests is found using Welch’s method (Welch 1967).
With Welch’s method the acceleration time series is first divided into sections. Then, a
modified periodogram of each section is calculated. The periodograms are “modified”
because a window function is applied to the data. Finally, the periodograms are averaged
to provide the average PSD. MATLAB’s (2012) “pwelch” function with a Hamming
window (Press et al. 1992) is used to perform the calculations. Due to the difference in
test durations, the frequency resolution in the results following the application of this
method differs. Both values, 0.0015 Hz and 0.0031 Hz for tests av1 and av2, respectively,
provide sufficient resolution relative to the spacing of the bridge’s frequencies. Note that
Welch’s method is not used to segment the data and find the average PSD for the free
52
)
vibration tests because the technique leads to poor frequency resolution for short test
durations.
Figure 4.9 shows how the PSD varies with frequency for the six accelerometers in the
two tests. The Peak Picking method (Zimmerman et al. 2008) is again used to determine
the natural frequencies. While test av1 has one more peak than test av2, the three
remaining peaks occur at similar natural frequencies in the two tests. The frequencies
from the three peaks in test av2 (where the peak amplitudes are greater than those in test
av1) are 0.67 Hz, 0.83 Hz, and 1.33 Hz.
−5 −4
x 10 x 10
4 6
0.86 Hz a1 a1
a2 5 0.83 Hz a2
3 0.73 Hz a3a a3a
a3b 4 a3b
PSD (g2/Hz)
PSD (g2/Hz)
a4 a4
2 0.95 Hz a5 3 0.67 Hz a5
2 1.33 Hz
1
1.30 Hz 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
a. Ambient vibration test av1. b. Ambient vibration test av2.
Figure 4.9. PSD versus frequency for the six accelerometers in the ambient vibration
tests.
4.3.4 Discussion of Natural Frequencies
This section discusses the natural frequency results from the physical tests and also
compares these physical test results to the results from the numerical and analytical
computations. Two of the natural frequencies from the ambient vibration testing, 0.67 Hz
and 1.33 Hz (Section 4.3.3), are approximately equal to the 0.68 Hz and 1.32 Hz
frequencies, found during the free vibration tests (Section 4.3.2). The similarity in these
53
)
results suggests that at least two of the structure’s natural frequencies have been
determined. The additional natural frequency found during the free vibration tests,
namely 2.12 Hz, while not confirmed by the ambient vibration tests, also seems likely to
be a vertical natural frequency because it is a harmonic of the fundamental frequency. In
the numerical and analytical computations, natural frequencies for higher modes are
harmonics of the fundamental frequency (Sections 4.2.1.3 and 4.2.2.3).
The peak found at a frequency of 0.83 Hz during ambient vibration testing is more
difficult to interpret because it is not confirmed by the free vibration tests and does not
follow a pattern (such as being a harmonic) observed in the computations. Lack of
synchronization between the accelerometers precluded the use of more advanced
identification techniques such as stochastic subspace identification methods and
prevented the determination of the mode shapes (Gibbs et al. 2014) which could have
helped in the interpretation of the 0.83 Hz frequency.
In general, without information regarding the physical mode shapes it is not possible
to differentiate with certainty between torsional and vertical modes. Consequently, some
of the physically determined natural frequencies may be torsional and not vertical.
However, there’s strong evidence to suggest that at least one if not more of the physically
observed frequencies is in the vertical direction. First, the impulse applied during free
vibration was oriented primarily in the vertical direction near the centerline of the bridge.
The predominately vertical impulse should have produced excitation primarily in the
vertical direction which would lead to high levels of power in vertical natural
frequencies. Second, as shown in Figure 4.8, during free vibration testing, the four
accelerometers placed along the bridge’s centerline and the two accelerometers near the
54
)
edges of the bridge deck provided similar natural frequency results. Since little torsional
response is anticipated along the bridge’s centerline, these centerline accelerometers
should have identified vertical natural frequencies. Finally, as previously mentioned, the
second and third natural frequencies are harmonics of the fundamental frequencies which
corresponds with the trend observed in the computations.
It was anticipated that the natural frequencies determined experimentally for the
realized bridge would be lower than predicted computationally for two reasons. First, in
the numerical calculations (Section 4.2.1), representing the towers with pin supports
rather than modeling them directly overestimates the system stiffness. Second, in the
realized bridge, the tower saddle connections allow for some upward translation and it
seemed possible that under large vibration amplitudes the effective bridge span would
increase and lead to a system with less stiffness. In actuality, the natural frequencies of
the realized bridge are greater than predicted. For example, the fundamental natural
frequency, 0.68 Hz, found during free vibration (Section 4.3.3) is 30.8% greater than the
numerical prediction, 0.52 Hz (Section 4.2.1) for case c1 (El = 2.86 GPa).
To resolve the difference between computational and physical test results, a model’s
parameters can be updated until the modal characteristics match. In this case, the
comparison between the analytical and numerical results indicated that the bridge acts as
a taut string where span, rope tension, and mass are the only variables that are influencing
the results. As discussed in Chapter 3, the deck was not detailed to act as part of the
global structural system so neglecting it in the analyses should not be contributing to the
discrepancies. Since the span has been confirmed, uncertainties in the rope tension and
mass are causing the differences between the computations and the physical test results.
55
)
The numerical/analytical models can be updated to modify the mass and/or rope tension
to match the natural frequencies. For example, assuming that (i) the physically
determined fundamental frequency is in the vertical and not the torsional direction and
(ii) the mass is correct, then the tension force in the calculations needs to increase by
71.0%. If it is assumed that the tension force is correct, then the mass in the calculations
needs to decrease by 41.5%. It is likely that a combination of differences in the assumed
and actual rope tensions and bridge mass that led to discrepancies in natural frequency
values, but without additional results such as measured tensions or deflections the exact
combination of tension and mass that has actually been achieved in the realized bridge
cannot be determined.
Despite the discrepancies in the calculations and physical results and the uncertainty
in whether all of the natural frequencies determined from physical tests are vertical rather
than torsional, it is clear that frequencies are low compared to AASHTO’s (2009) 3 Hz
limit.
4.4 Damping Estimation

This section presents a set of approximate damping ratios determined from results of the
free vibration tests described in Section 4.3.2. Without damping ratios available in the
literature for this bridge type, these estimations need to be established prior to performing
a dynamic analysis. These ratios are found by filtering the acceleration time series to
isolate single mode response that can then be fit with an exponential decay curve
(Magalhães et al. 2010). As was the case with the physically determined natural
frequencies, the lack of time synchronization between the accelerometers does not allow
56
)
for the use of higher accuracy identification techniques such as covariance-driven
subspace stochastic identification (Magalhães et al. 2010). However, for the purposes of
this dissertation, a range of approximate values is sufficient; these values are utilized in
dynamic analyses performed in Chapters 5 and 7 where the influence of varying the
damping magnitude on bridge behavior is evaluated.
4.4.1 Damping Estimation Procedure
This section presents the method used to estimate the damping ratios from the free
vibration results. The first step is to isolate the contributions of each of the three
identified modes of vibration to the total response during free vibration. This is
accomplished by applying band-pass filters to the acceleration time series (Magalhães et
al. 2010). The filtering is completed with an infinite impulse response (IIR) Butterworth
filter (Hamming 1989) in MATLAB (2012).
The filter parameters are the lower (Fc1) and upper (Fc2) cutoff frequencies for the
pass band and the order (N). The cutoff frequencies vary in each data series and
correspond to frequencies with PSD amplitudes that are half of the peak PSD amplitude
(equivalent to a reduction of 3 dB). Linear interpolation between frequencies in the data
series is used to determine these cutoff frequencies. The range bound between the two
cutoff frequencies is referred to as a 3-dB bandwidth, a commonly used filter bandwidth
(McConnell and Varoto 2008). The exact values of the natural frequencies correspond to
the peak PSD amplitudes in the data series under consideration and may differ between
data series. Additionally, the natural frequencies may not be centered between the cutoff
frequencies.
57
)
An eighth-order filter is used. To avoid phase distortion the data is filtered in both the
forward and reverse directions (Smith 2007) using MATLAB’s (2012) “filtfilt” function.
Filtering in both directions doubles the filter order. Eight represents the equivalent order
after filtering in both directions. Eighth-order IIR filters have been utilized in similar
applications such as reducing the noise in Global Positioning System (GPS) data taken
during excitation of a steel truss footbridge (Moschas and Stiros 2011) and determining
the dynamic characteristics for a suspension footbridge (Meng et al. 2007). In both of
those studies, a Type-I Chebyshev filter, which has one more parameter than a
Butterworth filter, was used. The additional parameter is the pass band ripple (Ap).
Filtering in both directions amplifies the pass band ripple by 3 dB (Smith 2007). Since
the cutoff frequencies in this analysis are located where the PSD is 3 dB less than the
peak PSD, a pass band ripple of 3 dB is too large to be used in this analysis. Therefore, it
was preferable to use an IIR filter without a pass band ripple.
For each acceleration time series, once filtering is performed, an exponential decay
curve is fit to the peaks bound between 20% and 90% of the maximum acceleration
(Magalhães et al. 2010). The exponential fit is defined as:
a y = Ce −bt (4.5)
where ay is acceleration, t is time, and C and b are coefficients. The damping ratio (ξ) for
a mode associated with a natural frequency (fn) is calculated from the coefficient b with
the following expression:
b
ξ= (4.6)
2π fn
58
)
Only data for accelerometers located near the anticipated extremes in the respective
mode shapes (Figure 4.2) are included in the damping ratio calculations. For the third
mode, since the peak PSD amplitudes for accelerometers a1 and a5 are typically low
(Figure 4.8 presents a representative plot), calculations are not performed for these
accelerometers and only results for accelerometers a3a and a3b are found. All free
vibration tests are used to calculate the mode 1 damping ratios. For the second mode, free
vibration test fv1 is excluded because the PSD peaks near the second mode frequency are
not as well defined as in the other tests. For the third mode, free vibration test fv1 is
excluded because there are no PSD peaks near the third mode frequency. Figure 4.10
shows how the PSD varies with frequency for test fv1. Table 4.3 summarizes the
accelerometers, free vibration tests, and the resulting total number of data series used to
calculate the damping ratios in the three modes.
−3
x 10
3
a1
2.5 a2
a3a
2 a3b
PSD (g /Hz)
a4
2
1.5 a5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.10. PSD versus frequency for the six accelerometers in free vibration test fv1.
Table 4.3. Data series used to calculate the damping ratios.

Mode Accelerometers Free vibration tests Number of data series
1st a3a, a3b fv1 – fv5 10
2nd a2, a4 fv2 – fv5 8
3rd a3a, a3b fv2 – fv5 8
59
)
4.4.2 Damping Estimation Results and Discussion
This section first presents the damping results for one of the data series in detail. Then,
the damping ratio ranges for the case study bridge’s three modes are compared to the
damping values for other existing bridges to show that the case study bridge has high
levels of damping. Finally, potential reasons for the case study bridge’s high levels of
damping and the observed relationships between the case study bridge’s amplitude of
oscillation and damping ratios are discussed.
The results for one representative data series analyzed are presented in Figure 4.11.
These results correspond to accelerometer a3b during free vibration test fv4. In these
plots, the first mode response is isolated.
−3
x 10
3 0.04
a3b, unfiltered
0.03 ay = 0.125e
−0.183t
2.5 a3b, filtered
0.68 Hz 0.02 ξ1 = 4.3%
Acceleration (g)
2
PSD (g2/Hz)
0.01
1.5 0
−0.01
1
−0.02
0.5 a3b, filtered
−0.03
exponential fit
0 −0.04
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 5 10 15 20
Frequency (Hz) Time (s)
a. PSD versus natural frequency for the b. Acceleration time series for the filtered data
unfiltered and filtered data (isolating first (isolating mode 1) with exponential fit.
mode).
Figure 4.11. Results for accelerometer a3b for free vibration test fv4.
Figure 4.11a shows the PSD versus natural frequency for both the unfiltered and
filtered data. The filtered results closely match the unfiltered results near the pass band
and are zero elsewhere. Figure 4.11b shows the acceleration time series for the filtered
60
)
data and the exponential decay curve fit to the peak accelerations. Compared to the
unfiltered acceleration time series presented in Figure 4.7, the filtered results show clear
single mode response.
For modes 1 – 3 the damping ratio ranges are [2.6, 5.2] %, [3.0, 4.0] %, and
[2.8, 6.1] % respectively. The lowest damping ratio found for the case study bridge is
greater than average damping ratios at service vibration levels for reinforced concrete (ξ
= 1.3%), steel (ξ = 0.4%), timber (ξ = 1.5%) and stress ribbon (ξ = 1.0%) footbridges
(Heinemeyer et al. 2009).
Due to the range of factors that can influence a footbridge’s damping characteristics,
these average damping values can deviate greatly from what is observed for a specific
bridge. Existing suspension and stress ribbon bridges provide the closest comparisons to
the case study bridge. Reported damping ratios for steel-rope suspension footbridges
include 0.5% for the Kochenhofsteg in Stuttgart, Germany, 0.3% for the Enzsteg II in
Pforzheim, Germany, and 0.6% to 0.8% for the Deutsche Museum Bridge in Munich,
Germany (fib 2005). Damping ratios for stress ribbon footbridges include 0.3% for Glacis
Bridge in Ingolstadt, Germany, 0.1% for Enzsteg III in Pforzheim, Germany (fib 2005),
and 1.7% to 2.6% for a bridge on the Campus of the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Porto in Porto, Portugal (Caetano and Cunha 2004).
The lowest damping ratio for the case study bridge is greater than the values for all,
but the higher end of the damping ratios for the University of Porto stress ribbon
footbridge. Hysteresis of the polyester ropes (McKenna et al. 2004) may be contributing
to the footbridge’s high levels of damping. Since the inclined suspenders are not
prestressed, they have the potential to undergo cyclic loading and unloading that relates
61
)
not only to hysteresis (McKenna et al. 2004), but also to snap loading when going from
slack to taut (Hennessey et al. 2005). Additionally, it is likely that when the suspenders
are slack they will provide higher levels of damping than when they are taut (Ramberg
and Griffin 1977). Finally, since damping relates to the entire system (fib 2005; Sétra
2006) and not just the polyester ropes, it is likely that the timber deck and the
nonstructural mesh fencing are also contributing to the damping.
Damping is also dependent on the amplitude of oscillation (Sétra 2006; Heinemeyer
et al. 2009). Figure 4.12 presents the damping ratio versus the amplitude of oscillation for
each data series analyzed, where the amplitude of oscillation is defined as the average of
the peak accelerations used to generate the exponential fit (Heinemeyer et al. 2009).
4
ξ (%)
2 1st mode
2nd mode
1
rd
3 mode
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Amplitude of Oscillation (g)
Figure 4.12. Damping ratio vs. amplitude of oscillation plot for the three modes.
Figure 4.12 shows that for the first mode, there is an overall positive trend between
amplitude of oscillation and damping. However, the amplitude of oscillation values for
most of the data series are similar with scatter in the damping ratio values. The third
mode also shows a positive trend. The maximum amplitude of all data points in the first
and third modes is 0.025 g, which is lower than typical serviceability criteria such as the
62
)
minimum comfort limit, 0.25 g, listed in the Service d’Études Techniques des Routes et
Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide (2006) for bridge classes with dynamic criteria
(Classes I to III). Consequently, based on the observed positive trends, even higher
levels of damping are expected when accelerations in the first or third modes approach
this comfort limit. Figure 4.12 also shows that damping ratios in the second mode
demonstrate a slight negative trend.
4.5 Conclusions
This chapter investigated the modal parameters (i.e., natural frequencies and damping
ratios) of polyester-ropes suspended footbridges. Numerical calculations were performed
on a detailed two-dimensional model of a case study footbridge to examine the influence
of material stiffness on the structure’s vertical natural frequencies. The results found
using polyester rope’s lower bound (El = 2.86 GPa) and upper bound (Eu = 5.96 GPa)
elastic moduli values were similar (within 4% of each other) which indicates that a single
modulus of elasticity value can be used instead of modeling polyester rope’s nonlinear
stress-strain behavior in a natural frequency analysis.
An analytical evaluation of a taut string representation of the case study bridge
produced natural frequencies that were within 2% of the natural frequencies found in the
numerical analysis of the detailed model. Consequently, the taut string model can
potentially be used as a surrogate for the detailed model to rapidly analyze the global
response for these suspended footbridges. In the taut string model, span and rope tension
are the variables that contribute to the structure’s stiffness. For the case study bridge, the
63
)
prestress was the main source of rope tension and consequently, prestress was the key
parameter influencing the system’s dynamic stiffness.
Damping ratios for the case study bridge were estimated for the first three modes
identified in the free vibration tests. The damping ratio ranges found for modes 1 – 3
were [2.6, 5.2] %, [3.0, 4.0] %, and [2.8, 6.1] %, respectively. These values are typically
larger than values for other built footbridges including suspension and stress ribbon
structures. The damping ratios presented in this chapter are the first set of values found
for a polyester-rope suspended footbridge. Designers can utilize these values as a starting
point when performing a dynamic analysis on one of these structures. Dynamic analyses
using these damping ratios are presented in Chapters 5 and 7.
64
)
Chapter 5
Bridge Response to Pedestrian
Excitation
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 demonstrated that vertical natural frequencies for the case study polyester-rope
suspended footbridge are significantly lower than the 3 Hz limit specified in the
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
guidelines (2009) for avoiding pedestrian vibration issues. If it is not possible to shift a
bridge’s natural frequencies outside the range of vulnerability by modifying the
structure’s mass or stiffness, then the bridge may still be acceptable from a pedestrian
serviceability perspective if its accelerations are lower than acceptable comfort limits
(Sétra 2006). Consequently, it is important to establish a bridge’s dynamic response to
pedestrian excitation to determine whether the structure can be considered serviceable.
The primary objective of this chapter is to characterize the influence of parameters
such as mass, damping, and polyester rope’s material stiffness on the accelerations and
65
)
rope tensions for polyester-rope suspended footbridges. This task is accomplished by
performing numerical modal calculations on the Ait Bayoud case study bridge
(introduced in Chapter 3) using the dynamic analysis methodology presented in the
Service d’Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide (2006).
The modal calculations that are introduced in this chapter will also be implemented in the
optimization methodology described in Chapter 7.
A secondary objective is to identify the taut string model as a surrogate for the
numerical model that is capable of approximating the accelerations found numerically
with less computational expense.
5.2 Load Definitions

This section presents the loads used in the pedestrian excitation analysis. The AASHTO
guidelines (2009) do not specify the dynamic loads that should be applied. However, the
guidelines do refer directly to Sétra’s technical guide (2006), by stating that this guide
provides a potential method for evaluating a bridge’s dynamic response (e.g.,
accelerations, stresses, etc.) under pedestrian excitation.
In this dissertation the dynamic loads used follow from Sétra’s dynamic analysis
methodology for a Class III footbridge (Sétra 2006). As discussed in Chapter 2, Sétra’s
footbridge classes correspond to expected traffic on a structure (Sétra 2006). Class III is
the most appropriate classification for a rural footbridge that is expected to meet dynamic
comfort limits. Class I and II footbridges have higher traffic levels than Class III
footbridges. Class IV footbridges are located in rural areas that do not need to meet
comfort requirements.
66
)
The uniformly distributed, but time varying dynamic load for the case study bridge is
defined as:
wv = 269.9 cos(2π ft) ξ N/m (5.1)
where f is natural frequency, ξ is the damping ratio, and t is time. The calculations used to
solve for the coefficient in equation 5.1 (269.9 N/m) are presented in Appendix C. A
dynamic analysis is performed for each of the bridge’s modes with natural frequencies
between 1.7 Hz and 2.1 Hz. The dynamic load in each analysis will depend on the natural
frequency of the mode under investigation. The 1.7 Hz to 2.1 Hz range corresponds to
the set of frequencies at which a bridge is at the maximum risk of experiencing resonance
(Sétra 2006).
Sétra (2006) in its methodology specifies that natural frequencies should be
calculated for two different assumed masses: (i) Dead load (DL) only and (ii) DL + 71.4
kg/m2 live load (LL). For the 1.02 m wide case study bridge the dead load and live loads
are equivalent to 57.1 kg/m (refer to Chapter 3 for a description of the components
contributing to the DL) and 72.8 kg/m, respectively. The following load combinations
(LCs) that accompany these masses are:
LC1: prestress + DL
The distributed dynamic load (wv) is applied along the bridge span and its direction
corresponds with the concavity of the mode shape associated with the mode under
investigation. Where the mode shape is concave down, the load is applied in the gravity
direction. The loading is reversed when the mode shape is concave up. See Figures 5.2 –
67
)
5.4 in Section 5.3.2 for examples of how the loading direction changes as the mode shape
concavity changes.
The distributed load represents a fictitious number of pedestrians (nf) walking at one
of the bridge’s natural frequencies ( f ) and causing resonance. The response of this
fictitious set of pedestrians is equivalent to the response of a larger number of actual
pedestrians (n) not walking in-sync with one of the bridge’s natural frequencies. The
calculations used to determine the actual number of pedestrians on the bridge (32.6
pedestrians), are presented in Appendix C. The relationship between the fictitious and the
actual number of pedestrians is defined by the following expression (Sétra 2006):
n f = 10.8 ξn (5.2)
The damping ratios considered in the analysis and the corresponding synchronized group
sizes are presented in Section 5.3.2.
5.3 Detailed Model: Numerical Dynamic Analysis

This section presents the numerical dynamic analysis performed on the case study bridge
to show the impact of variables such as mass, damping, and polyester rope’s material
stiffness on the bridge’s dynamic response.
5.3.1 Numerical Model Properties
The detailed model presented in Chapter 3 is utilized in this analysis. The model’s
geometry and boundary conditions are presented again in Figure 5.1. The calculations are
performed for the two material stiffness cases (c1 and c2) introduced in Chapter 3. Case
68
)
c1 uses polyester rope’s lower-bound modulus of elasticity (El), 2.86 GPa. Case c2 uses
polyester rope’s upper-bound modulus of elasticity (Eu), 5.96 GPa.
Figure 5.1. Elevation of the detailed model of the case study. The geometry is for case c1
subject to LC1.
5.3.2 Numerical Calculations
Numerical natural frequency computations like the ones presented in Chapter 4 are
performed for LC1 and LC2 to determine which modes have natural frequencies that fall
between 1.7 Hz and 2.1 Hz, the range corresponding to a high risk of resonance. For case
c1 (El = 2.86 GPa) under LC1, the fourth mode has a natural frequency of 2.05 Hz and
under LC2 the fifth and sixth modes have natural frequencies of 1.74 Hz and 2.09 Hz,
respectively. Therefore, three dynamic analyses, one performed using each of these three
modes with its associated dynamic load, wv are required for case c1. Figures 5.2a, 5.3a,
and 5.4b show the three relevant mode shapes. Figures 5.2b, 5.3b, and 5.4b show the
dynamic load arrangements that correspond to each of the mode shapes. These loads are
applied to the static equilibrium position that results from the application of LC1 or LC2.
69
)
a. Vertical mode shape.
b. Corresponding dynamic load arrangement applied to the deformed (under LC1) bridge.
Figure 5.2. Case c1 LC1 fourth mode.
Figure 5.3. Case c1 LC2 fifth mode.
Figure 5.4. Case c2 LC2 sixth mode.
70
)
For case c2 (Eu = 5.96 GPa) under LC1 the fourth mode has a natural frequency of
2.08 and under LC2 the fifth mode has a natural frequency of 1.82. Therefore, only two
dynamic analyses are required for case c2. The mode shapes and dynamic load
arrangements for modes 4 and 5 will be similar to those presented in Figures 5.2 and 5.3,
respectively. Table 5.1 summarizes for the two cases (c1 and c2) the natural frequencies
that fall within the range corresponding to a high risk of resonance.
Table 5.1. Natural frequencies in the range corresponding to a high risk of resonance.
f (Hz), mode
Load combination
Case c1 Case c2
LC1 2.05, 4th 2.08, 4th
1.75, 5th 1.82, 5th
LC2
2.10, 6th -
The five dynamic analyses are performed using modal calculations. In a modal
analysis the global response is found by combining the responses from each of the
individual modes (Chopra 2007). Since each dynamic load is harmonic and acting in
resonance with one of the bridge modes, the global response is dominated by and
therefore, can be approximated by just the response in the single mode. The response
amplitudes at resonance are the values of interest (Sétra 2006). Therefore, it is only
necessary to calculate the maximum (across time) steady-state response for the mode
under consideration. The transient response can be neglected because it does not
contribute to the resonant response (Sétra 2006).
Appendix C presents the equations for steady-state displacements and accelerations.
While these values vary along the length of the bridge, the values at a specific point are
the maxima across time. Appendix C also shows how the dynamic displacements are
71
)
superimposed with the static displacements from the associated static load combination
(LC1 or LC2) and then converted into rope force results.
Since damping ratios for the modes of interest (LC1 fourth mode and LC2 fifth and
sixth modes) have not been determined experimentally, the calculations are performed for
a range of damping ratios to see how damping influences the results. This range
corresponds approximately with the values found in Chapter 4 for the first three vertical
modes under LC1 (2.6% to 6.1%) and includes damping ratios between 2% and 6%.
Substituting these damping ratios into equation 5.2 indicates that the dynamic loads on
the bridge in the analyses correspond to groups that range in size from approximately 9
(at 2% damping) to 15 (at 6% damping) synchronized pedestrians.
5.3.3 Numerical Results and Discussion
This section first discusses the maximum acceleration and rope tension results for case c1
(El = 2.86 GPa). Then, the results for cases c1 and c2 are compared to show how material
stiffness impacts accelerations and rope tensions.
5.3.3.1 Lower Bound Material Stiffness Case, Results and Discussion
The maximum accelerations (amax) and rope tensions (Tmax) along the bridge for case c1’s
(lower bound material stiffness case, El = 2.86 GPa) three modes across the damping
ratio range of 2% to 6% are included in Table 5.2. The LC1 mode has larger accelerations
than the LC2 modes. Accelerations for the two LC2 modes for a given damping ratio are
approximately the same in magnitude; these values never differ by more than 2%. In all
instances, the maximum acceleration exceeds Sétra’s (2006) 0.25 g minimum comfort
criterion for a Class III bridge.
72
)
Table 5.2. Maximum acceleration and rope tension results from the numerical
calculations for case c1 and variable damping.
ξ Tmax (kN)
Load combination f (Hz), mode amax (g)
(%) Hand ropes Below-deck ropes Suspenders
LC1 2.05, 4th 2.15 151.1 100.8 0.7
2 1.75, 5th 0.95 162.5 109.0 1.0
LC2
2.10, 6th 0.94 162.1 108.7 1.0
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.76 150.7 100.5 0.6
3 1.75, 5th 0.77 162.2 108.7 0.9
LC2
2.10, 6th 0.77 161.9 108.5 0.9
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.52 150.3 100.4 0.6
4 1.75, 5th 0.67 162.0 108.6 0.9
LC2
2.10, 6th 0.67 161.8 108.4 0.9
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.36 150.5 100.3 0.5
5 1.75, 5th 0.60 161.9 108.5 0.8
LC2
2.10, 6th 0.60 161.7 108.4 0.8
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.24 150.4 100.3 0.5
6 1.75, 5th 0.55 161.8 108.5 0.8
LC2
2.10, 6th 0.54 161.7 108.3 0.8
The primary factor influencing the difference between the LC1 and LC2 results is that
the LC1 mass (mLC1) is lower than the LC2 mass (mLC2). The ratio (mr) of the LC2 mass-
to-LC1 mass is 2.25:
mLC2 (57.1 kg/m + 71.4 kg/m )(64 m span )

mr = = = 2.25 (5.3)
mLC1 (57.1 kg/m)(64 m span )
For a given damping value this mass ratio is approximately equal to the inverse of the
ratio (ar) of the LC2 maximum acceleration (amaxLC2) to the LC1 maximum acceleration
(amaxLC1). As an example, the inverse of the acceleration ratio is calculated using the fifth
mode results for 2% damping:
−1 −1
⎛ amaxLC2_mode5 ⎞ ⎛ 0.95 g ⎞
a = ⎜⎜
−1
r
⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 2.26 (5.4)
⎝ amaxLC1 ⎠ ⎝ 2.15 g ⎠
The inverse of the acceleration ratio is 2.26 which is 1.0% larger than the mass ratio,
2.25. There is not an exact match because as shown in equation C.6 in Appendix C
73
)
accelerations are also dependent on the eigenvector components which differ in all the
modes under investigation.
Comparing results for different damping ratios indicates that as damping increases,
acceleration decreases by a factor equivalent to ξ . Equation C.14 in Appendix C shows
this relationship by combining contributions from the equations for the dynamic load and
the steady-state accelerations.
The overall maximum rope tensions (Tmax) in the hand ropes, below-deck ropes, and
suspenders from all instances presented in Table 5.2 are 162.5 kN, 109.0 kN, and 1.0 kN,
respectively. The lumped strength limits (Tult) for these ropes are 595.2 kN (six ropes
each with a limit of 99.2 kN), 396.8 kN (four ropes each with a limit of 99.2 kN), and 49
kN (2 ropes each with a limit of 24.5 kN), respectively. The corresponding minimum
factors of safety (FS) are determined using the equation:
Tult
FSmin = (5.5)
Tmax
Table 5.3 summarizes these tension and factor of safety results.
Table 5.3. Maximum rope tension and minimum factor of safety results for the numerical
calculations for case c1.
Rope Tult (kN) Tmax (kN) FSmin
Hand rope 595.2 162.5 3.66
Below-deck rope 396.8 109.0 3.64
Suspenders 49.0 1.0 49.00
Rope tensions are larger for the LC2 cases than the LC1 case because the static
contributions in the former are greater. Between the LC2 cases, the higher mode case
(sixth mode, f = 2.10 Hz) has lower rope tensions. This occurs because in the higher
mode the dynamic displacements and consequently the equivalent dynamic axial forces
74
)
are less than in the lower mode. Equation C.5 in Appendix C shows that the dynamic
displacements are inversely proportional to the modal frequency squared. As was found
for accelerations, the dynamic displacements decrease by a factor equivalent to ξ . The
decreased dynamic displacements again translate into lower rope tensions.
In the LC1 cases, some of the suspenders are found to be loaded in compression. The
static analysis is nonlinear and ensures that in the final iteration the ropes either carry
tension or have zero force to indicate they have gone slack. However, the natural
frequency and dynamic analyses are linear and no adjustments are made to ensure that the
ropes remain only in tension. Since, the dynamic analysis results are simply
superimposed on the static analysis results it is possible to have members loaded in
compression in the final configuration. Under LC2, suspenders are never loaded in
compression because the additional LL mass provides high enough static tensions that are
not overcome by the dynamic contributions. For the LC1 results to be feasible for the
case study bridge, the rope suspenders would have to be replaced by members capable of
taking compression or prestressed to avoid going into compression. In general, the
dynamic analysis results are valid either for: (i) suspenders that are capable of taking both
tension and compression or (ii) tension-only suspenders when the static tensions are high
enough that no members are put into compression following the addition of any dynamic
load.
75
)
5.3.3.2 Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Material Stiffness Cases, Results
and Discussion
The maximum accelerations (amax) and rope tensions (Tmax) along the bridge for all modes
investigated in cases c1 (El = 2.86 GPa) and c2 (Eu = 5.96 GPa) when a damping ratio of
2% is used are presented in Table 5.4. The results for the 2% damping ratio are
compared, because as shown in Section 5.3.3.1 for case c1, this damping ratio out of all
the damping ratios considered, provides the overall maximum accelerations and rope
tensions.
Table 5.4. Maximum acceleration and rope tension results from the numerical
calculations for cases c1 and c2 and 2% damping.
Load Tmax (kN)
Case f (Hz), mode amax (g)
combination Hand ropes Below-deck ropes Suspenders
LC1 2.05, 4th 2.15 151.1 100.8 0.7
c1 1.75, 5th 0.95 162.5 109.0 1.0
LC2
2.10, 6th 0.94 162.1 108.7 1.0
LC1 2.08, 4th 2.15 154.8 103.3 0.7
c2
LC2 1.82, 5th 0.95 171.8 114.8 1.0
For a given load combination and mode, the two cases have the same accelerations.
For example, under LC1 the fourth mode maximum accelerations for both cases are 2.15
g. The modulus of elasticity does not factor directly into acceleration equation C.6 in
Appendix C and the only remaining variable in equation C.6 that the modulus of
elasticity can influence is the eigenvector for the mode under investigation. The
similarities in the acceleration results indicate that the difference in elastic moduli values
for the lower-bound (c1) and upper-bound (c2) material stiffness cases is not resulting in
significant differences in the eigenvectors.
For a given load combination and mode, the two cases have different maximum rope
tensions. These force differences occur because of the influence of the modulus of
76
)
elasticity on the static contributions to the rope tensions. As shown in Chapter 3, the
higher modulus case deflects less than the lower modulus case under a given static load
which results in the higher modulus case having higher tensions. These tension
differences lead to different factors of safety for the two cases. Table 5.5 provides case c2
minimum factors of safety (FSmin) that correspond to the overall maximum rope tensions
(Tmax) presented in Table 5.4. Also included in Table 5.5 are the case c1 results first
presented in Table 5.3. The case c2 minimum factors of safety are within 6% of the case
c1 minimum factors of safety.
Table 5.5. Maximum rope tension and minimum factor of safety results for the numerical
calculations for cases c1 and c2.
Case c1 Case c2
Rope Tult (kN)
Tmax (kN) FS Tmax (kN) FS
Hand rope 595.2 162.5 3.66 171.8 3.46
Below-deck rope 396.8 109.0 3.64 114.8 3.46
Suspenders 49.0 1.0 49.00 1.0 49.00
In Chapter 3, where a greater LL was used in the static analysis (Chapter 3: LL = 3.84
kN/m versus Chapter 5: LL = 0.71 kN/m), the minimum factor of safety for the upper-
bound modulus of elasticity case was 2.16. Since the minimum factor of safety found in
the dynamic analysis, namely 3.46, is 60% larger than the value from the static analysis,
system strength under dynamic loading is not likely to be a key design criterion for
polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
5.4 Taut String Model: Analytical Dynamic Evaluation

This section presents the analytical dynamic calculations performed on a taut string
model that is used to represent the case study bridge. A comparison between the
77
)
analytical and numerical acceleration results indicates that this simple model closely
approximates the detailed model (Figure 5.1) analyzed in Section 5.3.
5.4.1 Analytical Model

In Chapter 4 it was shown that the case study bridge can be represented by a single flat
rope whose natural frequencies can be approximated with the equation for a taut string.
This taut string model is now used to calculate accelerations for the case study. The
geometry and boundary conditions for the taut string model first presented in Chapter 4
are shown again in Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.5. Elevation of the taut string model.
5.4.2 Analytical Calculations

Appendix C provides the derivation for the taut string equation used to determine the
maximum accelerations (amax) across time and along the structure. This equation is:
539.8 N/m
amax = (5.6)
ξ jπ m
where j is the mode under investigation, ξ j is the modal damping ratio, and m is the
linear mass for the load combination under consideration.
5.4.3 Analytical Results and Discussion
This section compares the acceleration results calculated analytically with equation 5.6 to
the numerical results presented in Section 5.3.3.1 for case c1 (El = 2.86 GPa). The case c2
78
)
(Eu = 5.96 GPa) results are not included because as discussed in Section 5.3.3.2 the
difference between the case c1 and case c2 acceleration results is minor. Table 5.6
presents these analytical and numerical (previously presented in Table 5.2) results for the
three modes of interest across the damping ratio range of 2% to 6%. Equation 5.6
indicates that for a taut string, the modal damping ratio (ξ) is the only mode specific
variable that influences the maximum acceleration (amax). Otherwise, the maximum
acceleration is independent of the mode under consideration. In this analysis the same
damping ratio (ξ) is assumed for all modes, so only a single acceleration value is found
for each load combination. The percent differences listed in Table 5.6 are calculated with
the equation:
amax_numerical − amax_analytical
amax % difference = x 100 (5.7)
amax_numerical
Table 5.6. Maximum acceleration results from the analytical and numerical calculations.
amax (g)
ξ (%) Load combination f (Hz), mode amax % difference
Numerical Analytical
LC1 2.05, 4th 2.15 2.17 0.9
2 1.75, 5th 0.95 1.1
LC2 0.96
2.10, 6th 0.94 2.1
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.76 1.77 0.6
3 1.75, 5th 0.77 1.3
LC2 0.78
2.10, 6th 0.77 1.3
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.52 1.53 0.7
4 1.75, 5th 0.67 1.5
LC2 0.68
2.10, 6th 0.67 1.5
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.36 1.37 0.7
5 1.75, 5th 0.60 0
LC2 0.60
2.10, 6th 0.60 0
LC1 2.05, 4th 1.24 1.25 0.8
6 1.75, 5th 0.55 0
LC2 0.55
2.10, 6th 0.54 1.9
The maximum percent difference from all the cases is 2.1%. The small percent
differences between the numerical and analytical accelerations results indicate that the
79
)
taut string model closely approximates the case study bridge for the purposes of
calculating maximum accelerations.
5.5 Conclusions
This chapter utilized numerical pedestrian excitation calculations performed on a detailed
two-dimensional model of a case study polyester-rope suspended footbridge to establish
the influence of mass, damping ratios, and material stiffness on system accelerations and
rope tensions. These excitations were equivalent to groups of approximately 9 to 15
synchronized pedestrians (low levels of traffic) walking at bridge natural frequencies in
the range susceptible to resonance, namely 1.7 Hz to 2.1 Hz (Sétra 2006).
The calculations were conducted for damping ratios in the range of 2% to 6%. Lower
accelerations were found with higher damping ratios, but for the case study evaluated,
even using the upper end of the damping range, the minimum pedestrian comfort limit of
0.25 g (Sétra 2006) was exceeded by a large factor, 5 times for the controlling mode (the
LC1 fourth mode). The numerical calculations demonstrated the inverse relationship
between mass and acceleration. Optimization studies presented in Chapter 7 will examine
using supplemental mass as a strategy to reduce bridge accelerations to acceptable
comfort levels.
The calculations considered both lower bound (El = 2.86 GPa) and upper bound (Eu =
5.96 GPa) elastic moduli. For the two stiffness cases, maximum accelerations were the
same while the maximum rope tensions were within 6% of each other. The minor
differences in acceleration and tensions for the two stiffness cases suggests that
80
)
neglecting polyester rope’s nonlinear stress-strain behavior and using a single modulus of
elasticity value in the dynamic analysis does not significantly impact the results.
Comparing the minimum factors of safety found in the Chapter 3 static analysis and
this chapter’s pedestrian excitation analysis indicates that strength limits under static
rather than dynamic loads are likely to control the design of rural (Class III) polyester-
rope suspended footbridges. The impact of static and dynamic strength limits on the
required rope prestress, cross-sectional area, etc. for medium-span (15 m to 64 m)
polyester-rope suspended footbridges is further investigated in the optimization studies
presented in Chapter 7.
Results from the analytical calculations indicate that just as the taut string model
showed potential as a surrogate for the numerical model for determining natural
frequencies in Chapter 4, the taut string is also able to provide acceleration results
approaching those of the numerical analysis (within 2.1%) at low computational expense.
81
)
Chapter 6
Multi-Objective Optimization with
Stress, Slope, and Natural Frequency
Constraints
6.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 demonstrated that the large static deflections that can occur for polyester-rope
suspended footbridges lead to high live load (LL) overload factors (ratio of applied LL-
to-service LL) at a bridge’s strength limit. While these large deflections also have
potential to control the LL on the bridge by deterring pedestrians from walking onto the
structure until those on the structure have finished crossing, this practice may not always
be acceptable. Instead, the bridge may be required to meet a serviceability criterion such
as a maximum walking slope that necessitates limiting deflections under service loads.
This chapter presents multi-objective optimization problems in which a walking slope
criterion is used as a constraint that must be met for a design to be considered feasible.
82
)
Other constraints include static stress and natural frequency. Accelerations are not
considered in this study, because the natural frequency constraint is set such that no
dynamic analysis and consequently no acceleration check are required. Chapter 7
presents an extension to this study that includes an acceleration constraint.
The first objective of this chapter is to present the novel methodology developed for
the optimization process. This methodology combines a non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm with geometric nonlinear static and natural frequency computations that utilize
dynamic relaxation and eigenanalysis algorithms. The second objective of this chapter is
to use the optimization problems to establish the important parameters that produce
minimum volume designs for two-dimensional systems (with or without prestress and
unstayed or stayed from below the deck) with medium spans (15 m to 64 m). Both
polyester-rope and steel-rope footbridges are investigated to see how their minimum
volume designs compare. In each optimization problem, two objective functions are
considered. The first objective function, the span, is maximized while the second
objective function, the volume of the unstressed rope system, is minimized. Maximizing
span in a multi-objective optimization provides solutions across a range of spans. This
enables conclusions to be drawn about what criteria and/or parameters may be critical at
different spans. Similar results could be obtained by repeating for each span of interest, a
single objective optimization, where volume is minimized. Minimizing volume is
important to reduce the quantity and the cost of rope. Since polyester and steel have
different densities, self-weight results are scaled from the volume results to provide an
alternative measure of rope quantity.
83
)
6.2 Structural Model Features

This section describes the features for the structural models evaluated in the optimization
problems. These features include model configurations, material properties, and design
loads.
6.2.1 Model Configurations
In this study, 1 m wide, three-dimensional suspended rope systems with and without
below-deck stays are reduced to two-dimensional models. As was done in Chapter 3, this
reduction is achieved by grouping together all elements occurring at the same elevation.
The stiffness of the deck is not included in these models because it is assumed that the
deck’s detailing is such that it does not contribute to the global stiffness of the system.
Figures 6.1a – 6.1c show detailed two-dimensional configurations that consist of
components such as suspended hand and below-deck ropes, suspenders, backstays, and
below-deck stays (Figures 6.1b and 6.1c). Simplifications to the configurations in Figures
6.1a – 6.1c appear in Figures 6.1d – 6.1f. The configurations in Figures 6.1d – 6.1f have a
single suspended rope and no suspenders or backstays. The extremes among these
configurations, the low-stiffness and high-stiffness configurations in Figures 6.1d and
6.1f, respectively, are the configurations optimized in this study to observe how much
stays can potentially reduce a system’s volume. The stayed, high-stiffness configuration
consists of a single vertical stay whose support is located at a vertical distance L/2 below
the suspended rope supports (Figure 6.1f). A configuration with a vertical stay has greater
stiffness than a configuration with stays rotated from the vertical by an angle ϕ (Figure
6.1e) when both configurations have equal cross-sectional area, equal rope prestress, and
84
)
stay supports located along or outside of a semi-circle with a radius of L/2 that is centered
about the mid-point between the suspended rope supports. The unstayed configuration
(Figure 6.1d) will have an even lower stiffness.
a. b. c.
d. e. f.
Figure 6.1. Elevations showing the detailed configurations a – c and simplified
configurations d – f. The low and high stiffness simplified configurations shown in d and
f, respectively, are optimized in this study.
While analytical methods such as those used in Chapters 3 and 4 could be used to
evaluate the unstayed configuration (Figure 6.1d), numerical calculations are necessary
for the stayed configuration (Figure 6.1f). In order to provide a general methodology that
can be used to evaluate both of these configurations in the present study, as well as more
complex configurations in the future, all the structural analyses are performed
numerically. For the analysis of each model, the suspended rope is discretized into twelve
elements and where applicable, the below-deck stay is represented with a single element.
85
)
The suspended rope discretization follows from a preliminary study performed on a 64 m
span configuration like the one shown in Figure 6.1d. Models with twelve and twenty-
four elements had stress, slope, and fundamental vertical natural frequency results that
differed by less than 5%. A discretization of twelve elements is used to balance finding a
solution that reasonably approximates the structural behavior under investigation with the
required computational time. This balance also informs the decision to optimize the
simplified (i.e., surrogate) configurations, rather than their more detailed counterparts.
Chapters 3 and 4 demonstrated that surrogate configurations such as the ones under
investigation in this chapter can approximate the static and natural frequency results of
the more detailed configurations.
6.2.2 Material Properties
Two rope materials are considered for the models: polyester and steel. Table 6.1 lists the
moduli of elasticity (E), ultimate stresses (σult), and densities (ρ) for these rope materials.
Table 6.1. Polyester-rope and steel-rope properties.

Rope material E (GPa) σult (MPa) ρ (kg/m3)
Polyester 2.86 471.3 1381
Steel 196.50 1862.0 7849
The polyester rope is the same commercially available, 12-strand, single braid
product used in the case study bridge. For this polyester rope product, the ultimate stress
varies based on the nominal diameter of the rope. The value used in this study is the
minimum ultimate stress for ropes up to 24 mm (nominal) in diameter. The nonlinear
stress-strain behavior of polyester rope (Flory et al. 2004) is neglected and the lower-
bound “modulus of elasticity” of 2.86 GPa is used. By comparison, the steel rope (Grade
86
)
270) has a modulus of elasticity of 196.5 GPa, a value nearly 70 times greater than that of
the polyester rope.
6.2.3 Load Definitions
Prestress, dead (DL), and live (LL) loads are considered in this study. Prestress is applied
to a rope as a strain and varies in the analysis (see Table 6.4 in Section 6.3.5 for the strain
ranges). The DL includes the rope self-weight in addition to a uniformly distributed load,
0.53 kN/m, representative of a wood deck and cross beams, suspenders and mesh
guardrails. This distributed DL is similar to that of the case study bridge introduced in
Chapter 3. The LL is a uniformly distributed load, 4.3 kN/m derived from the 4.3 kN/m2
unreduced area load prescribed in the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines (2009) applied across the 1 m wide deck.
Both the uniformly distributed DL and LL are applied along the entire span as equivalent
concentrated loads located at element nodes.
The following three working stress load combinations (LCs) are considered in the
analysis:
LC1: prestress
LC2: prestress + DL
87
)
6.3 Optimization Problems

This section presents the multi-objective optimization problems under investigation.
To capture the performance of a range of systems subject to varying constraints, eight
cases are analyzed, four in each of two multi-objective optimization problems (i and ii).
Every system has an assigned rope material (polyester or steel) and a configuration
(unstayed or stayed). Additionally, the ropes may or may not be prestressed. First, the
general problem formulation is defined and then the objective functions, constraints, and
design variables for the different problems and cases are discussed.
6.3.1 Problem Formulation
The general formulation for the optimization problems is defined as:
minx f(x) (6.1)
subject to: g(x) ≤ 0
where x is the design variable vector, f = [ f1, . . ., fq]T is a vector of q objective functions,
and g = [g1, . . . gr] T is a vector of r constraints. Table 6.2 lists the objective functions and
constraints considered in each of the optimization problems. The variables in Table 6.2
are defined and described in Sections 6.3.2 - 6.3.5.
Table 6.2. Objective functions and constraints for optimization problems i and ii.
Objective
Constraints, g(x)
functions, f(x)
Problem
g3(x) (for stayed
f1(x) f2(x) g1(x) g2(x) g4(x)
configurations only)
max {σ i } − σ all max {s j } − s all
i -L V i =1, ... , n + m j =1, ... , n
- -
max {σ i } − σ all max {s j } − s all if σn+m > 0: -σn+m
ii -L V λmin – λall
i =1, ... , n + m j =1, ... , n else: σn+m+ 0.1
88
)
6.3.2 Objective Functions
In both problems, the first objective function ( f1(x)) is defined as f1(x) = -L, where L is
span. The negative sign appears in the function because the aim is to maximize span, but
the general problem formulation is defined as a minimization. The second objective
function ( f2(x)) is defined as f2(x) = V, where V is rope volume. The aim is to minimize
the second objective function.
6.3.3 Static Constraints
All cases are subjected to two static constraints g1(x) and g2(x). The first constraint is that
the maximum service stress among all the ropes (max{σi} for i =1, … , n+m) does not
exceed the allowable stress (σall):
g1 (x) = max{σ i } − σ all ≤ 0 (6.2)

i =1,..., n + m
where n and m are the number of elements comprising the suspended rope and stay,
respectively. The allowable stress is defined as σult/FS, where σult is the rope’s ultimate
stress and FS is the factor of safety. The polyester-rope and steel-rope ultimate stress
values are given in Table 6.1. No factor of safety has been established in design
guidelines for polyester rope, so a factor of safety typically used for steel ropes, 2.2
(Gimsing and Georgakis 2012), is assumed for ropes constructed of both materials.
The second constraint is that the suspended rope’s maximum service slope
(max{sj} for j =1,…,n) does not exceed the allowable slope (sall):
g 2 ( x) = max{s j } − sall ≤ 0 (6.3)

j =1,..., n
89
)
The allowable slope used in this study is 20%. This value follows from the Bridges to
Prosperity (2011) criterion for rural, steel-rope suspended footbridges.
Cases with stayed configurations in problems ii are also subjected to a slack stay
constraint (g3(x)):
if σn+m > 0: g3(x) = -σn+m ≤ 0 (6.4)
else: the constraint is violated and g3(x) is set to σn+m+ 0.1
where σn+m is the normal stress in a stay element. A slack stay is one that is no longer
under tension and has zero stress. Since the stay is intended to remain tensioned to stiffen
the suspended rope system, only designs in which the stay does not go slack meet the
slack stay constraint.
6.3.4 Natural Frequency Constraint
All cases in problem ii have a natural frequency constraint (g4(x)) in addition to the static
constraints:
g4(x) = λmin – λall ≤ 0 (6.5)
where λmin is the fundamental vertical natural frequency and λall is the limit on the natural
frequency, which in this study is 3 Hz. This value corresponds to the AASHTO (2009)
criterion and avoids the bridge being vulnerable to pedestrian vibrations in the vertical
direction.
6.3.5 Design Variables
Each case’s combination of system features (material, configuration, and whether or not
the ropes are prestressed) dictate that case’s design variables (x). All design variables are
90
)
continuous. In all cases, span (L) is a design variable with L ∈ [15, 64] m. The lower limit
is set at 15 m because other structures, such as beams and trusses, may be more likely
than suspended bridges to be built for shorter spans. The upper limit is taken as the span
of the case study bridge, 64 m. Suspended rope area (A1) is also a design variable in all
cases and A1 ∈ [0.01, 100] cm2. The lower limit is set to a value close to zero. The upper
limit for the suspended rope area is equivalent to approximately forty-eight, 18 mm
(nominal) diameter ropes for the polyester product considered in this study. By
comparison, the case study bridge, which based on the results presented in Chapter 3 and
4 would not have met the slope and natural frequency constraints set in this study, has ten
ropes (six hand and four below-deck ropes) of this size.
For cases with stayed configurations, the stay rope area (A2) is a design variable with
A2 ∈ [0.01, 15] cm2. The lower limit is again set to a value close to zero while the upper
limit is equivalent to approximately four, 24 mm (nominal) diameter polyester ropes.
This upper limit reflects that individual stays will be used in up to four planes parallel to
the span. Stays do not contribute significantly to the static performance of a system
because the stay prestress decreases under increasing DL and LL. However, stays do
influence the natural frequency of a stayed configuration because these components aid in
resisting upward vibrational motions. Therefore, stayed cases are only included in
problem ii, where there is a natural frequency constraint.
For cases with prestress, prestress strains for the suspended and stay (where
applicable) ropes (ε1 and ε2, respectively) are design variables. For polyester-rope cases,
ε 1 and ε 2 ∈ [10 −8 ,7.49x10 −2 ] while for steel-rope cases, ε 1 and ε 2 ∈ [10−8 ,4.31x10 −3 ] . The
lower limits in both ranges are set to a value close to zero to approximate systems
91
)
approaching zero prestress. In order to avoid numerical error, the lower limits are not set
to zero. The suspended rope in a nearly zero prestress system has an almost horizontal
profile prior to the application of DL and/or LL. The upper limits in the ranges are set to
the strain values that occur at the allowable stress levels.
For cases without prestress, the suspended rope prior to the application of DL and/or
LL is assumed to have a parabolic profile. While a free-hanging rope’s true profile is a
catenary, for flat ropes (sag-to-span ratio less than 1:8), a parabola closely approximates a
catenary (Irvine 1975). The relationship between a parabola’s maximum slope (smax), sag
(d), and span (L) is defined by the equation:
4d
smax = (6.6)
L
For a bridge that is at the 20% slope constraint, the sag-to-span ratio is 1:20.
Therefore, all designs that meet this slope constraint can be classified as flat ropes and the
designs can be represented geometrically by parabolas. Assuming the midpoint of the
rope is taken as the origin, the parabola is defined by the equation:
β = bα2 (6.7)
where α and β are the horizontal and vertical coordinates of a point on the parabola
relative to the origin and b is a coefficient. This coefficient is a design variable with
b ∈ [10 −8 , 1.33x10 −4 ] cm2. The lower limit is set close to zero. The upper limit is set such
that if the minimum span value is selected during the optimization the resulting slope is at
the 20% constraint. If longer span values are selected, the upper limit on this coefficient
will result in slopes that exceed 20%. These designs are filtered out during the
optimization process because the slope constraint is not met. Results for the prestressed,
92
)
unstayed cases in problem ii (Section 6.5.2) indicate that prestress is required (i.e., the
prestress strain design variable is not near its lower limit of approximately zero) to meet
the natural frequency constraint. Consequently, nonprestressed cases are only included
for problem i where there is no natural frequency constraint. Figure 6.2 shows the
elevations of the unstayed configurations with and without prestress and the stayed
configuration with prestress prior to the application of DL and/or LL.
a. Unstayed configuration b. Unstayed configuration c. Stayed configuration with

with prestress. without prestress. prestress.
Figure 6.2. Elevations showing the configurations prior to the application of DL and/or
LL.
Table 6.3 summarizes the cases analyzed in the optimization problems while Table
6.4 summarizes the design variable ranges.
Table 6.3. Cases analyzed in the optimization problems.

Problem Case Rope material Configuration Prestressed Design variables, x
d1 yes [L A1 ε1]
polyester Unstayed
d2 no [L A1 b]
i
d3 yes [L A1 ε1]
steel Unstayed
d4 no [L A1 b]
d5 Unstayed [L A1 ε1]
polyester yes
d6 Stayed [L A1 A2 ε1 ε2]
ii
d7 Unstayed [L A1 ε1]
steel yes
d8 Stayed [L A1 A2 ε1 ε2]
93
)
Table 6.4. Design variable ranges for the optimization problems.

Design variable Range
L [15, 64] m
A1 [0.01, 100] cm2
A2 [0.01, 15] cm2
ε1 and ε2 (polyester-rope) [10-8, 7.49x10-2]
ε1 and ε2 (steel-rope) [10-8, 4.31x10-3]
b [10-8, 1.33x10-4]
6.4 Optimization Methodology

This section describes the novel methodology used to evaluate the multi-objective
optimization problems in this study.
6.4.1 Optimization Algorithm
The multi-objective optimization utilizes a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm,
NSGA-II (Deb et al. 2002) to allow for the identification of feasible solutions in a large
complex design space that encompasses two competing objective functions, static and
natural frequency constraints, and continuous design variables. Zavala et al. (2014) in a
detailed review, show that NSGA-II is one of the most commonly used multi-objective
metaheuristics applied to structural optimization problems. Among the literature cited in
this review are studies demonstrating how NSGA-II has been used when optimizing a
variety of structural systems including trusses (Deb 2001), frames (Greiner et al. 2007),
and grids (Winslow et al. 2010). The NSGA-II algorithm is flexible enough that the
general methodology presented in this study can be applied to other suspended systems
constructed of different materials, and/or having alternative/additional configurations and
constraints. Genetic algorithms can widely explore these design spaces, even if the
problems contain features that may impede gradient-based search techniques such as,
94
)
nonlinear constraints, a combination of continuous and discrete variables, and local
minima.
Genetic algorithms are stochastic search methods in which the main assumption is
that the fittest (closest to optimal) solution has the greatest likelihood of surviving
(Raphael and Smith 2003). With this method, an initial population is generated randomly.
Next, all individuals in the population are subjected to a structural analysis. This analysis
provides the results from which the objective functions and constraints can be calculated.
Then, individuals in a population undergo crossover and mutation operations (i.e.,
individuals are modified using analogous genetic methods) to produce a new population
in the next generation. Individuals with high fitness are selected for these operations at a
greater frequency than individuals with comparatively low fitness. Some low fitness
individuals do not survive. Consequently, on average, each successive generation’s
population improves (Raphael and Smith 2003). In NSGA-II, the constraints are used as
criteria during the determination of fitness (Deb et al. 2002). There are three possible
outcomes. First, when two individuals are feasible (i.e., the constraints are met), the
dominant one is assigned a greater fitness. Second, when two individuals are infeasible,
the one with the lowest constraint violation is assigned a greater fitness. Third, when one
individual is feasible and the other individual is infeasible, the former is assigned a
greater fitness.
In the multi-objective problems considered in this study, the two objective functions
considered are in competition. Therefore, a Pareto-optimal or non-dominated solution set
(Raphael and Smith 2003), instead of a single solution is found for every run performed.
NSGA-II finds a discretized non-dominated solution set that is a representative subset of
95
)
a continuous solution set and convergence of the NSGA-II algorithm to the true Pareto-
optimal solution is not guaranteed (Deb et al. 2002). The genetic parameters used can
influence the resulting non-dominated sets. Preliminary parametric studies indicated that
values for the genetic parameters listed in Table 6.5 produced non-dominated sets that
were comparable to or better (based on a visual inspection of plotted results) than non-
dominated sets found using other values.
Table 6.5. Genetic parameters for all of the optimization problems.

Parameter Value
Number of generations 45
Population size 100
Simulated binary crossover probability 0.75
Simulated binary mutation probability 0.2
Simulated binary crossover distribution index 10
Simulated binary mutation distribution index 20
6.4.2 Structural Analysis Algorithms
The structural analysis used to evaluate the designs generated in the optimization routine
includes geometrically nonlinear static and natural frequency calculations. The static
calculations utilize the dynamic relaxation algorithm introduced in Chapter 3 while the
natural frequency calculations combine the dynamic relaxation and eigenanalysis
algorithms as was done in Chapter 4. In contrast to the lumped mass matrices used in the
eigenalyses performed in Chapters 4, 5, and 7, the mass matrix in this chapter’s study
includes full mass contributions in the vertical and longitudinal directions. Preliminary
studies and checks on the designs found in the optimization indicated that the
fundamental in-plane natural frequencies for these systems were in the vertical and not
the longitudinal direction. Therefore, retaining the full longitudinal mass contributions in
the matrix did not appreciably impact the results.
96
)
6.4.3 Objective Function and Constraint Calculations
Table 6.6 shows which load combinations (LCs) are used to determine the objective
function and constraint values for the different cases. In some instances, the design
variable vector rather than a load combination is used. These instances are indicated in
Table 6.6 with an x. In Sections 6.4.3.1 – 6.4.3.4, the entries in this table are described in
more detail.
Table 6.6. Load combinations (LCs) used in the structural analysis to determine the
objective function and constraint values.
Natural frequency
Static analysis
Problem Case Configuration analysis
f1(x) f2(x) g1(x) g2(x) g3(x) g4(x)
i d1 – d4 Unstayed x x LC3 LC3 - -
d5, d7 Unstayed x x LC3 LC3 - LC2

ii LC1,
d6, d8 Stayed x LC3 LC3 LC3 LC2
LC3
6.4.3.1 Objective Function Calculations
For all cases (d1 – d8), the span objective function ( f1(x)) is determined directly from the
design variable vector. For cases d1 – d4 (unstayed configurations with and without
prestress) in problem i, the unstressed volume objective function ( f2(x)) is calculated
using the design variable vector. Similarly, for cases d5 and d7 (unstayed configurations
with prestress) in problem ii, the volume objective function is calculated with the design
variable vector. For cases d6 and d8 (stayed configurations with prestress) in problem ii,
the volume objective function is calculated using the strain results of LC3. This
computation is required because the combination of prestress strains selected from the
design variable vector may result in a structure that is not initially in equilibrium. During
the dynamic relaxation process, the prestress and consequently the initial lengths and
97
)
volume of the system are updated until equilibrium is reached. The same procedure is not
required for the unstayed configurations with and without prestress because these systems
are initially in equilibrium, regardless of their combination of design variables.
6.4.3.2 Constraint Calculations for the Problem with Static Constraints Only
Cases d1-d4 (unstayed configurations with and without prestress) included in
optimization problem i are only subjected to stress (g1(x)) and slope (g2(x)) constraints,
so only static calculations are required. These calculations are performed for LC3. By
inspection, the LC3 stresses and slopes are greater than the corresponding LC1 and LC2
values.
6.4.3.3 Constraint Calculations for the Unstayed Configurations in the Problem
with Static and Natural Frequency Constraints
Cases d5 and d7 (unstayed configurations with prestress) included in optimization
problem ii are subjected to stress (g1(x)) and slope (g2(x)) constraints whose calculations
are performed for LC3. Additionally, these cases must meet a natural frequency
constraint (g4(x)). The natural frequency calculations are executed with LC2 because
AASHTO (2009) states that LL should not be included in the analysis.
6.4.3.4 Constraint Calculations for Stayed Configurations in the Problem with
Static and Natural Frequency Constraints
Cases d6 and d8 (stayed configurations with prestress) included in optimization problem
ii are also subjected to stress (g1(x)) and slope (g2(x)) constraints. The slope calculations
are performed for LC3. The stress calculations are executed with LC3 to check the
maximum stress in the suspended rope and with LC1 to check the maximum stay stress.
98
)
Stay stresses decrease with the addition of DL and LL. As a result, LC1, rather than LC2
or LC3 yields the maximum stay stress. Stayed cases in this problem have another static
constraint, i.e., the slack stay constraint (g3(x)). This constraint is checked under the
combination most likely to result in zero stress in the stay, LC3. Finally, these cases are
subjected to a natural frequency constraint (g4(x)) whose calculated are performed for
LC2.
6.4.4 Performance Measurement Algorithm
For each case, the optimization algorithm is run ten times because the stochastic
optimization method produces different non-dominated solution sets every time it is
implemented. The choice for the number of runs needs to balance finding a solution set
that reasonably approaches the true Pareto-optimal set with the computational time
required for the analysis. Generating multiple non-dominated sets increases the likelihood
of finding solutions that fall closely to the true Pareto-optimal set. The performance
measure used to compare solution sets, the S-metric (Zitzler 1999), relates to the size of
the space dominated by a set. After the S-metric is found for all runs, the mean value (μs),
standard deviation (σs), and maximum value (ms) of the S-metric for the case are
calculated. In this study, the run with the maximum S-metric value is considered to have
the non-dominated set closest to the true Pareto-optimal set. Figure 6.3 shows the S-
metric values for two general non-dominated sets. In Figure 6.3, the S-metric value for
non-dominated set 1 is larger than the S-metric value for non-dominated set 2. The reader
is referred to Zitzler et al. (2002) for a comparative analysis of performance measures
including the S-metric.
99
)
Figure 6.3. S-metric values for two general non-dominated sets.
6.5 Results and Discussion

This section presents and discusses the results for the cases evaluated in optimization
problems i and ii. Mean value (μs), standard deviation (σs), and maximum value (ms)
results for the S-metric computations are presented in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7. S-metric results for the cases included in optimization problems i and ii.
Problem Case μs (cm4) σs/μs (%) ms/μs – 1 (%)
d1 1.23x109 0.14 0.19
i d2 4.14x107 2.46 2.27
d3 4.31x108 0.59 0.64
d4 1.52x109 0.09 0.10
d5 2.90x108 0.87 0.96
d6 7.09x108 1.82 1.92
ii
d7 8.97x108 0.84 0.90
d8 1.38x108 7.21 6.71
In Table 6.7, σs/μs ranges from 0.09% to 7.21% and ms/μs – 1 ranges from 0.10% to
6.71%. While these ranges depend on the reference point selections used in the S-metric
computations, the results suggest that the spread of solutions is typically low. For each
case in Table 6.7, the non-dominated set for the run with the maximum S-metric value is
plotted as a function of span. These plots (Figures 6.4 and 6.6) are presented in Sections
100
)
6.5.1 and 6.5.2. Comparisons between the various cases are made by inspecting the plots
and the underlying objective function, constraint, and design variable ranges. Although
the S-metric is used to differentiate between runs of a single case, this metric is not used
to compare cases because the reference points vary between cases. In all of the plots
presented in this section the spans are negative values. As described in Section 6.3.2,
spans are negative because the general optimization problem formulation is defined as a
minimization, while the aim is to maximize span.
6.5.1 Results and Discussion for the Problem with Static
Constraints Only
The volume versus span results for optimization problem i are presented in the Figure 6.4
plot. This plot shows that the steel-rope case without prestress (d4) dominates the case
with prestress (d3). This phenomenon occurs because the prestressed solutions do not
deflect as much (slope constraint is not active) as the nonprestressed solutions (slope
constraint is active). For a suspended rope system, increased deflections lead to decreased
horizontal forces, which result in decreased rope volumes.
In contrast to the steel-rope cases, the polyester-rope case with prestress (d1)
dominates the case without prestress (d2). Due to polyester-rope’s low material stiffness,
nonprestressed systems can deflect too much, causing the slope limit to be exceeded
unless large areas are provided. Figure 6.4 shows that the results for the nonprestressed
systems (case d2) do not extend across the span range. The area required for the
suspended rope is approaching the upper area limit (i.e., 100 cm2) specified in Section
6.3.5, for systems with spans less than 64 m. As described in Section 6.3.5, the upper
101
)
limit is already set at a value that is 4.8 times larger than what was used in the Ait
Bayoud bridge. Consequently, prestress is required to limit deflections such that the slope
constraint is met with less volume. For the plotted case, the prestress strains range from
0.063 to 0.067. The maximum strain is 89.5% of the 0.0749 strain upper limit specified in
Section 6.3.5. Since this upper strain limit corresponds to the allowable stress, the results
indicate that prestress is the main contributor to the stress in the polyester-rope case.
5
x 10
4
d1 − polyester, unstayed with prestress
d2 − polyester, unstayed without prestress
3 d3 − steel, unstayed with prestress
d4 − steel, unstayed without prestress
f2 (cm3)
0
−65 −60 −55 −50 −45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15
f1 (m)
Figure 6.4. Volume versus span for optimization problem i. The plot presents the non-
dominated sets for the four cases (d1 – d4) included in the problem.
In both the dominant steel-rope (d4) and polyester-rope (d1) cases, the stress
constraint in addition to the slope constraint is active. The steel-rope case (d4) is able to
meet these constraints with a lower volume than the polyester-rope case (d1) across the
span range. When the volume results for problem i are transformed into self-weight
results, the dominant polyester-rope case (d1) has lower self-weight values than the
dominant steel-rope case (d4) across the span range (Figure 6.5).
102
)
30
25 d2 − polyester, unstayed without prestress
d3 − steel, unstayed with prestress
20
d4 − steel, unstayed without prestress
f2 (kN)
15
10
0
−65 −60 −55 −50 −45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15
f1 (m)
Figure 6.5. Self-weight versus span for optimization problem i. These results are scaled
from the volume versus span results presented in Figure 6.4
Polyester-rope and steel-rope volume (V) and self-weight (Wself) values for the
dominant cases at one example span, 64 m (the maximum span in the design variable
range) are presented in Table 6.8. The polyester-rope case (d1) has a volume that is 3.8
times greater and a self-weight that is 1.5 times less than the corresponding steel-rope
(d4) values.
Table 6.8. Volume and self-weight results for the 64 m span solutions in the dominant
polyester-rope (d1) and steel-rope cases (d4) in optimization problem i.
Case V (cm3) Wself (kN)
5
d1 – polyester, unstatyed with prestress 2.11x10 2.86
d4 – steel, unstayed without prestress 5.57x104 4.29
6.5.2 Results and Discussion for the Problem with Static and
Natural Frequency Constraints
The volume versus span results for optimization problem ii are presented in the Figure
6.6 plot. This plot shows that the stayed polyester-rope case (d6) dominates the unstayed
polyester-rope case (d5). For these cases, the natural frequency constraint is typically
103
)
active. The stay stiffens the structural system against vibrations, rather than additional
area for and/or prestress in the suspended rope stiffening the system. This phenomenon
leads to the natural frequency constraint being met with less volume in the stayed case
(d6) than in the unstayed case (d5). For example, at a span of 29.4 m (the maximum span
attainable for the unstayed case given the design variable ranges) the unstayed case (d5)
has a volume of 2.69x105 cm3 which is approximately 2 times greater than the stayed
case’s (d6) 1.32x105 cm3 volume.
5
x 10
4
3
f2 (cm3)
2
d6 − polyester, stayed with prestress
1
d8 − steel, stayed with prestress
0
−65 −60 −55 −50 −45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15
f1 (m)
Figure 6.6. Volume versus span for optimization problem ii. The plot presents the non-
dominated sets for the four cases (d5 – d8) included in the problem.
In contrast, the unstayed steel-rope case (d7) dominates the stayed steel-rope case
(d8). This occurs because the slack stay constraint is difficult for the steel-rope system to
meet. In order to satisfy this constraint the suspended rope in the stayed case (d8) can
only undergo a limited amount of deflection and thus, requires greater prestress and area
which leads to greater volume than its unstayed counterpart (d7). It is more difficult for
the stay in the stayed polyester-rope case (d6) to go slack because it can be prestressed to
a significantly higher strain than the steel-rope stay. The ratio of the maximum strains
104
)
(polyester rope-to-steel rope) from the strain ranges specified in Section 6.3.5 is 17.4. For
other stayed configurations, such as where the stays are inclined in plane as shown in
Figure 6.1b and Figure 6.1e, it may be more difficult for the steel stays to slacken.
In problem ii, high prestress forces are required to meet the natural frequency
constraint. For the plotted cases, these prestress strains can nearly reach the upper limits
in the strain ranges specified in Section 6.3.5 (0.0749 and 0.00431 for polyester rope and
steel rope, respectively). Therefore, for these designs, the effects of dead and live load on
the results are minimal compared to the contribution from prestress. The resulting flat
geometries easily meet the slope constraint. However, the prestress forces require high
areas (complementing the high prestress strains) to ensure that the stress constraints are
met. Consequently, systems that must meet a natural frequency constraint in addition to
static constraints (cases in problem ii) require significantly more rope material than
systems that are only required to meet static constraints (cases in problem i). For all cases
in problem ii, the area needed for the suspended rope is approaching the 100 cm2 upper
limit for systems with spans less than 64. In contrast, the dominant polyester-rope (d1)
and steel-rope cases (d4) in problem i could achieve 64 m spans with areas of 35.21 cm2
and 8.67 cm2, respectively.
The self-weight results for problem ii are presented in Figure 6.7. In problem ii (as
was seen in problem i) the dominant steel-rope case (d7) has a lower rope volume, but a
higher self-weight than the dominant polyester rope case (d6) across the span range.
105
)
30
25
20
f2 (kN)
15
10 d6 − polyester, stayed with prestress
5
d8 − steel, stayed with prestress
0
−65 −60 −55 −50 −45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15
f1 (m)
Figure 6.7. Self-weight versus span for optimization problem ii. These results are scaled
from the volume versus span results presented in Figure 6.6.
6.5.3 Comparison of Polyester-Rope and Steel-Rope Live Load
Overload Factors
This section evaluates the LL overload factors (ratio of applied LL-to-service LL) for
optimal polyester-rope and steel-rope designs at their ultimate stresses (i.e, strength limit
or FS = 1). This overload analysis assumes that both materials remain elastic up to their
designated strength limits. While this investigation is not the primary aim of the study
performed in this chapter, comparing LL overload factors provides insight into the
differences in overload capacity for suspended footbridges built with ropes having low
(polyester rope) and high (steel rope) material stiffness. Chapter 3 first introduced the
concept of a LL overload factor and compared results for lower bound (El = 2.86 GPa)
and upper bound (Eu = 5.96 GPa) material stiffness values for polyester rope. In the
optimization, the material stiffness values (E) used for polyester and steel differ by nearly
70 times. These values are 2.86 GPa for polyester rope and 196.5 GPa for steel rope.
106
)
The 64 m span designs from the unstayed dominant cases d1 and d4 in problem i are
used as examples. The optimal polyester-rope and steel-rope designs under LC3 both
have stress within 1% of their respective allowable stresses. Therefore, the stress
constraint is active and the factor of safety is approximately 2.2 in both instances.
However, at their strength limits the overload factors are 7.1 and 3.05, for the polyester-
rope and steel-rope designs, respectively. As discussed in Chapter 3, polyester-rope
bridges have potential to develop high overload factors because their low material
stiffness results in significant LL deflections and geometric stiffening. In this example,
the polyester-rope bridge deflected 10.78 m at its strength limit which is 5 times greater
than the corresponding deflection (2.15 m) of the steel-rope design.
6.6 Conclusions
This chapter presented a novel optimization methodology that utilized a non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm with dynamic relaxation and eigenanalysis algorithms to
generate and then evaluate the feasibility of suspended footbridge designs. The
methodology was applied to a set of multi-objective optimization problems to identify the
key parameters that produce minimum volume polyester-rope and steel-rope bridges with
spans ranging from 15 m to 64 m. Polyester-rope suspended bridges, optimized for
minimum rope volume, always required prestress while steel-rope cases only required
prestress when subjected to the vertical natural frequency constraint. For both polyester-
rope and steel-ropes suspended bridges, high prestress levels were required when the
natural frequency constraint was present. The prestress strains needed were approaching
the values (0.0749 and 0.00431 for polyester rope and steel rope, respectively) that occur
107
)
at the ropes’ allowable stress limits. Consequently, the required cross-sectional areas
were also high and for the rope area ranges used in this study, it was not possible to span
64 m with either a polyester-rope or steel-rope suspended footbridge. For the polyester-
rope cases subject to the natural frequency constraint, systems with vertical stays had
lower rope volume and self-weight quantities than their unstayed counterparts.
In addition to providing insight into critical parameters across the span range, the
results were provided graphically as functions of span to enable direct volume or self-
weight comparisons between different footbridge systems given a site requiring a specific
span. This study showed that for the optimization problems and cases considered,
polyester-rope suspended footbridges bridges have higher volumes but lower self-weights
than steel-rope bridges for medium spans.
This section also included a comparison between the LL overload factors (ratio of
applied LL-to-service LL) found at the strength limits for optimal polyester-rope and
steel-rope designs. For the optimal 64 m span designs found in problem i, the LL
overload factors were 7.1 and 3.05 for the polyester-rope and steel-rope bridges,
respectively. The polyester-rope bridge developed the greater overload factor because of
the structure’s lower material stiffness (2.86 GPa for polyester rope versus 196.5 GPa for
steel rope). Due to this lower material stiffness the polyester-rope bridge was able to
deflect more than the steel-rope bridge (10.78 m for the polyester-rope bridge versus 2.15
m for the steel-rope bridge at their respective strength limits) and consequently undergo
greater nonlinear stiffening. As discussed in Chapter 3, without a prescribed factor of
safety for polyester rope in this application (in Section 6.3.3, the factor of safety was
selected to match the typical factor of safety for steel rope), establishing that polyester-
108
)
rope bridges can carry significant LL beyond the required service LL provides an
alternative measure of safety.
109
)
Chapter 7
Multi-Objective Optimization with
Stress, Slope, Natural Frequency, and
Acceleration Constraints
7.1 Introduction
Chapter 6 presented suspended rope bridge designs with minimum volume for medium
spans (15 m to 64 m) that were subject to static stress, slope, and vertical natural
frequency constraints. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, bridges that do not meet vertical
natural frequency limits (AASHTO 2009) may be considered serviceable (comfortable to
walk across) if their accelerations are below pedestrian comfort limits (Sétra 2006).
Consequently, accelerations in addition to natural frequencies are key dynamic criteria
that can influence the required cross-sectional area and rope prestress for a polyester-rope
suspended footbridge to be considered serviceable. This chapter extends the multi-
objective optimization study performed in Chapter 6 by considering the same objective
110
)
functions, volume and span (which are minimized and maximized, respectively) while
including acceleration and dynamic stress constraints in addition to static and natural
frequency constraints. The objective of this chapter is to establish how the inclusion of
these additional dynamic constraints alters the minimum volume designs found in
Chapter 6 for two-dimensional unstayed polyester-rope bridges with prestress. The
optimization methodology presented in Chapter 6 is modified to include modal
calculations to perform the dynamic pedestrian excitation analysis used to evaluate the
additional dynamic constraints.
7.2 Structural Model Features

This section summarizes the model configuration, material properties, and design loads
for the structural models evaluated in the optimization problem.
7.2.1 Model Configuration
The study only includes the two-dimensional unstayed configuration evaluated in Chapter
6. This bridge is assumed to have a 1 m wide deck that contributes to the mass, but not
the stiffness of the system. Figure 7.1 shows a typical detailed unstayed configuration and
the simplified configuration that serves as its surrogate in the optimization problem.
Chapters 3 – 5 demonstrated the ability of similar surrogate models to approximate the
static and dynamic results of a more detailed configuration. For the numerical analysis
of the model, the suspended rope is discretized into forty-eight elements. This increase
from the twelve element discretization in Chapter 6 is done to improve the smoothness of
111
)
the mode shapes utilized in the modal analysis while still balancing the accuracy of the
approximation with computational time.
a. Detailed configuration. b. Simplified configuration evaluated in

the optimization.
Figure 7.1. Elevations showing the two-dimensional unstayed bridge.
7.2.2 Material and System Properties
This study only considers polyester rope systems. The material properties follow from
those used in Chapter 6 for polyester rope. These properties are used to enable
comparisons between the results in this chapter and Chapter 6. The “modulus of
elasticity” is taken to be the lower-bound value (El), namely 2.86 GPa. The rope’s
ultimate stress (σult) is 471.3 MPa.
Damping is a required system parameter in the pedestrian excitation analysis that is
used to calculate accelerations and dynamic stresses. Damping ratios (ξ) of 2% and 6%
are considered to evaluate the impact of damping on the minimum volume results. These
damping values correspond approximately with the lower and upper bounds for the
damping ratio range found in Chapter 4 for the case study bridge (2.6% to 6.1%). Since a
system’s damping can only be determined experimentally after its construction (Sétra
2006), it is not guaranteed that when built, the bridge designs found in the optimization
will have the amount of damping assumed. The deck, suspender arrangement, and mesh
112
)
configuration are among the components that are not included in the bridge systems
optimized, but that can influence the bridge’s damping.
7.2.3 Load Definitions
This study considers prestress, dead (DL), and live (LL) loads. Prestress strains vary in
the analysis. Refer to Table 7.1 in Section 7.3.5 for the strain ranges. The DL includes the
rope’s self-weight, a 0.53 kN/m uniformly distributed load representative of bridge
components other than the suspended ropes, and potentially additional superimposed DL.
Refer to Table 7.1 in Section 7.3.5 for the superimposed DL range. Superimposed DL is
considered because of the potential for supplemental mass to reduce bridge accelerations
(Sétra 2006).
Two static uniformly distributed LLs are considered. The first load (LL1) is 4.3 kN/m.
This is the LL value used in Chapter 6 and follows from the unreduced area load of 4.3
kN/m2 presented in the American Association of State and Highway Transportation
Officials (AASTHO) guidelines (2009) applied to the 1 m wide deck. LL1 is used when
checking the static stress and slope constraints described in Section 7.3.3. The second
load (LL2) is 0.7 kN/m and comes from 0.7 kN/m2 presented in the Service d’Études
Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide (2006) applied to the 1 m
wide deck. LL2 is used when checking the dynamic constraints described in Section
7.3.4.
113
)
The working stress load combinations (LCs) considered in the static and/or natural
frequency analyses are:
LC1: prestress + DL
LC2: prestress + DL + LL1
LC3: prestress + DL + LL2
In addition to static loads, a dynamic live load similar to one used in Chapter 5 is
included in this optimization study. The dynamic live load follows from Sétra’s dynamic
analysis methodology for a Class III footbridge (Sétra 2006) and is defined as:
2ξ
wv = 1512cos(2πft ) N/m (7.1)
L
where f is natural frequency for the mode under consideration, ξ is the damping ratio, t is
time, and L is span (with unit m). Equation C.1 in Appendix C presents the original
expression as presented in Sétra (2006) from which this load was derived.
The working stress load combinations (LCs) used to examine the combined effect of
the static and dynamic loads in the dynamic analysis are:
LC4: prestress + DL + wv
LC5: prestress + DL + LL2 + wv
7.3 Optimization Problems

This section presents the two multi-objective problems (iii and iv) under investigation.
The problem and case numbering in this chapter continues from the numbering used in
Chapter 6. Multi-objective optimization problems i and ii and cases d1 – d8 were
considered in Chapter 6.
114
)
Problem iii includes a single case (d9) subject to static and natural frequency
constraints. Problem iv differs from problem iii in that dynamic acceleration and stress
constraints are also considered and consequently, damping must be incorporated into the
analysis. Two cases (d10 and d11) are included in problem iv. The only difference
between these two cases is the damping ratio used. Cases d10 and d11 are assumed to
have 2% and 6% damping (ξ), respectively, in all of their vertical modes. In the
remainder of this section, the problem formulations are described and then the objective
functions, constraints, and design variables are discussed.
7.3.1 Problem Formulations
The problem formulation for problem iii is defined as:
f (x) = − L
minx ⎧⎨ 1 (7.2)
⎩ f 2 (x) = V
⎧g1 (x) = max{σ i } − σ all ≤ 0

⎪ i =1, ... , n
⎪⎪g 2 (x) = max{si }− sall ≤ 0
subject to: ⎨ i =1, ... , n
⎪g (x) = λ − λ ≤ 0
⎪ 3 min all
⎪⎩x = [L A1 ε 1 ]
115
)
The problem formulation for problem iv is defined as:
f (x) = − L
minx ⎧⎨ 1 (7.3)
⎩ f 2 (x) = V
⎧
⎪ g 1 (x) = max{σ i } − σ all ≤ 0
⎪ i =1, ... , n
⎪ g 2 (x) = max{si }− sall ≤ 0
⎪ i =1, ... , n
⎪
⎪ g 3 (x) or the following three constraints : g 4 (x), g 5 (x), and g 6 (x)
⎪where :
⎪
subject to: ⎨ g 3 (x) = λmin − λall ≤ 0
⎪ g (x) = max{a } − a ≤ 0
⎪ 4
j =1, ... , n +1
j all
⎪
⎪ g 5 (x) = max{σ sdi } − σ all ≤ 0
⎪ i =1, ... , n
⎪ g (x) = 10 −10 − min{σ } ≤ 0

⎪ 6
i =1, ... , n
sdi
⎪
⎩x = [L A1 ε 1 qSDL ]
In problem formulations 7.2and 7.3, x is the design variable vector, f1(x) and f2(x) are
the objective functions, and g1(x), g2(x), … are the constraints. The remaining variables
in equations 7.2 and 7.3 are defined and described in Sections 7.3.2 – 7.3.5.
7.3.2 Objective Functions
In both problems, the two objective functions are the same as those considered in Chapter
6. The first objective function is span (L) and is defined as: f1(x) = -L. The negative sign
is included in the function because span is being maximized, but the general problem
formulations are defined as minimizations. The second objective function is rope volume
(V) and is defined as f2(x) = V. The aim is to minimize volume.
116
)
7.3.3 Static Constraints
In both problems, there are two static constraints g1(x) and g2(x). These are the same two
static constraints considered in Chapter 6. The first constraint is that the maximum
service stress along the suspended rope (max{σi} for i =1, … , n) does not exceed the
allowable stress (σall):
g1 (x) = max{σ i } − σ all ≤ 0 (7.4)

i =1,..., n
where n is the number of elements comprising the suspended rope and the allowable
stress is σult/FS. σult is the ultimate stress defined in Section 7.2.2, namely 471.3 MPa and
FS is the assumed factor of safety, 2.2, introduced in Chapter 6. The second constraint is
that the maximum suspended rope slope (max{si} for i =1, …, n) does not exceed the
allowable walking slope (sall) of 20% introduced in Chapter 6:
g2 (x) = max{si } − sall ≤ 0 (7.5)

i =1,..., n
7.3.4 Dynamic Constraints
For problem iii, the only dynamic constraint is g3(x):
g3(x) = λmin – λall ≤ 0 (7.6)
where λmin is the fundamental vertical natural frequency and λall is the limit on the natural
frequency. In this study, the limit is 2.1 Hz. This value corresponds to the criterion
presented in the Sétra’s technical guide (2006) as the upper limit for greatest risk of
achieving resonance in the vertical direction due to pedestrian excitation. This differs
from the natural frequency constraint presented in Chapter 6 which followed from the
117
)
3 Hz criterion specified in the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Official (AASHTO) guidelines (2009).
For problem iv the natural frequency constraint, g3(x), is also included. However, if
this constraint is violated, the design under evaluation is still considered feasible if a set
of additional dynamic constraints (g4(x), g5(x), and g6(x)) evaluated in a pedestrian
excitation analysis are satisfied.
The first of these additional dynamic constraints (g4(x)) is that the suspended rope’s
maximum acceleration (max{aj} for j =1, …, n+1) does not exceed the allowable
acceleration (aall):
g4 (x) = max{a j } − aall ≤ 0 (7.7)

j =1, ... , n+1
The maximum allowable acceleration used in this study is 0.25 g. This value corresponds
to Sétra’s criterion for minimum pedestrian comfort limit in the vertical direction (Sétra
2006).
The next dynamic constraint (g5(x)) is that the maximum suspended rope stress under
the superposition of dynamic and static loads (max{σsdi} for i =1, …, n) does not exceed
the allowable stress (σall) defined in Section 7.3.3:
g 5 (x) = max{σ sdi } − σ all ≤ 0 (7.8)

i =1, ... , n
Section 5.3.3.1 in Chapter 5 described how there is no explicit check that the ropes
remain in tension during the superposition of dynamic and static loads. Therefore, an
additional dynamic constraint (g6(x)) is included to ensure that the suspended rope has
not gone slack (i.e., zero stress) or into compression. This constraint is defined such that
118
)
that the minimum suspended rope stress (min{σsdi} for i =1, …, n) is not less than 10-10
(i.e., a value approaching zero):
g6 (x) = 10−10 − min{σ sdi} ≤ 0 (7.9)

i=1, ..., n
7.3.5 Design Variables
In both problems, the design variables (x) are continuous. The common design variables
in the problems are span (L), suspended rope area (A1), and suspended rope prestress
strain (ε1). The ranges for these variables follow from those used in Chapter 6 and are
presented in Table 7.1. Additionally, in problem iv, superimposed DL (qSDL) is a design
variable with qSDL ∈[0, 10] kN/m. Superimposed DL is included to evaluate the impact of
using supplemental mass to reduce bridge accelerations below acceptable limits and
decrease the required rope volume. The lower superimposed DL limit is set at 0, which
indicates that no superimposed DL is applied to the bridge. The upper superimposed DL
limit is set to a value that is not reached during the optimization and therefore will not
inhibit the discovery of the optimal designs.
Table 7.1. Design variable ranges for the optimization problems.

Design variable Range
L [15, 64] m
A1 [0.01, 100] cm2
ε1 [10-8, 7.49x10-2]
qs [0, 10] kN/m
7.4 Optimization Methodology

This section describes the optimization methodology used to evaluate multi-objective
problems iii and iv.
119
)
7.4.1 Algorithm Summary
The novel methodology described in Chapter 6 is adapted for this study by modifying the
structural analysis algorithms used to evaluate the designs created in the optimization
routine. Static and natural frequency computations are still performed using dynamic
relaxation and eigenanalysis algorithms. Chapters 3 and 4 introduced these static and
natural frequency calculations, respectively. The lumped mass matrix used in the
eigenanlyses performed in this chapter is similar to the one utilized in Chapters 4 and 5.
The mass contributions in the longitudinal directions are significantly reduced to ensure
that the modes found are predominately in the vertical direction. In this chapter, the mass
values in the longitudinal direction are set to 0.1% of the values in the vertical direction.
The dynamic pedestrian excitation analysis is executed using modal calculations
introduced in Chapter 5.
The optimization and performance measurement algorithms described in Chapter 6
are still utilized in this chapter. The optimization uses a non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm, NSGA-II (Deb et al. 2002) with the genetic parameters listed in Table 7.2 to
find a non-dominated solution set. For each case under consideration, the optimization
algorithm is run ten times. Then, the S-metric performance measure (Zitzler 1999) is used
to compare non-dominated solution sets to determine which run is producing the non-
dominated set that is closest to the true Pareto-optimal set.
Table 7.2. Genetic parameters for the optimization problems.

Parameter Value
Number of generations 45
Population size 100
Simulated binary crossover probability 0.75
Simulated binary mutation probability 0.2
Simulated binary crossover distribution index 10
Simulated binary mutation distribution index 20
120
)
7.4.2 Objective Function Calculations
In all cases, both objective functions are determined directly from the design variable
vector x, rather than a load combination.
7.4.3 Constraint Calculations
Constraints are calculated using the load combinations (LCs) defined in Section 7.2.3.
Table 7.3 shows which LC is used to determine the constraint values in each case.
Table 7.3. Load combinations (LCs) used in the structural analysis to determine the
constraint values.
Static constraints Dynamic constraints
Problem Case
g1(x) g2(x) g3(x) g4(x) g5(x) g6(x)
iii d9 LC2 LC2 LC1, LC3 - - -
iv d10, d11 LC2 LC2 LC1, LC3 LC4, LC5 LC4, LC5 LC4, LC5
Static stress (g1(x)) and slope (g2(x)) constraint values are calculated using LC2 in a
static analysis. By inspection, the LC2 stresses and slope are greater than the results for
the other static load combinations, LC1 and LC3.
The natural frequency constraint (g3(x)) in both problems and the additional dynamic
constraints (g4(x), g5(x), and g6(x)) required in problem iv if the natural frequency
constraint is not satisfied, are evaluated using Sétra’s dynamic analysis methodology for
a Class III footbridge (Sétra 2006). The natural frequency calculations are performed
using LC1 and LC3. Values for the acceleration (g4(x)), and dynamic stress (g5(x), and
g6(x)) constraints are computed using LC4 and LC5 in a pedestrian excitation analysis.
These dynamic calculations are repeated for every bridge mode with a vertical natural
121
)
frequency between 1.7 Hz and 2.1 Hz. For a design to be feasible all constraints must be
met for all the modes evaluated with LC4 and LC5.
A bridge whose fundamental frequency is less than 2.1 Hz (i.e., g3(x) is not met), but
whose other frequencies fall outside the range of 1.7 Hz to 2.1 Hz, is not at maximum
risk of experiencing resonance and per Sétra’s (2006) methodology, does not require a
pedestrian excitation analysis to evaluate its dynamic performance. However, in this
study at least one mode found using LC4 and LC5 is always checked when the
fundamental natural frequency is less than 2.1 Hz. Performing a dynamic analysis with at
least one mode is conservative, but ensures that if a bridge’s natural frequencies shift
slightly between the numerical predictions and the built structure, that pedestrian
vibration issues have still been addressed. For the scenario when the fundamental
frequency is less than 2.1 Hz, but when none of the natural frequencies are in the range of
1.7 Hz to 2.1 Hz, the mode with the natural frequency closest to the range is used in the
calculations.
7.5 Results and Discussion

This section presents and discusses the results for the cases evaluated in optimization
problems iii and iv. Table 7.4 includes the mean value (μs), standard deviation (σs), and
maximum value (ms) results for the S-metric computations.
Table 7.4. S-metric results for the cases evaluated in problems iii and iv.
Case μs (cm4) σs/μs (%) ms/μs – 1 (%)
d9 2.75x108 0.47 0.47
d10 1.68x109 2.41 2.42
d11 1.47x109 1.14 1.23
122
)
In Table 7.4, σs/μs ranges from 0.47% to 2.41% and ms/μs – 1 ranges from 0.47% to
2.42%. These results suggest that the spread of solutions between the ten runs performed
for each case is typically low. For each of the three cases in Table 7.4, the non-dominated
set for the run with the maximum S-metric value is plotted in Figure 7.2. Additionally,
the Figure 7.2 plot includes the unstayed, prestressed polyester-rope bridge cases
investigated in Chapter 6 to enable comparisons between cases subject to additional sets
of constraints.
5
x 10
5
d1 − static constraints
4.5 d5 − static + AASHTO’s natural frequency constraints
/
d9 − static + Setra’s natural frequency constraints
4 /
d10 − static + Setra’s complete dynamic constraints with ξ = 2%
/
3.5 d11 − static + Setra’s complete dynamic constraints with ξ = 6%
3
f2 (cm3)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
−65 −60 −55 −50 −45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15
f1 (m)
Figure 7.2. Volume versus span results for unstayed, prestressed polyester-rope bridge
cases optimized in problems i - iv. Black markers are used for the cases evaluated in this
chapter (d9 - d11). Red markers are used for the cases introduced in Chapter 6 (d1 and
d5).
The Chapter 6 cases included in the Figure 7.2 plot are d1 and d5. Case d1 was
subjected to only static constraints (g1(x) and g2(x)). Case d5 was subjected to static
constraints (g1(x) and g2(x)) as well as a natural frequency constraint whose limit was
123
)
AASHTO’s (2009) 3 Hz criterion under prestress + DL. In the Figure 7.2 plot, the spans
are negative values to coincide with the objective function definition described in Section
7.3.2.
Figure 7.2 reiterates what was shown in Chapter 6. For case d5, the inclusion of the
AASHTO (2009) natural frequency criterion leads to solutions with much greater
volumes than are needed for systems subjected to just static constraints (case d1).
Designs for case d5 approach the upper area limit specified in Section 7.3.5 (i.e., 100
cm2) at spans less than 64 m. These high volume solutions are found because significant
prestress (strains are approaching the 0.0749 upper limit specified in Section 7.3.5) is
required to meet the natural frequency constraint. Figure 7.2 shows that case d9 nearly
aligns with case d5. Case d9 has a lower natural frequency limit (i.e., Sétra’s (2006) 2.1
Hz criterion rather than AASHTO’s (2009) 3 Hz limit), but must meet this limit under
LC3, a load combination that includes LL and consequently has greater mass than the
load combination used in case d5.
Figure 7.2 shows that cases d10 and d11 dominate cases d5 and d9. This indicates
that when dynamic constraints must be considered, meeting acceleration and dynamic
stress constraints in lieu of a natural frequency constraint, produces lower volume
designs. Results at a span of approximately 29.4 m are presented in Table 7.5 to provide
an example of the differences in volumes among the cases evaluated that have dynamic
constraints (d5, d9, d10, and d11). The cases whose only dynamic constraint is natural
frequency have approximately the same volume, 2.69x105 cm3 and 2.68x105 cm3 for
cases d5 and d9, respectively. Including the acceleration and dynamic stress constraints
124
)
and assuming damping ratios (ξ) of 2% (case d10) and 6% reduces the volume by
approximately 56%, and 67%, respectively.
Table 7.5. Volume results for solutions at a span of approximately 29.4 m for the cases
with dynamic constraints.
Case V (cm3)
d5 – static + AASHTO’s natural frequency constraints 2.69x105
d9 – Static + Sétra’s natural frequency constraints 2.68x105
d10 – Static + Sétra’s complete dynamic constraints with ξ = 2% 1.17x105
d11 – Static + Sétra’s complete dynamic constraints with ξ = 6% 8.75x104
Figure 7.2 also shows that both cases d10 and d11 are able to extend across the span
range considered with areas less than the 100 cm2 upper limit. In these cases, the natural
frequency constraint is never satisfied and instead the acceleration under LC4 is the
active dynamic constraint. Acceleration under LC5 is not active because that load
combination includes greater mass than LC4 which aids in reducing accelerations.
Dynamic stresses are not active. This was anticipated based on the results for the case
study bridge analyzed in chapter 5. While the natural frequency constraint is not satisfied
for the span range considered, the results (Figure 7.2) for cases d10 and d11 are
converging with the results for cases d5 and d9 near a span of 15 m. This convergence
suggests that for bridges with spans less than 15 m, satisfying the natural frequency
constraint may result in lower volume solutions than solutions found by satisfying the
acceleration and dynamic stress constraints.
To meet the acceleration constraint, superimposed dead load is required. The
superimposed dead load ranges found are [4.12, 9.67] kN/m and [2.15, 5.79] kN/m for
cases d10 and d11, respectively. In both cases, greater uniformly distributed
superimposed dead loads are required at shorter spans. Examining the dynamic live load
used in the analysis and returning to the idea presented in Chapter 4 and 5 that the
125
)
behavior of a polyester-rope suspended footbridge is approaching that of a taut string,
demonstrates the observed relationship between superimposed dead load and span.
Equation 7.1 indicates that the dynamic live load magnitude (wv) from Sétra’s dynamic
analysis methodology is inversely proportional to the square root of the span ( L ).
Equation C.19 in Appendix C shows that for a structure whose behavior is approaching
that of a taut string the maximum acceleration is proportional to the maximum amplitude
of wv (defined as u) and inversely proportional to the system’s linear mass (m):
u
a max ∝ (7.10)
m
Consequently, for polyester-rope suspended bridges analyzed with Sétra’s dynamic
analysis methodology (Sétra 2006), the relationship between the maximum acceleration
(amax), span (L), and linear mass (m) is:
1
amax ∝ (7.11)
Lm
This expression shows that to have the same accelerations at two spans, a greater linear
mass is required at the shorter span. Superimposed dead load is used to provide this
greater linear mass.
Less superimposed dead load is required for case d11 than case d10 to meet the
acceleration constraint because the former has greater damping than the latter (ξ = 6%
versus ξ = 2%). These lower superimposed dead loads in case d11 lead to lower total
loads used in the static calculations for case d11 than case d10. Consequently, the case
d11 designs require less area than and dominates case d10.
Similarly, the primary difference between case d1 and cases d10 and d11 that leads to
case d1 having lower volume solutions is the lower total load used in the static
126
)
calculations. The static analysis for case d1 does not include any superimposed DL. In
cases d1, d10, and d11, the static stress and slope constraints are active. The prestress
strain ranges required for these cases to meet the static constraints are similar to the range
found for case d1. These ranges are presented in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6. Prestress stain ranges cases d1, d10, and d11.
Case ε1
d1 – Static constraints [0.0630, 0.0670]
d10 – Static + Sétra’s complete dynamic constraints with ξ = 2% [0.0628, 0.0684]
d11 – Static + Sétra’s complete dynamic constraints with ξ = 6% [0.0623, 0.0685]
7.6 Conclusions
This chapter utilized a set of multi-objective optimization problems to establish that when
an unstayed polyester-rope suspended footbridge must meet dynamic criteria related to
vertical pedestrian excitations, acceleration and dynamic stress constraints should be
considered in conjunction with natural frequency limits. Including acceleration and
dynamic stress constraints that can be satisfied in lieu of a natural frequency constraint
led to lower rope volume solutions for medium-span (15 m to 64 m) bridges. The
problems were evaluated using a modified version of the optimization methodology
introduced in Chapter 6. In this chapter, the methodology was extended to include modal
calculations for performing the pedestrian excitation analysis used to determine the
acceleration and dynamic stress constraints.
The acceleration constraint was found to be the controlling dynamic constraint. For
designs to meet the acceleration limit, superimposed dead load was required. Adding
load to the structure to decrease rope volume initially seems counterintuitive from the
perspective of a global minimization of materials. However, this strategy has two
127
)
benefits. First, lower rope volumes are accompanied by lower ultimate tension forces.
Therefore, connection, anchorage, and foundation requirements decrease as rope volume
decreases. Second, it may be possible to source the superimposed dead load from natural
materials available near the bridge. In these instances, minimizing the superimposed dead
load will not be critical from the perspective of transport. Meanwhile, the associated
reduction in rope volume can ease transport requirements.
128
)
Chapter 8
Conclusions and Future Work
8.1 Research Contributions

The goals of this dissertation were to:
i. Characterize the static and dynamic behavior of polyester-rope suspended
footbridges in the in-plane vertical direction.
ii. Establish the key design criteria and system parameters for polyester-rope
This research was performed because there is limited design guidance available for
polyester-rope suspended footbridges. The goals were accomplished by combining
numerical and analytical computations, full-scale physical testing, and multi-objective
optimization techniques. This dissertation’s contributions to the research on polyester-
rope suspended footbridges are summarized in the remainder of this section.
8.1.1 Static and Dynamic Bridge Behavior
This dissertation investigated the impact of material stiffness on the in-plane vertical
static and dynamic behavior of polyester-rope suspended footbridges. Polyester rope in
129
)
general has low material stiffness. Lower-bound and upper-bound approximations of the
material stiffness for the 12-strand commercially available product considered in this
dissertation were 2.86 GPa and 5.96 GPa, respectively. By comparison, steel rope has a
modulus of elasticity of 196.5 GPa. Consequently, polyester-rope suspended footbridges
have greater flexibility than steel-rope structures. For the static analyses performed in this
dissertation, this high flexibility led to large deformations. In some circumstances it may
be desirable to use these deformations as a way to limit the live load on the bridge by
dissuading pedestrians from walking across the structure until those currently on the
bridge have finished crossing. In other scenarios, deformations may need to be limited to
comply with slope requirements. When trying to meet slope limits, applying additional
rope prestress rather than increasing the ropes’ cross-sectional area leads to a lower
volume design.
The large deformations that arise due to the flexibility of polyester-rope systems also
result in significant geometric nonlinear behavior; the systems undergo geometric
stiffening as they are loaded. This behavior leads to the bridge being able to support high
levels of live load (LL) beyond the service LL. For minimum volume, 64 m span
polyester-rope and steel-rope unstayed bridges (optimized with static stress and slope
constraints) the LL overload factors (ratio of applied LL-to-service LL) at their strength
limits were 7.1 and 3.05, respectively. Consequently, one advantage that the more
flexible polyester-rope system offers over the steel-rope system is greater overload
resistance. High levels of overload resistance are appealing for bridges built in rural areas
where maintenance may be inconsistent. Additionally, without established factors of
safety for polyester-rope bridges, overload resistance can provide an alternative measure
130
)
of safety that designers can consider when evaluating proposed polyester-rope suspended
footbridges.
Natural frequency, acceleration, and rope tension results found in analyses using the
lower and upper bound modulus of elasticity values were similar. These results suggest
that natural frequency and dynamic calculations can neglect polyester rope’s nonlinear
stress-strain behavior and utilize a single modulus of elasticity value.
This dissertation also showed that simple, single suspended rope and taut string
models that can be evaluated analytically have potential to approximate the static and
dynamic behavior, respectively, of more complex polyester-rope suspended bridge
models. These surrogate models were less computationally expensive to analyze than
complex models that require numerical calculations. Consequently, these surrogate
models may be beneficial to designers during the conceptual design of a footbridge.
8.1.2 Damping Characteristics
This dissertation presented the first set of damping ratios available for polyester-rope
suspended footbridges. Prior to this dissertation, damping characteristics for these
structures were not available in the literature. A set of free vibration tests was performed
on the Ait Bayoud case study bridge to determine the structure’s modal damping. The
damping ratio ranges found for the first three modes identified in the tests were
[2.6, 5.2] %, [3.0, 4.0] %, and [2.8, 6.1] %, respectively. These values can provide a
starting point for designers performing dynamic analyses on polyester-rope suspended
footbridges.
131
)
8.1.3 Key Design Criteria and System Parameters
This dissertation presented a novel multi-objective optimization methodology that
combined a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for searching the design space with
dynamic relaxation, eigenanalysis, and modal analysis algorithms for the static and
dynamic analyses. The methodology was applied to a set of suspended footbridge
problems in which volume was minimized and span was maximized while constraints
and system configurations varied. Including span as an objective function that was in
competition with the volume objective function allowed minimum volume designs to be
generated across the medium span range (15 m to 64 m). The plots of non-dominated
solution sets were provided as functions of span and can be used as visual design aids to
compare the bridge requirements for different systems subject to various constraints.
The optimization results indicated that while the steel-rope suspended footbridges did
not require prestress to meet static stress and slope constraints, the polyester-rope
suspended footbridges needed to be prestressed to meet these criteria. The resulting
polyester-rope bridges had higher volumes, but lower self-weights than the steel-rope
bridges. For example, at a span of 64 m, the polyester-rope bridge had a volume that was
3.8 times greater and a self-weight that was 1.5 times less than the steel-rope bridge
volume and self-weight, respectively. Low weight eases material transport and handling,
which is especially crucial in rural areas where materials may have to travel long
distances.
With the addition of vertical natural frequency constraints polyester-rope suspended
bridges required even greater levels of prestress. In these cases, the prestress strain
approached the allowable strain limit of 0.0749, indicating that prestress was the
132
)
dominant load for these structures. The inclusion of a vertical below-deck stay at midspan
reduced the material required to meet the constraints. For example, at a span of
approximately 29.4 m (the longest span achievable with the unstayed configuration given
the optimization problem specifications) the stay decreased the total required rope
volume by 51%. Inclined stay arrangements will lead to total system rope volumes that
fall between the volumes of the unstayed and vertically stayed configurations.
Considering dynamic acceleration and stress constraints that can be met instead of
natural frequency constraints resulted in lower volume designs. For example, the volume
of the 29.4 m unstayed configuration subject to only a natural frequency was reduced by
56% when the additional dynamic acceleration and stress constraints were included and
2% damping was assumed. This volume reduction increased to 67% if 6% damping was
assumed. To achieve these rope volume reductions required the addition of supplemental
mass to the structure. While the supplemental mass increased the overall weight of the
structure, the material contributing this supplemental mass could be sourced locally in
rural areas and not add to transport costs. Additionally, lower rope volumes are correlated
to lower ultimate tension forces and consequently, lower demands on connections,
anchorages, and foundations.
Based on the results from the optimization studies, static stress, static slope, and
accelerations are the key criteria for medium span polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
The important system parameters for these structures are prestress, damping, and
superimposed mass.
133
)
8.2 Areas for Future Research

There are many opportunities to make future research contributions to the limited
available design guidelines for polyester-rope suspended footbridges. This section
describes three potential areas for exploration that extend the work presented in this
dissertation. These areas for future research are:
i. Further characterize polyester rope’s properties as they relate to suspended
footbridges.
ii. Extend the presented optimization methodology to include additional/alternative
objective functions, constraints, configurations, and/or robust measures
iii. Perform large scale-physical tests on built structures to establish additional
damping information and verify the numerically and/or analytically predicted
structural behavior.
8.2.1 Polyester-Rope Material Characterization for Suspended
Footbridges
After identifying polyester rope as the best synthetic rope material for medium-span
suspended footbridges in rural areas, this dissertation focused on the relationship between
material stiffness and global bridge behavior. Future work could investigate other
features of polyester rope and the impact of these features on suspended footbridge
design. One potential area of research involves examining which fatigue failure modes
are critical for polyester-rope suspended footbridges. Examples of fatigue failure modes
are tensile fatigue, internal abrasion, hysteresis heating, and axial compression fatigue
(McKenna et al. 2004). Tensile fatigue begins with the formation of a transverse crack
134
)
which under cyclical loading causes a fiber within the rope to fail in tension. Internal
abrasion can arise when adjacent fibers slide against each other. Hysteresis heating
occurs during load cycling because of energy dissipation (the loading and unloading
curves do not align). Axial compression fatigue can arise due to the repeated bending of
fibers within the rope. These individual fibers can buckle in compression during cyclic
loading even though globally the rope is under tension (McKenna et al. 2004).
Polyester rope comes in a variety of grades and constructions (e.g., braided, twisted,
and parallel-lay) so a range of rope products could be evaluated. These studies can
contribute to the development of appropriate factors of safety specific to polyester rope in
8.2.2 Extensions to the Presented Optimization Methodology
The flexibility of the novel optimization methodology presented in this dissertation
allows for the exploration of large design spaces. This methodology can be adapted to
suspended bridge problems with other objective functions, constraints and/or
configurations to further characterize the static and dynamic behavior of polyester-rope
suspended footbridges. Additionally, measures of system robustness can be integrated
into the optimization methodology.
8.2.2.1 Alternative Objective Function
This dissertation considered volume and span objective functions simultaneously to
produce sets of minimum volume designs as a function of span. Cost is an objective
function that can be used as an alternative to volume to compare suspended rope systems.
In addition to direct material costs, future studies could account for material transport and
135
)
handling, as well as the influence of material on required connection, anchorage, and
foundation costs.
8.2.2.2 Additional Constraints
This dissertation focused on vertical in-plane behavior that was assessed with two-
dimensional models. The solutions found in the optimization problems considered in this
dissertation not only provide insight into key parameters for polyester-rope suspended
footbridges, but can serve as preliminary designs that inform the development of more
detailed systems. Traditional iterative design approaches can be used to translate the
preliminary two-dimensional designs into final three-dimensional designs. Analyses on
the three-dimensional structures should account for the lateral and torsional static and
dynamic effects that were not considered in this dissertation. These analyses should
include prestress, dead, live, wind, snow, thermal, and/or seismic loads, where applicable
for a given site.
The optimization study can also be expanded to include constraints related to stress
and serviceability limits that accompany the additional listed loads. Plotting the
minimum volume results of polyester-rope suspended footbridge systems subject to these
different constraints, as was done in Chapters 6 and 7, can provide a convenient visual
tool for assessing the impact of each constraint or combination of constraints on bridge
requirements at different spans.
Future studies that include pedestrian excitation constraints, could compare different
dynamic analysis methodologies/dynamic load models. In this dissertation, the dynamic
load determined with the dynamic analysis methodology presented in the Service
d’Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide (2006) was used.
136
)
Van Nimmen et al. (2014) compared the differences in dynamic results for a set of eight
footbridges that were found using Sétra’s dynamic analysis methodology (Sétra 2006)
and the methodology presented in HiVoSS, a European guideline (RFCS 2008).
Similarly, the HiVoSS dynamic analysis methodology and load model could be used as
an alternative to Sétra’s methodology and load model for evaluating polyester-rope
8.2.2.3 Additional Configurations
This dissertation focused on unstayed and stayed suspended bridge configurations. The
stayed bridge consisted of a single vertical element at midspan. Bridges with inclined
stays connecting at midspan will have a stiffness that falls between the low-stiffness
unstayed bridge and the high-stiffness vertically stayed bridge. Therefore, the
configurations examined in this dissertation bound the range of minimum volume designs
possible for stays that connect at midspan. However, additional configurations consisting
of multiple stays or rope trusses oriented to provide stiffness in vertical and/or lateral
directions could be considered.
8.2.2.4 Robust Optimization
Robust design is important because all structures are characterized by random
uncertainties on geometric and physical properties that may arise during manufacturing,
construction, etc. Park et al. (2006) and Beyer and Sendhoff (2007) provide detailed
reviews of robust design approaches. The author of this dissertation conducted an initial
study (Segal et al. 2014) in which robustness was considered in the optimization
methodology used to evaluate a polyester-rope suspended footbridge. The procedure
137
)
utilized to account for robustness in the optimization methodology was developed by the
third author of that initial study, Rajan D. Filomeno Coelho, and adapted from the
methodology presented by Filomeno Coelho et al. (2011) for the optimization of space
truss structures. In the study, robustness was defined as trying to reduce the sensitivity of
the final design to uncertainties on the model inputs. The author of this dissertation
applied the methodology to a bridge model consisting of a single suspended rope. Two
objective functions (volume which was minimized and natural frequency which was
maximized) and two static constraints (maximum stress and maximum slope were
limited) were considered simultaneously. Test cases in which the rope’s modulus of
elasticity and prestress were taken as random variables were examined. The non-
dominated sets of robust designs for all cases considered were found to be similar to the
non-dominated sets found when robustness was not considered. Consequently, robust
optimization did not make an impact in the investigated case study. However, the robust
optimization methodology can be adapted to include additional/alternative objective
functions, constraints, and configurations like the ones discussed in Sections 8.2.2.1 –
8.2.2.3 to assess when considering robustness does influence the required parameters for
8.2.3 Large-Scale Physical Testing
This dissertation presented a set of large-scale free vibration tests performed on the Ait
Bayoud case study bridge to determine the structure’s damping ratios. Further dynamic
testing of the Ait Bayoud bridge as well as testing of new polyester-rope suspended
138
)
footbridge should to be conducted to provide additional information on the damping
characteristics of these structures that can be incorporate into numerical models.
Future work can also include additional static and/or dynamic testing to verify the
predicted numerical and/or analytical bridge response. For example, physical tests can be
utilized to confirm the pedestrian excitation response of polyester-rope suspended
footbridges that is expected based on the alternative dynamic analysis methodologies and
load models suggested in Section 8.2.2.2. Full-scale pedestrian excitation tests have been
performed on suspension (Dallard et al. 2001) and stress ribbon (Caetano and Cunha
2004; Magalhães et al. 2007; Caetano et al. 2011) footbridges.
Appendix D presents an initial set of pedestrian excitation tests performed on the Ait
Bayoud bridge to characterize the actual bridge accelerations under pedestrian loading
(Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1. Polyester-rope suspended footbridge in Ait Bayoud, Morocco during a

pedestrian excitation test.
139
)
These tests were conducted with a single pedestrian and a group of four synchronized
pedestrians. Typical traffic on this specific bridge is closer to this load range than was
utilized in the Chapter 5 and 7 analyses. Differences between the experimental and
numerical loads preclude direct comparisons between observed and predicted
accelerations. Future pedestrian excitation tests should involve additional pedestrians to
enable these comparisons.
8.3 Summary
This chapter described this dissertation’s research contributions and potential areas for
future investigations related to medium-span polyester-rope suspended footbridges.
These contributions as well as additional research are crucial for establishing design
guidelines for these structures.
140
)
Appendix A
Comprehensive Analytical Static
Calculations for the Single Suspended
Rope Model Presented in Chapter 3
A.1 Introduction
This appendix presents the comprehensive analytical static calculations for the single
suspended rope model of the Ait Bayoud case study bridge presented in Chapter 3,
Section 3.3. These calculations are performed with Irvine’s flat cable theory (Irvine
1981). As noted in Chapter 3, Woodward (2012a), the designer of the Ait Bayoud
footbridge, performed similar analytical calculations to the ones presented in this
dissertation. This dissertation’s unique contribution is the comparison (Section 3.3) of the
analytical results (Section 3.3) to the results from numerical computations performed on a
detailed model of the case study bridge (Section 3.2).
141
)
A.2 Analytical Model

The model consists of a single suspended rope with pinned end supports (Figure A.1).
Figure A.1. Elevation of the single suspended rope model.
All ten 18 mm diameter (nominal) ropes used in the case study bridge are lumped
together in this single suspended rope. The rope has a 64 m span (L), 1.15 m sag (d)
under the combination of prestress and dead load, and 20.71 cm2 cross-sectional area (A).
The lower bound material stiffness case c1 introduced in Section 3.2.2.2 is investigated.
This case has an elastic modulus (E) of 2.86 GPa. The lumped strength limit (Tult) is 992
kN (group of ten ropes each with a limit of 99.2 kN).
The calculations include prestress, dead (DL), and service live (LL) loads. In Irvine’s
theory (Irvine 1981), prestress is accounted for indirectly. The sag (d) under the applied
DL is dependent on the amount of prestress that has been applied to the rope. The DL and
LL are uniformly distributed gravity loads with magnitudes of 0.56 kN/m (qDL) and 3.84
kN/m (qLL), respectively. Three load combinations (LCs) are considered in the analysis:
LC1: prestress
LC2: prestress + DL
142
)
A.3 Analytical Calculations

This section presents the calculations for LC1 – LC3. The calculations are performed to
determine the maximum rope tensions (T) and minimum factors of safety (FSmin) for each
load combination as well as the maximum LL deflection (δLL) under LC3.
In the calculations, numbered subscripts on variables correspond to the load
combination under investigation. For example, T1 and T2 are the rope tensions under LC1
and LC2, respectively. The calculations for LC2 are presented first because the results of
these calculations are utilized when evaluating LC1 and LC3.
A.3.1 Calculations for Load Combination 2
The free body diagram for the suspended rope under LC2 is shown in Figure A.2.
Figure A.2. Free body diagram of the suspended rope under LC2.
First, the horizontal reactions (H2) and vertical reactions (V2) are calculated using the
equations:
q DL L2
H2 = = 249.3 kN (A.1)
8d
qDL L
V2 = = 17.9 kN (A.2)
2
143
)
Next, the maximum rope tension (T2) is calculated using the horizontal and vertical
reactions:
T2 = H 22 + V22 = 249.9 kN (A.3)
The minimum rope factor of safety (FSmin2) is then calculated using the equation:
Tult
FSmin2 = = 3.97 (A.4)
T2
The rope strain (ε2) equivalent to the calculated tension is:
T2
ε2 = = 0.0422 (A.5)
EA
The stressed rope length (L2) is determined using the expression:
⎛ 8 ⎛ d ⎞ 2 32 ⎛ d ⎞ 4 ⎞
L2 ≅ L⎜1 + ⎜ ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ = 64.06 m (A.6)
⎜ 3⎝ L ⎠ 5 ⎝ L ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝
First, the initial unstressed length of the rope (Lo) is calculated using the LC2 stressed
rope length (L2) and strain (ε2) with the following equation:
L2
Lo = = 61.47 m (A.7)
1+ ε2
Next, the resulting prestress strain (εp) is determined using the initial unstressed (Lo)
and prestressed (Lp) rope lengths with the following expression:
L p − Lo
εp = = 0.0412 (A.8)
Lo
where Lp = L = 64 m.
144
)
The equivalent maximum rope tension (T1) and minimum factor of safety (FSmin1) for
LC1 are:
T1 = ε 1 EA = 244 kN (A.9)
Tult
FSmin1 = = 4.07 (A.10)
T1
The free body diagram for the suspended rope under LC3 is shown in Figure A.3.
Figure A.3. Free body diagram of the suspended rope under LC3.
First, the length parameter (Le) is determined using the expression:
⎛ ⎛ d ⎞ ⎞⎟
2
⎜
Le ≅ L 1 + 8⎜ ⎟ = 64.17 m (A.11)
⎜ ⎝ L ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝
Next, the system stiffness parameter (λ2) is calculated using the equation:
2
⎛ qDL L ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟ L
⎝ H 2 ⎟⎠
λ =
2
= 0.49 (A.12)
⎛ H 2 Le ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ EA ⎠
Then, the ratio of LL-to-DL (qr) is determined:
qLL
qr = = 6.86 (A.13)
qDL
145
)
Next, the dimensionless factor (hn) is found by solving the following cubic equation:
⎛ λ2 ⎞ ⎛ λ2 ⎞ λ2 ⎛ q ⎞
hn3 + ⎜⎜ 2 + ⎟⎟hn2 + ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ hn − qr ⎜1 + r ⎟ = 0 (A.14)
⎝ 24 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ 12 ⎝ 2⎠
∴hn = 0.52
The LL horizontal reactions (HLL) are then calculated with the equation:
H LL = hn H2 = 129.6 kN (A.15)
Next, the LL vertical reactions (VLL) are found using the expression:
qLL L
VLL = = 122.9 kN (A.16)
2
Combining the LC2 and LL results, the LC3 horizontal reactions (H3), vertical
reactions (V3), and maximum rope tension (T3) are:
H3 = H2 + H LL = 378.9 kN (A.17)
V3 = V2 + VLL = 140.8 kN (A.18)
T3 = H 32 + V32 = 404.2 kN (A.19)
The minimum factor of safety (FSmin3) for LC3 is:
Tult
FS min3 = = 2.45 (A.20)
T3
The dimensionless factor (β) required to find the maximum (i.e. midspan) LL
deflection is calculated with the equation:
1 ⎛ hn ⎞
β= ⎜1 − ⎟ = 0.076 (A.21)
8(1 + hn ) ⎜⎝ qr ⎟⎠
146
)
The maximum LL deflection (δLL) is then determined with the expression:
β qLL L2
δ LL = = 4.79 m (A.22)
H2
A.4 Summary of Analytical Results
This section summarizes the results from the analytical calculations performed in
Appendix A. The maximum rope tensions and minimum factors of safety for LC1 – LC3
calculated in Section A.3 are summarized in Table A.1. The maximum LL deflection
(δLL) under LC3 calculated in Section A.3.3 is 4.79 m.
Table A.1. Maximum rope tension and minimum factor of safety results from the
analytical calculations.
LC T (kN) FS
1: prestress 244.0 4.07
2: prestress + DL 249.9 3.97
3: prestress + DL + LL 404.2 2.45
147
)
Appendix B
Accelerometer Alignment
B.1 Introduction
This appendix discusses the alignment of the accelerometers used in the full-scale
dynamic tests performed on the Ait Bayoud case study bridge that are described in
Chapter 4 and Appendix D. Specifically, this appendix first states why small angle
misalignments between the accelerometer and global axes may occur and then describes
why these misalignments should not significantly affect the acceleration results.
B.2 Discussion of Small Angle Misalignments

The accelerometers were not equipped with inclinometers that could record tilt
simultaneously with accelerations. Therefore, the acceleration results could not be
adjusted based on misalignment of the accelerometer’s axes with the global vertical,
lateral, and longitudinal directions. These misalignments include: (i) any errors in the
placement of the accelerometer on the bridge, (ii) bridge tilt when viewing the bridge
perpendicular to the span, and (iii) bridge slope in elevation. Additionally, no adjustments
were made for any further deviation between the accelerometer’s axes with the global
148
)
vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions, due to bridge displacements that occurred
during testing.
The error introduced by not accounting for the bridge slope in elevation is described
to demonstrate the minor impact that small misalignments have on the results. The bridge
slopes in elevation at each of the six accelerometers introduced in Section 4.3.1 are listed
in Table B.1. Figure B.1 shows the relationship between accelerations in the
accelerometer’s axes (α and β) and the global axes (x and y).
Table B.1 Bridge slopes in elevation for the accelerometers.

Accelerometer θ (°) cos(θ) sin(θ)
a1 0.51 1 0.01
a2 0.28 1 0
a3a, a3b 2.32 1 0.04
a4 4.36 1 0.08
a5 4.90 1 0.09
Figure B.1. Elevation showing an accelerometer on a sloped bridge deck.
The equation to transform the accelerometer accelerations (aα and aβ) into the global
vertical acceleration (ay) is:
ay = aβ _ y + aα _ y = aβ cos(θ ) + aα sin(θ ) (B.1)
149
)
As indicated in Table B.1, for all the accelerometers, cos(θ) = 1 because the angle (θ) is
small. Therefore, equation B.1 simplifies to:
ay = aβ + aα sin(θ ) (B.2)
The percent error between what is assumed in this dissertation to be the vertical
acceleration (aβ) and the true global vertical acceleration (ay) is then:
a y − aβ aα sin(θ )
% error = x 100 = x 100 (B.3)
ay aβ + aα sin(θ )
Since aα should be much less than aβ for vertical excitations and sin(θ) is a maximum of
0.09 (from Table B.1) it is anticipated that aαsin(θ) << aβ and the percent error will be
small. The similarities between results at different accelerometers during free vibration
tests, such as those presented in Figure 4.8, indicate that these small bridge slopes are
indeed not greatly influencing the assumed and true vertical accelerations.
Similarly, the other small angle misalignments between the accelerometer’s axes and
the global vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions should not significantly change the
results presented in this dissertation.
150
)
Appendix C
Equations for the Dynamic Analysis
Presented in Chapter 5
C.1 Introduction
This appendix presents supplementary equations referenced in the pedestrian excitation
dynamic analysis of the Ait Bayoud case study bridge described in Chapter 5. First, the
dynamic load calculations are described. Next, the equations used to calculate the modal
analysis steady-state displacements and accelerations are presented. Then, the
calculations used to determine the rope forces in the numerical calculations are described.
Finally, the taut string acceleration equation is presented.
C.2 Dynamic Load Calculations

This section presents the calculations for the dynamic load appearing in equation 5.1 in
Chapter 5. The calculation of the dynamic load follows from the methodology presented
in the Service d’Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide
151
)
(2006). For a Class III footbridge, the only dynamic load case that applies is Case 1
(Sétra 2006). The other dynamic load cases (Cases 2 and 3) account for denser crowds
and second harmonic effects that are not considered when assessing a Class III bridge.
The dynamic load (pv) corresponding to Case 1 is calculated using the equation:
ξ
pv = d (280N ) cos(2πft )(10.8) ψ N/m2 (C.1)
n
where d is the crowd density = 0.5 pedestrians/m2 for a Class III bridge, f is the natural
frequency under consideration, t is time, ξ is the damping ratio for the mode under
consideration, n is the number of pedestrians on the bridge, and ψ is a factor related to the
risk of resonance. For a Class III footbridge, ψ = 1. The number of unsynchronized
pedestrians on the bridge (n) is defined as:
n = dbL = 32.6 pedestrians (C.2)
where b is the bridge width (1.02 m) and L is the bridge span (64 m). Equation C.1 then
simplifies to:
pv = 264.7 cos(2πft) ξ N/m2 (C.3)
The equivalent uniformly distributed load (wv) is found by multiply equation C.3 by the
bridge width (b). For the case study bridge, the resulting expression is:
wv = 269.9 cos(2πft) ξ N/m (C.4)
Equation C.4 appears as equation 5.1 in Chapter 5.
152
)
C.3 Steady-State Displacement and Acceleration
Equations
This section presents the equations used for calculating the steady-state displacements
and accelerations in the modal analysis described in Section 5.3.2. Equations C.5 – C.8,
C.11, and C.13 follow from Sétra’s technical guide (2006).
The maximum (across time) steady-state displacement ( χ j ) and acceleration ( χ

&&j ) for
a single mode j are:
χj =
[φ ] [F ]
j
T
0
(C.5)
2ξ jω mj 2
j
χ&& j =
[φ ] [F ] = χ ω
j
T
0 2
j j (C.6)
2ξ j m j
where ξ j is the modal damping ratio, ωj is the angular natural frequency = 2πfj (where fj
is the natural frequency), [φj ] is the eigenvector, mj is the generalized modal mass, and
[F0] relates to the applied load function [F(t)]. The generalized modal mass is defined as:
mj = φj [ ] [M][φ ]
T
j (C.7)
where [M] is the lumped mass matrix. The load function is equivalent to the harmonic
function, wv(t) defined in equation C.4 and can be expressed as:
[F(t )] = [F0 ]cos(ω jt ) (C.8)
where the components of [F0] acting in the vertical direction at the nodes along the
below-deck rope ([F0v] ) are:
[F0v ] = lsu (C.9)
153
)
where ls is the tributary length contributing load to each node and u is the maximum
amplitude of wv(t). The maximum amplitude occurs when cos(2πft) = 1 and is defined as:
u = 269.9 ξ N/m (C.10)
The maximum displacement in mode j (qj) is transformed into a set of global total
displacements ([δ]) using the following equation (Sétra 2006):
[δ] = [δs ] ± [δd ] = [δs ] ± χ j [φ j ] (C.11)
where [δs] is the vector of static displacements found under just the application of the
static loads (refer to Chapter 5 for the static load combinations and Chapter 3 for a
description of the static calculation procedure) and [δd] is the vector of dynamic
displacements. Equation C.11 indicates that the static and dynamic displacements are
superimposed in two ways: (i) by adding the two displacements together and (ii) by
subtracting the dynamic displacement from the static displacements. Both combinations
are performed to account for the mode shapes either occurring as shown in Figures 5.2a,
5.3a, and 5.4a in Chapter 5 or being mirrored (in plane) about the deformed bridge
geometry and consequently having dynamic loads that are applied in the opposite
direction of those shown in Figures 5.1b, 5.2b, and 5.3b in Chapter 5. A simpler case that
helps illustrates the concept that a mode shape can have two possible orientations is the
first mode of a horizontal taut rope. The mode shape is a half sin curve that can be
indicated as occurring above or below the horizontal rope. The maximum combination of
the static and dynamic displacements will occur when the mode shape is oriented below
the horizontal rope. For more complex cases it may not be clear which of the two
possible orientations for a mode shape will lead to the greatest effect until the results for
both are calculated.
154
)
The following expression combines contributions from equations C.5 and C.11 to
show how the dynamic displacement vector [δd] is inversely proportional to the modal
2
frequency squared ( f j ):
1 1
[δd ] ∝ χ j ∝ ∝ (C.12)
ω 2
j f j2
The maximum acceleration in mode j ( χ

&&j ) is transformed into a set of global
accelerations ([a]) using the following equation:
[a] = χ&&j [φj ] (C.13)
This global acceleration vector represents the acceleration variation along the length of
the bridge. Since the variation is directly proportional to the eigenvector, the variation
will take on a shape similar to that of the mode shape. The maximum accelerations along
the length of the bridge are presented in Section 5.3.3.
The following expression combines contributions from equations C.6, C.9, C.10, and
C.13 to show how the global acceleration vector ([a]) is inversely proportional to the
square root of the damping ratio ( ξ ):
[a] ∝ χ&& j ∝ [F0 ] ∝ ξ

∝
1
(C.14)
ξ ξ ξ
C.4 Rope Force Equations

This section presents the equations used for calculating the numerical rope force results
under the combination of static and dynamic loads. The global total displacements found
in equation C.11 are used to determine the final length (lf) of the rope elements or in the
155
)
case of the back stays and suspenders a rope cluster (refer to Chapter 3 for additional
details on rope clusters). This final rope length is then utilized to calculate the rope
elongations (e) using the equation:
e = l f − l0 (C.15)
where l0 is the initial element or cluster length. The elongations are then converted into
forces (T) with the expression:
eAE
T= (C.16)
l0
where A is the cross-sectional area and E is the modulus of elasticity of an element or
cluster.
C.5 Taut String Acceleration Equation

This section presents the equations used for calculating the maximum rope accelerations
of a taut string. While the Sétra technical guide (2006) does not provide an analytical
expression for a taut string, the equation presented in the guide for a simply supported
beam (equation C.19) can be shown to also apply for a taut string.
The general expression for the global acceleration vector [a] that results from
substituting equation C.6 into equation C.13 indicates that acceleration is only dependent
on a mode’s eigenvector ( [φj ] ), damping ratio (ξ j), and generalized mass (mj) as well as
the harmonic load amplitude ([F0]). This equation is:
[a ] =
[φ ] [F ] [φ ]
j
T
0
(C.17)
j
2ξ j m j
156
)
The eigenvectors for both a taut string and a simply supported beam are the same because
their mode shapes are both defined by the same equation (McConnell and Varoto 2008):
⎛ jπx ⎞
v j = sin⎜ ⎟ , for j = 1, 2, . . . (C.18)
⎝ L ⎠
where L is the rope span, x is a location along the span, and j is the mode number. The
remaining variables in equation C.17 are independent of whether the structure is a taut
string or a simply supported beam. Therefore, the following analytical expression for the
maximum acceleration of a simply supported beam (Sétra 2006) can also be used to
determine the maximum acceleration of a taut string:
2u
amax = (C.19)
ξ jπ m
where m is the linear mass for the load combination under consideration and u is the
maximum harmonic load amplitude defined in equation C.10. Substituting equation C.10
into equation C.19 and simplifying provides the expression:
539.8 N/m
amax = (C.20)
ξ jπ m
Equation C.20 appears as equation 5.6 in Chapter 5.
157
)
Appendix D
Initial Pedestrian Excitation Tests
Performed on the Ait Bayoud Bridge
D.1 Introduction
In Chapter 8, large-scale physical testing of polyester-rope suspended footbridges was
discussed as a way to verify numerical computations such as those performed in a
pedestrian excitation analysis. This appendix presents an initial set of pedestrian
excitation tests performed with a single pedestrian and a group of four synchronized
walkers on the Ait Bayoud case study bridge (introduced in Chapter 3). The objective of
the testing was to determine the bridge accelerations under typical traffic levels for this
specific bridge. Since these tests and the calculations performed on the bridge in Chapter
5 were conducted using different dynamic loads, direct comparisons between
experimental and numerical results are not appropriate. In future studies, the procedures
presented in this appendix can be implemented with additional pedestrians. These future
tests can be used to evaluate the extent to which numerical computations that utilize
158
)
dynamic analysis methodologies such as those presented in the Service d’Études
Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (Sétra) technical guide (2006) and the HiVoSS
guideline (RFCS 2008) can predict the dynamic behavior of polyester-rope suspended
footbridges.
The remainder of the appendix is organized as follows. First, details for the
accelerometers used to record the bridge accelerations during testing are described.
Then, the single pedestrian and group pedestrian walking test procedures and results are
discussed. While this dissertation primarily focuses on in-plane vertical bridge behavior,
lateral in addition to vertical acceleration results are presented in this appendix. As
discussed in Chapter 8, characterizing the lateral dynamic response of polyester-rope
suspended bridges is a potential area of future research.
D.2 Accelerometer Details

The same accelerometers and accelerometer setup described in Chapter 4 for the ambient
and free vibration tests were used for this set of walking tests. The plan presented in
Chapter 4 that shows the accelerometer locations on the bridge is included again in
Figure D.1.
Figure D.1. Plan showing the accelerometer locations on the bridge. Note that the
drawing is not to scale.
159
)
Initial accelerometer deviations from zero are corrected by shifting the accelerations
based on average acceleration data found over 10 to 30 second intervals recorded before
testing. As discussed in Chapter 4, misalignments between the accelerometer and the
global axes may exist. Appendix B describes why the impact of these small angle
misalignments should not be significant.
D.3 Single Pedestrian Walking Tests

This section describes tests performed to characterize the response of the case study
bridge under a single pedestrian.
D.3.1 Procedure for Single Pedestrian Walking Tests
A set of eleven single pedestrian walking tests was performed. In each test, the pedestrian
walked approximately in-sync with a metronome set to the desired frequency. One test
was performed for each frequency that is a multiple of 0.25 Hz in the range, 0.5 Hz to
3Hz. This range extends to the American Association of State and Transportation
Officials’ (AASHTO) upper limit of 3 Hz for potential vibration problems in the vertical
direction (AASHTO 2009) and includes frequencies close to the numerically determined
vertical natural frequencies: 0.52 Hz, 1.03 Hz, and 1.54 Hz. These numerical frequencies
are the values determined using the lower-bound modulus of elasticity for polyester rope
(El = 2.86 GPa) in Chapter 4. As discussed in Chapter 4, the set of ambient vibration and
free vibration tests that were performed on the case study bridge uncovered values that
differ from the numerical predictions. The results of the ambient vibration and free
vibration tests were not post-processed until after returning from Morocco, so the
160
)
walking tests were not performed at the natural frequencies found experimentally
(approximately 0.68 Hz, 1.32 Hz, and 2.12 Hz) and therefore, did not capture the bridge
behavior during resonance in a vertical mode. Additionally, since the lateral natural
frequencies were not determined numerically or through testing prior to performing these
walking tests, there was no attempt to walk at frequencies that would knowingly capture
the bridge behavior during resonance in a lateral mode.
In the tests, the pedestrian typically began at one end of the bridge, walked to the
other end of the bridge, turned around, and walked back to midspan where he stopped
abruptly. For the 0.5 Hz and 0.75 Hz tests, the pedestrian stopped after only walking
across the bridge in one direction. Figure D.2 shows the pedestrian mid-stride while
walking across the bridge.
Figure D.2. Single pedestrian walking across the bridge.
D.3.2 Results and Discussion for Single Pedestrian Walking Tests
Table D.1 presents the maximum (absolute values) for lateral (H) and vertical (V)
accelerations among all of the accelerometers for each test. In all cases the maximum
accelerations exceed the minimum comfort limits specified in Sétra’s technical guide
(2006). These limits are 0.08 g and 0.25 g in the lateral and vertical directions,
respectively. Figure D.3 presents the acceleration time series for the accelerometers with
the maximum accelerations in tests in which the walking frequency is closest to the
161
)
experimentally found vertical natural frequencies. These tests are s2 (walking frequency
of 0.75 Hz is closest to 0.68 Hz), s4 (walking frequency of 1.25 Hz is closest to 1.32 Hz),
s7, and s8 (walking frequencies of 2.00 Hz and 2.25 Hz bracket 2.12 Hz). During this set
of tests the lateral and vertical comfort limits (represented with dashed lines in the Figure
D.3 plots) are typically exceeded at a particular accelerometer for only short durations of
time.
Table D.1. Results for single pedestrian walking tests.

Maximum |acceleration| (g), accelerometer
Test Walking frequency (Hz)
H V
s1 0.50 0.39, a2 1.02, a2
s2 0.75 0.39, a2 0.81, a2
s3 1.00 0.34, a2 0.87, a4
s4 1.25 0.53, a2 0.96, a4
s5 1.50 0.27, a4 1.12, a4
s6 1.75 0.34, a5 0.92, a5
s7 2.00 0.42, a5 1.22, a2
s8 2.25 0.64, a2 1.57, a5
s9 2.50 0.65, a2 1.29, a4
s10 2.75 1.41, a2 2.28, a5
s11 3.00 0.86, a2 2.55, a1
162
)
0.6 1.5
0.4 1
H (g) 0.2 0.5
V (g)
0 0
−0.2 −0.5
−0.4 −1
−0.6 −1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (s)
a. Test s2, accelerometer a2. e. Test s2, accelerometer a2.
0.6 1.5
0.4 1
0.2 0.5
H (g)
V (g)
0 0
−0.2 −0.5
−0.4 −1
−0.6 −1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (s)
b. Test s4, accelerometer a2. f. Test s4, accelerometer a4.
0.6 1.5
0.4 1
0.2 0.5
H (g)
V (g)
0 0
−0.2 −0.5
−0.4 −1
−0.6 −1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (s)
c. Test s7, accelerometer a5. g. Test s7, accelerometer a2.
0.6 1.5
0.4 1
0.2 0.5
H (g)
V (g)
0 0
−0.2 −0.5
−0.4 −1
−0.6 −1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (s)
d. Test s8, accelerometer a2. h. Test s8, accelerometer a5.

Figure D.3. Acceleration time series for the lateral (a – d) and vertical (e – h)
accelerations for a set of the single pedestrian walking tests.
163
)
D.4 Group Walking Tests

This section describes tests performed to characterize the response of the case study
bridge under a group of four pedestrians.
D.4.1 Procedure for Group Walking Tests
A set of eight group walking tests was performed. In each test, four pedestrians walked
approximately in-sync with a metronome set to the desired frequency. One test was
performed for each frequency that is a multiple of 0.25 Hz in the range, 0.75 Hz to 2.5
Hz. These tests include the approximate vertical numerical (second and higher modes),
but not the experimentally found vertical natural frequencies. The range here differs from
the single pedestrian test. The lower end of the range was increased above that of the
numerically predicted vertical fundamental frequency because walking at 0.5 Hz was
determined to be an unrealistic walking pace; walking at 0.5 Hz was very slow. Testing
stopped after 2.5 Hz, because higher frequencies required walking at paces that were too
fast to allow the pedestrians to synchronize.
In all of the tests, the group began at one end of the bridge, walked to the other end of
the bridge, turned around, and walked back to midspan where the pedestrians stopped
abruptly. Figure D.4 shows the group of pedestrians during two different tests.
D.4.2 Results and Discussion for Group Walking Tests
Table D.2 presents the maximum (absolute values) for lateral (H) and vertical (V)
accelerations among all of the accelerometers for each test. As was the case in the single
pedestrian tests, the maximum accelerations for the crowd tests exceed Sétra’s (2006)
164
)
0.08 g and 0.25 g limits in the lateral and vertical directions, respectively. Figure D.5
presents a set of acceleration time series. Again, the acceleration time series shown are
for accelerometers with the maximum accelerations in tests in which the walking
frequency is closest to the experimentally found vertical natural frequencies.
These tests are g1, g3, g6, and g7. The plots in Figure D.5 show that during this set of
tests, accelerations frequently are close to or exceed the lateral and vertical comfort limits
(shown in dashed lines). Had the tests been performed at walking frequencies closer to
the actual natural frequencies of the bridge, it is expected that the resulting resonance
would lead to even higher accelerations.
a. Group walking in-sync with the b. Group walking near the bridge
metronome. centerline.
Figure D.4. Group of four pedestrians in two different tests walking across the bridge.
Table D.2. Results for group walking tests.

Maximum |acceleration| (g), accelerometer
Test Walking frequency (Hz)
H V
g1 0.75 0.57, a5 1.68, a1
g2 1.00 0.66, a2 3.41, a2
g3 1.25 0.46, a5 1.94, a1
g4 1.50 0.53, a5 2.41, a3b
g5 1.75 0.72, a2 2.52, a5
g6 2.00 0.68, a2 2.69, a2
g7 2.25 0.96, a5 2.27, a3a
g8 2.50 0.90, a5 1.85, a5
165
)
0.9 2.4
0.6 1.6
H (g) 0.3 0.8
V (g)
0 0
−0.3 −0.8
−0.6 −1.6
−0.9 −2.4
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s) Time (s)
a. Test g1, accelerometer a5. e. Test g1, accelerometer a1.
0.9 2.4
0.6 1.6
0.3 0.8
H (g)
V (g)
0 0
−0.3 −0.8
−0.6 −1.6
−0.9 −2.4
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s) Time (s)
b. Test g3, accelerometer a5. f. Test g3, accelerometer a1.
0.9 2.4
0.6 1.6
0.3 0.8
H (g)
V (g)
0 0
−0.3 −0.8
−0.6 −1.6
−0.9 −2.4
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s) Time (s)
c. Test g6, accelerometer a2. g. Test g6, accelerometer a2.
0.9 2.4
0.6 1.6
0.3 0.8
H (g)
V (g)
0 0
−0.3 −0.8
−0.6 −1.6
−0.9 −2.4
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s) Time (s)
d. Test g7, accelerometer a5. h. Test g7, accelerometer a3a.

Figure D.5. Acceleration time series for the lateral (a – d) and vertical (e – h)
accelerations for a set of the group walking tests.
166
)
D.5 Conclusions
Full-scale physical tests were performed to evaluate the case study bridge’s accelerations
under anticipated traffic levels on the bridge. The bridge had maximum accelerations
that did not meet Sétra’s minimum pedestrian comfort limits. As the number of people on
the bridge increased, the duration of time at which the limits were exceeded at a
particular bridge location also increased. Synchronization of the pedestrians with the
bridge’s natural frequencies was not done in this study; pedestrians walked at frequencies
near, but not exactly at the experimentally found vertical bridge natural frequencies.
Walking in-sync with the bridge’s natural frequencies is expected to lead to greater
accelerations and durations of time in which comfort limits are not met.
167
)
Figure Credits
Unless otherwise noted in this disseration, the figures were created by the author. This
section provides the complete credits for the figures included in this dissertation that were
generated by others.
Figure 2.3a.
Photograph courtesy of Bridges to Prosperity.
Link to photograph:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACollpatomaico_footbridge.jpg>.
Licensing: [CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>], via
Wikimedia Commons.
The author of this dissertation cropped the photograph.
Figure 2.3b.
Photograph courtesy of Susan Williams.
Link to photograph: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/susan_w/3650404159/>.
Licensing: [CC BY-NC 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/2.0/deed.en>], via Flikr.
The author of this dissertation made no modifications to the photograph.
168
)
Figure 2.3c.
Photgraph courtesy of Lev Yakupov.
Link to photograph:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/28217469@N00/3125116579/in/photolist-5La3hk-
5N35SV-6LsuRY-6PPaKG-6Q2vcP-6RXHJA-7bzAcW-7juN5H-7nhTvp-7niDxK-
7nmykw-dKSeAX-dKT24r-abSNa2-btxCBP-abUesE-byPBJ5-bjKnXp-aFsYcV-
9eP7g7-bqrsSo-nBpLPb-8aCa6R-aHK47r-qtnc1Y-qr271X-7RnKuh-97FHY9-
p8y9i7-8aC2iR-a5Czhg-apqcxA-8Z8ZZx-eyGcRN-aRASkX-aRASLF-eN2fxP-
7YCt7k-8XQtSf-aQ8GJc-dVxkx1-7YmbUC-aTwtEa-7G3imF-aVEsVX-9Fd6Kz-
aP1qxR-7Hh9Fe-dVwEYW-btwFne-qpUxo2>.
Licensing: [CC BY-SA 2.0 < https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
sa/2.0/deed.en>], via Flikr.
The author of this dissertation cropped and sharpened the photograph.
Figure 2.3d.
Photgraph courtesy of John Pavelka.
Link to photograph: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/28705377@N04/7476664204/>.
Licensing: [CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en>], via
Flikr.
169
)
Figure 2.4a.
Photograph courtesy of Edmund Candler.
Link to photograph: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AOld_Chain-
Bridge_at_Chaksam.jpg>.
Licensing: [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 2.4b.
Photograph courtesy of Rutahsa Adventures <www.rutahsa.com>.
Link to photograph: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IRB-6-
BringingDeckMat-KC603-8.jpg>.
Licensing: Uploaded with permission by User: Leonard G. at en.wikipedia [CC BY-
SA 1.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0>], via Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 2.5b.
Photograph courtesy of William Plunkett.
The photograph was obtained directly from the creator.
Figure 3.2.
Drawing courtesy of Ryan Woodward.
The drawing was obtained directly from the creator.
The author of this dissertation made modifications to the drawing that were approved
by the creator.
170
)
Figure 3.3.
Drawing courtesy of Ryan Woodward.
The drawing was obtained directly from the creator.
The author of this dissertation made modifications to the drawing that were approved
by the creator.
171
)
Works Cited
AASHTO. (2002). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 17th edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington,
D.C.
AASHTO. (2009). LRFD guide specifications for the design of pedestrian bridges, 2nd
edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
ABS. (2011). Guidance notes on the application of fiber rope for offshore mooring,
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Houston, TX.
Bang, A. L. (2009). "Cable-supported pedestrian bridge design for rural construction.”
M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Barnes, M. R. (1999). "Form finding and analysis of tension structures by dynamic
relaxation." International Journal of Space Structures, 14(2), 89-104.
Bel Hadj Ali, N., Rhode-Barbarigos, L., and Smith, I. F. C. (2011). "Analysis of clustered
tensegrity structures using a modified dynamic relaxation algorithm." International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 48(5), 637-647.
Beyer, H.-G., and Sendhoff, B. (2007). "Robust optimization - A comprehensive survey."
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 196(33-34), 3190-3218.
Billington, D. P., and Nazmy, A. (1990). "History and aesthetics of cable-stayed bridges."
Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(10), 3103-3134.
172
)
Bleicher, A., Schlaich, M., Fujino, Y., and Schauer, T. (2011). "Model-based design and
experimental validation of active vibration control for a stress ribbon bridge using
pneumatic muscle actuators." Engineering Structures, 33(8), 2237-2247.
Bloss, N., Rehm, K., and Bowser, M. (2014). "Footbridges save lives in a walking world
- Bridgin the Gap Africa." Footbridge 2014 - Past, Present & Future, Hemming
Information Services, London, United Kingdom.
Bridges to Prosperity. (2011). Bridges to Prosperity bridge manual.
Buonopane, S. G. (2006). "The Roeblings and the stayed suspension bridge: Its
development and propogation in 19th century United States." The Second
International Congresss on Construction History, Construction History Society,
Cambridge, United Kingdom, 441-460.
Buonopane, S. G. (2012). "A historical perspective on suspension bridges." Festschrift
Billington, E. M. Hines, S. G. Buonopane, and M. E. M. Garlock, International
Network for Structural Art, 38-76.
Burgoyne, C. J. (1993). "Parafil ropes for prestressing applications." Fiber-reinforced-
plastic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures: Properties and applications, A.
Nanni, ed., Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Burgoyne, C. J. (2001). "Rational use of advanced composites in concrete." Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, 146(3), 253-262.
173
)
Burgoyne, C. J., and Head, P. R. (1993). "Aberfeldy Bridge -- An advanced textile
reinforced footbridge." Proceedings of the TechTextil Symposium, Frankfurt,
Germany, paper 418, 1-9.
Caetano, E. and Cunha, Á. (2004). "Experimental and numerical assessment of the
dynamic behaviour of a stress-ribbon footbridge." Structural Concrete, 5(1), 28-38.
Caetano, E., Cunha, Á., and Moutinho, C. (2011). "Vandal loads and induced vibrations
on a footbridge." Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16(3), 375-382.
Chen, Z., Cao, H., Zhu, H., Hu, J., and Li, S. (2014). "A simplified structural mechanics
model for cable-truss footbridges and its implications for preliminary design."
Engineering Structures, 68, 121-133.
Chopra, A. K. (2007). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake
engineering, 3rd edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Dallard, P., Fitzpatrick, T., Flint, A., Low, A., Smith, R. R., Willford, M., and Roche, M.
(2001). "London Millennium Bridge: Pedestrian-induced lateral vibration." Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 6(6), 412-417.
Day, A. S. (1965). "An introduction to dynamic relaxation." The Engineer, 219, 218-221.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
174
)
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T. (2002). "A fast and elitist multi-
objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, 6(2), 182-197.
Ding, H., Zhang, R., Zhang, Y., Xia, W., and Huang, J. (2011). "A bridge in China
externally prestressed by carbon fiber reinforced polymer tendons." Structural
Engineering International, 21(3), 346-348.
fib. (2005). fib bulletin 32: Guidelines for the design of footbridges, International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Laussane, Switzerland.
Filomeno Coelho, R., Lebon, J., and Bouillard, P. (2011). "Hierarchical stochastic
metamodels based on moving least squares and polynomial chaos expansion:
Application to the multiobjective reliability-based optimization of space truss
structures." Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 43(5), 707-729.
Flory, J. F., Banfield, S. J., and Berryman, C. (2007). "Polyester mooring lines on
platforms and MODUs in deep water.” Proceedings of the Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Offshore Technology Conference, Richardson, TX, OTC
18768.
Flory, J. F., Banfield, S. P., and Petruska, D. J. (2004). "Defining, measuring, and
calculating the properties of fiber rope deepwater mooring lines." Proceedings of the
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore Technology Conference,
Richardson, TX, OTC 16151.
175
)
Fujino, Y., Pacheco, B. M., Nakamura, S.-I, and Warnitchai, P. (1993). "Synchronization
of human walking observed during lateral vibration of a congested pedestrian bridge."
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22(9), 741-758.
Fujino, Y. and Siringoringo, D. (2014). "Revisiting the pedestrian-induced lateral
vibration of footbridges and crowd synchronization problem." Footbridge 2014 -
Past, Present & Future, Hemming Information Services, London, United Kingdom.
Gentile, C., and Gallino, N. (2008). "Ambient vibration testing and structural evaluation
of an historic suspension footbridge." Advances in Engineering Software, 39(4), 356-
366.
Gerner, M. (2007). Chakzampa Thangtong Gyalpo: Architect, philosopher and iron chain
bridge builder." The Centre for Bhutan Studies, Thimphu, Bhutan, translated from the
German by G. Verhufen.
Gibbs, M., Trost, D., Morgenthal, G., and Kareem, A. (2014). "Monitoring dynamics of
suspension footbridges using novel sensing technology." Footbridge 2014 - Past,
Present & Future, Hemming Information Services, London, United Kingdom.
Gimsing, N. J., and Georgakis, C. T. (2012). Cable supported bridges: concept and
design, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
Greiner, D., Emperador, J. M., Winter, G., and Galván, B. (2007). "Improving
computational mechanics optimum design using helper objectives: An application in
frame bar structures." Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization: 4th International
Conference EMO 2007, Matsushima, Japan, March 5-8, 2007. Proceedings, S.
176
)
Obayashi, K. Deb, C. Poloni, T. Hiroyasu, and T. Murata, eds., Springer, Berlin,
Germany, 575-589.
Gupte, S., Betti, R., and Zoli, T. (2010). "Synthetic fiber ropes to replace steel wire in
pedestrian suspension bridges." Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life-
Cycle Optimization – Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Maintenance, Safety and Management, Taylor and Francis Group, London, United
Kingdom, 3228-3234.
Hamming, R. W. (1989). Digital filters, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Heinemeyer, C., Butz, C., Keil, A., Schlaich, M., Goldack, A., Trometer, S., Lukić, M.,
Chabrolin, B., Lemaire, A, Martin, P.-O., Cunha, Á., and Caetano, E. (2009). JRC
scientific and technical reports: Design of lightweight footbridges for human induced
vibrations, European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
Hennessey, C. M., Pearson, N. J., and Plaut, R. H. (2005). "Experimental snap loading of
synthetic ropes." Shock and Vibration, 12(3), 163-175.
HMG, TBSSP/Helvetas. (2003). Short span trail bridge standard: suspended, SKAT.
Huang, M.-H., Thambiratnam, D. P., and Perera, N. J. (2005a). "Load deformation
characteristics of shallow suspension footbridge with reverse profiled pre-tensioned
cables." Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 21(4), 375-392.
177
)
Huang, M.-H., Thambiratnam, D. P., and Perera, N. J. (2005b). "Resonanant vibration of
shallow suspension footbridges." Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Bridge Engineering, 158(BE4), 201-209.
Huang, M.-H., Thambiratnam, D. P., and Perera, N. J. (2005c). "Vibration characteristics
of shallow suspension bridge with pre-tensionsed cables." Engineering Structures,
27(8), 1220-1233.
Irvine, H. M. (1975). "Statics of Suspended Cables." Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Divsion, 101(EM3), 187-205.
Irvine, M. (1981). Cable structures, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY.
Lebo, J., and Schelling, D. (2001). “Design and Appraisal of Rural Transport
Infrastructure: Ensuring Basic Access for Rural Communities." World Bank technical
paper no. 496, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Magalhães, F., Cunha, Á., and Caetano, E. (2007). "Dynamic testing of the New Coimbra
Footbridge before implementation of control devices." Conference Proceedings of the
Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, Springer, New York, NY.
Magalhães, F., Cunha, Á., Caetano, E., and Brincker, R. (2010). "Damping estimation
using free decays and ambient vibration tests." Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 24(5), 1274-1290.
MATLAB. (2012). Version 7.14.0.739 (R2012a).
178
)
McConnell, K. G., and Varoto, P. S. (2008). Vibration testing: Theory and practice, 2nd
edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
McKenna, H. A., Hearle, J. W. S., and O'Hear, N. (2004). Handbook of fibre rope
technology, Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Meier, U. (2012). "Carbon fiber reinforced polymer cables: Why? Why Not? What If?"
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 37(2), 399-411.
Meng, X., Dodson, A. H., and Roberts, G. W. (2007). "Detecting bridge dynamics with
GPS and triaxial accelerometers." Engineering Structures, 29(11), 3178-3184.
Moored, K. W., and Bart-Smith, H. (2009). "Investigation of clustered actuation in
tensegrity structures." International Journal of Solids and Structures, 46(17), 3272-
3281.
Moschas, F., and Stiros, S. (2011). "Measurement of the dynamic displacements and of
the modal frequencies of a short-span pedestrian bridge using GPS and an
accelerometer." Engineering Structures, 33(1), 10-17.
Ochsendorf, J. (2004). "Sustainable structural design: Lessons from history." Structural
Engineering International, 14(3), 192-194.
Park, G.-J., Lee, T.-H., Lee, K. H., and Hwang, K.-H. (2006). "Robust design: An
overview." AIAA Journal, 44(1), 181-191.
179
)
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P. (1992). Numerical
recipes in C: The art of scientific computing, 2nd edition, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ramberg, S. E., and Griffin, O. M. (1977). "Free vibrations of taut and slack marine
cables." Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, 103(ST11), 2079-2092.
Raphael, B., and Smith, I. F. C. (2003). Fundamentals of computer-aided engineering,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
RFCS (2008). Human induced vibration of steel structures (Hivoss) - Design of
footbridges: Guidelines, Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS).
Roberts, P., Shyam, K. C., and Cordula, R. (2006). “Rural access index: A key
development indicator.” Transport paper (TP-10). The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Roberts, T. M. (2005). "Lateral pedestrian excitation of footbridges." Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 10(1), 107-112.
Sarner, C-M., Wachter, M., and Plunkett, W. (2010). “A stiffnened rope catenary bridge:
Exploration of concept and constructability.” Unpublished report, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ.
Segal, E. M., Rhode-Barbarigos, L., Filomeno Coelho, R. D., and Adriaenssens, S.
(2014). "An Automated Robust Design Methodology for Suspended Structures."
180
)
Proceedings of the IASS-SLTE 2014 Symposiuim - Shells, Membranes, and Spatial
Structures: Footprints, The International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures
(IASS), Brasília, Brazil.
SENSR. (2014). “Practical guide to accelerometers.” SENSR,
<http://www.sensr.com/pdf/practical-guide-to-accelerometers.pdf> (Nov. 30, 2014).
Sétra. (2006). Technical guide - Footbridges: Assessment of vibrational behaviour of
footbridges under pedestrian loading, Service d’Études techniques des routes et
autoroutes (Sétra), Paris, France.
Smith III, J. O. (2007). Introduction to digital filters with audio applications, W3K
Publishing.
Strasky, J. (2005). Stress ribbon and cable-supported pedestrian bridges, Thomas
Telford Publishing, London, United Kingdom.
Van Nimmen, K., Lombaert, G., De Roeck, G., and Van den Broeck, P. (2014).
"Vibration serviceability of footbridges: Evaluation of the current codes of practice."
Engineering Structures, 59, 448-461.
Welch, P. D. (1967). "The use of fast fourier transform for the estimation of power
spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms."
IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, AU-15(2), 70-73.
181
)
Winslow, P., Pellegrino, S., and Sharma, S. B. (2010). "Multi-objective optimization of
free-form grid structures." Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 40(1-6),
257-269.
Woodward, R. (2012a). “EWB Morocco Footbridge, Ait Bayoud site 1." Calculations,
April 27, 2012.
Woodward, R. (2012b). "Pedestrian bridge at site 1, Ait Bayoud, commune of Bizdad,
Morocco." Structural drawings, S3 - S12.
World Bank. (2007). “Rural access index (RAI).” The World Bank Group,
<http://www.worldbank.org/transport/transportresults/headline/rural-access.html>
(Mar. 14, 2015).
Zavala, G. R., Nebro, A. J., Luna, F., and Coello Coello, C. A. (2014). "A survey of
multi-objective metaheuristics applied to structural optimization ." Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 49(4), 537-558.
Zimmerman, A. T., Swartz, R. A., Lynch, J. P. (2008). “Automated identification of
modal properties in a steel bridge instrumented with a dense wireless sensor
network.” Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and
Informatics – Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Bridge
Maintenance, Safety and Management, Taylor & Francis Group, London, United
Kingdom, 1608-1615.
182
)
Zitzler, E. (1999). “Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Methods
and applications." Doctor of Technical Sciences dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C. M., and Grunert da Fonseca, V. (2002).
“Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: An analysis and review."
TIK- Report No. 139, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
183

Characterization of Polyester-Rope Suspended Footbridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterization of Polyester-Rope Suspended Footbridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

)

Edward Matthew Segal

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE

RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE

CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Adviser: Sigrid Adriaenssens

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

© Copyright by Edward Matthew Segal, 2015. All rights reserved.

significantly contributes to poverty. Suspended footbridges can improve access at

for this application. Polyester rope, an unconventional bridge material, is investigated as

design guidelines for these structures.

Numerical and analytical, static, natural frequency, and pedestrian excitation

computations are performed to investigate the influence of polyester rope’s material

stiffness on the static and dynamic response of polyester-rope suspended footbridges.

rope structures. These deflections are accompanied by a nonlinear increase in a bridge’s

serviceability (pedestrian comfort) limits specified in footbridge guidelines. The damping

full-scale physical tests that have been performed on a medium-span polyester-rope

Multi-objective optimization is utilized to find minimum volume polyester-rope and

included in future bridge guidelines to facilitate comparisons between different systems

under a range of constraint combinations.

Zoli (HNTB, USA), Landolf Rhode-Barbarigos, Professor Rajan Filomeno Coelho

Professor Adriaenssens allowed me to pursue a project of my own interest and then

A set of Princeton fellowships provided me with financial support: the Sherrerd

in Engineering. Additionally, the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

generously funded my travel to conferences to present my research.

John Flory (Tension Technology International, USA), Maria Gibbs (University of

Soohoo provided crucial technical and administrative assistance. My fellow graduate

1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Research Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 3

1.3 Dissertation Layout .............................................................................................. 4

1.4 Prior Publications and Presentations Contributing to this Dissertation ............... 6

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Suspended Bridge Systems .................................................................................. 8

2.3 Synthetic Rope Material Selection..................................................................... 14

2.4 Serviceability Design Criteria ............................................................................ 16

2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................ 19

3 Characterization of Geometric Nonlinear Static Behavior 20

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 20

3.2 Detailed Model: Numerical Static Analysis ...................................................... 21

3.2.1 Case Study Bridge Description .............................................................. 21

3.2.2 Numerical Model ................................................................................... 24

3.2.2.1 Model Components and Boundary Conditions ....................... 24

3.2.2.2 Material Properties .................................................................. 25

3.2.2.3 Load Definitions ..................................................................... 26

3.2.3 Numerical Calculations .......................................................................... 28

3.2.4 Numerical Results and Discussion......................................................... 28

3.2.4.1 Lower Bound Material Stiffness Case, Results and

3.2.4.2 Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Material Stiffness

Cases, Results and Discussion ................................................ 30

3.3 Single Suspended Rope Model: Analytical Evaluation ..................................... 35

3.3.1 Analytical Model ................................................................................... 35

3.3.2 Analytical Calculations .......................................................................... 36

3.3.3 Analytical Results and Discussion ......................................................... 36

3.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 37

4 Characterization of Modal Parameters 39

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 39

4.2 Natural Frequency Analyses .............................................................................. 40

4.2.1 Detailed Model: Numerical Natural Frequency Analysis ...................... 41

4.2.1.1 Numerical Model Properties ................................................... 41

4.2.1.2 Numerical Calculations ........................................................... 42