Congresso de Métodos Numéricos em Engenharia

1-3 julho 2019, Guimarães, Portugal

Universidade do Minho

DESIGNING A FOOTBRIDGE WITH AN INTEGRAED TMD:

IMPROVEMENT ASESSMENT

Carlos M.C. Renedo1, Iván M. Díaz1, Jose M. Soria1, Jaime G. Palacios 2

1: Department of Continuous Mechanics and Theory of Structures, ETSI Caminos Canales y

Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. (SPAIN)
e-mail: carlos.martindelaconcha@upm.es

2: Department of hydraulics, energy and environmental engineering, ETSI Caminos Canales y

Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. (SPAIN)
e-mail: carlos.martindelaconcha@upm.es

Keywords: Human-induced vibrations, Damping-based design, Serviceability vibration

assessment, Vibration control.

Abstract Vibrations are becoming an issue of increasing importance in current footbridges.

Bridges with greater spans and more effective construction materials, result in lightweight
structures and hence, are more susceptible to human-induced vibrations. Thus, the
vibration serviceability limit sate (VSLS) must be considered in the designing phase .
Damping-based design (DBD) consists of a new way of designing structures in which the
design principle states a minimum structural damping, to assure that the structure response
under dynamic loads fulfils the VSLS. Apart from other strategies, integrated damping
devices from design stage (as Tuned mass dampers, TMD) play an important role in DBD.
This allows to fulfil serviceability and vibration comfort limits efficiently, without
oversizing structures.

This paper compares two design scenarios for the same footbridge, considering dynamic
loading effects always fulfilling VSLS. First, the structure has been designed without
including any dissipating device. Later, the same footbridge has been redesigned following
a DBD strategy, and so including an integrated TMD as a part of the structure. As expected,
the second design approach provides a slender, lighter and more comfortable footbridge,
with less carbon footprint, due to the amount of material saved.
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays there is an increased demand of lighter, longer, and slender bridges, with high quality
vibration environments and less maintenance costs. Thus, the resulting structures usually
present less inherent damping and lower natural frequencies. In this context, long-span or
lightweight footbridges are proven to be quite sensitive to human-induced vibrations,
compromising in many times the vibration serviceability. Hence, the sizing of these structures
is usually governed by their responses under dynamic loadings.

Within the possible solutions to overcome vibration serviceability problems in this kind of
structures, the inclusion of damping devices to the structure seems to be the easiest and most
economical way for improving the vibration performance. Currently, one of the most studied
and widely implemented damping systems, is the Tuned mass damper (TMD). It consists of a
passive damping technology with a purely mechanical operation that has proven to be
significantly effective under resonance conditions (Bachmann, Weber, 1995). Its main
advantages are the simplicity of its behaviour and its minimum maintenance costs. However,
they might exhibit a lack of performance since they are sensitive to the tunning and they cannot
cope with vibration coming from several modes.

Control devices as TMDs are easily to design in an isolated way, as a solution for a vibration
problem on an existing structure (Daniel et al 2012). Nevertheless, their integration into the
structural design stage has been poorly studied. The integrated design of damping devices
allows to take full advantage of these technologies by means of resizing the structures and
making them lighter, slender and more comfortable, provided that the damping element can be
tailored to fit the architectural layout. These are the fundamental concepts behind the
“Damping-based design” (DBD). The structural damping is uncertain which means that it is not
possible to reliably estimate at the design stage, the final damping of the structure. However,
with the integration of damping devices, a minimum value of damping can be assured, which
is of vital importance on the structural response under dynamic loads, such as human or train-
induced vibrations

Despite of being largely known by engineers all around the world, TMDs are not yet included
into the design process of slender bridges. There is clearly a lack of guidelines to help engineers
in the integration of dampers in the early stages of structural design. Therefore, DBD may then
be fully applied.

Currently, the problem of structural sizing relies on the concept of limit states, and the DBD is
a way of facing this challenge. A limit state is a condition of a structure beyond which, it no
longer fulfils the design criteria. Commonly, footbridges do not have to support heavy loads,
which means that their design is not usually determined by ultimate limit states (ULS). Hence,
due to its architectural and lightweight nature, the footbridge sizing is usually conditioned by
serviceability limit states (SLS). Therefore, two main SLSs have proven to be decisive when
designing a lightweight footbridge. Firstly, the deflection-SLS and secondly, which is even
more crucial, the vibration SLS (VSLS).

In recent years, the VSLS has represented an obstacle to the increasing tendency to design
slender and even more stunning footbridges with high architectural value. However, DBD

2
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

allows overcoming the vibration issue, no longer being the VSLS the limiting design criteria
for this kind of structures. To sum up, this results in a new strategy for further optimization of
lightweight footbridges, being thus the deflection-SLS its determinant sizing criterion.

This research aims to compare two different design approaches for the same lightweight
footbridge, taking into accounts static and dynamic loads, and always fulfilling the VSLS. First,
a conventional design strategy has been carried out, without including any dissipating device.
As expected, the resulting structural section was oversized in order to fit the VSLS. Secondly,
the same footbridge has been redesigned following a DBD strategy. A TMD has been integrated
at the mid-span section to enhance the dynamic behaviour under resonance conditions of the
first vibration mode. The outcome has been a slender and lighter optimized section, limited by
the deflection-SLS. Figure1 depicts the DBD design concept for a composite steel-concrete
beam-type footbridge, which is the structural layout chosen for this paper.

Figure 1. Conventional design and DBD comparison. (Deflection –SLS is denoted as DSLS)

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDIED STRUCTURE

In order to provide a clear comparison between these two design approaches, the target
footbridge to be designed has tried to be as simple and representative as possible. Hence,
this research has been focused on a simple supported beam with a span of 30 m. Likewise,
the chosen section to be sized is a common thin-walled composite steel box-girder with a
narrow deck. Both structural-type and section constitute a realistic representation of a
characteristic highway-overpassing footbridge, as explained in Figure 2.
The dimensions of this target section are conditioned by many different factors. Firstly, the
thickness of the concrete slab is restricted by its transverse bending between the steel webs.
Secondly, the width of the deck is the result from a trade-off between future traffic
conditions over the footbridge and the thickness of the concrete slab. The broader the deck
is, the thicker the concrete slab is and so, the heavier the section is. The third conditioning
factor is the installation process. This kind of footbridges are usually installed as quickly as

3
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

possible with cranes in one night, to avoid hampering the traffic flow the day after. Thus, it
is crucial to design lightweight sections to facilitate crane-operability during the mounting
process. To sum up, narrowness and thinness of the concrete slab of the deck, are a result
of searching lightness and constructive ease.

Only one geometrical parameter of the described section in Figure 2 has been modified in
this research for designing the final footbridge. This dimension is the height of the steel
webs (named as “hw”) which mainly determines the flexural stiffness of the section.
Therefore, it can be considered as the most relevant sizing parameter when calculating this
type of structures.

Figure 2. Target structural type and section to study

In order to analyse the target-structure, simply-supported boundary conditions have been

adopted. This assumption about the support conditions has been considered appropriate
since lots of footbridges do agree with it. Furthermore, it is even acceptable in those cases
in which the deck is directly connected to the piers, since the first is usually much stiffer
than the second. As footbridge piers do not have to resist heavy axial loads, their sections
are commonly reduced and flexible. Thereby, as a first approach, they can be considered as
simple supports, even in these cases.

3. CURRENT DESIGNING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOTBRIDGES

This section will discuss the design criteria applied for footbridges in terms of actions and
limit states.

3.1. Actions
Two groups of actions should be considered for the design: static and dynamic actions.

4
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

Static actions

Static actions are currently well defined in several structural design codes. For this research,
the main code applied to perform the static analysis has been the “Instrucción para acciones
sobre puentes” (Spanish Code for Bridge Actions) most commonly known as IAP -11 [8].
This norm is closely related to the European code UNE-ENV 1990 (Eurocode 0) [9].
Furthermore, both provide similar approaches when defining similar actions.

In accordance with these codes, the following static actions have been considered: self-
weight, dead load of parapets, pedestrian traffic live loads, longitudinal and transversal
wind loads, uniform and differential temperature loads and snow loads. Among all of them,
the characteristic value of the vertical live load, 5 kN/m2, which mainly determines the
deflection-SLS design criterion, stands out (See Figure 1).

Finally, the load combination has been made following the same code, and the static
analysis of the structure was performed. As a result, different stress envelopes
corresponding to shear, bending moment, tension, and compression, were obtained.

Dynamic actions

Dynamic loading is not well defined in current design codes, thus, their scope is limited, as
they do not propose many applicable dynamic loading models. If an extensive dynamic
analysis is required, such as occurs in footbridge design, some specific design guidelines
should be consulted. In this context, it has been chosen to follow the design approaches
suggested by HIVOSS (Human Induced Vibrations of Steel Structures) [7] and JRC 2009
(Design of Lightweight Structures for Human Induced Vibrations) [6]. These are two of the
most reliable and complete existing guidelines about dynamic loading in footbridges. What
is more, future Eurocode recommendations about this topic will be based on th ese
documents. (Ricardelli and Demartino, 2016) provides a complete critical overview f this
topic

In order to develop a proper dynamic analysis, two types of dynamic loading have been
applied to the structural model. First, a continuous stream of pedestrians crossing the bridge
that excites it over a long period of time. Second, a single pedestrian or a group of
pedestrians or runners occasionally crossing the bridge, giving the structure not enough time
to settle into a steady state.

For a continuous stream of “n” pedestrians, HIVOSS guideline proposes a loading model
based on a harmonic distributed load over the entire bridge deck, defined as follows:

𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝑃 · 𝑛′ · 𝜓 · 𝑐𝑜𝑠(2𝜋𝑓𝑛 𝑡) (1)

𝑃 being the force amplitude of a single pedestrian, 𝑛′ the equivalent number of pedestrians
on surface and 𝜓 a crucial reduction coefficient dependent of the natural frequency of the
system 𝑓𝑛 . The distribution of 𝜓 for vertical vibrations derived from walking and two
application examples of this loading model are presented in Figure 3. Finally, the number of

5
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

equivalent pedestrians 𝑛′ depends on the service traffic class (TC) (Table1) considered and
on the size of the loaded surface of the footbridge. 𝑛′ is defined as follows, where 𝜍 is the
structural damping ratio.

10.8·√𝜍·𝑑·𝑆
𝑇𝐶1 𝑡𝑜 𝑇𝐶3 (𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 ≥ 1 𝑝/𝑚2 ) 𝑛′ = (2)
𝑆

1.85·√𝑑·𝑆
𝑇𝐶4 𝑡𝑜 𝑇𝐶5 (𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 ≥ 1 𝑝/𝑚2 ) 𝑛′ = (3)
𝑆

Traffic class Density [𝐏𝐞𝐝/𝐦𝟐 ] Description

TC1 d = 0.1 Very weak traffic
TC2 d = 0.2 Weak traffic
TC3 d = 0.5 Dense traffic
TC4 d = 1.0 Very dense traffic
TC5 d = 1.5 Exponentially dense traffic
Table 1. Traffic classes for a continuous stream of pedestrians

Figure 3. Distribution of Coefficient 𝜓 and application example of the pedestrian stream loading model.

For a single pedestrian or a group of pedestrians it has been applied the dynamic loading
model purposed by EN 1990/A1 Annex A2 chapter A.2.4.3. This case can be simulated by
a single harmonic force, that is moving across the bridge with velocity 𝑣𝑝𝑒𝑑 (Sebastian et al
, 2013) . For runners this value has been fixed to 3 m/s, whereas for walkers is 1.7 m/s.
′
𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 (𝑡) = 𝑃 · 𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 · 𝜓 · 𝑐𝑜𝑠(2𝜋𝑓𝑛 𝑡) (4)
′
In this case 𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 can be defined as √𝑛 which is defined as a function of the TC (Table 2):

6
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

Traffic class Walking group [𝑛] Jogging group [𝑛] ∗ Description

TC1 1 0 Very weak traffic
TC2 2 0 Weak traffic
TC3 4 1 Dense traffic
TC4 8 2 Very dense traffic
TC5 16 4 Exponentially dense traffic
∗ 𝜓 distribution for jogging loading case is different than for walking.

Table 2. Traffic classes for a single pedestrian or a group of pedestrians.

3.2. Actions
Two types of limit states should be checked for performing a proper design of a structure:
ultimate limit states (ULS), and SLS.

In this paper, the different ULSs to fulfil have been stated with the norms UNE-EN-1993
(Eurocode 3 Steel structures) parts 1, 2 and 5 [10] and UNE-EN-1994 (Eurocode 4 for
composite structures) [11]. The most relevant ULSs checked have been:

 Resistance of Sections (UNE-EN-1994-1, Chapter 6)

o Bending Moment
o Shear
o Bending and Shear
 Piling if necessary (UNE-EN-1993-5, Chapter 5)
o Shear piling in webs

Torsion and axial ULSs are not calculated, since stresses due to these forces are negligible. Is
important to underline, that

In terms of SLS, two of them have been checked: the deflection-SLS and the VSLS.

Firstly, for this research it has been considered that the deflection limits given by the current
codes and guidelines are unreasonably restrictive. For example, the Spanish code IAP-11 limits
the active vertical deflection to L/500 under a characteristic vertical live load, being L the main
span of the footbridge. Indeed, the correspondent European norm UNE-EN-1990 does not
establish a clear restriction for vertical deflections in footbridges. Moreover, it encourages the
design engineer to agree on this kind of project conditions with the client. For these reasons, it
has been decided to reduce the IAP-11 deflection constraint to L/350, which represents a more
rational value.

Deflection-SLS 𝑤𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 < 𝐿/350 (5)

Secondly, the VSLS has been studied following the same approach shared by current guidelines
and codes. Both IAP-11 and HIVOSS set that the VSLS must be defined in terms of a limiting

7
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

acceleration depending on the required comfort level, denoted as CL. The dynamic comfort of
a footbridge should be analysed through a reasonable relation between TCs and CLs, depending
on the considered project characteristics, in agreement with owner and/or any other authority.
Once again, the VSLS is a subjective design restriction.

Comfort class Degree of Comfort 𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒕 - Vertical accelerations

CL1 Maximum < 0.50 m/s 2
CL2 Medium 0.50 − 1 .00 m/s2
CL3 Minimum 1.00 − 2.50 m/s2
CL4 Unacceptable > 2.50 m/s 2
Table 3. Comfort classes stated by HIVOSS and IAP-11
As a first approach, it can be assumed that the limiting loading case for checking VSLS is a
stream of walking pedestrians. This can be considered as a realistic approach as it represents a
frequent traffic loading condition. HIVOSS states that comfort level of footbridges should be
analysed for a minimum pedestrian stream with at least 15 people. In the studied case, the
minimum TC that exceeds that limit is TC3, with 22 pedestrians. Thereby, the limiting VSLS
chosen has been a CL1 related to a stream of pedestrians with TC3.
𝑽𝑺𝑳𝑺: 𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚−𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡 (𝑇𝐶3) < 0.5 m/s 2 (6)

4. FOOTBRIDGE DESIGN APPROACH WITHOUT TMD

Firstly, the footbridge was designed following the usual design procedure, without including
any dissipative device. There were performed both static and dynamic analysis in order to meet
the ULSs and SLSs described above. As might be expected the sizing limit state was the VSLS.
Figure 4 shows the optimum section that fulfils all the design requirements.

Figure 4. Optimum design section without TMD.

The static analysis of the structure allowed to check all the ULSs and the Deflection-SLS. All
the calculations were performed with the commercial software for structural analysis

8
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

SOFiSTiK. Once obtained the stresses envelopes a limit state verification was done. Therefore,
the steel section was classified according to the norm EN-1993-1 as class 3, which means that
all ULS verifications should be done without considering plastic contributions. The results of
the static verification will be summed up below.

Before analysing the dynamic behaviour of the structure, a reasonable value of structural
damping was approximated. For that, it was used the formula proposed by “Guidelines for the
design of footbridges” [5].

Later, a modal analysis was performed, in order to check if some problematic frequencies could
arise. As can be seen in Figure 5, only the first mode might be considered as critical in terms
of human-induced vibrations. Therefore, the vibration comfort problem should be studied in
vertical direction.

2.81 Hz 6.54 Hz

Figure 5. First two modes of the design without TMD.

Firstly, dynamic comfort is verified in terms of maximum steady-state accelerations for a stream
of pedestrians loading case with TC3. This Loading case has been considered as representative.
Hence, applying the dynamic loading model proposed by HIVOSS, the results obtained are:

TC3

0.5 m/s 2

Figure 6. Acceleration response – Stream of walking pedestrians TC3.

As showed in Figure 6, it can be concluded that dynamic comfort has been satisfied. Further
results about comfort have been provided, especially in relation with transitory accelerations
reached in other dynamic loading cases as: single pedestrian or group of pedestrians walking

9
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

and jogging. Table 4 have summed up all the information related to limit states verification.

Static Limit state Design value Calculated value Ratio

Bending ULS 𝑴𝒓𝒅 (elastic – Steel only) [kN · m] 𝑴𝑬𝒅 [kN · m] 𝑴𝑬𝒅 /𝑴𝒓𝒅
8032 2820 0.35
Shear ULS 𝑽𝒓𝒅 (elastic – Steel only) [kN] 𝑽𝑬𝒅 [kN] 𝑽𝑬𝒅 /𝑽𝒓𝒅
6073 386 0.064
Deflection-SLS 𝒘𝑺𝑳𝑺 = L/350 [mm] 𝒘𝑬𝒅 [mm] 𝒘𝑬𝒅 /𝒘𝑺𝑳𝑺
85 29 0.338
Table 4. Static Limit states abstract-table. Design without TMD.

Stream of Acceleration Comfort

Number of pedestrians
pedestrians [m/𝑠 2 ] Level
TC3 22 0.492 Maximum
TC4 45 1.241 Minimum
TC5 67.5 1.514 Minimum
Pedestrian group Acceleration Comfort
Number of pedestrians
walking [m/𝑠 2 ] Level
TC1 1 0.175 Maximum
TC2 2 0.249 Maximum
TC3 4 0.348 Minimum
TC4 8 0.4978 Maximum
TC5 16 0.704 Medium
Pedestrian group Acceleration Comfort
Number of pedestrians
Jogging [m/𝑠 2 ] Level
TC3 1 1.866 Medium
TC4 2 2.646 Unacceptable
TC5 4 3.746 Unacceptable
Table 5. VSLS for a footbridge without integrated TMD.

5. DAMPING BASED DESIGN: INTEGRATED TMD

Results presented in Tables 4 and 5 reflect well the relevance of the VSLS when sizing
slender footbridges. In this respect, DBD is presented here as a powerful design approach
for further structural optimization. This research discusses the influence of an integrated
TMD implemented since the design stage, in the final sized section of the footbridge.

10
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

Firstly, before designing any TMD, a new optimized structural section has to be sized.
VSLS is expected to be fulfilled once the TMD will be implemented, so the new sizing limit
state will be the Deflection-SLS. Consequently, the new optimized section will be slender
as Figure 7 illustrates.

Figure 7. Optimized section that meets Deflection-SLS.

Next, there were obtained the equivalent dynamic parameters that represent the behaviour
of the mid-span section for the first vibration mode. Equivalent mass 𝑚𝑒𝑞,1, Equivalent
stiffness 𝑘𝑒𝑞,1 , and equivalent damping 𝑐𝑒𝑞,1.

Figure 8. Equivalent dynamic parameters that represent the mid-span section behaviour.

𝑚𝑒𝑞,1can be obtained as half the mass of the total simply-supported beam, hence, 𝑘𝑒𝑞,1 can
be calculated as 𝑊1 (𝑚𝑒𝑞,1 )2. Finally, 𝑐𝑒𝑞,1 would be equal to the general damping assumed
for the whole structure before.

Once the structural behaviour of the first mode has been simplified to a SDOF system, the
TMD can be designed easily. For that purpose, it has been followed the guidelines provided
by SAMCO in the document “Guidelines for structural control” [12] based on the scheme
shown in Figure 9 .

In order to perform the TMD design, a certain mass ratio µ = 𝑚𝑡 /𝑚𝑒𝑞,1has been assumed
(0.01 for this case). Then, the optimization norm 𝐻∞ proposed by SAMCO guidelines has

11
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

been used to calculate the optimum 𝑘𝑡 and 𝑐𝑡 , for minimizing acceleration under resonance
conditions.

Figure 9. Two degree of freedom system equivalent to the footbridge with the TMD.

1 𝑊
ŋ∞ = √1+𝜇 = 𝑊𝑡 (7)
1

3𝜇 27
𝜁𝑡,∞ = √8(1+𝜇) √1 + 32 𝜇 (8)

The last step before verifying limit states, is to integrate the designed TMD into the FEM
structural model developed with SOFiSTiK. When doing that, it can be clearly seen, that
the first mode of the initial slender beam without TMD, gets decomposed into two different
modes. One in phase with the TMD, and the other inversely phased (Figure 10)

Mode 1-1: TMD phased 1.612 Hz

Mode 1-2: TMD inversely phased 1.782 Hz

Figure 10. First Mode decomposition due to the integrated TMD.

Again, the dynamic comfort is verified for the same representative dynamic loading case.
Figure 11 Compares the response of the first structure designed without TMD, and the

12
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

second one, calculated following a DBD approach. This new footbridge designed with an
integrated TMD, has lower equivalent mass, so it reaches the steady state response earlier.
Also it has a lower natural frequency.
TC3

0.5 𝑚/𝑠 2

Figure 11. Time domain response to stream of pedestrians TC3 for structural design with and without
TMD.

Figure 12 sums up well the DBD philosophy. The key point is to design a slender footbridge
more prone to vibrate, and to improve its dynamic behaviour making use of a TMD.

Figure 11. DBD approach. 𝐹𝑒𝑞,1 represents the generalized force of the TC3 stream of pedestrians loading
case, for the mid-span section.

13
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

Finally, as has been done before, the same information about limit state verification has
been summarize in Tables 6 and 7.

Static Limit state Design value Calculated value Ratio

Bending ULS 𝑴𝒓𝒅 (elastic – Steel only) [kN · m] 𝑴𝑬𝒅 [kN · m] 𝑴𝑬𝒅 /𝑴𝒓𝒅
4412.60 2718 0.6159
Shear ULS 𝑽𝒓𝒅 (elastic – Steel only) [kN] 𝑽𝑬𝒅 [kN] 𝑽𝑬𝒅 /𝑽𝒓𝒅
2487.46 371 0.149
Deflection-SLS 𝒘𝑺𝑳𝑺 = L/350 [mm] 𝒘𝑬𝒅 [mm] 𝒘𝑬𝒅 /𝒘𝑺𝑳𝑺
85 85 1
Table 6. Static Limit states abstract-table. DBD approach.

Stream of Acceleration Comfort

Number of pedestrians
pedestrians [m/𝑠 2 ] Level
TC3 22 0.438 Maximum
TC4 45 1.103 Minimum
TC5 67.5 1.346 Minimum
Pedestrian group Acceleration Comfort
Number of pedestrians
walking [m/𝑠 2 ] Level
TC1 1 0.202 Maximum
TC2 2 0.286 Maxim<um
TC3 4 0.403 Maximum
TC4 8 0.572 Maximum
TC5 16 0.809 Medium
Pedestrian group Acceleration Comfort
Number of pedestrians
Jogging [m/𝑠 2 ] Level
TC3 1 0 Maximum
TC4 2 0 Maximum
TC5 4 0 Maximum
Table 7. Static Limit states abstract-table. DBD approach.

Two of the most remarkable aspects represented in these tables:

 First, the major increase of the bending ULS from 0.35 when designing the structure
without TMD, to 0.61 when designing the structure with the DBD approach. This is a
clear sign of structural optimization.

14
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

 Second, the great improvement in the dynamic behaviour under jogging loading cases
due to the lowering of the first natural frequency of the footbridge.

6. DESIGN APPROACH COMPARISON

After having designed the same structure following two different design approaches, a fair
comparison between them must be done. For that, some representative parameters have been
chosen, in order to assess the structural enhancement as objectively as possible. The design
approach comparison has been summarized in Table 8.

Compared Parameter Current design approach DBD approach

Structural steel used [kg] 19823 17679

Slenderness [h/L] 1/33 1/52

Bending ULS ratio 0.35 0.61

Deflection SLS ratio 0.34 1.00

VSLS stream TC3 [CL] Maximum Maximum

VSLS group Jogging [CL] Medium / Unacceptable Maximum

Table 8. Summarizing comparative table between DBD and the current design approach.

7. CONCLUSIONS
Nowadays, the VSLS is becoming a sizing limit state for lightweight and slender structures
as modern footbridges. Current design procedures tend to oversize this kind of structures
increasing their mass or stiffness to avoid vibrations. DBD is a new way of projecting that
consist of integrating damping devices as TMDs since the design stage. This allows assuring
a minimum structural damping to reach the required dynamic comfort level, without
oversizing the designed structure.

In this research, two design approaches have been applied in order to design a simply-
supported slender footbridge. First, a common design procedure has been followed. Later
the same structure has been designed applying a DBD approach by integrating TMD at mid-
span section. Finally, a comparison between these two design approaches has been
performed in terms of required material, structural slenderness and limit state verification.

After an extensive analysis, it has been concluded that DBD has enabled to design a slender,
more lightweight and more efficient structure. Deflection-SLS has become the new sizing
limit state as TMD design integration allows solving the vibration issue. For its part, ULS
verification has presented an optimized structural behaviour, especially in terms of bending.
Finally, it should be remarked that vibration concern under jogging loading conditions has
been solved, due to the lowering of natural frequencies in the structure designed with a DBD
approach.

15
 Carlos M. C. Renedo, Iván M. Díaz, Jose M. Soria and Jaime G. Palacios

AKNOWLEGMENTS
Carlos M. Renedo would like to thank Universidad Politécnica de Madrid for the financial
support through a PhD research grant.

REFERENCES
[1] Mendes Joesley P. Human Comfort Analysis and Vibration Control of a Steel-
Concrete Composite Footbridge [Conferencia] // 11th internationa Conference of
Vibration Porblems. - Lisbon, Portugal : Z. Dimitrova et al , 2013. - pág. 10.

[2] Ricciardelli F. Design Footbridges against Pedestrian-induced Vibrations [Publicación

periódica] // Journal of Bridge Engineering / ed. ASCE. - 2016. - pág. 13.

[3] Weber Benedikt Tuned Vibration Absorbers for Damping of "Lively" Structures
[Publicación periódica] // Structural Engineering International. - 1995. - pág. 10.

[4] Zivanovic S. Vibration serviceability of tootbridges under human-induced excitation: a

literature review [Publicación periódica] // Journal of Sound and Vibration / ed.
ElSEvier. - 15 de January de 2004. - pág. 74.

[5] Federetaion internationale du be-ton (fib): Guidelines for the Design of Footbridges -
Guide to Good Practice. In: Fib Bullettin 32 (2005), p. 160. ISBN 978-2-88394-072-7

[6] JRC: Design of Lightweight Footbridges for Human Induced Vibrations. 2009.

[7] HIVOSS: Design of Footbridges - Guideline. 2007.

[8] IAP-11: Instrucción para acciones sobre puentes. 2011.

[9] EN-1990: Basis of structural design. 2005.

[10] EN-1993: Design of steel structures. 2005.

[11] EN-1994: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. 2005.

[12] SAMCO-2006: Guidelines for structural control. 2006.

No sé muy bien donde meter las referencias, he puesto las de las normativas pero
las de los artículos no se muy bien ¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

16