Glass Footbridgeby Yazmin Sahol Hamid

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/265687038
Glass Footbridge
Thesis · January 2007

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2110.0805
CITATIONS READS
0 4,727
1 author:
Yazmin sahol hamid

University of Surrey
8 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Yazmin sahol hamid on 17 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Y. SAHOL HAMID
Bridge
Engineering Master’s Dissertation
Bridge Engineering
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Master’s Dissertation by
Y. Sahol Hamid
Supervisor:
Gerard A.R Parke
Head of Civil Engineering
Cover picture by Joris Luchinger © 2002.
For information, address:

Division of Bridge Engineering, The University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH
| Tel: +44 (0)1483 300800 | Fax: +44 (0)1483 300803
Homepage: http://www.surrey.ac.uk
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
MISS YAZMIN SAHOL HAMID
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

of Master of Science in the Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences,
University of Surrey
2nd JANUARY 2008

Declaration of originality
I confirm that the project dissertation I am submitting is entirely my own work and
that any material used from other sources has been clearly identified and properly
acknowledged and referenced. I also understand that if an allegation of plagiarism is
upheld via an Academic Misconduct Hearing, then I may forfeit any credit for this
module or a more sever penalty may be agreed.
Dissertation Title:
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Author's Name: Miss Yazmin Sahol Hamid
Supervisor’s name: Professor Gerard Parke
Author’s Signature: Date: 01/05/2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise to ALLAH who has made it possible for me to undertake this research.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof Gerard Parke for
his guidance and advice in completing this research and also for inspiring me to work
hard. I would also like to thank Ph.D. Bulent and Nancy at the Division of Civil
Engineering for their guidance during this work. I would also like to thank M.Sc.
Hazrina Mansor, Charles, Yakub, Nanthankumar, Khairul, Patrick, Wuth, Godwin,
Ebun, Yahya, Shariff, Makee, Towkey and Aladin for supporting me with thoughts
and ideas. A special thanks to my friends Lukman Hanif, Madeeha, Godwin Ansa,
Fatahiah, Elna, Megat, Basheer, Mior, Saadiah, Muniba, Faizah, Asiah and Anas for
their moral support. I would also like to thank my fiancé Helmi for standing by me
throughout my master’s education. Finally I would like to express my deepest
gratitude to my beloved mum, dad and sisters for their support throughout my
education and helping me to achieve my goals.
December 2007
Yazmin Sahol Hamid

ABSTRACT
When a footbridge is made of glass, it shows to the pedestrians the wonder

and uniqueness of itself, i.e. its transparent characteristic. However, the perceived
unwanted characteristics, such as brittleness of glass may make it unsuitable, if used
for a load bearing structural member. But, using a toughened and laminated glass
panel as the structural member can be practical because this toughened glass has a
higher failure strength and is considerably safer when compared to ordinary glass.
This dissertation began with an architectural drawing of a glass footbridge.

Each primary beam of the footbridge is made from a large size glass panel. The beam
was modelled using beam finite elements and analysed using the finite element
program, SAP2000. The model was initially formed in 2D and analysed using two
different support conditions. The analysis was repeated for a 3D model. The results of
maximum moments, shear forces and deflections produced using both the 2D and 3D
models and also using different support conditions are compared. The maximum
stress is calculated and checked with the failure strength of toughened glass. The
maximum deflection is checked with the limiting value given in standard codes of
practice.
Connectors have been designed to connect the glass sub-panels together which
have been used to form the large size glass panels, namely, the primary beams. The
connectors have been designed and the stress level in the connection checked.
Modal analyses using 2D and 3D models were also carried out to give
frequencies and mode shapes of the footbridge due to vibrations. The frequencies are
checked against the minimum value required according to standard codes of practice.
All of the above checks were found to satisfy the relevant design criteria, and
consequently the footbridge is now considered to be safe and ready for construction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objective 4
1.3 Disposition 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Advantages of glass 6
2.3 History of glass 7
2.4 Properties of glass 8
2.5 Types of glass 9
2.5.1 Annealed float glass 9
2.5.2 Toughened glass 10
2.5.3 Laminated glass 10
2.6 Strength of glass 11
2.7 Method of analysis 12
i
2.8 Vibration 13
2.8.1 Dynamic system 13
2.8.2 Modal analysis 15
2.8.3 Natural frequency or free vibration without damping 15
2.8.4 Vibration control 16
2.9 Connections 17
2.10 Example of glass structure 18
2.10.1 A building in Amestelveen, Netherlands 18
2.10.2 A museum at Zwelle in Netherlands 19
2.10.3 Rotterdam glass bridge 20
2.10.4 Millennium Footbridge, London 22
3 2D MODELS AND MODAL ANALYSIS OF GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.1 Introduction 24
3.2 Modelling approach 27
3.3 Formation of the 2D model 28
3.4 Bridge loadings 31
3.5 Load combination 32
3.6 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Results 34
3.7 Frequencies and modes shapes from modal analysis 37
3.8 Stresses 40
3.9 Stresses at the connection 45
3.10 Concluding remarks 49
ii
4 FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction 50
4.2 Formation of the 3D model 50
4.3 Bridge loadings 53
4.4 Load combination 54
4.5 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Results 57
4.6 Frequencies and modes of vibration on the models 63
4.7 Comparisons between 2D and 3D 72
4.8 Concluding remarks 75
5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 General 76
5.2 Discussion and conclusion 76
5.3 Recommendation on future works 77
References 78
Bibliography 79
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Typical properties of annealed glass (The Institute of 9
Structural Engineers, 1999)
2.2 Design stresses (Concept Richtlijn: Construction Glass 12
(Holland), October 1996)
3.1 Properties of the primary beam finite elements 29
3.2 Cross Sectional properties of beam elements 31
3.3 Loadings on the beam elements 32
3.4 Maximum moment, shear force and deflection of the glass 36
footbridge.
3.5 Minimum Natural Frequencies for Footbridges (BD37/01, 1989) 37
3.6 Frequency and mass participation factor of 2D model 40
3.7 Ultimate Loading on beam finite elements 41
3.8 Bending stresses for model with pinned-pinned supports 42
3.9 Bending stresses for model with fixed-fixed supports 42
3.10 Stresses at connection 47
4.1 Cross Sectional properties of the secondary beam finite elements 53
4.2 Loadings on the beam finite elements 54
4.3 Maximum moment, shear force and deflection of glass 62
footbridge (3D model).
4.4 The frequency and mass participation factor of the 3D model 71
iv
4.5 The torsional Mode of the 3D model 71
4.6 Comparison of maximum moment between 2D and 3D model 72
4.7 Comparison of maximum shear force between 2D and 3D model 73
4.8 Comparison of maximum deflection between 2D and 3D model 73
4.9 Comparison of the frequency and mass participation factor 74
between the 2D and 3D models for the pinned-pinned supports
4.10 Comparison of the frequency and mass participation 74
factor between 2D and 3D model for fixed-fixed supports
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1.1(i) Side view of Grand Canyon Skywalk Bridge 3
(Michael McDonough’s photo stream, 2007)
1.1(ii) Figure 1.1(ii): Close up view of Grand Canyon Skywalk 3
Bridge (Motorstv’s photo stream, 2007)
2.1 Stress-strain behaviour comparing stress/strain curves for 8
steel and annealed glass (after Chaunac and Serruys, 1983)
2.2 Basic dynamic system 14
2.3 Effect of mass and stiffness changes on dynamic response 16
2.4 Transfer of tensile forces in the glass connection, (Nijsse, 2002). 18
2.5 View from under the stairway, (Nijsse, 2002). 19
2.6 Shows the detail of the complete connection of the banister 20
beam, (Nijsse, 2002).
2.7 Shows the close up view of the glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002). 21
2.8 Shows the cross section details of the glass footbridge, 22

(Nijsse, 2002).
3.1 Architectural drawing of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002) 25
3.2(i) Close up view of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002) 25
3.2(ii) Front view of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002) 26
3.2(iii) Side view of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002) 26
3.3 2D Structural drawing of girder (mm) 30
3.4 Finite Element Model of girder. 30
vi
3.5(i) Dead load, Gk of self weight (kN) 33
3.5(ii) Dead load, Gk from weight of deck slab (kN) 33
3.5(iii) Imposed load Qk , from pedestrian loading (kN) 33
3.6(i) Bending moment diagram with pinned-pinned support (kNm) 34
3.6(ii) Shear force diagram with pinned-pinned support (kN) 34
3.6(iii) Deformed shape with pinned-pinned support 35
3.7(i) Bending moment diagram with fixed-fixed support (kNm) 35
3.7(ii) Shear force diagram with fixed-fixed support (kNm) 35
3.7(iii) Deformed shape with fixed-fixed support 36
3.8 First three modes and frequencies of model with 38
pinned-pinned supports.
3.9 First three modes and frequencies of model with 39
fixed-fixed supports.
3.10 Bending stress moment diagram with fixed support 44
3.11 Bending stress moment with pinned support 44
3.12 (i) sub panel with connection (dimension are in mm) 47
3.12 (ii) Connection details, adopted from Nijsse, 2002 48
(All dimensions are in mm)
4.1 Finite element model of the glass footbridge (3D view) 52
4.2(i) The dead load, Gk of the self weight (kN) 55
4.2 (ii) The dead load, Gk from the weight of deck slab (kN) 56
4.2 (iii) The imposed load Qk , from the pedestrian loading (kN) 56
4.3 (i) Bending moment diagram with pinned-pinned supports (kNm) 58
vii
4.3 (ii) Shear force diagram with pinned-pinned supports (kN) 59
4.3 (iii) Deformed shape with pinned-pinned supports 59
4.4 (i) Bending moment diagram with fixed-fixed supports (kNm) 60
4.4 (ii) Shear force diagram with fixed-fixed supports (kN) 61
4.4 (iii) Deformed shape with fixed-fixed supports (mm) 61
4.5 The first three horizontal and vertical modes and 63
frequencies of the model with pinned-pinned supports
4.6 Torsional mode and frequencies of the model with 66
4.7 The first three horizontal and vertical modes and frequencies 69
of the model with fixed-fixed supports.
4.8 The torsional modes and frequencies of the model with 70
fixed-fixed support
viii
ix
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Over the last years, architects and interior designers have been busy creating new
innovative structural designs using new type of materials. Laminated glass has driven a
growing number of architects and engineers to work with elements in unconventional
ways. To exploit the unique characteristic of glass, it should be used as the structural
material for a closed room through which letting in the sun, moon and stars, while
protecting the room from rain, wind and cold, which only then becomes possible. In this
dissertation, a footbridge made from glass was investigated. This idea came from an
architectural drawing by an architect named Joris Luchinger, which is displayed in Nijsse,
2002. The property of transparency is a valued feature in this glass footbridge. So, how
would you feel standing on a platform made of glass?
It certainly takes a leap of faith to cross a glass footbridge where there is no

visible framing, but only made of toughened laminated glass panels supported by
toughened laminated glass beams. So far, only a small number of designers are willing to
participate in using glass as the structural material because of its unpredictability and
potential to injure people in the case of breakage or falling shards. The idea of a glass
footbridge is itself very tempting but also dangerous. Glass acts in a significantly diverse
manner compared to other materials, like steel. For example, failure of a glass beam does
not have a warning mechanism, unlike a steel beam where it may fail by large
deformation. If a glass beam is over loaded it would fracture and break completely, thus
cause sudden failure to the beam.
However, recent usage of glass as a structural material has not only given us great
exposure but has helped people to realize that laminated glass can be used safely and
Y. Sahol Hamid, Msc Dissertation

1
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
successfully in working situations as proven by certain architects and engineers, where

three panels of glass glued together can make a safe beam. This process called laminating
was invented in the early 1900s where a scientist unintentionally dropped a glass bottle
containing glue. A few days later the glass fragments was found to be glued invisibly
together. This made him realized that if a car windshield had been glued invisibly with
two layers of glass and if there were a car accident to occur the injury could have been
minimized where only the outside windshield would break. A firm, Depont de Nemours,
made an impact by inventing transparent foil called pvb (polyvinylbutyrate), which glues
glass panels to each other. With this, not only two but even ten perfectly transparent glass
panels could be glued together by using an autoclave under pressure at a temperature
level of about 250oC. Therefore, safe glass beams can be produced. Since a toughened
glass panel could easily break, the glass footbridge under investigation in this dissertation
is formed from 4 layers of 15mm thick, toughened glass for optimal safety (Nijsse, 2002).
Even though this new creative idea by Joris Luchinger has not been realized yet,
there is an even more sensation structure made of glass that has already been constructed,
i.e. Grand Canyon Skywalk Bridge located at Grand Canyon West on the Hualapai Indian
Reservation which was open to the public on March 28th, 2007. The structure is a U-
shaped cantilever glass bridge jutting 65 feet from the cliff edge and suspends 3800 feet
above the Grand Canyon floor. It is strong enough to hold 70 tonne of weight which is
equivalent to 700 men, although the maximum occupancy is set at 120 people. It is also
strong enough to withstand winds up to 100mph. In order to secure the skywalk, Lochsa
Engineering in Las Vegas has cantilevered it out on top of a cliff with 94 steel rods that
bore 46 feet into the limestone rock. There are three oscillating dampers made of steel
plates inside the hollow bridge beam which acts as a shock absorber, moving up and
down to neutralize the vibration coming from the pedestrians and wind gust. The
walkway is constructed using three-inch-thick, heat strengthened glass and is enclosed by
five foot glass walls, (Grand Canyon Skywalk official site, 2007). Figure 1.1(i) shows a
side view of the Grand Canyon Skywalk Bridge taken by Michael McDonough, 2007.
Meanwhile Figure 1.1(ii) shows a close up view of the structure taken by Motorstv, 2007.

2
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 1.1(i): Side view of Grand Canyon Skywalk Bridge (Michael McDonough’s photo
stream, 2007).
Figure 1.1(ii): Close up view of Grand Canyon Skywalk Bridge (Motorstv’s photo stream,
2007).

3
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
As engineers, our paramount responsibility is the safety of people using the

structure. An engineer naturally has to assume the obligation to analyze all possibilities of
unwelcome effects of the proposed innovation. In this dissertation, as mentioned above, a
study of the behaviour of the proposed glass footbridge structure drawn by Joris
Luchinger was investigated. From a model analysis, the maximum moment, shear force,
deflection and stresses of the glass panels were obtained. Then a modal analysis was
conducted in order to obtain the frequencies and mode shapes of the glass footbridge
model. The model was created in the form of 2D and 3D to investigate the behaviour of
the proposed glass footbridge and also to have a comparison between the two models.
However, in the 2D analysis, horizontal and torsional mode shapes are restricted which
can only be obtained from a 3D analysis.
In the future it is expected that more glass structures with maximum transparency
will be developed. Such structures free engineers from building masonry walls and steel
frames and beams, which then allows for more space and freedom.
1.2 Objective
The main objective in this investigation is thus to gain an insight into the behaviour of a
loaded glass footbridge. Further breakdown of the main objective can be listed as follows.
(i) To model and analyse a loaded glass footbridge.

(ii) To compare the performances of the glass footbridge with different
types of supports.
(iii) To compare the behaviour of the glass footbridge analysed in 2D and
3D.
(iv) To do a modal analysis and compare the outcome frequency i.e. the
vertical, horizontal and torsional mode shapes due to vibration of the
glass structure in 2D and 3D.

4
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
(v) To calculate the stresses in the glass panels.

(vi) To calculate stresses at the connections.
(vii) To evaluate the frequency and deflection limits of the glass footbridge
so that the structure can be descried to satisfy the required limits of the
codes.
1.3 Disposition
This dissertation consists of four main parts. Firstly, there is a comprehensive

literature review on glass together with a theoretical study related to structural dynamic.
Chapter 2 covers these subjects and includes eigenvalue problem for free vibration.
In Chapter 3, the glass footbridge under investigation is modelled and analyzed to

compare the performance using different types of support conditions. The stresses in the
glass panels are also obtained in order to define the strength of the glass footbridge. A
modal analysis is conducted to determine the natural frequencies and vibration mode
shapes of the structure. This chapter includes a discussion on the standards used and deal
with the vibration and deflection problems.
The exact same steps are performed in Chapter 4 for the 3D model of the glass
footbridge. Comparisons of results obtain from the 2D model and 3D model is also
presented in this chapter.
Finally, a discussion regarding the results obtained and the conclusions of the
study are summarized in Chapter 5.

5
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Because glass has been selected as the structural material for the footbridge,
information on the behaviour of glass like its advantages, history, properties and various
types are given in this chapter. Generally, footbridges are susceptible to vibrations and
for their structural members’ connectors are required, therefore information on vibrations
and special connection for glass are also included. This chapter includes examples of
structures that use glass as their main structural material.
2.2 Advantages of Glass
Glass is a fascinating material and its property of transparency is an essential

feature for modern architecture. Structural elements made using glass are not just used to
stop rain, wind and cold from going through them but are also capable of withstanding
high water pressure, for example, panels in aquariums made of thick glass. This
important characteristic of transparency also allows us to view deep space astronomical
phenomena. Among the advantages of glass as a structural material include unlimited life,
high light transmission, hardness and rigidity. Glass is a very interesting material
because it can be made to do whatever we wish but is feared by engineers because of its
brittleness. Properties of glass like its limited elastic deformation before failing, ist
vulnerability to breakage and shatters easily when stressed, are its main disadvantages.
Useful design data on glass are also difficult to find, although it exists but not from a
single source. Glass can be made more resistant to breakage by increasing its thickness.

6
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
One way is to have two beams bonded together, which is obviously is safer compared to
one single beam where, assuming the combined element is designed properly, if one
beam breaks the other beam can still carry the full load.
2.3 History of Glass
Ever since the discovery of glass, this wonderful material has intrigued mankind.
Rock crystals which resemble ice and which do not melt were the first form of glass
found by primitive men. Later people learned how to make glass and their rising ability to
manipulate its property has open up new possibilities to fabricate complicated structures.
Glass appears to have been produced as far back as the manufacturing of ancient
building materials for environmental and structural purposes in 500BC by the Egyptians
(Ledbetter & Harris, 1999). However the article on ‘how glass is first made?’ gives a
good illustration, written by a Roman writer named Plinius. Some 2000 years ago, a
group of Phoenician merchants spread out along the shore, blocks of soda from their
ships to support their cooking pots over the fire while preparing dinner. When the fire
burned out, they discovered that a clear residue of an unknown translucent liquid material
flowed, and this was the origin of glass. However this stroke of luck wouldn’t have been
possible if heat from the fire had not fused the soda and sand into a glass-like substance.
It was by chance that all three fundamental components required to make glass happened
to be on that beach, quartz (sand), siliciumdioxide; soda sodium carbonate; and chalk
(seashells), calcium carbonate. What was likely to have happened was that these three
substances were fused into silium-quatro-oxide which is the basic molecule of glass. The
Phoenician traders soon became conscious of the profitable potential of this sparkling,
translucent material, and so glass came into use (Nijsse, 2002).

7
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
2.4 Properties of Glass
Glass, in general, initially behaves elastically until it has been stretched beyond its
failure strength limit which then will cause brittle fracture. At this stage the glass breaks
suddenly into fragmental pieces, producing dangerous shards of glass. Since this occurs
without prior warning, designers tend to avoid the risk of constructing a load bearing
element made of glass. Figure 2.1 shows typical graphs that compare the behaviour of
glass with another type of building material, namely steel, in terms of their stress/strain
responses. These graphs indicate that glass is a brittle material whereas steel is a ductile
material, where the plastic behaviour of glass is negligible when compared to steel.
Hence, in case of failure, sudden collapse may occur if galss is used as a structural
material.
Figure 2.1: Stress – strain behaviour comparing stress/strain curves for steel and
annealed glass (after Chaunac and Serruys, 1983)
Typical properties of glass are shown in Table 2.1. As given in the table, the
tensile ductility of glass is zero. However, after the discovery of laminated glass, where
its application can prevent sudden breakage of the material, the study of glass as a
structural material became popular since 1980’s.

8
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 2.1 :Typical properties of annealed glass, (The Institute of Structural Engineers,
1999)
Density 2500kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity 70-74kN/mm2
Shear Modulus 30kN/mm2
Poisson’s ratio 0.22
Yield strength Theoretical value is 3600N/mm2 but the behaviour is fracture
governed.
Tensile strength 5000N/mm2 but fracture-governed.
Tensile ductility 0
Compressive strength >1000N/mm2 but complimentary tensile stresses will govern.
2.5 Types of Glass
The followings describe the different types of glass.
2.5.1 Annealed float glass
Annealed glass is produced from a mixed proportion of ingredients, like silica

sand, soda ash, limestone and salt cake. In glass production, a mixture of all the
ingredients needs to go through a basic process and in various stages. The first stage
consists of melting the mixture in a furnace at a very high temperature, followed by
forming the melted mixture into a product with a constant thickness and then lastly the
final product, i.e. glass is exposed to gradual cooling before being cut to any required
length.
Glass, in general, initially behaves elastically until it has been stretched with the
amount of force which can cause brittle fracture. Its plastic behaviour is negligible when

9
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
compared to other building material, like steel. Hence, failure of glass is usually without
warning which causes dangerous shards of glass.
Structures like bridges commonly experience cyclic loading where cracks can
form very slowly. GY (1999) conducted experiments on toughened glass elements. He
concluded that subjected to permanent load, elastic deformation of about 3% can occur
over 50 years. Also, fracture may not only due to impact loading but also due to bending
stresses, thermal stresses or imposed strains. Hence the existence of flaws in the glass, or
stress level beyond the safe limit or the long duration of load can cause fracture of the
glass (The Institute of Structural Engineers, 1999).
2.5.2 Toughened Glass
Toughened glass, also called tempered glass is made from normal annealed glass
which is heated in a furnace to about 600oC. The glass is then quickly cooled outside the
furnace at air room temperature. This causes the outside layer to cool fast, whereas the
inner part to cool slowly, which makes the inner part to go into tension and the outer
surface to go into compression. Since the outer surface is in compression, cracks on the
outer surface are pushed down and not allowed to propagate. Hence, toughened glass can
resist higher stresses than annealed glass which makes it suitable to be used as a
structural material.
2.5.3 Laminated Glass
Laminated glass is formed by gluing more than one glass panels together. It
provides a way of making the application of glass safe and secure. The main benefit of a
laminated glass is that, if one of the panels is broken, it can still remain glued to the
unbroken piece. Consequently, nothing should be falling down, as long as the remaining

10
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
panels are strong enough to carry the total weight inclusive of the broken panel (Nijsse,
2002). Whenever a crack starts to occur in a concrete element, the crack will stop
propagating against a piece of gravel or reinforcement bar. However, if a crack occurs in
a glass panel, the crack will keep on growing which can cause complete loss of coherence
and thus collapse. If an impact occurs and breaks one layer or even both layers of the
glass, the interlayer can still prevent penetration and any broken pieces of the glass will
still remain bonded to the interlayer. Therefore, the likely hood of serious cuts and
injuries from falling glasses are minimized (The Institution of Structural Engineers, 1999).
Even though laminated glass can reduce the risk of injuries cause by falling glass, it is
costly to maintain since the top layer has to be changed and replaced every two years
(Nijsse, 2002). Two layers of glass can be glued together without making the joint
visible by applying PVB (polyvinylbutyrate), the most commonly used transparent foil.
According to Nijsse (2002) and The Institution of Structural Engineers (1999), the largest
possible size of laminated glass is 2.50m x 4.50 m and 6 m x 3m, respectively.
2.6 Strength of glass
Generally, loading on a structure induce bending moments in the structural

members. The bending moments are analyzed and assessed. In order that the benefits of
the analysis can be realized, the values of the bending moments must be used to check the
stress levels developed in the members subjected to the load. Hence, a check for safety on
the value of the maximum bending stress initiated from the maximum bending moment
value used on the basis of unfactored loading not exceed the design stress.
For a structure made of glass, the undesirable characteristic of this material, i.e. its
brittle character can cause fracture especially where there are flaws on the surface of the
glass which normally leads to stress concentration. Hence, the possibility of the
formation of stress concentration cannot be overlooked and must be considered in the
design procedure whenever glass is used.

11
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 2.2 shows the design stresses of different types of glass, such as float glass,
heat-strengthened glass and toughened glass. The values of the design stresses are for use
with factored loads and, where appropriate, for non-linear analysis. In this dissertation,
toughened glass is used and therefore the maximum bending stress value obtained from
the glass footbridge analysis were compared with the design stress/strength of toughened
glass given in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Design Stresses (Concept Richtlijn: Construction Glass (Holland), October
1996)
Type of glass Permanent loads Medium-term loads Short-term (gust)
loads
Float glass 7 N/mm2-single 17 N/mm2-single 28 N/mm2-single
6 N/mm2-double 14 N/mm2-double 24 N/mm2-double
Heat-strengthened 22 N/mm2-single 24 N/mm2-single 37 N/mm2-single

Glass 19 N/mm2-double 21 N/mm2-double 32 N/mm2-double
Toughened glass 50 N/mm2-single 53 N/mm2-single 56 N/mm2-single
43 N/mm2-double 46 N/mm2-double 48N/mm2-double
Note: single: for a single pane, whether monolithic or laminated.
double: for each pane of a double glazed unit.
2.7 Method of analysis
Due to complexity of certain structures that cannot be solved using the classical
analytical technique, therefore these structural forms should be analysed using one
powerful tool, the finite element method. In the application of the finite element method,
many simultaneous algebraic equations are produced. Hence, a digital computer becomes
a necessity for the computation. To date there are already many commercial general

12
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
purpose finite element package available, such as ANSYS, ASKA, NASTRAN, SAP,
ABACUS and LUSAS (Cook et al. 1989). For this dissertation Program SAP 2000
(Nonlinear Version 9) 2004 has been used to carry out the analysis. This program is
tremendously resourceful and is a great program with many features and functions.
2.8 Vibration
Generally, structures like pedestrian footbridges are subject to static and also
dynamic loadings. The pedestrians causing the footbridge to be in motion, makes the
footbridge to experience vibration. If magnitude of the vibration coincides with the
natural frequency of the footbridge, it can become unsafe (Smith, 1998). Hence,
footbridges must be designed to be susceptible to vibrations.
Static loads are constant while dynamic loads are time-variant. The magnitude,
direction or point of application of a dynamic load varies with time and the dynamic
responses are time-varying deflection and time-varying stress (Hauksson, 2005).
2.8.1 Dynamic System
Figure 2.2 shows a basic dynamic system. Dynamic behaviour can be defined
using equation of motion given in Maguire and Wyatt 2002. Equation of motion relates
the external applied force with the inertia force, damping force and stiffness, given as
follows;
Inertia force + damping force + stiffness force = external force
or, in algebraic form:
•• •
M y + C y + Ky = f (t ) (Equation 2.1)

13
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
By solving the above equation, dynamic response, deflection y is obtained.
Figure 2.2 Basic Dynamic System , (Maguire and Wyatt 2002).
The form of equation of motion without damping and without applied external force is;
••
M y + Ky = 0 (Equation 2.2)
The general solutions in the form of simple harmonic motion are;
••
y=~
y sin ϖt and y = −ϖ 2 ~
y sin ϖt (Equation 2.3)
Substituting the above equations into Equation 2.2 gives:

14
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
K~
y 0 = ϖ 2 M~
y0 (Equation 2.4)
This is known as the eigenvalue problem, where ϖ 2 is the eigenvalue and y 0 is the
eigenvector. ϖ is the natural frequency in radians per second so that the eigenvalue is
square of the natural frequency.

n = ϖ / 2π is the corresponding natural frequency in cycles per second (Hz).
2.8.2 Modal Analysis
Modal analysis consists of the formulation and solution method for the eigenvalue
problem. Modal analysis can be carried out to determine the natural frequencies and
vibration mode shapes of a structure during free vibration. This analysis is commonly
performed using finite element method which is available in finite element programs
including Program SAP 2000. The results of the analysis are given in terms of
frequencies and mode shapes of the structure (Hauksson, 2005).
2.8.3 Natural Frequency or Free Vibration without damping
The natural frequency of a structure depends on the stiffness and mass (including
self weight) of the structure. However it does not depend on the loadings acting on the
structure. The frequencies obtained from the modal analysis conducted on a particular
structure are important to verify that the frequency of any functional loading will not
coincide with the natural frequency of the structure. But if this condition does occur it
will consequently trigger resonance to the structure, which then leads to huge oscillations.
According to C. F. Beards, 1996 the natural frequency of a simple system for example a
body mass m supported by a spring of stiffness k is (1/2π). √ (k/m) Hz is required to
increase by a factor of two. This can be reached either by reducing m to 1/4m or by
increasing k to 4k. Figure 2.3 shows the effect of mass and stiffness changes on dynamic
response. Whilst changes of stiffness and mass effect the natural frequency, the dynamic

15
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
response at other frequencies are also very different. Obviously, careful analysis is
therefore essential to foresee effect of any changes on the structure whether its in the
design stage or even a modification to an existing structure.
Figure 2.3: Effect of mass and stiffness changes on dynamic response (C. F. Beards 1996)
2.8.4 Vibration control
Sometimes vibration can be reduced or avoided by eliminating the dynamic

loading acting on the structure. For instance we can control the natural frequency of a
building or bridge by increasing the stiffness and reducing the mass. However note that it
may be sometimes difficult to achieve an optimum value required. Therefore designing a
device that can absorb the vibration in the structure may be more efficient and
economical in order to reduce the dynamic effect experienced by the structure, (Smith,
1998).

16
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
2.9 Connections
After an earthquake, those steel frame buildings that are still standing, may suffer
major damages in terms of cracking at their welded connections. Other than the structural
frame, connections play a very important role in making sure that the structure is able to
sustain the intended loadings. Either bolted connections or welded connections are
commonly used for steel structures. Since usage of steel as a building material has been
in existence for decades, therefore the design procedure for connection of steel members,
is already established in standard code of practice. For steel connection design
calculations, the average bearing stress, shear and tensile stress is required. However, for
a brittle material like glass the approach for its connection design procedure is
comparatively more rigorous. Besides needing the value of the average bearing, shear and
tensile stress, the design calculation also needs the value of the localized tensile stress
concentration to ensure a safe design (Benjamin, 2001). In the process, forces developed
should be properly and smoothly transferred between the glass members through the steel
plates and bolts of the connections.
2.10 Examples of Glass Structures
The following paragraphs describe structures that use glass as their primary
structural material.
2.10.1 A building in Amstelveen, Netherlands
The following describes an example of the usage of glass panels as beams for a
structure. From 1994 to 2000, two long glass beams had been constructed for a building
in Amstelveen, Netherlands. The beams spanning 21m and 27m are composed of 7 and 9
glass sub-panels respectively. Each panel consists of three layers of toughened glass

17
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
where the outside panels are both 6mm thick and the inner panel is 15mm thick. In this
case the designers faced difficulty on how to connect the sub-panels structurally together,
so that the forces are properly transferred through the connections. To connect the sub-
panels, large steel plates and lots of bolts were used. Figure 2.4 shows how tensile forces
are transferred through two glass sub-panels. The transfer of forces from the bolt to the
glass sub-panels have to be in a smooth, elastic, way. To ensure a smooth transfer and to
avoid stress concentration due to little cracks caused by drilling of the hole, the edges of
the holes were polished thoroughly, so that there are no sharp edges formed in the glass
surface (Nijsse, 2002).
Figure 2.4: Transfer of tensile forces in the glass connection, (Nijsse, 2002).

18
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
2.10.2 A museum at Zwelle in Netherlands
The following paragraph gives another example where glass has been used.
Figure 2.5 shows a glass stairway built for a museum at Zwelle in Netherlands. It was
constructed during 1995 to 1998. Each tread of the stairway spans about 1100mm and
consists of two layers of 15mm laminated annealed glass. To support each tread, a glass
lock was glued to the banister. Because the life span of the glue was uncertain, a bolt
connection was applied as shown in Figure 2.6 which gives the detail of the complete
connection of the banister beam.
Figure 2.5:View from under the stairway, (Nijsse, 2002).

19
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure2.6: Shows the detail of the complete connection of the banister beam, (Nijsse,
2002).
2.10.3 Rotterdam Glass Bridge
There are thousand of bridges all over the world and bridges are truly everywhere,
but seeing a bridge made of glass is definitely a rare case. The following describes an
important glass bridge structure.
In April in 1994, in the Rotterdam area in Netherlands, a glass footbridge

spanning a distance of 3.5m with a height of 3m above ground level was constructed to
provide passage from one office building to another. The purpose of the bridge was to
ease access for the employees enabling them to avoid going outdoors to enter the other
building. The glass bridge comprises of two primary beams each having a length of 3.5m
with a depth of 300mm. Meanwhile, each secondary beam, which is also known as the
floor plate and spans over the primary beams, consists of 3 pieces of 10mm thick float
glass plates joined together. The glass walls which protect pedestrians from weather are

20
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
made up of two pieces of 15mm thick float glass plate, glued together by an adhesive
silicone strip. For architectural purposes the bottom of the bridge is highly polished and
the individual glass details are connected together by stainless steel which is a perfect
match for glass. Figure 2.7 shows a close up view of the glass bridge. Figure 2.8 shows
the cross section details of the glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002).
(i)
(ii)
Fig 2.7: Shows the close up view of the glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002).

21
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 2.8: Shows the cross section details of the glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002).
2.10.4 Millennium Footbridge, London
Over the past years there are several cases of footbridges experiencing vibration
due to pedestrian induced loading. On the opening day in June 2000 the Millennium
Footbridge, London experienced horizontal vibration induced by horizontal synchronized
pedestrian load which was caused by 80,000 to 10,000 people crossing the bridge. As a
result dampers were fitted to the Millennium Footbridge to lessen the ‘sway’ caused by
high pedestrian densities. Therefore the analysis of structural vibration is necessary in
order to calculate the natural frequencies of a structure, and the response to the expected
excitation. In this way it can be determined whether a particular structure will fulfill its
intended function. Conventional beam footbridges of spans greater than 25m are likely to
have a fundamental natural frequency within the range of walking pace frequency. A
valuable closed-form approximation is given in BS5400 Part 2, (Maguire & Wyatt, 2002).
According to (Hauksson, 2005) many footbridges have a vertical and horizontal

frequency of 1.4-2.4Hz and 0.7-1.2Hz respectively. When walking over a bridge
pedestrians are more tolerant of vertical vibration than horizontal vibration. Based on

22
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
BD37/01, 1989 the total minimum range of vertical and horizontal frequency are 5Hz and
1.5Hz respectively.
Therefore bridges are susceptible to suffer excessive vibration under pedestrian

action if the frequency is below the minimum ranged in the table above. It is also
essential to consider horizontal and vertical pedestrian excitation is apparent. This,
section which is a merely a literature review, focuses on dynamic loads induced by static
load of pedestrians which is taken as 5kN/mm2 with accordance considering it under free
vibration only.

23
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
CHAPTER 3
2D MODEL AND MODAL ANALYSIS OF GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.1 Introduction
Figure 3.1 shows a detailed model of a glass footbridge that has not been
constructed yet. This model was taken from a book titled Glass in Structures (Nijsse,
2002). The concept was by Joris Luchinger, a graduating architecture student, who drew
and sent the drawing as shown in Figure 3.2 for his project submission in a design
competition. The goal of the competition was to propose a structure that can be used to
cross the wide waters in the Floriade area in The Netherlands. Joris Luchinger proposed a
complicated footbridge, entirely made of glass.
As shown in Figure 3.1, the proposed structure consists of two parts which are
detached from each another. Each part extends outwards approximately 10.5m, making
the total span of the bridge to be about 21m. The footbridge has six large glass beams
used as its primary girders. The beams are tapered in the middle of the span to create their
“just not meeting” appearance. Each glass beam comprises of three longitudinal panels,
and each panel is formed from 4 layers of 15mm thick toughened glass, laminated by
resin. Meanwhile, for each secondary beam which spans between the primary beams, the
height is 150mm and consists of 2 x 10 mm annealed laminated glass rectangular plates.
These secondary beams are at 30mm centre to centre making a total of 300 beams
forming the floor of the bridge. The primary beams which are also known as the main
girders are connected to the secondary beams by a stainless steel shoe fastened in an
inverted U-profile. The small secondary beams are ensured of lateral stability by
providing tensioned steel cables in the plan of the bridge deck.

24
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Since this bridge has not been constructed and only a detail architectural drawing
was given, a model and linear elastic analysis of this glass footbridge is undertaken in
order to determine the behavior of the proposed glass footbridge structure.
Figure 3.1 Architectural drawing of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002)
Figure 3.2(i) Close up view of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002)

25
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 3.2(ii) Front view of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002)
Figure 3.2(iii) Side view of glass footbridge, (Nijsse, 2002)

26
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.2 Modeling Approach
The use of glass as a structural material has undergone a marked changed in the world
of structural engineering. To create safe structures it is necessary and common in any
engineering design to analyze the structure before it is constructed. It is also wise to think
ahead during the early stage of conceptual design, making approximate calculation in the
process, so that problems that may occur on the structure can be minimized. Therefore
good practice for model testing of any structure is undertaken by developing a reasonable
Finite Element (FE) model before construction.
For this investigation, analysis using a general purpose structural analysis programme,
i.e. SAP 2000 (Nonlinear Version 9) 2004 had been performed. This programme is
suitable for the analysis of structures subject to static and dynamic loadings. In this
investigation, the structural response of the model in terms of its displacement and
resulting forces due to the excitation of loads was determined.
In using SAP 2000, values of the material and section properties, support and loading
conditions and dimensions of the model become the input data for the programme in
order to determine the behavior of the model. This structure was modeled and analysed
using the Programme SAP 2000 where the performance of the structure using different
types of support conditions were investigated. Thus, the maximum and minimum bending
moment, shear force and deflection were obtained. Besides these the frequency and
deflection limits of the glass footbridge were determined in order to satisfy the design
code limits of footbridges as specified in (BD 37/01, 1989).

27
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.3 Formation of the 2D model
To carry out the analysis, a two dimensional model of an inner girder was created
using SAP 2000. In order to create a simple 2D model, the structural plan in a 3D view is
first considered, before a typical 2D structure can be isolated. As stated earlier, the
original bridge of the structure consists of 6 large panels arranged to be 1.0m apart from
each other. There are 3000 small secondary beams placed perpendicular to the panels,
where each beam is 1.0m in length and 60mm in depth, forming the floor of the bridge.
However, for this investigation, the length and depth of the secondary beams was
converted into an equivalent width and depth of a flat slab, 1.0m and 60mm respectively.
The 6 large glass panels were modeled as beam finite elements. The above consideration
simplified the input data for SAP 2000.
The dimensions of the main beam were taken from the drawing of the bridge
drawn by Joris Luchinger (Nijsse, 2002). The main girder as shown in Figure 3.2 was
modeled using beam finite elements using SAP 2000. Figure 3.3 shows the 2D structural
drawing of the main girder that was drawn using AutoCAD. The beam was modeled as
finite elements having a hinge at the middle of the span. This non-prismatic girder is
divided into seven elements. As shown in the finite element model in Figure 3.4, the
seven elements labeled as FSEC1, FSEC2, FSEC3, FSEC4, FSEC5, FSEC6 and FSEC7,
define the finite beam elements of the main girder under investigation. Every beam
element has constant width, 60mm, but with different heights and lengths thus creating
different values of longitudinal sectional area, volume and mass as tabulated in Table 3.1.
Each beam element has its own values of cross sectional area and moment of inertia,
tabulated in Table 3.2. The other important input necessary for a finite element model is
the material properties of its elements. Therefore all beam elements exhibit a Modulus of
Elasticity, density and Poisson’s ratio as 70 kN/m3, 2500kg/m3 as 0.22 respectively.
These values have been taken from a book titled Structural use of glass in buildings
(Institute of Structural Engineering (ICE), 1999), and are typical for annealed glass.

28
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 3.1 Properties of the primary beam finite elements

Beam Longitudinal Volume Mass = Volume x Density
2 3
Element sectional area (m ) (m ) (kg)
FSEC1 4609.6 x 10-3 276.6 x 10-3 691.4
FSEC2 2548.0 x 10-3 152.9 x 10-3 382.2
FSEC3 2304.0 x 10-3 138.2 x 10-3 345.6
FSEC4 4266.8 x 10-3 256.0 x 10-3 640.0
FSEC5 3047.7 x 10-3 182.9 x 10-3 457.2
FSEC6 1828.6 x 10-3 109.7 x 10-3 274.3
-3 -3
FSEC7 609.5 x 10 365.7 x 10 91.4

29
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 3.3: 2D Structural drawing of girder (mm)
Figure 3.4: Finite Element Model of girder.

30
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 3.2 Cross Sectional properties of beam elements

Element Width Height Cross section Moment of Inertia Moment of Inertia
3
b h A = bh Ixx = bh /12 Iyy = hb3/12
(mm) (mm) (m2) (m4) (m4)
FSEC1 60.0 2861.4 171.7 x 10-3 117.1 x 10-3 5.2 x 10-5
FSEC2 60.0 2530.9 151.9 x 10-3 81.1 x 10-3 4.6 x 10-5
FSEC3 60.0 2288.5 137.3 x 10-3 60.0 x 10-3 4.1 x 10-5
FSEC4 60.0 1896.4 113.8 x 10-3 34.1 x 10-3 3.4 x 10-5
FSEC5 60.0 1354.5 81.3 x 10-3 12.4 x 10-3 2.4 x 10-5
FSEC6 60.0 812.7 48.8 x 10-3 2.7 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-5
FSEC7 60.0 270.9 16.3 x 10-3 0.1 x 10-3 4.9 x 10-5
3.4 Bridge loadings

Loads acting on the girder, i.e. dead load Gk, (self weight and weight of deck slab) and
imposed load Qk, (pedestrian loading) are estimated as follows.
i) To determine the dead load of the girder:
density of glass, ρ = 2500 kg/m3
unit weight of glass = (2500 kg/m3 x 9.81N /kg) = 24525N/m3 = 24.5kN/m3
Self weight, Gk per metre length of girder = (mass kg x 9.81(N /kg))/ length m
For Beam FSEC1, mass = 691.44 kg
Length = 1.738 m
Gk = 691.44 x 9.81 / 1.738 = 3.98 kN/m
For the other beam elements, the self weights are shown in Table 3.3.
Weight of deck slab transferred to per metre length of girder,
Gk = Slab thickness x Unit weight of glass x width of slab
Where,
Slab thickness = 0.06m
Width of slab = 1.0m
Hence, Gk of deck slab = 0.06m x 24.525kN/m3 x 1.0m
= 1.47kN/m

31
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
ii) To determine the imposed load on the girder:

Imposed load transferred to per metre length of girder,
Qk = Pedestrian load x width of slab
Where
Pedestrian load = 5.0kN/m2 (From BD37/88 Clause 6.5.1)
Width of slab = 1.0m
Hence, Qk = 5kN/m2 x 1.0m = 5.0kN/m
Loadings on the beam elements are shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Loadings on the beam elements

Beam elements Self weight, Gk Gk from deck slab Qk
kN/m kN/m kN/m
FSEC1 3.9 1.47 5.0
FSEC2 3.7 1.47 5.0
FSEC3 2.4 1.47 5.0
FSEC4 2.8 1.47 5.0
FSEC5 2.0 1.47 5.0
FSEC6 1.2 1.47 5.0
FSEC7 0.4 1.47 5.0
3.5 Load combination
Figure 3.5 (i), (ii) and (iii) show the finite element model subjected to dead load from
self weight, dead load transferred from the weight of deck slab and imposed load
transferred from the deck slab respectively. For the combination values the dead load Gk
and imposed load Qk, a partial factor of safety of γf=1.0 is applied to all load
combinations at serviceability limit state. The glass footbridge finite element model in
Figure 3.5(ii) and (iii) carries a uniformly distributed dead load from deck slab 1.47kN/m
and a uniformly distributed imposed load of 5kN/m respectively. Meanwhile figure 3.5 (i)

32
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
shows the different seven dead loads applied onto the beam elements of the finite element
model due to the non-prismatic shape of the girder
Figure 3.5 (i) Dead load, Gk of self weight (kN)
Figure 3.5(ii) Dead load, Gk from weight of deck slab (kN)
Figure 3.5(iii) Imposed load Qk , from pedestrian loading (kN)

33
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.6 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Results
The objective of the finite element analysis of this 2D finite element model is to
investigate the response of the glass bridge structure due to static loads. The effects of
using different types of support conditions i.e. pinned-pinned (ModelPP) or fixed-fixed
(ModelFF) supports were also investigated. Hence, FEA using pinned-pinned and fixed-
fixed supports were conducted and the results are compared. Once all appropriate data
had been entered into the Programme SAP 2000, the model was analyzed. The results
giving the values and locations of maximum bending moment, shear force and deflection
are tabulated in Table 3.4. The bending moment diagram, shear force diagram and
deformed shape of the models using both types of supports are shown in Figure 3.6 and
3.7 respectively.
Figure 3.6(i): Bending moment diagram with pinned-pinned support (kNm)
Figure 3.6(ii): Shear force diagram with pinned-pinned support (kN)

34
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 3.6(iii): Deformed shape with pinned-pinned support
Figure 3.7(i): Bending moment diagram with fixed-fixed support (kNm)
Figure 3.7(ii): Shear force diagram with fixed-fixed support (kNm)

35
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 3.7(iii): Deformed shape with fixed-fixed support
Table 3.4: Maximum moment, shear force and deflection of the glass footbridge
Supports Maximum moment Maximum shear force Maximum deflection
Value Location Value location Value location
kNm kN mm
Pinned- 173.2 at quarter 58.3 At support 28.3 near
pinned, (+ve) span (-ve) middle
ModelPP span
Fixed- 499.3 At support 97.5 At support 3.1 near
fixed, (-ve) (-ve) middle
ModelFF span
For the same bridge, based on the results in Table 3.4, it clearly shows that the
type of support conditions influences the distribution of the bending moment, shear force
and deflection of the glass footbridge. A high bending moment, 173.2 kNm is located
within the span at quarter distance for ModelPP, whereas for ModelFF the moment is
only 91.1kNm at the same location. Hence, ModelPP requires a bigger section modulus
(or Moment of Inertia) at this point compare to ModelFF. High section modulus can be
obtained by increasing the depth, where the width can be kept constant. However, for
ModelFF its bending moment and shear force are high at the supports. Hence, ModelFF
should have higher depth at its supports compare to ModelPP. Comparing the maximum
deflections for both models, the value for ModelPP is very much higher. For ModelPP, its
maximum deflection value must not exceed the allowable limit, given in standard. In

36
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
general the deflection for a beam should not exceed span/250 in accordance with the code
of practice for both steel and concrete design. Here, the deflection limit for a reinforced
concrete beam was used as bench mark, since the limit for glass beam is not yet available.
For the glass footbridge having a span length of 20.5m the deflection should not exceed
82mm. As the maximum deflection obtained from the finite element Program SAP 2000
was 28.3mm and 3.1mm for Model PP and Model FF respectively, this shows that the
footbridge is safe because it satisfies the requirement limiting check for the deflection.
3.7 Frequencies and mode shapes from modal analysis
For the footbridge to be fit for its intended use, a modal analysis in order to determine
the frequency and mode shapes due to vibration of the glass structure was carried out. In
order to ensure that the programme used is providing sensible results within the required
limits, it is necessary to compare it with the frequency and deflection limits of footbridges,
where the minimum frequency limits are given in Table 3.5. However for this dissertation
only vertical vibration of the glass footbridge is checked and it is expected to have a
natural frequency up to 5 Hz in order to satisfy the design criteria of footbridges.
Table 3.5 Minimum Natural Frequencies for Footbridges (BD37/01, 1989)

Vertical (unloaded) fV > 5Hz
Horizontal (loaded) fH > 1.5Hz
The comparison of natural frequencies of 3 modes extracted from the modal

analysis is summarized in Table 3.6. Meanwhile, Figure 3.8 and 3.9 show the first three
modes and frequencies of the glass footbridge model with pinned-pinned and fixed-fixed
supports respectively. In comparison with the first model, it can be seen that the natural
frequencies of the floor have increased. Consequently, the floor model with fixed
supports is stiffer than the model with pinned support.

37
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
(i) Mode 1
(ii) Mode 2
(iii) Mode 3
Figure 3.8 First three modes and frequencies of model with pinned-pinned supports.

38
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
(i) Mode 1
(ii) Mode 2
(iii) Mode 3
Figure 3.9 First three modes and frequencies of model with fixed-fixed supports.

39
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 3.6: Frequency and mass participation factor of 2D model

Nr .of Mode Pinned support Fixed support
Calculated Mass Calculated Mass
frequency participation frequency participation
f [Hz] factor (%) f [Hz] factor (%)
1st vertical mode 5.68 76.8 18.6 50.7

2nd vertical mode 31.2 77.4 32.4 51.0
3rd vertical mode 41.6 87.9 58.5 70.6
Since the vertical natural frequencies obtained from the modal analysis as shown in Table
3.6 are all exceeding the required minimum value as given in Table 3.5, therefore the
design criteria is satisfied. This indicates that any vibration effect on the footbridge will
be safely resisted.
3.8 Stresses
The maximum stress helps to define the strength of a structural member. The formula
which is used to calculate the bending stresses of the glass footbridge is given by the
following flexural formula:
1. σ = M y /I (Equation 3.1)
The bending stress at a particular spot in a structural member is associated with its
bending moment value at that point and the distance y from the centroid. This flexural
formula equals the product of moment, M and distance, y divided by the second moment
of area, I. Table 3.8 and 3.9 show the stresses calculated at the outer fibers of the girders
of the glass footbridge model with pinned-pined and fixed-fixed supports respectively.
The stresses obtained are at the ultimate limit state of loading and are compared with the
failure strength of toughened glass i.e. (43N/mm2-50N/mm2). To get the load at the

40
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
ultimate limit state, the dead load, Gk and imposed load, Qk are multiplied by factor of
safety, γf=1.2 and γf=1.5 respectively. Table 3.6 shows the loadings applied on the beam
elements. Once the ultimate loadings are calculated, they are used as the input data for the
finite element model. The model is analyzed using SAP, a finite element programme and
the results of maximum moments are then used to calculate the stresses in the glass
footbridge. Bending stress moment diagrams of the models with pinned-pinned and
fixed-fixed supports are shown in Figure 3.11 and 3.10 respectively.
Table 3.7 Ultimate Loading on beam finite elements

Beam elements Self weight, Gk Gk from deck Qk Ultimate load,
kN/m slab kN/m 1.2Gk + 1.5Qk
kN/m kN/m
FSEC1 3.9 1.47 5.0 13.956
FSEC2 3.7 1.47 5.0 13.716
FSEC3 2.4 1.47 5.0 12.156
FSEC4 2.8 1.47 5.0 12.626
FSEC5 2.0 1.47 5.0 11.676
FSEC6 1.2 1.47 5.0 10.716
FSEC7 0.4 1.47 5.0 9.756

41
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 3.8: Bending stresses for model with pinned-pinned supports

Nodes Maximum Width Height Moment of Centroid Stress
Moment b h Inertia y σ = M y/I
M (mm) (mm) I = bh3/12 (mm) (N/mm2)
(kNm) (m4)
1 0 60 3070.7 144.8 x 10-3 1535.3 -
2 117.36 60 2652.1 93.3 x 10-3 1326.1 1.2
3 166.42 60 2409.7 70.0 x 10-3 1204.8 2.9
4 202.55 60 2167.3 50.9 x 10-3 1083.6 4.3
5 238.15 60 1625.4 21.5 x 10-3 812.7 9.0
6 213.08 60 1083.6 6.4 x 10-3 541.8 18.1
7 132.08 60 541.8 8.0 x 10-3 270.9 4.5
Table 3.9: Bending stresses for model with fixed-fixed supports

Nodes Maximum Width Height Moment of Centroid Stress
Moment b h Inertia y σ = M y/I
3
M (mm) (mm) I = bh /12 (mm) (N/mm2)
(kNm) (m4)
1 691.8 60 3070.7 144.8 x 10-3 1535.3 7.32
2 480.6 60 2652.1 93.3 x 10-3 1326.1 6.83
3 376.48 60 2409.7 70.0 x 10-3 1204.8 6.48
4 285.73 60 2167.3 50.9x 10-3 1083.6 6.08
5 126.04 60 1625.4 21.5 x 10-3 812.7 4.76
6 31.06 60 1083.6 6.4 x 10-3 541.8 2.65
7 10.02 60 541.8 8.0 x 10-3 270.9 3.41

42
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
The results in Table 3.8 and 3.9 indicate that the maximum bending stresses for ModelPP
and ModelFF are 18.1N/mm2 and 7.31N/mm2 respectively. Since these values are not
more than the failure strength (43N/mm2 - 50N/mm2) of toughened glass, therefore the
footbridge made of this material would only being stressed within its allowable limit.

43
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 3.10: Bending stress moment diagram with fixed support
Figure 3.11: Bending stress moment with pinned support

44
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.9 Stresses at the connection
Due to the large size of each glass panel, being almost 10.5m in length with a variable
depth up to 2.8614m, each panel needs to be subdivided into at least 3 smaller size panels
which are connected with each other at Node 3 and Node 5 as shown in Figure 3.12. Each
sub-panel is formed from 4 layers of 15mm thick toughened glass. Figure 3.13 shows the
detail connection where the sub-panels are fixed together. At the connection, two
connecters are used to transfer the bending moment between the sub-panels. For the
purpose of designing the connecters at Node 5, the maximum bending moment value
along the panel is used as the design moment acting on the connection. Hence, for Model
PP the maximum bending moment in the large panel at this location is 238.15kNm as
given in Table 3.8. Once the connecters have been selected, stress levels in the
connection will be checked.
The following shows the procedure adopted to design for the connection.
Step1 : To determine the force and type of bolt at Node 5 for Model PP;
Moment acting on the connection, M = 238.15 kNm ( from Table 3.8)

= 238.15 x 103 kNmm
Vertical Distance, d = (Height of beam at node 5) – (2 x Height of the connecter)
= 1625.4 – 2x 150
= 1325.4 mm
Note that the vertical distance d, is defined as the total height of the beam at
node5,
minus height of the two connecters. (Each connecter is 150mm high.)
Horizontal shear force acting on the connection, Ftension =M/d
= (238.15 x 103 kNmm
1325.4mm
= 179.7 kN

45
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
The above implies that the shear capacity of the connection bolts should be more
than 179.6kN for a safe design.
Hence, consider a total of 8, M20 Grade 8.8 bolts in accordance with BS 4395:
Parts 1 & 2 with an individual shear capacity of 184kN in double shear.
Total shear capacity from two bolts is 2 x 184 = 368 kN and as 179.7 < 368 kN
the connection is OK!
Step2 : To check the stress level;
Select steel plate 150mm height, 70mm wide and 10mm thick.
Tensile area= (70 – (20 + 2) ) mm x 10mm =480mm2
where diameter of bolt=20mm and
clearance hole=2mm
Stress = (tensile force / Tensile area)
= (179.6 x 103N ) / (480mm2)
= 374.2 N/mm2
However as there are two straps carrying this load, one each side of the glass
beam this strap can be divided by two; hence the tensile stress in each strap is 187
N/mm2. Since the steel grade S275 and the stress in one strap is less than
275N/mm2, therefore the selected strap is adequate.
Therefore two connectors with bolts size M20 Grade 8.8 are placed at Node 3 and Node 5
in Model PP. The above steps are repeated when designing the connection at Node 3 and
Node 5 in Model FF, where the maximum moment 691.8kNm for the panel is taken to be
the moment acting at the connection.

46
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 3.10: Stresses at connection

Type of Maximum Vertical Ftension= M/d Tensile Stress in one
support moment, M distance , d (N) area strap
(kNmm) (mm) A = (Ftension/ A)/2
(mm2) (N/mm2)
Model PP 238.15x103 1325.4 179.7 x 103 480 187.0

3 3
Model FF 691.8x10 2770.7 249.7 x 10 480 260.1
Therefore for Model FF, two connectors with a total of 8, M20 Grade 8.8 in accordance
with BS 4395: Part 1 & 2 with shear capacity of 184kN in double shear are applied.
Total shear capacity from two bolts = 368.0kN > 260kN OK!
Figure 3.12 (i) sub panel with connection (dimension are in mm)

47
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 3.12 (ii) Connection details, adopted from Nijsse, 2002

(All dimensions are in mm)

48
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
3.10 Concluding Remarks
In this chapter finite element analysis and modal analysis are carried out. In the
finite element analysis, SAP2000 finite element software has been used to create and
analyse the 2D model of the footbridge. The analytical results allow calculation of the
maximum bending stress of the footbridge. Since the maximum bending stress value is
lesser than the failure strength of the material of the footbridge, therefore this footbridge
is safe. In the modal analysis the results show that the frequency of the footbridge is
higher than the minimum required value. This implies that the glass footbridge is safe
from excessive vibration.
Since a 2D finite element model can only be used to check the vibration in the
vertical direction, therefore a 3D finite element model becomes necessary for knowing
the horizontal and torsional vibrations. Therefore, in the next chapter finite element
model of the footbridge in 3D is created and analysed.

49
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
CHAPTER 4
3D MODEL AND MODAL ANALYSIS OF GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter a description of, the same investigation which was conducted
previously for the 2D model is outlined for a 3D model. A comparison between the two
numerical models is also discussed. A 3D modal analysis can give extra information
regarding the mode shapes of the structure, i.e. horizontal and torsional mode shapes
which a 2D modal analysis is unable to produce. The results obtained from the 3D modal
analysis are to be compared with the results from 2D modal analysis obtained in Chapter
3.
4.2 Formation of the 3D Model
A three dimensional finite element modal analysis was also constructed using the
Programme SAP 2000 (Nonlinear Version 9, 2004). In this investigation the 2D model
created in Chapter 3, serves as an early analysis step for the three dimensional problem.
For the formation of this 3D model, the structure is modeled into 6 large glass panels
together with a deck slab, 60mm thick. Hence, the main beam (or girder) defined in the
2D modal analysis in Chapter 3 is duplicated into 5 other girders which are at 1m centre
to centre, making a total of 6 girders all together. However, for the 3D model analysis,
the uniformly distributed dead and imposed loads from deck slab, which are transferred
to the outer or edge girder, differs from the inner girder by a half, since the edge girder
only carries half of the deck slab width. In the 2D model analysis, only beam finite
elements of the primary girder are taken into consideration. In contrast, in the 3D model

50
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
analysis, both primary and secondary beam finite elements are defined in the Programme
SAP. Each secondary beam is modeled as 7 beam finite elements to simulate the solid
deck of 60mm thick. As shown in the finite element model in Figure 4.1, the seven beam
finite elements labeled as FSEC8, FSEC9, FSEC10, FSEC11, FSEC12, FSEC13 and
FSEC14, define the finite elements of the secondary beams under investigation. All
components in the 3D model i.e. primary and secondary beams exhibit the same material
properties of glass as specified in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3. For this specific analysis,
every secondary beam finite elements have a constant height and length of 60mm and
1000mm respectively. However, their widths are different, thus creating different values
of section properties as tabulated in Table 4.1.

51
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.1: Finite element model of the glass footbridge (3D view)

52
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 4.1 Cross Sectional properties of the secondary beam finite elements
Elements Width Height Cross section Moment of Inertia Moment of Inertia
b h A = bh Ixx = bh3/12 Iyy = hb3/12
(mm) (mm) (m2) (m4) (m4)
FSEC8 2241.0 60.0 134.5 x 10-3 56.3 x 10-3 0.040 x 10-3
FSEC9 1006.8 60.0 60.4 x 10-3 5.1 x 10-3 0.018 x 10-3
FSEC10 1628.0 60.0 97.7 x 10-3 21.6 x 10-3 0.030 x 10-3
FSEC11 2250.0 60.0 135.0 x 10-3 57.0x 10-3 0.041 x 10-3
FSEC12 2250.0 60.0 135.0 x 10-3 57.0 x 10-3 0.041 x 10-3
FSEC13 2250.0 60.0 135.0 x 10-3 57.0 x 10-3 0.041 x 10-3
FSEC14 2350.0 60.0 138.0 x 10-3 14.2 x 10-3 4.100 x 10-3
4.3 Bridge loadings
For the 3D model, the edge girder carries half the load of the inner girder.
However, the dead load Gk, (self weight) for the edge girder is same as the inner girder.
Loading acting on the edge girder, i.e. dead load Gk, (weight of deck slab) and imposed
load Qk, (pedestrian loading) are estimated as follows.
(i) Dead load of edge girder,
weight of deck slab transferred to per metre length of edge girder, Gk
= Slab thickness x Unit weight of glass x width of slab
where,
unit weight of glass = 24.5 kN/m3 (Section 3.3, Chapter3)
slab thickness = 0.06m
width of slab = 0.5 m
Hence, Gk of deck slab = 0.06m x 24.5kN/m3 x 0.5 m
= 0.74kN/m

53
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
ii) Imposed load of edge girder,

imposed load transferred to per metre length of girder, Qk
= Pedestrian load x width of slab
where,
pedestrian load = 5.0kN/m2 (From BD37/88 Clause 6.5.1)
width of slab = 0.5 m
Hence, Qk = 5kN/m2 x 0.5 m = 2.5 kN/m
Loadings on the beam finite elements are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Loadings on the beam finite elements

Beam finite Self weight, Gk Edge girder Inner Girder
element kN/m Gk from Qk Gk from Qk
(edge & inner deck slab deck slab
girder) kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
FSEC1 3.9 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
FSEC2 3.7 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
FSEC3 2.4 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
FSEC4 2.8 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
FSEC5 2.03 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
FSEC6 1.2 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
FSEC7 0.4 0.74 2.5 1.47 5.0
4.4 Load combination
Figure 4.2 (i), (ii) and (iii) show the finite element model subjected to dead load from
self weight, dead load transferred from the weight of deck slab and imposed load
transferred from the deck slab respectively. For the combination value of the dead load
Gk and imposed load Qk, a partial factor of safety, γf=1.0 is applied to all load
combinations at serviceability limit state. The glass footbridge finite element model in

54
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.2(ii) and (iii) carries a uniformly distributed dead load from deck slab of
1.47kN/m and 0.74kN/m and a uniformly distributed imposed load of 5kN/m and
2.5kN/m for the inner and edge girder respectively. Meanwhile Figure 4.2 (i) shows the
different seven dead loads applied onto the beam elements of the finite element model
due the non-prismatic shape of the girder.
Figure 4.2 (i): The dead load, Gk of the self weight (kN).

55
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.2 (ii): The dead load, Gk from the weight of deck slab (kN).
Figure 4.2 (iii): The imposed load Qk , from the pedestrian loading (kN).

56
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
4.5 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Results
The aim of carrying out a finite element analysis of this 3D finite element model
is to investigate the response of the glass bridge structure due to static loads. The
behavior using different types of support conditions i.e. pinned-pinned (ModelPP) or
fixed-fixed (ModelFF) supports were also investigated. Hence, FEA using both types of
supports were conducted and the results are compared. The analysed models produced
values and locations of maximum bending moment, shear force and deflection as
tabulated in Table 4.3 and also diagrams of bending moment, shear force and deformed
shape of the models with different supports as shown in Fig 4.3 and 4.4.

57
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.3 (i): Bending moment diagram with pinned-pinned supports (kNm).

58
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.3 (ii): Shear force diagram with pinned-pinned supports (kN).
Figure 4.3 (iii): Deformed shape with pinned-pinned supports.

59
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.4 (i): Bending moment diagram with fixed-fixed supports (kNm).

60
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.4 (ii): Shear force diagram with fixed-fixed supports (kN).
Figure 4.4 (iii): Deformed shape with fixed-fixed supports (mm).

61
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 4.3: Maximum moment, shear force and deflection of glass footbridge (3D model).
Supports Maximum moment Maximum shear force Maximum deflection
Value Location Value location Value location
kNm kN mm
Pinned- 164.2 at quarter 64.4 At support 24.6 Near
pinned, (+ve) span (-ve) middle
ModelPP span
Fixed- 444.9 At support 98.4 At support 2.7 Near
fixed, (-ve) (-ve) middle
ModelFF span
Based on the results shown in Table 4.3, the type of support conditions obviously
influences the distribution of the bending moment, shear force and deflection of the glass
footbridge. Similar results are also obtained from the bridge analyzed in 2D (Figure 3.4).
A high bending moment of 164.2 kNm is located within the span at a quarter distance for
ModelPP, whereas for ModelFF the moment is only 65.190kNm at the same location.
Hence, ModelPP requires a bigger section modulus (or Moment of Inertia) around this
point compare to the section required for ModelFF. A higher section modulus can be
obtained by increasing the depth, where the width can be kept constant. However, for
ModelFF its bending moment and shear force are high at the supports. Hence, ModelFF
should have a greater depth at its supports.

62
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
4.6 Frequencies and modes of vibration on the models
Generally, a three dimensional modal analysis gives three types of mode shapes,
i.e. horizontal, vertical and torsionalas, compared to a two dimensional modal analysis
which can produce only two types of mode shape, namely vertical and horizontal. .
Figure 4.5 and 4.7 show the first three horizontal and vertical modes and frequencies of
the model with pinned-pinned and fixed-fixed supports respectively. Figure 4.6 and 4.8
shows the torsional mode and frequencies of the model with pinned-pinned and fixed-
fixed supports respectively.
Figure 4.5 (i) 1st horizontal mode

63
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.5 (ii) 2nd horizontal mode
Figure 4.5 (iii) 3rd horizontal mode

64
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.5 (iv) 1st vertical mode
Figure 4.5 (v) 2nd vertical mode

65
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.5 (vi) 3rd vertical mode

Figure 4.5 The first three horizontal and vertical modes and frequencies of the model with
Figure 4.6 Torsional mode and frequencies of the model with pinned-pinned supports.

66
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.7 (i) 1st horizontal mode
Figure 4.7 (ii) 2nd horizontal mode

67
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.7 (iii) 3rd horizontal mode
Figure 4.7 (iv) 1st vertical mode

68
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.7 (v) 2nd vertical mode
Figure 4.7 (vi) 3rd Vertical mode

Figure 4.7 The first three horizontal and vertical modes and frequencies of the model with
fixed-fixed supports.

69
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Figure 4.8 The torsional modes and frequencies of the model with fixed-fixed supports.

70
GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
BS5400 states that if the fundamental frequency of vertical and horizontal

vibration is less that 5 Hz and 1.5 Hz respectively, the risk of upwards and lateral
movements of unacceptable magnitude most probably occur and should be considered
in design. However for this specific analysis of the glass footbridge the results
obtained clearly shows that frequencies obtained for both conditions are within the
required limits.
Table 4.4: The frequency and mass participation factor of the 3D model.
Nr .of Mode Pinned-pinned supports Fixed-fixed supports
Calculated Mass Calculated Mass
frequency participation frequency participation
f [Hz] factor (%) f [Hz] factor (%)
1st vertical mode 5.9 76.7 19.6 50.3
2nd vertical mode 32.4 77.3 33.5 50.5
3rd vertical mode 42.7 84.7 60.9 70.1
1st horizontal mode 2.5 83.7 2.8 65.0
2nd horizontal 4.5 84.5 4.6 65.3
mode
3rd horizontal mode 5.2 98.1 6.6 84.0
Table 4.5: The torsional Mode of the 3D model.

Type of support Calculated frequency
f [Hz]
Pinned support (3D) 60.7
Fixed support (3D) 67.1
Y. Sahol Hamid, Msc Dissertation 71

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
4.7 Comparison between 2D and 3D
Table 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 compare the maximum moment, shear force and deflection
obtained from the 2D and 3D models. In the 2D analysis all the moments are carried
by the primary beams, hence the moments are slightly higher than in the 3D analysis
because in 3D the secondary beams also helps in carrying part of the moments. The
2D analysis is expected to give the maximum deflection due to the fact that the
maximum moments were obtained from this model there by giving the maximum
deflection. Whereas, the 3D had the maximum shear force because the secondary
beams will also contribute part of the shear and total shear will be carried by the
primary beam. While in the 2D model there will not be any contribution from the
secondary beams.
Table 4.6: Comparison of maximum moment between 2D and 3D model

Supports Maximum Moment Maximum Moment Maximum Moment,
2D Model 3D Model % difference
Value Location Value location between Models
kNm kNm
Pinned- 173.2 at quarter 164.2 at quarter 5.2%
pinned, (+ve) span (+ve) span
ModelPP
Fixed- 499.3 At support 444.9 At 10.9%
fixed, (-ve) (-ve) support
ModelFF

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 4.7: Comparison of maximum shear force between 2D and 3D model

Supports Maximum shear force Maximum shear force Maximum Shear
2D 3D Force, % difference
Value Location Value Location between Models
kN kN
Pinned- 58.3 At support 64.4 At 10.5%
pinned, (-ve) (-ve) support
ModelPP
Fixed- 97.5 At support 98.4 At 0.9%
fixed, (-ve) (-ve) support
ModelFF
Table 4.8: Comparison of maximum deflection between 2D and 3D model

Supports Maximum deflection Maximum deflection Maximum
2D Model 3D Model deflection, %
Value Location Value Location difference between
mm Mm Models
Pinned- 28.3 Near 24.6 near 13.1%
pinned, middle middle
ModelPP span span
Fixed- 3.1 Near 2.7 near 12.9%
fixed, middle middle
ModelFF span span
A comparison of the vertical vibration criteria using pinned-pinned and fixed-fixed

support conditions is presented in Table 4.9 and4.10 respectively. A comparison of
the vertical vibration criteria indicates that the frequency obtained from the 3D model
is only slightly higher than the values obtained from the 2D model by factors not
exceeding more than 5.4%. This also indicates that there is a good agreement between
the 2D and 3D model with a maximum difference in the order of 5%.

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Table 4.9: Comparison of the frequency and mass participation factor between the 2D
and 3D models for the pinned-pinned supports
Nr. of 2D Model 3D Model Maximum
Mode Calculated Mass Calculated Mass frequency, %
frequency participation frequency participation difference
f [Hz] factor (%) f [Hz] factor (%) between Models
1st vertical 5.68 76.8 5.9 76.7 3.9%
mode
2nd vertical 31.2 77.4 32.4 77.3 3.8%
mode
3rd vertical 41.6 87.9 42.7 84.7 2.6%
mode
Table 4.10: Comparison of the frequency and mass participation factor between 2D
and 3D model for fixed-fixed supports
Nr. of Mode 2D Model 3D Model Maximum
Calculated Mass Calculated Mass frequency, %
frequency participation frequency participation difference
f [Hz] factor (%) f [Hz] factor (%) between
Models
1st vertical 18.6 50.7 19.6 50.3 5.4%
mode
2nd vertical 32.4 51.0 33.5 50.5 3.4%
mode
3rd vertical 58.5 70.6 60.9 70.1 4.1%
mode

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
4.8 Concluding remarks
In this chapter, the footbridge is analysed using a 3D finite element model.

Modal analysis in 3D for the footbridge is also performed. All results obtained differ
slightly from those obtained from the 2D appraisal.

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 General
The summary and discussions of the numerical modeling, analytical work and
design procedure for the footbridge, are contained in this chapter. The conclusions
and further recommendations are also given for future studies.
5.2 Discussions and Conclusions
This dissertation presents the investigation on the behaviour of a glass

footbridge as shown in Figure 3.2. The footbridge is made of toughened glass, has 6
primary beams or panels and 3000 secondary beams which act as the floor deck . The
2D finite element model shown in Figure 3.4 is created using the Program SAP2000,
which is a finite element general purpose program. The model is formed using beam
finite elements. Calculations for the beam finite element properties and loading
conditions are shown in Section 3.3 and 3.4 respectively. The model having pinned-
pinned supports, Model PP is analysed and the analysis is repeated with model having
fixed-fixed support conditions, Model FF. Values in Table 3.4 indicate that the type of
supports, influence the analytical results, where Model PP has comparatively higher
maximum deflection whereas Model FF has higher maximum moment and shear
force.
Maximum stresses for the models are calculated, where for Model PP and
Model FF are 18.1N/mm2 (see Table 3.8) and 7.32N/mm2 (see Table 3.9) respectively.
Since these values are less than failure strength of toughened glass, typically 43
N/mm2 to 50 N/mm2, the footbridge using this type of toughened glass is considered
to be safe.

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Maximum deflection was 28.3mm and 3.1mm (See Table 3.4) for model PP
and Model FF respectively. Since these values are lesser than the limiting value,
82.0mm calculated based on code of practice, therefore the footbridge is safe.
Due to the large size of the glass panel (representing the primary beam), it is
subdivided into smaller size panels which need to be connected together. At the
connections, connectors using steel bolts and steel straps were selected. The stress
levels at the connections were checked and found to be adequate.
Although the analytical results using the 2D model was expected not to be
very different from the 3D model, this investigation proves that this was infact true,
because the results differ only slightly as shown in Table 4.6 to 4.8. Therefore,
carrying out a 3D analysis becomes unnecessary which would safe a considerable
amount of work as the 3D model and analyse of the footbridge is much more
complicated that the 2D analysis.
Modal analysis was carried out to determine the frequencies and mode shapes
due to the vibrations of the footbridge. Modal analysis using the 2D model produces
frequencies in a vertical mode only (Table 3.6), whereas using the 3D model
frequencies in 3 different modes can be obtained, vertical (Table 4.4), horizontal
(Table 4.4) and torsional (Table 4.5). Because the frequencies of vertical and
horizontal vibrations of this footbridge are more than the minimum value required
(Table 3.5) as specified in the standard, therefore vibrations of an unacceptable
magnitude would not occur in this footbridge. Because, the checks carried out indicate
that the footbridge satisfies the design criteria, the footbridge design is considered to
be safe and the structure is almost ready to be constructed.

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
5.3 Recommendations for future work
Although a large portion of the glass bridge has been designed in this investigation
their remains addition work which needs to be undertaken before the structure can be
fabricated and erected. Further consideration has to be given to the connections,
especially the support connections, which are subject to high shear loads and also to
the bearing stresses in the glass adjacent to the bolts. Because the main beams are
laminated careful consideration has to be given to the material chosen to use between
the individual laminations. It is important that the laminated beam acts as one
complete unit and that stresses are uniformly distributed throughout the thickness of
the beam otherwise the outer laminations may become overstressed and fail
prematurely.
As the proposed glass footbridge is a novel structure, if finance is available it would

be sensible to either construct a model of the structure or preferably strain gauge the
actual structure to check that the measured stresses under full load are in accordance
with those calculated from the finite element analysis. In addition the fundamental
frequency of the structure could be obtained by dynamically exciting the structure and
this could also be checked against the calculated value.

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
REFERENCE
Fay, B 2001, ‘Designing Glass Holes for Bearings: An Approach from First Principles
Adapted for the Practising Structural Glass Engineer’, Session 11, pp 136
Grand Canyon Skywalk Official Site [image] 2007. Retrieve September 2, 2007 from
www.nationalparkreservations.com
Hauksson, F 2005, ‘Dynamic Behavior of Footbridges Subjected To Pedestrians-

Induced Vibrations’, Master Dissertation, Lund University, Retrieved December 17,
2007, from Lund University Digital Library.
Michael McDonough’s photo stream [image] 2007. Retrieve June 10, 2007 from
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemcd/539914172/
Motorstv’s photo stream [image] 2007. Retrieve May 20, 2007 from http://

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BD37/88 1989, Departmental Standard – Loads for Highway Bridges, Highway and
Traffic Agency, London.
Beards, C.F 1996, Structural Vibration Analysis And Damping, John Wiley & Sons,
New York
Bhatt, P & Nelson H.M 1999, Structures, Addison Wesley Lonman Limited, Malaysia
BS4395-2:1969 Specification for high strength friction grip bolts and associated nuts
and washers for structural engineering. Higher grade bolts and nuts and general grade
washers.
Cook, R.D, Malkus, D.S & Plesha, M.E 1989, Concepts and Applications of Finite
Element Analysis, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Wisconsin.
Craig, R.R.J 1981, Structural Dynamics: An Introduction to Computer Methods, John

Wiley & Sons, New York.
French Association of Civil Engineering Working Group 1901, Technical Guide

Footbridges: Assessment of Vibration Behavior of Footbridges Under Pedestrian
Loading, Setra, France
Ledbetter, S & Harris, R (ed.) 1999, Glass in Buildings: Proceedings, University of

Bath, Bath.
Maguire, J.R & Wyatt, T.A 2002, ICE design and Practice: Dynamics: An
Introduction for civil and structural engineers, 2nd edition, Thomas Telford
Publishing, London.
Mosley, W.H, Bungey, J.H & Hulse, R 1999, Reinforced Concrete Design, 5th edition,
Palgrave, New York

GLASS FOOTBRIDGE
Nelson, J.K & McCormac, J.C 2003, Structural Analysis: Using Classical and Matrix
Methods, 3rd edition, , John Wiley & Sons, USA
Nijsse, R 2002, Glass in Structures, Birkhäuser, Berlin.
Overend, M 2002, ‘The Appraisal of Structural Glass Assemblies’, PhD Thesis,

University of Surrey, Retrieved December 17, 2007, from University of Surrey
Library.
Rice, P & Dutton, H 1995, Structural Glass, E & FN Spon, Paris.
Smith, J.W 1998, Vibration of Structures: Applications in civil engineering design,

Chapman and Hall, Bristol.
Steel Design Guide to BS 5950-1: 2000, 6th edition, Volume 1, Section Properties,
Member Capacities, The Steel Construction Institute and The British Constructional
Steelwork Association Limited 2002, London.
The Institute of Structural Engineers 1999, Structural Use of Glass in Buildings,

SETO, London
The Institute of Structural Engineers 1999, Structural Use of Glass in Buildings,

SETO, London. Retrieve ‘Creep and recovery of a thermally tempered glass plate at
room temperature.’ Proceeding of the Sixth International Conference on Architectural
and Automotive Glass, Tampere, Finland, 13-16 June, 1999.
View publication stats

Glass Footbridgeby Yazmin Sahol Hamid

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

Glass Footbridgeby Yazmin Sahol Hamid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Thesis · January 2007

Yazmin sahol hamid

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cover picture by Joris Luchinger © 2002.

For information, address:

MISS YAZMIN SAHOL HAMID

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

2nd JANUARY 2008

Author's Name: Miss Yazmin Sahol Hamid

Supervisor’s name: Professor Gerard Parke

Author’s Signature: Date: 01/05/2008

Hazrina Mansor, Charles, Yakub, Nanthankumar, Khairul, Patrick, Wuth, Godwin,

throughout my master’s education. Finally I would like to express my deepest

education and helping me to achieve my goals.

Yazmin Sahol Hamid

When a footbridge is made of glass, it shows to the pedestrians the wonder

This dissertation began with an architectural drawing of a glass footbridge.

2.2 Advantages of glass 6

2.3 History of glass 7

2.4 Properties of glass 8

2.5 Types of glass 9

2.5.1 Annealed float glass 9

2.5.2 Toughened glass 10

2.5.3 Laminated glass 10

2.6 Strength of glass 11

2.7 Method of analysis 12

2.8.1 Dynamic system 13

2.8.2 Modal analysis 15

2.8.3 Natural frequency or free vibration without damping 15

2.8.4 Vibration control 16

2.10 Example of glass structure 18

2.10.1 A building in Amestelveen, Netherlands 18

2.10.2 A museum at Zwelle in Netherlands 19

2.10.3 Rotterdam glass bridge 20

2.10.4 Millennium Footbridge, London 22

3 2D MODELS AND MODAL ANALYSIS OF GLASS FOOTBRIDGE

3.2 Modelling approach 27

3.3 Formation of the 2D model 28

3.4 Bridge loadings 31

3.5 Load combination 32

3.6 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Results 34

3.7 Frequencies and modes shapes from modal analysis 37

3.9 Stresses at the connection 45

3.10 Concluding remarks 49

4.2 Formation of the 3D model 50

4.3 Bridge loadings 53

4.4 Load combination 54

4.5 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Results 57

4.6 Frequencies and modes of vibration on the models 63

4.7 Comparisons between 2D and 3D 72

4.8 Concluding remarks 75

5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.2 Discussion and conclusion 76

5.3 Recommendation on future works 77

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2.1 Typical properties of annealed glass (The Institute of 9

Structural Engineers, 1999)

2.2 Design stresses (Concept Richtlijn: Construction Glass 12

(Holland), October 1996)

3.1 Properties of the primary beam finite elements 29

3.2 Cross Sectional properties of beam elements 31

3.3 Loadings on the beam elements 32