Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges
ISBN 978-0-7277-4146-2
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
doi: 10.1680/srcspb.41462.031
Chapter 3
Design criteria
The design criteria including the dynamics of pedestrian bridges
are widely discussed in the book Guidelines for the Design of
Pedestrian Bridges which was prepared by b Task Group 1.2
Bridges, Working Party Pedestrian Bridges (2005). The criteria
for the design of pedestrian bridges are given by Eurocode and
National Standards (Gulvanessian et al., 2002; Department
of Transport, 1988; AASHTO, 1997). Only key issues are
discussed in this chapter.
3.1. Geometric conditions
3.1.1 Deck width
From Chapter 11, in which 50 examples of pedestrian bridges
are presented, it is evident that width of pedestrian bridges
varies from 0.85 to 6.60 m. The width depends on the local
conditions and expected density of pedestrians. The width is
different if the bridge is situated on a trail, park or in a city.
The width of Japanese pedestrian bridges is usually smaller
than the width of bridges built in Europe and North America.
If the bridge is used by pedestrians only, the minimum width W1
of common bridges should be at least 3.00 m. If the bridge is
used by both pedestrians and bicycles, the width W2 should
be at least 3.50 m (Figure 3.1).
3.1.2 Grades
The maximum permissible longitudinal grade also depends
on the location. If the bridge is situated on a trail in the
Figure 3.1 Deck width and railings height
Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
mountains, the maximum slope can reach as much as 20%. If
the bridge is situated in a city, the slope has to accommodate
the disabled.
It is usually required that the slope of ramps and separated
pathways should not exceed 20 : 1 (5%). A maximum slope of
12 : 1 (8.33%) is acceptable for a rise of no more than 0.75 m
if a level landing of at least 1.5 m is provided at each end.
Some specications allow the maximum slope of 1 : 8
(12.50%) to be used for short ramps of maximum length of
3.00 m (Figure 3.2).
The bridges described in this book are mostly of a variable lon-
gitudinal slope. While suspension and cable-stayed bridges are
usually in convex (crest) elevation, stress ribbon bridges are in
concave (sag) elevation which is characteristic of this structural
type. Their shape is close to the shape of the second-degree
parabola.
The author is convinced that the value of the permissible slope
should not be given by the value of the maximum slope at one
point, but it should be derived from the conditions of the same
energy that a disabled person has to overcome.
It is important to realise that the average slope of the second-
degree parabola pavr 0.50pmax. For the parabola of the
length L and sag f 0.02L the maximum slope pmax 10%
31
 Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges

Figure 3.2 Longitudinal grade

5%
1
20

8.33
%
0.75
1

12

1.50 9.00 1.50 9.00

12%

1
8
3.00

)
p (5%

2p f
(10
%) parabola 2

L/2 L/2

and average slope pavr 5%. A disabled person who moves on Figure 3.3 Grants Pass Bridge, Oregon, USA
this parabolic deck has to exert the same energy as if climbing a
constant slope of 1 : 20. Of course, the length of the slope larger
than 1 : 20 has to have a reasonable length that should be
discussed with local authorities.

3.1.3 Surfacing, railing and lighting

The deck of the prevailing portion of structures described in this
book is formed by a slender concrete ribbon that can provide a
smooth and durable nish (Figure 3.3). Its waterproong can be
provided by epoxy coating spread by crushed silicon stone to
prevent slippage (Figure 3.4). Another type of overlay formed
by polymer concrete or asphalt can also be used.

The cross-slope of 1% is usually sufcient for drainage (Figure

3.1). The deck can be drained to the edge curb or to the central
channel (Figure 3.5). If the bridge is situated in the countryside,
it is possible to drain the bridge by many small pipes or openings
covered by stainless grid (Figure 3.4).

32

Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.


Figure 3.4 Maidstone Bridge, Kent, UK
Horizontal loads for which the railings of footbridges are
designed are less than those for road bridges; the shape and
the materials for railings can therefore be chosen more
freely. Usually the required height of the railings H1 is 1.00
1.10 m for pedestrians. If the bridge is designed for both
pedestrians and cyclists, the required height H2 is 1.301.40 m
(Figure 3.1).
There are many possibilities for railing designs. If horizontal
bars are used, railings inclined to the deck which prevent
Figure 3.5 Freiburg Bridge, Germany
Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Design criteria
Figure 3.6 Maidstone Bridge, Kent, UK
climbing should be used. Steel wire meshes that are very
transparent (Figure 3.6) have been successfully used in recent
years.
Lampposts can be avoided if the lighting can be included into
the handrail or the railing posts. Modem LEDs emit sufcient
light to be used for this purpose. They t into the narrow
spaces of rails and posts, do not heat up and consume very
little energy.
The deck walkway can also be lit by airport runway lights, tted
with frosted lenses and powered by reduced voltage current.
The lamps shed dispersed light onto the parapet mesh,
causing it to glow and create an ambient light aura at night.
3.2. Loads
Pedestrian bridges are designed for a uniform live load whose
intensity is similar to, or even higher than, those for highway
bridges. The basic uniform load of 45 kN/m2 is usually
reduced according to the length and width applied. This
means that all structural members should be designed for a
load of higher intensity applied to a smaller area and for a
load of reduced intensity applied to a larger area.
However, if the bridge is situated in a vicinity of, e.g., a football
stadium, reduction of the live load should not be used. The
designer should also consider the possibility of unbalanced
loading caused by pedestrians standing only on one side.
Pedestrian bridges should also be designed for load of
emergency, police or maintenance vehicles. The weight of
such a vehicle distributed onto its corresponding plan area
33
 Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges

will generally be less than 5 kN/m2. Nevertheless, the corre- To avoid the resonance, some standards specify that pedestrian
sponding wheel loads should be applied. bridges with fundamental frequencies below 3 Hz should be
avoided (AASHTO, 1997). However, all stress ribbon and
3.2.1 Eurocode 1: Action on structures suspension pedestrian bridges designed by the author have
Part 2 of Eurocode 1 states that trafc loads on bridges must these fundamental frequencies below 2 Hz. Although they
have a uniform load (kN/m2): were built from 1979 onwards, no complaints about their
dynamic behaviour have been made.
120
qfk 2:0
L 30 It is obvious that, rather than checking the natural modes and
qfk 5 2:5; qfk
5:0 frequencies, the speed of motion or acceleration of the bridge
deck caused by forced vibration (which represents the effects
where L is the loaded length (m). of moving people) should be checked.

The characteristic value of the concentrated load Qfwk should be
assumed equal to 10 kN acting on a square surface of sides
0.10 m.
If a service vehicle is specied, Qfwk should not be considered.
The characteristics of service vehicle (axle weight and spacing,
contact area of wheels), the dynamic amplications and all
other appropriate loading rules should be specied for the indi-
vidual project.
According to the Department of Transport (1988) the
maximum vertical acceleration should be calculated assuming
that the dynamic loading applied by a pedestrian can be repre-
sented by a pulsating point load F moving across the main span
of the superstructure at a constant speed v as follows.
F 180  sin 2
f0 T
v 0:9f0
where F is point load (N), T is the time (s) and v is speed (m/s).

3.3. Dynamics The maximum vertical acceleration (m/s2) should be limited to

The pedestrian bridges described in this book have low natural p
frequencies and damping; it is therefore necessary to check their 0:5 f0 :
dynamic behaviour from the point of view of the physiological
Similar critical values of the acceleration are presented in Figure
effect of vibrations and response of the structure to wind. In
3.7 (Walther et al., 1998). The author usually checks that the
seismic regions, a seismic analysis of the structure also has to
speed of motion is no greater than 24 mm/s.
be provided.
Figure 3.7 Psychological classifications (courtesy of R. Walther)
3.3.1 Physiological effect of vibrations
Some pedestrian bridges have exhibited unacceptable perfor-
m/s2
mance due to vibration caused by people walking or running
on them. Wind can also cause an unpleasant movement.
10.0
Dynamic actions induced by people result from the rhythmical 8.0
body motions (Bachmann et al., 1997; Bachmann, 2002; Kreu- 6.0
zinger, 2002; Roberts, 2003).
4.0

3.3.1.1 Vertical vibration C

2.0
Typical pacing frequencies when a person is walking or running
1.5
and frequencies when jumping on the spot are given in Table 3.1
(Bachmann, 2002). Approximate mean values are fs 2 Hz for 1.0
0.8
walking and fr 2.5 Hz for running and jumping. B
0.6
0.4
Table 3.1 Pacing and jumping frequencies: Hz
A
Total range Slow Normal Fast 0.2
0.15
Walking 1.42.4 1.41.7 1.72.2 2.22.4 0.1 f (Hz)
Running 1.93.3 1.92.2 2.22.7 2.73.3 1 2 4 6 8 10 20
Jumping 1.33.4 1.31.9 1.93.0 3.03.4 A: acceptable; B: tolerable; C: unacceptable

34

Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.


3.3.1.2 Horizontal vibration
With every step, there is also a horizontal power that interacts
with the bridge. While the vertical power has a downwards
effect by each footstep, the horizontal power sends our force
to the right and left alternately (Figure 3.8) which is why we
are dealing with a case of resonance if:
Vertical vibration: fV fs
Horizontal vibration: fH fs=2
Step frequencies fs of about 2.0 Hz will affect bridges with vibra-
tions of 1.0 Hz with substantial horizontal deformations.
Circumstances where fV 2 fH should be avoided.
According to Bachmann (2002), amplitude spectra of the hori-
zontal forces of a person walking at a pacing frequency of 2 Hz
show considerable scatter. In general, the amplitudes increase
with increasing vibrations of the deck. In the transverse direction,
maximum values of
G/G (where G is dead load) of up to 0.07 in
the case of a stationary deck and up to 0.14 in the case of a
vibrating deck were measured. Although the horizontal forces
from walking and running are relatively small compared to the
vertical forces, they are sufcient to produce strong vibrations in
the case of horizontally soft and hence low-frequency structures.
3.3.1.3 Lock-in effect
The so-called lock-in effect may also be of substantial importance.
A walking or running person adapts to and synchronises his/her
motions in frequency and phase (i) with a vibrating deck if the
displacement amplitude exceeds a certain threshold value.
The threshold value depends on the direction of vibration and
the persons age and tness. For vertical vibrations of 2 Hz,
this value falls within the range 1020 mm. For horizontal
vibrations with a frequency of 1 Hz, some persons begin to
adapt their motion when the amplitude exceeds 23 mm.
Figure 3.8 Vertical and horizontal load
Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Design criteria
If the individual threshold value of a person is exceeded due to
the synchronisation, an impulse into every wave trough of the
bridge vibration occurs which is a much more adverse dynamic
action than described above. As a consequence, the vibration
amplitude increases and more persons are locked into synchro-
nisation. In certain cases, synchronisation of more than 80% of
the persons involved was observed. A relatively simple analysis
of these effects was published by Roberts in 2003.
According to the Eurocode, basic structural design (Gulvanes-
sian et al., 2002) of pedestrian bridges requires checking for
feelings of discomfort which arise for basic natural frequencies
smaller than 5 Hz. A maximum acceptable acceleration is speci-
ed (0.7 m/s2); however, the method of analysis is not given.
In checking dynamic behaviour of pedestrian bridges, the
authors utilises the method described by the Department of
Transport (1988). This procedure was also accepted in a draft
of Eurocode 2 (Design of Concrete Structures, Part 2: Concrete
Bridges from 1998). Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to the
author, this procedure has not been included in the nal version
of Eurocode 2 from 2007.
The author has used the above approach to check the dynamic
response of 15 pedestrian bridges and the results of the analysis
are summarised in the following. All structures were analysed
by the program ANSYS as geometrically non-linear structures
for a static load. The analyses described their progressive erec-
tion and actual boundary conditions. Tension stiffening of
tension members has also been considered.
During the dynamic analyses, the natural modes and frequen-
cies were rst determined. Depending on the static system,
arrangement and stiffness of supports and mass, the rst
bending modes had the shape as depicted in Figure 3.9. In
the analysis of pedestrian bridges of a greater number of
Figure 3.9 Typical natural modes
(a)
(b)
(c)
35
 Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges

Table 3.2 Pedestrian bridges: results of analysis

Bridge, structural type and date Cross-section, reference depth and dead load Natural frequency Checking
of completion/design (Hz) and mode shape

1. Prague-Troja, Czech Republic f(0) f(1) 0.490 (A) umax 5.330 mm

f(2) 0.609 (A) vmax 0.020 m/s
Stress ribbon
f(3) 0.966 (A) amax 0.078 m/s2
1984 f(4) 1.010 (A) & (B) alim 0.350 m/s2
f(H) f(9) 2.204 f(0) /2 0.245 Hz
hs 0.25 m; g 27.0 kN/m

2. Lake Hodges, San Diego, f(0) f(1) 0.574 (A) umax 3.630 mm
California, USA f(2) 0.587 (A) vmax 0.013 m/s
f(3) 0.796 (A) amax 0.047 m/s2
Stress ribbon
f(5) 1.188 (B) alim 0.379 m/s2
2009 f(6) 1.195 (B)
f(0) /2 0.287 Hz
hs 0.28 m; g 38.6 kN/m f(7) 1.197 (B)
f(H) f(4) 1.087

3. Kent Messenger, Maidstone, f(0) f(1) 1.171 (A) umax 1.730 mm

Kent, UK f(2) 1.964 (A) & (B) vmax 0.021 m/s
amax 0.263 m/s2
Stress ribbon f(H) f(4) 2.619
alim 0.541 m/s2
2001
f(0) /2 0.586 Hz
hs 0.23 m; g 19.8 kN/m

4. Olse River, Bohumin, Czech f(0) f(1) 0.888 (A) umax 3.710 mm
Republic f(2) 1.116 (A) & (B) vmax 0.031 m/s
f(3) 1.332 (B) amax 0.260 m/s2
Stress ribbon
alim 0.471 m/s2
f(H) f(4) 1.350
Design
f(0) /2 0.444 Hz
hs 0.14 m; g 15.3 kN/m

5. R35 Expressway, Olomouc, f(0) f(1) 1.530 (A) umax 1.570 mm

Czech Republic f(2) 1.746 (B) vmax 0.015 m/s
f(3) 2.149 (B) amax 0.145 m/s2
Stress ribbon supported by arch
alim 0.490 m/s2
f(H) f(1) 0.961
2008
f(0) /2 0.765 Hz
hs 0.14 m; g 17.8 kN/m

6. Svratka River, Brno, Czech f(0) f(1) 1.912 (B) umax 0.880 mm
Republic f(2) 2.163 (A) vmax 0.012 m/s
f(3) 3.819 (C) amax 0.162 m/s2
Stress ribbon supported by arch
alim 0.691 m/s2
f(H) f(4) 4.627
2008
f(0) /2 0.956 Hz
hs 0.18 m; g 22.6 kN/m

7. Vltava River, Ceske f(0) f(2) 1.711 (B) umax 1.890 mm

Budejovice, Czech Republic f(3) 1.851 (A) vmax 0.026 m/s
f(4) 2.863 (C) amax 0.218 m/s2
Stress ribbon suspended on
alim 0.380 m/s2
arch f(H) f(1) 1.264
f(0) /2 0.856 Hz
2007 hs 0.10 m; hi 0.16 m; g 16.0 kN/m

36

Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Design criteria

Table 3.2 Continued

Bridge, structural type and date Cross-section, reference depth and dead load Natural frequency Checking
of completion/design (Hz) and mode shape

8. McLouglin Blvd, Portland, f(0) f(1) 1.021 (B) umax 2.540 mm

Oregon, USA f(5) 1.791 (C) vmax 0.016 m/s
amax 0.104 m/s2
Stress ribbon suspended on f(H) f(2) 1.282
alim 0.505 m/s2
arch
f(0) /2 0.511 Hz
2006 hs 0.25 m; g 31.7 kN/m

9. Vranov Lake, Czech f(0) f(1) 0.298 (B) umax 10.96 mm

Republic f(2) 0.360 (C) vmax 0.025 m/s
amax 0.056 m/s2
Suspension with a stress ribbon f(H) f(4) 0.431
alim 0.273 m/s2
deck
f(0) /2 0.149 Hz
1993 hs 0.16/0.14 m; g 27.4/35.7 kN/m

10. Willamette River Eugene, f(0) f(1) 0.541 (B) umax 7.040 mm
Oregon, USA f(2) 0.613 (C) vmax 0.027 m/s
f(3) 0.888 (C) amax 0.105 m/s2
Suspension with a stress ribbon
alim 0.367 m/s2
deck f(H) f(5) 1.136
f(0) /2 0.271 Hz
2002
hs 0.22 m; g 36.6 kN/m

11. Harbor Drive, San Diego, f(0) f(2) 0.955 (B) umax 1.650 mm
California, USA f(5) 2.039 (C) vmax 0.010 m/s
amax 0.059 m/s2
Suspension with a girder deck f(H) f(1) 0.731
alim 0.489 m/s2
2010
f(0) /2 0.478 Hz
hs 0.23 m; g 35.4 kN/m

12. Johnson Creek, Portland, f(0) f(1) 0.838 (A) umax 3.534 mm
Oregon, USA f(3) 1.774 (B) vmax 0.019 m/s
f(5) 2.965 (C) amax 0.098 m/s2
Stress ribbon supported by a
alim 0.458 m/s2
suspension cable f(H) f(2) 1.674
f(0) /2 0.419 Hz
Design
hs 0.26 m; g 36.3 kN/m

13. I-5 Gateway, Eugene, f(0) f(4) 1.654 (A) umax 0.810 mm
Oregon, USA f(10) 3.295 (A) vmax 0.008 m/s
Cable stayed with a stress f(17) 4.633 (A) & (B) amax 0.083 m/s2
ribbon deck alim 0.639 m/s2
f(H) f(1) 1.131
2009 f(0) /2 0.827 Hz
hs 0.26 m; g 36.3 kN/m

14. Delta Pond, Eugene, f(0) f(1) 1.267 (A) umax 2.020 mm
Oregon, USA f(7) 2.207 (A) & (B) vmax 0.016 m/s
f(9) 2.584 (A) & (B) amax 0.128 m/s2
Cable stayed with a stress
alim 0.477 m/s2
ribbon deck f(H) f(4) 1.403
f(0) /2 0.634 Hz
2010 hs 0.26 m; g 36.3 kN/m

37

Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges

Table 3.2 Continued

Bridge, structural type and date Cross-section, reference depth and dead load Natural frequency Checking
of completion/design (Hz) and mode shape

15. D47 Freeway, Bohumin, f(0) f(2) 1.420 (A) umax 0.530 mm
Czech Republic f(3) 2.199 (A) vmax 0.005 m/s
f(8) 4.115 (B) amax 0.260 m/s2
Cable stayed with a girder deck
alim 0.596 m/s2
f(H) f(4) 2.746
2010
f(0) /2 0.710 Hz
hs 0.31 m; g 63.2 kN/m

spans, the natural modes A, B or C have sometimes occurred
simultaneously.
After determining natural modes and frequencies, the forced
vibration was calculated. The parameters maximum amplitude
(umax, mm), maximum speed of motion (vmax, m/s), maximum
acceleration (amax, m/s2) and limited acceleration (alim, m/s2)
were determined.
Structures 16 and 815 listed in Table 3.2 are also described in
Chapter 11. The pedestrian bridge across the Vltava River
(structure 7) is formed by a tied arch of span 53.20 m. A compo-
site deck that is formed by two steel pipes and slender concrete
slab is suspended on one side of an inclined arch with a rise of
8.00 m.
Results of the analyses are summarised in Table 3.2 which lists
cross-section of the deck, depth of a reference deck hS A/w
(area A divided by width w), dead load of the deck g (kN/m),
values and basic shapes of the rst bending frequencies and
maximum and limited accelerations. Since the structures are
also described in Chapter 11, the cross-sections are schematic.
For comparison, however, they are drawn to the same scale.
A comparison of one-half of the vertical and horizontal
frequency is included, i.e. fV/2 f(0)/2 6 fH. For the pedestrian
bridge across the Vltava River in Ceske Budejovice (structure 7)
that has a composite deck, a reference depth of concrete slab
and an effective depth hi that includes an area of steel multiplied
modular ratio is dened as n Es/Ec (where Es and Ec are the
modulus of elasticity of steel and concrete).
Results of the analyses are depicted in Figure 3.10, where
maximum accelerations and criteria for acceleration checking
in terms of the rst bending frequency f0 are presented.
All of the studied structures have a very slender deck with
reference depth hS from 0.10 to 0.31 m. Thirteen of the fteen

Figure 3.10 Acceleration of analysed footbridges

a (m/s2)
0.80
Eurocode

0.60
Figure 3.7 R. Walther 0.5f0

0.40

4 3 15
7
0.20 6
14 5
10 12 8
1 13
9 2 11
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
f0 (Hz)

38

Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Design criteria

described pedestrian bridges have been built, and (so far) no Figure 3.11 Phenomenon of flutter (courtesy of R. Walther)
complaints about their dynamic behaviour have been recorded.
The author therefore believes that the presented approach can
be used to estimate the dynamic response of new structures.

3.3.1.4 Vibration due to wind

Pedestrian bridges should also be checked for possible vibration
caused by wind. Since walking on the bridge at wind speeds wind
larger than 20 m/s (72 km/hour) is very difcult, the speed of q
motion or acceleration should be checked for reasonable wind fT /fV1 $ 2.5
speed in which the bridge is usually used by ordinary pedes- a v
trians.

3.3.2 Aerodynamic behaviour

Depending on the geographical location of the bridge, the deck
may be exposed to crosswinds (Institution of Civil Engineers,
1981; Walther et al., 1998). A ow of air tends to induce torsional
and bending oscillations in the structure which, under the effect
of small variations in the angle of the wind, modify the lifting
effects. This phenomenon, known as utter, was illustrated in
1940 by the total collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
(USA) (Scott, 2001). From studies carried out since, it has been
seen that the torsional and bending frequencies must be
sufciently far apart. Mathivat (1983) has shown that a ratio of
torsional to bending frequency of 2.5 is adequate.

Flutter can be induced by the phenomenon of vortex shedding Flutter can be also caused by auto-excited oscillations that are
(Figure 3.11). The shape of the deck governs the air ow and, caused by the movement itself. Figure 3.12 provides a simplied
if the section is badly streamlined, vortices form as the air description of this mechanism in the case of a phase difference
passes and can introduce the danger of vortex shedding. of
/2 between bending and torsion. Beyond a certain wind
Figure 3.12 Phenomenon of auto-excited oscillations (courtesy of R. Walther)

v, q
f /2

bending

torsion

wind

lift

q t

39

Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges
speed, known as the critical speed Vcrit, the deck receives more
energy than can be dissipated by damping. The result is to
produce combined bending and torsional movements due to
the aerodynamic forces, with rapidly increasing amplitudes
with no other limit other than the destruction of the bridge.
The stay cables should also be checked for the possibility of
their oscillation. If the stay cables or hanger are formed by
several parallel members, they can be subjected by galloping
oscillations induced by the turbulent wake. The problem can
be easily solved by mutual connection of parallel members.
The connection should be made outside the nodes of the rst
natural modes of vibration.
3.3.3 Seismic design
Since the stress ribbon and cable-supported pedestrian bridges
have low natural frequencies, they are not sensitive to seismic
load. Although the stress ribbon deck is xed into the end
abutments, the horizontal force due to live load is usually
larger than the force created by seismic load. The seismic load
therefore does not usually control the design of these structures
for longitudinal effects.
However, the dynamic analysis based on the application of a
response spectrum of ground acceleration of a space structure
is mandatory for multi-span stress ribbon structures and for
cable-supported structures. When designing the structural
members and their connections, it is necessary to follow the
recommendations published by Priestly et al. (1996).
The design of pedestrian bridges has to be based on a careful
balance between the stiffness of supporting members. On the
one hand, the structure should be sufciently exible to
reduce the seismic effects; on the other hand, the structure
should be sufciently stiff to guarantee comfortable walking.
40
Downloaded by [] on [25/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REFERENCES
AASHTO (1997) Guide specication for design of pedestrian
bridges. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Ofcials.
Bachmann H (2002) Lively footbridges a real challenge.
Proceedings of Footbridge 2002: Design and Dynamic
Behaviour of Footbridges, OTUA, Paris.
Bachmann H, Ammann W and Deischl F (1997) Vibration
Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines, 2nd edn.
Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Berlin, Boston.
Department of Transport (1988) Design Criteria for Foot-
bridges. Department of Transport, UK.
b (2005) Guidelines for the Design of Footbridges. Guide to
good practice prepared by Task Group 1.2. Federation
Internationale du Beton, Lausanne.
Gulvanessian H, Calgaro JA and Holicky M (2002) Designers
Guide to EN 1900 Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design.
Thomas Telford, London.
Institute of Civil Engineers (1981) Bridge aerodynamics:
proposed British design rules. Proceedings of the Bridge
Aerodynamics Conference, 2526 March. Institution of
Civil Engineers, London.
Kreuzinger H (2002) Dynamic design strategies for pedestrian
and wind action. Proceedings of Footbridge 2002, Design
and Dynamic Behaviour of Footbridges, Paris. OTUA.
Mathivat J (1983) The Cantilever Construction of Prestressed
Concrete Bridges. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Priestly JN, Seible F and Calvi GM (1996) Seismic Design and
Retrot of Bridges. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Roberts TM (2003) Synchronised pedestrian excitation of
footbridges. Bridge Engineering 156: 155160.
Scott R (2001) In the Wake of Tacoma. ASCE Press, Resno.
Walther R, Houriet B, Walmar I and Moa P (1998) Cable
Stayed Bridges. Thomas Telford Publishing, London.