SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

COMPARITIVE STUDY OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FOOT OVER

BRIDGES (TRUSS /GIRDER/ARCH)

THIRD REVIEW

BY
[Link]
Reg. No : 3350127
M.E (STRUCTURAL ENGG.)

Under the Guidance of

Mrs. SUMIRAJAN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
1
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION
With the rapid development in urban sector in our country, construction of roadways and
railways network is very fast now a days as six laning, four laning of highways and
Railway Track increment. Due to this increased traffic and development there is great
need for construction of foot over bridge to safely cross the fast moving traffic.
The proposed Foot over bridge consists of Ramp & Stair, Escalator and Portal
Frame/Truss/Arch structures which has a span of 20m at busy Highway roads. Crossing
by foot can not only be challenging, but it also can be dangerous.
The Foot over bridge consists for steel structure with RCC slab on top . There are two way
access to foot over [Link] through escalator and there is a ramp and stairway
combination (refer drawing).

2
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

Most attempts made to reduce pedestrian injuries have focused solely on isolation
techniques such as pedestrian bridges that resulted in different types of foot over
bridges. Also, with the tough economic times that this country is now facing, cost has
become an most important factor when considering construction of any new structure.
The proposed design is optimized in order to satisfy all requirements while minimizing
the cost of the structure.

Footer Text 3
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
TYPES OF FOOT OVER BRIDGES

Girder
Truss

Cable stayed Arch

4
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
LITERATURE REVIEW
[Link] Title Author Date

1 Analysis and Design of Arch-Type James F. Welch, August

Pedestrian Bridge for Static and Mohammad [Link], 2012
Dynamic Loads Lubna. etc

2 Structural dynamic designof foot over [Link] Blanco and 2011

bridge under pedestrain loading Ph,Bouillard

3 Design Of A Pedestrian Bridge Renan Constantine ,Chris December

Crossing Over Coliseum Boulevard Ripke etc 2009

4 Pedestrian Bridge Study James DeCelle ,Nathaniel March

Efron,Wilfredo etc 2013

5 Pedestrian Bridge Collapse and Failure Benjamin Dymond, Carin May 2013
Analysis in Giles County, Virginia. [Link]-Wollmann

5
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
[Link] Title Author Date

6 Conceptual design of cable stayed Gajanan Wagle, 2013

pedestrian Bridge at Taunton, Santosh K. Singh, Ayan
Somerset Bhattacharya
7 Curved Pedestrian Bridge— Stein, M 2010
Straightforward Design

8 Analysis And Design Of Foot Over Mohan Gupta And 2011

Bridge Using Hss Shekhar Gupta

9 Dynamic Behavior of a Pedestrian Ivorra, S., Foti, D., Bru, 2013

Bridge in Alicante, Spain D., and Baeza, F

10 Stability Analysis of Steel Popp, D. and 2005

Trapezoidal Box-Girder Bridges Williamson, E

11 Chicago’s First Tied-Arch Bridge Hong, R. and Khudeira, 2014

S.

Footer Text 04/03/24 6

 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
[Link] Title Author Date

12 Construction of 254 M Long Ashok Basa 2010

Predestrain Suspension Bridge Across
River Mahanadi near Dhabaleswer in
Orissa
13 Preliminary Analysis of Short-Span Prakash V., Rathore M. March,
Suspension Bridges K, Borgaonkar K.K 2014

14 Polyester Rope, an Alternative to Segal, E., 2013

Steel Cable for Pedestrian Suspended Adriaenssens, S., Zoli,
Bridges T., and Flory, J
15 Main Street Bridge Project, Danville, Davidge, W. and 2013
VA Open Spandrel Concrete Arch Fariss, Jr., J
Bridges
16 Design Method for the Dynamic Scale Fan, W., Zhang, W., 2013
Model of Pedestrian Footbridge Xing, Y., Guan, Y.,
and Li, H.
Footer Text 04/03/24 7
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
[Link] Title Author Date

17 A method for predicting the lateral Shunichi Nakamura, September

girder response of footbridges Toshitsugu Kawasaki 2009
induced by pedestrians
18 Double-composite rectangular truss Yongjian Liu , August 2015
bridge and its joint analysis Zhihua Xiong,etc

19 Finite element model updating of a Tobia Zordan, August 2014

tied-arch bridge using Douglas-Reid Bruno Briseghella
method and Rosenbrock Tao Liu
optimization algorithm
20 Optimum design of steel truss arch Jin Cheng September
bridges using a hybrid genetic 2010
algorithm
21 The Analysis of the Behaviour of an G. Sandovič , 2012
Innovative Pedestrian Steel Bridge A. Juozapaitis

Footer Text 04/03/24 8

 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
[Link] Title Author Date

22 Pedestrian-induced lateral vibrations E.T. Ingólfsson , December

of footbridges: A literature review C.T. Georgakis, 2012
J. Jönsson

23 Modular Truss-Z system for self- Machi Zawidzki , May 2012

supporting skeletal free-form Katsuhiro Nishinari
pedestrian networks
24 Designing tensegrity modules for Landolf Rhode- April 2010
pedestrian bridges Barbarigos, ,
Nizar Bel Hadj Ali

25 A new steel structural system of a A. Juozapaitis , December

suspension pedestrian bridge P. Vainiunas, 2006
G. Kaklauskas

Footer Text 04/03/24 9

 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
OBJECTIVES
To study the Analysis and design of various type of foot over bridge.
 To study foot over bridge for behaviour of gravity and lateral load condition.
 Comparison can be made between Truss/Arch and Plate girder bridge.

SCOPE
This study focus on Analysing/Designing the following types of foot over bridges
using staad pro software.
1. Plate Girder/Portal type.
2. Truss type.
3. Arch type.
Analyse the structure(Foot over bridge) for the above 3 types and find out the
suitable type which can be used to reduce time,area,cost, etc.

10
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
METHODOLOGY

 Foot Over Bridge Configuration And Planning

 Load Calculation As Per Is-code
 Staad Modeling And Load application Of Truss /Plate Girder/Arch Foot over bridge
 Analysis Of Truss /Portal/Arch Foot over bridge
 Design Of Truss/Portal/Arch Foot over bridge.
 Comparison Of Truss /Portal/Arch Foot over bridge.
 Report Preparation

11
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
Loads on the Foot over bridge are selected by considering the area and configuration
of foot over bridge.
Load List
DL = Dead Load
LL = Live(Imposed) Load
WL= Wind Load
EL = Earthquake (Seismic) Load

Load Combination
Limit State of Strength
1.5 DL+1.5 LL`
1.2 DL+ 1.2 LL+ 1.2 WL
1.2 DL+ 1.2 LL+ 1.2 EL
 1.5 DL+1.5WL
 1.5 DL+1.5EL

Footer Text 12
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
Limit State of Serviceability
 1.0 DL+1.0LL`
 0.8 DL+ 0.8 LL+ 0.8 WL
 0.8 DL+ 0.8 LL+ 0.8 EL
 1.0 DL+1.0WL
 1.0 DL+1.0EL

Footer Text 13
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
Dead Load (DL):
Dead load including self weight of various materials relevant to the design work is
considered as per IS: 875: Part 1.
Basic densities of building material are:
• Reinforced concrete : 25 kN/m3
• Plain concrete : 24 kN/m3
• Bricks : 18.8 kN/m3
• Plastering / Screeds : 20.4 kN/m3
• Structural steel : 78.5 kN/m3
Other loads are:-
• Floor finishes : 1.25 kN/m2
• Self weight of the structural members assumed as actual or as per generated in
STAAD by using Self weight command.
Live Load (LL)
• The loads considered are as per IS 875 (part -2)-1987. Live Load on the FOB and
staircases considered is 5 kN/m2.

Footer Text 14
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
Wind Pressure calculation
As per IS 875 Part 3
 Design Wind Pressure, Pz= 0.6Vz2
 Design Wind Velocity, Vz= Vb x k1 x k2 xk3
 Basic Wind Speed, Vb (50m/s)
 Risk Coefficient, k1 = 1.08
 Terrain factor, k2 = 1.03
 Topography factor k3 = 1.0

Risk Terrain Topography Basic wind Design Design wind

Height Co-eff factor Speed Wind pressure (Pz)
Factor
above GL k1 k2 k3 Vb in m/s Speed (Vz) (kN/m²)
(m/s)
(m)
Up to 10 m
height 1.08 1.03 1.00 50 55.62 1.856
@ 12 m
height 1.08 1.07 1.00 50 57.98 2.003

Avg = 1.900

≈ 1.90 kN/m²
Footer Text 15
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
SEISMIC LOAD

Seismic design will be in accordance with IS: 1893 (Part 1)-2002. The site falls under
Zone III as categorized by IS: 1893 (Part 1) – 2002 and the seismic intensity at zone III
is moderate. The building will be designed and detailed for the following parameters.
Zone factor, Z = 0.16 ( for zone – III)
Importance factor, I, as per Table – 6 of IS: 1893 (Part – 1) – 2002 = 1.5 is adopted.
Response reduction factor, R = 4.0 (Table – 7 of IS: 1893 (Part – 1) – 2002
for steel frames with Concentric Braces.
Approximate fundamental natural period vibration, Ta = 0.085 h0.75 as per clause
7.6.1 of IS: 1893 (Part – 1) – 2002.
Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Sa/g is considered as IS: 1893 (Part – 1) – 2002 for
hard soil.

Footer Text 16
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

MODEL DRAWINGS

Footer Text 17
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Figure:1

Footer Text 18
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Figure:2

Footer Text 19
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Figure:3

Footer Text 20
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Figure: 4 Longitudinal Section

Footer Text 21
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Stair and Ramp Loading

37.50 m

Figure 5
Footer Text 22
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
Stair and Ramp BMD

Stair and Ramp BMD

37.5m

Stair and Ramp SFD

37.5m

37.5m
Footer Text 23
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

STAAD MODEL

Footer Text 24
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
• PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

4m

4m

6.2m
20m

20m [Link] – BG 600x450x20x16

4m [Link] – BG 750x450x25x16

Load 1

Figure 6. Portal Foot Over Bridge Model

Footer Text 25
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

30KN/m 20.6KN/m 30KN/m

4m 20m 20m 4m

Figure 7. Portal foot over bridge Loading ( DL+LL)

*All Supports are Fixed support

Footer Text 26
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

Z
X
Figure 8 -BMD ( DL+LL) Load 20 : Bending Z : Bend

Footer Text 27
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

448 KN.m 448 KN.m

Figure: 9 Bending Moment Diagram (DL+ LL)

Footer Text 28
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

340 KN
420 KN

420 KN

340 K

4.00m 20.00m 20.00m

Figure 10 –Shear Force Diagram (DL+ LL)

Y
Z X
Footer Text 29
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

PORTAL FOOT OVER BRIDGE

6.2m
34 mm 34 mm

4m 20m 20m 4m

4.00m 20.00m 20.00m

Figure 11 - Deflection of portal foot over bridge (DL+ LL) + WL X )

Footer Text 30
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

MODEL DRAWINGS

Footer Text 31
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Figure 1 Plan
Footer Text 32
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

Figure 2 Longitudinal Section

Footer Text 33
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

Figure 3 Cross Section

Footer Text 34
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

STAAD MODEL

Footer Text 35
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE 4m

6.2m
4m
3.6m

20m

[Link] UC 356x356x202
20m
[Link] Chord ISMC150 B/B
4m
[Link] Chord ISMC200 B/B

Figure . Truss Bridge Model

*All Supports are
Fixed support
Footer Text 36
36
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY
TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

55 KN 55 KN

20.6KN/m (DL+ LL) 6.2m

4m 20m 20m 4m

Fig.4 Truss Bridge Loading

Y *All Supports are Fixed support
Z X
Footer Text 37
TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

201 KN(C) in Top Chord 201KN(C) in Top Chord

258 KN(T) in Bottom Chord 258 KN(T) in Bottom Chord

286 KN(C) 604 KN(C) 286 KN(C)
4m 20m 4m
in Column
in Column in Column
4m 20m 20m 4m

Compressive Force (C)

Tensile Force (T)

Figure 13. Axial Force Diagram

TRUSS FOOT OVER BRIDGE

4m 20m 20m 4m

Deflection = 11mm
LOAD COMB 55 DL+LL+EQX(+ DIR)

Figure 14: Deflection of Truss Bridge

 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

ARCH TYPE FOOT OVER BRIDGE

MODEL DRAWINGS

Footer Text 40
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

Footer Text 41
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

Footer Text 42
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

Footer Text 43
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

ARCH TYPE FOOT OVER BRIDGE

STAAD MODEL

Footer Text 44
 DESIGN

The design are applied in accordance to provisions given in IS: 800-2007.

Design bending strength,

Md= p Zp fy / γmo

where, Md = The factored design shear ,

p = 1.0 for plastic and compact section

Zp = Plastic and elastic section modules of the cross-section,

fy = yield stress of the material,

γmo = Partial safety factor.

The factored shear force in a beam, V ≤ Vd

Where, Vd = The design shear strength of a beam

Vn = Av fyw / √3

where Av = shear area

fyw = yield strength of the web

The shear area Av for different sections is given below.

The major axis bending of I and channel sectionsAv = htw (Hot rolled)
Av = dtw (Welded)
The factored design tension in the member (T).

Tdg = Agfy/γmo

where,

Tdg = Block shear

Ag = Gross area of cross section

Zp = Plastic and elastic section modules of the cross section

fy = Partial safety factor for failure intension by yielding

γ mo = Partial safety factor

 RESULTS
Table 2. Maximum Vertical Deflection of Foot Over Bridges
Type of foot over bridge Deflection Load case
Portal foot over bridge 34.0 mm 55 DL+LL+EQX(+ DIR)
Truss foot over bridge 11.0 mm 59 DL+LL+EQX(- DIR)

Allowable Deflection L/360

= 20000/360
= 55.6 mm
Table 3. Maximum Lateral Displacement of Foot Over Bridges
Type of foot over bridge Deflection Load case
Portal foot over bridge 15.0 mm 55 DL+LL+EQX(+ DIR)
Truss foot over bridge 18.0 mm 59 DL+LL+EQX(- DIR)
Allowable displacement H/250

= 6500/250
= 26 mm
 Continuous…..

Table 4. Structural steel weight of portal foot over bridge

Components Property Weight kg

Portal column Plate girder 600 x450 x 20x 16 13119.7
Portal beam Plate girder 750 x450 x 25x 20 18299.5
Cross beams UB 305 X 161 X54 5628.3
Vertical bracing 2 X ISA 90 X90 X10 1362.9
Roof covering frame RHS 200 X92 X3.6 1490
Purlin RHS 80 X 40 X2.4 1200
Total 41100.4
 Continuous…..
Table 5. Structural steel weight of truss foot over bridge

Components Property Weight Kg

Column UC356X368X202 15767
Top chord 2 x ISMC125 2673
Bottom chord 2 x ISMC200 3612
Bottom member 2 x ISMC250 7046
Vertical member 2 x ISMC150 5851
Diagonal
member 2 x ISMC150 5152
Plan bracing
member 2 x ISA 75x 75 x 8 3719

Purlin RHS 80 X 40 X2.4 1200

Total 45021

Structural steel weight difference for two foot over bridges

= (45021 – 41100) /41100 X 100 = 9.54 %
 SATHYABAMA UNIVERSITY

WORK TO BE DONE

Analysis of Arch Foot Over Bridge.

Comparison of Plate girder /truss /Arch Foot Over Bridge.
Report Preparation.

Footer Text 51
THANK YOU