Pedestrian Loads and Dynamic Performances of Lively Footbridges An Overview

1 CSHM – 2 Workshop, 28th September – 1st October 2008, Taormina
/33
Pedestrian loads and dynamic performances of lively footbridges: an overview
Pedestrian Loads and Dynamic Performances of

Lively Footbridges: an Overview
F. Venuti,, L. Bruno, CSHM-2, 28 Sept. – 1 Oct.2008, Taormina
Fiammetta Venuti
Luca Bruno
Politecnico di Torino (Italy)

Department of Structural Engineering and Geotechnics
2 Introduction
/33
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES ROAD BRIDGES
Increasing strength of materials Increase of traffic

Increase of slenderness Increase of vehicles weight
Critical performances of new Critical performances of existing

structures structures
reduced serviceability reduced safety and stability
high costs for dynamic
assessment after construction
The dynamic behaviour should be considered in a very early design stage

Need for comfort criteria
Need for suitable and predictive load models
Need for practical design rules
3 Introduction
/33
Human-induced vibration problems on footbridges were

discovered in the 19th century collapse of a footbridge

in Broughton due to marching soldiers
Attention focused on vertical vibrations in the 20th century

From 2000, with the closure of the London Millennium

Bridge, the attention is focused on lateral vibrations due to
synchronisation phenomena (a few episodes had been
already reported from the Seventies)
London Millennium Bridge

Auckland Harbour bridge, 1975 opening day, July 2000
4 Introduction
/33
In the last decade, increasing attention to human-induced vibrations

on footbridges testified by:

Specific international conference
International reseach projects and guidelines

FIB Federation International du Beton.
Guidelines for the design of footbridges,
fib Bulletin No. 32, Lausanne, 2006.
SETRA/AFGC. Passerelles piétonnes – Evaluation

du comportement vibratoire sous l’action de
piétons. Guide méthodologique. Paris, 2006
European Project SINPEX

BUTZ C. et al., Advanced load models for synchronous pedestrian excitation and optimised
design guidelines for steel footbridges (SYNPEX), Final report, RFS-CR 03019, Research Fund for
Coal and Steel, 2007
5 Introduction
/33
Objective
state-of-the-art about human-induced vibrations on footbridges
Summary
Phenomenological analysis of pedestrian loading

pedestrian on a rigid surface

pedestrian on a vibrating surface human-structure interaction
Comfort criteria
Pedestrian load models

single pedestrian
groups of pedestrians
crowds
Experimental tests
laboratory tests
field tests
6
/33
PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
7 Pedestrian walking on a rigid surface
/33
Exp.
100
Number of people Theor.
FL lp FH
FV FV
50
FV
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 fV
FH Matsumoto et al. (1978)
fV = v / l p ≅ 2 Hz
Walking frequency
f H = fV / 2 ≅ 1 Hz
Andriacchi et al. (1997)
Walking frequency rangesFfor
L
different activities after Bachmann (2002)
FL
8 Pedestrians walking on a vibrating surface
/33
Human-structure interaction
Modification of the footbridge dynamic properties
Change in natural frequencies due to pedestrians mass

Change in damping (the effect of moving people is still unexplored)
Synchronisation between the pedestrians and the structure
The phenomenon is much more probable in the horizontal direction
Synchronous Lateral Excitation (SLE)
Auckland Harbour Groves Bridge T-bridge Passerelle Solferino Millennium Bridge

New Zealand 1975 Chester (UK) 1977 Japan 1993 Paris 2000 London 2000
“[..] the phenomenom could occour on any bridge with a lateral frequency below
about 1.3 Hz loaded with a sufficient number of pedestrians.” (Dallard et al., 2001)
9 Synchronous Lateral Excitation
/33
KEY FEATURES OF THE PHENOMENON
2 kinds of synchronisation:
The deck lateral motion triggers the
synchronisation between the pedestrians and
the structure LOCK-IN
The probability of lock-in grows for

increasing amplitude of the deck motion
Dallard et al. (2001), Bachmann (2002), Nakamura (2003)
High crowd density causes

synchronisation among pedestrians
Venuti et al. (2005), Ricciardelli (2005)

10 Synchronous Lateral Excitation
/33
Self-excitation: The lateral force grows for increasing amplitude of the deck
motion
Dallard et al. (2001) Pizzimenti (2003)

Self-limitation:
Pedestrians detune or stop walking when vibrations exceed a threshold value
Nakamura (2003)
11
/33
COMFORT CRITERIA
12 Comfort requirements
/33
The reaction of pedestrians to vibration is very complex:
different people react differently to the same vibration condition

an individual reacts differently to the same vibrations on different days
a pedestrian alone is more sensitive to vibration than in a crowd
a pedestrian who expects vibrations is less sensitive
Comfort requirements:
Limit values for structural the bridge natural frequencies should fall outside
frequencies the pedestrian loading frequencies
Code/Standard Vertical [Hz] Horizontal [Hz]

Eurocode 2 1.6 – 2.4 0.8 – 1.2
Eurocode 5 <5 0.5 – 2.5
Eurocode 1 (UK NA) < 8 (unloaded bridge) < 1.5 (loaded bridge)
Seldom fulfilled in new footbridges
Limit values of accelerations If the limit on frequencies is not satisfied, a

dynamic calculation with suitable load models is
required
13 ISO 10137 – Eurocode 5
/33
ISO 10137 (2007): Bases for design of structures – Serviceability of buildings and
walkways against vibrations.

The limit values are obtained by multiplying the base curves of rms accelerations by
a factor 60 (pedestrians) or 30 (standing persons)
vertical horizontal
ah - RMS [m/s2]
av - RMS [m/s2]
f [Hz]
Limit values for pedestrians

av,rms = 0.6 / f 1 ≤ f ≤ 4
av,rms = 0.3 4≤ f ≤8 f [Hz]
ah,rms = 0.2 1≤ f ≤ 2
Eurocode 5: av,max= 0.7 m/s2 ah,max= 0.2 m/s2

14 SETRA Guideline
/33
Comfort requirements are not absolute but depend on the comfort level specified
by the Owner.
Stage 1: determination of the footbridge class
Traffic Density d
Description
Class (P=person)
I d=1.0 P/m2 urban footbridge linking up high pedestrian density areas or that is
frequently used by dense crowds, subjected to very heavy traffic
II d=0.8 P/m2 urban footbridge linking up populated areas, subjected to heavy traffic
and that may occasionally be loaded throughout its bearing area
III d=0.5 P/m2 footbridge for standard use, occasionally crossed by large groups of
people but that will never be loaded throughout its bearing area
IV seldom used footbridge, built to link sparsely populated areas
Stage 2: choice of the Comfort Degree of Acceleration level Acceleration level

comfort level level comfort Vertical [m/s2] Horizontal [m/s2]
1 maximum < 0.5 < 0.1 Lock-in
2 average 0.5 – 1.0 0.15 – 0.3
Stage 3: determination
of frequencies (risk of 3 minimum 1.0 – 2.5 0.3 – 0.8
resonance) 4 discomfort > 2.5 > 0.8
Stage 4: dynamic calculation (if necessary)

15 SYNPEX Guideline
/33
Acceleration checks should be performed if:
vertical 1.3 ≤ f v ≤ 2.3 Hz horizontal 0.5 ≤ f h ≤ 1.2 Hz
Definition of design scenarios, characterised by a traffic class and a comfort level

Traffic Density d
Description
Class (P=person)
TC 1 15 P Very weak traffic: 15 single persons

TC 2 d=0.2 P/m2 Weak traffic: comfortable and free walking
TC 3 d=0.5 P/m2 Dense traffic: unresctricted walking, overtaking can inhibit
TC 4 d=1.0 P/m2 Very dense traffic: uncomfortable situation, obstructed walking
TC 5 d=1.5 P/m2 Exceptional dense traffic: crowding begins
Comfort Degree of Acceleration level Acceleration level

level comfort Vertical [m/s2] Horizontal [m/s2]
CL 1 maximum < 0.5 < 0.1 Lock-in
CL 2 medium 0.5 – 1.0 0.1 – 0.3
CL 3 minimum 1.0 – 2.5 0.3 – 0.8
CL 4 discomfort > 2.5 > 0.8
16 UK National Annex to EN 1991-2
/33
Limit on the vertical acceleration: alim = 1.0 k1 k 2 k3 k 4 m/s 2 0.5 ≤ alim ≤ 2.0 m/s 2
k4=1 exposure factor
Comfort criterion on synchronous

lateral excitation:
Pedestrian excitation mass damping

parameter
mbridge ξ
D=
m pedestrian
17 Comments
/33
Standard codes and new guidelines has different approaches
Absolute values of Comfort requirements decided

comfort requirements by the owner as a function of

the footbridge traffic class and
required level of comfort
UK National Annex has a different approach towards the avoidance

of SLE mass damping parameter instead of limit on the lateral
acceleration
18
/33
LOAD MODELS
19 Classification of load models
/33
TIME DOMAIN FORCE MODELS
Assumption: both feet produce exactly the same periodic force
Deterministic general force model for each type of human activity

Probabilistic take into account that some parameters which influence

human force (e.g. frequency, person’s weight) are
random variables whose statistical nature should be
considered in terms of their probability distribution
functions.
FREQUENCY DOMAIN FORCE MODELS

pedestrian loads modelled as random processes
walking forces represented by power spectral densities (PSD)

20 Single pedestrian load model
/33
Framework: Fourier decomposition of the three force components

G = 700 N pedestrian weight

Fvert = G + ∑ Gα
i =1
i ,vert sin(2π f p t − ϕ i ,vert ) vertical
αi = Dynamic Load Factor n

(DLF) of the ith harmonic Flat = ∑ Gα i ,lat sin(π f p t − ϕ i ,lat ) lateral
i =1
n
Flong = ∑ Gα
i =1
i ,long sin(2π f p t − ϕ i ,long ) longitudinal
Bachmann & Ammann (1987)
longitudinal
vertical
lateral
Load models in codes and guidelines usually considers only the first harmonic and
the resulting sinusoidal force is applied in resonance to the footbridge natural
mode of interest
21 Crowd load models: framework
/33
Assumption:
the action of a group of pedestrians or a crowd is generally modelled by
multiplying the action of a single pedestrian by an effective number of
pedestrians neff
effective number
of pedestrians
F (t ) = F0 sin( 2π ft ) ⋅ neff ⋅ψ
action of a single reduction
pedestrian coefficient
F0 = G ⋅ DLF
F0 [N] Vertical Longitudinal Lateral

SETRA - SYNPEX 280 140 35
UK N.A. EN1991-2 280 (walk) – 910 (jogging) - -
The action should be applied in resonance with the footbridge natural frequency
22 Effective number of pedestrians
/33
It can be interpreted as a synchronisation factor it represents the percentage of

people in the crowd that, by chance, walk in step
Matsumoto et al. neff = n Uncorrelated pedestrians

(1978) arriving on the bridge with a Poisson
distribution, with resonant frequencies and

ISO 10137 random phases
This model is not suitable to model SLE
SETRA – SYNPEX neff = 10.8 nξ for d<=1 P/m2
neff = 1.85 n for d>=1.0 P/m2

account for synchronisation due to
high density
from probabilistic assumptions:
number of pedestrians who, walking in step with the footbridge

natural frequency and equally distributed along the deck,
produce the 95% fractile of the peak acceleration due to
random pedestrian streams.
23 Reduction coefficient
/33
Reduction factors to account for the probability of occurrence of step frequencies
SETRA – SYNPEX
ψ vert ,long ψ lat

First harm.
Second harm.
UK N.A. EN1991-2 Population factor k ( f v )

Only for vertical vibration
fv
24 Load distribution along the deck
/33
Single pedestrian or group:

Pulsating force F[N] moving across the span at constant speed v
Crowd:
The distributed oscillating loading should be applied in order to obtain the most
unfavourable effect the amplitude of the load has the same sign as the mode
shape configuration
Setra (2006)
25
/33
EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
26 Objectives of tests
/33
Measurement of:
the intensity of the force exerted by a pedestrian on a rigid surface
the intensity of the force exerted by a pedestrian on a moving

surface
the probability that a pedestrian synchronises to the motion of the

walking surface
the frequency and velocity of people walking
the crowd characteristic quantities (e.g. density, velocity)
the probability of synchronisation among pedestrians
done
partially done
to be done
27 Force on a rigid surface: laboratory tests
/33
FORCE PLATE
four tri-axial force sensors

that measure the force
acting between the foot
and the ground in 3 axes:
transverse (X),
Z
anteroposterior (Y)
X Y
and vertical (Z).
TREADMILL
INSTRUMENTED SHOES
Sole with force transducers, allows to measure vertical
forces during gait over a great number of steps
28 Force on a moving surface and lock-in: laboratory tests
/33
Treadmill laterally moving with different frequencies and amplitudes measure the
force on a moving platform and estimate the degree of synchronisation

Pizzimenti, 2005
University of Reggio Calabria
SETRA, 2006
7m-long platform to recreate the
same condition of a footbridge
29 Pedestrian-structure synchronisation: field tests
/33
measure the footbridge dynamic response to different crowd conditions and the
triggering of the lock-in

measure the pedestrian lateral motion
London Millennium Nakamura & Kawasaki, 2003
Bridge 2001 M-bridge, Japan
Passerelle Simone de Beauvoire, 2006, Paris

30 Crowd characteristic quantities
/33
Available techniques:
Counting: flow measured by counting the number of persons at a

specific cross-section in a certain time interval; speed and
frequency measured by noting down the number of steps
and time taken by randomly selected pedestrians to cross
a given length.
GPS: measure velocity, step frequency, step length
Infrared: count people moving across a line, extract complete

pedestrian trajectories.
Videos: observation to measure crowd density and velocity.

31 Synchronisation among pedestrians
/33
Observation of videos recorded during crowd events

measure the motion of pedestrians’ heads and the motion of the deck
allow the percentage of synchronised pedestrians to be estimated
T-bridge, Fujino et al. 1993

32 What has to be done
/33
Measure the probability of synchronisation among pedestrians as a

function of the crowd density
Measure the way in which walking velocity (and frequency) are

modified by the motion of the walking surface
Measure the forces exerted on real footbridges for different crowd

conditions
Adaptation of W.I.M. to pedestrian loads?
Critical aspects:
Pedestrians do not walk in lanes
More than 1 pedestrian in the same deck cross-section
Need to measure the lateral force component
33 Conclusions
/33
Footbridge serviceability under human-induced excitation is still an open

research topic;
Standard codes are still based on outdated assumptions, while design

guidelines provide new design methodologies, load models and comfort

criteria;
Human-structure interaction is a complex phenomenon: it need further

research to be deeply understood with contributions from different
research fields
Need for experimental tests to

propose and validate load models
statistichally characterise pedestrian walking behaviour (e.g. velocity,
frequency, synchronisation, etc.)
34 A proposal for a different approach for SLE
/33
Description of the synchronous lateral excitation phenomenon through the

proposal of a crowd-structure interaction model;
model the crowd as a dynamical system instead of as a simple load.
The model is based on:

PARTITIONED APPROACH
decomposition of the dynamic coupled system into two subsystems

“TWO-WAY” INTERACTION
t = t + ∆t
STRUCTURE
Crowd-to-Structure Structure-to-Crowd
FORCE MODEL
action action
CROWD
VENUTI F., BRUNO L., BELLOMO N., Crowd dynamics on a moving platform: mathematical
modelling and application to lively footbridges, Math. Comput. Model., n. 45, 2007
35 A proposal for a different approach for SLE
/33
VENUTI F., BRUNO L., P. NAPOLI, Pedestrian lateral excitation on lively
FORCE MODEL
footbridges: a new load model, SEI vol. 17 n.3, 2007

F = Force due to n pedestrians
F ps Component due to nps pedestrians
synchronised to the structure
+ function of the footbridge lateral

n ps = nS ps acceleration and of the ratio
&z& between the step and the
structure frequency
F pp Component due to npp pedestrians

synchronised to each other
+ n pp = nS pp (1 − S ps )
function of the crowd density
Component due to ns uncorrelated

Fs pedestrians
ns = n − n ps − n pp

Pedestrian Loads and Dynamic Performances of Lively Footbridges An Overview

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pedestrian Loads and Dynamic Performances of Lively Footbridges An Overview

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 CSHM – 2 Workshop, 28th September – 1st October 2008, Taormina

Pedestrian Loads and Dynamic Performances of

Politecnico di Torino (Italy)

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES ROAD BRIDGES

Increasing strength of materials Increase of traffic

Critical performances of new Critical performances of existing

The dynamic behaviour should be considered in a very early design stage

Human-induced vibration problems on footbridges were

discovered in the 19th century collapse of a footbridge

Attention focused on vertical vibrations in the 20th century

From 2000, with the closure of the London Millennium

London Millennium Bridge

In the last decade, increasing attention to human-induced vibrations

on footbridges testified by:

International reseach projects and guidelines

SETRA/AFGC. Passerelles piétonnes – Evaluation

European Project SINPEX

state-of-the-art about human-induced vibrations on footbridges

Phenomenological analysis of pedestrian loading

pedestrian on a rigid surface

Pedestrian load models

Modification of the footbridge dynamic properties

Change in natural frequencies due to pedestrians mass

Synchronisation between the pedestrians and the structure

The phenomenon is much more probable in the horizontal direction

Synchronous Lateral Excitation (SLE)

Auckland Harbour Groves Bridge T-bridge Passerelle Solferino Millennium Bridge

KEY FEATURES OF THE PHENOMENON

the structure LOCK-IN

The probability of lock-in grows for

Dallard et al. (2001), Bachmann (2002), Nakamura (2003)

High crowd density causes

Venuti et al. (2005), Ricciardelli (2005)

Dallard et al. (2001) Pizzimenti (2003)

different people react differently to the same vibration condition

Code/Standard Vertical [Hz] Horizontal [Hz]

Seldom fulfilled in new footbridges

Limit values of accelerations If the limit on frequencies is not satisfied, a

walkways against vibrations.

Limit values for pedestrians

Eurocode 5: av,max= 0.7 m/s2 ah,max= 0.2 m/s2

frequently used by dense crowds, subjected to very heavy traffic

Stage 2: choice of the Comfort Degree of Acceleration level Acceleration level

Stage 4: dynamic calculation (if necessary)

vertical 1.3 ≤ f v ≤ 2.3 Hz horizontal 0.5 ≤ f h ≤ 1.2 Hz

Definition of design scenarios, characterised by a traffic class and a comfort level

TC 1 15 P Very weak traffic: 15 single persons

Comfort Degree of Acceleration level Acceleration level

k4=1 exposure factor

Comfort criterion on synchronous

Pedestrian excitation mass damping

Standard codes and new guidelines has different approaches

Absolute values of Comfort requirements decided

comfort requirements by the owner as a function of

UK National Annex has a different approach towards the avoidance

TIME DOMAIN FORCE MODELS

Assumption: both feet produce exactly the same periodic force

Deterministic general force model for each type of human activity

Probabilistic take into account that some parameters which influence

FREQUENCY DOMAIN FORCE MODELS

walking forces represented by power spectral densities (PSD)

Framework: Fourier decomposition of the three force components

G = 700 N pedestrian weight