“DESIGN OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CROSSING OVER COLISEUM BOULEVARD”

Group Members: Renan Constantino

Chris Ripke
James Welch

Faculty Advisor: Mohammad Alhassan, Ph. D.

Civil Engineering Program-Department of Engineering

Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne

December 11, 2009

 Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ vii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii
1. Section I: Problem Statement.................................................................................. 1
1.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 1
1.2. Background ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Crossroads Partnership .............................................................................. 2
1.2.2. Rivergreenway Trail .................................................................................. 2
1.3. Requirements, Specifications, and Given Parameters ...................................... 5
1.4. Design Variables............................................................................................... 5
1.4.1. Aesthetic Considerations (Bridge Type) ................................................... 5
1.4.2. Construction Materials .............................................................................. 6
1.4.3. Coliseum Expansion.................................................................................. 6
1.4.4. Connect to Ivy Tech .................................................................................. 6
1.4.5. Covered or Open ....................................................................................... 6
1.5. Limitations and Constraints .............................................................................. 6
1.5.1. Cost............................................................................................................ 6
1.5.2. Natural Conditions .................................................................................... 7
1.5.3. Construction Issues ................................................................................... 7
1.5.4. Additional Considerations ......................................................................... 7
1.6. SAP2000 ........................................................................................................... 7
2. Section II: Conceptual Design .............................................................................. 12
2.1. Location of Bridge .......................................................................................... 12
2.2. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge ..................................................................... 14
2.3. Concept II: Truss Bridge ................................................................................ 14
2.4. Concept III: Suspension Bridge ...................................................................... 15
2.5. Concept IV: Arch Bridge ................................................................................ 16
3. Section III: Summary of the Evaluation of Different Conceptual Designs .......... 16
3.1. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge ..................................................................... 16
3.1.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 16
3.1.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 16
3.2. Concept II: Truss Bridge ................................................................................ 16
3.2.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 16
3.2.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17
3.3. Concept III: Suspension Bridge ...................................................................... 17
3.3.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 17
3.3.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17
3.4. Concept IV: Arch Bridge ................................................................................ 17
3.4.1. Advantages .............................................................................................. 17
3.4.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................... 17
3.5. Decision Matrix .............................................................................................. 18
3.6. Selected Design .............................................................................................. 20
3.6.1. Background ............................................................................................. 20
3.6.2. Meeting with Greg Justice....................................................................... 21

i
 3.6.3. Meeting with Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. .......................................... 22
4. Section IV: Detailed Design of the Selected Conceptual Design ......................... 24
4.1. Arch without Angled Members ...................................................................... 24
4.1.1. Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................. 24
4.1.2. Arch Bridge Design ................................................................................. 24
4.1.3. SAP2000 Analysis .................................................................................. 25
4.1.4. Hand Check of Calculations .................................................................... 25
4.1.5. Conclusion............................................................................................... 26
4.2. Arch with Angled Members ........................................................................... 27
4.2.1. Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................. 27
4.2.2. Loads ....................................................................................................... 35
4.2.3. Summary of Loads Applied to Structure................................................. 41
4.3. Structural Analysis ......................................................................................... 41
4.3.1. Deformed Shapes .................................................................................... 42
4.3.2. Joint Loading ........................................................................................... 47
4.3.3. Frame/Cable Loads ................................................................................. 52
4.3.4. Shell Stresses ........................................................................................... 55
4.3.5. Influence Lines ........................................................................................ 56
4.4. Structural Design ............................................................................................ 59
4.4.1. Design Load Combinations ..................................................................... 59
4.4.2. Design Members ..................................................................................... 64
4.4.3. Slab Design ............................................................................................. 66
4.4.4. Concrete Edge Beams ............................................................................. 67
4.4.5. Footing Design ........................................................................................ 68
4.4.6. Vibrations ................................................................................................ 69
4.4.7. Deflection ................................................................................................ 70
4.5. Final Design .................................................................................................... 71
4.5.1. SAP2000 Report...................................................................................... 71
4.5.2. Final Design Drawings ............................................................................ 71
4.6. Alternate Design Considerations .................................................................... 75
4.6.1. Enclosing the Walkway........................................................................... 75
4.6.2. Smart Bridge ........................................................................................... 75
4.6.3. Mastodon Tusks ...................................................................................... 76
4.6.4. Construction Materials ............................................................................ 77
5. Section V: Cost Analysis/Estimation .................................................................... 77
5.1. Construction Techniques ................................................................................ 77
5.2. Cost Estimation............................................................................................... 79
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 81
7. References ............................................................................................................. 82
8. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 83
8.1. Hand Calculations........................................................................................... 83
8.1.1. Angle Member Hand Calculations .......................................................... 83
8.1.2. Arch Hand Calculations .......................................................................... 84
8.1.3. Concrete Slab Design .............................................................................. 85
8.1.4. Edge beams to support the concrete deck ............................................... 87
8.1.5. Footing Design ........................................................................................ 90

ii
 8.1.6. Tension Cable Design ............................................................................. 93
8.2. Sample SAP2000 Data ................................................................................... 93

iii
 List of Tables
Table 1. Decision Matrix .................................................................................................. 19
Table 2. Summary of loads applied to structure. .............................................................. 41
Table 3. Design load combinations used for the steel design of the bridge. ..................... 60
Table 4. General cost breakdown for pedestrian bridge. .................................................. 79
Table 5. Detailed cost breakdown for construction of pedestrian bridge. ........................ 80

iv
 List of Figures
Figure 1. Rivergreenway Trail Map.................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Rivergreenway Project Status Map as of 4/29/09. .............................................. 4
Figure 3. Proposed Location of Pedestrian Bridge (from previous TE application). ....... 12
Figure 4. Conceptual design of cable-stayed bridge over Coliseum Boulevard. .............. 14
Figure 5. Computer generated design of Venderly Family Bridge. .................................. 14
Figure 6. Design of truss bridge from CE 375 class project. ............................................ 14
Figure 7. Example of pedestrian truss bridge utilizing weathering steel members. ......... 15
Figure 8. Computer rendering of pedestrian suspension bridge. ...................................... 15
Figure 9. Computer rendering of arch bridge over Coliseum. .......................................... 16
Figure 10. SAP2000 Model of Arch Bridge without angled members............................. 25
Figure 11. Arch members drawn in the user defined grid. ............................................... 29
Figure 12. Arch members at an angle of 23º from perpendicular. .................................... 30
Figure 13. Structural frame for pedestrian bridge. ............................................................ 31
Figure 14. Bridge with deck drawn in (cables removed for clarity). ................................ 33
Figure 15. Complete Model of Pedestrian Bridge (Extruded view). ................................ 34
Figure 16. H5 Service Vehicle (www.dot.state.fl.us) ....................................................... 37
Figure 17. Design wind speeds (ASCE 7-02 Standard) (www.standarddesign.com). ..... 39
Figure 18. XZ-plane view of deformed shape under dead and live loads. ....................... 43
Figure 19. 3d view of the deformed bridge under dead and live loads. ............................ 43
Figure 20. Deformed shape for both the H5 and H5-2 load cases. ................................... 44
Figure 21. Deformed view for WIND............................................................................... 45
Figure 22. Deformed view for WIND looking down length of bridge. ............................ 46
Figure 23. Deformed view for WIND2 looking down length of bridge. .......................... 46
Figure 24. Deformed view for WIND3 looking down the walkway of the structure. ...... 47
Figure 25. Side view of the deformed shape from WIND3. ............................................. 47
Figure 26. Joint reactions for DEAD load case (symmetric at each end). ........................ 48
Figure 27. Joint reactions corresponding to LIVE load case (symmetric at each end). ... 48
Figure 28. Joint reactions at starting end for WIND loading case. ................................... 49
Figure 29. Joint reactions at the end of the arch for WIND loading case. ........................ 49
Figure 30. Joint reactions at the start of bridge span for WIND2 load case. .................... 50
Figure 31. Joint reactions at end of span for WIND2 load case. ...................................... 50
Figure 32. Joint reactions at the start of the span for WIND3 load case. ......................... 51
Figure 33. Joint reactions at the end of the span for WIND3 load case. .......................... 51
Figure 34. Overview of frame forces from DEAD load case. .......................................... 52
Figure 35. Frame axial force for DEAD load case at the base. ........................................ 53
Figure 36. Overview of frame forces for LIVE load case. ............................................... 53
Figure 37. Close up view of frame forces for LIVE load case. ........................................ 54
Figure 38. Overview of frame forces from WIND load case. .......................................... 54
Figure 39. Overview of frame forces from WIND2 load case. ........................................ 55
Figure 40. Overview of frame forces from WIND3 load case. ........................................ 55
Figure 41. Maximum shell stress in concrete deck (scale is in kip). ................................ 56
Figure 42. Influence line for the joint reaction at the start of the span. ............................ 57
Figure 43. Influence line for the axial force in the cable member at the mid-span. ......... 57
Figure 44. Influence line for axial force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. ...... 57

v
Figure 45. Influence line for moment force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. . 58
Figure 46. Influence line for shear force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. ...... 58
Figure 47. Influence line for torsion force for 2nd arch member in from start of span. ... 58
Figure 48. Influence line for axial force for frame member at apex of the arch. .............. 58
Figure 49. Influence line for moment force for frame member at apex of the arch. ........ 59
Figure 50. Influence line for shear force for frame member at apex of the arch. ............. 59
Figure 51. Maximum axial force from DSTL2. ................................................................ 64
Figure 52. Typical section of arch member. ..................................................................... 65
Figure 53. Typical rebar spacing. ..................................................................................... 66
Figure 54. Typical slab cross section. ............................................................................... 67
Figure 55. Edge beam design. ........................................................................................... 67
Figure 56. Typical cross sections for edge beam. ............................................................. 68
Figure 57. Base reactions for DSTL2 load case. .............................................................. 68
Figure 58. 3-d rendering of the final design. .................................................................... 72
Figure 59. Front dimensional view of the pedestrian bridge. ........................................... 73
Figure 60. Side dimensional view of the bridge. .............................................................. 73
Figure 61. Top dimensional view of the bridge. ............................................................... 74
Figure 62. Rendering of cable connecting to edge beam. ................................................. 74
Figure 63. Arch members enclosed to form Mastodon Tusks. ......................................... 76
Figure 64. Free body diagram of typ. slab section. ........................................................... 83
Figure 65. Free body diagram of parbolic arch................................................................. 84
Figure 66. Screen shot displaying joint coordinate table from SAP2000 report. ............. 93
Figure 67. SAP2000 report table of material properties. .................................................. 94
Figure 68. SAP2000 report: joint displacements. ............................................................. 95
Figure 69. SAP2000 screen shot for max design force in HSS member. ......................... 96
Figure 70. SAP2000 steel section check (critical member). ............................................. 97

vi
 Acknowledgments
The group would like to thank a few people for without them, this project would
not have been possible. First, we would like to thank our faculty advisor, Dr. Mohammad
Alhassan, for not only his help with the project, but also for preparing us to endeavor on
such a project through the multiple structural courses in which he has previously
instructed the group. Without the extensive background in structural analysis software
that was taught in each of his courses, the group would not have been able to complete
such an innovative design such as is proposed in this paper.
Another person whom the group would like to thank is Greg Justice, Senior
Project Manager at the IPFW Physical Plant. It was through a meeting with him that the
group gathered information on various projects that the campus has, or is planning on
pursuing in the future. The information that the group received from him helped guide the
group in designing a pedestrian bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard which had
previously been applied for by the university.
Finally, the group would like to thank Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. taking time
out of his busy schedule to meet with the group early on in our design process. Mr.
Heidenreich is President/Founder of Engineering Resources, a civil engineering firm here
in Fort Wayne. His company is responsible for the design of the two pedestrian bridges
that are currently on the IPFW campus: the Willis Family Bridge and the Venderly
Family Bridge. The group was able to reap vast amounts of knowledge about pedestrian
bridge designs through the meeting with Mr. Heidenreich, and it was through his initial
sketch that led the group to their final design.

vii
 Abstract

A major obstacle for pedestrians south of the IPFW campus is Coliseum

Boulevard: a main arterial for the city of Fort Wayne which has an average daily traffic
(ADT) of 50,000 vehicles a day. With this high of an ADT value, crossing by foot can
not only be challenging, but it also can be dangerous. Thus, the civil engineering senior
design group has proposed to build a pedestrian bridge over Coliseum Boulevard which
would allow for easy, safe travel over this busy roadway. Cohering to the innovative
design concepts of both the Willis Family Bridge and the Venderly Family Bridge which
already exist on the campus, the new structure should be designed so that it too can be
transformed into a landmark for the IPFW campus as the other two bridges have become.

viii
1. Section I: Problem Statement

1.1. Problem Statement

The two higher education institutions of Indiana University-Purdue University
Fort Wayne (IPFW) and Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana-Northeast have
joined together to form the Crossroads partnership, an excellent opportunity that
helps students achieve their goal of receiving a college degree faster by allowing
the student to enroll in courses at both institutions simultaneously. Since the start
of the Crossroads partnership, the number of students participating has steadily
grown to the point where now there are 650 students participating in this program.
Also of interest to the city of Fort Wayne, as well as to these two
campuses, is the River Greenway Trail; a great design that connects 17 parks into
a 20 mile linear park system along the three rivers that Fort Wayne is well known
for: the St. Joseph, St. Mary’s, and Maumee Rivers. With the campuses of IPFW
and Ivy Tech lying on the banks of the St. Joseph River, these campuses have
both been integrated into the design of the River Greenway Trail system.
Both of these projects face a common foe, Coliseum Boulevard (State
Route 930). This multilane highway is a major route in the city of Fort Wayne
which poses great difficulties when trying to cross in a vehicle as well as on foot.
The best way to circumvent this problem is by constructing a pedestrian bridge to
cross over Coliseum Boulevard which would allow for easy travel back and forth
between IPFW and Ivy Tech, as well as to connect the River Greenway Trail to
Shoaff Park to the northwest of the IPFW campus. This new bridge should be
aesthetically pleasing, completely functional, and within the proposed budget for
the project.

1
1.2. Background
1.2.1. Crossroads Partnership
The Crossroads Partnership, a collaborative effort between Ivy Tech
Community College of Indiana-Northeast and IPFW, is an exciting
opportunity for students in northeast Indiana. In an attempt to circumvent the
normal difficulties students face when transferring credits from one
university to another, the two higher learning institutions have worked
together to insure that certain courses are completely transferable between
the two schools. By doing this, they have made it less likely for students to
waste time, credits, and money as they pursue their degree.
A big draw for this program is by allowing students earn a two-year
degree at Ivy Tech, and then transferring to IPFW to earn their four-year
degree. Another way students can participate in the Crossroads Partnership
is by taking classes at one institution and then the other, or the student could
even enroll in courses at both institutions at the same time. Allowing
students to take classes at both institutions simultaneously, the partnership
lets students earn their degree faster than they may have previously
expected.

1.2.2. Rivergreenway Trail

Located in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the Rivergreenway Trail is a 20 mile long
linear park system that connects 16 parks and other attractions throughout
the cities of Fort Wayne and New Haven (Figure 1). The trail is located
along the three rivers that the city is well known for: the Saint Mary’s, Saint
Joseph, and Maumee Rivers. Although the trail is situated in an urban
environment, it gives the user the pleasure of many outdoor recreational
activities while offering both spectacular natural landscapes and other scenic
overlooks along the three rivers. In addition to the recreational use of the
trails, the Rivergreenway also creates a natural overflow to assist in holding
back the river waters and hence reduce flooding (a problem that has often
plagued the city of Fort Wayne).

2
Figure 1. Rivergreenway Trail Map.

3
 Much of the Rivergreenway has been funded by the State of Indiana and
the federal Land and Conservation Fund; however, the system is owned and
maintained by the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department and the
City of Fort Wayne Public Works Department.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the Rivergreenway Trail has yet to cross over
Coliseum Boulevard. This has left Shoaff Park to the north of the IPFW
campus isolated from the trail system. In the future, the city of Fort Wayne
has planned for a crossing at Coliseum in the vicinity of the IPFW campus.
The location of this crossing, shown on the “Project Status Map” in Figure 2,
would then allow for Shoaff Park to become a part of the linear park chain.

Figure 2. Rivergreenway Project Status Map as of 4/29/09.

4
1.3. Requirements, Specifications, and Given Parameters
The following is a list of the specifications for the bridge project:
a) The bride must clear span Coliseum Boulevard due to minimal width of
median in the roadway
b) Need to cohere to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which sets
a maximum slope of 5% for the walkway (including sidewalk on
approach)
c) Right of Way (R/W) is 80’ from each direction of the centerline of
Coliseum
d) Bridge shall be designed for a minimum life span of 50 years
e) Clearance height of at least 17.55’ from the top of the existing pavement
f) Minimum live load of 85 psf
g) Design wind speed of 90 mph for a 3 s wind gust
h) Design according to American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Indiana Department of
Transportation (INDOT) requirements
i) Width of bridge to be 10’ wide (controls the design vehicle to be used)

1.4. Design Variables

In addition to meeting all requirements and specifications, there are also
numerous design variables that must be considered for this project, which include:

1.4.1. Aesthetic Considerations (Bridge Type)

In addition to being able to safely support any and all expected loads on
the bridge, the structure should also have an innovative design to mesh
with the other two pedestrian bridges on the IPFW campus. The main
types of bridges that will be considered for this project are:
a) Truss
b) Suspension
c) Cable Stayed
d) Arch

5
 1.4.2. Construction Materials
Materials used in the structural design of the bridge will be the most
common materials used in the field of civil engineering. These include:
a) Steel
b) Reinforced Concrete
c) Soil (the most widely used material in civil engineering)

1.4.3. Coliseum Expansion

Even though the right of way of Coliseum Boulevard is taken into
consideration, before construction commences, it should be determined if
there are any plans for Coliseum Boulevard to be expanded in the future.

1.4.4. Connect to Ivy Tech

With the main classroom building for Ivy Tech being close to the road, the
design could include an additional or even incorporated structure that
would connect the bridge with the building. This would allow for ease of
use for students as now they would be directly in the Ivy Tech building
once they cross Coliseum Boulevard.

1.4.5. Covered or Open

Another design variable is if the design of the bridge will included a
covered path, or if it will remain uncovered. If the walkway remains
uncovered, a system such as some sort of fencing will need to be put in
place to provide safety to both the pedestrians using the bridge as well as
vehicles passing underneath.

1.5. Limitations and Constraints

1.5.1. Cost
With the tough economic times that this country is now facing, cost has
become an ever increasing factor when considering construction of any
new structure. The proposed design must be optimized in order to satisfy
all requirements while minimizing the cost of the structure.

6
 1.5.2. Natural Conditions
There are many factors of the local environment that must be taken into
account during the design of the bridge which include:
a) Soil bearing pressure
b) Natural contours for slope on each side of the bridge
c) Weather conditions

1.5.3. Construction Issues

Although this project does not include the detailed construction process,
there are aspects of construction that must be taken into account during the
design stages. A few of these are:
a) 50,000 vehicles a day on Coliseum (main arterial) – need to
minimize the adverse effects of closing the road down for long
periods of time
b) Steel lengths – want to make sure that the design members are able
to be shipped by tractor trailer to the jobsite. Will need to make
sure that the members are less than 100’ long and 14’ tall (when
loaded on trailer).

1.5.4. Additional Considerations

In additional to the information above, there are further details that must
be considered in the design of the bridge.
a) Driver’s ability to view the IPFW sign from the road
b) Serviceability of the structure
c) Addition of items to enhance the aesthetic properties of the bridge

1.6. SAP2000
Founded in 1975 by now company President Ashraf Habibullah,
Computers & Structures, Inc. (CSI) is a worldwide leader in the development of
software used in the design and analysis of civil engineering structures. Instead
of producing software that can be used for a generalized range of structures, CSI
tailors their programs to be tailored to specific classes of structures. SAP2000,
the software used in the analysis of the pedestrian bridge, is intended for use on

7
structures such as bridges, dams, stadiums, industrial structures, and buildings.
Other titles produced by CSI include: ETABS, software used mainly for building,
and the SAFE System, a powerful program used to design and analyze concrete
slabs and foundations.
SAP2000’s power comes in its amazing flexibility. From the simplest
design of a two dimensional frame, to a complicated bridge in three dimensions,
to the “Bird’s Nest” (Chinese National) Stadium from the Games of the XXIX
Olympiad, it can be seen that vast power that lies within this software package.
Its true strength is in its various analysis options: linear, nonlinear, static and
dynamic analysis of two and three dimensional structures. The advanced features
of SAP2000 allow for a structure to be analyzed even when a material no longer
falls in the linear range where Hooke’s Law is valid (stress is no longer
proportional to strain).
Students in the civil engineering program at IPFW are first introduced to
SAP2000 in CE 375: Structural Analysis and then further explore the depths of
the software in two more courses: CE 376: Design of Concrete Structures, and
CE 475 Design of Steel Structures. In addition to these three courses, the
software was used extensively in the entire Senior Design Project. Throughout
these courses, the basic steps in designing a structure are taught while learning
the interface of the SAP2000 software. Any structural design which can be
completed in SAP2000 may be broken into four steps:
a) Modeling
Upon creating a new file, the software prompts the user with a
screen asking for the user to define a new model. The user can either
define a new model and grid system themselves, or they can choose a
predefined template such as a beam, 2-d or 3-d truss, 3-d frame, etc. If
creating a new model with a user defined 3-d grid, it is advised to
carefully define a grid that allows for the model to be correctly
defined. By taking a few extra minutes setting up the initial grid, the
user can save a tremendous amount of time later on in the modeling of
the structure.

8
 After the grid is set, it is now time for the user to start the actual
design of the structure. Prior to placing members in the model, the
materials the user wishes to use in the structure must be defined.
Defining materials is easily done through the software which has built
into the system a database that has numerous shapes and sizes of steel
and aluminum members that are used by different agencies throughout
the world. Once the materials are defined, a members shape or
material can simply be changed by a dialog box which will then
modify the mechanical properties of the member. In addition to frame
members, cables, and tendons, the user can also define shells and
planes that may be used in a structure. The materials that are defined
for use in the shell or plane are also easily defined through the built in
database.
Once all members and materials are defined (they can be revised at
any time), the structure can then be drawn on the grid system. After
the correctly dimensioned structure is on the grid, pre-analysis
activities are completed to accurately model the structure. These steps
include: meshing any objects together so that they act like one
continuous member, correctly setting any constraints, and/or restraints
to joints to precisely model the joint if it may be a pinned or fixed
connection for example, and applying any releases to the members in
order to apply internal force releases at a given point.
The last step in modeling the structure is to determine the loads
that will be applied to it. SAP2000 allows for live, dead (which
includes the structures self weight), moving, earthquake, wind, etc.
loads that can be analyzed both separately as well as concurrently
according to AASHTO LRFD specifications. With these loads in
place, the user can then proceed to the analysis of the structure.

b) Analysis

9
 If the user has taken the time to meticulously set up an accurate
model of the structure, analysis of the structure becomes streamlined.
With the loading conditions already applied to the model, all the user
must do is determine which load cases they would like to run (any or
all of them), and then they simply press the “Run Now” button.
While SAP2000 is analyzing the structure, a dialog box is
displayed on the computer screen showing the status of the analysis. It
is on this screen that the program will inform the user whether the
structure was successfully analyzed, or if there was an error. If the user
is just performing a linear, static analysis, the program may only take a
few seconds before the analysis output may be displayed; however, if a
nonlinear or dynamic analysis is performed, the user may wait much
longer for the structural analysis to be completed. In some cases,
numerous iterations may be needed in order for an acceptable
convergence value to be established.

c) Display
Following the completed analysis of the structure, the user is then
able to view the mechanical behavior of the structure. For every
different display options that can be selected, the user is given the
option to view the results per the selected loading condition. Once the
analysis finishes the default view of the structure is its deformed
shape. This display can be extremely convenient to visualize the
effects of the applied loads on the structure, and if the deformation
agrees with the anticipated results of the loading. If there is an error in
how the model is designed, it may be obvious by erratic results of the
deformed shape of the structure.
The other option for the display is to show the resultant forces for
the joints, frames/cables, and shells. If the “Joint” display is chosen,
the forces acting on that joint for the given loading condition is
displayed on the screen. These results can then be used for the design

10
 of the supporting structure, whether it be a foundation, or any other
type of support required.
For the frames/cables force option, the user is given various
options to view different forces acting on the member which include:
axial force, torsion, shear 2-2, shear 3-3, moment 2-2, and moment 3-
3. An additional option for the forces is to either show the actual
values on the structure itself, or to just display a filled diagram
representing the corresponding force acting on the member. Much like
the deformed shape display, this view allows the user to visually
determine if the structure is acting accordingly to the design load cases
acting on it.
If the designed structure has any shell objects, the final display
option is to view the forces acting on these shell elements. Options for
the shell force diagram include: the component types may it be
resultant forces, shell stresses, or concrete design; output type for
visible, top, or bottom face as well as whether they are the maximum
or minimum values; and, the forces in the components, whether they
be the various layers of concrete, or the reinforcement steel in the
concrete.

d) Design
If the mechanical behavior of the structure is deemed to be
accurate, the final step in SAP2000 is the actual design of the
structure. An extremely useful feature of the software is that the user
can define a list of member shapes and sizes that the program can
chose between to safely support the forces per the given loading
combinations. This feature eliminates the need for the user to manually
go back and forth choosing different sized members by a trial and error
approach. Instead, the user can allow the program to optimize the steel
design members. This can save the designer hours of their time.

11
 All the user has to do when they feel that they are ready to start the
design of the structure is to select the correct design option (steel
frame, concrete frame, or aluminum frame), and the software will go
through and design the structure. After all members are analyzed, the
resulting screen will show the corresponding size of the member as
well as, judging by the members color, whether or not the member
passed the design standards. When the design is complete, it is highly
advised to run the option, “Verify Analysis vs. Design Section” to
determine if the analyzed members are the same as the design sizes
which will affect the dead load of the structure. If the members are
found to differ, all the user needs to do is rerun the analysis as well as
the design of the structure, repeating these two steps until the analysis
and design members converge.

2. Section II: Conceptual Design

2.1. Location of Bridge

Figure 3. Proposed Location of Pedestrian Bridge (from previous TE application).

Figure 3 shows the proposed location of the pedestrian bridge as

determined by the IPFW Physical Plant in the TE Application completed in
August of 2008. This location helps serve many of the functions required in the

12
bridge design. First, the location is in an open area where there are currently no
structures that would need to be razed in order to construct the new bridge. Also,
this point allows for a maximum use of the natural topography on the IPFW side
of Coliseum (the north side) to help maintain the maximum 5% slope without
having to build another structure (i.e. elevator) that would be used to lower the
sidewalk from the bridge deck to ground level. Using the natural topography for
the slope requirements minimizes the need for massive amounts of soil brought
into the site also. For the Ivy Tech side of the bridge (south side of Coliseum),
there is not enough space to allow for the sidewalk to drop directly from the
bridge and to the classroom building with no curves in the sidewalk. Instead, the
sidewalk will need to come off of the bridge and run parallel to Coliseum
Boulevard until the at grade level is reached using the ADA requirements. An
option that can be pursued for pedestrians who do not want to walk the extra
distance needed to meet ADA requirements is tha a stairway may be constructed
next to the bridge which can give the pedestrians a direct exit from the bridge to
the Ivy Tech campus.
In addition to using the natural slope to help in the slope of the sidewalk
leading to the bridge, the location shown in Figure 3 also minimizes the impact on
vehicular traveler’s view of the brick IPFW sign off of the roadway. The location
does block some of the view of the IPFW as travelers move west on Coliseum
Boulevard, however at this location the view should not be hindered too much.
This location also allows for pedestrians to access the pedestrian bridge
from the Rivergreenway Trail that is just to the west of Ivy Tech. As long as there
is a sidewalk designed to connect the bridge to a sidewalk leading towards the
Rivergreenway Trail. By doing this, the Rivergreenway Trail would finally be
able to connect to the parks and trails to the north of Coliseum Boulevard.

13
2.2. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge

Figure 4. Conceptual design of cable-stayed bridge over Coliseum Boulevard.

Figure 5. Computer generated design of Venderly Family Bridge.

2.3. Concept II: Truss Bridge

Figure 6. Design of truss bridge from CE 375 class project.

14
 Figure 7. Example of pedestrian truss bridge utilizing weathering steel members.

2.4. Concept III: Suspension Bridge

Figure 8. Computer rendering of pedestrian suspension bridge.

15
 2.5. Concept IV: Arch Bridge

Figure 9. Computer rendering of arch bridge over Coliseum.

3. Section III: Summary of the Evaluation of Different Conceptual Designs

3.1. Concept I: Cable-Stayed Bridge
3.1.1. Advantages
a) Aesthetically pleasing
b) Ability for long clear spans
c) Modern style of bridge construction
3.1.2. Disadvantages
a) Need adequate spacing on either side of columns to reduce
eccentric loading
b) Covering takes away from the appeal of the design
c) More cost effective for long spans/not for this short of a span
d) Difficult to construct
e) Already one on the IPFW campus (crossing the St. Joseph River)
3.2. Concept II: Truss Bridge
3.2.1. Advantages
a) Low cost
b) Ease of construction
c) Minimizes the amount of material needed for structure

16
 d) Able to be covered while maintaining original appearance
3.2.2. Disadvantages
a) NOT aesthetically pleasing
b) Would not be compatible with the innovative design of the other
two bridges already on the IPFW campus
3.3. Concept III: Suspension Bridge
3.3.1. Advantages
a) Aesthetically pleasing
b) Comparable design to other bridges on campus (Willis Family
Bridge)
c) Ability for long spans
3.3.2. Disadvantages
a) Needs to have adequate distance for anchorage points on either
side of main supporting columns (space is limited on Ivy Tech side
of the bridge)
b) Difficult and unattractive to cover if “normal” suspension bridge
c) Expensive to construct
d) Would need to close Coliseum Boulevard for an extended period
of time
3.4. Concept IV: Arch Bridge
3.4.1. Advantages
a) Aesthetically pleasing
b) Design has yet to be done on the IPFW campus
c) Can easily be covered
d) Construction can be formed to minimize the impact to traffic on
Coliseum Boulevard – many of the pieces can be prefabricated
e) Due to span, cost effective given the bridges requirements
f) If designed as a parabolic arch, all forces in the arch axial
3.4.2. Disadvantages
a) Large horizontal forces applied to the foundations from the arch
b) Uses large amounts of steel

17
3.5. Decision Matrix
To help assist the group in what bridge design they would go with
for the crossing of Coliseum Boulevard, the group used a decision matrix
as shown in Table 1. The matrix was designed with a set of standard
guidelines used in bridge design, taken from the Handbook of Structural
Engineering. Each item is given a priority 1 to 5 (1 = low, 2 = standard, 3
= high, 4 = very high, and 5 = extremely high) as well as a quality rating
on a scale 1 to 5 (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, and 5 =
excellent). The weighted average is then taken by multiplying the priority
value by the quality rating with these values summed to find the total
rating of the proposed design.

18
 Table 1. Decision Matrix

Maintenance Construction
Structural Constructability Aesthetics Cost
Bridge and Inspection Schedule Impact Total
Type Rating
Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality Priority Quality
Cable-
Stayed 1 5 3 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 2 70

Truss 1 5 3 4 2 4 4 2 5 1 5 5 63

Suspension 1 5 3 3 2 2 4 4 5 5 5 3 74

Arch 1 5 3 4 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 85

As is shown in the decision matrix in Table 1, the top rated bridge design is the Arch. This design had a total
weighted rating of 85, compared to the next closest, the suspension bridge, which rated 74. Based upon the results of
the decision matrix, the group determined to proceed with the arch as the base design of the pedestrian bridge. It is here
that a note should be made about what the group found out about cost comparisons of different bridge designs in the
Bridge Engineering Handbook. In this text, the author stated that costs between an arch bridge and a truss bridge a
comparable, and that if all other factors remain equal, the best choice is usually an arch bridge due to its aesthetic
superiority.

19
3.6. Selected Design

3.6.1. Background
An arch is an excellent choice in supporting long span structures
due to their ability to reduce bending moments in the structure while
carrying the load mainly in compression. A general rule of thumb is that
when designing a steel bridge, “the arch system is expedient to use for
spans longer than 160 ft” (Chen and Duan). By limiting the bending
stresses induced on the arch structure, member sizes may be reduced since
the chief load that they are supporting is the compression forces applied to
it while the other forces are minor. With compression forces being the
main load that the arch is supported, care must be taken in the structural
design of the members to ensure that it will not buckle under the
potentially large compression forces enacting on the structure. In order to
reduce the chance of a catastrophic failure associated with buckling, the
structural members must be sized accordingly using shapes that utilize
large moments of inertia as is seen with hollow structural sections (HSS).
Depending on its given application, various types of arches may be
chosen to support a given loading condition. The first, a fixed arch, is
commonly used when the arch is to be constructed of reinforced concrete.
Although it may require less material to construct than the other types of
arches, the fixed arch does pose some potential problems since due to its
geometry it is statically indeterminate to the third degree. Being statically
indeterminate leaves the arch prone to additional stresses if there is any
settlement of the foundation. Thus, if using a fixed arch the designer must
make certain that solid foundation abutments are used to minimize the
likelihood of the foundation settling.
The next type of commonly used arch is the two-hinged arch.
Usually constructed of wood or timber, the two-hinged arch is less
sensitive to settling since the structure is only indeterminate to the first
degree. A modification to the two-hinged arch is the tied-arch. By

20
 connecting the supports with a cable, the arch can behave like a rigid unit
since the tie carries the load in the horizontal direction. If the tie is used,
the second support can then be a roller which allows the structure to
become statically determinate.
Similar to the two-hinged arch, the three-hinged arch is basically a
two-hinged arch with another hinge placed at the apex of the arch. Since
there are three hinges, the structure can be disassembled which allows the
arch to be statically determinate due to the fact that there are now six
equations with six unknowns. With the arch being statically determinate,
the structure is not affected by either settlement or temperature change
leading to the three-hinged arch being an excellent option when designing
an arched structure. Thus the analysis and design of this pedestrian bridge
will utilize the three-hinged arch concept (Hibbeler).

3.6.2. Meeting with Greg Justice

Early on in the senior design process, the group knew that they
wanted to perform the structural design of a project that would benefit the
IPFW campus, but were unsure of what type of structure to design. This
uncertainty led the group to schedule a meeting with Greg Justice, a
Senior Project Manager at the IPFW Physical Plant. The group was
surprised by the amount of projects that were currently in some phase of
the construction process. With many options in front of the group, it was
now time to determine which route to take: should the group design an
entire building, or a pedestrian bridge?
It was at this meeting that Mr. Justice spoke with the team
members about a pedestrian bridge that was in the proposal stage. Being
designed to cross over Coliseum Boulevard, the bridge had just recently
been sent to the university for approval; however, due to lack of funding,
the bridge construction was postponed for now. Not necessarily wanting to
perform the design of a building, the group made a decision to pursue the
more challenging avenue of designing a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Justice was
kind enough to forward us the completed Transportation Enhancement

21
 (TE) Application for the bridge that was submitted to Purdue University.
In addition to providing us access to this information, Mr. Justice also
suggested we contact Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E., whom not only
collaborated with Mr. Justice on the application, but who is also the
engineer that designed the other two pedestrian bridges on the IPFW
campus.

3.6.3. Meeting with Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E.

On February 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. the entire group met at the
offices of Engineering Resources, Inc. to talk about the proposed bridge
design with company President Kurt J. Heidenreich, P.E., S.E. The group
brought Mr. Heidenreich up to date about our meeting with Greg Justice at
the IPFW Physical Plant, and how he had given us the bid proposal that
had already been turned down. Mr. Heidenreich made it clear to the group
that in this proposal, all drawings and information were of the very
preliminary thought concept stage and that the ideas that he and Mr.
Justice presented in the proposal were entirely “rough ideas”.
After the group informed Mr. Heidenreich about the background
information the group had collected, the conversation shifted to the other
two pedestrian bridges that are on the IPFW campus; both of which were
designed by Mr. Heidenreich. The first bridge he did on the campus, the
Willis Family Bridge, was designed to allow students to travel from the
student housing complex on the Waterford Campus, over Crescent
Avenue, to the heart of the IPFW campus. As any passerby is aware, this
bridge has a unique design that is a keystone of the IPFW campus.
Representing the suspension bridge design, the Willis Family Bridge relies
upon the two cables that are suspended from the triangular-shaped
supports to carry the bridge deck.
The conversation then briefly turned to the other bridge on the
campus that Mr. Heidenreich designed, the Venderly Family Bridge that
crosses over the Saint Joseph River. This bridge is a cable-stayed bridge

22
consisting of the two main towers that have cables anchored into them.
These cables are what support the bridge structure.
Discussion of the previously designed bridges on campus turned to
the newly proposed bridge crossing over Coliseum Boulevard which is the
main purpose of the meeting. It was during this that Mr. Heidenreich gave
us a peak into the mind of what a structural engineer must consider before
the design process commences. With aesthetic considerations always
playing a pivotal role in any idea, other details such as construction
techniques, impact on the environment, various loading conditions, and
height requirements were discussed with the group. Mr. Heidenreich also
brought out his copy of the AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge
Design Specifications: 2008 Interim Revisions which is a massive volume
of design specifications used for pedestrian bridge projects in the United
States. He recommended for the future engineers in front of him to take a
look at this book, and design the proposed bridge in accordance with it.
As the meeting came to a close, the group inquired of Mr.
Heidenreich of why Mr. Justice and he were leaning towards the arch
bridge design in comparison with the other choices. He let us know that
the main reason that at the required span (160’), the arch would be the
most cost effective option in comparison with the others while a truss
bridge was not an option per the request of the University. Also, neither a
suspension nor cable-stayed bridge were good choices since the Ivy Tech
side of Coliseum offers little space for an area to anchor cables to. With
this valuable insight, the group became heavily swayed in the choice of an
arched pedestrian bridge as the selected conceptual design.

23
4. Section IV: Detailed Design of the Selected Conceptual Design
4.1. Arch without Angled Members
In order to begin the detailed design of the arch bridge, the group must
first design the bridge using a normal arch designed without any modifications,
and then continue to the final design. Designing the arch in the xz plane allows
the group to easily perform hand calculations to verify that the structure is
accurately modeled in SAP2000.

4.1.1. Modeling of Bridge

The complete steps in modeling the arched bridge design are
outlined in 4.2 Arch with Angled Members. This design is only used to
serve as a check of if the SAP2000 model has any issues or irregularities
associated with it. Although this is not the final design, all of these settings
will be in place to allow for an easy transition to the final design using the
same template.

4.1.2. Arch Bridge Design

Shown in Figure 10 is the model of the arch bridge in SAP2000.
This drawing displays the complete structural outline of the arch bridge
that is used as a verification of the model used prior to proceeding to the
final design of the pedestrian bridge.

24
 Figure 10. SAP2000 Model of Arch Bridge without angled members

4.1.3. SAP2000 Analysis

In order to verify the final model, the bridge was modeled as an in
plane arch as shown in Figure 10. For this design, the bridge members are
all defined as those described in section 4.2 Arch with Angled Members.
The area is modeled as a 9” thick concrete deck with equal spans of
13.125’. After all of the members were drawn in accordance with section
4.2, the group set the live and dead load cases to be analyzed in SAP2000.
All analysis and design information for the arch bridge without angled
members can be found, upon request, in the SAP2000 report.

4.1.4. Hand Check of Calculations

4.1.4.1. Supporting Cables (Angle Members)

The first step in making sure that the bridge is modeled
correctly is by verifying that the load on the deck is transferred
correctly to the arch members. This is accomplished by verifying
the loads supported by the angles that support the deck.
Detailed in the appendix in 8.1.1, the group performed hand
calculations verifying both the live and dead loads supported by
the angle members. Using the tributary of a single concrete deck

25
 piece (10’ x 13.125’), the group found that the difference in the
analysis by SAP2000 from what hand calculations showed are a
difference of +5.6% for the live load, and -2.5% for the dead load.

4.1.4.2. Arch
Since the group determined to go with the three-hinged
arch, hand calculations were easily carried out with their being six
unknown forces and six equations to solve for these forces. The
steps used in calculating the forces are shown in 8.1.2 where the
loading condition used is that of the dead load of the 9” concrete
slab. After performing the hand calculations, the group compared
these values to those obtained through the SAP2000 analysis.
These values were off approximately -8.3% for all of the loads in
the x-direction while the values were off +8.9% for the loads in the
y-direction.

4.1.5. Conclusion
Based upon the comparison of values from those obtained
through the analysis in SAP2000 to those derived from the hand
calculations, the group has determined that this model is an
accurate representation of the proposed pedestrian bridge (without
the angled arch members). With all of the values within an
acceptable range compared to any hand calculations (largest
difference of 8.9%), the proposed model supported loads as the
group determined it should.
The group has determined that the differences calculated
for the arch itself are larger than that of the angled members due to
the shape of the arch. Although the arch is drawn as a parabolic
arch, the shape is not completely parabolic for reasons further
discussed in section 4.2. Instead of being a completely smooth
parabola from the initial point to its end, the arch is broken down
into 16 equally sized portions. Because of this, although the arch is

26
 close to being parabolic, there are some slight differences along the
shape of the arch which allows for shear and moment forces to be
introduced into the arch. It is the effects of these forces that cause
the variance in the SAP2000 analysis versus the hand calculations.

4.2. Arch with Angled Members

4.2.1. Modeling of Bridge
The process of modeling the bridge that must span over Coliseum
Boulevard is completed in accordance to the four steps detailed in 1.6.1.
Upon creating a new model, the group chose to design the bridge by
utilizing a user defined grid system. By previously calculating the required
span, length, and height for the bridge in order to meet the height
requirements specified (17.55’ from top of pavement to bottom of lowest
bridge member), the group determined that the bridge would span 210’,
and have a maximum height of 44’. This height was chosen because it
falls within the normal rise-to-span ratios of 1:4.5 to 1:6 that are
commonly used for the design of arch bridges (Chen and Duan). Hence,
the grid was set up as follows: 211 X-units at 1’ spacing (210’), 2 Y-units
at 10’ spacing (10’ width), and 45 Z-units at 1’ spacing (44’).

4.2.1.1. Frame Members

Since the group is familiar with the SAP2000 program,
immediately after the grid is defined, the group began to define the
materials and members used in the model. This allows for the
design to go smoothly since all member shapes and sizes are
defined prior to drawing any of the structure’s members.

4.2.1.1.1. Arch Members

By using an arched structure, the group knew in advance
that the main forces carried in the structure would be compression
forces. With this being the case, the group chose HSS members for
the main arch supports for their known performance in supporting

27
large compressive forces. Opening the accompanying database
included in SAP2000, the group was able to import various HSS
sizes (diameter and thickness) into the model.
Once the sizes were brought into the model, the next step
was to define an auto select list named “HSS”. Defining an auto
select list allows the user to draw the members in the grid with the
initial size being the median size of all of the selected members.
The advantage of defining an auto select list comes when the
design process in SAP2000 takes place: now, during the design
process, the software will optimize the member size eliminating
the need for a “trial and error” approach in designing the structure.
Easily accomplished in SAP2000, the arch members can be
drawn in the model through the application of two point-and-clicks
with the mouse, and a few user inputs. Going to the draw frame
member option, the user is prompted for what type of member is to
be drawn: straight frame, curved frame, cable, or tendon. In
addition to the member type, the user determines the section type,
in this case the “HSS” auto-shape, and whether the member
experiences any moment releases, selecting either “Continuous” if
it is to be modeled as one solid member, or “Pinned”, if there is to
be pinned connections at transition points. For the arch members,
the “Curved Frame”, “HSS”, and “Continuous” are selected in this
menu.
The next step was to actually draw in the member. Clicking
on the initial reference point (0,0,0), and then dragging the mouse
to (210,0,0), another dialog box appears prompting the user for
some information in determining the shape of the curved frame
member. In the box for curve type, the “Parabolic Arch – 3rd Point
Coordinates” is selected in order to draw a parabolic arch (the
reasoning behind this is detailed in Section 3.6.1.). Selecting the 3rd
point coordinate as (0,105,44) allows for the arch to be designed in

28
accordance with the calculations previously determined to yield the
correct distance and height requirements for the location of the
bridge. Figure 11 shows the arch members drawn in SAP2000 on
the XZ gridlines.

Figure 11. Arch members drawn in the user defined grid.

With the points of the arch determined, the next step was to
determine how the software would mesh the members together.
Previously doing trial designs for the bridge, the group knew that
keeping the arch as a single object leads to inaccurate analysis
results in SAP2000. Instead of keeping as a single object, the arch
members are modeled as multiple equal length objects. Not only
does this allow for accurate analysis in SAP2000, it also allows for
ease in construction due to ability to manufacture similar members,
and not having to construct numerous unique pieces. For the
design of the parabolic arch, the group decided to use 16 similar
sized members to form the main arches, and deciding to use each
of these connections as the joints where the cables would transfer
the bridge deck loads to the arch. In addition, the group defined an
internal pin connection at the apex of the arch so that the structure
could be analyzed as a three-hinged arch.
With this first arch member in place, all the group had to do
to draw in the other member was to replicate the entire shape. The

29
second arch was replicated linearly at a distance of 42.36 ft in the
Y-direction. If the arch was to remain in the XZ plane (as the
model used in the verification process was) the group would be
able to move on to the next step; however, the final design is to be
composed of arched members that angle into the center of the
walkway to give a more aesthetically pleasing look. Angling the
members is similar to replicating the arch along the Y-axis only
this time the group replicated the arch 23º into the center along the
line that makes up the base of the structure. Figures 12 and 13
show what the arch members look like when they have been
angled into the center which gives the entire structure a more
aesthetically appealing look.

Figure 12. Arch members at an angle of 23º from perpendicular.

30
 Figure 13. Structural frame for pedestrian bridge.

4.2.1.1.2. Cables
In the model, what will be the cable members in the final
design are modeled as L shaped angle pieces in SAP2000.
Substituting a straight line object like an angle for a cable was a tip
that the group found in the CSI Analysis Reference Manual. The
group determined to follow this tip after numerous failed attempts
at accurately modeling the cables in SAP2000. Knowing that
cables can only support tensile stresses, all the group had to do was
assign a frame compression limit of zero to all of the angled
members. The only catch is that to analyze these members without
the ability to carry compression forces is that the software must
execute a nonlinear analysis for the compression limit to be taken
into effect. For the DEAD and LIVE load cases, these limits do
not need to be set since the only forces that are applied to the
structure will be gravitational forces; however, for all of the
dynamic loading cases (all three wind load cases as well as the

31
 moving vehicle load cases) the compression limits must be set to
force the cables to carry only tensile forces.
Much like the arch members, the frame objects used are
selected from an auto select list, only this time they are defined as
“ANGLE”. Drawing the angled members in was made amazingly
easier since prior to drawing in any members, the group spent a
great deal of time in defining a grid system that makes for drawing
the model quickly. Since the grid is in place, all the group has to do
is draw the angles from the arch down to where the bridge deck
will be. Also during this step, the lateral supports in between the
arch members were drawn in, but instead of using angles for these
members, the members are defined to be HSS since they will be
carrying both compression and tensile forces depending on the
loading conditions.

4.2.1.2. Areas
As stated in section 1.4.2, the other material used in the design of
the bridge is concrete. During the structural analysis, the self weight of
the bridge is what contributes to the applied dead load on the structure,
so before drawing the concrete deck in the group had to determine an
approximate thickness for the bridge deck. By using the tables found in
Design of Concrete Structures the group was able to determine an
approximate thickness of 6”. The calculations used to determine this
thickness are detailed further in section 4.5 Slab Design.
All of the deck sections were drawn in with the “Quick Area” tool
in SAP2000. Drawing the areas in the XY plane, all of the deck
sections are the same with dimensions of 10’ wide and 13.125’ long.
Just as was explained for the beams and the arch members, this allows
for ease of construction both at the plant as well as in the field. Figure
14 shows the bridge with the cables removed to allow for the deck to be
easily seen.

32
 Figure 14. Bridge with deck drawn in (cables removed for clarity).

Once all of the area sections have been drawn in the model, the
next step is to define them. As will be shown in section 4.5 Slab
Design, the concrete slab is 6” thick with a compressive strength of 4
ksi. The concrete slab can be accurately defined in the “Areas Section:
Shell Section Data”. In this menu, the group defined the slab to be 6”
thick, constructed with f’c of 4000 psi, as well as defining the
reinforcing steel thickness and cover distances. For a more accurate
analysis of the slab, the group defined the slab as a layered shell
element which takes into account the composite nature of the concrete
slab. In defining the slab as a layered shell, the group had to determine
potential covers for top and bottom layers of reinforcing steel, along
with the material used for the steel.
After defining what the slab would be constructed of, the next step
was to adjust the stiffness modification factors of the deck. For this, the
group lowered the factor for Membrane Modifiers f11 and f12 to zero

33
 (from one where the others remained). The finalized model with the
concrete deck is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Complete Model of Pedestrian Bridge (Extruded view).

Now that all of the members are drawn in the model, the next step
is to define how the objects are meshed with each other. By selecting
all of the members (frame and area) at once, the meshing function is
completed efficiently. The first area that is meshed is all of the frame
objects which are meshed with joints as well as at intersections with
other frames and area objects. The same is done for the area objects;
areas are meshed with intersection with other frame objects and with
point objects on the area’s edges.

4.2.1.3. Restraints and Releases

As shown in Figure 15, the complete bride structure has all exterior
restraints positioned at the joint locations where the bridge will come in
contact with exterior supports. The restraints at all four points of the
arch are modeled as pinned-connections, effectively eliminating any
moment forces in the connection as well as maintaining the desired
three-hinged arch for analysis purposes. Exterior supports for the

34
 concrete slab consist of a pinned-connection at one end with the other
end being modeled as a roller-connection which allows for temperature
expansion and contraction in the concrete deck.
In addition to the restraints used for modeling the exterior
supports, various conditions and restraints are used for modeling of the
frame members of the structure. The first condition that needed to be
altered was the internal moment release at the apex of the arches.
Approaching both sides of the apex, the ends of the final members are
released from any moment forces. This release then allows for the
software to analyze the joint as a pinned-connection.
Another restraint used for all of the cable (angle) members, the
horizontal supporting HSS members, as well as for the beams is they
are all released from any moment forces developing in the members.
By releasing these members from both the major and minor moments at
each of their ends changes these members to be analyzed as pin-pin
connections at all joint locations.
The final modification used in the model was the release from any
compression forces from forming in the cable members, as discussed
earlier in section 4.2.1.1.2 Cables. Performing the action of both
releasing the cable members from developing any compression forces
in them (by setting the compression limit to “0”), and performing a
nonlinear analysis on the bridge under certain loading conditions results
in the angle members being analyzed as if they were drawn in the
model as actual cables.

4.2.2. Loads

4.2.2.1. Dead Load

Dead loads are those loads that are permanently applied to the
structure. For the pedestrian bridge that is being designed, there are
three sources for the dead load: the weight of the concrete deck, the
weight of any railing/supports on the side of the walkway, and the self
weight of the structure. The group decided to use normal weight

35
 concrete for the decking which has an average weight of 150 pcf. Since
the deck will be made from pre-cast concrete, once the bridge is built
on the site some kind of overlay will need to be added in order to allow
for the bridge to have a smooth, continuous surface. For this, the
contractor may decide to coat the top of the concrete with an overlay,
so an additional load of 10 psf has been added to take this overlay into
account. In addition to the load from the deck, there was also a 90 plf
load applied on either side of the walkway that takes into account any
railing/fencing that will be built on the bridge. The railing/fencing load
was transferred to the structure by a user defined load of 90 plf on the
edge beams that support the concrete deck. Since the edge beams were
designed through hand calculations performed by the group, a load was
also applied by the group to the edge of the deck for the self weight of
this beam. With the edge beam being later calculated to be a 10” x 16”
rectangular beam, the group had to add 300 plf to either side of the
deck to account for this weight. Finally, the self weight of the structure
itself, including all HSS, Angles, and Beams, is calculated in SAP2000.

4.2.2.2. Live Load

The live loads applied to the bridge are variable loads applied to
the bridge that are in addition to the dead loads on the structure. There
are three live loads applied to the bridge: that of pedestrians, wind
loading (Section 4.2.2.4), and a moving service vehicle load (Section
4.2.2.3). As described in the Reference 8 revised LRFD code, the
specified live load for a pedestrian bridge can be taken as 90 psf.
Previously, the LRFD design specified that use of a 85 psf; however,
with the changing factors that the LRFD has used over the years, it has
been found that a 90 psf live load multiplied by the factor of 1.75 (the
current factor for a live load on a pedestrian bridge) is sufficient for
pedestrian bridges. By using this load, the LRFD revised code states
that, “Consideration of dynamic load allowance is not required with
this loading [90 psf live load]” (LRFD Guides Specifications for

36
 Pedestrian Bridges). For the design of the pedestrian bridge crossing
over Coliseum Boulevard, the group has decided to use a live load of
85 psf with a check on the dynamic response of the structure being
performed later.

4.2.2.3. Service Vehicle Load

In addition to the uniform live and dead loads applied to the
bridge, the bridge must also be designed to carry the loading of a
moving service vehicle. A designated service vehicle is needed in the
design of the bridge in case there is an emergency vehicle needs to
cross over the structure, or if a maintenance vehicle needs to access the
walkway (i.e. removal of snow on the concrete deck). As detailed in
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, with the walkway on the
bridge being only 10 ft wide, the code recommends using an H5 design
service vehicle, as shown in Figure 16. Further, the AASHTO code
states that the service vehicle load is not applied in combination to the
pedestrian live load.

Figure 16. H5 Service Vehicle (www.dot.state.fl.us)

In order to apply the service vehicle load, the group first had to
define lanes on the bridge deck that the vehicle would travel on. The
group decided to define two lanes on the bridge each of which were

37
 centered at 2.5 ft from the exterior edge of the deck. These lanes are the
paths on which the design vehicle will travel.
After defining the lanes on the bridge, the next step was to model
the design vehicle in SAP2000. The group created a new service
vehicle in the software since the H-5 vehicle was not a standard vehicle
in the software. Defining the vehicle as shown in Figure 16 allows for
the loads to be correctly applied to the bridge deck, and hence
transferred correctly to the structure.

4.2.2.4. Wind Loading

For any structure, the force applied to it by the wind is a major
concern in the design of the structure. Unlike the loads previously
discussed, the wind loading is applied perpendicular to the structure,
and not in the direction of the force of gravity. To determine the force
from the wind, the group first had to find out what the maximum wind
speed that the bridge should be designed for. Figure 17 below, shows
the eastern 2/3 of the United States and the design values for wind
speeds in these locations. The wind speeds shown are for a 3-second
gust, and are based on the ASCE 7-02 standard.

38
Figure 17. Design wind speeds (ASCE 7-02 Standard) (www.standarddesign.com).

Based on the map in Figure 17, the group determined that the
design wind speed for the structure would be 90 mph. Applying the wind
load to the bridge was easily performed in SAP2000 through the user
defined loading patterns. In this menu, the group defined three different
wind load conditions: WIND, WIND2, and WIND3. While entering the
three conditions, the group defined each in SAP2000 as wind loads, and
based the conditions on the ASCE 7-05 standards.
After entering the three load patterns, the group had to modify the
wind load through the “Modify Lateral Load” tab. In this dialog box, the
group could model the bridge based on characteristics of the structure. The
first step was to determine what surfaces of the structure would be

39
exposed, and in this the group entered the frame and area objects of the
bridge would be exposed while the structure itself would be open. This
accurately analyzes the bridge as it is to be designed over Coliseum
Boulevard.
The next step in this box was to define the direction at which the
wind is hitting the structure. This is what the difference between the three
wind patterns is, with the angles for WIND, WIND2, and WIND3 being:
0º, 90 º, and 45 º, respectively. The final step to complete in this box is to
determine the wind coefficients for the structure. As described above, the
design wind speed is 90 mph based on the wind speed map. The exposure
type of the bridge was defined to be “B”, since the bridge would be
located in an urban environment (Hibbeler).
As described in section 4.2.1.1.2 Cables, in order for the
compression limit of 0 to be taken into effect, the wind loading has to be
calculated using a nonlinear analysis. This step was also simple to perform
in SAP2000 with the group simply having to go in the “Define Load
Case” box, and then defining each of the wind load patterns to be
performed at a nonlinear analysis. By doing this, the group could model
the bridge cables accurately using angle members in place of actual cables.

40
 4.2.3. Summary of Loads Applied to Structure
Table 2 shows a detailed summary of the loads applied to the
structure. It is through these loads, and various combinations of them, that
the final design of the structure was determined.
Table 2. Summary of loads applied to structure.

Loading Pattern Weight

Self Weight of Structure
Concrete = 150 pcf
Dead Load
Overlay/Surface = 10 psf
Railing/Fencing = 90 plf

Live Load 85 psf (pedestrian/snow)

Moving Load H5 Service Vehicle = 10,000 lb

Wind Loading Conditions

Auto Lateral Load
Pattern ASCE 7-05

Wind Speed 90 mph, 3 second gust

Exposure B

Importance Factor 1.0

Topographical Factor, Kzt 1.0

Gust Factor 0.85

Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85

Solid/Gross Area Ratio 0.2

4.3. Structural Analysis

Once the bridge’s geometry and the loads that it will incur are modeled in
SAP2000, the next step is to perform the structural analysis on the bridge. When
moving to this step, the user has the option of analyzing all, or only one, of the

41
loading cases. The group ran all of the loading cases at one time which takes the
software under 10 s to do (depends on the computer the user is working on).
Following is a summary of the information the group received after SAP2000
analyzed the modeled loading conditions from section 4.2.3.

4.3.1. Deformed Shapes

As stated earlier in the software review of SAP2000, one of the
easiest ways to verify if the structure is modeled correctly is to compare
the deformed shape given in SAP2000 with what the user anticipates the
deformed shape to be. If the deformed shape of the structure is abnormal,
then the user knows that something is modeled incorrectly; however, if the
deform shaped looks accurate the chances are high that the structure was
modeled correctly.
An example of a deformed shape where the user realizes
something is wrong happened to the group while first trying to accurately
model the parabolic arch in SAP2000. After setting up the model, the
group felt that everything was entered correctly. The group determined
there was an error after performing the structural analysis through
SAP2000 and then viewing the deformed shape of the bridge. In this
window, the group saw what looked like one of the arches caving into the
other arch. Additionally, the concrete deck and other members of the
structure remained in place without experiencing any deformations. This
was a sure sign that the structure was modeled incorrectly which made the
group go back to fixing the modeling of the bridge.
The subsequent subsections display various deformations
according to the different load cases that the bridge endures.

4.3.1.1. Dead and Live Loads

The deformed shapes for both the dead and live load cases
are similar with the only difference being the magnitude of the
deflection in each case. Figure 18 shows an XZ-plane view of the
bridges deformation after being analyzed with the dead and live

42
 loads. Note the two lines running down the length of the bridge
which are the user designed lanes for the service vehicles to
traverse. It should be noted that all of the deformed shapes shown
are not actual deformations, but are instead magnified to give the
engineer an exaggerated view of how the bridge is expected to
deform.

Figure 18. XZ-plane view of deformed shape under dead and live loads.

Figure 19. 3d view of the deformed bridge under dead and live loads.

43
4.3.1.2. Service Vehicle Load
There were two differences between the H5 and H5-2 load
cases: first, the service vehicle begins its movement along the
bridge at opposite ends, and second, the bridge stiffness is
modified on the H5-2 load case. For the H5-2 load case, the initial
stiffness of the bridge prior to the service vehicle moving across
the bridge was taken to be the stiffness of the bridge at the end of
the load case WIND. By applying the load pattern this way, it
helps model the bridge as if a moving vehicle load is on the bridge
during high wind conditions. It will be shown later, that this load
case controls the steel design of the structure based upon the
fatigue loading introduced to the structure during this load case.

Figure 20. Deformed shape for both the H5 and H5-2 load cases.

44
4.3.1.3. Wind Loading
The various wind loading conditions WIND, WIND2, and
WIND3 all have different deformations associated with them since
each case represents a different angle at which the wind acts on the
bridge. Angles of loading for WIND, WIND2, and WIND3 are 0º,
90 º, and 45 º, respectively. Following are some screen captures
from SAP2000 for the different wind loading cases.

Figure 21. Deformed view for WIND.

45
Figure 22. Deformed view for WIND looking down length of bridge.

Figure 23. Deformed view for WIND2 looking down length of bridge.

46
 Figure 24. Deformed view for WIND3 looking down the walkway of the structure.

Figure 25. Side view of the deformed shape from WIND3.

4.3.2. Joint Loading

After viewing the deformed shapes for the various loading
conditions, the next option was to view the loads at the exterior joints. The
following screen shots from SAP2000 display the forces at the pinned

47
connections supporting the arch. Each of the figures is labeled according
to the corresponding loading condition.

Figure 26. Joint reactions for DEAD load case (symmetric at each end).

Figure 27. Joint reactions corresponding to LIVE load case (symmetric at each end).

48
 Figure 28. Joint reactions at starting end for WIND loading case.

Figure 29. Joint reactions at the end of the arch for WIND loading case.

49
Figure 30. Joint reactions at the start of bridge span for WIND2 load case.

Figure 31. Joint reactions at end of span for WIND2 load case.

50
Figure 32. Joint reactions at the start of the span for WIND3 load case.

Figure 33. Joint reactions at the end of the span for WIND3 load case.

51
4.3.3. Frame/Cable Loads
Another great feature of SAP2000 is once the analysis is
completed, the user can view the forces that each member of the structure
is experiencing. In the following figures, compression forces are in red
whereas tension forces are in yellow. A quick check of the cable members
shows that they all do carry tension loads only, so the group was able to
easily identify that the compression limit of zero was executed correctly.
As viewed in the close up pictures of the structure, as per the view is set
up, the forces are shown in accordance to their magnitude and have the
maximum force labeled on the diagram.

Figure 34. Overview of frame forces from DEAD load case.

52
Figure 35. Frame axial force for DEAD load case at the base.

Figure 36. Overview of frame forces for LIVE load case.

53
Figure 37. Close up view of frame forces for LIVE load case.

Figure 38. Overview of frame forces from WIND load case.

54
 Figure 39. Overview of frame forces from WIND2 load case.

Figure 40. Overview of frame forces from WIND3 load case.

4.3.4. Shell Stresses

Another display option is actually viewing the intensity
distributions for the area in the model which in this case is the concrete
deck. Figure 40 shows the uniform loads in different intensities by using
various colors for the different strengths of the force. In this figure, the
maximum force is in the color blue whereas the minimum force is shown
in a light green. For each loading case, there are numerous options for
displaying the area forces which includes displaying shell forces, shell

55
 stresses, and resultant forces for each component of the shell along with
the different layers in the shell. Figure 40 was used just for an idea of the
shell force display since many figures could be incorporated into the
report.

Figure 41. Maximum shell stress in concrete deck (scale is in kip).

4.3.5. Influence Lines

Yet another powerful tool with SAP2000 is its ability to easily
display influence lines for joints and structural members. An influence
line, “represents the variation of either the reaction, shear, moment, or
deflection at a specific joint in a member as a concentrated force moves on
the member” (Hibbeler). A quick glance at this line serves as an aide to
where on the structure the member is most affected by the moving load.
The influence line is constructed by calculating the mechanical behavior
of the structure when a unit load traverses the structure. The following

56
 subsections show influence lines for various members of the bridge, with
the member and mechanical behavior shown in the figure’s caption.

4.3.5.1. Joint

Figure 42. Influence line for the joint reaction at the start of the span.

4.3.5.2. Cable

Figure 43. Influence line for the axial force in the cable member at the mid-span.

4.3.5.3. Arch

Figure 44. Influence line for axial force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.

57
 Figure 45. Influence line for moment force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.

Figure 46. Influence line for shear force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.

Figure 47. Influence line for torsion force for 2nd arch member in from start of span.

Figure 48. Influence line for axial force for frame member at apex of the arch.

58
 Figure 49. Influence line for moment force for frame member at apex of the arch.

Figure 50. Influence line for shear force for frame member at apex of the arch.

4.4. Structural Design

4.4.1. Design Load Combinations
The group used the default load design combinations for bridges
that are saved in the SAP2000 program to perform the steel design of the
pedestrian bridge. These combinations adhere to the AASHTO-LRFD
design combinations used by DOT’s around the country. As can be seen
by the different names of the load case combinations, some of the
combinations are used for strength design while others are used to
determine the design per serviceability issues, and some others are
designed for fatigue of the structure. Table 3 names the combinations as
well as details the load combinations used for each case.
Of the 150 different load case combinations, the one predominately
used in the steel design structure is DSTL2 which multiplies the dead load
by a factor of 1.2 and the live load by a factor of 1.75; however, in some
instances, the controlling load case combination is due to fatigue loading.
As can be seen in the deformed shape videos, and drawings, there can be

59
 large deformations found in the arch from the portion where the deck rests
on top of the arch to where the first lateral support is located. When
performing in advanced dynamic analysis of the structure, it was found
that fatigue loading would control the steel design of the arch for the H5
service vehicle load. This was due to the fact that the group analyzed the
H5 moving load by using the stiffness found at the end of the nonlinear
wind loading. Performing this analysis leads the size of the arch to be
increased from an HSS 16 x 0.375 to HSS 18 x 0.375. Through these load
increases, the structure can safely be designed in accordance with the
LRFD specifications.

Table 3. Design load combinations used for the steel design of the bridge.

Load Case Combination Scale Factor

DSTL1 1.4D
DSTL2 1.2D + 1.75L
DSTL3 1.2D + 1.6L
DSTL4 1.0D
DSTL5 1.0D + 1.0L
STR-I1 1.25D
STR-I2 0.9D
STR-I3 1.25D + 1.75MODAL
STR-I4 1.25D + 1.75H5
STR-I5 1.25D + 1.75H5-2
STR-I6 0.9D + 1.75MODAL
STR-I7 0.9D + 1.75H5
STR-I8 0.9D + 1.75H5-2
STR-II1 1.25D
STR-II2 0.9D
STR-II3 1.25D + 1.35MODAL
STR-II4 1.25D + 1.35H5
STR-II5 1.25D + 1.35H5-2
STR-II6 0.9D + 1.35MODAL
STR-II7 0.9D + 1.35H5
STR-II8 0.9D + 1.35H5-2
STR-III1 1.25D + 1.4WIND
STR-III2 1.25D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III3 1.25D - 1.4WIND
STR-III4 1.25D - 1.4WIND2
STR-III5 0.9D + 1.4WIND
STR-III6 0.9D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III7 0.9D - 1.4WIND
STR-III8 0.9D - 1.4WIND2

60
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
STR-III9 0.9D + 1.4WIND3
STR-III10 1.25D + 1.4WIND
STR-III11 1.25D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III12 1.25D + 1.4WIND3
STR-III13 1.25D - 1.4WIND
STR-III14 1.25D - 1.4WIND2
STR-III15 1.25D - 1.4WIND3
STR-III16 0.9D + 1.4WIND
STR-III17 0.9D + 1.4WIND2
STR-III18 0.9D + 1.4WIND3
STR-III19 0.9D - 1.4WIND
STR-III20 0.9D - 1.4WIND2
STR-III21 0.9D - 1.4WIND3
STR-IV1 1.5D
STR-IV2 0.9D
STR-IV3 1.25D
STR-IV4 0.9D
STR-V1 1.25D + 0.4WIND
STR-V2 1.25D + 0.4WIND2
STR-V3 1.25D - 0.4WIND
STR-V4 1.25D - 0.4WIND2
STR-V5 0.9D + 0.4WIND
STR-V6 0.9D + 0.4WIND2
STR-V7 0.9D - 0.4WIND
STR-V8 0.9D - 0.4WIND2
STR-V9 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V10 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V11 1.25D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V12 1.25D +0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V13 1.25D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V14 1.25D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V15 1.25D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V16 1.25D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V17 1.25D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V18 1.25D - 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V19 1.25D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V20 1.25D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V21` 1.25D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V22 1.25D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V23 1.25D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V24 1.25D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V25 1.25D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V26 1.25D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V27 0.9D + 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V28 0.9D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V29 0.9D + 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V30 0.9D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL

61
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
STR-V31 0.9D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V32 0.9D + 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V33 0.9D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V34 0.9D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V35 0.9D + 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V36 09.D - 0.4WIND + 1.35MODAL
STR-V37 09.D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5
STR-V38 0.9D - 0.4WIND + 1.35H5-2
STR-V39 09.D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V40 0.9D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5
STR-V41 0.9D - 0.4WIND2 + 1.35H5-2
STR-V42 09.D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35MODAL
STR-V43 09.D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5
STR-V44 0.9D - 0.4WIND3 + 1.35H5-2
EE-I1 1.25D
EE-I2 0.9D
EE-I3 1.25D + 1.0MODAL
EE-14 1.25D + 1.0H5
EE-I5 1.25D + 1.0H5-2
EE-I6 0.9D + 1.0MODAL
EE-I7 09D + 1.0H5
EE-I8 0.9D + 1.0H5-2
EE-II1 1.25D
EE-II3 1.25D + 1.0MODAL
EE-II4 1.25 + 1.0H5
EE-II5 1.25D + 1.0H5-2
EE-II6 0.9D + 1.0MODAL
EE-II7 0.9D + 1.0H5
EE-II8 0.9 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I1 1.0D + 0.3WIND
SER-I2 1.0D + 0.3WIND2
SER-I3 1.0D - 0.3WIND
SER-I4 1.0D - 0.3WIND2
SER-I5 1.0D + 0.4WIND3
SER-I6 1.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.0MODAL
SER-I7 1.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.0H5
SER-I8 1.0D + 0.3WIND + 1.0H5-2
SER-I9 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I10 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5
SER-I11 1.0D + 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I12 1.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I13 1.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5
SER-I14 1.0D + 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I15 1.0D - 0.3WIND + 1.0MODAL
SER-I16 1.0D - 0.3WIND + 1.0H5
SER-I17 1.0D - 0.3WIND + 1.0H5-2

62
Load Case Combination Scale Factor
SER-I18 1.0D - 0.3WIND2 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I19 1.0D - 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5
SER-I20 1.0D - 0.3WIND2 + 1.0H5-2
SER-I21 1.0D - 0.3WIND3 + 1.0MODAL
SER-I22 1.0D - 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5
SER-I23 1.0D - 0.3WIND3 + 1.0H5-2
SER-II1 1.0D
SER-II2 1.0D + 1.3MODAL
SER-II3 1.0D + 1.3H5
SER-II4 1.0D + 1.35H5-2
SER-III2 1.0D + 0.8MODAL
SER-III3 1.0D + 0.8H5
SER-III4 1.0D + 0.8H5-2
SER-IV1 1.0D + 0.7WIND
SER-IV2 1.0D + 0.7WIND2
SER-IV3 1.0D - 0.7WIND
SER-IV4 1.0D - 0.7WIND2
SER-IV5 1.0D + 0.7WIND3
SER-IV6 1.0D - 0.7WIND3
SER-IV7 1.0D + 0.7WIND
SER-IV8 1.0D + 0.7WIND2
SER-IV9 1.0D + 0.7WIND3
SER-IV10 1.0D - 0.7WIND
SER-IV11 1.0D - 0.7WIND2
SER-IV12 1.0D - 0.7WIND3
FAT1 0.75MODAL
FAT2 0.75H5
FAT3 0.75H5-2

63
4.4.2. Design Members

4.4.2.1. Arch Members

Using the steel design function in SAP2000, the group
adequately sized the steel arch members for the pedestrian bridge.
Since the arch members were initially designed as an automatically
selected HSS member, when the design commences the program
optimizes the design members in accordance to the load case
combinations shown in Table 3. As shown in Figure 51, the
maximum axial force in the arch members was calculated to be
329.93 kip (compression). In order to support this load, the
software selected an HSS 18 x 0.375 to be used as the main
structural shapes for arch members.
As stated previously, when using only the DSTL2 loads,
the arch was designed for an HSS 16 x 0.375, but by performing an
advanced dynamic analysis of the moving vehicle load, SAP2000
designed the arch members to be the larger 18” diameter HSS.
Figure 52 shows this design.

Figure 51. Maximum axial force from DSTL2.

64
 Figure 52. Typical section of arch member.

4.4.2.2. Cross Members on Arch

When designing the structure, the group allowed SAP2000
to optimize all of the members used in the arch. During this steel
design, the program designed the cross members that are used for
the lateral support to be designed at the same dimensions as what
the arch members are, HSS 18 x 0.375. Although this size of
structural shape is way more than adequate for the loads that are in
the cross supports, the group determined that it was aesthetically
pleasing to use the same size for these members as what is found in
the main arch supports.

4.4.2.3. Cables
Since the cable members were modeled as angle members
in SAP2000, the group needed to perform hand calculations to
determine the size of cables needed to support the bridge deck. The
maximum force applied to the cables was determined in SAP2000
and used for the calculations that are detailed in the Appendix.
Based upon a maximum tensile force of 26.719 kips, which is from

65
 the Load Case DSTL2, the required diameter of the cable members
is 1 in.

4.4.3. Slab Design

As described in the Bridge Engineering Handbook, loads applied
to the slab can be distributed to effective slab widths which can then be
analyzed as a simply supported beam. By doing this, the group was able to
perform a set of hand calculations to determine all relevant design
information for the concrete deck. These hand calculations are shown in
the Appendix.
Using the calculations from the Appendix shows that the deck
should be constructed of a 6” deep concrete slab. The reinforcement steel
required for the longitudinal direction is No. 3 rebar, placed 7” o.c. while
the reinforcement steel that is needed to control the shrinkage and
temperature was calculated to be No. 3 rebar, placed 10” o.c.

Figure 53. Typical rebar spacing.

66
 Figure 54. Typical slab cross section.

4.4.4. Concrete Edge Beams

Concrete edge beams will effectively carry the loading transferred
from the concrete deck to the cables hanging from the arch members. This
beam will be designed to support 1.6 k/ft (from factored live and dead
loads) which transfers the loading from the decks to the beams, a 0.09 k/ft
for railing, and the self weight of the concrete beam.
Calculations from the Appendix show that the beam should be
constructed of a 10” wide and 16” deep rectangular concrete beam. The
beam shall be reinforced with 3 No. 4 steel reinforcement on the bottom
and 2 No. 4 bars on the top to allow for anchorage for the cables tying into
the beams. As far as the shear reinforcement that is required, No. 3 stirrups
will be used. Figure

Figure 55. Edge beam design.

67
 Figure 56. Typical cross sections for edge beam.

4.4.5. Footing Design

Figure 57. Base reactions for DSTL2 load case.

The supports for each of the four arches are to be designed from
concrete using a design compressive strength of 4000 psi and yield
strength Figure 57. of the reinforcing steel of 60,000 psi, and the base
reaction forces found in . Using the support reactions shown in Figure 57,
the steps taken for the design of the concrete footers is shown in the
Appendix. When designing only for the reaction coming directly into the
footer (since footer will be placed at same angle as arch tying into it) the
design for each of the footers would be 8’ x 11’ x 2’. This design is

68
 adequate for the arch bridge since the bridge has a large horizontal force at
the foundation. Thus, the design in the Appendix takes into account the
thrust force in the horizontal direction, and assumes that the footer itself
will be able to support this force. The subsequent design for the footer is
calculated to be a 10’ x 12’ x 11’ with 6’ of the footer being below grade.

4.4.6. Vibrations
As described in section 6 of the LRFD Guide Specifications for the
Design of Pedestrian Bridges, “Vibration of the structure shall not cause
discomfort or concern to users of a pedestrian bridge”. The code later
prescribes a limit to the fundamental frequency of the first vertical mode
to be greater than 3.0 Hertz (Hz), in the absence of any applied live loads.
If the fundamental frequency does not satisfy this limit than a more in
depth look at the dynamic performance of the bridge must be undertaken.
To alleviate any problems that these oscillations may cause, the
response of the bridge can be held in check simply by adding more mass
to the bridge, if it is needed. Since the frequency of the bridge is controlled
by Newton’s equation:

 F  ma
By rearranging it can easily be shown that,

a
F
m
Thus, increasing the mass will decrease the acceleration of the structure.
The LRFD Guide has a simple formula to determine the
fundamental frequency of a pedestrian bridge. The formula is:
 180 
f  2.86 ln  
W 
Where;
f = fundamental frequency (Hz)
W = total weight of the supported structure (kips)

69
 As stated above, if this frequency is greater than 3.0 Hz, then no further
investigation is required.
With the only weight that is calculated in the frequency equation
being that of the supported structure, the group had to determine the
approximate weight of the concrete deck. As long as the deck’s weight is
large enough, the frequency of the bridge can be estimated to be large
enough that the structure will not vibrate under its first mode. Since the
final deck was designed to be regular concrete that is 6” thick, the weight
of the deck was calculated by:
131.25 ft 2 0.150k * 0.5
W x x 210 ft  2067 k
1 ft 2
Using this weight in the frequency equation gives:
 180 
f  2.86 ln  
 2067 
f = -6.98 Hz
When dealing with a frequency, the sign convention is similar to
everything else where the sign of the value describes the direction of the
vibration. Thus, a natural frequency of 6.98 Hz exceeds the minimum
value of 3.0 Hz, so no further vibration analysis is required for the
structure.

4.4.7. Deflection
When designing a structure, one must first analyze the structure
based on strength conditions. If the structure is capable of carrying the
loads safely, the next step is to verify that the structure meets
serviceability requirements. In SAP2000, deflection limits are taken into
consideration when the software performs the steel design of the given
structure. When printing the report directly from SAP2000, joint
deflections are given in table format according to each of the individual
load combinations.

70
 The appendix shows a portion of one such table that shows the
maximum joint deflection. As is shown in this table, the maximum
deflection was found to be just under ¼” (0.240 in). Using the maximum
allowable deflection per Ref. 8 for a pedestrian bridge being L/500, it is
easily determined that this pedestrian bridge meets the deflection
requirements. (This was calculated from the maximum member length of
the concrete being 13.125’ leading to a maximum allowable deflection of
0.315 in.) The small values found for the deflection of the bridge confirm
the earlier statement that the deformed shapes that the software produces
are exaggerated to help the user better visualize what has happening with
the structure.

4.5. Final Design

4.5.1. SAP2000 Report

Another feature of the SAP2000 is software is its ability to prepare
advanced technical reports for the structure that the engineer is designing.
In the appendix, there are a few samples of the types of tables that the
software prepares. It should be noted that the complete SAP2000 report
was not included with this project since the final report was in excess of
500 pages.
In the report, the user can find information pertaining to the
coordinates of each joint, property of the materials that are used for the
design of the structure, the actual displacements of each joint, etc. The
report serves as another way that the engineer can verify the analysis of
the structure as well as allowing them to have all of the design information
in convenient table form. This allows for easy reference of the mechanical
behavior of the designed structure.

4.5.2. Final Design Drawings

For the final design of the structure, the group imported the final
model of the bridge from SAP2000 into AutoCAD where the structure

71
was rendered as is shown in Figure 58. This design shows the structure
designed with the properly sized members calculated previously.

Figure 58. 3-d rendering of the final design.

In addition to doing the renderings in AutoCAD, the group also

dimensioned the bridge in this software. Figures 59-61 display the plan
views for the front, side, and top of the bridge, respectively.

72
Figure 59. Front dimensional view of the pedestrian bridge.

Figure 60. Side dimensional view of the bridge.

73
 Figure 61. Top dimensional view of the bridge.

Figure 62 shows how the cables will tie into the concrete edge beams. For
each connection, the cables will be wrapped around a steel eyelet that is
embedded into the concrete edge beam. The excess steel cable will be cut
and crimped as shown.

Figure 62. Rendering of cable connecting to edge beam.

74
4.6. Alternate Design Considerations
The final design could be altered in order to allow for alterations that may
be requested by the structure’s owner. Three possible design alternates could
include: enclosing the walkway, making the structure “smart”, and/or applying a
wrap to represent the mascot of IPFW.

4.6.1. Enclosing the Walkway

The final design could easily be altered to allow for the bridge
deck to be completely enclosed instead of open as the final design
portrays. If requested by the owner, the design could entail a covering over
the sidewalk, much like the design of the Willis Family Bridge. Minor
changes in the dead load as well as how the wind affects the structure
would be the only concerns in the structural analysis of the covered
bridge. By covering the bridge, there would be a tremendous increase in
surface area that the wind force would affect, so the design would need to
be altered to accommodate the increases in horizontal forces that would
come from the larger wind force.

4.6.2. Smart Bridge

Another minor design alteration could lead to the bridge becoming
a “smart” structure. Implementing a structural health monitoring system
(SHM) to the bridge would allow for the owners to actively monitor the
state in which the bridge finds itself. By relaying information about the
bridge’s mechanical behavior through a system of sensors attached to the
bridge, the university would be able to maintain the bridge when
maintenance is needed. SHM technology has recently gained the support
of the engineering community in helping manage the issue with the
nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The system would allow for the owners
to know what condition the bridge is in at any given time, and not have to
rely on visual inspections to determine the health of the bridge.
There would be few changes that would need to be made in order
to apply SHM sensors to the bridge structure. Only if conduits were run in

75
 the concrete deck would any considerations need to be taken on the
structural end of the design. With this bridge being designed by members
of the university, all forces as well as any potential problem areas on the
bridge are easily known; allowing for sensors to be placed in the exact
locations that are needed the most. By adding an SHM system to this new
bridge, not only would the IPFW campus be at the forefront of this
innovative technology, but it could also provide a valuable learning tool to
the campus’s engineering students.
4.6.3. Mastodon Tusks
Another option that the group considered would be completely for
IPFW, and do little to help Ivy Tech. What the group thought was to
somehow apply a wrap to the arch members that would take the form of
mastodon tusks coming up from opposite sides of the foundation. By
doing this, the bridge could become a cornerstone of the IPFW campus,
and provide more exposure to the various IPFW sports programs. Figure
63 shows how the group envisioned wrapping the arch members to form
two-pairs of mastodon tusks.

Figure 63. Arch members enclosed to form Mastodon Tusks.

76
 4.6.4. Construction Materials
Instead of building the walkway of the bridge completely out of
concrete, the design could be modified so that the deck is constructed out
of a combination of both concrete and steel. In order to decrease the
weight of the bridge, as well as the concrete that would be needed for the
bridge, the deck could be constructed out of a thinner concrete deck
underlain by corrugated steel. The steel would then serve as structural
support for the concrete with the major difference between this design and
the proposed design being that the corrugated steel would also need to be
supported by a steel beams. Although more pieces would be required for
this design, this approach would lessen the weight of the walkway. Since
the natural frequency of the bridge (7.0 Hz) is much greater than the
minimum frequency required before a dynamic analysis needs to be
performed on the bridge, the weight can be decreased before any
unwanted oscillations may appear.

5. Section V: Cost Analysis/Estimation

5.1. Construction Techniques
As described in detail in 45.13 of the Bridge Engineering Handbook, there
are some difficulties contractors are faced with when constructing a steel arch
bridge. When it comes to constructing a steel arch structure, matching up the
curved arch pieces in order to make the correct continuous radius is difficult to
say the least. It has been found that workers on the construction site have had
troubles making field-measured geometric and stress conditions agree with those
that are calculated theoretically by the bridge designers.

77
 There are two general practices used in steel arch bridge design: the field
adjustment procedure and the shop control procedure. In the field adjustment
procedure, it is required for the workers on the site to carry out a program of
steelwork surveys and measurements as the erection of the steel arches
progressives. It is then the steelworkers’ requirement to make any field
adjustments needed to maintain the arch dimensions within the previously
defined overall tolerances of the arch.
The second procedure, the shop control procedure, puts all of the trust in
the initial site survey and uses these measurements as the basis for the
dimensions used in the construction of all the parts of the bridge. With this
approach, the field workers are assumed to not have to make any field
adjustments during the construction of the bridge. For the proposed pedestrian
bridge over Coliseum Boulevard, the group has determined to use the shop
control procedure due to the relatively short span used in the design of the bridge.
In addition to the design procedures, there are also two general methods of
arch bridge construction: the tie back and the false frame work methods. In the
tie back method, piers on either side of the span of the bridge are used to support
the main ribs used in the arch structure. The cables are directly connected to the
arch pieces as well as the pier to support any loads carried by the members.
For the false frame work method, a set of supports are constructed
underneath the bridge to carry the arches as they protrude from either side of the
main bridge span. Since this pedestrian bridge is crossing over a major arterial
road, the group has decided the best construction method to be used would be the
tie back method which allows for a minimal impact on travelers on Coliseum
Boulevard.

78
5.2. Cost Estimation
For an accurate cost breakdown of the bridge, one can not only look at the
price for the materials, but must add in all factors involved when building a new
structure such as this. The figures shown in Table 4 were taken from the TE
Application that the IPFW physical plant submitted in August 2008. At the time,
the project was not approved; however, much of the pricing information should
still be valid slightly over a year later.

Table 4. General cost breakdown for pedestrian bridge.

Activity Estimated Cost

Project Development and Environmental Studies $30,000
Engineering and Final Plans Preparation Work $330,000
Construction $3,600,000
Construction Engineering and Inspection Activities $540,000

Table 5 shows a more detailed cost breakdown for the construction of the
pedestrian bridge. As stated above, there are more factors involved in building
the bridge other than the cost of materials and labor needed for the structure.
These figures were also compiled from the TE Application filed in 2008.

79
 Table 5. Detailed cost breakdown for construction of pedestrian bridge.

Activity Estimated Cost

Archeological Study $30,000
Engineering and Final Plan Prep $330,000
Mobilization and Demobilization $50,000
Site Clearing and Traffic Control $100,000
Sitework and Excavation $300,000
Structural Piling $200,000
Reinforcing Steel $300,000
Concrete Work $600,000
Structural Steel $1,500,000
Utilities $200,000
Electrical Work and Lighting $250,000
Restoration $100,000
Construction Engineering/Inspection $540,000

Estimated Total Cost $4,500,000

80
6. Conclusion
With pedestrian travel over Coliseum Boulevard being as dangerous as it is, the
group feels that the best possible way in ensuring safe travel over this roadway is by
constructing a new pedestrian bridge. In addition to helping pedestrians safely cross
over Coliseum Boulevard, the structure should be of an innovative design of the same
caliber as the other two pedestrian bridges located on the IPFW campus.
Based upon the extensive research put forth by this senior design group, the most
suitable type of bridge to meet the needs of this structure is of an arch style design.
With a overall span of 210’ and a height off of the footer of 40.5’, the structure is not
only safely able to carry all of the forces that it would be exposed to, but it will also
be of the same level of design as is to be expected by administrators at IPFW.
Utilizing steel and concrete for the major design members, erection of the
structure would proceed quickly due to the ability of most of the main components
being prefabricated off of the job site. Utilizing this design method would greatly
minimize the effects that the construction of the bridge would have to travelers who
use Coliseum Boulevard on a daily basis.

81
7. References
[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications: 2008
Interim Revisions. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 2008.
[2] American Institute of Steel Construction. Steel Construction Manual. 13th
Edition. Chicago: AISC, 2007.
[3] Chen, W.F. and E.M. Lui. Handbook of Structural Engineering. 2nd Edition.
NewYork: CRC Press, 2005.
[4] Chen, W.F. and Lian Duan. Bridge Engineering Handbook. New York: CRC
Press, 1999.
[5] Computers and Structures, Inc. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Berkeley.
CSI, 2008.
[6] “Crossroads”. Ivy Tech Community College – Fort Wayne.
http://www.ivytech.edu/fortwayne/crossroads/ 28May 2009
[7] Hibbeler, R.C. Structural Analysis. 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006.
[8] NCHRP 20-07 Task 244. LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of
Pedestrian Bridges, Final Draft. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2009.
[9] Nilson, Arthur, et. al. Design of Concrete Structures. 13th Edition. Burr Ridge,
IL: McGraw Hill, 2004.
[10] Parkman, Kathy. “River Greenway”. City of Fort Wayne Parks &
Recreation Website.
http://www.fortwayneparks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&Itemid=34. 28
may 2009
[11] Pedestrian Bridges. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/StructuresManual/CurrentRelease/Design
Guidelines/SDG10PedestrianBridges.htm. 7 Aug 2009.
[12] “Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles”. 2008 Indiana
Department of Transportation, Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application.

82
8. Appendix
8.1. Hand Calculations

8.1.1. Angle Member Hand Calculations

Figure 64. Free body diagram of typ. slab section.

Using 100 psf live load; slab thickness of 9” and slab length of 13.125 ft
Live Load
With 500 plf

LL = 6.56 k
[SAP2000 = 6.21 k; difference 5.6%]

Dead Load
49.21875 ft3

DL = 7.38k
[SAP2000 = 7.57 k; difference 2.5%]

83
8.1.2. Arch Hand Calculations

Figure 65. Free body diagram of parbolic arch.

Calculated with 9” concrete slab for the deck

CCW ()  M A  0;
0  44C x  105C y  (51.6797)(59.0625)
0  44C x  105C y  3052.33

CW ()  M B  0;
0  44C x  105C y  (51.6797)(59.0625)
0  44C x  105C y  3052.33

MA into MB
0  88C x  6104.66
88C x  6104.66

Ax = Bx = Cx = 69.37 k

[SAP2000 = 75.67 k; difference of 8.3%]

CHECK Cy
0  (44)(69.4)  105C y  3052.33
Cy = 58.15 k

Ay = By = 51.68 k

[SAP2000 = 56.73 k; difference of 8.9%]

84
 8.1.3. Concrete Slab Design
Assumptions:
fy = 60 ksi
f’c = 4 ksi
Minimum cover, d = 6” – 1.0 = 5.0”
Unit Weight of Concrete = 150 lb/ft3

Minimum slab thickness (from Table 13.1 Ref. “concrete design”)

Simply supported slab hmin = l/20
l 10 x12
hmin    6.0"
20 20
Use hmin = 6”

Since one-way slab, load per 1’ width

Design Load Calculation:

Dead Load:

6
Self-Weight of Slab = x150lb / ft 3  75 lb/ft2
12

Superimposed Dead Load = 20 lb/ft2

Total Dead Load = 95 lb/ft2 x 1 ft = 95 lb/ft

Live Load:

Total Live Load = 90 lb/ft2 x 1 ft = 90 lb/ft

Design Load Combination:

1.2D+1.6L
Wu = 1.2 (95 lb/ft) + 1.6 (90 lb/ft) = 258 lb/ft

Each slab, simply supported:

wl 2 258 *10 2
M max    3.225k  ft
8 8
wl 0.258 *10
Vmax    1.29k
2 2

85
 From Table A.9 Ref. “Concrete Design”
ρ = 0.003 and  Mn = 3.9 k - ft
As = ρbd
As = 0.003x12x5 = 0.18 in2/ft
As,min = 0.0018bh
As,min = 0.0018x12x6 = 0.1296 in2/ft
As > As,min

From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design”

Bar No. 3 at 7.5” spacing, As= 0.18 in2/ft

Bar No. 3 at 7.0” spacing, As= 0.19 in2/ft

Choose Bar No. 3 at 7.0” spacing for ease of construction

Spacing Requirement:
3” ≤ s ≤ min {3h,12}
3” ≤ 7” ≤ 12”

Use Bars No. 3 at 7” spacing

Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement:

As,min = 0.1296 in2/ft

From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design”
Bar No. 3 at 10” spacing, As= 0.13 in2/ft
As > As,min

Spacing Requirement:
3” ≤ s ≤ min {5h,18}
3” ≤ 10” ≤ 18”

Use Bars No. 3 at 10” spacing for shrinkage and temperature

Shear Design:

Vmax = 1.29k
Vc  2 f c' bw d  2 4000 x12 x5.0  7590 lb
Vc = 7.59 k
No stirrups required if:
Vmax  Vc
Vc  0.75 * 7.59  5.69 k

Therefore no stirrups are required

86
 8.1.4. Edge beams to support the concrete deck

wl 95 *10
Reaction due to Dead Load =   475k
2 2

wl 90 *10
Reaction due to Live Load =   450k
2 2

Assumptions:
fy = 60 ksi
f’c = 4 ksi
Dead Load due to Railing = 90 lb/ft
Unit Weight of Concrete = 150 lb/ft3

Try 10”x16” (dimension of beam)

Design Load Calculation:

Dead Load:

10 16
Self-Weight of Beam = x x150lb / ft 3  167 lb/ft
12 12

Railing = 90 lb/ft

Total Dead Load = 167 + 475 + 90 = 732 lb/ft

Live Load:

Total Live Load = 450 lb/ft

87
 Design Load Combination:
1.2D+1.6L
Wu = 1.2 (732 lb/ft) + 1.6 (450 lb/ft) = 1.6 k/ft

wl 1.6 *13.125
Reactions =   10.5k
2 2

wl 2 1.6 *13.125 2
M max    34.45k  ft
8 8
bd 2 R 12000Mu 12000 * 34.45
Mu  R   227 psi
12000 bd 2 10 *13.5 2

From Table A.5a Ref. “Concrete Design”

ρ = 0.0039 > ρmin = 0.0033
As = 0.0039x10x13.5 = 0.5262 in2

From Table A.3 Ref. “Concrete Design”

Use 3 bars No. 4 (As = 0.60 in2)

Use 2 bars No. 4 on top of beam for anchorage

88
 Shear Reinforcement:

 Vc  0.75x2 f c' bw d  0.75x2 4000 x10 x13.5  12.8 k

From similar triangles method, Vmax = 8.7 k
 Vc 12.8
  6.4k
2 2
 Vc
Since Vmax > minimum amount of stirrups is needed
2

Recommended minimum beam width to accommodate different stirrup sizes:

Stirrup Size Minimum beam width
#3 10”
#4 12”
#5 14”
2
Use No. 3 stirrups (Av = 0.22in )

Minimum spacing is needed:

AvFy AvFy
s1  min{ or }
0.75 f ' cb 50b
0.22 * 60000 0.22 * 60000
s1  min{  27.83" or  26.4"}
0.75 4000 *10 50 *10
s1=26.4in

According to ACI (section 11.5.5.1) the maximum allowable spacing when

 Vc
< Vmax<  Vc :
2
smax= min {s1, d/2, 24in}
smax = min {26.4”, 6.75”, 24”} = 6.75”

This ensures each 45° crack is intercepted by at least one stirrup

Use 6.5” spacing for ease of construction

89
8.1.5. Footing Design
Using the reaction forces from DSTL2 load case (Figure 53):
Fx = 257.39 k
Fy = 80.64 k
Fz = 190.03 k

Assuming f’c = 4 ksi & Allowable soil bearing capacity, qa = 4.5 k/ft2

Effective bearing capacity:

Assuming a maximum of 4’ of concrete,
qe = 4500 – (150 x 4) = 3900 k/ft2

330k
Areq  2
= 84.62 ft2
3.9k / ft

Use a 8’ x 11’ rectangle, A = 88 ft2

330k
qu = = 3.78 k/ft2
8 ft

Design for punching shear:

Perimeter:
bo = 4(24 + 20) = 176 in

Vu1 = 3.78 k/ft2(88 – (44/12)2)

Vu1 = 281.82 k

Available shear strength:

Vc = 4 f ' c bo d

Assuming d = 20”
 20 
Vc = 4 4000 (176)  =890.5 k
 1000 
ø = 0.75
ø Vc = (0.75)(890.5) = 667.87 k

90
 Va2 = (3.78)(3.67)(8’) = 110.99 k = 111 k
 20 
Vc = 2 4000 (8)(12)  = 242.86 k
 1000 
ø Vc = (0.75)(242.86) = 182 k

Reinforcing steel design (fy = 60 ksi):

Across critical sections of the footer:
 4.5 ft 2 
Mu = 3.78k / ft 2 * 8 ft *  12in / ft = 3674 k-in
 2 
3674k  in
As = = 3.58 in2
0.9(60(20  1))

3 4000
As,Min = x96inx 20in = 6.07 in2
60000
But no less than,
200
As,Min = x96inx 20in = 6.4 in2
60000

Use As = 6.4 in2

Using #7 rebar (Ab = 0.60 in2):

(11) #7 rebar @ 8.5 in spacing for the 11 ft length

For the 8 ft length:

 3 ft 2 
Mu = 3.78k / ft 2 *11 ft *  12in / ft = 2245 k-in
 2 

2245k  in
As = = 2.188 in2
0.9(60(20  1))

3 4000
As,Min = x132inx 20in = 8.35 in2
60000
But no less than,
200
As,Min = x132inx 20in = 8.8 in2
60000

Use As = 8.8 in2

91
 Using #7 rebar (Ab = 0.60 in2):
(15) #7 rebar @ 8.5 in spacing for the 8 ft length

Height of footer:
ACI recommends a minimum of 3” cover when concrete is in contact with the
ground,

Diameter of #7 rebar = 0.875 in

3” + 0.4375” = 3.4375 in
With d = 20 in

Use h = 24 in.

The above detailed design is for the soil to be able to support the footings in the vertical
direction; however, with such a large thrust force (269.73 k), additional design
considerations must be made in order to resist this force. Either the soil can support this,
or concrete can. The group decided to go with concrete supporting it and calculated this
by:

h = 2.11 ft
Thus, the height at which the force from the arch members comes into the footing shall
be 2.11 ft above the center of gravity of the footing. With this, can calculate the weight of
the footer needed:

Weight of the support = 190.03 k

190.03 = 0.150 lb/ft3 * 12’ * 10’ * h
H = 10.56’
Use a height of 11’
Note: the dimensions of the footer (12’ x 10’) were modified in order to shorten the
above height.
The final footer shall be designed as:
10’ x 12’ x 11’
With 6’ of the footer being below grade.

92
 8.1.6. Tension Cable Design
Assumptions:
Pu= 26.719k
Steel A36 (Fu= 58 ksi)

Pu 26.719
AD =   0.82 in2
 0.75Fu 0.75 * 0.75 * 58

A= d2
4
4A 4 * 0.82
d=   1.02 in
 

8.2. Sample SAP2000 Data

Figure 66. Screen shot displaying joint coordinate table from SAP2000 report.

93
Figure 67. SAP2000 report table of material properties.

94
Figure 68. SAP2000 report: joint displacements.

95
Figure 69. SAP2000 screen shot for max design force in HSS member.

96
Figure 70. SAP2000 steel section check (critical member).

97