DESIGN AND OF SUSPENSION BRIDGE

Abstract
A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the deck (the load-bearing
portion) is hung below suspension cables on vertical suspenders. The aim of
the project is to design and analysis of suspension bridge.
This type of bridge has cables suspended between towers, plus vertical
suspender cables that carry the weight of the deck below, upon which traffic
crosses. This arrangement allows the deck to be level or to arc upward for
additional clearance. Like other suspension bridge types, this type often is
constructed without false work.
The suspension cables must be anchored at each end of the bridge, since any
load applied to the bridge is transformed into a tension in these main cables.
The main cables continue beyond the pillars to deck-level supports, and
further continue to connections with anchors in the ground. The roadway is
supported by vertical suspender cables or rods, called hangers. In some
circumstances, the towers may sit on a bluff or canyon edge where the road
may proceed directly to the main span, otherwise the bridge will usually
have two smaller spans, running between either pair of pillars and the
highway, which may be supported by suspender cables or may use a truss
bridge to make this connection. In the latter case there will be very little arc
in the outboard main cables.

3
Chapter 1:
Introduction and Background
1.1 Cable-Suspended Bridges
1.1.1 Rural Transportation
It is estimated that about 900 million rural people in developing countries do
not have reliable year-round access to road networks, and 300 million are
without motorized access. Aid dollars being invested into infrastructure
improvements for paved highways and major vehicular bridges are only
serving those with a standard of living appropriating vehicle use. The
remaining 300 million rural citizens have unreliable access to even the most
basic services or opportunities.
Many governments lack the basic infrastructure capacity to link feeder roads
and rural footpaths, and the dilapidated state of the paved roads often is
prioritized.
Investment in rural transportation improvements would help to reduce
poverty
through improving access to markets, medical clinics and educational
opportunities not currently accessed. Accordingly, a countrys ability to
maximize its economic potential is closely linked to the efficiency of its
transport system.
1.1.2 Pedestrian Bridges

For nearly 50 percent of the worlds population living in rural isolation, the
lack of access reinforces the cycle of poverty. Rural community members
spend a great deal of time and effort on transport activities to fulfill their
basic needs. Whether walking miles downriver to reach a river crossing en
route to school, or spending a full day to reach the weekend market, the
worlds poorest
people are faced with the disadvantages of lack of direct access to the basic
amenities and adequate transport infrastructure necessary to reach them.
Rivers and streams isolate villagers of many communities, stranded from the
feeder roadways and pedestrian paths during annual floods. A development
strategy that gives priority to providing reliable, year-round access, to as
much population as possible has been proposed in several forms. A main
proponent of these strategies is the need for pedestrian bridge crossings.
Affordability of an infrastructure project, pedestrian bridge or otherwise, is
primarily determined by a population's capacity to maintain its infrastructure
over the long term. In rural communities where motorized access is neither
existent nor affordable, improvements to the existing trail networks and the
provision footbridges over river crossing locations is one of the most costefficient investments to create the largest impact.

Many countries do not have a single pedestrian bridge in county and those
that do are most often over-sized, difficult to maintain and prohibitively
expensive structures. A simple footbridge design would provide a cost
effective solution to be built without foreign design assistance. Pedestrian
bridge technologies vary vastly in design, cost and function. Crossings can
be as simple as a fallen tree or as complex as a multi-million dollar work of
art.
From a structural standpoint, pedestrian bridges have taken a number of
forms, each with the function of providing safe transport over an otherwise
impassable crossing. Arched bridges, simple beam bridges, truss bridges
and cable-stayed bridges constitute four main types of pedestrian bridges: a
review of suspended cable-stayed bridges follows. The difference between a
cable-suspension bridge and a cable suspended bridge type is shown in
Figure 1, where the blue cable indicates loadbearing in both. The
development of cable-suspended pedestrian bridge construction has played
an interesting role in the history of human civilization. The first recorded
bridge with suspenders connecting handrail and walkway cables was built as

early as 285 BC in the Province of Sichuan in China (Peters, 1987). Other

known suspension structures during a similar time period were documented
in the Eastern Himalayas and consisted of single woven cable, transversed
by holding onto either two handrail cables or in a movable basket. Perhaps
in a parallel line of invention or speculatively through early Chinese
travelers, similar technical knowledge emerged in South America (Peters,
1987). Ancient Incan civilization used rope bridges to span deep gorges,
connecting footpaths between villages. These bridges consisted of a pair of
stone anchors and massive woven grass cables and two additional woven
cables for guardrails. Consistent maintenance and annual replacement of the
woven cable made these bridges strong enough to carry the Spaniards while
riding horses after they arrived (Gade, 1972). Such primitive rope bridges
led to the basic idea of modern cable bridges. The modern cable-suspended
bridges constructed by Bridges to Prosperity do not vary greatly from many
of the historical bridges. The simple design, constructed using manuallypowered tools and only locally available materials are all the same
challenges faced by designers for rural developing world bridges today.

1.1.3 Site Visit

A site 200 meters downstream and up-trail from the current crossing was
selected based on a narrowing of the river and avoidance of several residuals
landslides.

A rudimentary surveying approach using an Abney level and string was used
to create a topographic cross-section of the site.
The final span was found to be 100 meters, with a negligible height
difference
between the abutments. The suggested process for soil identification
required only a visual identification by which the surveyor classified the soil
based on ability to see more than fifty percent of the grains.

Both

abutments were excavated to one meter depth and a soil sample was attained
for visual classification.

The soil visually classified as sand at both

abutments. The author found it difficult to conclude on design parameters

from such a basic approach. A greater understanding of design assumptions
was required to conclude whether a more in-depth testing and classification
process was feasible or necessary.

Chapter-2
Structural behavior
The main forces in a suspension bridge of any type are tension in the cables
and compression in the pillars. Since almost all the force on the pillars is
vertically downwards and they are also stabilized by the main cables, the

pillars can be made quite slender. The weight is transferred by the cables to
the towers, which in turn transfer the weight to the ground.
The catenary represents the profile of a simple suspension bridge, or the
cable of a suspended-deck suspension bridge on which its deck and hangers
have negligible mass compared to its cable. The parabola represents the
profile of the cable of a suspended-deck suspension bridge on which its
cable and hangers have negligible mass compared to its deck. The profile of
the cable of a real suspension bridge with the same span and sag lies
between the two curves.
Assuming a negligible weight as compared to the weight of the deck and
vehicles being supported, the main cables of a suspension bridge will form a
parabola (very similar to a catenary, the form the unloaded cables take
before the deck is added). One can see the shape from the constant increase
of the gradient of the cable with linear (deck) distance, this increase in
gradient at each connection with the deck providing a net upward support
force. Combined with the relatively simple constraints placed upon the
actual deck, this makes the suspension bridge much simpler to design and
analyze than a cable-stayed bridge, where the deck is in compression.
Suspension cable type
The main suspension cable in older bridges was often made from chain or
linked bars, but modern bridge cables are made from multiple strands of
wire. This contributes greater redundancy; a few flawed strands in the

hundreds used pose very little threat, whereas a single bad link or eyebar can
cause failure of the entire bridge. (The failure of a single eyebar was found
to be the cause of the collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River).
Another reason is that as spans increased, engineers were unable to lift
larger chains into position, whereas wire strand cables can be largely
prepared in mid-air from a temporary walkway.

Deck structure types

Most suspension bridges have open truss structures to support the roadbed,
particularly owing to the unfavorable effects of using plate girders,
discovered from the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) bridge collapse. Recent
developments in bridge aerodynamics have allowed the re-introduction of
plate structures. In the picture of the Yichang Bridge, note the very sharp
entry edge and sloping under girders in the suspension bridge shown. This
enables this type of construction to be used without the danger of vortex
shedding and consequent aeroelastic effects, such as those that destroyed the
original Tacoma Narrows bridge.

Forces
Three kinds of forces operate on any bridge: the dead load, the live load, and
the dynamic load. Dead load refers to the weight of the bridge itself. Like
any other structure, a bridge has a tendency to collapse simply because of
the gravitational forces acting on the materials of which the bridge is made.
Live load refers to traffic that moves across the bridge as well as normal
environmental factors such as changes in temperature, precipitation, and
winds. Dynamic load refers to environmental factors that go beyond normal
weather conditions, factors such as sudden gusts of wind and earthquakes.
All three factors must be taken into consideration when building a bridge.

Use other than road and rail

The principles of suspension used on the large scale may also appear in
contexts less dramatic than road or rail bridges. Light cable suspension may
prove less expensive and seem more elegant for a cycle or footbridge than
strong girder supports. An example of this is the Nescio Bridge in the
Netherlands.

Where such a bridge spans a gap between two buildings, there is no need to
construct special towers, as the buildings can anchor the cables. Cable
suspension may also be augmented by the inherent stiffness of a structure
that has much in common with a tubular bridge.

Construction sequence

Suspender cables and suspender cable band on the Golden Gate Bridge in
San Francisco. Main cable diameter is 36 inches (910 mm), and suspender
cable diameter is 3.5 inches (89 mm).
Typical suspension bridges are constructed using a sequence generally
described as follows.

Where the towers are founded on underwater piers, caissons are sunk and
any soft bottom is excavated for a foundation. If the bedrock is too deep to
be exposed by excavation or the sinking of a caisson, pilings are driven to

the bedrock or into overlying hard soil, or a large concrete pad to distribute
the weight over less resistant soil may be constructed, first preparing the
surface with a bed of compacted gravel. (Such a pad footing can also
accommodate the movements of an active fault, and this has been
implemented on the foundations of the cable-stayed Rio-Antirio bridge. The
piers are then extended above water level, where they are capped with
pedestal bases for the towers.
Where the towers are founded on dry land, deep foundation excavation or
pilings are used.
From the tower foundation, towers of single or multiple columns are erected
using high-strength reinforced concrete, stonework, or steel. Concrete is
used most frequently in modern suspension bridge construction due to the
high cost of steel.
Large devices called saddles, which will carry the main suspension cables,
are positioned atop the towers. Typically of cast steel, they can also be
manufactured using riveted forms, and are equipped with rollers to allow the
main cables to shift under construction and normal loads.
Anchorages are constructed, usually in tandem with the towers, to resist the
tension of the cables and form as the main anchor system for the entire
structure. These are usually anchored in good quality rock, but may consist
of massive reinforced concrete deadweights within an excavation. The

anchorage structure will have multiple protruding open eyebolts enclosed

within a secure space.
Temporary suspended walkways, called catwalks, are then erected using a
set of guide wires hoisted into place via winches positioned atop the towers.
These catwalks follow the curve set by bridge designers for the main cables,
in a path mathematically described as a catenary arc. Typical catwalks are
usually between eight and ten feet wide, and are constructed using wire
grate and wood slats.
Gantries are placed upon the catwalks, which will support the main cable
spinning reels. Then, cables attached to winches are installed, and in turn,
the main cable spinning devices are installed.
High strength wire (typically 4 or 6 gauge galvanized steel wire), is pulled in
a loop by pulleys on the traveler, with one end affixed at an anchorage.
When the traveler reaches the opposite anchorage the loop is placed over an
open anchor eyebar. Along the catwalk, workers also pull the cable wires to
their desired tension. This continues until a bundle, called a "cable strand" is
completed, and temporarily bundled using stainless steel wire. This process
is repeated until the final cable strand is completed. Workers then remove
the individual wraps on the cable strands (during the spinning process, the
shape of the main cable closely resembles a hexagon), and then the entire
cable is then compressed by a traveling hydraulic press into a closely packed
cylinder and tightly wrapped with additional wire to form the final circular

cross section. The wire used in suspension bridge construction is a

galvanized steel wire that has been coated with corrosion inhibitors.
At specific points along the main cable (each being the exact distance
horizontally in relation to the next) devices called "cable bands" are installed
to carry steel wire ropes called Suspender cables. Each suspender cable is
engineered and cut to precise lengths, and are looped over the cable bands.
In some bridges, where the towers are close to or on the shore, the suspender
cables may be applied only to the central span. Early suspender cables were
fitted with zinc jewels and a set of steel washers, which formed the support
for the deck. Modern suspender cables carry a shackle-type fitting.
Special lifting hoists attached to the suspenders or from the main cables are
used to lift prefabricated sections of bridge deck to the proper level,
provided that the local conditions allow the sections to be carried below the
bridge by barge or other means. Otherwise, a traveling cantilever derrick
may be used to extend the deck one section at a time starting from the
towers and working outward. If the addition of the deck structure extends
from the towers the finished portions of the deck will pitch upward rather
sharply, as there is no downward force in the center of the span. Upon
completion of the deck the added load will pull the main cables into an arc
mathematically described as a parabola, while the arc of the deck will be as
the designer intended usually a gentle upward arc for added clearance if

over a shipping channel, or flat in other cases such as a span over a canyon.
Arched suspension spans also give the structure more rigidity and strength.
With completion of the primary structure various details such as lighting,
handrails, finish painting and paving are installed or completed

Chapter -3
Design of Typical Bridge
The primary objective of this report is to suggest an anchor design approach
to resist pull-out failure for footbridge deadman anchors..
Typical Bridge Profile

Where:
L = span in meters
Lb = Backstay length
hsag = cable sag in meters

ho.b. = height overburden

Typical spans for consideration range from 40 to 120 meters, backstay
lengths range from 5 to 10 meters, cable sag range from 2 to 10 percent of
the span and overburden heights range from 1.5 to 3 meters. To limit the
scope of this report, the a forementioned characteristic dimensions will be
considered the limits conditions for each respective parameter.
The modulated Helvetas cable-suspended bridge design was developed with
few components and minimal connection points.
The primary components of a cable-suspended pedestrian bridge are:
anchorage
(1), ramped approaches
(2), foundation
tiers and towers
(3), handrail and walkway cables and deck walkway.
A simplified free body diagram detailed depicts the typical forces inflicted
upon the anchorage and tower. Chapter 3 will discuss the structural analysis
process needed to solve for forces in the tower will discuss geotechnical
analysis for the anchorage design based on those forces.

Free body diagram

Where:
Pt = Cable tension =Force imposed on anchor
PV and PH = Respective components of the force.
Wt = Weight of Block + Weight Soil above Block = WB + WS
WB = X * Y * B

Ws = X * h * s
s = unit weight of soil
B = unit weight of reinforced concrete
c = cohesion intercept of the soil
= Angle of Friction of the soil
= Angle of anchor cable
= Cable deflection angle
Pp = Passive force (Appendix 2).
Therefore, the geotechnical parameters of interest are the angle of friction
(), the soil unit weight (s) and the cohesion (c). The only structural
variable that influences the final anchor design is the loading, (Pt)

Structural Failure Parameters

For cable to fail, the strands must elongate past the elastic range into the
elasticplastic portion of the materials stress-strain curve. As the deck live
load increases, the load to the walkway cables is increased proportionally
until the added length due to stretch forces the suspenders to transfer the
load onto the handrail cables. Only when both the handrail and walkway
cables were fully loaded would cable have the potential to go beyond the
elastic state required for cable failure.
Steel cable is the primary load-bearing structural component, diverting the
deckingloads between the towers and anchorage systems. The cable carrying

the transverse load results in a geometrical configuration where horizontal

force at mid span is inversely proportional to the sag. It follows that cable
pulled infinitely horizontal is unable to carry any transverse load as zero sag
implies an infinitely large cable force . Likewise, significant increase in
cable sag would result in a greater vertical reaction at the towers. Structural
design optimization requires the designer to designate a sag ratio that
properly balances these two considerations.

The minimum safe working load of steel cable can be found by dividing the
manufacturers supplied breaking strength by the safety factor. The
recommended factor of safety for load-bearing steel cable is 3. Cable clamps
are required to reach 80 percent efficiency rating, thus an accumulative

factor of safety of 2.8. As the material specifications are highly regulated

and guaranteed for a high level of precision, the result is a highly unlikely
case for structural cable failure. Discussions into the behavior of the cable
and construction elements identify other potential failure mechanisms.
Prior to the wide-spread use of computer modeling and finite element
techniques, cable typically was assumed to behave as a parabolic curve. This
simplified parabolic model allows a basic understanding of the fundamental
interdependence between stability, stiffness, and strength. The cable analysis
described is overly-simplified but included to provide a basic understanding
of cable behavior and to provide the framework for design understanding.
Geotechnical Failure Parameters
The geotechnical failure mode of interest is anchor pull-out. As such, the
ultimate uplift capacity (Qu) of the soil must be found. Chapter 4 will
outline an empirical approach for calculating Qu for both fine and coarsegrained soils. The soil parameters of interest in both models are soil unit
weight (), friction angle () and cohesion (c).
The primary geotechnical failure mode of consideration is anchor pull-out.
To prevent pull-out failure, the anchor must be placed at an appropriate
depth and distance from the tower with consideration for soil strength
parameters. The soil parameters of interest are the soil unit weight (),
cohesion (c), and the friction angle () of a soil. Separate design approaches
for fine and coarse-grained soils is recommended for calculating ultimate

uplift capacity of anchors (Das, 1990). Smith and Stalcup (1966) suggested
that fine-grained cohesive soils attained up to 30% increase in holding
capacity as compared to coarse-grained, but 2 to 3 times the horizontal
displacement was required to activate the passive earth pressure. This initial
research indicated that further investigation was needed before assuming a
similar design model was appropriate for both fine and coarse grained soils.
Rock masses will not be considered herewith in as the following models are
not applicable to jointed rock masses where strength is controlled by joint
orientation. Furthermore, intermediate rock masses will not be considered as
the anchor design for excavatable rock mass is not based on the soil
properties but rather the rock and anchors ability to attach to surrounding
material as a single mass. The designation between intermediate rock mass
and a soil will be defined as the later is able to be excavated with manpowered shovels.

CHAPTER-4
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Assuming the cable is frictionless and a perfectly flexible material, the cable
hangs in a parabolic arc . The primary assumption is that the intensity of the
vertical distributed load is constant. The perfectly flexible cable is
considered to give no resistance to bending at any point and thus the
resultant tensile force is tangent to the curve at any point in the cable. Thus,
to find the maximum tension in the cable, it is necessary to know the
relations involving tension, span, sag and the length of cables .
Horizontal Tension
Taking the moments about point A taken at mid-span and assuming that the
supports are at equivalent heights, one can solve for the horizontal tension in
the cable per the Schematic to Derive Moment at Mid-Span

Where:
Wc = distributed load
Th = horizontal tension
L = span in meters
h = cable sag, in meters
Given the horizontal tension in the cable, solve for the slope of the cable at
the towers to acquire the maximum cable tension at the height of the towers.
The slope of the cable, the corresponding total tension in all cables and the
tension in each cable may be calculated from the following relationships:

Where:
= cable deflection angle
T = cable tension, in kN
N = number of cables
Tc = allowable tension per cable
One must chose the number of cables based on the availability of cable and
its respective breaking strength. Although each cable supplier must verify
the breaking strengths of the cable, Appendix 3 may be used for academic
purposes. The sum of the walkway and handrail cable design strengths must
exceed the tension in the cable after accounting for allowable stress design
factors. Each cable takes a load proportional to its cross sectional area and
thus if cables of differing sizes are used, each cable will take a proportional
load to its cross-sectional area ratio.
In accordance with standards, the following design approach and
assumptions were used throughout this report.

To illustrate the design

process, a design example has been included through the text. By outlining
pertinent assumptions and processes, modifications to the standard design
may be used. One such scenario is a communitys request to widen the
decking from 1.0 meter width to 1.5 meters to allow for animal-pulled carts
or a decrease in deck-width for low traffic crossings.

Bridge Loading
To find the tension in the cable, the load on the cable must be computed. The
following details the recommended design approach per American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
article 3.16 and the supplemental Guide Specifications for Design of
Pedestrian Bridges document (AASHTO, 1997). It is recommended that
the reader reference applicable codes and specifications in area of intended
construction prior to design.
Live loads
A live load of 85 pounds per square foot is designated unless the walkway
area is greater than 400 square feet. Then the live load figure is slowly
reduced between 400 square feet and 850 square feet, at which time the
minimum standard of 65 pounds per square foot is used. The 65 pounds per
square foot minimum load limit is used to provide a measure of strength
consistency with the LRFD specifications, which specify 85 pounds per
square foot less a load factor indicated in the LRFD Design specifications
(AASHTO, 1997). The formula is as follows:
=85(0.25+15/)
Where A is the total square feet of walkway surface area. Therefore, using a
1.0 -meter walkway cross sectional area, the following live load schedule
would apply:

Total LL = 4.07 kN/m, assuming 1.0 meter width

DEAD LOAD

Wind Loads (Overturning)

A wind load applied horizontally at right angles to the longitudinal axis of
the bridge shall be applied at 35 pounds per square foot (1.676 kN/m),
assuming that the wind can readily pass through the bridge profile, per ISO
specifications. The specified wind pressures are for a base wind velocity of
100 miles per hour which in such case a site has higher wind-velocity
requirements: ISO (1997) may be referenced. Given the projected profile of
the bridge is 1.1 meters in height:the resulting wind overturn force is 1.843
kN/m.
Total WL = 1.843 kN/m, assuming 1.1 meter railing height

Load Combinations
The following load combinations will be used, extracted
Group I - (Dead + Live) at 100% of Allowable Stress (i.e., Load
Combination Reduction Factor = 1.0).
Group II - (Dead + Wind) /125% of Allowable Stress (i.e., Load
Combination Reduction Factor = 1.25).
Group III - (Dead + Live + 0.3 Wind) /125% of Allowable Stress (i.e.,
Load Combination Reduction Factor = 1.25).
Group I: +=0.321kNm2+4.072=4.39
Group II:
(+)1.25=1.73/

Group III:
(++0.3)1.25=3.95 /
Wc = 4.39 kN/m

Suspenders
Suspenders transfer the loads from the deck to main cables, and are attached
to crossbeams at 1 meter intervals. Thus, with a 1 meter deck width, each
suspender has a tributary area of 0.5 m, and thus must be able to carry 2.03
kN of loading from the 4.07 kN/m loading. The minimum diameter of
suspender can be calculated per the following equation:
=/
/
Where:
Fs = applied force in kN
Ps =allowable yield strength in kN/m
Assuming ASTM A36 Grade 300 (ASTM) with a minimum yield strength of
24.5 kN/cm (250 MPa) and a factor of safety of 1.5, and assuming a 1.0
meter deck width, the minimum diameter of a suspender would be 3.9 mm.
Due to the high surface area to volume ratio of the suspender and thus
increased likelihood of corrosion, a minimum suspender diameter of 8 mm
is recommended.

Main Cables
Assuming a 100 meter crossing, the design process is as follows for
selection of the primary cable. For further details on the mathematical
derivation of the following equations, see reference (Meriam, 2007)

The sum of the walkway and handrail cable design strengths must exceed
the tension in the cable. In this example, 1119 kN may be distributed either 4
cables (2 walkway and 2 handrail) or 6 cables (4 walkway and 2 handrail) in
order to support the load. Using example design breaking strengths in
Appendix 3 (including the factor of safety of 3.5), the load can be split
between 4 cables. Assuming each cable is to be the same, each must have a
minimum design strength equivalent to Tc. Thus, the result is the minimum
cable size of 34 mm, per Appendix 3. Each cable takes a load

proportional to its cross sectional area. The total design load imposed on the
anchor is equivalent to T or 1119 kN in the case of a 100 meter bridge with
a 1.0 meter decking.
To calculate the amount of cable to order, one must first know the length of
each cable between towers:
For a 100 meter span and 5 percent sag, is equal to 100.67 meters per
cable between towers. To calculate the total length of cable required to
purchase, one must first decipher the length of the backstay which requires
geotechnical design. For practical purposes, a simplified equation would
allow field supervisors to order cable without an intimate understanding of
the design process. As the length of the cable is only increased by less than
one percent when accounting for sag, neglecting this added length and
alternatively including a four percent contingency is practical. The following
is proposed:
The 14 meter addition allows for cable wrap-back, seven meters at either
anchor, approximate but standard on all crossings.
There are several design alterations that may be considered to reduce the
length and thus cost of cable, but while the length of the span may reduce to
lessen this cost, the tower height likely would increase thus increasing
masonry costs.

Decking
There are two primary code sources used for bending stress problems. A full
design process is not detailed herein as it is beyond the scope of this report,
but the following provides context and background for how the modular
decking design alternatives currently in use by Bridges to Prosperity were
developed. A typical decking plan view is shown in Figure 10. Note that the
crossbeam spacing is 1.0 meters. The deck width will be assumed 1.0 meters
as well.

LRFD Loadings
LRFD use slightly different nomenclature from the loading section at the
beginning of the chapter but for consistency, the following will continue to
use similar nomenclature.

LRFD Load Combination Alternatives

LRFD Load combination alternatives:
1. 1.4DL
2. 1.2DL+1.6LL+.5(Lr or S or R)
3. 1.2DL+1.6(Lr or S or R)+(.5LL or .8WL)
4. 1.2DL+1.6WL+.5LL+.5(Lr or S or R)
5. 1.2DL+/- 1.0E+.5LL+.2S
6. 0.9DL +/- (1.6WL or 1.0E)
Table 3 lists the six fundamental factored load combinations from Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ANSI/ASCE 7-88) used
for safety analysis in LRFD. There will be assumed no roof (Lr), no snow
(S) no rain (R), and no earth (E) loadings.

Therefore the LRFD design

strength is 6.89 kN/m. from load combination 2. As the member is being

design for compression, the required nominal strength, assuming a
resistance factor of 0.9 from Table 4, would be 7.66 kN/m.
Wood LRFD Resistance Factor Values
Mode
Compression 0.90
Flexure 0.85
Tension 0.80
Shear 0.75
Structural design includes resistance to shear failure, flexure failure and for

serviceability, a maximum displacement must not occur.

The crossbeams

and decking panels must be considered independently and for two load case
scenarios:fully loaded and point loaded in cross-section.
Cross beams
Crossbeams are the members that are spaced perpendicular to the length of
the bridge. There are three initial design choices: crossbeam spacing, and
the width of the decking.depicts a cross-section for a typical decking crosssection with a small spacer board that is for constructability, but will not be
considered in the following calculations. The crossbeam bending
calculations will be based off a cross beam dimensioned (X+36 cm) by Y cm
by Z cm (into the page). The additional 36 cm is included for connection
spacing on either side, as recommended from practical experience.
Decking Planks

The length of the decking planks is recommended to be 3.0 meters, although

2.0 meter decking planks are also acceptable with a slight reduction in
longitudinal rigidity, as shown in the plan view of a typical decking in.
Design for longitudinal beams should assume a multi-support, simple beam
analysis. To identify the maximum shear and applied moment, both point
load and distributed load scenarios should be considered.For both crossbeam and decking plank design, one must state the material properties
and assume an initial member size. Material properties of interest are the
material yield strength, Fy, the ultimate flexural strength, Fu and the
modulus of elasticity, E. An initial member size is selected for the following
parameters: cross-sectional area, Ag, moment of inertia, I, the radius of
gyration, r, and the corresponding slenderness ratio, kL/r, the section
modulus, S, and the maximum deflection ( = L/360).
As detailing every potential consideration and design alternative for decking
design is beyond the scope of this project, a modulated design is
recommended for use. Bridges to Prosperity has provided modular designs
for both wood and steel decking solutions: both provided with several size
alternatives on their website (Bridges, 2009).
Advantages

A suspension bridge can be made out of simple materials such as

wood and common wire rope.

 Longer main spans are achievable than with any other type of bridge
Less material may be required than other bridge types, even at spans
they can achieve, leading to a reduced construction cost
Except for installation of the initial temporary cables, little or no
access from below is required during construction, for example
allowing a waterway to remain open while the bridge is built above
May be better to withstand earthquake movements than heavier and
more rigid bridges
Bridge decks can have deck sections replaced in order to widen traffic
lanes for larger vehicles or add additions width for separated
cycling/pedestrian paths.

Disadvantages
Considerable stiffness or aerodynamic profiling may be required to
prevent the bridge deck vibrating under high winds
The relatively low deck stiffness compared to other (non-suspension)
types of bridges makes it more difficult to carry heavy rail traffic
where high concentrated live loads occur
Some access below may be required during construction, to lift the
initial cables or to lift deck units. This access can often be avoided in
cable-stayed bridge construction

Conclusion and Discussion

Pedestrian bridges ensure access to education and health, commerce and

opportunity. Rural pedestrian bridges contribute towards the improvement of
living conditions for some of the worlds most economically and socially
disadvantaged. The simplicity of the technology and the availability of a
design example will ensure many more bridges are built.
A review of pertinent structural design codes and geotechnical models were
reviewed. Parameter assumptions were justified through parametric models,
and a simple design approach adapted from DM-7 (Naval, 2009) was
proposed for design use for both fine and coarse grained soil types.
The loading assumptions and structural design approach was presented in
Chapter 3, including a case-study based on a 100 meter span and 1.0 meter
decking. Chapter 4 detailed pertinent academic approaches to anchor design
for fine and coarse grained soils. Separate consideration for either soil type
was given and soil parameter assumptions concluded upon. A recommended
soil testing and classification flow chart was provided to acquire soil

parameters for use in the DM-7 anchor design process. Structural loading
assumptions and codes are provided in the context of a
case-study example. The final product found that the 100 meter Ethiopia
bridge case study with a sandy-soil at either abutment must resist 166 kN of
loading. One anchor design solution is detailed. Several of the key quality
control measures were outlined in Chapter 5, with the intention to introduce
the reader to the importance of material and construction quality control for
footbridge projects.
Future DESIGN
Future experimental research is needed to verify the correlation between
assumed soil parameters and the ultimate uplift capacity of rectangular deadman anchors. Although research pertinent to equivalent structures were
reviewed, the lack of studies with similar loading and geometrical scenarios
was disappointing. Further research could address one of the following:
comparison between increases in anchor width versus burying the anchor to
a greater depth, correlation between rudimentary field tests and laboratory
tested friction angles and changes in ultimate pull-out capacity for various
coarse-grained and fine-grained soils. From experimental data, a
more complete database and design assumption matrix may be created.
Furthermore, the need for an improved testing approach would need to be
developed or a testing device, such as those detailed in Chapter 4, would
need to be correlated to the empirical findings to calibrate the devices.

A Best Practice Guide for Construction Quality Assurance and Quality

Control, including Safety precautions also would be an excellent
contribution to the field of pedestrian bridge design. Chapter 5 briefly
addressed a few of the key quality control components, but a document
properly addressing this topic was beyond the scope of this report. Included
in any effective construction document should be the design process used
and the assumed quality of each component. For example, a structural
engineer in The United States must specify A50 steel if he or she assumed
50 ksi yield stress in their design. Without this declaration of material
standard and without the proper system of quality control, an unknowing
contractor may choose to use a less expensive and more readily available
A36 steel with inferior yield strength. In the developing world, this
component of construction and material quality control must be documented
very clearly.

References
AASHTO's Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges: Guide for Design
of
Pedestrian Bridges, 1997.
ASCE Bearing Capacity of Soils, Technical Engineering and Design Guides
as
Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 7.
ASCE Design of Sheet Pile Walls, Technical Engineering and Design
Guides as
Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996, pp 36-37.
ASCE Soil Sampling, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted
from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 30.
ASTM D 2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils
(VisualManual Procedure) ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Accessed online
October 2008: (http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/sops/wmsf5.pdf).
ASTM D 5878 -08 Standard Guides for Using Rock-Mass Classification
Systems for

Engineering Purposes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM D 6032-08. Standard Test Method for Determining Rock Quality
Designation

(RQD)

of

Rock

Core.

ASTM

International,

West

Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D1556, Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil
in Place
by the Sand-Cone Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
Bjerrum, L. (1972). Embankments on soft ground, ASCE Conference on
Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue University. 2,
pp. 1-54.
Blaikie, M. P., Cameron, J. and Seedon, J. D. 1979. The Struggle for Basic
Needs in
Nepal. Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and
Development.
Bowles, Joseph E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5
th
Edition. McGrawHill.
Bridges to Prosperity. Accessed online January 2009: www.footbridges.org.
Field Determination of Texture for Sand, Silt & Clay. British Columbia
Ministry of

Environment, Lands & Parks. Accessed Online: February 2009:

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/teecolo/terclass/appii.htm
85
CSG Wood Specifications. Accessed online October 2008:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/specificgravwdtable.html
Das, B.M., 1990. Earth Anchors: Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol.
50. Elsevier, New York.
Das, B.M., 1983. A Procedure for Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Rough
Piles.
Soils and Foundations, Japan, 23(2):122-126.
Davis, J., Lambert, R. 2002. Engineering in Emergencies: 2
nd
Edition. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London.
Dayaratram, P. International Conference on Suspension, Cable Supported
and Cable
Stayed Bridges. Nov. 19-21 1999, Hyderabad. Indian Institute of Bridge
Engineers.
FM 3-34.343 Military Nonstandard Fixed Bridge. Chapter 8: SuspensionBridge
Design. Accessed online October 23, 2008. www.sachs.us/nsfb.pdf

Foster + Partners. London Millennium Bridge Project. Accessed online

March 2009.
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0953/Default.aspx
Gade, D. W. 1972. Bridge types in the central Andes. Annals of the
Association of
American Geographers, v. 62 (1), p. 94-109.
Geotest Instrument Incorporated. E-285 Pocket Vane Shear Tester. Accessed
online
February 2009: http://www.geotestinst.com/Catalog/ItemInfo.phtml?id=E285
Haynes, R., Lovett, A., Sunnengerg, G. 2003. Potential Accessibility, Travel
Time
and Consumer Choice: Geographical Variations in General Medical Practice
Registrations in Eastern England. Environment and Planning A 35: 17331750.
Hazeltine, B., Bull, C. 2003. Field Guide to Appropriate Technology.
Academic
Press, London.
Helvetas International. 2001. Short Span Trail Guide Survey Guide, First
Edition.
Volume 1.

His Majestys Government, Ministry of Local Development. 2005.

Integrated Rural
Accessibility Planning. Kathmandu, Nepal. Second Edition.