Numerical and Experimental Evaluation of the Dynamic

Performance of a Footbridge with Tuned Mass Dampers

Katrien Van Nimmen1; Pieter Verbeke2; Geert Lombaert3; Guido De Roeck4; and Peter Van den Broeck5

Abstract: This article presents an evaluation of the dynamic behavior of a slender steel footbridge before and after the installation of two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tuned mass dampers (TMDs). The results of the experimental study show that the damping devices lead to an increase of the effective damping
ratio of the critical mode. Additional tests involving the structural vibrations induced by a limited number of persons revealed that the TMD
units are effective in reducing the structural response. However, the obtained reduction highly depends on the type of human excitation. To
verify the response of the footbridge for large groups and crowds, a comprehensive numerical analysis is performed. The results are compared
to the response predicted by the procedures of the S
etra and HiVoSS design guides. For the bridge without TMD units, a significantly higher
structural response is predicted by the design guides; the bridge has a short span and is lightly damped, so the steady-state resonant conditions
assumed in the design guides are not reached for pedestrians who cross the bridge at a normal walking speed. For the bridge with TMD units,
the design guides predict a significantly lower structural response than do the more detailed numerical simulations because the critical mode is
highly damped and no longer dominates the structural response. In addition, the effectiveness of the damping devices is considerably less than
that expected on the basis of the corresponding increase in effective damping ratio because crowd-induced loading is near-harmonic and tran-
sient, not harmonic. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000815. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Human-induced vibrations; Footbridge; Tuned mass damper (TMD); TMD effectiveness; Random pedestrian traffic;
Full-scale testing.

Introduction variabilities of pedestrian excitation. In design procedures, how-

Because of their great slenderness, contemporary footbridges are often
highly susceptible to human-induced vibrations. Hence, predicting the
dynamic response of these structures under crowd-induced loading
has become a critical aspect of the vibration serviceability evaluation.
Footbridges are subjected to the simultaneous actions of groups
of pedestrians or crowds. To represent pedestrian-induced loading
accurately, the corresponding load model has to account for inter-
subject and intra-subject variability (Caprani et al. 2012). In addi-
tion, the pedestrians may also synchronize their motion with other
pedestrians or the bridge itself (Bocian et al. 2012; Carroll et al.
2012). A statistical analysis, therefore, is required to account for the
1
KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Structural Mechanics Section,
B-3001 Leuven, Belgium; KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Technology Cluster Construction, Structural Mechanics and Building
Materials Section, Technology Campus Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
(corresponding author). E-mail: katrien.vannimmen@kuleuven.be
2
KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Technology Cluster Construction,
Structural Mechanics and Building Materials Section, Technology Campus
Ghent, B-9000 Belgium.
3
KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Structural Mechanics Section,
B-3001 Leuven, Belgium.
4
KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Structural Mechanics Section,
B-3001 Leuven, Belgium.
5
KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Structural Mechanics Section,
B-3001 Leuven, Belgium; KU Leuven, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Technology Cluster Construction, Structural Mechanics and Building
Materials Section, Technology Campus Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 1, 2014; approved
on May 29, 2015; published online on January 22, 2016. Discussion period
open until June 22, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, ©
ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
ever, crowd-induced loading is simplified to an equivalent deter-
ministic load [Association Française de G
enie Civil 2006 (referred
to here as the S
etra design guide); Heinemeyer et al. 2009 (referred
to here as the HiVoSS design guide)].
When vibration serviceability problems are encountered, the
dynamic performance of the structure can be improved by vibration
countermeasures implemented either before construction or in ret-
rofit (Brownjohn et al. 2004; Butz et al. 2011). Traditional remedia-
tion (i.e., changes in mass or stiffness) may require important and
undesired modifications of the structural design. Conversely, tuned
mass dampers (TMDs) (Den Hartog 1985) can be adapted to aes-
thetic requirements (e.g., installed in hidden compartments), leav-
ing the original structural design untouched (Ainsworth et al. 2011;
Meinhardt 2012). This vibration-mitigation technique is making
strong gains in popularity for use in footbridges (see Fig. 1).
A TMD is effective in reducing the structural response for exci-
tation at or near the targeted natural frequency of the footbridge
(Weber et al. 2006). The corresponding reduction in the structural
response is generally assumed to be proportional to the obtained
increase in the effective damping ratio (Weber and Feltrin 2010).
However, the effectiveness of a TMD depends on accurate tuning
of the damping device but also on the characteristics of the excita-
tion (Caetano et al. 2010). The effectiveness is maximal for har-
monic excitation near the original resonance frequency of the foot-
bridge and is expected to be smaller as a result of the transient and
random nature of pedestrian excitation (Occhiuzzi et al. 2008).
In this article, an extensive numerical and experimental study of
the vibration serviceability of a slender steel footbridge in Charleroi,
Belgium, is presented. To assess the effectiveness of the installed
damping devices, the dynamic performance under pedestrian-induced
excitation is evaluated with and without TMDs.
The outline of this paper is as follows. First, the Charleroi foot-
bridge and the results from the experimental study are presented.

© ASCE C4016001-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001

 Second, the vibration serviceability assessment, performed accord-
ing to the current codes of practice, the S
etra (Association Française
de G
enie Civil 2006) and HiVoSS (Heinemeyer et al. 2009; Butz et
al. 2008) design guide, is discussed. Then, the TMD design strategy
is addressed briefly, as are the estimates of the corresponding reduc-
tion in the structural response, which are made on the basis of the
identified effective damping ratio. Third, the Monte Carlo simulation
of pedestrian traffic is discussed. The predicted acceleration levels
are compared to those obtained from the procedures in the design
guides S
etra (2006) and HiVoSS (2009) and the in situ observations.
Charleroi Footbridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The Charleroi footbridge is a slender steel structure with a single
span of 38.25 m and a width of 13.35 m, resulting in an effective
bridge deck area of 510 m2 (Fig. 2). The structure is composed of a
rectangular steel box girder with a width of 6.5 m and a height of
0.8 m at midspan, which decreases to 0.5 m at the sides [Figs. 2(b and
c)]. Tapered I-profiles, interconnected by five stringers, are
30
# Footbridges
20
10
0
1982 1990 1998 2006 2014
Year
Fig. 1. The number of footbridges with TMDs, installed by GERB
Engineering (2014) and Maurer Söhne (2013)
Fig. 2. (a) The Charleroi footbridge (image by authors); location of the TMDs at (b) midspan (centerline) and (c) cross section
Fig. 3. Top and side views of the first three calculated modes of the Charleroi footbridge
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
positioned every 4.25 m on both sides of the main girder. The struc-
ture is supported by 2
2 neoprene bearings. In a single bearing, the
horizontal translations are fixed. On the other side of the span, the lat-
eral translations are fixed at the center of the cross section.
The natural frequencies and corresponding mode shapes are pre-
dicted by using a detailed FE model of the structure. The model con-
sisted of Timoshenko beam elements for the stringers and cross
girders and a regular mesh of 4-node shell elements (Mindlin-
Reissner theory) for the steel plates composing the steel box girder.
The boundary conditions are applied as indicated on the architec-
tural drawings, assuming that the neoprene bearings restrict only
the vertical translations. The resulting FE model has a total of
27,866 degrees of freedom (DOF). The first three calculated modes
are presented in Fig. 3.
Operational Modal Characteristics of the Footbridge
To verify the numerically predicted natural frequencies and mode
shapes, a measurement campaign was carried out before installation
of the TMD units. In six setups, triaxial measurements were made at
a total of 50 locations on the bridge deck (regular 5
10 grid).
Output-only system identification is performed on the basis of ambi-
ent vibrations, mainly caused by wind (Peeters and De Roeck 1999;
Reynders and De Roeck 2008; Reynders et al. 2008). Table 1 lists the
natural frequencies and modal damping ratios of the three modes
identified with a natural frequency below 6 Hz. These results show
that the identified modal damping ratios are very low and close to the
values recommended for steel structures in the design guides
(Association Française de G
enie Civil 2006; Heinemeyer et al. 2009)
(i.e., 0.4%). The natural frequency and modal damping ratio of the
fundamental mode identified from ambient excitation agree with the
results from a free decay analysis that involved larger vibration
amplitudes, which was performed by the manufacturer of the damp-
ing devices (Colombel 2014). Table 1 presents also the comparison
with the numerically predicted natural frequencies and mode shapes.
C4016001-2 J. Bridge Eng.
 The translational stiffnesses of the neoprene bearings are calibrated
to further improve the agreement between the three identified and
corresponding calculated modes (see Table 1). The low relative error
on the natural frequencies and the high modal assurance criterion
(MAC) values indicate good agreement between the predicted and
calculated modal characteristics.
Tuned Mass Dampers
Two identical TMD units (mTMD ¼ 2; 480 kg, fTMD  1:6 Hz, and
j TMD  12%) were installed at midspan (see Fig. 2) (i.e., at the
antinode of the fundamental mode). On the basis of the modal mass
as calculated by the FE model, this TMD configuration corresponds
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
jumping on the bridge deck. The pacing rate of the activity was
synchronized by using a metronome signal and chosen to match the
fundamental natural frequency of the footbridge (1.66 Hz). In addition
to these synchronized activities, an additional experiment considered
the persons walking at a self-selected speed. For the stationary activ-
ities (jumping and bobbing), the persons were gathered at midspan.
In case of walking and running, the persons were requested to travel
to the other side of the span and back. The corresponding acceleration
levels of the bridge deck were registered at midspan next to the para-
pet using a sampling rate of 200 Hz. The digital signals are resampled
at 50 Hz by means of a digital low-pass filter to avoid aliasing.
Fig. 4 presents the measured maximum vertical acceleration lev-
els for the different load cases. To exclude potential nonrelevant in-

to a mass ratio of 3.8%. Note that these dampers will not affect the
second or third mode of the bridge, because they are installed at
nodes of the corresponding mode shapes. Here, the effectiveness of
the damping devices is evaluated on the basis of the effective damp-
ing ratio as identified under ambient excitation.
The ambient vibrations are registered with triaxial sensors in a
single setup at a total of 12 locations on the bridge deck. Output-
only system identification (Peeters and De Roeck 1999; Reynders
and De Roeck 2008) again identifies three modes with a natural fre-
quency below 6 Hz. As expected, the identified modal characteris-
tics of the second and third mode are quasi-identical to the corre-
sponding results identified before the installation of the TMD units
(see Table 1). The identified fundamental mode is again the funda-
mental vertical bending mode, but the corresponding natural fre-
quency decreased to 1.6 Hz, and the modal damping ratio increased
to 6%. These results are again in excellent agreement with those esti-
mated from the free decay analyses performed by the manufacturer
(Colombel 2014). These analyses show that the effective damping
ratio of the fundamental mode has increased by a factor of 15.
Human-Induced Vibrations: Full-Scale Experiments
Prior to the installation of the TMD units, a number of tests involving
different types of human excitation were performed. These experi-
ments involved 1, 8, or 18 persons walking, running, bobbing, or
stantaneous peak levels, the maximum RMS values of the vertical
acceleration levels, calculated with a time window of 1=~f 1 ðin sÞ,
are presented as well. Fig. 4 shows that the acceleration levels
increase with the number of persons on the bridge deck, as
expected. The increase is less than proportional to the number of
persons, even when a metronome is used for synchronization, which
indicates that full synchronization was not attained or that the struc-
tural damping slightly increased as a result of high vibration ampli-
tudes or human–structure interaction effects (Wang et al. 2011). As
expected, the highest acceleration levels are reached for the load
case jumping. The large displacements corresponding to the low-
frequency oscillations at the fundamental natural frequency of the
footbridge (1.66 Hz) were perceived as particularly highly uncom-
fortable by the participants. The high acceleration levels presented
in Fig. 4 highlight the strong sensitivity of the Charleroi footbridge
to human-induced vibrations.
After installation of the TMD units, a number of experiments
were repeated to assess the effectiveness of the damping devices.
Fig. 5 presents the peak and RMS values of the vertical accelera-
tions registered during free walking and during synchronized walk-
ing and jumping for 1, 8, or 18 persons on the bridge deck. Fig. 5
shows that the acceleration levels are significantly lower after in-
stallation of the TMD units.
The maximum RMS values of the acceleration levels induced by
8 and 18 persons are reduced by factors of 1.5, 5.1, and 3.5 for the

~ Natural Frequency ~f , and Damping Ratio j~ ) of the First Three Modes and Corresponding
Table 1 Identified Modal Characteristics (Mode Number N,
Mode Number N, Natural Frequency f, the Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC), and the Relative Error in Natural Frequency « for the Initial and Calibrated
Numerical Models

Measured Initial FE Model Calibrated FE Model

~
N ~f (Hz) j~ (%) N f (Hz) ɛ (%) MAC (–) N f (Hz) ɛ (%) MAC (–)
1 1.66 0.41 1 1.65 –0.6 0.99 1 1.67 –0.7 0.99
2 5.16 0.29 2 5.22 –1.2 0.90 3 5.12 0.8 0.90
3 5.56 0.48 3 6.15 10.6 0.91 4 5.59 –0.6 0.95

Fig. 4. The maximum vertical acceleration and RMS values resulting from (a) 1 person, (b) 8 persons, and (c) 18 persons for free walking (I),
synchronized walking (II), free running (III), synchronized jumping (IV), and bobbing (V) at the fundamental natural frequency of the footbridge (~f 1 )

© ASCE C4016001-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001

 load cases of free walking, synchronized walking, and jumping,
respectively. The reduction observed for a single person is smaller
and considered not relevant because of the nonnegligible contribu-
tion of ambient excitation. The obtained reduction is maximal for
synchronized walking, because the contribution of the fundamental
mode is predominant in this case. This reduction can also be
observed clearly in the time history and amplitude spectrum of the
acceleration levels shown in Fig. 6, induced by 18 persons walking
in synchronization at ~f 1 . The somewhat lower reduction obtained
for jumping is explained by the larger contribution of the higher
modes, excited by the higher harmonics of the jumping load (Ellis
and Ji 2004).
These practical tests reveal the sensitivity of the footbridge to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Design Guides
The S
etra (Association Française de G
enie Civil 2006) and HiVoSS
(Heinemeyer et al. 2009) design guides assess the vibration service-
ability of a footbridge on the basis of the maximum acceleration lev-
els for different pedestrian densities. The response of the structure
is predicted assuming that the first or the second harmonic of the
walking load coincides with one of the natural frequencies of the
structure. It is furthermore assumed that the structure is lowly
damped and that the resonant mode dominates the structural
response. A distinction is made between sparse and dense crowd
conditions to account for the higher level of synchronization that is
expected for high pedestrian densities.

human-induced vibrations and enable the identification of critical
modes. The results show that TMD units are effective in reducing
the structural response. The obtained reduction depends on the type
of human excitation.
Vibration Serviceability Assessment
The French design guide S
etra (Association Française de G
enie
Civil 2006) and the European design guide HiVoSS (Heinemeyer
et al. 2009; Butz et al. 2008) enable designers to check the
vibration serviceability of a footbridge for pedestrian den-
sities up to 1.5 persons/m2. This section provides a brief sum-
mary of the corresponding design procedures. For a more
comprehensive discussion, the reader is referred to the work
of Van Nimmen et al. (2014a). The next section discusses
how a TMD can be accounted for in the methodology of the
design guides and presents the results of the vibration service-
ability assessment of the Charleroi footbridge, with and with-
out TMDs.
The key element of the design guides is that the pedestrian exci-
tation that results from N pedestrians (in persons/s) is represented
by an equivalent deterministic load that is distributed uniformly on
the bridge deck. This simplified load model consists of an equiva-
lent number ðNeq Þ of perfectly synchronized pedestrians, which is
defined such that the acceleration level obtained is the same as the
95th percentile value of the peak accelerations caused by N pedes-
trians predicted by the considered stochastic load model. The equiv-
alent number of pedestrians, Neq , is defined as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Neq ¼ 10:8 j j N for d < 1 person=m2 (1)
pffiffiffiffi
Neq ¼ 1:85 N for d  1 person=m2 (2)
where j j denotes the modal damping ratio; and d ðin persons=m2 Þ
represents the considered pedestrian density. The pedestrian den-
sities that must be considered in the analysis depends on the
expected pedestrian traffic. The traffic classes considered in the
design guides vary from 15 persons distributed over the entire
bridge deck up to a density of 1.5 persons/m2. The corresponding

Fig. 5. The maximum vertical acceleration and RMS values before (dark) and after (light) installation of the TMDs for (a) 1, (b) 8, and (c) 18 persons
for free walking (I), synchronized walking (II), and synchronized jumping (IV) at the fundamental natural frequency of the footbridge (~f 1 ) and the
maximum (dashed) and maximum (solid) RMS values of the ambient accelerations

Fig. 6. (a) Time history and (b) amplitude spectrum of the vertical acceleration levels registered at midspan next to the parapet for 18 persons walking
in a synchronized manner at the fundamental natural frequency of the footbridge (~f 1 ) before (light) and after (dark) installation of the TMDs

© ASCE C4016001-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001

 Fig. 7. The load amplitude Qeh ðfj Þ for the vertical component of the
walking load according to the S
etra (Association Française de G
enie
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Civil 2006) (thick dark line) and HiVoSS (Heinemeyer et al. 2009;
Butz et al. 2008) (thick light line) design guides and the value recom-
mended by Tricon (Van Nimmen et al. 2014a; Van den Broeck and De
Roeck 2012) (thin black line) for application in the design stage (dashed
line) and after experimental verification of the natural frequencies
(solid)
amplitude of the equivalent load qeq;e (in N=m2 ) in direction e (ver-
tical, lateral, or longitudinal) is defined as follows:
Neq
qeq;e ¼ Qeh ðfj Þ
Aeff
with
Qeh ðfj Þ ¼ aeh G c eh ðfj Þ and 0  c eh ðfj Þ  1
where fj is the natural frequency of mode j under considera-
tion; Aeff ðm2 Þ is the effective bridge deck area; and Qeh ðfj Þ (in
N) is the load amplitude of the hth harmonic of the walking
load in direction e generated by a single pedestrian, defined as
the product of the dynamic load factor aeh ðÞ; the weight
G ¼ 700 ðin NÞ, and the reduction coefficient c eh ðfj ÞðÞ: The
latter accounts for the probability that the step frequency (or its
second harmonic) coincides with the natural frequency of mode
j under consideration and, thus, the occurrence of resonance.
The load factor Qeh for the vertical component of the walking
load, as defined by the design guides, is presented in Fig. 7.
Because resonant conditions are considered, the design guides
assume that the response of the structure is dominated by the contri-
bution of the considered mode. The maximum acceleration levels
€
u jemax (in m/s2) in direction e, observed in the antinode of that
mode, are therefore calculated as follows:
Fje
€
u je max ¼ maxj f je j
2j j
with
X ðkTMD Þ of the spring and damping constant ðcTMD Þ of the linear
Fje ¼ qeq;e aeff;k j f je;k j
k 2006). Because the vibration criteria of the design guides are
where f je is the vector that collects the mass-normalized modal dis-
placements of mode in direction e for all neff nodes of the effective
bridge deck area Aeff ; Fje is the modal load in direction e; and aeff is
the vector that collects
 the bridge deck area  allocated to the corre-
X 
sponding nodes Aeff ¼ aeff;k ðin m Þ . By taking the absolute
2 (SDOF) system. The optimal frequency ðfTMD
k ð j TMD Þ of the TMD are given as a function of the ratio m of the
value of the modal displacements in Eq. (5), the equivalent load is
chosen such that the modal load is maximized.
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
Fig. 8. The maximum effective damping ratio j j;eff ðÞ in terms of the
mass ratio m for different values of the inherent structural modal damping
ratio j j ðÞ: 0.00 (solid line), 0.01 (dashed line), and 0.02 (dotted line)
Note that the predicted maximum acceleration levels depend
only on the natural frequency of the considered mode j through the
load amplitude Qeh ðfj Þ [see Eq. (4) and Fig. 7]. Within the frame of
the Tricon project (Van den Broeck and De Roeck 2012), Van
Nimmen et al. (2014a) showed that in the design stage, uncertainty
with respect to the predicted dynamic properties of the footbridge is
inevitable. Even with a detailed finite element model, deviations up
to 10% in terms of natural frequencies are expected (Van Nimmen
(3) et al. 2014a). For these reasons, the authors recommended the modi-
fied load factor shown in Fig. 7 for the vertical component of the
walking load.
The dynamic behavior of the footbridge near resonance strongly
(4) depends on the damping ratio, a parameter which is difficult to esti-
mate in design stage. On the basis of experience obtained from simi-
lar structures, minimum and mean values for the damping ratio are
suggested by the design guides for different construction types. For
the case of steel structures, a mean damping ratio of 0.4% is
suggested.
To assess the vibration serviceability, the predicted acceleration
levels ½€u max ðin m=s2 Þ are compared to the limit values of the com-
fort classes, corresponding to the comfort requirements specified by
the bridge owner ½€ u lim ðin m=s2 Þ:
TMD Design Strategy
When the adopted comfort requirements are not satisfied ð€ u j;max >
€
u lim Þ; modifications to the design or vibration countermeasures are
needed (Weber et al. 2006; Varela and Battista 2011). The high
vibration amplitudes that occur in near-resonant conditions can be
reduced by increasing the effective damping of the structure
through the implementation of TMDs (Weber and Feltrin 2010;
Viguie 2010; Setareh et al. 2006).
(5)
First, a choice of the mass of the TMD ðmTMD Þ is made, usu-
ally in the range of 1%–4% of the modal mass mj associated with
the mode of vibration under consideration. The optimal stiffness
(6) viscous damper depend on the desired reduction (Weber et al.
expressed in terms of accelerations, the TMD for this study is
designed such that the structural accelerations are minimized.
The corresponding optimal TMD characteristics are derived by
Asami et al. (2002) for the case in which the structure, vibrating
in the mode considered, is simplified to an undamped single-DOF
Þ and damping ratio

mass of the TMD and the relevant modal mass ð m ¼ mTMD =mj Þas
follows:
C4016001-5 J. Bridge Eng.

Fig. 9. The equivalent number of pedestrians (dark lines) and maximum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
acceleration levels (light lines) in terms of the inherent structural damping
ratio for sparse (solid lines) and dense (dashed lines) pedestrian densities
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 1
fTMD ¼ fj
1þm
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffirffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3m 27
j TMD ¼ 1þ m
8ð1 þ m Þ 32
These values are close to optimal for lightly damped structures.
The maximum steady-state response of the structure with a TMD is
expressed as a function of the effective damping ratio ð j j;eff Þ of a
SDOF as proposed by Weber and Feltrin (2010). This effective
damping ratio is not a modal damping ratio as v j is no longer a natu-
ral frequency of the system when the TMD is added to the foot-
bridge. For structures with low inherent damping ½ j j < 0:02 ðÞ;
the effective damping ratio j j;eff is approximated by (Weber and
Feltrin 2010) the following:
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi11
2 below the maximum comfort requirements for horizontal vibra-
j j;eff ¼ j j þ @2 A (9)
m ð1 þ m Þ
Hence, the mass of the TMD determines what effective damping
ratio can be achieved (see Fig. 8) and, therefore, the amplitude of
the maximum steady-state response.
The required minimum effective damping ratio ð j j;eff Þ is deter-
mined by the limit value of the acceleration levels € u lim or each of
the pedestrian densities. From Eqs. (1)–(6), it can be shown that the
predicted acceleration levels ð€
u j;max Þ depend on the following:
For d < 1 person=m
pffiffiffiffi
2
For d  1 person=m2
(10)
€u j;max ð j j Þ  1 u j;max ð j j Þ  1
€ (FRF) relating the vertical accelerations and an input force at mid-
Because of the assumed resonant conditions, the dynamic ampli-
fication factor is inversely proportional to the damping ratio.
However, in the case of low pedestrian densities, the amplitude of
the maximum accelerations is inversely proportional to the square
root of the modal damping ratio [Eq. (10)]. In this case, the damping
ratio also affects the amplitude of the equivalent load through the
equivalent number of pedestrians, Neq [Eq. (1)]. The relation
between the structural damping and the equivalent number of
pedestrians as defined by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively, is shown in
Fig. 9. For values of the structural damping higher than 2.93%, the
equivalent number of pedestrians, Neq , is higher for sparse than for
dense pedestrian densities. The acceleration levels predicted by
using this simplified load model in this case are higher for sparse
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
than for dense pedestrian traffic, which can be understood consider-
ing that the design guides are developed for footbridges with low in-
herent damping and not for highly damped structures, as are consid-
ered here.
Following Eq. (10), the minimum effective damping ratio reads
as follows:
For d < 1 ðperson=m2 Þ For d  1 ðperson=m2 Þ
   
u j;max 2
€ €
u j;max (11)
j j;eff ¼ j j;max j j;eff ¼ jj
€
u lim €
u lim
where j j is the original structural damping ratio of the footbridge.
The minimum mass ratio ð m min Þ of the TMD is calculated from the
minimum effective damping ratio ð j j;eff Þ by means of Eq. (9). The
actual mass ratio is often chosen to be (slightly) higher than m min
for reasons of robustness and safety (Papadimitriou et al. 1997;
Marano et al. 2010) but also to limit the relative displacement am-
(7) plitude of the TMD with respect to the primary structure and, thus,
the required space.
Results
(8) Only the fundamental mode of the Charleroi footbridge has a natu-
ral frequency that falls in the range between 0.5 and 5.0 Hz, identi-
fied as critical for human-induced vibrations by the design guides.
Given the low value of the fundamental natural frequency, reso-
nance at the first harmonic of the vertical walking load may occur.
A modal damping ratio of 0.4% is assumed, as recommended by
the design guides for steel structures. Fig. 10(a) presents the maxi-
mum vertical acceleration levels predicted on the basis of Eq. (5).
Fig. 10(a) shows that a minimum level of comfort is expected for
low pedestrian densities, whereas unacceptably high vibration lev-
els are found for high pedestrian densities. Because of the limited
lateral and longitudinal displacements associated with this ver-
tical bending mode, the corresponding accelerations are well
tions (n0:1 m=s2 ).
The footbridge is located in a city center where urban use and
high pedestrian densities are expected. It was decided, therefore, to
increase the effective damping ratio of the fundamental mode by
adding a number of TMDs to the footbridge. To enable optimal tun-
ing of the damping devices, the spring and damping characteristics
are determined after the footbridge is built (i.e., based on the experi-
mentally identified modal parameters). The chosen mass ratio of
3.8% is expected to result into an effective damping ratio of 7%
under steady-state conditions, assuming the devices to be optimally
tuned (see Fig. 8).
Fig. 10(b) compares the calculated frequency response function
span with and without the TMD units. The maximum amplification
factor is reduced by a factor of 15 by including the TMD units,
which is perfectly in line with the experimentally identified effec-
tive damping ratio. Because the natural frequency of the damping
devices is slightly lower than optimal, the effective damping ratio is
somewhat lower than the maximum of 7%, which theoretically can
be attained with the present mass ratio. Note that in the experimental
study, the reductions observed in structural response for free walk-
ing, synchronized walking, and jumping, factors of 1.5, 5.1, and 3.5
respectively, are significantly less.
The vibration serviceability of the footbridge is reassessed while
taking into account the effectiveness of the TMDs. The latter is
accounted for by the identified effective damping ratio of 6%. The
results of the vibration serviceability assessment are presented in
C4016001-6 J. Bridge Eng.
 Fig. 10. The vibration serviceability assessment according to (a) the design guides (Association Française de G
enie Civil 2006; Heinemeyer et al. 2009)
and (b) the calculated FRF for a vertical input force and output accelerations at midspan before (dark line) and after (light line) installation of the TMDs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Time history of the single-step load according to Li et al.
(2010) for three different step frequencies: 1.6 Hz (dashed line), 2.0 Hz
(solid line), and 2.4 Hz (dotted line)
Fig. 10(a), which illustrates that the installed dampers ensure maxi-
mum vibration comfort for all pedestrian densities.
Stochastic Load Model for Pedestrian Excitation
In practice, footbridges are subjected to the simultaneous actions of
groups of pedestrians or crowds (Association Française de G
enie
Civil 2006). Crowd-induced loading has to account for inter-subject
and intra-subject variability (Caprani et al. 2012; Van Nimmen et
al. 2014b). In addition, a crowd is in fact a group of mechanical sys-
tems that interact with the supporting structure and thereby modify
the dynamic behavior of this structure (Brownjohn et al. 2004;
Bocian et al. 2013). Because this type of mechanical interaction has
not been fully characterized (Živanovi
c et al. 2009; Bocian et al.
2013), numerical models usually account only for the additional
mass on the structure. Furthermore, pedestrians will enter a bridge
at different times, and they may also synchronize their motion with
that of other pedestrians or the motion of the bridge itself (Bocian et
al. 2012; Carroll et al. 2012). Hence, a statistical analysis is required
to account for the inherent variability of pedestrian excitation in the
evaluation of the predicted structural response. To this end, recently
developed stochastic load models by Ingólfson and Georgakis
(2011), Caprani (2014), Piccardo and Tubino (2012), Tubino and
Piccardo (2015), and Živanovi
c et al. (2010) and available walking
parameter distributions (Sahnaci and Kasperski 2011; Kasperski
and Czwikla 2012) can be applied. The design procedures of the
S
etra and HiVoSS, however, propose a single deterministic analysis
for predicting the pedestrian-induced vibrations based on an equiva-
lent simplified load model. This load model consists of an equiva-
lent number of perfectly synchronized pedestrians, Neq , uniformly
distributed over the bridge deck, which is defined such that the
acceleration level obtained is the same as the 95th percentile value
of the peak accelerations due to N pedestrians as predicted by the
© ASCE C4016001-7
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
considered stochastic load model. To verify the validity of this
approach for the highly damped structures obtained by the introduc-
tion of a TMD, the characteristics of the pedestrian flows generated
in this study are set to match the simulation model that is applied by
the S
etra and HiVoSS design guides in deriving this simplified load
model. Intra-subject variability and synchronization phenomena are
disregarded. As far as human–structure interaction is concerned,
only the added mass of the considered pedestrian density is
accounted for.
In the following is a discussion of the crowd-induced vibrations
of the Charleroi footbridge, which are analyzed on the basis of the
Monte Carlo simulation of the pedestrian traffic. First, the simula-
tion model is discussed. Second, the structural vibrations induced
by a single pedestrian crossing the footbridge with and without
TMD units are examined. Third, the dynamic performance of the
Charleroi footbridge before the installation of the TMDs is dis-
cussed. Finally, there is a discussion on the effectiveness of the
TMD units under pedestrian traffic, which is evaluated and com-
pared to the in situ observations.
Simulation Model
The simulation model consist of three essential elements: (1) the
force model describing the walking loads of a single pedestrian; (2)
the crowd model generating the pedestrian traffic; and (3) the struc-
ture model describing the dynamic behavior of the footbridge.
These elements are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Force Model for a Single Pedestrian
In this study, only the vertical component of the walking load is
considered, because this is the only component relevant for the con-
sidered footbridge. The generalized single-step load model by Li et
al. (2010) is assumed for the vertical induced forces:
  
p1 ðtÞ X 5
pn 0  t  Tc
¼ An ðfs Þsin t for (12)
G n¼1
T c 1:6 < fs < 2:4 Hz
with p1 ðtÞ (in N) the vertical single-step load as a function of time
t; G ðin NÞ the weight of the pedestrian; n the order number of the
harmonic; fs ðin HzÞ the step frequency; An ðÞ the Fourier coeffi-
cient of the nth harmonic normalized to the weight of the pedestrian;
and Tc ðin sÞ the duration of the contact between the foot and the
ground. The typical time history of the vertical single-step load is
shown in Fig. 11 for three different step frequencies. For every indi-
vidual in the crowd, a weight of 700 N is assumed.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Crowd Model
To define the pedestrian traffic, assumptions are required with
respect to the step frequency, the walking trajectory, the walking
speed, and the arrival time of every pedestrian. The considered
walking trajectories consist of straight lines parallel to the longitudi-
nal axis x of the bridge deck. The offsets in the lateral direction are
chosen randomly along the bridge deck width. All pedestrians are
assumed to move at the same walking speed of 1.5 m/s. For a given
pacing rate, fs , the step length, ls ðin mÞ, follows from
vs
ls ¼ (13)
fs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The time taken by a pedestrian to cross the bridge can be
expressed as follows:
L ment model with proportional damping in modal coordinates read
T¼ (14)
vs
where L ðin mÞ is the length of the bridge. The arrival rate
λ ð in persons=sÞ is computed from the pedestrian density d
N Aeff d
λ¼ ¼ (15)
T T
The arrival times are assumed to follow a Poisson distribution
(Živanovi
c 2012). For the special case in which all pedestrians have
the same step frequency and walking load, p1 ; these Poisson arrival
times result in a random phase distribution among the walking loads
of the individuals in the crowd.
For low pedestrian densities ðd < 1 person=m2 Þ, spatially unre-
stricted traffic conditions, and thus free movement of the pedes-
trians, is assumed. In the case of dense crowds ð1  d 
1:5 persons=m2 Þ, normal walking behavior gets obstructed, which
causes the forward movement of the stream to slow down and the
level of synchronization to increase. Beyond the upper limit value
of 1.5 persons/m2, walking of pedestrians is considered to be impos-
sible, which significantly reduces the dynamic effects (Heinemeyer
et al. 2009). The sparse crowd conditions are simulated assuming
a truncated Gaussian distribution of the step frequencies, cen-
tered around one of the natural frequencies of the footbridge fj
with a standard deviation of 0.175 Hz [fs;k N ð m fs;k ; s fs;k Þ ¼
N ðfj ; 0:175Þ ðin HzÞ]. For dense crowd conditions, all pedes-
trians are given the same step frequency. In the simplified load
of the design guides, these assumed distributions of step fre-
quencies result in an equivalent number of pedestrians, which is
larger for dense crowd conditions [see Eqs. (1) and (2)]. The
stated properties of sparse and dense crowd conditions are cho-
sen in agreement with the stochastic load model applied by the
Fig. 12. Time history of the simulated vertical acceleration levels at midspan for a single pedestrian crossing the bridge at a walking speed of 1.0 m/s
(dark lines) or 1.5 m/s (light lines), leaving the footbridge at the time indicated by the vertical line (dashed lines), and the amplitude of the correspond-
ing steady-state response (horizontal line): (a) fs ¼ f1 ; (b) fs ¼ 1:2f1
© ASCE C4016001-8
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
S
etra (Association Française de G
enie Civil 2006) and HiVoSS
(Heinemeyer et al. 2009) design guides.
Sparse crowd conditions are used to simulate four pedestrian
densities that vary from 15 persons on the bridge deck up to
0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 person/m2. For the case of dense crowds, den-
sities of 1.0 and 1.5 persons/m2 are considered. As a result,
there are a total of six load cases to be considered for each natu-
ral frequency of the footbridge below 5 Hz. In the case of the
Charleroi footbridge, only the fundamental mode has a natural
frequency below 5 Hz.
Structure Model
The uncoupled governing equations of motion for a linear finite ele-
€ _ þ X2 zðtÞ ¼ U> PðtÞ
z ðtÞ þ CzðtÞ (16)
where zðtÞ 2 RnDOF is the modal coordinate vector; X2 2 RnDOF
nDOF
is a diagonal matrix containing the square of the natural frequen-
cies v j (in rad/s); C 2 RnDOF
nDOF is a diagonal matrix containing
the terms 2 j j v j with j j ðÞ as the modal damping ratios; and
U 2 RnDOF
nDOF is a matrix that has the mass-normalized mode
shapes f j as columns and U> PðtÞ as the modal projection of the
external forces PðtÞ 2 RnDOF . By retaining only the relevant modes in
a modal decomposition (nm nnDOF ), the model order is drastically
reduced by zr ðtÞ 2 Rnm as uðtÞ ¼ Ur zr ðtÞ and Ur 2 RnDOF
nm . The
mass of the pedestrians on the footbridge is assumed to be uniformly
distributed on the bridge deck and taken into account by lumping the
additional mass with the corresponding translational DOF.
When, in addition, a number of TMDs are coupled to the foot-
bridge, the model of the structure is extended accordingly. Each
TMD can be represented by a SDOF system characterized by a
mass (mTMD ), damping (cTMD ), and stiffness (kTMD ). The differen-
tial equations of motion for the main structure (footbridge) and the
TMDs are solved while ensuring compatibility and equilibrium
conditions at the contact points. The equations of motion for the
combined system consisting of the footbridge and the TMDs are
obtained by eliminating the contact forces
 >
 z€ ðtÞ þ C
K  2 z ðtÞ ¼ Ur Sp pðtÞ; with
 z_ ðtÞ þ X (17)
0
" # " #
zr ðtÞ 2 ¼ X2 U⊤
r STMD kTMD
z ¼ ; X ⊤
(18)
uTMD ðtÞ kTMD STMD Ur kTMD
J. Bridge Eng.
  
 ¼ I 0  ¼ C U⊤
r STMD cTMD
The dynamic behavior of the Charleroi footbridge is simulated
K ; C
0 mTMD cTMD S⊤
TMD Ur cTMD on the basis of the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the
(19) calibrated FE model and the experimentally identified modal
damping ratios. All modes with a frequency up to 15 Hz are taken
into account. It has to be acknowledged that in many cases,
in which uTMD 2 RnTMD collects the absolute displacements of the human–structure interaction phenomena cause damping of the
nTMD installed TMD units; STMD 2 RnDOF
nTMD is a matrix that indi- coupled crowd–structure system to increase in comparison to the
cates the DOF of the footbridge at which the TMD is coupled; and inherent structural damping ratio (Wang et al. 2011; Busca et al.
mTMD 2 RnTMD
nTMD ; kTMD 2 RnTMD
nTMD , and cTMD 2 RnTMD
nTMD 2014; Bocian et al. 2013; Pedersen 2015). It is expected that these
are diagonal matrices containing the mass (mTMD ), damping interaction effects would be nonnegligible for high pedestrian
(cTMD ), and stiffness (kTMD ) parameters of the different TMD units. densities (Jones et al. 2011; Dougil et al. 2006; Van Nimmen et
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Time history of the simulated vertical acceleration levels at midspan for a single pedestrian crossing the bridge with TMDs at a walking
speed of 1.0 m/s (dark lines) or 1.5 m/s (light lines), leaving the footbridge at the time indicated by the vertical line (dashed lines) and the amplitude of
the corresponding steady-state response (horizontal line): (a) fs ¼ f1 ; (b) fs ¼ 1:2f1

Fig. 14. For a pedestrian density of 1 person/m2: (a) the time history of the acceleration levels at midspan; (b–d) the location of the first (circle) and
the following (dots) pedestrians on the bridge deck, crossing the bridge for the first (dark dots) and second (light dots) time at three different points in
time: (b) 0.3T; (c) 0.9T; (d) 1.5T

Fig. 15. The empirical CDF of the maximum acceleration (light lines) and maximum RMS (dark lines) values at midspan of the centerline (circle)
and sidelines (square and
) of 500 random pedestrian streams for footbridge traffic without TMDs: (a) sparse traffic conditions (0.8 person/m2); (b)
dense traffic conditions (1.5 persons/m2)

© ASCE C4016001-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001

 al. 2015); however, these effects are beyond the scope of this
paper.
Crossing of a Single Pedestrian
Figs. 12(a and b) present the acceleration levels at midspan for a sin-
gle pedestrian crossing the Charleroi footbridge considering reso-
nant ðfs ¼ f1 Þ and nonresonant conditions ðfs ¼ 1:2 f1 Þ, respec-
tively. It is clear that the acceleration levels are significantly higher
(>10 times) when resonant conditions are considered. In addition,
Figs. 12(a and b) show the steady-state response for a pedestrian
walking on spot at midspan. The amplitudes of the steady-state
responses in both cases are higher than the maximum acceleration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
level obtained by a pedestrian crossing the bridge. Under resonant
conditions, the steady-state response reaches an acceleration level
that is twice as high. The lower response obtained for the moving
pedestrian is a result of the fact that the time until steady-state is
much larger than the time it takes the pedestrian to cross the span of
the bridge. The number of cycles required to reach a certain percent-
age of the steady-state amplitude for resonant loading is inversely
proportional to the damping ratio (Chopra 1995). For the lowly
damped fundamental mode of the Charleroi footbridge, 116 on-
spot cycles (and therefore steps) are needed to reach 95% of the
steady-state amplitude under resonant conditions. Although the
maximum response under nonresonant conditions is less sensitive
to the walking speed, similar conclusions can be drawn from Fig.
12(b).
Because the maximum acceleration levels are highly sensitive to
the number of loading cycles, the walking speed of the pedestrians
is an important parameter. As discussed in the Crowd Model, the
design guides consider a fixed walking speed of 1.5 m/s.
Experiments have shown, however, that the walking speed is related
to the step frequency. For the low step frequencies ð1:5 < fs <
1:65 HzÞ considered here, a walking speed of 1.0 m/s is more realis-
tic (Bertram and Ruina 2001; Kuo 2001). Fig. 12(a) shows that
reducing the walking speed to 1.0 m/s in resonant conditions results
Fig. 16. Selected output locations on the bridge deck: the centerline
(circle) and two sidelines (square and
) with the corresponding output
location at midspan (dark marks)
Fig. 17. Ratio of the 95th percentile of the maximum acceleration at location xð€ u x95 Þ and the overall maximum u€ max95 (light shapes) and maximum
RMS (dark shapes) values at the centerline (circle) and sidelines (square and x) along the bridge deck length (x) for the Monte Carlo–simulated pedes-
trian traffic with: (a) sparse or (b) dense conditions for the footbridge without TMDs
© ASCE C4016001-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
in a significant increase in the predicted acceleration levels.
Therefore, the walking speed is set to 1.0 m/s.
Figs. 13(a and b) present a similar comparison for the foot-
bridge with TMD units. For resonant conditions, the step fre-
quency is chosen to match the frequency at which the peak value
of the FRF is found (see Fig. 10). Although the acceleration levels
are again higher under resonant conditions, the difference in maxi-
mum amplitude in this case is limited to a factor of 2. These fig-
ures also illustrate that under both resonant and nonresonant
loading conditions, acceleration amplitudes that are very close
to the corresponding steady-state amplitude are attained, which
is because the number of cycles required to reach the steady-
state is significantly lower.
Comparing the results in Figs. 12(a) and 13(a) shows that the
TMD units significantly reduce the response under resonant loading
conditions. For nonresonant loading conditions [Fig. 12(b) and
13(b)], the effect of the TMD units on the maximum attained accel-
eration level is insignificant.
Dynamic Performance of the Footbridge without TMDs
Fig. 14(a) shows the time history of the acceleration levels at mid-
span induced by a stream of pedestrians. Figs. 14(b–d) present the
locations of the pedestrians on the bridge deck at three different
points in time, corresponding to distances travelled by the first pe-
destrian of 30%, 90%, and 150% of the span length, respectively.
These figures show that all pedestrians are walking in the same
direction (i.e., from the left to the right side of the span). Note that a
pedestrian, who left the bridge on the right side, is immediately
reentering the bridge from the left side on his next step. In this way,
the continuity of the pedestrian flow and preservation of the pedes-
trian density is guaranteed.
The simulated response caused by a stream of pedestrians is rele-
vant once the desired pedestrian density and steady-state response
are reached. As discussed in Crowd Model, the desired pedestrian
density ðd ¼ N=Aeff Þ is reached within the time, T, needed for one
pedestrian to cross the bridge. The steady-state response, however,
is reached only at time T þ DT, where DT is dependent on the free
decay response. Analysis showed that for this application, the
steady-state response is reached at t  2T [see Fig. 14(a)]. For ev-
ery simulated stream of pedestrians, the maximum acceleration
level and corresponding maximum RMS value over the relevant
time window ½2T; 3T are retained for each node of the effective
bridge deck area.
Figs. 15(a and b) present the empirical cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs) of the maximum acceleration levels for three
selected output locations at midspan (as indicated in Fig. 16) for
500 pedestrian streams under sparse and dense traffic conditions,
J. Bridge Eng.
 respectively. To ensure convergence of the 95th percentile value of
the peak acceleration levels, a 5% tolerance is set at 95% confi-
dence. Thus, the number of Monte Carlo samples is increased
until the probability that the true percentile of the distribution is
within 65% of the corresponding percentile of the simulated data
accumulated thus far is higher than 95% [Statistics Toolbox
(MATLAB 2014)]. The converged 95th percentile value of the
maximum acceleration levels and corresponding maximum RMS
value are retained for each load case.
Figs. 17(a and b) present the 95th percentile values of the peak
acceleration levels for the selected output locations on the bridge
deck (see Fig. 16) under sparse and dense traffic conditions, respec-
tively. The results presented in Fig. 17(b), almost perfectly display
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a half-cycle sine shape, whereas the ratios of the corresponding
maximum and maximum RMS values of the acceleration levels are
approximately equal to the square root of 2. These results indicate
that for these dense traffic conditions, in which all pedestrians are
walking with a step frequency fs ¼ f1 , the structural response is
clearly dominated by the contribution of the fundamental bending
mode, as expected.
Fig. 17(a) shows that for sparse pedestrian densities, the maxi-
mum acceleration levels are still attained at midspan. However,
the ratios of the corresponding maximum and maximum RMS val-
ues of the acceleration levels, calculated with a time window of
1=~f 1 (in s), are lower than the square root of 2. This observation
indicates that the relative contribution of the higher modes is
increased, which results from the fact that for sparse crowd condi-
tions, the step frequencies of the individuals in the crowd follow a
Gaussian distribution centered around the fundamental natural
Fig. 18. Maximum vertical acceleration predicted according to the
design guides (Association Française de G
enie Civil 2006; Heinemeyer
et al. 2009) (dark bars), the 95th percentile value of the Monte Carlo–
simulated pedestrian traffic (light bars), and the steady-state response
obtained for the pedestrians walking on spot (
)
Fig. 19. Ratio of the 95th percentile of the maximum acceleration levels at location xð€
RMS (dark) values at the centerline (circle) and sidelines (square and
) along the bridge deck length (x) for the Monte Carlo–simulated pedestrian
traffic with (a) sparse or (b) dense conditions for the footbridge including the TMD units
© ASCE C4016001-11
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
frequency of the footbridge. The (near-)resonant loading with the
second (or third) harmonic of the walking load increases the con-
tribution the higher modes to the overall structural response.
Comparison with the Response Predicted According to
the Design Guides
Fig. 18 compares the maximum acceleration levels predicted by the
design guides to the corresponding 95th percentile values of the
Monte Carlo–simulated crowd-induced vibrations. These results
show that the design guides overestimate the response due to the
assumed steady-state response. For dense traffic conditions, the val-
ues predicted by the design guides are approximately twice as high
as the corresponding 95th percentile values of the Monte Carlo sim-
ulations. A better agreement in the predicted acceleration levels is
obtained for sparse pedestrian densities as in this case the consid-
ered loading is mainly nonresonant. The number of cycles required
to reach the steady-state amplitude is in this case significantly
smaller and reached within the time needed to cross the bridge.
Dynamic Performance of the Footbridge with TMDs
Figs. 19(a and b) present the 95th percentile values of the maximum
acceleration levels and maximum RMS values for the selected out-
put locations on the bridge deck (see Fig. 16), for sparse and dense
traffic conditions respectively. The half-cycle sine shape of the
results presented in Fig. 19(b), suggests that for dense traffic condi-
tions the fundamental bending mode still dominates the structural
response. However, the ratios of the maximum and maximum RMS
value of the acceleration levels are considerably higher than the
square root of 2 while the acceleration levels at the central line are
significantly lower than those at the outer sides. This is due to the
fact that the relative contribution of the torsional mode has
increased as a result of the (reduced) contribution of the fundamen-
tal bending mode.
For sparse traffic conditions, the maximum acceleration levels
and maximum RMS values no longer display the shape of the fun-
damental vertical mode but rather a combination of the first and the
second bending mode, in particular along the centerline of the
bridge [Fig. 19(a)]. In addition, the ratios of the corresponding max-
imum peak and maximum RMS value of the acceleration levels are
considerably higher than the square root of 2. These results reveal
that for sparse pedestrian densities, the second vertical bending
mode and the fundamental torsional mode are dominating the struc-
tural response. This is again due to the reduced contribution of the
fundamental bending mode.
€ max95 (light) and maximum
u x95 Þ and the overall maximum u
J. Bridge Eng.

Fig. 20. Maximum vertical acceleration predicted by the design
guides (dark bars) and the 95th percentile of the maximum acceleration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
levels (light bars) of the Monte Carlo–simulated pedestrian traffic for
the Charleroi footbridge with TMDs
Fig. 21. The 95th percentile of the maximum acceleration levels of the
Monte Carlo–simulated pedestrian traffic considering different pedes-
trian densities for the Charleroi footbridge without (dark bars) and with
(light bars) TMD units
Effectiveness of the TMD Units
Fig. 20 compares the maximum acceleration levels of the footbridge
with the two TMD units as predicted by the design guides based on
the effective damping ratio of 6%, to the 95th percentile value
obtained from the Monte Carlo–simulated pedestrian traffic. These
results show that a significantly lower structural response is pre-
dicted by applying the simplified load model. The latter predomi-
nantly results from the fact that the design guides assume that the
resonant mode dominates the structural response. The present anal-
ysis shows, however, that this is no longer the case when the reso-
nant mode is highly damped. In addition, the effectiveness of the
TMD units is overestimated by the effective damping ratio, as
crowd-induced loading is near-periodic and transient as opposed to
harmonic (Weber 2013).
The effectiveness of the TMD units, therefore, is evaluated more
accurately by comparing the 95th percentile value of the maximum
acceleration levels of Monte Carlo–simulated pedestrian traffic for
the footbridge with and without TMD units. This comparison is pre-
sented in Fig. 21, which illustrates that the effectiveness of TMD
units is much larger for dense traffic conditions. Analysis shows
that for sparse and dense pedestrian densities, the structural
responses are reduced by factors of approximately 1.3 and 5.2,
respectively. This difference in reduction is explained by the fact
that for sparse pedestrian densities, the relative contribution of the
higher (lowly damped) modes is much higher than for dense traffic
conditions. The reduction is slightly different for different pedes-
trian densities, because the optimality of the tuning of TMD units
also depends on the considered pedestrian density. Note that the
attained reductions are in excellent agreement with those identified
© ASCE C4016001-12
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
experimentally for free and synchronized walking (i.e., 1.5 and 5.1,
respectively). The assessment presented in Fig. 21 shows that by
installing the TMD units, mean and maximum comfort levels are
obtained for low and high pedestrian densities, respectively. It
should be emphasized that the effectiveness of the TMD units
highly depends on the contributions of the remaining (lowly
damped) low-frequency modes of the structure. Consequently,
effectiveness is strongly case specific.
Conclusions
The Charleroi footbridge is a small-span slender steel footbridge.
Because of the low value of the fundamental natural frequency,
resonance at the first harmonic of the walking load may occur.
To ensure the vibration comfort of users, two TMD units are
installed.
In this work, the dynamic performance of the Charleroi foot-
bridge with and without the TMD units is examined in situ on the
basis of an extensive measurement campaign. After installation of
the TMD units, an increase by a factor of 15 is found for the effec-
tive damping ratio of the fundamental mode. Experiments involv-
ing excitation by a limited number of persons show that the TMD
units are effective in reducing the structural response. The
obtained reduction, however, depends highly on the type of human
excitation.
A comprehensive numerical analysis is performed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the damping devices for crowd densities up to
1.5 persons/m2. The results are compared with predictions based on
the simplified load model proposed in the S
etra and HiVoSS design
guides. For the footbridge without TMD units, the structural
response predicted by the simplified load model is significantly
higher than that in detailed numerical simulations, because the
steady-state conditions assumed by the design guides are not
attained by pedestrians crossing short-span and lowly damped
bridges. For the footbridge with TMD units, the structural response
predicted by the simplified load model is considerably lower
because the fundamental mode was highly damped and no longer
dominated the structural response. In addition, the effective damp-
ing ratio overestimated the effectiveness of the damping devices
because crowd-induced loading is near-harmonic and transient, not
harmonic.
The effectiveness of the TMD units predicted by the detailed nu-
merical analysis is in excellent agreement with the in situ observa-
tions for free and synchronized walking.
The main conclusion of this investigation is that a simplified pro-
cedure based solely on the contribution of the resonant mode is no
longer appropriate for evaluating the dynamic performance of a
footbridge with TMDs. A more detailed analysis that accounts for
both the variability of pedestrian excitation and the dynamic behav-
ior of the coupled system is required.
Acknowledgments
This research is funded by the Agency for Innovation by Science
and Technology in Flanders (IWT); this financial support is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ainsworth, I., Franklin, K., and Burnton, P. (2011). “Kurilpa bridge—A
case study.” Proc., 4th Int. Footbridge Conf., L. Debell and H. Russel,
eds., Wroclaw, Poland.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Asami, T., Nishihara, O., and Baz, A. (2002). “Analytical solutions to
Hinfinity and H2 optimization of dynamic vibration absorbers attached
to damped linear systems.” J. Vib. Acoust., 124(2), 284–295.
Association Française de G
enie Civil. (2006). S
etra: Evaluation du com-
portement vibratoire des passerelles pi
etonnes sous l’action des pi
etons,
AFGC, Paris (in French).
Bertram, J. E. A., and Ruina, A. (2001). “Multiple walking speed—
Frequency relations are predicted by constrained optimization.” J.
Theor. Biol., 209(4), 445–453.
Bocian, M., Macdonald, J. H. G., and Burn, J. F. (2012). “Biomechanically
inspired modelling of pedestrian-induced forces on laterally oscillating
structures.” J. Sound Vib., 331(16), 3914–3929.
Bocian, M., Macdonald, J. H. G, and Burn, J. F. (2013). “Biomechanically-
inspired modeling of pedestrian-induced vertical self-excited forces.” J.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000490, 1336–1346.
Brownjohn, J., Fok, P., Roche, M., and Omenzetter, P. (2004). “Long span
steel pedestrian bridge at Singapore Changi Airport—Part 2: Crowd
loading tests and vibration mitigation measures.” Struct. Eng., 82(16),
28–34.
Busca, G., Cappellini, A., Manzoni, S., Tarabini, M., and Vanali, M.
(2014). “Quantification of changes in modal parameters due to the pres-
ence of passive people on a slender structure.” J. Sound Vib., 333(21),
5641–5652.
Butz, C., Feldmann, M., Heinemeyer, C., and Sedlacek, G. (2008).
“SYNPEX: Advanced load models for synchronous pedestrian excita-
tion and optimised design guidelines for steel footbridges.” Technical
Rep., Research Fund for Coal and Steel, Brussels, Belgium.
Butz, C., Schuermann, C., and Benicke, O. (2011). “Tuned mass dampers
for the footbridge of VW Autostadt in Wolfsburg, Germany.” Proc., 4th
Int. Footbridge Conf., J. Biliszczuk, J. Bien, P. Hawryszków, and T.
Kami
nski, eds., Wroclaw, Poland.
Caetano, E., Cunha, A., Magalhães, F., and Moutinho, C. (2010). “Studies
for controlling human-induced vibration of the Pedro e Inõs footbridge,
Portugal. Part 2: Implementation of tuned mass dampers.” Eng. Struct.,
32(4), 1082–1091.
Caprani, C. C. (2014). “Application of the pseudo-excitation method to
assessment of walking variability on footbridge vibration.” Comput.
Struct., 132, 43–54.
Caprani, C. C., Keogh, J., Archbold, P., and Fanning, P. (2012).
“Enhancement for the vertical response of footbridges subjected to sto-
chastic crowd loading.” Comput. Struct., 102–103, 87–96.
Carroll, S. P., Owen, J. S., and Hussein, M. F. M. (2012). “Modelling
crowd-bridge dynamic interaction with a discrete defined crowd.” J.
Sound Vib., 331(11), 2685–2709.
Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of structures, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Colombel, M. (2014). “Montage des ADAs sur la passerelle.” Tech. rep.,
GERB Engineering, Berlin.
Den Hartog, J. P. (1985). Mechanical vibrations, Dover Publications,
Mineola, NY.
Dougil, J. W., Wright, J. R., Parkhouse, J. G., and Harrison, R. E. (2006).
“Human structure interaction during rhythmic bobbing.” Struct. Eng.,
84(2), 32–39.
Ellis, B. R., and Ji, T. (2004). “Loads generated by jumping crowds:
Numerical modelling.” Struct. Eng., 82(17), 35–40.
GERB Engineering. (2014). Tuned mass dampers. Reference list, Berlin.
Heinemeyer, C., et al. (2009). “Design of lightweight footbridges for
human induced vibrations—Background document in support to the
implementation, harmonization and further development of the
Eurocodes.” hhttp://www.stb.rwth-aachen.de/projekte/2007/HIVOSS
/download.phpi.
Ingólfson, E. T., and Georgakis, C. T. (2011). “A stochastic load model for
pedestrian-induced lateral forces on footbridges.” Eng. Struct., 33(12),
3454–3470.
Jones, C. A., Reynolds, P., and Pavi
c, A. (2011). “Vibration serviceability
of stadia structures subjected to dynamic crowd loads: a literature
review.” J. Sound Vib., 330(8), 1531–1566.
Kasperski, M., and Czwikla, B. (2012). “A refined model for human
induced loads on stairs.” Topics on the dynamics of civil structures.
Proc., Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, Springer, 27–39.
© ASCE C4016001-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001
Kuo, A. D. (2001). “A simple model of bipedal walking predicts the preferred
speed-step length relationship.” J. Biomech. Eng., 123(3), 264–269.
Li, Q., Fan, J., Nie, J., Li, Q., and Chen, Y. (2010). “Crowd-induced random
vibration of footbridge and vibration control using multiple tuned mass
dampers.” J. Sound Vib., 329(19), 4068–4092.
Marano, G., Greco, R., and Sgobba, S. (2010). “A comparison between dif-
ferent robust optimum design approaches: Application to tuned mass
dampers.” Probab. Eng. Mech., 25(1), 108–118.
MATLAB. (2014). Statistics Toolbox (R2014a). MathWorks Inc., Natick,
MA.
Maurer-Sohne. (2013). Extract of reference list for tuned mass dampers.
Reference list, Munich, Germany.
Meinhardt, C. (2012). “Detailed numerical and experimental dynamic anal-
ysis of long-span footbridges to optimize structural control measures.”
Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management,
Taylor & Francis.
Occhiuzzi, A., Spizzuoco, M., and Ricciardelli, F. (2008). “Loading models
and response control of footbridges excited by running pedestrians.”
Struct. Control Health Monit., 15(3), 349–368.
Papadimitriou, C., Katafygiotis, L. S, and Au, S.-K. (1997). “Effects of
structural uncertainties on TMD design: A reliability-based approach.”
J. Struct. Control, 4(1), 65–88.
Pedersen, L. (2015). “Implications of interaction between humans and
structures.” Proc., IMAC 33, Int. Modal Analysis Conf , Springer.
Peeters, B., and De Roeck, G. (1999). “Reference-based stochastic subspace
identification for output-only modal analysis.” Mech. Syst. Sig. Process.,
13(6), 855–878.
Piccardo, G., and Tubino, F. (2012). “Equivalent spectral model and maxi-
mum dynamic response for the serviceability analysis of footbridges.”
Eng. Struct., 40, 445–456.
Reynders, E., and De Roeck, G. (2008). “Reference-based combined deter-
ministic–stochastic subspace identification for experimental and opera-
tional modal analysis.” Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., 22(3), 617–637.
Reynders, E., Pintelon, R., and De Roeck, G. (2008). “Uncertainty bounds
on modal parameters obtained from stochastic subspace identification.”
Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 22(4), 948–969.
Sahnaci, C., and Kasperski, M. (2011). “Simulation of random pedestrian
flow.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics of EURODYN, De
Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, and G. Müller, eds.,. Leuven, Belgium.
Setareh, M., Ritchey, J. K., Baxter, A. J., and Murray, T. M. (2006).
“Pendulum tuned mass dampers for floor vibration control.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:1(64), 64–73.
Tubino, F., and Piccardo, G. (2015). “Tuned mass damper optimization for
the mitigation of human-induced vibrations of pedestrian bridges.”
Meccanica, 50(3), 809–824.
Van den Broeck, P., and De Roeck, D. G. (2012). “Tricon: Prediction and
control of human-induced vibrations of civil engineering structures.”
Van Nimmen, K., Lombaert, G., De Roeck, G., and Van den Broeck, P.
(2014a). “Vibration serviceability of footbridges: Evaluation of the cur-
rent codes of practice.” Eng. Struct., 59, 448–461.
Van Nimmen, K., Lombaert, G., Jonkers, I., Roeck, D., and Van den
Broeck, G. P. (2014b). “Characterisation of walking loads by 3D inertial
motion tracking.” J. Sound Vib., 333(20), 5212–5226.
Van Nimmen, K., Maes, K., Živanoci
c, S., Lombaert, G., De Roeck, G., and
Van den Broeck, P. (2015). “Identification and modelling of vertical
human–structure interaction.” Proc., IMAC 33, Int. Modal Analysis Conf.
Varela, W. D., and Battista, R. C. (2011). “Control of vibrations induced by
people walking on large span composite floor decks.” Eng. Struct.,
33(9), 2485–2494.
Viguie, R. (2010). “Tuning methodology of nonlinear vibration absorbers
coupled to nonlinear mechanical systems.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Liège,
Liège, Belgium.
Wang, D., Gao, S., Kasperski, M., Liu, H., and Jon, L. (2011). “Simulation
of the dynamic characteristics of the coupled system structure.” Appl.
Mech. Mater., 71–78, 1507–1510.
Weber, B., and Feltrin, G. (2010). “Assessment of long-term behavior of
tuned mass dampers by system identification.” Eng. Struct., 32(11),
3670–3682.
Weber, F. (2013). “Dynamic characteristics of controlled MR-STMDs of
Wolgograd Bridge.” Smart Mater. Struct., 22(9), 095008.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Weber, F., Feltrin, G., and Olaf, H. (2006). “Samco final report—F05 guide-
lines for structural control.” Structural Engineering Research Laboratory,
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research.
Živanovi
c, S. (2012). “Benchmark footbridge for vibration serviceability
assessment under the vertical component of pedestrian load.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000571, 1193–1202.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Živanovi
c, S., Diaz, I., and Pavi
c, A. (2009). “Influence of walking and
standing crowds on structural dynamic properties.” Proc., IMAC 27, Int.
Modal Analysis Conf., Springer.
Živanovi
c, S., Pavi
c, A., and Ingólfsson, E. (2010). “Modeling spatially
unrestricted pedestrian traffic on footbridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000226, 1296–1308.

© ASCE C4016001-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4016001