Dynamic Response of Pedestrian

Bridges/Floor Vibration and Various

Methods of Vibration Remediation

Chung C. Fu, Ph.D., P.E.

 Presentation
• Brief overview of structural vibration
• Understanding how people perceive and
react to unwanted vibration
• General response of pedestrian bridges to
vibration
• Various design guidelines
• Damping
• Bridge case study
Structural Vibration

• Stiffness Force: FS = -kx

• Damping Force: FD = -cx’
• External Force: FE(t)
• Inertial Force
 Structural Vibration

• General equation of motion

mxt   cxt   kxt   Fe t 

 Structural Vibration
• Free Vibration
mxt   cxt   kxt   0 x0  0 x0  0
• Solution

  n xo  xo 

xt   e  nt
 xo cos d t   sin  d t 

 n 1   2



  x   x  

xt   e  nt  xo cos d t   n o o
sin  d t 

 1   2



k c
 
2
n
2 n  d  n 1   2
m m
 Structural Vibration
• Forced Vibration
mxt   cxt   kxt   Fe t 
• Solution

  nt  n xo  xo  nt 

xt    xo e cos d t   e sin  d t  

  n 1   2



  n x p 0  xp 0  nt 

 p
x t   x p 0 e  nt
cos d t   e sin  d 
t 

  n 1   2



  nt  n xo  xo  nt 

xt    xo e cos d t   e sin  d t  

 1   2



  n x p 0  xp 0  nt 

 xp t   xp 0e cos d t   sin  d t 
 nt
e

 1 2 

 Structural Vibration
• Steady State Forcing Function
Fe t   Fo sin  o t 

• Solution
Fo
xss t   k  2 
r cos  t   1  
r 2

sin ot  
 
1  r  2r 
2 2 2 o

Fo o
x ss t   k 1 
 r  2
cos o t   2r sin  o t  
1  r 
2 2
 2r 
2
 Human Perception
• Human Response
– Present: Not perceived
– Perceived: Does not annoy
– Perceived: Annoys and disturbs
– Perceived: Severe enough to cause illness
• Peak acceleration limits
Situation Building in Public Building in Amusement
Strong Wind Transportation Earthquake Park Ride

Peak Acceleration (% g) 0.5 – 10 51 – 102 204 – 458 <458

 Peak
Acceleration
for Human
Comfort for
Vibrations

Design Guide 11 Fig. 2.1 Recommended peak acceleration for human

comfort for vibrations due to human activities
 Pedestrian Bridge Response
• Vertical Vibration
• Lateral Vibration
 Pedestrian Bridge Response
• Vertical Vibration (also apply to floor vibration)

 F t   P1   i 
cos2if stept  i 

P = Person’s weight
i = Dynamic coefficient for the
harmonic force
i = Harmonic multiple (1, 2, 3…)
fstep = Step frequency of activity
t = time
i = Phase angle for the harmonic
 Pedestrian Bridge Response
• Lateral Vibration

Synchronous Lateral Excitation

 Design Guidelines
• Serviceability (i.e. functional, usable)
– Stiffness
– Resonance
• Resonance
– Frequency matching
– Uncomfortable/damaging vibration
– Unfavorable perception

AVOID RESONACE!
 Design Guidelines
• Natural Frequency
 stiffness  g
f  
2 mass 2 

Ex.) Uniformly loaded simple beam:

g
f n  0.18

4
5wL

384 EI
 Design Guidelines
• Natural Frequency (Vertical Vibration)
– Limiting values (Bridge)
• AASHTO
– f > 3.0 Hz
– f > 2.85ln(180/W)
– W > 180e-0.35f
– Special cases: f > 5.0 Hz
• British Code (1978 BS 5400)/Ontario Bridge Code
(1983)
– fo > 5.0 Hz
– amax < 0.5(fo)1/2 m/s2
– amax = 42fo2ysKY
– F = 180sin(2foT) N
– vt = 0.9fo m/s (> 2.5 m/s per Ontario Code)
Bridge Design Guidelines

a max  4 f y s KY
2
o
2
 British Design Guidelines

a max  4 f y s KY
2
o
2
 Design Guidelines
• Natural Frequency (Vertical Vibration)
– Limiting values
– AASHTO
– British Code (1978 BS 5400)
– AISC/CISC Steel Design Guide Series 11
ap Po e 0.35 f o < 1.5% (Indoor walkways)

g W < 5.0% (Outdoor bridges)
Response to Sinusoidal Force
Resonance response function

Simplified design criterion

a/g, a0/g= ratio of the floor

acceleration to the acceleration
of gravity; acceleration limit
fn = natural frequency of floor
structure
Po = constant force equal to 0.29
kN (65 lb.) for floors and 0.41 kN
(92 lb.) for footbridges
 Steel Framed Floor System
• The combined Beam or joist and girder panel system
– Spring in parallel (a & b) or in series (c & d)
System frequency

Equivalent panel
weight
 Design Guidelines
• Natural Frequency (Lateral Vibration)
– Step frequency ½ vertical
– 1996 British Standard BS 6399
• 10% vertical load
– Per ARUP research
• f > 1.3 Hz
– Rule of thumb
• Lateral limits ½ vertical limits
 Design Guidelines
• Stiffening
– Uneconomical
– Unsightly
• Damping
– Inherent damping < 1%
– Mechanical damping devices
 Damping
• Coulomb Damping

Fd  mx  kx

 Fd  Fd
x   xo   cos t 
 k  k

Fd
xt    xo  2
 k
 Damping
• Viscous Damping
xt   x max e  t
sin  d t   
 1 1
 ln  
1 2 2n   

1 1
  ln  
2n   

Welded steel, prestressed concrete, well 0.02 <  < 0.03

detailed reinforced concrete.
Reinforced concrete with considerable 0.03 <  < 0.05
cracking.
 Damping
• Mechanical dampers
– Active dampers (not discussed here)
• Expensive
• Complicated
• No proven examples for bridges
(prototypes currently being tested for
seismic damping)
 Damping
• Mechanical dampers
– Passive dampers
• Viscous Dampers
• Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs)
• Viscoelastic Dampers
• Tuned Liquid Dampers (TLDs)
 Damping
Viscous Dampers
 Damping
Viscous Dampers

FD  c x 
45

40

35

30
Damping Force

25 Linear
Fast Rise
20 Slow Rise

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Velocity
 Dampers
Tuned mass damper

1 m
s 
2 M
Ex) Consider mass ratio = 0.01
s = 0.05 (5% damping)
 Dampers
Viscoelastic Dampers
 Dampers
Tuned Liquid Dampers
 Case Study: Millennium Bridge
• Crosses River Thames, London, England
• 474’ main span, 266’ north span, 350’
south span

• Superstructure supported by lateral

supporting cables (7’ sag)
• Bridge opened June 2000, closed 2 days
later
 Millennium Bridge
• Severe lateral resonance was noted
(0.25g)
• Predominantly noted during 1st mode of
south span (0.8 Hz) and 1st and 2nd
modes of main span (0.5 Hz and 0.9 Hz)
• Occurred only when heavily congested
• Phenomenon called “Synchronous
Lateral Excitation”
 Millennium Bridge
• Possible solutions
– Stiffen the bridge
• Too costly
• Affected aesthetic vision of the bridge
– Limit pedestrian traffic
• Not feasible
– Active damping
• Complicated
• Costly
• Unproven
– Passive damping
 Millennium Bridge
• Passive Dampers
– 37 viscous dampers installed
– 19 TMDs installed
 Millennium Bridge
• Results
– Provided 20% critical damping.
– Bridge was reopened February, 2002.
– Extensive research leads to eventual
updating of design code.