AC 2010-2330: STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF A TRUSS PEDESTRIAN

BRIDGE
Jorge Tito-Izquierdo, University of Houston, Downtown
Alberto Gomez-Rivas, University of Houston, Downtown

American Society for Engineering Education, 2010

Structural Evaluation of a Truss Pedestrian Bridge

Abstract
The superstructure of a steel pedestrian bridge located near the University of Houston Downtown
campus was selected to expose the students of the Structural Analysis and Design program to the
evaluation of an existing structure. The bridge is a continuous structure of 3040 making three
spans with support-to-support distances of 570-1900-570. The steel superstructure consists
of two vertical trusses with 100 height and spaced by 100; a top horizontal truss, and a
concrete slab at the bottom that is supported on steel beams spanning between the vertical
trusses. The bridge is supported by straps at the ends and by pin-type supports on the central
bents. All the steel joints are welded. The substructure consists of concrete frames which are
constructed over drilled shafts.
The project tasks are to obtain the material take-off and cost estimating; obtain the natural
frequency; make the structural modeling; and verify if the structure is able to withstand the loads
indicated in current codes.
This type of project is motivating for the students because they see a real application of their
studies. The course assessment indicates that the project leads to an excellent compliance of the
course outcomes.
Introduction
Senior Steel Design is one of the capstone courses of the Structural Analysis and Design
program at the University of Houston Downtown. Students taking this course are in their Senior
year and they were previously introduced to classes of Structural Analysis and Steel Design. The
course is taught every other semester, and typically there are between 25 and 30 students
enrolled.
One of the outcomes defined for this capstone course is the evaluation of existing structures, for
which this project is selected. It consists in the structural evaluation of an existing pedestrian
bridge in order to determine if it is able to withstand the loads indicated in current construction
codes.
The selected existing pedestrian bridge has the characteristics needed for a capstone project
level, such as easy access to the site, availability of as-built drawings, adequate complexity level
for Senior students, and feasibility to complete the study during the academic semester.
This project was repeated during two consecutive years permitting the students compare results
with the previous year, and improve the quality of the study. It is not intended to repeat in the
near future, but it will be used as a model for other similar projects.

Pedestrian Bridge Description

As shown in Figure 1, the pedestrian bridge selected is used to connect two parts of a residential
area separated by highway I-45, located south of beltway I-610 in Houston, Texas. The
drawings are dated May-June 1974 and are available for the public at the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDoT), which is the institution in charge of the design, construction and
operation of this pedestrian bridge.
The bridge is a continuous truss with a total length of 3040 making three spans with supportto-support distances of 570, 1900, and 570. The superstructure of the bridge consists of
two vertical trusses made of steel I-shapes spaced 10'10" and with a center-to-center height of
100, a top steel truss, and a bottom concrete slab supported by transversal steel beams every
19'0" which are attached to the vertical trusses. The useful width of the bridge is 80 that is the
free space between the curbs. Both the handrail and the safety mesh are attached to the curbs.
All the joints of the steel structure are welded. The vertical trusses are on roller-type supports on
the ends, and pin-type supports on the central bents, as shown in Figure 1. The substructure
consists of concrete bents which are constructed over drilled shafts.

IH-610
rigid nodes
IH-45

pin-support

strap-support

Figure 1. Location and panoramic view of the pedestrian bridge

Student Work Plan

The student project consists in the structural evaluation of the existing superstructure of the
pedestrian bridge. The class is divided into four working groups. Each group makes the
evaluation of the same project, sharing information for comparison purposes, but working
separately. The schedule for partial delivery of the project tasks are clearly defined by the

instructor beforehand. The following tasks are scheduled for completion by the end of the
academic semester:
1. From the TX-DoT documents, select the drawings related to the superstructure of the
pedestrian bridge and make new CAD drawing. Include any field detail observed during the
visit.
2. Compute the materials required to construct the superstructure of the pedestrian bridge (Take
off), estimate the actual cost of the materials, and estimate the dead load of the structure.
3. Using a commercial software, like SAP2000, perform the structural modeling of the
superstructure of the bridge.
4. Input the load cases according to the current code ASCE/SEI 7-05:
a. Dead load
b. Live load, consider different possibilities to apply the live load.
c. Wind load
5. Make the load combinations indicated in ASCE/SEI 7-05
6. Perform dynamic tests to find the natural frequency of the bridge and compare with SAP2000.
7. Perform the verification of the steel members. Use the computer program SAP2000, verify
the most stressed members with an alternative method.
Verification of the drawings and material take-off.
In order to perform this task, the class visits the site where they compare the main dimensions
and details of the drawings with the constructed structure. As the original drawings are from
1974, the students need to investigate some sections that are currently not used. The student's
job is to assess whether the drawings of the superstructure match well with the constructed
bridge. After the completion of this task, the students are more confident with the drawing
notations.
The students make an AutoCad version of the drawings referred to the superstructure of the
bridge, permitting a clearer reading of the geometry, as shown in Figure 2.
The material take-off is obtained from the construction drawings. The take-off permits an
estimate of the actual cost of the materials, as well as the estimating of the dead load of the
superstructure. The take-off is done using a spreadsheet prepared by the students and
considering the weight of the steel sections indicated in the literature or commercial catalogs.
A typical take-off is shown in Figure 3. The estimated dead load of the superstructure is 502
kips. Considering a plan area center to center of the trusses and the total length of the bridge
(1010 x 3050) the weight per square foot is 152 lb. The estimated cost of materials is about
$661,000 based on the prices of the year 2008 in Houston, TX.

Figure 2a. Student CAD drawings of the pedestrian bridge based on original TxDoT drawings: Bridge Geometry

Figure 2a. Student CAD drawings of the pedestrian bridge based on original TxDoT drawings: Steel Structure

Figure 3. Typical material take off and cost calculation

Structural evaluation of the superstructure.

Previous to this project, the students have two classes of structural analysis, where they are
introduced to matrix analysis and finite elements that are the basis of SAP2000 and other
commercial software. Additionally, in the classes of Steel Design and Reinforced Concrete
Design the students use this program to solve small structures. Previously to start the structural
modeling of the bridge, there are two sessions dedicated to review concepts and to explain the
structural modeling of this large structure.
As shown in Figure 4, the structural analysis is performed using the computer program
SAP2000, which permits the students to gain experience and confidence with a commercial
software, as well as to understand its strengths and limitations. The structural modeling is done
following the construction drawings and it is verified continuously to correct errors due to
incorrect data input or wrong assumptions.
The total dead load calculated by the software compares well with the result of the material takeoff, obtaining a margin of error of about 1%. The students correct input mistakes to obtain a
good comparison between the sum of dead load reactions and the estimated weight of the
structure. It is interesting to note that the typical errors are as gross as mistakes with the system
of units, density of materials, type of joints, and load position. This comparison permits the
students realize the importance of verifying the software input using a known parameter.

Concrete Slab

Rigid joints
Figure 4. A SAP2000 model of the pedestrian bridge superstructure
The original drawings specify that the straps of the end supports was installed after the bridge
deflects due to all the dead loads, and also provide the deflections values. The SAP2000
software is used to verify these deflections for which the structure is modeled with supports at
the central bents only and considering that the concrete has no elasticity, as shown in Figure 5.
There is a 12% difference in the deflection values, which may be explained because the
computer model considers rigid nodes, while the original calculations might have considered the
nodes as free pinned.

L0
L8

Deflections (ft):
Node
From Drawings
L0
0.166
L8
-0.295

From SAP2000
0.146
-0.261

Diff.
12%
12%

Figure 5. Deflections due to dead load considering supports at central bents only
The AASHTO code requires the use of an 85 psf live load used for the analysis of pedestrian
bridges, which is applied on the slab surface. The reactions due to the live load are computed by
the software and compared with the hand calculation. Figure 6 shows the locations where the
live load is considered in order to verify the structure with the worst situation. The case of LL-c
is neglected because it induces low stresses due to the end spans are short comparing with the
central span.

a. Live load along all the bridge (LL-a)

b. Live load at the central span (LL-b)

c. Live load at the end spans (LL-c), neglected

Figure 6. Alternate of Live load location
The wind load is important in the city of Houston, that is a hurricane prone area. This load is
estimated using the current ASCE/SEI 7 code, considering a basic wind speed of 110 mph.
Figure 7 shows the spreadsheet developed to help with the calculations of wind loads acting on
the bridge. The students are required to verify the total input wind load comparing them with the
reactions computed by the computer program. Two load cases are considered for wind load, the
horizontal and the vertical wind loads.

The fourth task is the verification of the steel sections. The students used the capabilities of the
commercial software, verifying some structural members with hand calculations and with a
spreadsheet prepared by the instructor. This double check permits an understanding of the
software assumptions avoiding errors due misinterpretation of some concepts.

Figure 7. Wind load calculations following ASCE/SEI 7

Dynamic tests
Field dynamic tests are performed to find the natural frequency of vibration of the bridge. The
tests are done using an accelerometer set to read vertical accelerations and located at the center
of the bridge (node L8 of Figure 8). The reading are stored in a data logger model Xplorer GLX,
and processed using the software DataStudio, which is purchased from PASCO. The structure
starts vibrating when a student jumps at a similar pace than the computed natural frequency at
the center of the bridge. After the jumping stops, the bridge continues vibrating with enough
amplitude, permitting the data logger to record the vertical accelerations. The natural frequency
is obtained using the Fast Fourier Transformation method included in the software DataStudio.
The program SAP2000 is used to obtain the theoretical natural frequencies and corresponding
vibration modes. The first natural frequency is 2.2 Hz which corresponds to a torsional mode.
Figure 8 shows the second mode with a theoretical natural frequency of 2.9 Hz and

corresponding to a vertical wave mode. This second mode is in complete agreement with the
natural frequency measured after the student jumped at center of the bridge that is also 2.9 Hz.
The theoretical and experimental frequencies are identical because during the modeling of the
bridge structure very few assumptions are done, mainly due the joints are totally welded and the
concrete slab has no joints along all the bridge. Also, the central supports are real steel pins and
the end supports are straps which model very good as rollers.
The good agreements between the field and theoretical natural frequencies permit confidence in
the structural model, including the assumptions and dead loads.

L0
L8

a. Fundamental mode of vibration as computed by SAP2000 (f = 1 / 0.34 = 2.9 Hz)

b. Reading using an accelerometer located in the center of the bridge (L8) (f =2.9 Hz)
Figure 8. Fundamental mode of vibration from theory and a test
Structural evaluation of the bridge
The superstructure of the bridge is evaluated using the current ANSI/AISC 360-05 steel code.
The software SAP2000 is used to evaluate all the steel members of the bridge superstructure, for
which two models are considered:
1) Bridge with supports on the central bents and with the straps at end bents.
2) Bridge with only two supports located on the central bents, and all the loads acting.

The live load considered for the structural evaluations are the cases indicated as LL-a and LL-b
in the Figure 6.
The load combinations are in agree with ASCE/SEI 7 code, which basically are:
1) 1.4 DL
2) 1.2 DL + 1.6 LL
3) 1.2 DL + 0.5 LL + 1.6 WL
4) 0.9 DL + 1.6 WL
The load combination requiring live and wind load is conservative because these types of bridges
are not used by pedestrians in the event of a hurricane. Also, it is conservative to consider the
bridge without the end supports. The same load cases and load combinations are used for both
models.
The drawings indicate that the steel used for the truss is unpainted weathering steel A588, which
is a high-strength, low-alloy material with a modulus of elasticity of 29,000 ksi, a yielding
strength, Fy, of 50 ksi, and an ultimate strength, Fu, of 65 ksi. The steel A588 provides
atmospheric corrosion resistance and longer life in applications where the bridge is exposed to
the elements.
As shown in Figure 9, the stress ratios for both models are lower than 1.0, meaning that the
structure can withstand the loads required.
In order to verify the program results, the students are asked to compute the stress ratio using
another method. Figure 10 shows the results from a spreadsheet prepared for the Steel Design
course which is used to double check the results. The loads are obtained from SAP2000 and the
geometry is the input according to the drawings. This verification permits the students to
understand some assumptions done by SAP2000 and to make any corrections, if it is needed.

a. Stress ratio for a model with supports on central and end bents. Stress ratio = 0.645

b. Stress ratio for a model with supports on central bents only. Stress ratio = 0.972
Figure 9. Stress ratio from SAP2000

Project assessment

Figure 10. Stress ratio computed using a spreadsheet

Course Assessment
The students were exposed to different aspects of a professional engineering evaluation of an
existing structure, such as the cost estimating, project management, structural modeling, steel
design, and field dynamic tests. Finally, each student group makes an oral presentation of their
calculations and findings. Each project step is in agreement with the outcomes defined for the
Senior Steel Design course. The Structural Analysis and Design program makes an indirect
assessment surveying the perception of the students about the accomplishment of the objectives
of the course. Figure 11 summarizes the course survey indicating that all the students agree that
the course objectives were covered by the project.

Figure 11. Assessment of the class using a survey of acceptance between the students

During the oral presentation of the project and also in the written report, the students show a
good understanding of the problem and they report great individual participation during the
different stages of the project. The author considers that the practical nature of the project, the
availability of design drawings, and easy access to the site are important factors for the good
acceptance of this study.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The students of Senior Steel Design, a capstone type course in the Structural Analysis and
Design program at UHD, are required to evaluate the structural behavior of the superstructure of
a pedestrian bridge following a schedule with partial tasks defined by the instructor. The
students were able to compare the existing construction drawings with the real structure; perform
the take-off and a cost estimating of the materials; make a structural modeling using a
commercial software; perform dynamic tests to obtain the natural frequency; and evaluate the
structure under loads from the current codes.
During the project, the partial tasks are verified using alternative calculations and the structural
model is verified with the dynamic tests, permitting the students gain confidence in their work.
Finally, the students present the project with a written report and an oral presentation, showing
the working procedure, results for every task required by the instructor, and their conclusions and
recommendations.
The project is well accepted by the students, observing great participation and interest to
outperform the objectives of the project with excellent marks.

Bibliography
1. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications 4th edition.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction. ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings,
March 2005.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers - Structural Engineering Institute. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05.
4. State of Texas, State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (TxDoT). Houston Urban Project,
Interstate 45 and Interstate 610 Interchange, Pedestrian Overpass at Southern St., Structure No 208. May-June 1974.
5. Computers & Structures, Inc., SAP2000 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis & Design, Technical
Reference Manual