See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303975487

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A SIMPLE SUSPENDED CABLE FOOTBRIDGE

LOCATED IN A NARROW CANYON - Power Point Presentation

Data · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 74

1 author:

C. Κ. Dimou
Public Power Company S.A., Greece
37 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Υδροηλεκτρικά Έργα 2015-2040-Ανάπτυξη και Προοπτικές - Aspects of Development for future Hydro Projects in Greece 2015-2040 (in Greek) View project

Reliability Based Optimal Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C. Κ. Dimou on 15 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A SIMPLE
SUSPENDED CABLE FOOTBRIDGE
LOCATED IN A NARROW CANYON

C H R I S TO S K . D I M O U
D E PA RT M E N T F O R H Y D R O E L E C T R I C P R O D U C T I O N
P U B L I C P O W E R C O M PA N Y S . A .
A G H I S I LA O U 5 6 - 5 8 , AT H E N S , G R- 1 0 4 3 6 , G R E E C E
E-MAIL: C.DIMOU@DEI.COM.GR
Outline of Presentation
• The analysis and design of a slender cable footbridge located in
a narrow canyon is presented.
• The design of the bridge is governed by the Wind Loads
• The parameters governing the wind profile and their effect on
wind speed are identified
• The wind load distribution and the characteristic Wind Speed are
calculated.
• The resulting Wind Loads are combined with pedestrian, snow,
ice and earthquake loads, following the provisions of Eurocodes
Location of Bridge
Location of Bridge
Location of Bridge
Location of Bridge
Location of Bridge
Photorealism
 Bridge
Μέγεθος Parameters - Analysis
l 87.40m

El max 414.70m

El min 410.70m

h El max El min 4.00m

l
bd 3.98m
22
(4 bd -h)2
fmin 2.23m @ 55.70m WC l 2 4bd h
16 bd Th tan 1

H max PP 398.50m 8bd l

Fb ,max PP El min f min H max PP =9.872m
HF 400.50m Th T
T Tc
Fb El min f min H F =7.872m cos N
Wind Loads – Average Wind Speed
Vb c dir c season Vb ,0

Vb 27.00m / sec

Vm z c r z c t z Vb

Vm z c funnel c r z c t z Vb

Funnel Effect
Roughness
Orography

EN 1991-1-4
 Wind Loads – Funnel Effect
dynamic
1 1
 1 12  p1    2 22  p2
2 2
static

ENERGY CONSERVATION
Vm z c funnel c r z c t z Vb
Wind Loads – Funnel Effect
1 V1 1 2 V2 2

CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM
p R T

p
T =282.5375°K
R
 Wind Loads – Funnel Effect - Assumptions

• Assumptions 2

• Constant Flow
1 1
c funnel
2
2 2
• “Perfect” Liquid
• Incompressible flow (constant within a fluid parcel -
infinitesimal volume - moving with the flow velocity)
• No significant change in manometric pressure
Wind Loads –
Topography
Wind Loads – Effect of Water Level

87.4Χ200Χ416.30
zw=375.0m

87.4Χ200Χ416.30
zw=366.0m
 Wind Loads – Characteristic Length s
N bi ;0; s N
V1 w i Vi wi wi 1
i 1
bi ;0; s i 1
i
s  {1/100, 1/15, 1/12.5, 1/10, 1/9, 1/8, 1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1, 2, 5, 10}·Lb
S?????

Wind Loads – Seasonality – Wind Directionality

Max of Max Wind Speed 1 Max of Average Wind Speed 1
80 25
Συσχέτιση Μέγιστης Ταχύτητας Ανέμου και 12 70 2 12
20
Διεύθυνσης (Άρδασσα Κοζάνης) 60
40.0
50 15
35.0 11 40 3 11
y = -0.007x + 31.378
Μέγιστη Ταχύτητα Ανέμου

30 10
30.0 R2 = 0.0209
20
25.0 5
10
20.0
10 0 4 10 0
15.0

10.0
y = 6E-07x3 - 0.0006x2 + 0.1423x + 23.063
R2 = 0.2404
5.0
9 5 9
0.0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Διεύθυνση Ανέμου
8 6 8

7 7
Wind Loads – Directionality & Water Level
Λόγος V1/V2 Λόγος V1/V2
1.400 1.400
1.360 North Wind 1.360 North Wind
1.320 South Wind 1.320 South Wind
1.280 1.280
1.240 1.240
V1/V2

1.200

V1/V2
1.200
S=8.74m
1.160 1.160
1.120 1.120 S=87.40m
1.080 1.080
1.040 1.040
1.000 1.000
0.960 0.960
340.00 350.00 360.00 370.00 380.00 390.00 400.00 410.00 340.00 350.00 360.00 370.00 380.00 390.00 400.00 410.00
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m) Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m)

Λόγος V1/V2 Λόγος V1/V2

1.400 1.400

1.360 North Wind 1.360 North Wind

1.320 South Wind 1.320 South Wind

1.280 1.280

1.240 1.240

V1/V2
V1/V2

1.200 1.200

1.160 1.160

1.120 S=43.70m 1.120 S=874.0m

1.080 1.080

1.040 1.040

1.000 1.000

0.960 0.960
340.00 350.00 360.00 370.00 380.00 390.00 400.00 410.00 340.00 350.00 360.00 370.00 380.00 390.00 400.00 410.00
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m) Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m)
 Wind Loads – “Average” Speed
Ταχύτητες Ανέμου και Στάθμη z (Άνεμος από Ταχύτητες Ανέμου και Στάθμη z (Άνεμος από
ανάντι) κατάντι)
60.00 50.00 60.00 50.00

s=87.4m 45.00 s=87.4m 45.00

50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00

35.00 35.00
Ταχύτητα (m/sec)

Ταχύτητα (m/sec)
40.00 40.00

Στάθμη z (m)

Στάθμη z (m)
zw=366.0m 30.00 zw=366.0m 30.00

30.00 25.00 30.00 25.00

20.00 20.00
20.00 20.00
15.00 15.00
cr x ct x Vb cr x ct x Vb
10.00 10.00
10.00 Vm 10.00 Vm
z 5.00 z 5.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Απόσταση Χ του Άξονα της Γέφυρας Απόσταση Χ του Άξονα της Γέφυρας

NL NL
c r ,i z c t ,i z c funnel Vb l i c r ,i z c t ,i z li
1 1
Vm NL
c funnel Vb NL
li li
1 1
 Wind Loads – “Average” Speed
Μέση Ταχύτητα Vm Μέση Ταχύτητα Vm

50.000 50.000

S=0.964m
S=0.874m
S=6.427m
S=5.826m 46.000
46.000 S=7.712m
S=6.992m
S=9.640m
S=8.74m
S=10.71m
S=9.711m
S=12.05m

Vm (m/sec)
S=10.925m 42.000
42.000 S=13.77m
Vm (m/sec)

S=12.485m
S=16.07m
S=14.566m
S=19.28m
S=17.48m
S=24.10m
S=21.85m 38.000
38.000 S=32.13m
S=29.133m
S=48.20m
S=43.7m
S=96.40m
S=87.4m
34.000 S=192.8m
34.000 S=174.8m
S=964.0m
S=437m
S=482.0m
S=874m
30.000
30.000 345.000 355.000 365.000 375.000 385.000 395.000 405.000
345.000 355.000 365.000 375.000 385.000 395.000 405.000
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (z) (m)

Vm  173.102 kmh
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (z) (m)

Vk,m (Φόρτιση από Βόρρα - Ανάντι του ποταμού) Vk,m (Φόρτιση από Νότο - Κατάντι του ποταμού)
52.00 @zw=366.0m 52.00

48.00
48.00
Ταχύτητα Ανέμου (m/sec)

Ταχύτητα Ανέμου (m/sec)

44.00
44.00

40.00 40.00

36.00 36.00

32.00 32.00
345.00 355.00 365.00 375.00 385.00 395.00 405.00 345.00 355.00 365.00 375.00 385.00 395.00 405.00
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m) Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m)
 Wind Loads – Wind Pressure
Μέσo Φορτίο qm
Μέσo Φορτίο qm
3500.0
3500.0
S=0.874m
S=0.874m 3000.0 S=5.826m
3000.0 S=5.826m
S=6.992m
S=6.992m
S=8.74m
S=8.74m 2500.0
2500.0 S=9.711m
S=9.711m
S=10.925m
S=10.925m

qm (N/m2)
2000.0 S=12.485m
S=12.485m
qm (N/m )

2000.0 S=14.566m
2

S=14.566m
S=17.48m
S=17.48m 1500.0 S=21.85m
1500.0 S=21.85m
S=29.133m
S=29.133m
S=43.7m
S=43.7m 1000.0
1000.0 S=87.4m
S=87.4m
S=174.8m
S=174.8m
500.0 S=437m
S=437m
500.0 S=874m
S=874m
0.0
0.0 345.000 355.000 365.000 375.000 385.000 395.000 405.000

qk  2849.31 Ν/m
345.000 355.000 365.000 375.000 385.000 395.000 405.000
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (z) (m) 2 Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (z) (m)

qk,m (Φόρτιση από Βόρρα - Ανάντι του ποταμού) @zw=366.0m qk,m (Φόρτιση από Νότο - Κατάντι του ποταμού)

3500.0 3500.0

3000.0 3000.0

Ανεμοφορτίο (q(N/m ))
Ανεμοφορτίο (q(N/m ))

2500.0

2
2500.0
2

2000.0 2000.0

1500.0 1500.0

1000.0 1000.0

500.0
500.0

0.0
0.0
345.00 355.00 365.00 375.00 385.00 395.00 405.00
345.00 355.00 365.00 375.00 385.00 395.00 405.00
Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m) Στάθμη Ταμιευτήρα (m)
Design Loads (Static & Dynamic)
Static Loads
120
q f ,k 2.0 kN/m2
L 30
(Eq. 5.1 – par. 5.3.2.1 – EN-1991-2)

2.5 q f ,k 5.0 kN/m2

Q b q f ,k 0.70·3.022=2.116kN/m

Dynamic Loads

Stoyanoff, S., Haskett, T., Pridham, B., Hunter, M. and Zoli, T. (2007). Pedestrian-induced vibrations on
footbridges: advanced response analysis, Bridge Structures, 3:3, 229 - 245
 Wind Loads (Qw)
1
qb Vm2,eq
2

1
qk [1 7 IV ] Vm2,eq
2

QW q k max Ap2,equiv ,Y 0.3Ap2,equiv ,Z , 0.3 Ap2,equiv ,Y Ap2,equiv ,Z

Ap ,equiv ,Y c f ,s ,Y Areal ,Y Ap ,equiv ,Z c f ,s ,Z Areal ,Z

Qw 3.800kN/m

Note: Increased likelihood of the maximum Wind Speed

coinciding with low water level of the reservoir
 Snow Loads (Q s)
2
A
s k ,A s k ,0 1
917

A 500m

QS  b  sk , A

QS ,esl c esl b s k ,A

Qs 0.726kN/m

Qs ,ecl 1.453kN/m
 Ice Loads (Q k,ice) – Wind on Ice (Qk,w)

Ap2,equiv ,Y ,ice 0.3Ap2,equiv ,Z ,ice ,

QW q k max
0.3 Ap2,equiv ,Y ,ice Ap2,equiv ,Z ,ice

Ap ,equiv ,Y ,ice c f ,s ,Y ,ice Areal ,Y ,ice

Qk ,ice 0.848kN/m

Ap ,equiv ,Z ,ice c f ,s ,Z ,ice Areal ,Z ,ice

Qk ,w 3.875kN/m

ISO 12494:2001 “Atmospheric icing of structures”

 Load Combinations (EN 1990, EN 1997)
LC#1 γGG+γQQ+ψwγwQw
LC#2 γGG+ ψQ,wγQQ+γwQw
LC#3 γGG+ ψwγwQw+γSQS,ecl
LC#4 γGG+ γwQw+ ψSγSQS
LC#5 γGG+ γk,iceQk,ice+ kk,wψk,wγk,wQk,w
LC#6 γGG+ ψk,iceγk,iceQk,ice+ kk,wγk,wQk,w
LC#7 G+AEd,Y
LC#8 G–AEd,Y AEd 0.924kN/m
LC#9 G+AEd,Z
LC#10 G–AEd,Z
Design Loads

qD (kΝ/m) Value
LC #1 6.051
LC #2 8.327
LC #3 5.374
LC #4 8.056
LC #5 4.065
LC #6 4.736
LC #7 2.065
LC #8 0.135
LC #9 2.065
LC #10 0.135
Dynamic Response – Max Acceleration –
Human Load
Max Acceleration (EN1991)
a 0.5 f h a 0.70 (m/sec2)

Max Bridge Acceleration

N w p cR N a1
a N
0.5 mdeck l
1 N 1 ln C R min C R max
CR N C R max 0.75 C R min 0.20
C R max exp N N 1 N max

Non associated mass

N w p 1 cR N
madd N
ag

Stoyanoff, S., Haskett, T., Pridham, B., Hunter, M. and Zoli, T. (2007). Pedestrian-induced vibrations on
footbridges: advanced response analysis, Bridge Structures, 3:3, 229 - 245
 Free Vibration of Cables
dx u
2
u t
T m
s ds s t2
dy
2
t
T m mg
s ds s t 2

w w t
2

T m
s s t2

n Th 2n Th
t ,n n 1, 2,..., l ,a ,n n 1, 2,...,
l m l m
3 2 2
1 1 4 1 8bd l b
tan l l l 2
Le l 1 8 d
2 2 2
2 l T h Le E c Ac l

Irvine H.M., Caughey T.K. (1974). The linear Theory of Free Vibrations of a Suspended Bridge. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond A., 341, 299-315.
Bridge Dynamic Characteristics

ωtrans=4.80 Hz  f0,h = ft = 0.764 Hz

ωl,a=9.60 Hz  fl,a = 1.528 Hz
ωl,s=8.99 Hz  fl,s = f0,V = 1.430 Hz
λ2=109.91
Irvine H.M., Caughey T.K. (1974). The linear Theory of Free Vibrations of a Suspended Bridge. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond A., 341, 299-315.
Dynamic Excitation – Various Scenarios
N w p cR N a1 f
a N c res ,fac f , f 0 ,
0.5 mdeck l
f ,f0 , 1
c res ,fac f , f 0 ,
2 2
f 2 f
1
f0 f0

a1,v 0.41 f 0.95 a1,v 0.56 1.0 f 2.8 Hz

a1,h 0.065,0.100

ζ=0.5%, wp=700N (basic scenario)

ζ=1.0%, wp=700N (optimistic scenario)
ζ=0.5%, wp=850N (pessimistic scenario)
see «Zivanovic, S., Pavic, A. and Reynolds, P. (2005) Review vibration serviceability of footbridges
under human-induced excitation: a literature review. J. Sound Vibrat., 279, 1 – 74», for P. Young,
Improved floor vibration prediction methodologies, ARUP Vibration Seminar, October 4, 2001
 Results – Accelerations (no Windguys)

Κατακόρυφες Επιταχύνσεις Πεζογέφυρας Εγκάρσιες Επιταχύνσεις Πεζογέφυρας

14.0 7.0
ζ=0.5%, wp=700N ζ=0.5%, wp=700N
12.0 N=1 N=2 6.0 N=1 N=2

N=3 N=4 N=3 N=4

10.0 5.0
N=5 N=10 N=5 N=10
av (m/sec2)

ah (m/sec2)
8.0 N=15 N=20 4.0 N=15 N=20

N=30 N=40 N=30 N=40

6.0 3.0
N=50 N=60 N=50 N=60
4.0 N=70 N=80 2.0 N=70 N=80

2.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
(f) Συχνότητα Βάδισης (Hz) (f) Συχνότητα Βάδισης (Hz)
Results – Dynamic Characteristics (no windguys)
Δυναμικά Χαρακτηριστικά Πεζογέφυρας
10.0 1000

8.0 800
Κυκλική Ιδιοσυχνότητα (Hz)

ω1,v,s<ω1,v,a
λ2 ω1,v

6.0 600

2
Τιμή λ
4.0 400
ω1,t

2.0 200

0.0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Οριζόντια Δύναμη Καλωδίων (kN)
 Results – Accelerations (no Windguys)
Κατακόρυφες Επιταχύνσεις Πεζογέφυρας Εγκάρσιες Επιταχύνσεις Πεζογέφυρας

1.6E+01 1.0E+01
ζ=0.5%, wp=700N
N=1 N=2 N=1 N=2

N=3 N=4 8.0E+00

1.2E+01 N=3 N=4
N=5 N=10
N=5 N=10

ah (m/sec )
av (m/sec )

N=15 N=20 6.0E+00

2
2

N=15 N=20
8.0E+00 N=30 N=40
N=30 N=40
N=50 N=60 4.0E+00
N=50 N=60
N=70 N=80
4.0E+00 N=70 N=80
2.0E+00

ζ=0.5%, wp=700N
0.0E+00 0.0E+00
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
(f) Συχνότητα Βάδισης (Hz) (f) Συχνότητα Βάδισης (Hz)
Effects of Windguys
• Additional Rigidity in lateral and vertical axes of the Bridge
• Vibrational decoupling for the lateral and vertical direction
• Combination of cables with different dynamic characteristics  de-
amplification of dynamic motion
• Added safety (increase of number of elements contributing to the
dynamic stability of the bridge)
• More complexity
• Complex Geometry
• Final Geometry dictated by the topography and geo-technical
characteristics of the site.
Conclusions
• The analysis and design of a slender cable footbridge located in a narrow
canyon is presented.
• The effect of the narrow canyon is also considered in the analysis.
• A complex wind profile is expected.
• Wind intensity is expected to vary considerably along the axis of the bridge.
• Wind Loads (with or without ice) are governing the design.
• Windguys are needed to increase rigidity, induce vibrational de-coupling and
de-amplification of stresses/strains and increase the bridge’s safety and
usability.
• Windguys increase the complexity of the design and for the particular
problem dictated the design shape of the bridge.
 Thank you for your Attention

View publication stats