Post on 21-Dec-2015
PROVIDENCE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEFINAL CAPSTONE PRESENTATION
CIVIL ENGINEERING CLASS OF 2014 | APRIL 29, 2014
BEVERLY XU (PROJECT MANAGER) – SUSTAINABILITY AND COST ESTIMATIONMAX VINHATEIRO – PIER ANALYSIS AND ABUTMENT DESIGNTHOMAS SCHIEFER – BRIDGE DECK DESIGN PARTNERJENN THOMAS – BRIDGE DECK DESIGN PARTNERRACHEL CONNOR (PROJECT DRAFTER) – PIER DECK DESIGNKA LING WU – CANOPY DESIGN
I-195 Redevelopment Parcels June 2007 - RIDOT Feasibility Study Pedestrian Bridge Design Competition
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
I-195 REDEVELOPMENT PARCEL
Pier Removal
Steel truss
Steel girder
Concrete
Glu-lam
$0.0 $1,000,000.0 $2,000,000.0 $3,000,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $5,000,000.0
$4,043,055.00
$1,540,539.00
$1,597,103.00
$1,634,426.00
$2,034,810.00
$1,395,741.00
$1,403,317.00
$1,433,734.00
$1,997,914.00
$1,281,675.00
$1,310,224.00
$1,341,268.00
$1,770,520.0072 degrees
60 degrees
Offset
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PIER DECK
BRIDGE DECK
CANOPY
GEOTECHNICAL
EXISTING PIERS
• Five piers span the river• 76 feet span between
• 141’x6’• Concrete encased in 1.5’ granite blocks• Deep concrete T-beam
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
GEOTECHNICALGEOTECHNICAL
EXISTING PIERS
• Shear reinforcement• Flexural reinforcement
GEOTECHNICAL
EXISTING PIERS - ANALYSIS
Flipped problem upside-down
Solve for continuous load
GEOTECHNICAL
EXISTING PIERS - RESULTS
• Allowable distributed load of 305.9 k/ft
• Multiply by entire length of pier: 141 ft.• Divide into total area feeding into single pier: ~ 4,780 ft2
• Area load on bridge deck: 9.07 k/ft2
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – SOIL CONDITIONS
• Mixture of compacted sand, gravel, fill, some silt
• Thick layers of silt
• Previous bridge loads transferred to bedrock• Largely undisturbed soil
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – SOIL CONDITIONS
West bank
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – SOIL CONDITIONS
East bank
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – BEARING CAPACITY
2 methods considered:
• Terzaghi:
qult=cNc+qNq+0.5γBNγ
Model based on theory of plasticity applied to soil
Requires values of shear angle, density, cohesion
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – BEARING CAPACITY
• Meyerhof:
qallow=N/4Kd
Empirical formula, uses only boring log data,simple design assumptions
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – BEARING CAPACITY
West bank bearing capacity: 5.87 k/ft2
East bank bearing capacity: 3.91 k/ft2
Use to calculate area required to deliver loads to soilAssign length of combined footings: 26’ 6”
E1: 3’ 7”. W1: 4’ 1” W2: 3’ 4”
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – SHEAR
1-Way shear:
ϕVc=ϕ2f'cbwd≥Vu
2-Way shear:
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT
Concrete is weak in tensionSteel rebar added to take tensile loads from moments
Area of steel calculated from ultimate moment:
As=Mu/(ϕfyjd )
FOOTING Long Span Short Span
E1 8 No. 6 bars @ 5” 19 No. 8 bars
W1 5 No. 9 bars @ 9” 23 No 8 bars
W1 5 No. 7 bars @ 8” 21 No. 7 bars
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT
E1
W1
W2
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – SETTLEMENT
Settlement occurs in silt layersIncreasing depth -> increased area of applied load
GEOTECHNICAL
FOUNDATION DESIGN – SETTLEMENT
s = Cc/(1+e0)*Hlog((σ’v0 +∆σ )/σ’v0)
FOOTING Settlement
E1 .63 in.
W1 .96 in.
W2 .52 in.
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
BRIDGE DECK
DESIGN
30° northwest Upward slopes of 1:20 and 1:15 4 girders No joist system Two columns per pier +/- 75 foot spans
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: DESIGN
With original orientation
Added joist system
Changed average span length
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: DESIGN - SPANS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: JOINTS
Bottom of columns completely restrained All other joints have no restraints or constraints All joints welded
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: AREA LOADS
LOADS: Dead Snow Deck Live Wind Earthquake
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS
I BEAM/W FLANGE HSS/BOX BEAM WT SECTION
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS
GIRDERJOIST
COLUMN
GIRDER: HSS28x6x1/2 JOIST: W8x40COLUMN: W12x96
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: ANALYSIS
DEFLECTIONS
MOMENT DIAGRAM
SHEAR DIAGRAM
BRIDGE DECK
SAP MODEL: ANALYSIS
BRIDGE DECK
MOVING FORWARD
Thermal Loads Seismic Conditions Wind Uplift
BRIDGE DECK
GRAVITY LOAD DETERMINATIONS
Dead Load-Member Loads
-HSS28x6x1/2 Girder Weight: 112.4 plf-W8x40 Joist Weight: 40 plf-W12x96 Column Weight: 96 plf-Total Weight: 296.351 kips
-Decking Loads: 30 psf
Live Load-International Building Code (IBC) and Additional Factor of Safety-100 psf
Snow Load-American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) Code 7-10-30psf
BRIDGE DECK
LATERAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS
Wind Load-ASCE 7-10 Standard Chapter 26-Net Wind Pressure: 19.42 psf
Seismic Load-ASCE 7-10 Standard Chapter 12-Seismic Data Taken from United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Maps-Lateral Seismic Load: 44.84 Kips
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Combinations-7 Equation Combinations-Use Maximum (Most Conservative) Combination-Treat Lateral Load and Gravity Loads Separately
BRIDGE DECK
TRIBUTARY AREA
Tributary Area of Girder
Tributary Area of Column
Tributary Width of Girder
BRIDGE DECK
HSS28x6x1/2 GIRDER ANALYSIS
Moment Analysis-Both Exterior and Interior Girders were Analyzed
-Tested for Moment Strength
-Calculated Maximum Allowable Moment for Custom Beams Using Method in American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual
-Analyzed as Simply Supported Beam
Interior Exterior
Maximum Moment in Beam (K-ft) 483.12 708.39
Max Allowed Moment (K-ft) 3644.25 3644.25
Meets Design Constraint?
BRIDGE DECK
W8x40 JOIST ANALYSIS
Moment Analysis-Tested for Joist Above Columns (Takes Larger Load)
-Tested for Moment Strength
-Values for Maximum Allowable Moment Available in AISC Steel Manual
-Analyzed as Simply Supported Beam with Girder Weights as Point Loads
Maximum Moment from Distributed Load (Kips-ft) 86.8
Maximum Moment from Point Loads (Kips-ft) 8
Total Maximum Moment (Kips-ft) 94.8
Max Allowed Moment (Kips-ft) 149
Meets Design Constraint?
BRIDGE DECK
W12x96 COLUMN ANALYSIS
Axial Loading-Gravity Loads are Applied Axially to Columns-Columns are not “Slender” Enough to be Analyzed for Elastic or Inelastic
Buckling-Analyzed for Shear Yielding Instead-Results for 10.5 ft Column
Lateral Loading-Seismic Load Treated as Point Load Acting at Top of Column-Column Tested for Maximum Allowable Moment-Not Necessary to Test for Interaction of Loads
Factored Load (Kips) 333.4
Maximum Allowable Load (Kips) 1127
Meets Design Constraint?
Maximum Moment (Kips-ft) 470.82
Maximum Allowable Moment (Kips-ft) 551
Meets Design Constraint?
BRIDGE DECK
RESULTS COMPARISON
Difference in Applied Moments
-Moments from Hand Calculations are Larger
-Example: 162.82 Kip-ft (SAP) versus 483.12 Kip-ft
-Loading Cases are the Same
Reasons for the Discrepancy
-Difference in Member Length
-Difference in Joint Connections
-Greater Capacity in SAP
BRIDGE DECK
VIBRATIONS
Why Test Vibrations?
-All Structures Vibrate
-Pedestrian Walking Can Cause Resonance
-Millennium Bridge in London
How to Test Vibrations?
-Find vibrational frequencies of all members and of whole system
-Solve for Acceleration Limit,
-Bridge Considered Safe if is less than 5.00%
BRIDGE DECK
SOFTWARE MODELING
Modeled in RAM Structural Software-Only One Panel of the Bridge will be Analyzed-RAM Structural Software only tests for one type of vibration
Modeling Challenges-RAM does not allow custom beams-Only performs vibrational analysis for steel-composite decking
BRIDGE DECK
HAND CALCULATIONS FOR VIBRATIONS
Steel Design Guide #11 “Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity”-Use Same Values as in RAM Model
-Treatment of Joists and Girders
-Conditions for interior breamPoint Force, is 92lbsDamping Ratio, , is 0.01
-Need to find Panel Weight, W and Frequency, for both members and system
-Acceration Limit is solved by:
BRIDGE DECK
RESULTS COMPARISON
Result Summary
Output from: RAM Software Hand Calculations
Frequency (Hz)
HSS20x12x5/8 2.65 2.25
W8x48 4.95 4.42
System 2.33 2.15
Acceleration limit, ao/g (%) 2.16 1.8
Comparisons-Produced Similar Values
-Both Show the Bridge Satisfies Design Criterion
PIER DECK
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• Collaboration with bridge deck
•Tapered Beams
• Cantilevered spans
PIER DECK
BASIC LAYOUT
40’ 20’ 40’ 40’ 40’
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
PIER DECK
BASIC LAYOUT
PIER DECK
TAPERED BEAMS
PIER DECK
DEFLECTIONS
Maximum deflection of cantilever: (L/360)*2 = 2.667 in.
Largest deflection: 1.9593 in.
PIER DECK
DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIOS
PIER DECK
DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIOS
SPAN TYPE DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO
Interior Box Beam – 10 ft. 0.033 – 0.383
Interior Box Beam – 40 ft. 0.144 – 0.174
Exterior Girder (W14x68) – 10 ft. 0.044 – 0.215
Exterior Girder (W14x68) – 40 ft. 0.127 – 0.139
Typical Joist 0.077 – 0.600
Column 0.123 – 0.236
PIER DECK
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
Mu = -260.08 kip-ft
Mu = -523.95 kip-ft Mu = -375.57 kip-ft
PIER DECK
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
Mu = -14.04 kip-ft Mu = -84.24 kip-ft
PIER DECK
REVIT MODEL
PIER DECK
REVIT MODEL
aa
aa
PIER DECK
REVIT MODEL
PIER DECK
REVIT MODEL
CANOPY
INTRODUCTION
3 tempered metal clad canopies Deep “V” structures Solar collectors
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
CANOPY
SPECIFICATIONS
180’ long, 22’ wide
CANOPY
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Gravity LoadDead Load, Live Load, Snow Load
Lateral LoadWind Load, Seismic Load
Deflection Limits
CANOPY
GRAVITY LOAD
• Dead loadSelf-weight: ~100 KipMetal Cladding and Solar panels: ~5 psf
• Snow load: 30 psf
• Live load: 20 psf
CANOPY
LATERAL LOAD• Wind Load
• Seismic Load: 15 kips
CANOPY
DESIGN
CANOPY
DESIGN
• 10 Fan Trusses
• Frame with releases
• Biggest column size: W36x170
• Number of pieces per canopy: 305
• Weight per canopy: 98.1 Kip
• Cost per canopy: $217,660
CANOPY
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
• Structure of canopies designed• Challenges:
Frame releasesDeflection limitsArea section properties
• Room for improvementOther truss designsOther member section types
SUSTAINABILITY
WOOD DECKING
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
IPE Structural grade Durable, weather resistant 4” X 6” decking Forest Stewardship Council certified
SUSTAINABILITY
SNOWMELT SYSTEM
Solar-heated glycol circuit
Utility corridor
Glycol-heated pedestrian path
SUSTAINABILITY
SNOWMELT SYSTEM
qconduction
qconvection qradiation
Tatm
Tsurface
Tfluid
¼ ”
6”1”ø
qconduction = qconvection + qradiation
COST ESTIMATION
COST ESTIMATION
History Geotechnical Bridge Deck Pier Decks Canopy Sustainability Cost
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONSTEEL - MATERIAL AND INSTALLATIONCONCRETE - MATERIAL AND INSTALLATIONSUSTAINABILITY FEATURESNON-STRUCTURAL FEATURESPROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTSPERMITTINGCONTINGENCIESSITE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
COST ESTIMATION
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ITEM COST
Borings, field stake out, elevations $3,525.00
Drawings of boring details $1,245.00
Report and recommendations from P.E. $2,850.00
TOTAL $7,620.00
COST ESTIMATION
STEEL COST SUMMARY
ITEM COST
Material $876,226.12
Fabrication $428,068.63
Shipment $19,458.00
Steel Erection – Crane $7,426.67
Steel Erection – Crew $125,472.00
Moment Connections $56,000.00
Profit $76,132.57
TOTAL $1,598,783.99
COST ESTIMATION
CONCRETE COST SUMMARY
ITEM COST
Spread and continuous footings $6,902.50
Rebar Reinforcement $781.95
Profit $384.22
TOTAL $8,068.67
COST ESTIMATION
SUSTAINABLE FEATURES
ITEM COST
FSC Certified Wood $955,597.50
Snowmelt System $25,030.63
TOTAL $980,628.13
COST ESTIMATION
ADDITIONAL COSTS
ITEM COST
Architectural Fees $454,080.13
Construction Management Fees $127,710.03
Engineering Structural Fees $70,950.02
Permits $56,760.02
Contingencies $283,800.08
TOTAL $993,300.28
ITEM COST
Railings $207,900.00
Ornamental Lighting $35,000.00
TOTAL $242,900.00
COST ESTIMATION
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ADJUSTED PROJECT COST: $4,114,817
COST PER SQUARE FOOT: $221.52
UNADJUSTED PROJECT COST: $3,831,301
COST ESTIMATION
VALUE ENGINEERING
Reduce depth of wood decking Narrower bridge deck and canopy Construction staging
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SPECIAL THANKS TO…
PERRY ASHENFELTER, ASSISTANT PM, SHAWMUT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
PROFESSOR JANET BLUME, BROWN UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING
CHRISTOPHER BULL, SENIOR LECTURER IN ENGINEERING, BROWN UNIVERSITY
DAVID CARCHEDI, PhD, P.E., GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL INC.
WIL HERNANDEZ, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DR. INDREK KULAOTS, LECTURER IN ENGINEERING, BROWN UNIVERSITY
JULIE MARTON, P.E., ODEH ENGINEERS INC.
MICHAEL MCCORMICK, ASSISTANT VP, DEPT OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DAVID ODEH, P.E., ODEH ENGINEERING, ADJUNCT LECTURER, BROWN UNIVERSITY
MICHAEL SIGMON, F.D. STERRITT LUMBER CO.
PATRICIA STEERE, P.E., STEERE ENGINEERING INC.
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?