WPI – Pedestrian Bridge Study

WPI – Pedestrian Bridge StudyJames DeCelleNathaniel EfronJames DeCelleNathanielEfronWilfredo RamosJrJeffrey Tully Wilfredo RamosJeffrey TullyMarch 11, 2013 - MQPGFS-1304A Major Qualifying Project ReportSubmitted to the Faculty ofWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTEIn partial fulfillment of the requirements for theDegree of Bachelor of Science in Civil EngineeringWorcesteProfessor GuillermoSalazarFebruaryProfessor Pinar Okumis

AbstractThis project explored alternative structural solutions for a pedestrian bridge to connect the fieldatop of the new Parking Garage to the alleyway behind Harrington Auditorium at the WorcesterPolytechnic Institute Campus. Four basic bridge types, each consisting of steel or concrete,were initially considered. Two alternatives, a steel truss bridge and a steel arch bridge, weredesigned in detail. A Building Information Model was generated to visualize the twoalternatives. The supporting bridge structure using cast-in-place reinforced concrete for bothcases was also designed.i

Capstone Design Experience StatementThe Capstone Design Experience is a requirement by the Civil and Environmental Engineeringdepartment at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) for all Major Qualifying Projects (MQPs).This experience helps students to be prepared for engineering practice based on the knowledgeand skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating engineering standards and realisticconstraints. In order to meet this requirement this MQP prepared two bridge design alternatives,each with a BIM model, and addressed realistic constraints of economic, ethics, health andsafety, and manufacturability and constructability.This project explored alternative structural solutions for a pedestrian bridge to connect the fieldatop of the new Parking Garage to the alleyway behind Harrington Auditorium at the WorcesterPolytechnic Institute Campus. Four basic bridge types, each consisting of steel or concrete, wereinitially considered. Two alternatives, a steel truss bridge and a steel arch bridge, were designedin detail. A Building Information Model was generated to visualize the two alternatives. Thesupporting bridge structure using cast-in-place reinforced concrete for both cases was alsodesigned.The following realistic constraints were addressed by the design:Economic: We evaluated cost as a key constraint, which required a complete cost analysis forboth bridge design alternatives. The cost of the raw materials, on-site preparation, and labor allaffect the cost of the project.Ethical: ASCE states that “engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of theengineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfareand the environment, being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, theiremployers and clients, striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineeringprofession, and supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines” (ASCE,2010). The project was completed while upholding all of these principles.Health and Safety: Health and safety always plays a major role in any project. The two bridgedesign alternatives were prepared in accordance with AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Manual,AASHTO’s LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Thetwo bridge designs were compared, determining the design loads that each will support, selectingthe appropriate member dimensions and performing a structural analysis on each design.Constructability: This project considered the means and methods of construction of bothalternatives including accessibility, methods of fabrication delivery and erection within thecontext of a college campus operating under regular functional conditions,ii

Authorship TableSectionAbstractCDESIntroductionAssessing the Need for a BridgeSite rchCable-StayedDesign CriteriaDesign ToolsPreliminary DesignSelection CriteriaConstruction DocumentsSite SurveyStructural AnalysisGeneral AnalysisTruss DesignArch DesignFoundation DesignResults & AnalysisConclusions &RecommendationsMajor AuthorJames DeCelleJames DeCelleAllWilfredo RamosNathaniel EfronNathaniel EfronJeffrey TullyJames DeCelleJeffrey TullyNathaniel EfronWilfredo RamosJames DeCelleAllNathaniel EfronNathaniel EfronNathaniel EfronNathaniel EfronJames DeCelleWilfredo RamosJames DeCelleJames DeCelleJeffrey TullyNathaniel EfronJames DeCelleWilfredo RamosNathaniel EfronJeffrey TullyNathaniel EfroniiiMajor EditorNathaniel EfronNathaniel EfronAllWilfredo RamosAllAllAllAllAllAllWilfredo RamosNathaniel EfronAllAllJames DeCelleWilfredo RamosAllAllAllNathaniel EfronNathaniel EfronJames DeCelleNathaniel EfronAllAllNathaniel Efron

AcknowledgementsOur team would like to thank the following individuals, organizations, and institutions for theirhelp and support throughout our project: Professor Guillermo Salazar, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for his overallguidance and support throughout our project. Professor Pinar Okumus, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for her overall guidanceand support throughout our project. Gilbane Co, for allowing us insight into their meetings, providing plan sets, and allowingaccess to the site; specifically Neil Benner (Project Manager). Worcester Polytechnic Institute facilities, for providing us with resources and guidancethroughout our project; specifically Fred Di Mauro for his valuable time in allowing us tointerview him.iv

Table of ContentsAbstract .Capstone Design Experience Statement . iiAuthorship Table . iiiAcknowledgements . iv1Introduction . 12Background . 32.0Assessing the Need for a Bridge . 32.0.12.12.2Site Layout . 4Materials . 72.2.1Concrete . 72.2.2Steel. 92.2.3Composite . 102.3Bridge Systems . 112.3.1Simply Supported Beam . 112.3.2Truss . 132.3.3Arch. 142.3.4Cable-Stayed . 162.4Design Criteria . 182.4.1Americans with disabilities Act (ADA) . 182.4.2Aesthetics . 192.4.3Site & Constructability . 202.4.4Economy . 212.4.5Environment . 212.4.6Fire Code . 212.4.7Geotechnical Concerns . 222.53Interviews . 3Design Tools . 222.5.1Sap2000. 222.5.2BIM . 23Preliminary Design . 243.0Selection Criteria . 24v

3.13.23.34Construction Documents . 25Site Survey . 25Deflection & Load Requirements . 28Design & Analysis . 304.0General Analysis . 304.0.1Bridge Deck Design . 304.0.2Bridge Load and Member Sizing . 324.1Truss Design . 334.1.1Deflection . 344.1.2Member Sizing . 344.1.3Truss Connections . 364.2Arch Design. 374.2.1Deflection . 374.2.2Member Sizing . 38. 404.2.3Arch Connections. 404.2.4Fire truck Clearance . 414.354.3.1Truss Pier Design . 434.3.2Truss Middle Pier . 454.3.3Arch Footing Design . 46Results . 485.05.15.264343Foundation Design . 43BIM . 48Schedule . 495050Cost. 50Conclusions and Recommendations . 526.06.1Conclusions . 52Recommendations . 526.1.1Further Steps . 537Bibliography . 548Appendices . 56vi

8.15Appendix A – Survey Data . 56Appendix B – Interview Transcript . 56Appendix C – Arch Bridge Analysis Tables from SAP2000 . 59Appendix D – Arch Bridge Deflection Tables . 61Appendix E – Arch Bridge Design Calculations . 64Appendix F – Arch Bridge Foundation Design Calculations . 64Appendix G – Truss Bridge Analysis Tables from SAP2000 . 70Appendix H – Truss Bridge Deflection Tables . 74Appendix I – Truss Bridge Design Calculations . 74Appendix J – Truss Bridge Foundation Design Calculations . 74Appendix K – Bridge Deck Calculations . 83Appendix L – Bridge Cost Estimation . 91Appendix M – Arch Bridge Schedule Estimation . 91Appendix N – Truss Bridge Schedule Estimation . 91Appendix O – Building Information Modeling. 91Appendix O – Project Proposal A’12 . 92Table of FiguresFigure 1: Looking out of the New Recreation Center to the construction of the parking garageand athletic fields (October, 2012). 1Figure 2: Overview of proposed pedestrian bridge location . 4Figure 3: East/West Section of Garage Main Stair . 5Figure 4: Plan view of Main Stair at Field level . 5Figure 5: Planting plan showing the existing detailed grading . 6Figure 6: Hallen Bridge over the M5 Motorway in Great Britain . 9Figure 7: Merchants Bridge, Manchester, Great Britain. 10Figure 8: Common cross-sections of FRP decks from pultruded components. . 10Figure 9: Basic Design Outline of Simply-Supported Beam Bridge . 11Figure 10: Simply-Supported Pedestrian Bridge Failure, Lowes’ Motor Speedway, NorthCarolina . 12Figure 11: Various types of truss designs . 14Figure 12: Arch Nomenclature . 14Figure 13: Concrete True Arch . 15Figure 14: Horizontal Cable Connecting Hangers . 15Figure 15: Steel Tied-Arch Bridge . 16Figure 16: Arch with Diagonal Hangers . 16Figure 17: Transverse Cable Arrangements . 16Figure 18: Longitudinal Cable Arrangements . 16vii

Figure 19: Tower Configurations. 17Figure 20: Noncircular Handrail Cross Sections . 18Figure 21: Looking Towards the Loading Dock. 19Figure 22: looking Towards the Parking Garage . 20Figure 23: Garage in construction, showing area of interest for foundation . 22Figure 24: James DeCelle Conducting Surveying Shots . 26Figure 25: Here the bridge decking will meet the Parking Garage. 26Figure 26: The Bridge Decking will meet with the Loading Docks behind Harrington . 27Figure 27 : View From Harrington, overlooking the construction Area, the Parking Garage is inthe Distance . 27Figure 28: LRFD Load Combinations and Factors. 29Figure 29:AISC Table 3-23 Case 10 . 30Figure 30:Cross Section of Girder (W10x68). 38Figure 31: Pier Harrington and Parking Garage Top View . 44Figure 32: Pier Harrington and Parking Garage Longitudinal View . 44Table of Tables:Table 1: Design Parameters .7Table 2: Design Parameters .24Table 3: Selection Criteria .25Table 4: As-Built Surveyed Distances . . 28Table 5: Unfactored LRFD Design Load . .29Ta

AASHTO’s LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The two bridge designs were compared, determining the design loads that each will support, selecting the appropriate member dimensions and performing a structural analysis on each design.