Senior Design Presntation - Spring Term
-
Upload
steven-e-kreeley-bsce-ms-eit -
Category
Documents
-
view
126 -
download
0
Transcript of Senior Design Presntation - Spring Term
PINE ROAD OVER PENNYPACK
CREEK
Senior Design Team 26:
Matan Alexander, Steven Kreeley, Derek Zaccheo, Gary Reiff, and Cassandra Pruefer
Technical Advisors: Dr. Emin Aktan, Mr. Benjamin Cohen, EIT
80’
Advisor: Dr. Ivan Bartoli
Overview
⦿Problem Statement
⦿Community Impact
⦿Current Conditions
⦿Modeling
⦿Alternatives
● Bridge Rehabilitation
● Bridge Replacement
⦿Budget
⦿Life Cycle Cost Assessment
⦿Design Schedule
2
Problem Statement ⦿ Working with Streets Department
⦿ Load reduction
⦿ Emergency retrofit
⦿ Consideration of different alternatives
⦿ Recommend efficient long term solutions
3
4
Project Location
Drexel University
Bridge Location
Central
Northeast
Upper Far
Northeast
Project Location
Project Location
Background - Structural Description
5
⦿ Single 80 foot span
⦿ Two traffic lanes
⦿ 44 foot wide roadway
⦿ 8° roadway skew
⦿ Northeast-southwest orientation
Community Impact-Growth ⦿ Plans to increase public transit
⦿ Plans for commercial revitalization
⦿ Goal of alleviating traffic congestion
⦿ Current heavy use of bus
⦿ Population growth due to conversion of single to multi-family
homes
6
Project
Location
Community Impact-Detour*
7
Project
Location
*Official detour route confirmed by Philadelphia District Traffic Engineer (DTE)
8
Current Conditions - City Inspection
Rating of 4 and below requires immediate action
Current Conditions - Deck
⦿ Concrete bridge deck
⦿ Spalling and potholes
⦿ North joint in poor condition
9
Current Conditions - Girders
⦿ Eight W33X130 A-588
weathering steel
girders
⦿ Girder section loss
⦿ Girder repair
⦿ Rusting of cross
braces & bearings
10
Current Conditions - Substructure
⦿ South abutment:
minor deterioration
⦿ North abutment:
● Pedestal
deterioration
● Drainage issue
● Emergency
retrofit
⦿ Settlement of 2”
11
Existing Modeling
⦿Application of loads and load cases
⦿Existing condition
⦿Results
● Approximate 50 ton existing capacity
Deflection: L/600
Stress
12
Alternatives
13
Bridge Rehabilitation - Girders ⦿ Use of ⅜” plates to reinforce webs
⦿ Use of 5” x 5” X ⅜” angles to reinforce flange
⦿ Connected using bolts
14 City of Philadelphia repair: Plates added to
existing girders during emergency retrofit
Bridge Rehabilitation - Abutment
15
BACKWALL
PEDESTAL
ABUTMENT
Bridge Rehabilitation - Abutment
⦿ Remove pedestals and top of abutment
⦿ Replace using new pedestals and remove drainage trough
⦿ Provide sloping to drain off front of abutment
16
Bridge Rehabilitation - Joint & Bearings
⦿ Issues with leakage
⦿ Replace compression joint
⦿ Replace bearings in-kind
17
ABUTMENT
BACKWALL
Bridge Rehabilitation- Deck
Repair spalling on underside of deck
18
Bridge Replacement
⦿Hydrology and hydraulics (H&H)
⦿Prestressed concrete beams
⦿6 beam configuration
⦿Utilities attachment
⦿Transportation
19
Bridge Replacement - H&H ⦿ Analyzed 100 yr Design Storm
⦿ HY-8
⦿ Lift low chord 6”
20
21
Bridge Replacement - Material Considerations
Proposed: Prestressed Concrete Current: Weathering Steel
⦿ Forms patina
⦿ Poor performance
under wet conditions
⦿ Not recommended in
areas with excessive
moisture greater than
60% of the time
⦿ Performs better
under wet
conditions
⦿ Low maintenance
⦿ Less expensive
than weathering
steel
Bridge Replacement - 6 Beams ⦿ PSLRFD
⦿ Fewer beams - reduced cost
⦿ 48” wide top flange
⦿ 8” deck
⦿ Sidewalks and barriers to current standards
22
Bridge Replacement - Utilities ⦿ 20” water main
⦿ 8 supports, every 10 feet
⦿ Designed per PennDOT standards
23
Bridge Replacement - Transportation
⦿ Raising top of deck 1’
⦿ 0.75% slope along roadway
⦿ 0.50% transverse slope
⦿ High point 10’ south of bridge
24
Proposed Modeling
⦿Similar loads and load combinations
⦿Results - Design Check PSLRFD
● Exceeds current standards
Deflection: L/600
Stress
25
Construction Budget
26
Cost of all alternatives
Do Nothing Repair Rehabilitation Replacement
$ 0 $ 551,000 $ 968,000 $ 1,600,000
*Do nothing option does not include cost of bridge failure and maintenance
*
Design Budget
27
Life Cycle Cost Assessment
28
⦿ Determined needs based on maintenance records
⦿ Evaluated by net present worth
⦿ Recommend the following for future maintenance:
● Use angle irons in place of steel plates when possible
Potentially “frame” area of interest
● Continue use of macropoxy paint system
Design Schedule
29
Conclusion
⦿Bridge is necessary for community
⦿ Inspected causes of deterioration
⦿Proposed rehabilitation and replacement
alternatives
● Return bridge to state of good repair
⦿Existing and proposed model
⦿Evaluated life cycle cost assessment
30
QUESTIONS?
31
Appendix
32
Geotechnical Analysis
33
⦿Well-drained silt loam on both sides
⦿CL soil classification
⦿Groundwater table far below elevation
⦿Piles assumed as driven
⦿Coefficients from Meyerhof deep
foundation table
⦿Based on group capacity
⦿Based on group settlement
8 - Beam Configuration
34
⦿80’ long
⦿8” Deck
⦿36” Top Flange
Peak Flow Rates
35
Hydrologic Analysis
36