1 / 10

Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA

Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 001 SS&T INC Team 6 Matthew Speir Tyler Turcheck Katherine Seidl. Presented to: Prof. Berezniak Fall 2016. Statement of Problem.

ccressey
Download Presentation

Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 001 SS&T INC Team 6 Matthew Speir Tyler Turcheck Katherine Seidl Presented to: Prof. Berezniak Fall 2016

  2. Statement of Problem • A 100-year flood destroyed a vehicle bridge in College Township, Centre County PA; it crosses over Spring Creek along Puddintown Road (PennDot Engineering District 2-0). This bridge is vital to the regional residents in that it gives them access the Mount Nittany Medical Center. The current detour consists of a ten mile trip around the bridge, which now puts locals at risk due to police and EMS vehicles not having easy access to College Township. 2

  3. Objective • PennDOT Engineering District 2-0 has implemented a fast-track project to expedite the design and building of a new vehicle bridge over Spring Creek. 3

  4. Design Criteria • PennDOT District 2-0 has decided that the bridge will consist of standard abutments, and no piers. The deck material will be .23 meters thick made of medium strength concrete with no cable anchorages. The bridge will be designed to take the load of two AASHTO H20-44 trucks with one in each lane. The deck will span 40 meters, and will stand 20 meters high. A Howe through truss bridge and a Warren truss bridge will both be analyzed by the EDSGN100 design team. 4

  5. Technical Approach Phase 1: Economic Efficiency • Engineering Encounters Bridge Design 2016 (EEBD 2016) software will be used to perform an analysis of economic efficiency. This will be determined based on the requirements, constraints, and performance criteria that is outlined in the software. The objective is to use EEBD 2016 to perform a systematic and iterative analysis to design a stable and effective Warren and Howe through truss bridge that keeps the cost as low as possible, but be able to support its own weight (dead load) and the weight of a standard truck loading (live load). 5

  6. Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency • Constructed of 60 Popsicle Sticks • 13.5 inches in length, 4 inches height, 4.5 inches in width • Elmer’s Glue and hot glue • Load tested • Mass was recorded and analyzed 6

  7. Results Phase 1: Economic Efficiency • The goal of the design team was simple: experiment with the various materials and find the ones that were cost effective and maintained structural efficiency. The optimal design was eventually found; it was then their duty to attempt to make the majority of the members the same size and type to be cost effective. • The materials used for the members ended up being a variety of types and sizes. In the Howe through truss bridge, there was a difference between the top and bottom chords. However in the Warren through truss bridge, the center members had the highest quality materials. • Howe Bridge Cost: $227,455 • Warren Bridge Cost: $205,773 7

  8. Results Phase 2: Structural Efficiency • Howe Average: 245; Ours: 209 • Warren Average: 360; Ours 256 • Reinforced Members on Warren • Less beams required • Difficulty of Verticals on Howe 8

  9. Best Solution • Warren through truss bridge. • Economic Efficiency • *Total cost =$205,773 ($21,682 less than Howe) • Structural Efficiency (SE) • * SE= mass of load at failure/mass of bridge • * 256 (47 higher than Howe) • Design Efficiency • * = total cost/(SE) • * 804 ($/SE) (284 less than Howe) • Constructability • *Materials : $95,573 • *Connection cost: $16,800 • *Production cost: $16,000 • *Total: $128,373 (Howe $150,055) 9

  10. Conclusions and Recommendations • Based on the designs we built by the Bridge Designer 2016 computer program and the popsicle sticks, we recommend that the replacement bridge be a Warren through truss bridge. • *The Warren bridge is more economically efficient than the alternate Howe bridge, having a total estimated cost of $205,772.83 and a savings of $21,682. • *It is also structurally more efficient, as well as having a better design efficiency and constructability than the Howe truss bridge. • *To get started with the construction of the new Warren through truss bridge, contact us so that we may start putting in orders for the materials and determine an estimated date of completion for the project. 10

More Related