1 / 79

PROVIDENCE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

PROVIDENCE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. FINAL CAPSTONE PRESENTATION. CIVIL ENGINEERING CLASS OF 2014 | APRIL 29, 2014. BEVERLY XU (PROJECT MANAGER) – SUSTAINABILITY AND COST ESTIMATION MAX VINHATEIRO – PIER ANALYSIS AND ABUTMENT DESIGN THOMAS SCHIEFER – BRIDGE DECK DESIGN PARTNER

nura
Download Presentation

PROVIDENCE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

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. PROVIDENCE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FINAL CAPSTONE PRESENTATION CIVIL ENGINEERING CLASS OF 2014 | APRIL 29, 2014

  2. BEVERLY XU (PROJECT MANAGER) – SUSTAINABILITY AND COST ESTIMATION MAX VINHATEIRO – PIER ANALYSIS AND ABUTMENT DESIGN THOMAS SCHIEFER – BRIDGE DECK DESIGN PARTNER JENN THOMAS – BRIDGE DECK DESIGN PARTNER RACHEL CONNOR (PROJECT DRAFTER) – PIER DECK DESIGN KA LING WU – CANOPY DESIGN

  3. HISTORICAL CONTEXTINTRODUCTION • I-195 Redevelopment Parcels • June 2007 - RIDOT Feasibility Study • Pedestrian Bridge Design Competition

  4. HISTORICAL CONTEXTI-195 REDEVELOPMENT PARCEL

  5. HISTORICAL CONTEXTFEASIBILITY STUDY

  6. HISTORICAL CONTEXTFEASIBILITY STUDY

  7. PIER DECK BRIDGE DECK CANOPY

  8. GEOTECHNICALEXISTING PIERS • Five piers span the river • 76 feet span between • 141’x6’ • Concrete encased in 1.5’ granite blocks • Deep concrete T-beam

  9. GEOTECHNICALEXISTING PIERS GEOTECHNICAL • Shear reinforcement • Flexural reinforcement

  10. GEOTECHNICALEXISTING PIERS - ANALYSIS Flipped problem upside-down Solve for continuous load

  11. GEOTECHNICALEXISTING 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

  12. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – SOIL CONDITIONS • Mixture of compacted sand, gravel, fill, some silt • Thick layers of silt • Previous bridge loads transferred to bedrock • Largely undisturbed soil

  13. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – SOIL CONDITIONS West bank

  14. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – SOIL CONDITIONS East bank

  15. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION 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

  16. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – BEARING CAPACITY • Meyerhof: • qallow=N/4Kd Empirical formula, uses only boring log data, simple design assumptions

  17. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION 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 soil Assign length of combined footings: 26’ 6” E1: 3’ 7”. W2: 3’ 4” W1: 4’ 1”

  18. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – SHEAR 1-Way shear: ϕVc=ϕ2f'cbwd≥Vu 2-Way shear:

  19. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT Concrete is weak in tension Steel rebar added to take tensile loads from moments Area of steel calculated from ultimate moment: As=Mu/(ϕfyjd )

  20. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT E1 W1 W2

  21. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – SETTLEMENT Settlement occurs in silt layers Increasing depth -> increased area of applied load

  22. GEOTECHNICALFOUNDATION DESIGN – SETTLEMENT s = Cc/(1+e0)*Hlog((σ’v0+∆σ)/σ’v0)

  23. BRIDGE DECKDESIGN • 30° northwest • Upward slopes of 1:20 and 1:15 • 4 girders • No joist system • Two columns per pier • +/- 75 foot spans

  24. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: DESIGN • With original orientation • Added joist system • Changed average span length

  25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: DESIGN - SPANS

  26. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: JOINTS • Bottom of columns completely restrained • All other joints have no restraints or constraints • All joints welded

  27. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: AREA LOADS • LOADS: • Dead • Snow • Deck • Live • Wind • Earthquake

  28. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS I BEAM/W FLANGE HSS/BOX BEAM WT SECTION

  29. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS GIRDER JOIST COLUMN GIRDER: HSS28x6x1/2 JOIST: W8x40 COLUMN: W12x96

  30. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: ANALYSIS DEFLECTIONS MOMENT DIAGRAM SHEAR DIAGRAM

  31. BRIDGE DECKSAP MODEL: ANALYSIS

  32. BRIDGE DECKMOVING FORWARD • Thermal Loads • Seismic Conditions • Wind Uplift

  33. BRIDGE DECKGRAVITY 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

  34. BRIDGE DECKLATERAL 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

  35. BRIDGE DECKTRIBUTARY AREA Tributary Area of Girder Tributary Width of Girder Tributary Area of Column

  36. BRIDGE DECKHSS28x6x1/2 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

  37. BRIDGE DECKW8x40 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

  38. BRIDGE DECKW12x96COLUMN 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

  39. BRIDGE DECKRESULTS 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

  40. BRIDGE DECKVIBRATIONS 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%

  41. BRIDGE DECKSOFTWARE 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

  42. BRIDGE DECKHAND 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 bream Point Force, is 92lbs Damping Ratio, , is 0.01 -Need to find Panel Weight, W and Frequency, for both members and system -Acceration Limit is solved by:

  43. BRIDGE DECKRESULTS COMPARISON Result Summary Comparisons -Produced Similar Values -Both Show the Bridge Satisfies Design Criterion

  44. PIER DECKDESIGN CONSIDERATIONS • Collaboration with bridge deck • Tapered Beams • Cantilevered spans

  45. 40’ 20’ 40’ 40’ 40’ PIER DECKBASIC LAYOUT

  46. PIER DECKBASIC LAYOUT

  47. PIER DECKTAPERED BEAMS

  48. PIER DECKDEFLECTIONS • Maximum deflection of cantilever: • (L/360)*2 = 2.667 in. • Largest deflection: 1.9593 in.

More Related