Dan Vroom Ryan LaReau David Westlund Eric Eylander

1. Team Bridge Dan Vroom Ryan LaReau David Westlund Eric Eylander

2. Project Selection • Structural Engineering • Hydraulic Engineering • Local Flavor • Multiple Interested Parties • Possibility of Implemenation

3. Project Location Image courtesy of Bing Maps

4. Project Location Image courtesy of Bing Maps

5. Project Definition The primary goal is conveyance. This crossing must be: • Safe • Economical • Attractive

6. Design Considerations • Trust • Safety • Accountability • Caring • Wheelchair accessibility • ADA compliance • Environmental impact

7. Location #1 • 165 ft. span, 10 ft. elevation difference. • Too expensive Little Heron Ct.

8. Location #2 • Bank to Bank, 100 ft. Little Heron Ct.

9. Final Location • 65 ft. span, 8 ft. wide. • Steel structure covered in wood. Little Heron Ct

10. Bridge Alternative • Determining Loads • Live Load: 148.85 psf • Motorized Wheelchair and Passenger • Snow Load: 40 psf • Dead Load: 10 psf + 38.17 plf (Line Load)

11. RAM Modeling

12. Beam Design Summary

13. Bridge Profile

14. Bridge Cross-Section

15. Bridge Model

17. Culvert Alternative The culvert design is at the same location as the bridge. The reasons for designing it are: • Providing an alternative to the bridge • Comparing costs of more than one solution • Expanding the scope of the project to ensure it best suits the needs of the clientele

18. Culvert Design April 6 storm event: Approximate 20 year, 2 hr. storm

19. Peak Discharge • Drainage area is 148.3 acres. • SCS Method insists on 25 year return period. • Rainfall depth is 4.45 inches for 25-yr storm • Peak discharge: • 2-Yr Storm: 102 cubic feet per second • 25-Yr Storm: 276 cubic feet per second • 100-Yr Storm: 426 cubic feet per second

20. Culvert Design HEC-RAS MDNRE requirements – 100 Yr Storm impact Two box culverts • 12’ x 6’ at channel bottom • 6’ x 3’ on floodplain

21. Culvert Model

22. Path Design The paths must be ADA compliant. This means the design must have: • The shallowest slope feasible • No steeper than a 1:12 slope • Landings that are 60” clear every 30” of rise or 40’ run (and 5’x 5’ for changes in direction) • Railings

23. Path Design • 6’ wide • Minimize tree removal • Possible expansion of landings for benches • Retaining structures • 1% slope across the path to allow for storm water runoff

24. Path Design

25. Path Design North Path Design

26. Path Design Little Heron Court South End of Bridge Part of South Path Design

27. Path Design Part of South Path Design

28. Path Design Crossing Through Parking Lot to Ministry Center Entrance

29. Cost Estimates • Bridge--$56,863.23 • Culvert--$18,000 • Path (with railings, fill, and retaining structures)--$6,908.62

30. Conclusion • Met our design goals • Learned importance of project management • Gained experience with real world design

31. Future Work • Woodlawn CRC • Calvin Physical Plant • ASCE Meeting • Holland Home

32. Acknowledgements • Professor J. Aubrey Sykes for proposing the project and remaining as a contact from Woodlawn Christian Reformed Church. • Professor Leonard De Rooy for advising the team throughout the process. • Professor Robert Hoeksema for help in preliminary hydraulic analysis • Mr. Roger Lamer for aiding the team as the industrial consultant. • Mr. Phil Beezhold for acting as the team’s contact from Calvin College’s Physical Plant. • Mr. Scott Hull for being the project’s contact from the Holland Home and Raybrook Estates. • Mr. Brad Boomstra from the Kent County Drain Commissioners Office for providing pertinent information about Whisky Creek. • Bridge Specialist Mark Becker from EXCEL Bridge Manufacturing Co. for providing professional advice regarding bridge design considerations.

33. Questions