1 / 12

Vehicle Bridge Replacement over Spring Creek, PA

Design a new vehicle bridge over Spring Creek to replace the destroyed bridge, disrupting traffic flow and posing risks to residents.

tatianah
Download Presentation

Vehicle Bridge Replacement over Spring Creek, 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 Center County, PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 001 Team #6 Team: Bare Minimum Kristen Quasey Emily Dale Xyasia Cook Paul Doyle Professor Berezniak Spring 2018

  2. Statement of the Problem From Pennsylvania Department of Transportation: “Severe local flooding from a recent 100-year flood event has catastrophically destroyed a structurally deficient vehicle and pedestrian bridge located over Spring Creek along Puddintown Road in College Township, Centre County, PA. All traffic must now be re-routed several miles around the destroyed bridge, thereby disrupting residential traffic flow, school bus routes, local commerce, and exposes State College residents to considerable risk, since first-responder vehicles do not have direct access to that area of College Township.”

  3. Project Objective Design a new vehicle bridge over Spring Creek to replace the original bridge that was destroyed by the recent extreme flood event.

  4. Required Design Criteria PennDOT District has established the design criteria for the replacement bridge to include: • Standard abutments • No piers (one span) • Deck material shall be medium strength concrete (0.23 meters thick) • No cable anchorages • Designed for the load of two AASHTO H20-44 trucks(225kN) with one in each traffic lane • The bridge deck elevation shall be set at 20 meters • The deck span shall be exactly 40 meters All other design criteria, such as: steel member type, steel cross section type, and steel member size, etc., shall be selected by each design team.

  5. The Technical Approach Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Howe: The Economic Efficiency cost of constructing the Howe bridge was $248,939 which was determined through the use of Engineering Encounters Bridge Design 2016 (EEBD 2016) software based on the requirements, constraints, and performance criteria. Warren: The Economic Efficiency cost of constructing the Warren bridge was $249,438 which was determined through the use of the Engineering Encounters Bridge Design 2016 (EEBD 2016) software based on the requirements, constraints, and performance criteria Through the use of the EEBD 2016 program, we were able to construct and generate the systematic and capability analysis that it takes to design a stable Warren and Howe through bridge maintaining between a $150,000 to $250,000 budget range.

  6. The Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency Warren: The warren bridge was designed through the use of 60 wooden popsicles, elmers craft glue and hot glue. The deck design of the warren bridge was constructed of hot glue and 8 wooden popsicle sticks. Double bottom cords were inserted to ensure extra support for the deck and weights. The Warren Truss had a structural efficiency of 204. Howe: The Howe bridge consisted of 58 popsicles sticks, elmers glue, and hot glue. 25 popsicle sticks were designated for each side for a total of 50. The remaining 8 were used for the floor beams and struts which connected the sides. The Howe Truss had a structural efficiency of 209. To spread glue as thin as possible, we used a q-tip. We also sanded each piece before gluing to ensure the glue would bond with the wood. We clamped each piece after gluing.

  7. The Results Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Warren: The Warren Bridge was built under the maximum budget by approximately $500. The total cost was $249,438 Howe: The Howe Bridge was built under the maximum budget by approximately $1,000. The total cost was $248,939 Therefore, it can be concluded that the Howe Bridge is more economically efficient when compared to the Warren bridge under the given restraints, criteria, and budget.

  8. The Results Phase 2: Structural Efficiency Warren: • How did it fail? • After load testing, the Warren Bridge failed by having two bottom floor beams and two struts disconnect from the top and bottom cords. No popsicle sticks were broken, the glue simply did not hold. • Why did it fail? • The hot gluing of the struts and floor beams caused the the two sides of the bridge to not be parallel with one another. The unevenness then caused the bridge to fall to one side, creating the disconnect between the two struts and two floor beams. Howe: • How did it fail? • After load testing, the Howe Bridge collapsed to the right side. The vertical and diagonal members received the most damage and disconnected from the other members. In addition, bottom chord members broke in half. • Why did it fail? • Due to the human error of uneven gluing in the building process, the bridge was not completely even, which then caused stress to be distributed unevenly throughout the bridge. The uneven stress led to one side collapsing.

  9. The Best Solution • According to the data, the Howe Truss bridge was more structurally efficient as well as economically efficient. • Structurally • Howe Truss: 209 • Warren Truss: 204 • Economically • Howe Truss: $248,939 • Warren Truss: $249,438 • We conclude that the Howe Truss bridge will be the best solution for the new bridge

  10. Our Conclusions • Overall objective: design a new vehicle bridge to replace the one that was destroyed over Spring Creek • We were able to design two bridges that satisfied the requirements while staying within the required financial budget • Summary of results • Warren Bridge and Howe Bridge held the same amount of weight (36 pounds) • Howe Bridge was more economically efficient by about $500 • Recommend building the Howe Bridge over the Warren Bridge • Importance of Project • Gained teamwork skills • Learned how to properly write engineering reports • Experienced what it would be like to actually work on an engineering project

  11. Our Recommendations The next steps: • Contact geotechnical engineers and discuss the foundation of the bridge and how to implement that into the final design • Further investigate how to reduce financial costs • Bring in other engineers to get second opinions and reduce the possible errors in the design • Consult with community members to ensure that the bridge is satisfactory for their daily use

  12. In Closing Thank you to our sponsor, PennDot, for giving us the opportunity to expand our engineering knowledge through this hands-on project!

More Related