Click here to load reader

Senior Design Presntation - Spring Term

  • View
    121

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Senior Design Presntation - Spring Term

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Overview Problem Statement Community Impact Current Conditions Modeling Alternatives Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Replacement Budget Life Cycle Cost Assessment Design Schedule 2
  3. 3. Problem Statement Working with Streets Department Load reduction Emergency retrofit Consideration of different alternatives Recommend efficient long term solutions 3
  4. 4. 4 Project Location Drexel University Bridge Location Central Northeast Upper Far Northeast Project Location Project Location
  5. 5. Background - Structural Description 5 Single 80 foot span Two traffic lanes 44 foot wide roadway 8 roadway skew Northeast-southwest orientation
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Community Impact-Detour* 7 Project Location *Official detour route confirmed by Philadelphia District Traffic Engineer (DTE)
  8. 8. 8 Current Conditions - City Inspection Rating of 4 and below requires immediate action
  9. 9. Current Conditions - Deck Concrete bridge deck Spalling and potholes North joint in poor condition 9
  10. 10. Current Conditions - Girders Eight W33X130 A-588 weathering steel girders Girder section loss Girder repair Rusting of cross braces & bearings 10
  11. 11. Current Conditions - Substructure South abutment: minor deterioration North abutment: Pedestal deterioration Drainage issue Emergency retrofit Settlement of 2 11
  12. 12. Existing Modeling Application of loads and load cases Existing condition Results Approximate 50 ton existing capacity Deflection: L/600 Stress 12
  13. 13. Alternatives 13
  14. 14. Bridge Rehabilitation - Girders Use of plates to reinforce webs Use of 5 x 5 X angles to reinforce flange Connected using bolts 14 City of Philadelphia repair: Plates added to existing girders during emergency retrofit
  15. 15. Bridge Rehabilitation - Abutment 15 BACKWALL PEDESTAL ABUTMENT
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Bridge Rehabilitation - Joint & Bearings Issues with leakage Replace compression joint Replace bearings in-kind 17 ABUTMENT BACKWALL
  18. 18. Bridge Rehabilitation- Deck Repair spalling on underside of deck 18
  19. 19. Bridge Replacement Hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) Prestressed concrete beams 6 beam configuration Utilities attachment Transportation 19
  20. 20. Bridge Replacement - H&H Analyzed 100 yr Design Storm HY-8 Lift low chord 6 20
  21. 21. 21 Bridge Replacement - Material Considerations Proposed: Prestressed ConcreteCurrent: 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
  22. 22. Bridge Replacement - 6 Beams PSLRFD Fewer beams - reduced cost 48 wide top flange 8 deck Sidewalks and barriers to current standards 22
  23. 23. Bridge Replacement - Utilities 20 water main 8 supports, every 10 feet Designed per PennDOT standards 23
  24. 24. Bridge Replacement - Transportation Raising top of deck 1 0.75% slope along roadway 0.50% transverse slope High point 10 south of bridge 24
  25. 25. Proposed Modeling Similar loads and load combinations Results - Design Check PSLRFD Exceeds current standards Deflection: L/600 Stress 25
  26. 26. 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 *
  27. 27. Design Budget 27
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. Design Schedule 29
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. QUESTIONS? 31
  32. 32. Appendix 32
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 8 - Beam Configuration 34 80 long 8 Deck 36 Top Flange
  35. 35. Peak Flow Rates 35
  36. 36. Hydrologic Analysis 36