Final Memo

Final Report
Tivoli Pedestrian Bridge
5/18/2015
SplashConsultingEngineers
PatrickArraes
Lucas Deyglun
KaceyGardner
ShawnOsarczuk
RojingRajkarnikar

1 | P a g e
Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Overview of Project .............................................................................................................7
1.2 Overview of Site ..................................................................................................................7
2 Design Requirements and Code Review........................................................................................8
2.1 Requirements set by Owner.................................................................................................8
2.2 Requirements Set by Code ...................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Clearance.....................................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Handicap Accessibility.................................................................................................11
2.2.3 Stairs.........................................................................................................................15
2.2.4 Loading......................................................................................................................16
2.2.5 Deflections.................................................................................................................17
2.2.6 Property Lines............................................................................................................17
2.2.7 Drainage ....................................................................................................................18
2.2.8 Geotechnical..............................................................................................................18
2.2.9 Crashwalls..................................................................................................................18
2.2.10 Protective Fencing......................................................................................................19
2.2.11 Pedestrian Overpass over Railroad ..............................................................................19
3 Preliminary Structural Assessment .............................................................................................19
3.1 Bridge Design andAlternatives...........................................................................................19
3.1.1 Materials....................................................................................................................19
3.1.2 Location of Bridge.......................................................................................................21
3.1.3 Design of Bridge .........................................................................................................23
3.1.4 Bridge Piers................................................................................................................24
3.1.5 Bridge Roof................................................................................................................27
3.2 Ramp Design andAlternatives............................................................................................30
3.2.1 Location and Footprint of Ramp ..................................................................................30
3.2.2 Ramp Support............................................................................................................31
3.2.3 Decision of Owner to Replace Ramps with Handicap Lift...............................................32
3.3 Stair Design.......................................................................................................................34
3.3.1 Design Overview.........................................................................................................34
3.3.2 Member Sizes.............................................................................................................34

2 | P a g e
3.3.3 Materials....................................................................................................................35
3.3.4 Attachment of Handicap Lift........................................................................................35
3.4 Providing Kayak Accessibility ..............................................................................................36
3.4.1 Design Kayak..............................................................................................................36
3.4.2 Clearance Considerations............................................................................................36
3.4.3 Kayak Winch...............................................................................................................36
4 Loading.....................................................................................................................................37
4.1 Dead Load.........................................................................................................................37
4.2 Live Load...........................................................................................................................37
4.3 Wind Load.........................................................................................................................38
4.4 Snow Load.........................................................................................................................38
4.5 Earthquake Load................................................................................................................38
4.6 Load Summary...................................................................................................................38
5 Structural Assessment of Truss...................................................................................................39
5.1 Member Sizing and Chord Span..........................................................................................39
5.1.1 Gravity Load Member Sizing........................................................................................39
5.1.2 Lateral Load Member Sizing ........................................................................................40
5.2 Supports, Bearings, & Connections .....................................................................................42
5.2.1 Supports and Bearings................................................................................................42
5.2.2 Connections...............................................................................................................43
5.3 Preliminary Load Computations..........................................................................................44
5.3.1 Tributary Areas and Loads on Truss .............................................................................44
5.4 Stress & Deflection Computations.......................................................................................44
6 Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment.........................................................................................48
6.1 Soil Profile.........................................................................................................................48
6.2 Soil Bearing Capacity..........................................................................................................49
6.3 Assessment of Alternative Geotechnical Systems.................................................................50
6.3.1 Spread Footings..........................................................................................................50
6.3.2 Piles...........................................................................................................................50
6.3.3 Design Decision..........................................................................................................51
6.4 Foundation Design.............................................................................................................51
6.4.1 Spread Footing Design Parameters..............................................................................51

3 | P a g e
6.4.2 Settlement Calculations..............................................................................................52
6.4.3 Location of Footings ...................................................................................................53
6.5 Special Conditions..............................................................................................................53
6.6 Summary...........................................................................................................................53
6.7 Sheetpile...........................................................................................................................54
7 Project Progress Assessment......................................................................................................58
8 Cost Estimate............................................................................................................................62
9 Appendices...............................................................................................................................62
9.1 Dead Load.........................................................................................................................62
9.2 Elevation and Section View for Roof Options.......................................................................64
9.3 Wind Load Calculations......................................................................................................65
9.4 Snow Load Calculations......................................................................................................66
9.5 Seismic Load Calculations...................................................................................................67
9.6 SAP2000 Gravity Load Calculations .....................................................................................69
9.7 Tivoli NY USGS Seismic Data...............................................................................................70
9.8 Parallam Floor Beam Calculations ......................................................................................71
9.9 Parallam Floor Joist Calculations.........................................................................................72
9.10 Diagonal Member Welding Calculation ...............................................................................73
9.11 Pier Connections ...............................................................................................................74
9.12 Buckling Check & Bottom Chord Connection ......................................................................75
9.13 Wood to Steel Connection..................................................................................................76
9.14 Stair Tread Calculations .....................................................................................................77
9.15 3D Bridge and Staircase Rendering with Drainage ...........................................................78
9.16 Calculations for Staiway .....................................................................................................79
9.17 Overall Cost Estimate.........................................................................................................81
9.19 Foundation Rebar Cost Estimate.........................................................................................82
....................................................................................................................................................82
9.20 Parallam PSL Cost Estimate.................................................................................................84
9.21 Pressure Treated Wood Cost Estimate ................................................................................85
9.22 Structural Steel Cost Estimate.............................................................................................86
9.23 Lifecycle and Maintenance Costs for 100 Year Design Life ....................................................87
9.24 Group Self Assessment.......................................................................................................89

4 | P a g e
9.25 Authors.............................................................................................................................90
9.26 References ........................................................................................................................91

5 | P a g e
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Proposed Bridge Site.............................................................................................................7
Figure 2: Current Diana Street Railroad Crossing...................................................................................8
Figure 3: Clearances Required for Overhead Structures ........................................................................9
Figure 4: Clearances Required for Overhead Structures ......................................................................10
Figure 5: Wheelchair Passage Width..................................................................................................12
Figure 6: Width for Wheelchair Passing..............................................................................................12
Figure 7: Wheelchair Turning Space...................................................................................................13
Figure 8: Ramp Design Parameters ....................................................................................................14
Figure 9: Cross Slope and Surfaces Parameters...................................................................................15
Figure 10: Stair Tread Requirements..................................................................................................16
Figure 11: Maintenance Vehicle Load.................................................................................................17
Figure 12: Parallam PlusPSL..............................................................................................................20
Figure 13: Property Lines near Bridge Site..........................................................................................21
Figure 14: 80ft Span Bridge Layout ....................................................................................................22
Figure 15: 130ft Span Bridge Layout...................................................................................................22
Figure 16: Example of Concrete Bridge Pier........................................................................................24
Figure 17: Example Steel Tower Pier..................................................................................................24
Figure 18: Bridge Pier Design.............................................................................................................25
Figure 19: Applied Loading on Bridge Pier ..........................................................................................26
Figure 20: Stress Check of Bridge Pier ................................................................................................26
Figure 21: Roof Option #1.................................................................................................................28
Figure 22: Roof Option #2.................................................................................................................28
Figure 23: Roof Option #3 .................................................................................................................29
Figure 24: Roof Option #4 .................................................................................................................29
Figure 25: Switchback Style Ramp Elevation View...............................................................................30
Figure 26: View from Broadway Street to Railroad Crossing ................................................................31
Figure 27: Center Column Layout.......................................................................................................31
Figure 28: Diagonal Column Layout....................................................................................................32
Figure 29: Design Inspiration of Inclined Lift.......................................................................................33
Figure 30: GSL Atira Inclined Platform Lift ..........................................................................................33
Figure 31: Stair Tread Dimensions......................................................................................................34
Figure 32: Stairwell Support Section ..................................................................................................34
Figure 33: Schematic of Applying Handicap Lift to Stairs......................................................................35
Figure 34: Schematic of Kayak Turning System ...................................................................................37
Figure 35: Vertical Truss on Left and Right Sides.................................................................................39
Figure 36: SectionView Through Bridge Deck.....................................................................................40
Figure 37: Horizontal Truss at Roof and Deck......................................................................................41
Figure 38: Illustration of Truss Diagonals............................................................................................42
Figure 39: Bearing Arrangementfor Bridge ........................................................................................43
Figure 40: Wood to Steel Connection.................................................................................................43

6 | P a g e
Figure 41: DL+LL+ SL Loading.............................................................................................................45
Figure 42: DL+LL+SL Stresses.............................................................................................................45
Figure 43: DL+LL+SL Deformed Shape ................................................................................................46
Figure 44: WL Loading.......................................................................................................................46
Figure 45: WL Stresses......................................................................................................................47
Figure 46: WL Deformed Shape .........................................................................................................47
Figure 47: Soil Profile........................................................................................................................48
Figure 48: Additional Soil Profile........................................................................................................49
Figure 49: Bearing Capacity Inputs.....................................................................................................49
Figure 50: Spread Footing Design.......................................................................................................50
Figure 51: Pile Design........................................................................................................................51
Figure 52: Base of Spread Footing......................................................................................................51
Figure 53: Spread Footing Design for Bridge.......................................................................................52
Figure 54: Map of Bridge Site with Footings Marked...........................................................................53
Figure 55: Plan View of Sheetpile and Footings...................................................................................54
Figure 56: Side View(River Side)........................................................................................................54
Figure 57: Side View(Diana St. Side)..................................................................................................55
Figure 58: ElevationView..................................................................................................................55
Figure 59: Calculated Earth Pressure..................................................................................................56
Figure 60: Moment Diagram for Sheetpile..........................................................................................56
Figure 61: Calculation Output for Sheetpile........................................................................................57
Figure 62: Simple Slope Excavation....................................................................................................58
Figure 63: Project and Maintenance Costs..........................................................................................62

7 | P a g e
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview of Project
SplashConsultingEngineerswasgiventhe opportunitytodesignapedestrianbridgeforthe villageof
Tivoli.The bridge willallow localsandtouriststocross the highspeedrailwayrunningparallel tothe
HudsonRiverand accessthe popularwaterfront.The designwillcomplementthe natural beautyof the
site andprovide a landmarkforthe village.
1.2 Overview of Site
The proposedbridge site isnearDianaSt. inTivoli,NY.Broadway Streetrunsparallel tothe shore
betweenDianaSt andits end,whichresultsin astretchof landthat couldbe usedas a parkinglot inthe
future.A private roadcontinuesfromthe lot. Thisisshownin Figure 1.
Figure 1: Proposed Bridge Site
Due to propertyline considerations,the bridge will spanjustsouthof DianaSt.This locationwaschosen
by SplashConsultingbecause itallowsfor the mostavailable landoneachside of the river. Figure 2
showsthe currentrailroadcrossingat Diana Street.The photowastakenduringa visitto the site bythe
team.

8 | P a g e
Figure 2: Current Diana Street Railroad Crossing
2 Design Requirements andCode Review
2.1 Requirements set by Owner
The town of Tivoli requested apedestrianbridgeaccessible tohandicappeople andallowedforthe
transportationof kayaks.SplashConsultingassumedaestheticswouldalsobe apriorityforthe project.
Aftercontactingthe deputymayorof the town,designpreferenceswere discussed.Thesepreferences
resultfrommeetingswiththe townboardaboutthe projectandthe proposedbridge.Designideasare
vettedwiththe deputymayorandthe opinionof the village of Tivoliconsideredinall aspects.
2.2 Requirements Set by Code
2.2.1 Clearance
Beloware excerpts fromvariousmanualsanddesignguidesregardingthe horizontal andvertical
clearance requirementsforstructure.Whendifferentvaluesare givenbyvarioussources,requirements
for eachregulationmustbe satisfied.
“Standard horizontalclearancefromcenterlineof the track to the face of the pier or abutmentshall
typically be 25’-0” or greater,but neverless than 18’-0”, measured perpendicularto thetrack” (CSX
Public Policy Manual)
“Vertical Clearance:A standard verticalclearanceof 23’-0” shall beprovided,measured fromtop of high
rail to lowest pointof structurein thehorizontalclearancearea which extends6’-0” either side of the
centerline of track.”(CSXPublicPolicy Manual)

9 | P a g e
Figures3 and 4 detail the clearance requirementsof CSX,whoownandoperate the railroad.The slope
of the proposedsite isfill onthe side closesttothe residential areaandthe side closesttothe riverhas
a cut slope.
Figure 3: Clearances Required for Overhead Structures

10 | P a g e
Figure 4: Clearances Required for Overhead Structures
“AASHTOLRFD Article 2.3.3.2 specifies an increased vertical clearance forpedestrian bridges1.0 ft.
higherthan for highway bridges,in orderto mitigatethe risk fromvertical collisions with the
superstructure.Should theownerdesireadditionalmitigation,thefollowing stepsshould betaken:
 Increasing vertical clearancein addition to thatcontained in AASHTOLRFD
 Providing structuralcontinuityof thesuperstructure,eitherbetween spansorwith the
substructure
 Increasing themassof the superstructure
 Increasing thelateral resistance of the superstructure(LRFDGuideSpecificationsforthe Design
of Pedestrian Bridges)
Table 1 detailsthe lateral distancerequirementsstatedbythe New YorkState Departmentof
TransportationBridge Manual.The locationof Tivoli,NYisa heavysnow area. There are portionsof the
track withthe maintenance roadway,butitdoesnotextendthroughall sectionsof the proposedsite.
Thiswill be takenintoconsiderationwhenlocatingthe bridge abutments.

11 | P a g e
Table 1: Lateral Distance from Centerline to Outside Track
2.2.2 HandicapAccessibility
“FHWA regulationsrequirethatwhenevera Statehighway isto be constructed,reconstructed,or
rehabilitated or when the Departmentengagesin any otherpublic improvementproject,theProject
Developershould determinewhetherthe existing pedestrian accommodations:
 Are adequate.
 Are readily accessibleto personswith disabilities.
 Require reconstruction.
 Require rehabilitation.
 Warrantthe construction of newfacilities.
The AmericanswithDisabilities Act (ADA) requiresthatnew and altered facilities be accessible to and
usableby personswithdisabilities. The following proceduresforpedestrian accommodation apply to all
projectsthatare classified as newconstruction,reconstruction,bridgereplacement,bridge
rehabilitation,signalrequirementcontracts,safety,3R,or 2R, as well as locally administered projects
and workundertaken by DepartmentMaintenanceforcesthataresimilar to the preceding project
types”.(NYSDOT)
“The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) requires nondiscrimination in all federally assisted
programs,services,and activities.This meanstheprograms,services,and facilities mustbe availableto
and usableby personswithdisabilities. “
State and Federal lawrequire nondiscriminationinthe provisionof publicprogramsandfacilities.Any
formof constructionforwalkwayorany passage forpedestriansbythe governmentneedstobe
accessible byeveryone,includingthe disabled.Forthistohappen,TeamSplashwill follow ADA norms
and standardsforhandicapaccessibility.
2.2.2.1 SpaceAllowanceand Reach Ranges
“WheelchairPassageWidth:Theminimumclear width for singlewheelchair passageshallbe32 in (815
mm) at a pointand 36 in (915 mm) continuously.
Thisis illustratedinFigure5.

12 | P a g e
Figure 5: Wheelchair Passage Width
“Width forWheelchair Passing: Theminimumwidth fortwo wheelchairsto passis 60 in (1525 mm).”
Figure 6: Width for Wheelchair Passing
Wheelchair Turning Space: The spacerequired fora wheelchairto makea 180-degree turn is a clear
spaceof 60 in (1525 mm) diameter or a T-shaped space.”(Departmentof JusticeADA Title IIIRegulation
28 CFR Part36 (1991))

13 | P a g e
Figure 7: Wheelchair Turning Space
2.2.2.2 Ramps
“All pedestrian ramps must comply with all the applicable portions of the current [Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)]. All ramps, except curb ramps, must have handrails
on both sides. Any part of an accessible pedestrian route with a grade steeper than 5% is usually
considered a ramp. However, a sidewalk along a vehicular way that exceeds a 5% grade is not
considered a ramp and does not have to meet the ADAAG standards for ramps. The ability of a
disabled person to manage an incline is related to the incline's slope and length. Wheelchair users
with disabilities affecting their arms or with limited stamina have serious difficulty using inclines.
Most ambulatory disabled people and most disabled people who use wheelchairs can manage a
slope of 1:16. Therefore, ADAAG requires that the least possible slope should be used for any ramp.
However, the steepest slope must not exceed 8.33% (1:12). Also, the maximum rise for any run must
not exceed 760 mm. In addition, level landings must be provided at the top and bottom of ramps
and each ramp run and at all ramp turns. Designers should refer to ADAAG Section 4.8 for additional
guidance regarding requirements for pedestrian ramps.”

14 | P a g e
“Slope and Rise: The least possibleslope shallbe used for any ramp.The maximumslopeof a ramp in
newconstruction shallbe 1:12. The maximumriseforany run shall be30 in (760 mm).Curb rampsand
rampsto beconstructed on existing sites or in existing buildingsor facilities may haveslopesand rises as
allowed in 4.1.6(3)(a) if space limitationsprohibitthe use of a 1:12 slope or less.”
Figure 8 illustratessome ramp design parameters.
Figure 8: Ramp Design Parameters
“Clear Width: The minimumclear width of a ramp shall be 36 in (915 mm)” (See Figure 5)
Landingsonstairs andramps mustmeetall applicable requirementsof the mostrecentADAAG.In
addition,the Departmentstandardforthe maximumvertical rise of anysetof stairsbetween
intermediate landingswithinaflightof stairsshouldfall within the range of 2.4 m to 3.6 m andshould
be evenlyspacedalongstraightrunsof stairways.Landingsshouldbe providedonrampsasdiscussedin
18.8.2.
“Landings:Rampsshallhavelevel landingsat bottomand top of each ramp and each ramp run.Landings
shall havethe following features:
(1) The landing shallbe at least aswide as theramp run leading to it.
(2) The landing lengthshall bea minimumof 60 in (1525 mm) clear.
(3) If rampschangedirection at landings,theminimumlanding size shall be 60 in by 60 in (1525
mm by 1525 mm).
“Handrails:If a ramp run hasa rise greater than 6 in (150 mm) or a horizontalprojection greaterthan 72
in (1830 mm),then it shall havehandrailson both sides.Handrailsare not required on curb rampsor
adjacentto seating in assembly areas.Handrailsshallhavethe following features:
(1) Handrailsshall beprovided along both sidesof ramp segments.Theinside handrailon
switchbackordogleg rampsshall alwaysbecontinuous.

15 | P a g e
(2) If handrailsare notcontinuous,they shallextend atleast 12 in (305 mm) beyond thetop and
bottomof theramp segmentand shallbe parallel with thefloor orground surface.
(3) The clear spacebetween the handrailand thewall shallbe 1 - 1/2 in (38 mm).
(4) Gripping surfacesshallbe continuous.
(5) Top of handrailgripping surfacesshallbemounted between 34 in and 38 in (865 mm and 965
mm) aboveramp surfaces.
(6) Endsof handrailsshall beeither rounded orreturned smoothly to floor,wall,or post.
(7) Handrailsshall notrotatewithin their fittings.
“CrossSlope and Surfaces: Thecrossslope of ramp surfacesshallbe no greaterthan 1:50.”
Figure 9: Cross Slope and Surfaces Parameters
“Edge Protection:Rampsand landingswith drop-offsshallhavecurbs,walls,railings,orprojecting
surfacesthatpreventpeoplefromslipping off the ramp.Curbsshallbe a minimumof 2 in (50 mm) high.”
“OutdoorConditions: Outdoorrampsand theirapproachesshallbedesigned so thatwaterwill not
accumulateon walking surfaces.” (Departmentof JusticeADA Title III Regulation 28 CFRPart 36 (1991))
2.2.3 Stairs
2.2.3.1 Width
Stairway Width:Each stairway adjacentto an area of rescue assistanceshallhavea minimumclear
widthof 48 inchesbetween handrails.
2.2.3.2 Treads and Risers
Treadsand Risers: On any given flight of stairs,all stepsshall haveuniformriser heightsand uniform
tread widths.Stair treadsshall be no less than 11 in (280 mm) wide, measured fromriser to riser (see Fig.
10). Open risers arenot permitted.

16 | P a g e
Figure 10: Stair Tread Requirements
2.2.3.3 Nosings
Nosings:Theundersidesof nosingsshallnotbe abrupt.Theradiusof curvatureatthe leading g edgeof
the tread shall be no greater than 1/2 in (13 mm).Risers shall be sloped or theundersideof the nosing
shall havean angle notless than 60 degreesfromthe horizontal.Nosingsshallprojectno morethan 1-
1/2 in (38 mm).
2.2.3.4 OutdoorConditions
OutdoorConditions: Outdoorstairsand theirapproachesshallbedesigned so thatwater will not
accumulateon walking surfaces.
2.2.4 Loading
“Pedestrian Bridgesshall be designed fora uniformpedestrian loading of 90 psf.This loading shallbe
patterned to producemaximumload effects;Consideration of dynamicload allowanceisnotrequired
with thisloading.”(LRFD Guide SpecificationsfortheDesign of Pedestrian Bridges)
“Where vehicularaccess is not prevented by permanentphysicalmethods,pedestrian bridgesshallbe
designed fora maintenancevehicleload specified in Figure 1 and Table 1 forthe Strength I Load
Combination unlessotherwisespecified by theOwner.A single truckshall be placed to producethe
maximumload effectsand shallnotbe placed in combinationswith thepedestrian load.The dynamic
load allowanceneed notbe considered forthis loading.”LRFDGuide SpecificationsfortheDesign of
Pedestrian Bridges)
Note that the maintenance vehicleloadspecifiedinFigure 1of the LRFD Guide Specificationsforthe
Designof PedestrianBridgesisshowninFigure 11.

17 | P a g e
Figure 11: Maintenance Vehicle Load
2.2.5 Deflections
”For spansotherthan cantileverarms,the deflection of the bridgedue to theunfactored pedestrian live
loading shall notexceed 1/360 of the span length.Deflectionsin cantilever armsdue to the pedestrian
live loading shallnot exceed 1/220 of the cantileverlength.Horizontal deflectionsunderunfactored wind
loading shall notexceed 1/360 of the span length.”(LRFD Guide SpecificationsfortheDesign of
Pedestrian Bridges)
SplashConsultingEngineerswillensure thatthe deflectionsof the pedestrianbridgemeet thesecriteria.
Checksare beingdone throughbothcomputeranalysisandhandcalculations.
2.2.6 PropertyLines
Village of Tivoli, NY Local Laws and Codes
Chapter 231: Zoning
Article III Establishment of Districts
§231-7 Interpretation of district boundaries
[Amended 2-12-1996 by L.L. No. 1-1996]
“Where a district boundary line, as appearing on the Zoning Map, divides a lot or land in
single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment, the use authorized on and the
district requirements applying to the less restricted portion of the property shall be
construed as extending into the remaining portion of the property beyond the district
boundary lines for a distance not exceeding 35 feet. Otherwise, unless shown to the contrary
on the Zoning Map, the boundary lines of districts are the center lines of the streets and
alleys, or such lines extended, railroad right-of-way lines, the center lines of creeks and
waterways and the corporate limits line as it existed at the time of the enactment of this
chapter. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the boundary of the LC Districts shall be
measured horizontally from the middle of Stony Creek or horizontally from the high-water
mark of the Hudson River”

18 | P a g e
2.2.7 Drainage
“Drainage from the bridge shall be preferably collected with drain pipes and drained away from
CSXT’s right-of-way” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
“Projects including storm water systems shall be designed for a 100-year storm event as a
minimum.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
Due to the requirementsputforthbyCSXand the NYS DOT, the pedestrianbridgewillinclude a
drainage systeminthe designtoensure runoff isdrainedawayfromthe railroad.
2.2.8 Geotechnical
“At least one subsurface exploration boring for each substructure unit adjacent to the track shall be
furnished to CSXT’s during the design submittal.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
“The toe of footings shall not be closer than 11’-0” from centerline of the track to provide adequate
room for sheeting.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
“Shoring protection shall be provided when excavating adjacent to an active track.” (CSX Public
Policy Manual)
“Frost heaves in soil can cause displacement of the footing and damage to the structure. Spread
footings founded on soil shall have their bottom of footing a minimum of 4 ft. below finished ground
to assure that the bottom of the footing is below the maximum frost penetration. Spread footings
on rock are not susceptible to frost heaves and, therefore, do not require the minimum 4 ft. depth.”
(NY DOT Bridge Manual)
Previouslyobtainedboringlogsfromthe proposedsite satisfythe boringrequirementsimposedbyCSX.
Clearance,frostandimpactsto the railroadwill all be consideredinthe designof the footingsand
bridge abutments.
2.2.9 Crashwalls
“Whenever practical, highway bridge structures should have the piers and abutments located
outside of the railroad ROW. All piers located less than 7.62 m (25'-0") from the centerline of track
require a crash wall designed in accordance with specifications outlined in the current A.R.E.M.A.
Manual, / Chapter 8, Article 2.1.5.” (NY DOT Highway Design Manual)
“Crashwalls for single column piers shall be minimum 2’-6” thick and shall extend a minimum of 6’-
0” above the top of high rail for piers located between 18’-0” and 25’-0” from the centerline of the
nearest track. The wall shall extend minimum 6’-0” beyond the column on each side in the direction
parallel to the track.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
At this stage in the design process, the exact locations of the abutments have yet to be determined.
If they are less than 25’ from the track centerline, a crash wall will be constructed.

19 | P a g e
2.2.10 ProtectiveFencing
“All highway structures shall have a protective barrier fence to extend at least 8'-0" from the top of
the sidewalk or driving surface adjacent to the barrier wall. The fence may be placed on top of the
barrier wall. The fence shall be capable of preventing pedestrians from dropping debris onto CSXT’s
right-of-way, and in particular, passing trains. Openings in the fence shall not exceed 2”x2”. Fencing
should also include anti-climb shields or be of a configuration to minimize the likelihood of climbing
on the outside of the protective fencing.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
There will be protective barrierfence includedinthe design.While the bridge iscovered,openingswill
be screenedbyfencingtoensure debriscannotfall ontothe railroadtracks.
2.2.11 PedestrianOverpassoverRailroad
“Pedestrian overhead bridges shall span the entire width of CSXT’s right-of way. Intermediate piers
or other supports will not be permitted.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
“Pedestrian overhead bridges shall be completely enclosed with protective canopy or by other
means to prevent users from dropping debris onto CSXT’s right-of-way.” (CSX Public Policy Manual)
As previouslystated,the bridgewillbe completelyenclosed.The designwill spanthe entire width of
CSXT’sright-of-way.
3 Preliminary Structural Assessment
3.1 Bridge Design and Alternatives
3.1.1 Materials
3.1.1.1 Timber
Timbercan be a strongand durable structural material whenproperlydesigned,fabricated,and
installed.Pressuretreatedtimberandtimberstreatedwithchemical preservativesare resistantto
environmental elements.One particularproductproducedbyTrusJoistEngineeredWoodProductsis
ParallamPlusPSL.TheirParallamPlusPSLBeamsare protectedagainstdecayandtermites.The
ParallamPlusPSLColumnshave beenengineeredtowithstanddecay,termites,andevensaltwater
splash,whichwouldbe extremelybeneficialwiththe proposedbridge beingsoclose tothe Hudson
River.These preservativetreatmentspenetrate throughoutthe entire crosssectionof eachbeamand
columnand enable themtobe well suitedforexterioruse.TrusJoistwarrantiestheirproductsagainst
any andall manufacturingdefectsandwarrantiesthemforseveral decades.

20 | P a g e
Figure 12: Parallam Plus PSL
3.1.1.2 Steel
Steel hasa much highertensilecapacitythanmanufacturedtimberproducts,whichmakesitanecessary
material toput intothe bottomchord of the bridge.The use of rolledsteel shapesallowsthe bridge to
carry the necessaryloads,andhelps stiffenthe superstructuresoasto limitdeflections.Splash
ConsultingEngineerswantstominimize the amountof steel usedinordertokeepthe rustic,small town
feelingthatatimberbridge radiates.
3.1.1.3 Composite
Timber-steel composite structuresprovidethe tensilecapacitythatisrequiredinuprighttruss
structures,the stiffnesstominimize deflections,andthe rusticfeelingthathasbeenpreviously
mentioned.Limitingthe steel toonlythatwhichisnecessarywillalsoallow SplashConsultingtodesign
woodpanelingasa façade to keepthe bridge’sappearance uniform.
3.1.1.4 Glued Laminated Timbers
Structural glulamstringers are engineeredtimberelements comprisedof layersof timberplanksheld
togetherwithlayersof glue. These elementshave sufficientloadbearingcapacityto safelysupportthe
appliedloads SplashConsultinganticipatesusinginthe designprocess,butitwasdeterminedglulam
elementsdonotcontainthe requiredrigidity tomeetthe ADA deflectioncriteriaof L/360, or 2.66
inchesforthe 80 foot span design. Tosatisfythismajorserviceabilityrequirement,SplashConsulting
Engineerswill take adifferenttimberapproachandfocus on a timbertrussstructural systemto
efficientlycarrythe variousloadsandlimitdeflection.
3.1.1.5 DesignDecision
The truss structure will be comprisedof timberwithasteel bottomchord.The timbertrussisboth
functional andvisuallyappealing.The townboardof Tivoli is greatlyinfavorof the choice of material.
Due to the highforcesinthe bottomof the truss,that memberwill be steelinordertominimize the

21 | P a g e
depthof the chord. Thissteel will likelybe coveredorcladinsome material inorderto emulate the
rusticimage of the timbertruss.
3.1.2 LocationofBridge
3.1.2.1 Property Considerations andAvailableLand Area
The proposedbridge site isconstrainedonthe westside bythe bankof the HudsonRiverand on the
eastside of the tracks byadjoiningpropertylines.Thesepropertyboundariesare shownonthe town
plansinFigure 13. The available landandthe restrictionsof the surroundingareaguidedthe placement
of the bridge andminimizedthe footprintof the structure.
Figure 13: Property Lines near Bridge Site
These limitationsonthe availablelandforthe bridge servedasthe primarydesignconstraint.Inorderto
make use of the space, twolayoutsforthe bridge will be considered.
3.1.2.2 Spanlength of80 feet
A layoutwitha spanlengthof 80 feetwouldbe placedjustsouthof DianaStreet andrun perpendicular
to the tracks. Thiscan be seeninFigure 14.

22 | P a g e
Figure 14: 80ft Span Bridge Layout
3.1.2.3 Spanlength of130 feet
To take advantage of the greatestavailablespace,analternativelayoutwill be proposed.Thisbridge will
have a span of 130 feetandrun diagonal withrespecttothe tracks. Thisdesignisshownin Figure 15.
The main advantage withthisdesignishavingmore landavailable toconstructthe methodof accessing
the bridge,whichisespeciallycrucial inthe designof handicapramps.
Figure 15: 130ft Span Bridge Layout

23 | P a g e
The 80 footdesignlengthwaschosenforthe spanof the pedestrianbridge.Withthisspanlength,the
bridge will costlessinmaterialsandlaborandalsooccupy a smallerfootprint.Itwasassumedthatany
available landneededforahandicapramp(if necessary) couldbe obtainedthroughnegotiationswith
the propertyownersandthe railroadcompany.
3.1.3 DesignofBridge
3.1.3.1 Truss
A single span,cambered,trusssystemisanefficientsolutiontosupportthe bridge.Thissystemincludes
timberbeamsspanningbetweenthe bottomchordsof the truss,woodjoistssupportedbythe timber
beamsand woodplanksasdeckingabove the joists.
The additionof the centerbeamto the superstructure allowsforthe use of smalleredge beams,in
additiontosignificantlydecreasingthe overall deflectionof the structure.The centerbeamalsoallows
for the more visible edgebeamstobe made of timber,while the centerbeamismade of steel,allowing
for lesstimbercladdingtobe needed.
Usingonlytwo edge beamsallowsforlessmaterialtobe needed,creatingamore cost effective
structure.Alternatively,thisdesignrequiresthe use of largerbeamelementsandmayrequire cladding
to disguise anyeasilyvisiblesteel.
3.1.3.2 Arch
The team initiallyenvisionedacomposite bowstringtrussbridge whichutilizedanarchthat wouldspan
the lengthof the bridge.SplashConsultingdecidedtochange thisoriginal plantoaPratt truss without
the arch inorderto create a bridge thatappearedlightertoall passersby.
3.1.3.3 Composite
A composite style bridgestructure isanaddition design optionproposedbySplashConsultingEngineers.
It consists of a timbertrussstructure witha bowstringarch. Designforthistype of composite structure
involvesmakingboththe trussandarch strongenoughto supportthe appliedloads,meaningthe two
systemsact independentlyof eachother.The removal of the arch systemfrom the bridge wouldprovide
the townof Tivoli amore openstructure.
The team decidedtouse a Pratt trusswithtwosteel edge beams.While thisdesignmayrequire
additional timbercladdingonthe bottomchords,itutilizeslessmaterial,reducingcosts.

24 | P a g e
3.1.4 BridgePiers
3.1.4.1 Concrete Piers
Concrete piersoffermanyadvantages,includingefficientlyhandlingthe compressionof the system.
Concrete maybe moldedintoanyformor shape andprovidesadurable,rigidsupport.Itisa heavy
material however,andmaycause settlementissues.Constructionisalsoslow andtheiraestheticsgive
off a utilitarianandsevere impression. Designinspirationforthistype of piercan be foundinFigure 16.
Figure 16: Example of Concrete Bridge Pier
3.1.4.2 Steel TowerPiers
Bridge piers constructedof steel are anotheralternative forthisaspectof the bridge design. Steel isa
relativelylightmaterial forstructures,anditshighstrengthpropertieslendtosmallersections.
Constructionisfast,butthere are maintenance costsandlarge deformations. Ascanbe seeninFigure
17, a steel towerpierwill involve multiple elementsandsignificantcrossbracing.
Figure 17: Example Steel Tower Pier

25 | P a g e
Inputfor the village of Tivoli guidedthe designof the bridge piers.Aestheticsare a veryimportant
considerationand the steel towerpierssimilartothose of oldrailroadbridges,were foundtobe the
mostappealingpieroptiontothe village of Tivoli.Thiswasdeterminedduringthe midtermpresentation
afterfeedback fromthe waterfrontcommittee.
3.1.4.4 BridgePier Designand Member Sizing
The pierdesignisa 3-dimensional trusscomprise of steelmembers.Horizontal bracingisappliedatthe
midpointof the fourcolumns.Crossbracingisalsoutilizedtosupportthe structure andprevent
buckling.Figure 18showsa 3D versionof the steel towerstructure.
Figure 18: Bridge Pier Design
SAP2000 wasusedto analyze the structure andsize the members.The loadingusedisillustratedin
Figure 19. Calculationswere basedonacombinedarealoadand the tributaryareaof the bridge deck
and platform.

26 | P a g e
Figure 19: Applied Loading on Bridge Pier
UsingSAP2000’s steel frame designfeature,the structure isanalyzedundergravityloads,alongwith
ASCE 7 windloadingconditions.Membersizesare optimizedthroughthisfeature aswell. Figure 20
showsthe resultof the stresscheckof the structure,withthe resultsdisplayedtypical forall sides.
Figure 20: Stress Check of Bridge Pier
The final membersizesare summarizedinTable 2.The lowercrossbracingon the interiorside of the
pierhas a largercross sectiondue tothe resistance neededtocounterthe overturningmomentdue to
wind.

27 | P a g e
Table 2: Member Sizes for Bridge Pier
Member Section
Vertical Column HSS6x6x1/4
Horizontal Bracing L3x3x1/2
Diagonal Bracing (interior,lower) L6x6x1/2
Diagonal Bracing (all others) L5x5x1/2
3.1.5 BridgeRoof
The roof mustprovide adequate drainage andpreventwaterordebrisfromfallingtothe tracksbelow.
The village of Tivoli hasrequestedthataestheticsbe consideredandthata translucentroof maybe a
designoptionpursuit.
SplashConsultingEngineers currentlyhas4designpossibilitiesforthe style of the roof.Materialsand
the appearance of the bridge will be determinedlateronafterconsultingwiththe deputymayorof
Tivoli fartheronthe matter.
3.1.5.1 Roof DesignOptions
Figure 21 showsRoof Option#1. Guidingthisdesign,the clientvoicedaconcernthatthe traditional
gable roof that SplashConsultingEngineersoriginallyproposedlooked“heavy”whencomparedtothe
restof the bridge. The teamfeelsthatprovidingacurvedroof alternative may be more aesthetically
pleasing.

28 | P a g e
Figure 21: Roof Option #1
Roof option#2 isbasedon the traditional gable roof. Itispeakedinthe middle inordertodrain
properly.ItisshowinFigure 22.
Roof Option#3 isdisplayedinFigure 23.Thisiterationof the roof designisa more subtle gable roof.

29 | P a g e
Thisfourthroof concept takesthe subtle gable roof design,butinsteadof havingguttersthatrunalong
the top chords,the roof drainsdownthe side of the bridge intotroughs. These troughsthenrunalong
the bottomchord. Thisis illustratedinFigure 24.
ElevationandSectionViewsforthe fourroof optionscanbe foundinAppendixB.
The board of trusteesandthe waterfrontcommitteeunanimouslycame toan agreementwithSplash
ConsultingEngineersthatdesignalternative 4wasthe most aestheticallypleasing.Design4isthe most
minimalistic,andwithall the bridge elementsat45 and 90 degree angles,thisdesignappearsmuch
cleanerthanthe otherdesigns.
3.1.5.3 Roof Design
SplashConsultingEngineersofferedthe village of Tivoli several choiceswhenitcame tomaterialsfor
the roof: the roof couldhave shingles,tiles,bare wood,etc.The Boardof Trusteesiscurrently

30 | P a g e
consideringthe logisticsof mountingsolarpanelsto the roof,as to make the structure independent
fromthe mainpowergrid.
3.2 Ramp Design and Alternatives
3.2.1 LocationandFootprintofRamp
3.2.1.1 SwitchbackStyleRamp
The switchbackstyle rampwill snake backandforth onitself.Althoughthisdesignapproachwill reduce
the footprintof the ramp design,the requiredclearancesandrunlengthdesignatedbyADA
specificationsmake forahighlyconstrainedanddifficultdesign.Figure 25illustratesthisstyleof ramp.
The resultingstructure will be veryheavyandutilitarianinappearance.Aestheticconsiderationshave
beenexpressedinthe designof the columnsforthe ramps.There are a varietyof columnplacements
considered,aswell asarchitectural claddingstoimprove visualaspectsof the design.
Figure 25: Switchback Style Ramp Elevation View
3.2.1.2 Ramp Extended fromBroadway Street
In an efforttogainsome initial heightforthe rampstructure,SplashConsultingexaminedthe possibility
of extendingthe rampfromBroadwayStreet. BroadwayStreetrunsparallel tothe tracksand there isa
significantchange inelevationbetweenthe two.Figure 26showsthe view fromBroadwayStreet
lookingatthe railroadtracks. Beginning the rampatthis locationwill decrease the amountof height
necessary toconnectthe ramp to the bridge.

31 | P a g e
Figure 26: View from Broadway Street to Railroad Crossing
Several concernswere alsoraisedwiththisdesignalternative. Thesewere mainlycomprisedof whether
the slightgaininelevationcouldcompensate forthe largerfootprintof the ramp.
3.2.2 Ramp Support
3.2.2.1 Center Columns
Figure 27 showsa planviewof the ramp systemwiththe columnsplacedin the center.These columns
will supporteachrampon eitherside of the column.
Figure 27: Center Column Layout

32 | P a g e
3.2.2.2 Diagonally Placed Columns
In orderto be more aestheticallypleasing,adesignwasalsoconsideredinwhichthe outercolumns are
placeddiagonally.ThisisillustratedinFigure 28.
Figure 28: Diagonal Column Layout
3.2.3 DecisionofOwnerto ReplaceRampswith HandicapLift
3.2.3.1 DecisionagainstHandicap Ramp
Upon receivingthe initial designfromSplashConsultingEngineers, the village of Tivoliraisedsome
concernwiththe size of the footprintof the rampsaccessingthe bridge.Inorderto be compliantwith
ADA requirements,the rampswouldhave extendedover100 feetoneachside of the bridge.Concerns
aboutaestheticswithsucha large ramp structure and the limitedamountof available land,letthe town
board to considerhavinganinclinedhandicapliftratherthanthe rampsystem.
SplashConsulting supportedthe decisionandisnow exploring alternative waystoprovide handicap
accessibilitytothe pedestrianbridge.
3.2.3.2 Preliminary Research intoInclined Lift
The village of Tivoli,whileopposedtoanelevator,isopentothe ideaof an inclinedlifttoallow
handicapaccessto the bridge.Thisnewrequestof the client ischallengingSplashConsultingtoalterthe
original designatthe midpointof the project.Atthistime,the inclinedliftforthe bridge isina
conceptual stage.Anexample of aninclinedliftforapedestrianbridgecanbe foundin Figure 29 which
isa renderingof abridge overa railroadinBillings,Montana.

33 | P a g e
Figure 29: Design Inspiration of Inclined Lift
The possibilityof aninclinedliftiscurrentlybeinginvestigated.Manufacturersandspecificationsare
beingresearched.Figure30 showsthe ADA compliantGSLArtira InclinedPlatformLift.Thiswill allow
the handicaplifttobe incorporatedwiththe staircase andfurtherreduce the landusedbythe structure.
Figure 30: GSL Atira Inclined Platform Lift
Progressinginthe project,the specificationsgoverningsuchaliftwill be investigated.The primary
concernis ensuringthe liftsatisfiesthe requirementsof the AmericanDisabilitiesAct.Thisisthe
preferredsolutiontoprovidinghandicapaccessibilityasitinvolvesasmallerfootprintthanaramp and is
endorsedbythe village of Tivolitownboard.

34 | P a g e
3.3 Stair Design
3.3.1 DesignOverview
The pedestrianbridge stairwaysare designedforthe eastside stairwaytoascendnorthto south, while
the westside stairwayascendssouthtonorth.Each stairisapproximately11inchesdeepand7.1 inches
high(see Figure 31).ComplianttoADA standards,eachstairwayhas three landingslocatedatthe one
thirdpointsalongthe stairway,eachmeasuring47 incheslong.The stairwayonthe westside runs52.5
feetlongandruns 42.5 feetlongonthe east side.
Figure 31: Stair Tread Dimensions
3.3.2 MemberSizes
Each stairwell issupportedbyfourHSS4x4x3/8 members(see Figure 32) locatedatthree and a half foot
intervalsalongthe widthof the stairwell.The maximumcalculatedshearforce iscalculatedtobe 4 kips,
the maximumtorsionis1.5 kip-ft,andthe maximummomentis20 kip-ft,whichissummarizedinTable
3. Calculationsforthe stairscan be foundin Appendix9.12.
Figure 32: Stairwell Support Section

35 | P a g e
Table 3: Maximum Forces and Moments Experience by Stairs
Force Type MaximumCalculated Value
Shear 4 kips
Torsion 15.5 kip-ft
Moment 20 kip-ft
3.3.3 Materials
The stairwayis designedforwoodenstepsandtreadswithsteel handrailsandstructural components.
The loadsusedto calculate maximumforceswithinthe stairsystemare summarizedinTable 4.The
deadloaddue to the structural steel wasaccountedforbymultiplyingthe maximummomentby1.04.
Table 4: Maximum Forces within Stair System
Loads Load Type Value
Live Distributed 100 psf
Wood Distributed 175 psf
Roof Distributed 40 psf
Snow Distributed 40 psf
HandicappedLift Point 1,300 lbs
3.3.4 Attachment ofHandicap Lift
The handicappedliftisattachedtothe leftmostrailingandsupportandismodeledastwopointloads
slightlyoffsetfromthe support(Figure 33).The handicappedlifttakesupapproximately32inchesof the
stairwaywidth,leavingapproximatelysevenfeetof stairwayforpedestrianstotransverse.The liftitself
generatesapproximately1.8kip-ftof torsionaroundthe support,whichdoesn’tcome close to
approachingthe maximumallowableof 24.8 kip-ft.
Figure 33: Schematic of Applying Handicap Lift to Stairs

36 | P a g e
3.4 Providing Kayak Accessibility
3.4.1 DesignKayak
Team Splashwastoldat the beginningof the semesterthatTivolians wouldbe usingthe pedestrian
bridge toaccess a boat landing,andas a result,individualsneedtobe able toeasilymaneuvera16 foot
kayakthroughoutthe bridge.
3.4.2 ClearanceConsiderations
The dimensionsof the bridge were decidedonwithkayakmaneuverabilityinmind.The clear
dimensionsof the bridge are approximatelyeightfeetbynine feet,whichwouldallow peopletowalk
aroundan individual withakayak,and allow anindividualtorotate a kayakon the platformsoneither
endof the bridge.
3.4.3 KayakWinch
Duringthe team’sinitial meetingwiththe boardof trusteesandthe waterfrontcommittee,itwas
broughtto lightthat some oldercitizensinthe communitymaynothave the strengthor capabilityto
bringa kayak up andacross the bridge.Withthisinmind,several teammembersdesignedakayaklift
system.The systemiscomprisedof tworails thatrun parallel toeachother,and a hookingmechanism
to holdthe kayak.The kayakwouldbe mountedtothe systemat the base of the stairs,at a near-
horizontal position;asthe kayakgetspulledupalongthe rails,one rail divergesinordertoincrease the
distance betweenthem.Thisincreaseindistance shiftsthe kayakintoavertical position,soitcaneasily
move aroundthe corners of the bridge.Asthe kayak movesdownthe othersetof stairs,the railsreturn
to theiroriginal distance toforce the kayakback intothe horizontal position.Figure34 showsa
conceptual sketchof the system.The greenarrow indicatesthe directionof motion,andthe twoblue
linesrepresentthe midsectionof the kayak.The teamenvisionstwoof these systemsmountedonthe
bridge,one oneachside of the structure,andtheywouldbe motorized.Inordertonot impede traffic,
theywouldbe locatedonthe exteriorof the structure.

37 | P a g e
Figure 34: Schematic of Kayak Turning System
4 Loading
4.1 Dead Load
The dead loadsof the bridge include the self- weightof all structural components,includingthe
superimposeddeadloadsthatwill be appliedafterthe structure isstanding.A detailedbreakdownof all
deadloadscan be foundinAppendixA.Some of these deadloadsinclude ametal deckroof layer,roof
rafters,wooddeckingandfloorframing,timbertrusses,joinerymaterials,guardrails,anddrainpipes,
amongothers.SplashConsultingEngineerscalculatedthe total deadloadstobe 60 poundspersquare
foot
4.2 Live Load
The AASHTO LRFD Guide Specificationforthe Designof PedestrianBridges(Dec.2009) wasreferenced
inorder to obtainan adequate live load.These live loadsaccountforanyand all potential trafficthat
will move acrossthe bridge.FromChapter3 - Loads,Section3.1 - PedestrianLoading:“Pedestrian
bridgesshall be designedforauniformpedestrianloadingof 90 psf.”Therefore,asa code minimum,
SplashConsultingEngineersusedapedestrianlive loadof 90 psf.

38 | P a g e
4.3 Wind Load
From Chapter3, Section3.4 - WindLoads of the AASHTOPedestrianBridgeDesignGuide:“Pedestrian
bridgesshall be designedforwindloadsasspecifiedinAASHTO Signs,Articles3.8and 3.9. Unless
otherwise directedbythe Owner,the WindImportance Factor,Ir,shall be takenas 1.15.”
ReferencingAASHTOSigns,Articles3.8and 3.9, the designwindpressure wascalculated.A basicwind
speedof 110 mph (tobe verifiedbythe local jurisdictionforTivoli,NY,whichliesinanASCE7 Special
WindRegion),aWindImportance Factor of 1.15, a Height& Exposure Factor of 1.05, a GustEffect
Factor of 1.14, anda Drag Coefficientof 2.0 were usedtodetermine the designwindpressureof 85 psf.
Calculationscanbe foundinAppendix C.
4.4 Snow Load
The ASCE 7-10 MinimumDesignLoadsforBuildingsandOtherStructureswasreferencedinorderto
obtaina code compliantsnowloadforthe pedestrianbridge.ReferencingChapter7,Section7.3 - Flat
Roof SnowLoads, the designsnowloadwascalculated.Usingashoreline terraincategory:D,risk
categoryIII,Exposure Factorof 0.8, Thermal Factorof 1.2, Occupancy Importance Factorof 1.2
(conservative),andagroundsnowloadfor Tivoli,NYof 35 psf,the designsnow loadof 30 psf was
calculated.Calculationscanbe foundin AppendixD.
4.5 Earthquake Load
The ASCE 7-10 was referencedinordertoobtainacode compliantseismicloadingforthe pedestrian
bridge.ReferencingChapter12 - SeismicDesignRequirementsforBuildingStructures,andassumingthe
coveredbridge will actlike abuildingstructure,aseismicloadwascalculatedforthe bridge.Assuminga
steel,ordinaryconcentricallybracedframe systemandaseismicdesigncategoryB,a Response
ModificationFactor,R,of 3.25 was obtainedfromTable 12.2-1. The designSpectral Response
AccelerationParameter,SDS ,wascalculatedtobe 0.181 and the SeismicResponse Coefficient,CS,was
calculatedtobe 0.07. Using a structure heightof 12 feetanda total structure deadloadof 40 kips,the
base shearwas calculatedtobe 2.8 kips.These can be foundinAppendix E.SplashConsultingEngineers
determinedthatthe calculateddesignwindloadsonthe structure control overthe designseismicloads.
4.6 Load Summary
Table 5: Load Summary
Loading Type Calculated or Reference Load
DeadLoad 60 psf
Live Load 90 psf
WindLoad 85 psf
SnowLoad 30 psf
Earthquake Load 2.8 kips

39 | P a g e
5 Structural Assessment ofTruss
5.1 Member Sizing and Chord Span
The chord span is modeledastwo - 40 footlongmembers,splicedatcenterspan.A combinationof
dead,live, snow,windandseismicloadswill be appliedtothe 3-Dimensionaltrussmodel inSAP2000,
the structural analysissoftware beingusedbySplashConsultingEngineers.The worstcase load
combinationwhichresultsinthe highestaxial stressinthe trussmemberswilldetermine the sizesof
each truss.
5.1.1 GravityLoadMemberSizing
The gravityload case of snow,live anddeadloadare usedto size the vertical trussesonthe leftand
rightsidesof the truss forthe pedestrianbridge. ThisisillustratedinFigure35,withthe vertical truss
highlighted ingreen.
Figure 35: Vertical Truss on Left and Right Sides
5.1.1.1 Top Chord
The largestaxial force that mustbe sustainedbythe top chorddue to a combinationof gravityloads,
such as dead,live,andsnowloads,is34 kipscompression.Two 40 footlongHSS 10”x10”x ⅜” will be
splicedtogethertoformthe topchord of the truss.

40 | P a g e
5.1.1.2 Bottom Chord
The largestaxial force that mustbe sustainedbythe bottomchord due to a combinationof gravityloads
is34 kipstension.Two 40 footlongHSS 10”x10”x ⅜” will be splicedtogethertoformthe bottomchord
of the truss.
5.1.1.3 DiagonalMembers
The largestaxial force that mustbe sustainedinthe diagonal membersdue toacombinationof gravity
loadsis33 kipscompression.Two7”x7” ParallamPSLmemberswill be boltedtogethertoformeach of
the two outerdiagonalsof the truss.A single 7”x7”ParallamPSLmemberwill be usedtoserve aseach
of the twoinnerdiagonal membersof the truss.
5.1.1.4 VerticalMembers
The maximumaxial force thatmustbe sustainedinthe vertical membersdue toacombinationof
gravityloadsis25 kipscompression.A single 7”x7”ParallamPSLmemberwill be usedaseachof the
vertical trussmembers.
Figure 36: Section View Through Bridge Deck
5.1.2 Lateral Load MemberSizing
The lateral load case isusedto size the horizontal trussesatthe roof and decklevel.Thisisillustratedin
Figure 37.

41 | P a g e
Figure 37: Horizontal Truss at Roof and Deck
5.1.2.1 Top and Bottom Chords
The largestaxial force that mustbe sustainedbythe top andbottomchords due to lateral loads,suchas
windandseismic,is50 kipscompressionortension.HSS10”x10”x ⅜” memberswill serveasboththe
top andbottom chordmembersforthe verticallyorientedtrussesaswell asthe horizontallyoriented
trusses.
5.1.2.2 DiagonalMembers
The largestaxial force that mustbe sustainedinthe diagonal membersdue tolateral loadsis17 kips
compressionortension.Therefore,5”x5”x3/8”steel angleswillbe usedtoformthe diagonal members
for the lateral trussesandresistthe tensileandcompressive forces.

42 | P a g e
Figure 38: Illustration of Truss Diagonals
5.1.2.3 VerticalMembers
The largestaxial force that mustbe sustainedinthe vertical membersdue tolateral loadsis11 kips
compressionortension. The 3½” x 11 ⅞” ParallamPSL floorbeamswill be usedtoframe the vertical
membersforthe lateral trusses.
5.2 Supports, Bearings, & Connections
5.2.1 Supports andBearings
The supportconditionsforthe single spanbridge accountsforvertical and lateral restraint.Thermal
expansionandshrinkage of the structural material will occurthroughoutthe yeardue tothe changing
seasonsandtemperature fluctuations.Therefore,toalleviateadditionalstressesthatmayresultfrom
expansionandshrinkage due totemperature,the specificarrangementof supportswere selectedfor
the bridge.See Figure 39,arrows represent the directionof free movement.

43 | P a g e
Figure 39: Bearing Arrangement for Bridge
5.2.2 Connections
5.2.2.1 Wood to Steel
Wood to steel connectionsare requiredbetweenthe ParallamPSLfloorbeams andthe HSStruss chords.
Referencingthe WoodConstructionConnectors(2013-2014), Page 111, a HWU Top Flange Hangerhas
an allowable capacityof 5.5 kips,whichisgreaterthanthe max 4.4 kiploadfromthe deck,and can be
usedto sufficientlycarrythe deckloadsand transferthemto the steel trusschord.The otherrequired
woodto steel connectionisbetweenthe ParallamPSLgravityloadtrussverticalsandthe trusschords.
These membersexperienceamaximumcompressionof 25 kips.A bearingconnectionbetweenthe
Parallamsandthe truss chordswitha ½” thickgalvanizedsteel gussetplatecansufficientlysustainthis
load.The gussetplate can be weldedtothe steel HSStrusschord and a ¾” thru-boltbetweenthe gusset
plate andparallamwill hold itall together.
Figure 40: Wood to Steel Connection

44 | P a g e
5.2.2.2 Steel to Steel
For the lateral loadtruss,steel tosteel connectionsare requiredforthe lateral loadtrusses.The steel
diagonals,belowthe floordeck,willexperience a maximumtensionorcompressionof force of 17 kips.
These steel angle diagonalscanbe weldedtothe steel trusschordswith¼”E70xx welds.A minimumof
6” of weldshouldbe suppliedforeachconnection,whichwouldprovide acapacityof at least33.4 kips.
On the bridge piers,steel tosteelconnectionsare alsorequiredinthe steelbridge piers.The diagonals
experience amaximumtensionorcompressionof 16.9 kips.A ¼” E70xx weldwithaminimumof 6”
lengthwill provide 33.4kipsof capacity,whichcan alsobe usedto sufficientlycarrythe loads.
5.3 Preliminary Load Computations
5.3.1 TributaryAreas andLoadsonTruss
Tributaryarea isthe methodusedby SplashConsultingEngineerswhiledesigningstructural members.
The methodinvolvesdividingthe areaof effectfromthe variousloadsandevaluatingtheireffecton
each memberof a structural system.Forexample,whencalculatingawindloadtoapplyto the bridge,
an 85 poundspersquare foot(psf) windpressure wasappliedto12 foot heightof the structure.
Multiplyingthesetwoparametersresultsina1020 poundsperlinearfootdistributedwindload,which
isassumedto be resistedequallybythe lateral trussatroof level andthe lateral trussat decklevel.
Therefore,eachtrusswasloadedwith510 poundsper linearfoot(plf) inthe SAP2000Model.
The same methodologyof tributaryareawasappliedtothe 3D trussbridge model whileanalyzing
gravityloads.A worst case of full dead,live,andsnow loadwasappliedtothe entire deckof the bridge.
Calculationscanbe foundinthe Appendix. A 60 psf deadload,90 psf live load,and30 psf snow load
was appliedtothe 8 footdeckwidth.Multiplyingthe total gravityloadsbyhalf of the total deckwidth
resultedin720 plf.Assumingthe innerdeckbeamssupporttwice the tributaryareaof an outerdeck
beam,a 3.6 kippointloadwas appliedtoeachoutertrussjointand a 7.2 kippointloadwasappliedto
each innertrussjointin the analysismodel.
The resultsof these analysescanbe observedbelow.
5.4 Stress & Deflection Computations
The full loadcombination of dead,live andsnow loadis appliedtothe jointsinthe 3D SAP2000 truss
bridge model,shownbelowinFigure 41.

45 | P a g e
Figure 41: DL+LL+ SL Loading
The resultingaxial stresseswere examinedandusedtodesignthe individual trussmembers.Red areas
on the image representacompressivestress,whileblue representsatensile stress.
Figure 42: DL+LL+SL Stresses
The deformedshape wasexaminedandevaluatedatmid-span.Anexaggerateddeformedshape is
shownbelow.The 3D trussbridge model wasobservedtodeflect0.583 inchesat mid-span,remaining
underthe allowable limitof L/360, or 2.67 inches.

46 | P a g e
Figure 43: DL+LL+SL Deformed Shape
A windloadwasappliedtothe 3D SAP2000 trussbridge model atroof and decklevel,shownbelowasa
510 lb.perlinearfootdistributedload.
Figure 44: WL Loading
The axial stressesinducedbythe windwere examinedandare shownbelow.Red sectionsonthe image
representacompressive stress,while bluerepresentsatensile stress.

47 | P a g e
Figure 45: WL Stresses
The deformedshape wasexaminedandevaluatedatmid-span.Anexaggerateddeformedshape is
shownbelow.The 3D trussbridge model wasobservedtodeflect0.437 inchesat mid-span,remaining
underthe allowable limitof L/360, or 2.67 inches.
Figure 46: WL Deformed Shape

48 | P a g e
6 Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment
6.1 Soil Profile
From the WebSoil SurveySite usedtogathergeotechnical data,itwasdeterminedthatthe soil profile
for the site planconsistsof first10” containingFine SandyLoam, followedby9”of sandyLoam, followed
by an additional 53”of LoamySand (as seeninFigure 47).The depthtothe water table isgreaterthan
79” (or approximately6.5’)
Figure 47: Soil Profile
Accordingboringlogs were providedbyCrawford&Associates.Forthe firsttwofeetof soil itispossible
to findBlackFine SiltySand+ BaldastStones,undergoingfromsevento12 feetthere isFine SiltySand
and under12 feetthere will be WeatheredShale.
From the soil data andSPT test(StandardPenetrationTest) the strengthof the soil at7 feetisreduced
to almostzero.Thismakesitimpossible forthe soil toendure anycompressionorstress.Therefore,a
safe foundationshouldbe builtbelowsuchpoint.
At 12 feet,the soil gainssome strength,classifyingitasa mediumcompactedsandwith anangular
frictionof 35. At17 feet,the angularfrictiondropsto 31, makingit possible forashallow foundationto
be built.Evenso,the boringlogscouldnot findthe watertable’slocation.Withthisinmind,the project
will focusona designthatcan withstanda floodinthe eventthe riverrises.All calculationswillbe based
on the watertable locatingonthe surface.

49 | P a g e
Figure 48: Additional Soil Profile
6.2 Soil Bearing Capacity
Since the HudsonRiveris31 feet awayfromthe locationof the footing,calculationswillbe made
focusingonthe slope.
Figure 49: Bearing Capacity Inputs
The slope will be calculatedusingthe Meyerhof methodforaslope situationwiththe watertable atthe
surface. The resultsare summarizedinTable
Table 6: Soil Bearing Capacity

50 | P a g e
As we can see the the bearingcapacityisbiggerthan max compressionthatthe loadand momentwill
cause on the footing.
While investigatingDutchessStreetthere were novisiblecracksor depression,suggestingthatthere are
no slidingeffecton soil atthat location.
6.3 Assessment of Alternative Geotechnical Systems
6.3.1 SpreadFootings
Shallowfoundationsare typically the mosteconomical foundationsystem, and are usedwhenever
possible.Evenin alimitedconstructionarea, thistype of foundation isstill viable.Calculationswere
performedexpectingthe differentlayersof soils, withthe watertable locatedatthe surface, and
includingslope andoverturningmomentdue towindloading.
Figure 50: Spread Footing Design
6.3.2 Piles
Pilesare viable forthe foundationdue tohow quicklytheycanbe installed.Due tosite planspatial
limitations,pilesare an excellentsolutionbecause of the minimalvolume neededtobe excavated.
Because the soil at 22 feet deepisshale,asoftmaterial thatcan develop clayishpropriety whenmoist,
the foundationmust be designbasedonloadtests orlocal experience.Therefore,additional
geotechnical research beyondthe capabilitiesof SplashConsulting isneeded.Inaddition,drivingpiles
nearrailroadsalsoraise significantconcerns.

51 | P a g e
Figure 51: Pile Design
6.3.3 DesignDecision
SplashConsultingEngineersdecidedtodesignthe structure with spreadfootingsforeconomicreasons.
6.4 Foundation Design
6.4.1 SpreadFootingDesignParameters
For the designcriteria,since we have ariveronone side of the constructionanditsfairlyclose tothe
foundation,itwouldhave tobe considered.
Figure 52: Base of Spread Footing

52 | P a g e
The footingisdesignedtobe 12x12x2.5 (feet) concrete blockswitha5X5X37 (feet) column (of steel or
concrete) accordingto Figures52 and 53.
Figure 53: Spread Footing Design for Bridge
6.4.2 Settlement Calculations
For a sandysoil,drainage occursquicklyasloadsare applied.Settlementwilloccurimmediatelyafter
loadingisapplied.UsingTerzaghi & Peckequationona12X12’ footingonthe riverside the settlement
at 12 feetwill be 0.26 inchesandfor the stairwayfoundationof 5X5’footinglocatedat10 feetwill be
0.463 inches.
At DianaStreetside,the 12x12 footingwill have asettlementof 0.6 inchesandthe 4X4 stairwayspread
footingwill be 0.43 inches.

53 | P a g e
6.4.3 LocationofFootings
Figure 54: Map of Bridge Site with Footings Marked
The spreador pile footingwill be located50feetsouthfromthe endof Diana St and 10 feetawayfrom
the railroad.ThisisillustratedinFigure 54.
6.5 Special Conditions
Frost Action occurswhen the waterin the soil freezesandcreates expansionof the soil inevery
direction.If the foundationof the bridge weretobe placedoverit, the bridge wouldcrackor tip during
winterseasons.
From the data providedbythe WebSoilSurvey, the occurrence of frostactionislow tomoderate inthe
site region;occurringfrostactionwouldbe locatedapproximatelyone totwofeetbelow the soil
surface.Since the foundation isdesignedtobe 12 feetormore below the surface, frostactionisnota
concern.
6.6 Summary
The critical designparametersforeachfootingandthe calculatedsettlementissummarizedinTable 6.

54 | P a g e
Table 7: Footing Summary
6.7 Sheetpile
To performexcavationto12 feetdepthandalsonot intervene withthe railroadtracks,Pilesheetwillbe
required.Theywillsuppresslateral loadandpreventslidingof the soil whileconstructionisinaction.
Calculationwhere basedonhave afull trainloadstoppedormovingonbothsidesof the tracks. Using a
sheetpile Az - 18-700 withsteel grade,A690,of 50 kips
Figure 55: Plan View of Sheetpile and Footings
Figure 56: Side View (River Side)

55 | P a g e
Figure 57: Side View (Diana St. Side)
Figure 58: Elevation View

56 | P a g e
Figure 59: Calculated Earth Pressure
Figure 60: Moment Diagram for Sheetpile

57 | P a g e
Figure 61: Calculation Output for Sheetpile
Calculationswhere basedoff all the layersof the actual soil,butconsideringuniformityondensitysince
there isno extradata on the soil tobe provenotherwise.
The allowable slopeof the soil toperformexcavationonthisClassCsoil isa rationof 1.5 : 1 as seenin
Figure 62.

58 | P a g e
Figure 62: Simple Slope Excavation
7 Project Progress Assessment
SplashConsultingEngineershasfallenbehindthe initialschedule due tounforeseenhurdles;however,
whenthe schedule wasfirstcreated,the teamknew thatsuchsetbackswouldoccur,andcreateda
slightlyacceleratedscheduleinordertoaccount for delays.While the teammayappeartobe behind
schedule,itisof noimmediate concern.

59 | P a g e

60 | P a g e

61 | P a g e

62 | P a g e
8 Cost Estimate
Figure 63: Project and Maintenance Costs
The approximate total projectcostand total maintenance costoverthe 100 yeardesignlife spanof the
bridge are tabulatedabove inFigure 63. The New York State Departmentof TransportationPayItem
Catalogwas primarilyusedasa reference foritemcostcomparisons.Variousotherreferences,suchas
publicationsbythe Federal HighwayAdministrationonbridge costsassociatedwithconstructionand
maintenance were usedaswell.The mostexpensive constructioncostscanbe attributedtothe
contractor labor,sheetpilesforexcavation,assemblyanddeliveryof the trussbridge,andpayingthe
trafficsafetyrailroad flaggers.Itisimportanttonote that the cost for the ArtiraHandicapLift Systemas
well asthe cost for a solarpoweredelectrical systemare notincludedinthe calculatedestimate.
The most expensive maintenance costscanbe attributedtorepaintingthe structural steel members,
whichincludesacleaningandnewcoatevery10 years,andretreatingof the timberstructural members.
Regularmaintenance forthisbridge isparticularlyimportantinordertoresistexcessivecorrosionand
preventexpensive rehabilitationcostsdownthe road.Properlymaintainingthe structural components
of the bridge andminimizingthe damagingeffectsfromthe environmentwill keepthe bridge
structurallysafe andaestheticallypleasing.Itisimportanttonote that the effectsof inflationwere not
takenintoaccount forthe total maintenance costestimate.
9 Appendices
9.1 Dead Load
Team Splash – Dead Load Approximations
 DEAD LOADS
 Roof Loads
 Aluminum/Metal Decking ~ 2 PSF
 Waterproof Membrane ~ 1 PSF
 Plywood Sheathing ~ 3 PSF
 Connections/Bolts ~ 1 PSF
 Timber Rafters ~ 4 PSF
 TOTAL: 11 PSF
 Deck Loads
 2” Wood Decking ~ 4.5 PSF
 2x10 Joists @ 16” o/c ~ 2.5 PSF

63 | P a g e
 8x8 Floor Beams @ 10’ o/c ~ 3 PSF
 Connections/Bolts/Hangers ~ 1.5 PSF
 Hand Rails/Guard Rails ~ 4 PSF
 Misc. Lighting/Additional Buffer ~ 2 PSF
 TOTAL: 17.5 PSF
 Truss Loads
 Two 80’ Timber Trusses ~ 17 PSF
 Connections/Bolts/Shear Plates/Split Rings ~ 2 PSF
 Chain Link Fence (12’ High – 11 gauge) ~ 1.5 PSF
 Drainage Pipes (assuming 100% full) ~ 6 PSF
 TOTAL: 26.5 PSF
TOTAL DEAD LOAD = 55 PSF

64 | P a g e
9.2 Elevation and Section View for Roof Options
Roof idea 1 Roof idea 2 Roof idea 3 Roof idea 4

65 | P a g e
9.3 Wind Load Calculations

66 | P a g e
9.4 Snow Load Calculations

67 | P a g e
9.5 Seismic Load Calculations

68 | P a g e

69 | P a g e
9.6 SAP2000 Gravity Load Calculations

70 | P a g e
9.7 Tivoli NY USGS Seismic Data

71 | P a g e
9.8 Parallam Floor Beam Calculations

72 | P a g e
9.9 Parallam Floor Joist Calculations

73 | P a g e
9.10 Diagonal Member Welding Calculation
Weldfordiagonal connection
force in diagonal= 33 kips
angle= theta= 46.4 degrees = 0.809833 rad
shearon
weld=
22.75744 kips
eccentricity= 3.114 inches
Needachannel with7 inch clearwidth
-> try C9x13.4
-> al= 3.114
-> kl= 2.433
-> l= 9
-> a= 0.346
-> k= 0.270333
-> AISC14 Table 8-8: C= 2.512
(phi)R/D= 22.608 kips/(1/16) inchof
weld
-> need1/8 inch weldminimum

74 | P a g e
9.11 Pier Connections

75 | P a g e
9.12 Buckling Check & Bottom Chord Connection

76 | P a g e
9.13 Wood to Steel Connection
 3.5 x 11.875 ParallamPSL Floor Beams @ 10’-0” o/c
o L = span = 8 ft.
o Trib. Width = 10 ft.
o q (Deck): LL + DL = 90 psf + 20 psf = 110 psf
o w = [q * (Trib. Width)] = 110 psf * 10ft = 1.1 kpf
o Vmax = wL/2 = 1.1 kpf * 8 ft. / 2 = 4400 lb. or 4.4 kips
o Spec. Simpson Strong-Tie Hangers
o Wood Construction Connectors (2013-2014), Page 111
 Model HWU: for 3.5” Width and 11.875” Depth
 Allowable PSL Load = 5500 lb. > 4400 lb.  OK
o USE HWU Top Flange Hanger for Floor Beams
 7 x 7 Parallam PSL Gravity Load Truss Verticals connected to HSS Truss Chord
o ½” thick Galvanized Steel Gusset Plate welded to HSS
o Thru-Bolted through Parallam PSL and Steel Angle on backside
o Max Compression in Truss Vertical = 25 kips

77 | P a g e
9.14 Stair Tread Calculations

78 | P a g e
9.15 3D Bridge and Staircase Rendering with Drainage

79 | P a g e
9.16 Calculations for Staiway

80 | P a g e

81 | P a g e
9.17 Overall Cost Estimate
Item Number Description Unit Unit Cost Quanitity Cost
607.9601001 Decorative Timber Rail LF $20.00 160 $3,200.00
607.0524
Vinyl Coated Steel Chain-Link Fence on
Plastic Coated Frame with top tension wire
3660 mm high SF $0.29 1920 $547.20
565.1921 Type E.L. Expansion Bearing (0 to 55 kips) EACH $391.00 4 $1,564.00
564.0501 Structural Steel, Type 1 LS $25,950.00 1 $25,950.00
Drainage Pipe 6" Diameter LF $1.50 340 $510.00
Railroad Flagger x 2 LS $1,000.00 60 $60,000.00
555.0202
Epoxy-coated bar reinforcement for
structures LB $4.17 4140 $17,263.80
564.2001001 Hot-Dip Galvanizing of Structural Steel LB $0.25 34600 $8,650.00
Pressure Treated Wood Decking CF $12.00 190 $2,280.00
Parallam PSL Treated Lumber CF $80.00 276 $22,080.00
Slope Excavation CY $15.00 468.864 $7,032.96
Slope Fill CY $20.00 468.864 $9,377.28
555.08 Footing Concrete, CLASS HP CY $700.00 35.52 $24,864.00
Vertical Excavation CY $15.00 191.808 $2,877.12
Vertical Fill CY $20.00 191.808 $3,836.16
Pile Sheet SF $20.00 4592 $91,840.00
201.06 Clearing and Grubbing LS 7000 1 $7,000.00
586.02
Drilling and Grouting of Bolts and
Reinforcing Bars EACH 25 56 $1,400.00
Assembly & Delivery of Truss (ExcelBridge
Quote) LS $66,000.00 1 $66,000.00
Approx. Contractor Labor Cost HR $100.00 2400 $240,000.00
637.11 Engineer's Field Office - Type 1 MNTH $1,200.00 18 $21,600.00
Electrical Solar Panels SF TBD TBD TBD
Artira GSL Handicap Lift LS TBD TBD TBD
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST $617,872.52

82 | P a g e
9.19 Foundation Rebar Cost Estimate

83 | P a g e

84 | P a g e
9.20 Parallam PSL Cost Estimate

85 | P a g e
9.21 Pressure Treated Wood Cost Estimate

86 | P a g e
9.22 Structural Steel Cost Estimate

87 | P a g e
9.23 Lifecycle and Maintenance Costs for 100 Year Design Life
WORK ITEM UNIT COST/UNIT QUANTITY
COST per
MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE CYCLE (YEARS)
TOTAL COST OVER
LIFESPAN
Steel Repainting(Includes Clean
& Coat) SF $20.00 2645 $52,900.00 10 $529,000.00
Deck Replacement SF $15.00 640 $9,600.00 20 $48,000.00
Stair Tread Replacement SF $15.00 500 $7,500.00 20 $37,500.00
Bollard Replacement LS $50.00 2 $100.00 25 $400.00
Spot PaintingSteel SF $2.00 50 $100.00 1 $10,000.00
Cleaning Drainage Facilities:
Deck Drains LF $1.50 160 $240.00 0.25 $96,000.00
Cleaning, Sealing, Protecting, &
Lubricating:
Clean and LubricateBearings and
Rollers LS $500.00 6 $3,000.00 3 $100,000.00
SealingConcrete CY $260.00 25 $6,500.00 4 $162,500.00
Preservative Treatments:
Retreating Timber Structural
Members SF $20.00 1746 $34,920.00 10 $349,200.00
Repaint Steel Piers for Saltwater
Protection SF $20.00 60 $1,200.00 5 $24,000.00
Snow and Ice Removal SF $0.25 2150 $537.50 0.5 $107,500.00
Debris Removal:
Superstructure/Substructure LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 2 $50,000.00
Traffic Safety Features (clearance
signs, signs in general) LS $300.00 1 $300.00 5 $6,000.00
Misc:
Clean/Seal Joints LS $540.00 1 $540.00 4 $13,500.00
Wash/Clean BridgeDecks LS $500.00 1 $500.00 2 $25,000.00
Bird Control LS $500.00 1 $500.00 1 $50,000.00
Bank Restoration (Rip-Rap) SY $2.80 600 $1,680.00 30 $5,600.00
Regular Inspection of LS $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00 5 $50,000.00

88 | P a g e
Connections and Structural
Members
Lift Maintenance:
Oil Mechanical Parts LS 500 1 $500.00 3 $16,666.67
TOTAL MAINTENANCE
COST OVER 100 YEAR LIFE
SPAN (IGNORING
INFLATION) $1,680,866.67

89 | P a g e
9.24 Group Self Assessment
1. What activities did you feel your team did exceptionally well?
The team was very efficient at assigning individual tasks to one another. Each
member would have something to work on till the next meeting which was recorded
in the meeting minutes and assigned on the Asana project management website.
There was never any question of who was doing what.
2. What were specific activities which could have been done better? What would
you have done differently?
From time to time there was a lack of communication between group members. It led
to some redundant work, excess printing, and, occasionally, a team member would
miss a deadline. To avoid this we could have been more active in communicating
when certain tasks were completed, like printing or calculations.
3. How well did group meetings go? (sufficient frequency, organized discussion,
review of previous minutes, clear responsibilities following meeting)
Our meetings were concise and fairly efficient - we would meet, discuss what tasks
we needed to complete in the next few days, and then we would split up to do the
tasks. We never met more than we thought was necessary, and we met with
knowledge that each of our schedules are slightly hectic, and things come up that
prevented any of us from meeting.
4. How good was team organization? (clear responsibilities, fair workload
distribution, adherence to schedules)
When the original critical path was made, it was made as an ideal timeline, where
the group would be done with the project well before it was due; this gave some
wiggle-room for the tasks to allow for problems that were due to spring up. As stated
above, the group sometimes lacked proper communication, so there was
occasionally some redundant work. All things considered, the workload was pretty
fair and the group was able to meet deadline consistently throughout the semester.
5. How good was team communication? (effective use of electronic media,
usefulness of meeting minutes)
At the beginning of the semester, the group was very on top of updating each other
as to the progress of certain tasks, as well as updating online programs, such as
Asana. As the semester progressed and workloads in other courses began to build
up, team communication started to fall to the wayside. GroupMe became the most
effective way of contacting all team members.

90 | P a g e
6. How good was communication and professional interaction between your
team and the complementary teams? (environmental, building and
transportation)
Team Splash did not really need to communicate with the other teams in capstone
as our project was so different from the normal CE Capstone design project. Other
teams provided information that was needed for topics such as stairway
requirements, but the main communication that was needed, and was well
accomplished, was that with the villagers of Tivoli. The team kept a line of
communication open with the mayor of Tivoli so he could provide updates about the
general mood of the town in regards to the bridge.
7. How good was task scheduling? (adherence to plan, recognition of impact of
work on other team members)
This, like other sections of this assessment, relates back to the communication skills
that devolved as the semester went on. Tensions ran high from time to time due to
poor communication and delayed work, but as a team, we were able to move
through it for the good of the final product.
8. What was the quality of technical work? (individual work checked by others,
professional assessment of alternatives)
The group was able to catch errors in calculations and write-ups in a timely fashion.
9. Given this, what would be concrete actions you would do if you were to do a
similar project again?
As previously stated, the biggest issue became communication, particularly about
deadlines. To fix this, the due dates for tasks should have been clearly stated at the
beginning and end of each team meeting and reminders distributed in the days prior.
9.25 Authors
Section…………………………………………………………………………………..Author(s)
Overview of Project………………………………………..Kacey Gardner, Shawn Osarczuk
Overview of Site……………………................................Kacey Gardner, Shawn Osazrcuk
Requirements set by Owner…………......................................................Shawn Osarczuk
Requirements by Code……………………............................................…Shawn Osarczuk
Bridge Design and Alternatives
Materials…………………….……….........................Lucas Deyglun, Rojing Rajkarnikar
Location of Bridge………….………........................................................Kacey Gardner
Design of Bridge…………….……..............................Lucas Deyglun, Shawn Osarczuk
Bridge Piers………………….……......................................................….Kacey Gardner
Roof Design………………….……………………………………………….Lucas Deyglun
Stair Design…......…………………………………………………………Shawn Osarczuk
Ramp Design and Alternatives.........….Patrick Arraes, Kacey Gardner, Shawn Osarczuk

91 | P a g e
Stair Design…………………………………………………………………....Shawn Osarczuk
Providing Kayak Accessibility…………………………………………………..Lucas Deyglun
Loading………………………………..............................…........………...Rojing Rajkarnikar
Member Sizing……………………................................Kacey Gardner, Rojing Rajkarnikar
Supports, Bearings, and Connections…........................Kacey Gardner, Shawn Osarczuk
Preliminary Load Computations.............................................................Rojing Rajkarnikar
Stress & Deflection Computations………....................Kacey Gardner, Rojing Rajkarnikar
Soil Profile.......................................................................Patrick Arraes, Shawn Osarczuk
Soil Bearing Capacity...................................................................................Patrick Arraes
Assumed Axial Loadings.......................................................................Rojing Rajkarnikar
Assessment of Alternative Geotechnical Systems…......…..........................Patrick Arraes
Foundation Design........................................................................................Patrick Arraes
Special Conditions...................................................................................Shawn Osarczuk
Project Progress Assessment...........................................Lucas Deyglun, Kacey Gardner
Cost Estimate………………......….….….....…............…...….........…….Rojing Rajkarnikar
Formatting.........................................................................Lucas Deyglun, Kacey Gardner
Editing............................................................................Lucas Deyglun, Shawn Osarczuk
9.26 References
Bauer, J. G., Hearth, S., & Homelvig, A. (2011, October). Design Considerations for Pedestrian Truss
Bridge Structures. Retrieved February 7, 2015, from Contech Engineered Solutions:
http://www.conteches.com/knowledge-center/pdh-article-series/design-considerations-for-
pedestrian-truss-bridge.aspx
CSX Transportation. (2012). Public Project Information. Jacksonville:Public Projects Group.
Google Maps. (n.d.).Retrieved February 6, 2015, from Google: https://www.google.com/maps/
New York State Department of Transportation. (2002). Highway Design Manual.
LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2009. Print.
"Department of Justice ADA Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36 (1991)."Department of Justice ADA
Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36 (1991). N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-Appendix-52467>.
"Web Soil Survey." Web Soil Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2015.
<http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>
Ritter, Michael A. Timber Bridges: Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance Š Cover and
Contents (n.d.): n. pag. Print
"Manual of Traffic Signs - US Highway Sign Policy - AASHTO." Manual of Traffic Signs - US
Highway Sign Policy - AASHTO. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.trafficsign.us/uspolicy.html>.

92 | P a g e
"2013 National Construction Estimator." Get-A-Quote. Craftsman Book Company, 2013. Web. 15
May 2015.
<http://www.get-a-
quote.net/QuoteEngine/costbook.asp?WCI=CostSectionFrameSet&SectionId=5639867>
Kemmick, Ed. "Pedestrian Bridge Built over Tracks Could Finally Be Built." Last Best News. 24 Mar.
2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
<http://lastbestnews.com/site/2014/03/pedestrian-bridge-over-railroad-tracks-could-finally-be-built/>
Omarzu, Tim. "Ringgold Plans Pedestrian Bridge over Nashville Street." Timesfreepress. 26 Sept.
2012. Web. 10 May 2015.
<http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2012/sep/26/walkway-to-depot/88908/>
Rossow, Mark. "FHWA Bridge Maintenance: Overview." Bridge Maintenance Training Reference
Manual. CEDEngineering. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. Web. 12 May 2015.
<http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/FHWA%20Bridge%20Maintenance%20-%20Overview.pdf>
"Generic Cost Estimating Tool." Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Web. 13 May 2015.
<http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/Ped_Districts/04-Generic-Cost-Estimating-
Tool.pdf>
"Cost Estimate for Proposed Pedestrian Bridge at Sandow Road Verdun S.A." (2014). Web. 10 May
2015. <http://www.walkingsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Pedestrian-bridge-budget-
estimate_CH.pdf>
"Excavation Program." Mecosafety. Miller Electric Company. Web. 15 May 2015.
<http://mecosafety.com/Chap21Excavation.htm>
"Section 4 - Foundations." Bridge Design Specifications (2003). Web. 15 May 2015.
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/bridgemanuals/bridge-design-
specifications/page/section4.pdf>
Johnson, Michael. "Bridge Preservation Decision Making." California Department of Transportation.
Print.

Final Memo

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Final Memo

Similar to Final Memo (20)

Final Memo