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. Overview
⦿Problem Statement
⦿Community Impact
⦿Current Conditions
⦿Modeling
⦿Alternatives
● Bridge Rehabilitation
● Bridge Replacement
⦿Budget
⦿Life Cycle Cost Assessment
⦿Design Schedule 2

3. Problem Statement
⦿ Working with Streets Department
⦿ Load reduction
⦿ Emergency retrofit
⦿ Consideration of different alternatives
⦿ Recommend efficient long term solutions
3

4. 4
Project Location
Drexel University
Bridge Location
Central
Northeast
Upper Far
Northeast
Project Location
Project Location

5. Background - Structural Description
5
⦿ Single 80 foot span
⦿ Two traffic lanes
⦿ 44 foot wide roadway
⦿ 8° roadway skew
⦿ Northeast-southwest orientation

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. Community Impact-Detour*
7
Project
Location
*Official detour route confirmed by Philadelphia District Traffic Engineer (DTE)

8. 8
Current Conditions - City Inspection
Rating of 4 and below requires immediate action

9. Current Conditions - Deck
⦿ Concrete bridge deck
⦿ Spalling and potholes
⦿ North joint in poor condition
9

10. Current Conditions - Girders
⦿ Eight W33X130 A-588
weathering steel
girders
⦿ Girder section loss
⦿ Girder repair
⦿ Rusting of cross
braces & bearings
10

11. Current Conditions - Substructure
⦿ South abutment:
minor deterioration
⦿ North abutment:
● Pedestal
deterioration
● Drainage issue
● Emergency
retrofit
⦿ Settlement of 2”
11

12. Existing Modeling
⦿Application of loads and load cases
⦿Existing condition
⦿Results
● Approximate 50 ton existing capacity
Deflection: L/600
Stress
12

13. Alternatives
13

14. Bridge Rehabilitation - Girders
⦿ Use of ⅜” plates to reinforce webs
⦿ Use of 5” x 5” X ⅜” angles to reinforce flange
⦿ Connected using bolts
14
City of Philadelphia repair: Plates added to
existing girders during emergency retrofit

15. Bridge Rehabilitation - Abutment
15
BACKWALL
PEDESTAL
ABUTMENT

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. Bridge Rehabilitation - Joint & Bearings
⦿ Issues with leakage
⦿ Replace compression joint
⦿ Replace bearings in-kind
17
ABUTMENT
BACKWALL

18. Bridge Rehabilitation- Deck
Repair spalling on underside of deck
18

19. Bridge Replacement
⦿Hydrology and hydraulics (H&H)
⦿Prestressed concrete beams
⦿6 beam configuration
⦿Utilities attachment
⦿Transportation
19

20. Bridge Replacement - H&H
⦿ Analyzed 100 yr Design Storm
⦿ HY-8
⦿ Lift low chord 6”
20

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. Bridge Replacement - 6 Beams
⦿ PSLRFD
⦿ Fewer beams - reduced cost
⦿ 48” wide top flange
⦿ 8” deck
⦿ Sidewalks and barriers to current standards
22

23. Bridge Replacement - Utilities
⦿ 20” water main
⦿ 8 supports, every 10 feet
⦿ Designed per PennDOT standards
23

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. Proposed Modeling
⦿Similar loads and load combinations
⦿Results - Design Check PSLRFD
● Exceeds current standards
Deflection: L/600
Stress
25

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. Design Budget
27

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. Design Schedule
29

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. QUESTIONS?
31

32. Appendix
32

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. 8 - Beam Configuration
34
⦿80’ long
⦿8” Deck
⦿36” Top Flange

35. Peak Flow Rates
35

36. Hydrologic Analysis
36