Successfully reported this slideshow.
Prepared for: Tennessee Department of Transportation
Prepared by: West and East Engineering Associates

                  ...
   Hydraulic Design Process
     Site Overview
     Analysis of Existing Bridge
     HEC-RAS Modeling
      Deck Drai...
   Structural Design Process

     Slab Design
     Load Determination
     Girder Analysis
     Girder Design and Tr...
•Duck River over
Industrial Park Road
•SR 3209
•Channel Mile 128+/-
•Latitude: 35.6356
•Longitude: -87.0709


Data Sources...
• Driftwood, Debris, and
Sedimentation around the pier
reducing flow of water
• Confirmed aquatic life exists on site
(rep...
Current Bridge Concerns
•Steep Vertical Curve of Approaches
• Sharp Horizontal Curve of Approaches
• Exposed Steel Reinfor...
• Land slide occurrence due to unstable slope
• Concrete was poured on the unstable slope to control the situation
Design Steps and Provisions:


1. Check previous studies
    •   TVA, FEMA’s FIS, USGS
    Drainage Area: 1330 mi2


2. HE...
Deck Drain Analysis
• All produced bypass flow < 0.05
• Deck drain at least 5ft from pier
•Avoid Ponding at Low Elevations...
FREQUENCY         2 YEAR   10 YEAR   50 YEAR   100 YEAR   500 YEAR   MAX
                                                 ...
   Assumptions:
     8.5’’ Deck Thickness
     f’c=4 ksi
                                                     I       I...
Design LLDF, Lanes / Girder
    Distribution Factors (Lanes Per
                                           Interior      ...
   Dead Loads:
       Deck: 150 lb/ft3
       Filler: 2.75’’ Thick Over Beams
       Beam Weight: 2.25% over weight es...
   SAP2000 Model

     Bridge Geometry and Bracing Cases

     Dead and Live Loads Applied

     Lateral Loads Applied...
   Positive Moment Section:

     Top Flange in Compression, Bottom Flange in Tension

   Necessary Load Cases:
     C...
   Negative Moment Section:

     Top Flange in Tension, Bottom Flange in Compression

   Necessary Load Cases:
     C...
SAP2o00 Modeling of Lateral Loads

Lateral Load Types
   Wind Loading: 100 MPH Design Velocity

   Braking Force: Standa...
   Girder Design – Negative Moment
     Top flange – Tension: 24’’x3.25’’
     Bottom flange – Compression, braced at 2...
   Girder Design – Positive Moment

     Top flange – Compression, Continuously braced: 24’’x1.25’’

     Bottom flange...
   Shear Capacity:             Vn=366.8 k
                               φVn=330.12 k
    Vn   C (. 58 F yw Dt w )


   ...
   Girder Design – Shear Studs
     7/8” studs on top flange of each girder
   Pier Cap Design: Response 2000 – Interaction Diagram
     Steel flexural reinforcement
     Shear stirrup spacing at...
   Pier Cap Design
   Analyzed Rectangular Cross Section
                      Girder Loads




                    Conc...
     Axially loaded tied column with moments along both axes
     Analyzed six factored load cases
              Strengt...
   Pier Footing Design : 12’ x 12’ x 4’
   Analyzed with 6 load cases including axial loads and moments
   Limiting Ser...
   Estimation Technique: $100/sqf, 400’x40’ area
   Quick Estimate = $1,600,000
   APR data
     Right of Way - $35,00...
Thank you for your time.
Senior Design Project Final Presentation
Senior Design Project Final Presentation
Senior Design Project Final Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Senior Design Project Final Presentation

2,107 views

Published on

Published in: Technology

Senior Design Project Final Presentation

  1. 1. Prepared for: Tennessee Department of Transportation Prepared by: West and East Engineering Associates 04/16/2009
  2. 2.  Hydraulic Design Process  Site Overview  Analysis of Existing Bridge  HEC-RAS Modeling  Deck Drain Locations  Scour Analysis  Overview of Proposed Bridge
  3. 3.  Structural Design Process  Slab Design  Load Determination  Girder Analysis  Girder Design and Transverse Stiffener Calculation  Lateral Load Calculations  Pier Cap, Pier Column, and Pier Footing Design
  4. 4. •Duck River over Industrial Park Road •SR 3209 •Channel Mile 128+/- •Latitude: 35.6356 •Longitude: -87.0709 Data Sources •APR •USGS •TVA •FEMA
  5. 5. • Driftwood, Debris, and Sedimentation around the pier reducing flow of water • Confirmed aquatic life exists on site (reported by United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS)
  6. 6. Current Bridge Concerns •Steep Vertical Curve of Approaches • Sharp Horizontal Curve of Approaches • Exposed Steel Reinforcing Bars • Corroded Steel
  7. 7. • Land slide occurrence due to unstable slope • Concrete was poured on the unstable slope to control the situation
  8. 8. Design Steps and Provisions: 1. Check previous studies • TVA, FEMA’s FIS, USGS Drainage Area: 1330 mi2 2. HEC-RAS Models • Existing, Proposed, Natural 3. Deck Drains Locations Proposed Bridge: • Model for Upstream, Bridge, and Downstream Elevations 4. Scour Analysis
  9. 9. Deck Drain Analysis • All produced bypass flow < 0.05 • Deck drain at least 5ft from pier •Avoid Ponding at Low Elevations •Bridge Lowest Point: 113+88.25 •12 Total Deck Drains • 113+20.00 : 56% • 113+40.00 : 65% • 113+60.00 : 74% • 113+83.00 : 73% •113+93.00 : 74% • 114+25.00 : 86%
  10. 10. FREQUENCY 2 YEAR 10 YEAR 50 YEAR 100 YEAR 500 YEAR MAX FLOOD TOTAL FLOW (cfs) 27 490 45 710 62 770 70 280 89 060 171 000 FLOW (cfs) 27 490 45 123 61 207 68 223 85 677 142 401 VELOCITY (fps) 4.22 4.92 5.43 5.62 6.32 8.58 CONTRACTION SCOUR (ft) -0.4 0.22 2.77 4.02 7.15 10.69 PIER SCOUR (ft) 7.96 8.77 9.32 9.52 10.15 12.01 TOTAL SCOUR (ft) 7.96 8.99 12.09 13.54 17.30 22.7
  11. 11.  Assumptions:  8.5’’ Deck Thickness  f’c=4 ksi I I I I  Fy= 60 ksi C S S S C  Design Spreadsheet: LLDF_LRFD4_2.1  Determination of Girder Spacing (S)  Determination of Overhang (C)  Balance of Positive and Negative Moments  S : 10.917 feet (10’-11’’)  C: 4.25 feet (4’-3’’)
  12. 12. Design LLDF, Lanes / Girder  Distribution Factors (Lanes Per Interior 0.755 (M) Beam) 1.012 (V)  Moment in Interior Beam  Shear in Interior Beam 0.725 (FATIGUE)  Moment in Exterior Beam Exterior 0.985 (M)  Shear in Exterior Beam 0.985 (V)  Girder Specifications 0.821 (FATIGUE)  Web Plate: 45’’ x ½’’  Flange Plates: 24’’ x 2.25’’  AASHTO Code Specifications
  13. 13.  Dead Loads:  Deck: 150 lb/ft3  Filler: 2.75’’ Thick Over Beams  Beam Weight: 2.25% over weight estimate  Parapet Weight: 390 lb/ft  Weight of Asphalt Overlay: 35 psf  Two Phase Construction:  Phase 1: Setting of Beams, Cross Frames Connected, Splices Made, Deck Poured  Phase 2: Parapets Installed, Asphalt Overlay, Traffic Allowed  Component and Wearing Surface Loads  DC1: 1.59 klf per Girder  DW1: O klf per Girder  DC2: .2 klf per Girder  DW2: .34 klf per Girder
  14. 14.  SAP2000 Model  Bridge Geometry and Bracing Cases  Dead and Live Loads Applied  Lateral Loads Applied  Lanes Per Girder Factors
  15. 15.  Positive Moment Section:  Top Flange in Compression, Bottom Flange in Tension  Necessary Load Cases:  Cross Section Proportion Limits  Strength Limit State Moments  Constructability  Service Limit State •DC1: 1883 K-ft  Fatigue Limit State •DC2: 261 K-ft •DW: 443 K-ft •LL: 2145 K-ft  Excel Sheet: WPG_Props_2.0
  16. 16.  Negative Moment Section:  Top Flange in Tension, Bottom Flange in Compression  Necessary Load Cases:  Cross Section Proportion Limits  Strength Limit State Moments  Constructability  Service Limit State •DC1: -4188 K-ft •DC2: -587 K-ft  Fatigue Limit State •DW: -998 K-ft •LL: -1759K-ft  Excel Sheet: WPG_Props_2.0
  17. 17. SAP2o00 Modeling of Lateral Loads Lateral Load Types  Wind Loading: 100 MPH Design Velocity  Braking Force: Standard Design Truck (AASHTO 3.6.4)  25 Percent of Axle Weight of Design Truck or Tandem  5 Percent of Design Truck Plus Lane Load  Thermal:  DT=aL(Tmax.design – Tmin.design)  Tmax=120 F, Tmin=0 F (Table Values From AASHTO Spec.)  Stream Flow Pressure  Seismic Loading: Periodic Response Curve Load Combinations Strength I, Strength III, Strength IV, Strength V, Service I, Fatigue, Extreme Event
  18. 18.  Girder Design – Negative Moment  Top flange – Tension: 24’’x3.25’’  Bottom flange – Compression, braced at 25 ft: 24’’x3.25’’  AASHTO Proportion limits, Strength limit state ▪ Found to be within the allowed proportions ▪ Fbu+(1/3)Fl<φfFnc Max Positive Max Negative Moment Moment ▪ 48.66ksi < 50ksi ▪ 43.91ksi < 45.52ksi
  19. 19.  Girder Design – Positive Moment  Top flange – Compression, Continuously braced: 24’’x1.25’’  Bottom flange – Tension: 24’’x1.75’’  AASHTO Proportion limits, Strength limit state ▪ Found to be within the allowed proportions ▪ Strength limit state was satisfied ▪ Mu+(1/3)(FlSxt) <Mn, (7098 ft-k < 13,040.1 ft-k)
  20. 20.  Shear Capacity: Vn=366.8 k φVn=330.12 k Vn C (. 58 F yw Dt w )  Dead Load = 154.3 k  Live Load = 60.858 k  Maximum Shear: Vu = 282.5 k  Vu< φ Vn : Stiffeners not needed
  21. 21.  Girder Design – Shear Studs  7/8” studs on top flange of each girder
  22. 22.  Pier Cap Design: Response 2000 – Interaction Diagram  Steel flexural reinforcement  Shear stirrup spacing at column face  Shear forces from 2 girders and the weight of the concrete.  Shear and Moment Considered in Design  Shear = 2211.5 kips  Moment = -15194.5 kips-ft
  23. 23.  Pier Cap Design  Analyzed Rectangular Cross Section Girder Loads Concrete Weight
  24. 24.  Axially loaded tied column with moments along both axes  Analyzed six factored load cases Strength Strength Strength Strength 1 3 4 5 Service 1 Service 2 Pu, kips 3358.95 2375.09 2375.09 3134.057 2412.45 2332.185 Mux, ft-k 1072.13 1065.62 990.547 1034.327 2019.52 1981.09 Muy, ft-k 6975.24 5362.86 5311 7359.725 5718.59 5182.11 8’ Pnx, kips 15,325 14,257 14,565 15,325 10,311 10,311 Pny, kips 7,536 6,812 6,993 6,631 6,450 6,993 Pn, kips 6,852 6,062 6,263 6,095 4,999 5,319 4’ 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 Pn, kips 4,796 4,244 4,384 4,267 3,500 3,724 Pn / Pu 1.43 1.79 1.85 1.36 1.45 1.60
  25. 25.  Pier Footing Design : 12’ x 12’ x 4’  Analyzed with 6 load cases including axial loads and moments  Limiting Service Limit state soil pressure – 60 k/sf P, kips Mx, ft-k Mz, ft-k Service 1 2,412 2,020 5,719 Service 2 2,332 1,981 5,182 QNE, ksf QSE, ksf Strength 1 3,359 1,072 6,975 46.704 31.945 Strength 3 2,375 1,066 5,363 Strength 4 3,375 991 5,311 Strength 5 3,134 1,034 7,360
  26. 26.  Estimation Technique: $100/sqf, 400’x40’ area  Quick Estimate = $1,600,000  APR data  Right of Way - $35,000  Approaches - $583,900  Structure - $972,500  Preliminary Engineering - $135,600  Utilities - $31,1000  Total - $1,758,100
  27. 27. Thank you for your time.

×