WPI – Pedestrian Bridge Study James DeCelle Nathaniel EfronJames DeCelle Wilfredo RamosNathaniel Jr Efron Jeffrey Tully Wilfredo Ramos Jr. Jeffrey Tully March 11, 2013 - MQP GFS-1304 A Major Qualifying Project Report Worcester Polytechnic Institute Submitted to the Faculty of Professor Guillermo WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Salazar February 29, 2013 In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Professor Pinar Okumis Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Abstract This project explored alternative structural solutions for a pedestrian bridge to connect the field atop of the new Parking Garage to the alleyway behind Harrington Auditorium at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Campus. Four basic bridge types, each consisting of steel or concrete, were initially considered. Two alternatives, a steel truss bridge and a steel arch bridge, were designed in detail. A Building Information Model was generated to visualize the two alternatives. The supporting bridge structure using cast-in-place reinforced concrete for both cases was also designed. i Capstone Design Experience Statement The Capstone Design Experience is a requirement by the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) for all Major Qualifying Projects (MQPs). This experience helps students to be prepared for engineering practice based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints. In order to meet this requirement this MQP prepared two bridge design alternatives, each with a BIM model, and addressed realistic constraints of economic, ethics, health and safety, and manufacturability and constructability. This project explored alternative structural solutions for a pedestrian bridge to connect the field atop of the new Parking Garage to the alleyway behind Harrington Auditorium at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Campus. Four basic bridge types, each consisting of steel or concrete, were initially considered. Two alternatives, a steel truss bridge and a steel arch bridge, were designed in detail. A Building Information Model was generated to visualize the two alternatives. The supporting bridge structure using cast-in-place reinforced concrete for both cases was also designed. The following realistic constraints were addressed by the design: Economic: We evaluated cost as a key constraint, which required a complete cost analysis for both bridge design alternatives. The cost of the raw materials, on-site preparation, and labor all affect the cost of the project. Ethical: ASCE states that “engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment, being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients, striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession, and supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines” (ASCE, 2010). The project was completed while upholding all of these principles. Health and Safety: Health and safety always plays a major role in any project. The two bridge design alternatives were prepared in accordance with AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Manual, AASHTO’s LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The two bridge designs were compared, determining the design loads that each will support, selecting the appropriate member dimensions and performing a structural analysis on each design. Constructability: This project considered the means and methods of construction of both alternatives including accessibility, methods of fabrication delivery and erection within the context of a college campus operating under regular functional conditions, ii Authorship Table Section Major Author Major Editor Abstract James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron CDES James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron Introduction All All Assessing the Need for a Bridge Wilfredo Ramos Wilfredo Ramos Site layout Nathaniel Efron All Concrete Nathaniel Efron All Steel Jeffrey Tully All Composite James DeCelle All Simply-Supported Jeffrey Tully All Truss Nathaniel Efron All Arch Wilfredo Ramos Wilfredo Ramos Cable-Stayed James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron Design Criteria All All Design Tools Nathaniel Efron All Preliminary Design Nathaniel Efron James DeCelle Wilfredo Ramos Selection Criteria Nathaniel Efron All Construction Documents Nathaniel Efron All Site Survey James DeCelle All Wilfredo Ramos Structural Analysis James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron General Analysis James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron Jeffrey Tully Truss Design Nathaniel Efron James DeCelle Arch Design James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron Foundation Design Wilfredo Ramos All Results & Analysis Nathaniel Efron All Conclusions & Jeffrey Tully Nathaniel Efron Recommendations Nathaniel Efron iii Acknowledgements Our team would like to thank the following individuals, organizations, and institutions for their help and support throughout our project: Professor Guillermo Salazar, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for his overall guidance and support throughout our project. Professor Pinar Okumus, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for her overall guidance and support throughout our project. Gilbane Co, for allowing us insight into their meetings, providing plan sets, and allowing access to the site; specifically Neil Benner (Project Manager). Worcester Polytechnic Institute facilities, for providing us with resources and guidance throughout our project; specifically Fred Di Mauro for his valuable time in allowing us to interview him. iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. Capstone Design Experience Statement ......................................................................................... ii Authorship Table ........................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Background .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Assessing the Need for a Bridge ...................................................................................... 3 2.0.1 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Site Layout ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Materials ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Concrete .................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Steel........................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Composite ............................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Bridge Systems ............................................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Simply Supported Beam ......................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Truss ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.3.3 Arch......................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.4 Cable-Stayed ........................................................................................................... 16 2.4 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Americans with disabilities Act (ADA) .................................................................. 18 2.4.2 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 19 2.4.3 Site & Constructability ........................................................................................... 20 2.4.4 Economy ................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.5 Environment ............................................................................................................ 21 2.4.6 Fire Code ................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.7 Geotechnical Concerns ........................................................................................... 22 2.5 Design Tools .................................................................................................................. 22 2.5.1 Sap2000................................................................................................................... 22 2.5.2 BIM ......................................................................................................................... 23 3 Preliminary Design