Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 002 (Design Team Alpha) (Design Team Five) (Evan Vanyo) (Justin Gorsuch) (Ian Swasing) (Ahmed Khan) Presented to: Prof. Berezniak Fall 2016

Statement of Problem Local flooding from a recent 100-year flood event has completely destroyed a structurally deficient vehicle bridge located over Spring Creek along Puddintown Road in College Township, Centre County, PA. This bridge is located in Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Engineering District 2-0. The destroyed bridge is along a heavily traveled local road and is designated as a vital lifeline for vehicle access to the Mount Nittany Medical Center located in State College, PA. All traffic must now be re-routed more than 10 miles around the destroyed bridge, thereby disrupting residential traffic flow, local commerce, and exposing State College residents to considerable risk, since police and emergency vehicles do not have easy access to that area of College Township. The damaged bridge also severely restricts general regional vehicle access to the Mount Nittany Medical Center Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 2

Objective Pennsylvania Department of Transportation of (PennDOT) Engineering District 2-0 has initiated an emergency, fast-track project to expedite the design a new vehicle bridge over Spring Creek to replace the bridge destroyed by the recent extreme flood event. Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 3

Design Criteria PennDOT District 2-0 has established the design criteria for the replacement bridge to include: standard abutments, no piers (one span), deck material shall be medium strength concrete (0.23 meters thick), no cable anchorages and designed for the load of two AASHTO H20-44 trucks (225kN) with one in each traffic lane. The bridge deck elevation shall be set at 20 meters and the deck span shall be exactly 40 meters. Both a Warren through truss bridge and a Howe through truss bridge shall be analyzed. All other design criteria, such as: steel member type, steel cross section type, and steel member size shall be selected by each EDSGN100 design team. Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 4

Technical Approach Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Economic efficiency (cost) shall be determined using the Engineering Encounters Bridge Design 2016 (EEBD 2016) software based on the requirements, constraints, and performance criteria specified herein. The design objective is to use EEBD 2016 to perform a systematic and iterative analysis to design a stable Warren and Howe through truss bridge that has been optimized to keep the cost of the replacement bridge as low as possible; as well as to ensure that the replacement bridge can support its own weight (dead load), plus the weight of a standard truck loading (live load). Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 5

Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency A prototype (i.e., a scale model bridge) bridge shall be designed and built for both a standard Warren through truss bridge and a standard Howe through truss bridge by each design team. Each prototype bridge shall be load tested in the lab to catastrophic failure. The truss bridge type that exhibits the best structural efficiency when tested to failure in prototype shall be determined. Structural efficiency is the ability of the truss bridge to safely dissipate live loads. Structural Efficiency (SE) is calculated by dividing the load the bridge supports at catastrophic failure by the weight of the prototype bridge. The design objective is to determine and report which prototype through truss bridge design is more effective at dissipating the force of a load, a Howe through truss bridge or the Warren through truss bridge. A prototype bridge for both one Howe through truss bridge and one Warren through truss bridge shall be constructed by each EDSGN100 design team using standard (4-1/2 x 3/8 x 1/12 inch) wooden (white birch) Popsicle (craft) sticks and Elmer’s white glue only. Hot glue may only be used to attach no more than eight (8) struts/floor beams between the two adjacent truss sections. Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 6

Results Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Warren Howe Type of Cost Item Cost Calculation Cost Material Cost (M) Carbon Steel Solid Bar (10359.9 kg) x ($4.30 per kg) x (2 Trusses) = $89,095.33 High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Hollow Tube (1670.8 kg) x ($7.00 per kg) x (2 Trusses) = $23,390.88 Connection Cost (C) (21 Joints) x (400.0 per joint) x (2 Trusses) = $16,800.00 Product Cost (P) 2 - 30x30x2 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 90x90 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 100x100x5 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 110x110 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 110x110x5 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 120x120 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 120x120x6 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 130x130 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 140x140 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 140x140x7 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 4 - 150x150 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 1 - 160x160 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 160x160x8 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 Site Cost (S) Deck Cost (10 4-meter panels) x ($5,100.00 per panel) = $51,000.00 Excavation Cost (19,400 cubic meters) x ($1.00 per cubic meter) = $19,400.00 Abutment Cost (2 standard abutments) x ($5,500.00 per abutment) = $11,000.00 Pier Cost No pier = $0.00 Cable Anchorage Cost No anchorages = $0.00 Total Cost M + C + P + S $112,486.21 + $16,800.00 + $13,000.00 + $81,400.00 = $223,686.21 Type of Cost Item Cost Calculation Cost Material Cost (M) Carbon Steel Solid Bar (13820.7 kg) x ($4.30 per kg) x (2 Trusses) = $118,857.60 Carbon Steel Hollow Tube (709.6 kg) x ($6.30 per kg) x (2 Trusses) = $8,941.46 High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Solid Bar (7398.6 kg) x ($5.60 per kg) x (2 Trusses) = $82,863.82 Connection Cost (C) (22 Joints) x (400.0 per joint) x (2 Trusses) = $17,600.00 Product Cost (P) 23 - 90x90 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 1 - 110x110 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 5 - 130x130 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 3 - 130x130 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 140x140 mm Carbon Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 150x150x7 mm Carbon Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 3 - 160x160x8 mm Carbon Steel Tube (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 2 - 200x200 mm High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Bar (%s per Product) = $1,000.00 Site Cost (S) Deck Cost (11 4-meter panels) x ($4,700.00 per panel) = $51,700.00 Excavation Cost (0 cubic meters) x ($1.00 per cubic meter) = $0.00 Abutment Cost (2 standard abutments) x ($5,750.00 per abutment) = $11,500.00 Pier Cost No pier = $0.00 Cable Anchorage Cost No anchorages = $0.00 Total Cost M + C + P + S $210,662.88 + $17,600.00 + $8,000.00 + $63,200.00 = $299,462.88 Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 7

Results Phase 2: Structural Efficiency Howe Warren Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 8

WARREN BRIDGE Best Solution 9 Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 9

Conclusions We have concluded after designing and testing multiple bridge designs that the Warren bridge is the most economically efficient, as well as structurally efficient bridge to be used in this project. The Warren design only failed do to a faulty Beam that the supplier refused to exchange. Although on the final design you will have much more say in the material used. Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 10

Recommendations Our design team would recommend that Penn Dot goes through with the Warren design. More possible tests may be done to lower the projects overall economic efficiency, but the design should go to an engineering team to be constructed immediately so the city is no longer without an important bridge. Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 11