ENGINEERING 90 SENIOR PROJECT REPORT

DESIGN OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOR

THE QUADRANGLE RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY

Jesse A. Young
Alexis R. Turner
Advisor: Faruq M. A. Siddiqui
May 5, 2005
 Abstract

This report contains the design of a pedestrian bridge located at The Quadrangle,
a retirement community in Haverford, Pennsylvania, to be built at the north end of a
pond spanning a feeder stream. The report contains hydrologic, EIS and geotechnical
information for the site as well as structural, foundation, and construction plans. We
primarily used Multiframe 2D and Microsoft Excel to complete the design work. Bid
documents were drawn using AutoCAD and could, if presented to a contractor, be
used to construct the bridge.
At the client’s request, the bridge has been designed to resemble the one painted
by Claude Monet in his “Japanese Footbridge” and is structurally capable of
carrying both pedestrians and scooters. Bid documents include designs for spans of
30 and 35 feet, with corresponding cost estimates for construction using two kinds of
wood as well as a plastic-wood composite. We found wood to be the most cost
effective structural system given the design parameters. Reasons for the materials
selection are provided in Section 3.2. Though both spans are acceptable, the 35 foot
span requires less earth work and smaller abutments. It is also less susceptible to
flooding and scour problems.
The hydrological, geotechnical, material, structural, and foundation designs are
discussed in separate sections. The recommended foundations consist of a masonry
wing-type abutment designed against overturning and sliding failure. Comprehensive
CAD drawings are located in Appendix A and design calculations are provided in the
subsequent appendices.

i
 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our advisor, Professor Faruq Siddiqui, for his guidance
and infinite patience over the length of the project. In addition to teaching us all we
know about structural and geotechnical engineering, he gave us a substantial amount
of time during his sabbatical.
We would also like to thank Dr. Steven Phillips for commissioning this project
and providing community support at The Quadrangle. His help in obtaining site and
historical information was invaluable.
Dan Honig was also a useful resource, helping us to locate the appropriate
building codes and providing general advice. Don Dukert, Head of Engineering at
the Quadrangle, was also helpful in providing us with reference information about
the property.
Thanks are also due to the architects at Wallace, Roberts, and Todd for supplying
reference materials, Jennifer Preston of Turner Construction and Cornell for her
advice about Ecoboard, and Col. Steven Ressler, a faculty member at West Point
U.S. Military Academy, for his advice. Thanks are also due to those people at Tague
Lumber and Ecoboard who helped us obtain pricing and availability information
about the different materials for the cost estimate.

ii
 Table of Contents
Abstract.....................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................iii
List of Figures.......................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Statement of Interest ................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Scope............................................................................................ 2
1.3 Applicable Codes and Provisions .............................................................. 3
1.4 Group Design Project Philosophy ............................................................. 4
1.5 Public Opinion.......................................................................................... 4
2.0 Site Inventory and Analysis .......................................................................... 6
2.1 Geotechnical Report and Subsurface Investigations .................................. 6
2.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Vegetation/ Large Tree Survey ................................................................. 8
2.4 General Description of Subsurface Materials ............................................ 8
2.5 Man-made Features................................................................................... 8
2.6 Constructability and Access ...................................................................... 9
2.6.1 Construction Access.......................................................................... 9
2.6.2 Constructability Constraints .............................................................. 9
3.0 Design of Superstructure............................................................................. 10
3.1 Design Process Overview ....................................................................... 10
3.2 Materials Design..................................................................................... 13
3.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Structural Wood .............................................................................. 13
3.2.3 Plastic-Wood Composites ............................................................... 13
3.2.4 Decking/Railing Wood.................................................................... 14
3.2.5 Conclusions .................................................................................... 14
3.3 Deck Design ........................................................................................... 15
3.3.1 Design Considerations..................................................................... 15
3.3.2 Multiframe Analysis........................................................................ 17
3.3.3 Conclusions .................................................................................... 17
3.4 Railing Design ........................................................................................ 17
3.4.1 Design Considerations..................................................................... 17
3.4.2 Multiframe Analysis........................................................................ 18
3.4.3 Conclusions .................................................................................... 18
3.5 Arched Girder Design ............................................................................. 19
3.5.1 Design Considerations..................................................................... 19
3.5.2 Multiframe Analysis........................................................................ 19
3.5.3 Conclusions .................................................................................... 20
3.6 Connections Design ................................................................................ 20
3.6.1 Deck to Girders............................................................................... 20
3.6.2 Railing Posts to Girders................................................................... 20
3.6.3 Railing Components........................................................................ 20
3.6.4 Girder Diaphragms.......................................................................... 21

iii
 3.6.5 Arch to Abutment ........................................................................... 21
4.0 Design of Substructure ............................................................................... 22
4.1 Design Process Overview ....................................................................... 22
4.2 Abutments .............................................................................................. 22
4.2.1 Design Considerations .................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Abutment Types.............................................................................. 23
4.2.3 Conclusions .................................................................................... 24
4.3 Bearings ................................................................................................. 25
4.4 Footings.................................................................................................. 25
5.0 Cost Estimate ............................................................................................. 27
5.1 Introduction and Assumptions ................................................................ 27
5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 27
6.0 Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................ 28
7.0 References.................................................................................................. 31
Appendices ............................................................................................................ 33
A. AutoCAD Drawings.......................................................................... A-1
B. Multiframe Analysis of Deck ............................................................ B-1
C. Multiframe Analysis of Handrails ..................................................... C-1
D. Multiframe Analysis of Arch ............................................................ D-1
E. Abutments and Footings Design........................................................ E-1
F. Connections Design ...........................................................................F-1
G. IBC Specifications ............................................................................ G-1
H. AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Specifications ...................................... H-1
I. Time Log and Critical Path Method ....................................................I-1
J. Materials & Supplier Information ...................................................... J-1
K. Load and Resistance Factor Calculations .......................................... K-1

iv
 List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Site map of the Quadrangle .................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1: The bridge superimposed onto a site photo and plan ............................... 7
Figure 2.2: Cross-section of Bridge Site ................................................................... 7
Figure 3.1: Monet's Japanese Garden Bridge .......................................................... 11
Figure 3.2: Bridge (elevation view) ........................................................................ 12
Figure 3.3: Bridge (cross-section)........................................................................... 12
Figure 3.4: Two-girder decking with vehicle live load............................................ 16
Figure 3.5: Three-girder decking with vehicle live load .......................................... 16
Figure 3.6: Three-girder decking with distributed live load..................................... 16
Figure 3.7: Railing ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4.1: Abutment side view.............................................................................. 26
Figure 0.1: Multiframe Railing Frame ................................................................ C-29
Figure 0.2: Multiframe Railing with labeled Joints ............................................. C-30
Figure 0.3: Multiframe Railing with labeled members ........................................ C-31
Figure 0.4: Abutment plan view ........................................................................... E-2
Figure 0.5: Abutment side view............................................................................ E-2

List of Tables
Table 3.1: Material Properties ................................................................................ 16
Table 3.2: Decking Cross-Section Dimensions ....................................................... 16
Table 3.3: Railing Section Properties...................................................................... 18
Table 0.1: Detailed Material Properties ................................................................. J-1

v
 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Statement of Interest

The E90 design project is intended to be the culminating experience for

engineering students at Swarthmore, where students investigate and report on a
problem of their choice in an area of interest to them under the guidance of a faculty
member. Both a written report and an oral presentation are required. Given our
interests in civil and structural engineering, we elected to undertake the design of this
pedestrian bridge as our E90 design project because it integrated material from our
course preparations, provided us with a venue through which to demonstrate our
competence in these areas, and required a balanced application of theoretical and
practical knowledge. We chose Professor Siddiqui to act as our advisor because of
his governing influence on our training. We feel that this project is a culmination of
all we have learned in our studies and will provide us with a real view of our
capabilities and limitations in these areas of engineering.
In addition to fulfilling our personal motivations, we feel this project will
significantly improve the quality of life for residents of The Quadrangle. They will
be able to enjoy the scenic nature of the site and also have a complete path all the
way around the pond.
The construction of this pathway has been a goal of the community since the
Quadrangle was built. The seminal concept was first put together by William J.
Cohen, who has since died of pancreatic cancer. Since his death, the bridge has been
an ongoing wish of the Quadrangle Residents and we feel it is important to help them
realize their desire for this bridge. The community felt strongly that the bridge
should resemble Cohen’s initial conception of Monet’s “Japanese Footbridge”, thus
we have attempted to replicate this image in our design. Dr. Steven Phillips, a
Quadrangle resident and Chair of the Quadrangle Landscaping Committee, brought
this project to our attention in the summer of 2004.

1
1.2 Project Scope

As can be seen on the site map (Figure 1), the bridge will span a small feeder
stream at the northwest end of the pond. It will be 30 or 35 feet in span and will be
built out of either wood or plastic-wood composite.
The scope of this project includes the design of the bridge in its entirety
including materials, connections, structural members, deck, railings, and
foundations, and a cost estimate in order to enable easy comparison between the
multiple designs.

2
 Proposed Project
Area

Figure 1.1: Site map of the Quadrangle

1.3 Applicable Codes and Provisions

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges [4] provides the
design loads and design details for pedestrian bridges. These include pedestrian live
loads, vehicle live loads, wind loads, and combination loads. Additionally provisions
are specified for maximum deflection and allowable vibrations. All design was
completed using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology. The
American Paper Association (APA) LRFD Manual for Engineered Wood

3
Construction [1] and the American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC) Timber
Construction Manual Fourth Edition (1994) [2] were consulted in the design of all
wood members. Additionally, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Strength
Design of Steel Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-99) specifications were used for this
project.
This design will satisfy the realistic constraints criteria stipulated as a
requirement for culminating design projects, which include economic,
environmental, sustainability, manufacturability, ethical, health and safety, social,
and political considerations. All of these considerations have been addressed in the
design of this bridge.

1.4 Group Design Project Philosophy

The complete assembly of a set of construction bid documents for this structure
is a huge undertaking. It is for this reason that we have chosen to work on this
project as a group. A much more complete product can be provided if we work
together. This group effort is also excellent preparation for the situations professional
engineers face every day. Not only were we responsible for our individual work in
the project, but we were forced to communicate those parts effectively to each other,
divide the work fairly and cooperate in order to be successful. We believe that the
design of this bridge is of large enough scope and sufficient difficulty to engage two
senior engineering students for over a full semester, while still within the realm of
feasibility.

1.5 Public Opinion

In order for the bridge to be constructed, its design must be approved by multiple
parties. The design will initially need to be presented to the Quadrangle Landscape
Committee by Dr. Phillips, who is the chair. This committee is composed of 17
residents and the Head of Engineering at the Quadrangle, Don Dukert. The
committee will then recommend action to the Quadrangle Resident’s Association
Steering Committee, who will bring it up at a semiannual residents meeting for
affirmation by the community. If its desirability is affirmed, it will be forwarded to

4
the Sunrise Management Company through Greg Leonard, the Quadrangle’s resident
manager. Because the original property owner, Marriott, sold the property rights to
CNL Retirement Corporation and the management contract to Sunrise Management
Company, the design will have to be approved by both organizations.
Given that neither of these companies will necessarily want to fund the bridge,
Esther Cohen and her family are willing to attempt to raise the funds necessary for
construction of the bridge and offer it to Sunrise on a cost share basis, where Sunrise
will pay for all of the grading and paving needed.
Dr. Philips will be responsible for guiding the design through these channels,
assisted by our group as the need arises. He has stated that he feels confident of the
community’s support of this endeavor and feels that its construction would be a
further example of how the Quadrangle is an outstanding, unique retirement
community with a spirit of involvement.
Due to the large number of non-industry individuals who will read this report at
the Quadrangle, this report has not been written as a standard engineering report.
Instead, a good amount of background information and explanation has been
included. Also, an attempt has been made to avoid the use of jargon. The result is a
less concise report with sections that may seem superfluous to professional
engineers, but one that will hopefully give a greater understanding to those who
approach this design with less previous knowledge of the issues surrounding its
construction.

5
 2.0 Site Inventory and Analysis

2.1 Geotechnical Report and Subsurface Investigations

This report is for the construction of a pedestrian bridge for the pond located on
the grounds of the Quadrangle. All of the contour information used was obtained
from the Quadrangle’s architect: Wallace, Roberts, & Todd, LLC. There are no
existing boring logs or geotechnical information about the site. These investigations
should be performed by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer before the start of
construction and any necessary changes made to the design. Given that there will be
a large amount of fill necessary at the construction site in which most of the
construction will take place; we anticipate that some changes will need to be made.
However, this work should be relatively easy for a geotechnical engineer to complete
and should not significantly alter the design or add to the expense of the bridge.

2.2 Hydrology

The topography of the Quadrangle is such that surface water drains south toward
the pond. The drainage channel that runs through the proposed bridge site provides
drainage for much of the Quadrangle land. In addition, a natural spring on the
Quadrangle premises feeds the stream channel. The water continues through the
channel into the pond.
It exits the pond on the opposite side though a large corrugated metal pipe which
dumps the water into Darby Creek, which leads to the Delaware River. Large
amounts of water have been observed running through the channel and the water
level of the pond has been observed to rise as much as four feet. Accordingly,
erosion and siltation in and around the drainage channel occur regularly.

6
Figure 2.1: The bridge superimposed onto a site photo and plan

Figure 2.2: Cross-section of Bridge Site

7
2.3 Vegetation/ Large Tree Survey

In consultation with Dr. Philips, we examined the existing vegetation in the

considered area. Of the existing vegetation, Dr. Philips has stated that only the
Willow tree on the south bank must be maintained in its current location. In order to
make the bridge more closely resemble Monet’s more Willow trees, Wisteria and
other appropriate vegetation should be added after the bridge is constructed.

2.4 General Description of Subsurface Materials

The soil surrounding the pond is mainly sandy silt that has washed down the
culvert and settled as it reached the pond. There are no existing boring logs so no
more is known about these materials.

2.5 Man-made Features

The presence of man-made features on our site is minimal. There is one existing
electrical box that is located approximately 10 feet to the south of the Willow tree
along the bank of the pond. This box controls the two fountain pumps that are in the
middle of the pond. We expect that there are some electrical and water lines running
from this box to the pumps, but there is no reliable information about the exact
location of any such lines. Thus, care must be taken when excavating around this
box, but this should not be necessary given that the location of the bridge is
relatively far away from the electrical box.
There is an existing system of concrete paths that extend around the pond. These
paths generally indicate the routes of minimal slope between points of interest,
making them optimal for the elderly residents. This is especially important because
many residents use powered chairs to get around the Quadrangle. These vehicles are
limited to a maximum slope of fifteen degrees. Therefore, our bridge and the
accompanying paths that connect to it were designed to integrate into the existing
path system and to adhere to this grade limit.

8
2.6 Constructability and Access

2.6.1 Construction Access

Due to the proximity of the bridge site to the pond and the restricted site access,
construction will require some additional planning. It is clear that, due to the
proximity of existing structures and the Willow tree, we will not have use of any
large construction vehicles. The back road that approaches from the east bank of the
pond is the widest and should be used by all construction vehicles. From this road
small off road utility vehicles will be able to travel the short distance to the
construction site. Depending on the rainfall, it may be difficult for heavily loaded
construction vehicles to remain stable in muddy conditions, but construction during
the summer season should not be hindered by this factor.
2.6.2 Constructability Constraints
An approach path will have to be laid on the northern bank of the creek,
extending around to the east side of the pond, where it will connect with the existing
road. A similar approach path is already in place on the south bank, which also
connects with the path on the far side of the pond.
A full sized concrete mixing truck will be too heavy and large to traverse any of
the paths so concrete will have to be transported from the back road. Any
prefabricated structural members should be small enough to fit in the flatbed of a 4x4
truck. The only possible on-site staging areas are on the southern or eastern bank
area. Components should be small enough and light enough so that erection can
proceed largely without the aid of significant construction machinery.

9
 3.0 Design of Superstructure

3.1 Design Process Overview

Pedestrian bridges, though relatively simple structures, pose some complex

design problems. The superstructure comprises all the components of a bridge above
the supports. It generally includes the deck, primary members (also called stringers
or girders), and secondary members. The primary members distribute loads
longitudinally and are usually designed principally to resist flexure. The secondary
members are bracing between the primary members designed to resist cross-sectional
deformation of the superstructure frame and help distribute part of the vertical load
between primary members [Tonais].
After first surveying the site and deciding generally what the finished product
should look like, the most important step in design is to become familiar with any
applicable codes. One should also become familiar with the LRFD design process,
which works from the loads to design the structure. In this case, this process began
with the material design and the design of the deck and railings, and then moved on
to the structural members and connections. The last step in the design process was to
design the footings and abutments and to perform a cost analysis.
For this bridge, the general architecture was stipulated by the Quadrangle
community to be similar to the bridge in Monet’s painting, thus the general shape
and final appearance were pulled from his paintings (Figure 4). After the materials
explorations were complete, we moved on to the LRFD design process.
The LRFD design process was carried out using Microsoft Excel® [20] and
Multiframe [21]. This process begins with the determination of the design loads,
initial selection of member sizes, and then becomes an iterative process to find the
most efficient member sizes that can accommodate the design loads and adjustment
factors.
Two such loads on the structure are the dead load from the deck and the dead
load from the railing. Since it was hypothesized that deflection of the deck would be
the controlling factor in design, the design process began with the deck members.
From this design process it was determined that three girders would be needed as

10
opposed to 2 girders. The dead load that the deck members would exert on the
girders was also found.
The next step was to design the handrails, which was straightforward given that
the arrangement had been laid out for us by Monet (Figure 4). The railings members
were subject to the specifications laid out in 2003 IBC 1009, 1010, and 1607 [12].
The Muller-Breslau principle was used to determine the load application of
appropriate load combinations. Once we determined the member sizes, the dead load
from the railings was established. It was then added to the dead load of the deck to
give the final dead loads.
Once the final design loads were known, the design of the girders was performed
using Multiframe and Excel. We based the design and load analysis on the design
process for constant-radius arches specified in AITC Timber Construction Manual
5.13.8. This design process was carried out for each material and a cost estimate was
performed for each material and span. This concluded the design of the
superstructure. Each of these steps is described in detail in the subsequent sections.

Figure 3.1: Monet's Japanese Garden Bridge (the superstructure shape)

11
Figure 3.2: Bridge (elevation view)

Figure 3.3: Bridge (cross-section)

12
3.2 Materials Design

3.2.1 Introduction
A complete investigation of structural, decking/railing and connection materials
was conducted in preparation for design. For the structural members, the use of
Glue-laminated Pine or Ecoboard was explored. For the decking/railing material the
use of Ipe, Ecoboard or Cedar was investigated. For the connections, the use of
aluminum angles, stainless steel screws, and stainless steel bolts was determined to
be optimal, given the empirical findings of another group in the construction of their
pedestrian bridge [Preston, Cornell].
3.2.2 Structural Wood
For the structural members, we investigated Glue-laminated Pine. This material
has the advantage of being the least expensive and most readily available of all the
choices, but has some drawbacks. This material would require sanding, sealing, and
painting. Over time it will rot or be weakened by parasites, thus shortening the
lifespan of the bridge [AITC 1974]. In addition to sealing, the use of Glue-lam
members will also necessitate a membrane to prevent water penetration from the top.
However, it is the most easily available material and its use would ease construction
considerably compared to construction with Ecoboard.
3.2.3 Plastic-Wood Composites
In choosing a plastic-wood composite, the choice of the manufacturer is crucial
to the design, as the material properties of plastic composites at this early stage in the
materials’ development depend to a marked extent on the fabricator. On the
suggestion of a student group from Cornell we explored the use of Ecoboard, a
plastic-wood composite made by American Ecoboard, Inc. The Cornell group
experienced success with this product in the construction of their pedestrian bridge.
Ecoboard also has the capability of being shaped into arched structural members,
but will be more expensive than structural wood.
Ecoboard is for the most part a confection of Medium- and Hard-Density
Polyethylene (MDPE and HDPE) and is reinforced with embedded fiberglass
threads. It uses nontoxic additives to reduce weight, increase strength and
mechanical properties. The resulting material is strong, light, impact resistant and

13
wood like in appearance. Ecoboard is also maintenance free with none of the
drawbacks associated with wood, such as rotting and susceptibility to parasites. The
typical lifespan of the material is 75 years and it is warranted for 25 years (Ecoboard
website).
Downsides include higher initial cost, greater short- and long-term deflections,
greater thermal expansion and localized melting from cutting and drilling [Preston,
Cornell].
The installation may be slightly more difficult with this material, given that the
material is so dense. All the screw holes must have pilot holes drilled for them and
each screw must be lubricated. These difficulties doubled the erection time in
comparison with timber, in the experience of the Cornell Group. However, Ecoboard
can be cut, drilled, mitered, and sanded with conventional woodworking tools.
Carbide tipped saw blades with fewest teeth are recommended. No special
installation crew is required.
3.2.4 Decking/Railing Wood
For the decking/railing material two woods (Ipe and Cedar) were considered in
addition to Ecoboard. Ipe is a South American wood also known as “ironwood”,
which is a heavy, hard, and strong wood that is very resistant to both rot and
parasites. It does not need to be sealed or stained. It has a nice color and is practically
faultless. Because it is so hard it has a much longer lifespan than other natural woods
[Ipe Website]. It is available only by special order and accordingly is very expensive.
Cedar is much more widely available and less expensive. It has a shorter lifespan
and requires sealing to make it resistant to rot [AITC 1994]. It is also aesthetically
pleasing, but it is less resistant to rot and would require more frequent replacement.
3.2.5 Conclusions
Given that Ipe, Ecoboard and Glue-lam Pine would all be acceptable for
construction, design calculations were completed for both materials and a cost
comparison was produced (Section 5.0). We believe that having all these design
options will allow the Quadrangle community and it’s owners to choose the design
they deem most appropriate to their needs, both budgetary and aesthetically.

14
3.3 Deck Design

3.3.1 Design Considerations

The main function of the deck is to distribute loads along the bridge transversely.
The deck either rests on or is integrated with a structural system designed to
distribute loads along the length of the bridge longitudinally.
The main concern in the design of the deck was to limit the amount of deflection.
This is mainly so that people will not perceive the deck moving as they walk across,
which makes them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. The acceptable deflection of the
deck under live load for any structural member is stipulated in the AASHTO
Pedestrian Bridge Code (1997) as the length of the member over 500 (_≤span/500).
The deck width was dictated by the desire for two motorized scooters, which many
residents utilize to move around the grounds, to pass each other on the bridge. This
required a 6 ft width of deck, which means that under the maximum load, it could
not deflect more than 0.144 in.
The AASHTO code specifies that the vehicle live load would be determined by
the operating agency. The largest of the scooters we observed at the Quadrangle
were Golden Technologies’ Golden Companion II. These scooters have three
wheels in total, two in the rear. The wheels are spaced two feet apart from each
other on center. The weight of a scooter carrying the maximum capacity was 500
lbs. We conservatively assumed that the two wheels would bear all of the weight
and that two of these fully loaded scooters would be side by side (see Figure 3.4).
Under these conditions, the deflection of the deck supported by two girders, given
our chosen materials and manufacturered sizes, was in excess of the specified
standard.
With three girders supporting the decking, the span of the decking member
becomes 3 ft, requiring a maximum deflection of 0.072 in. Under the conditions in
Figures 3.4-3.5, the minimum cross section for each material was determined (Table
3.2). Obviously, it was also desirable to design the decking to be as light as possible
so as to minimize the dead load on the girders.

15
Table 3.1: Material Properties
Density Modulus of Elasticity Fb Fv
Material
(lb/cu ft) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
Cedar 22 1110 2.54 0.22
Ecoboard 60.12 330.4 2.5 0.986
Ipe 66.6 3301 24.08 N/A
Glu-lam Pine 36 1400 4.07 0.505

Figure 3.4: Two-girder decking with vehicle live load

Figure 3.5: Three-girder decking with vehicle live load

Figure 3.6: Three-girder decking with distributed live load

Table 3.2: Decking Cross-Section Dimensions

Material Section Height Section Width
Cedar 2 in 6 in
IPE 28 mm 145 mm
Ecoboard 3 in 6 in

16
 3.3.2 Multiframe Analysis
An analysis of the decking portion of the bridge was performed. Each of the
three possible decking materials was modeled using multiple different cross-sections
for each. The controlling design consideration was allowable deflection. The results
can be seen in Appendix B. All the materials were found to be adequate for the
standard manufacturer’s sizes.
3.3.3 Conclusions
It was determined from this analysis that the 2-girder configuration was not
acceptable due to excessive deflections and thus the 3-girder configuration was
decided upon for the final design. The standard sizes that Ipe comes in are in metric
measurements, making it inconvenient to use in construction. Because Ecoboard has
such large deflection, the section size required is very thick (3” compared to Cedar,
which requires 2”). This increase in thickness is unseemly, heavy, and more
expensive because it is simply more material. Given that cedar is equally as efficient
as the other materials, more widely available and cheaper, and lighter in weight, this
is the decking material we would recommend for use in the construction of the
bridge.

3.4 Railing Design

3.4.1 Design Considerations

Upon the completion of the decking design, the railings were designed using the
design loads and specifications in the International Building Code (IBC, 2003),
which stipulates the handrail height, graspability, continuity and live loads to be
resisted (Appendix G). Given that the bridge was to resemble Monet’s paintings, the
railings were designed as constant radius arches that matched the girder shape
(Figure 3.6). It was decided that, for aesthetic purposes, the railing material should
match that of the deck, and we analyzed each material for use with the railing.

Figure 3.7: Railing

17
 It was determined that a maximum of five feet was desired between vertical posts
for aesthetic purposes. For the 30 foot span, this stipulates 7 posts per side. For the
35 foot span, this stipulates 8 posts per side. The bottom longitudinal rail was placed
midway between the top rail and the deck.
3.4.2 Multiframe Analysis
The design loads are specified in the IBC and the desired arrangement was
known, so the Multiframe analysis was simply a process of insuring that the design
was acceptable using LRFD methods. The equations and adjustment factors used
may be found in Appendix K. This included applying the required loads at different
points along the bridge and comparing the performances of the different materials.
The section properties for the railing types are listed in Table 3.3. The results of this
loading can be found in Appendix C. The dead loads contributed by each of the three
possible designs were then calculated.
Table 3.3: Railing Section Properties
Moment
Height Width Height Width Shear
Material Capacity
(nominal) (nominal) (actual) (actual) (kip)
(kip-in)
IPE 37 mm 40 mm 1.46 in 1.57 in 9.120 2.073
42 mm 70 mm 1.65 in 2.76 in 20.56 4.119
80 mm 80 mm 3.15 in 3.15 in 85.27 8.967
Cedar 3 in 3 in 2.5 in 2.5 in 4.498 0.5500
4 in 4 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 12.34 1.078
6 in 6 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 47.89 2.662
EcoBoard 4 in 4 in 18.13 6.310
5 in 5 in 35.42 9.860
6 in 6 in 61.20 14.19

3.4.3 Conclusions
It was established that each design was acceptable on the basis of its ability to
resist the required loads. Given that the decking and handrail materials were to
match, the overall dead weights of the three possible deck/handrail designs were
computed. As Cedar was again the least expensive and lightest material possible, this
was determined to be the most desirable choice; however, any of the designs would
be acceptable.

18
3.5 Arched Girder Design

3.5.1 Design Considerations

The primary members distribute loads longitudinally and are usually designed
principally to resist flexure. The design of wood structural members is governed by
the AITC Timber Construction Manual and the AF&PA LRFD Manual for
Engineered Wood Construction.
Based on these guidelines we determined our critical loading scenario to include
both dead loads and live loads, which are permanent loads and temporary loads,
respectively. Neither the AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Code nor the AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges site snow or rain loads for bridges.
wind loads that needed to be accounted for. It was also determined that there would
be no significant temperature deflections.
The dead load weight was determined by the design of both the decking and
railings. The dead load was computed for each possible material combination. Refer
to Appendix D for the full analysis and notes.
The live loads were determined to include pedestrian live load and vehicle live
load, as stipulated in the AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Code. There were many girder
configurations possible, but as specified by the AITC Timber Manual, each girder
was analyzed as a two hinged arch.
Blocking was included between the three girders to ensure equal distribution of
the loads on each girder. This will allow the girders to deflect equally. It will be of
the same material as that of the girders and will be spaced 9 feet on center.
The ramps from the abutments to the decking will need to be designed at a later
date once the exact amount of earthwork required is known.
3.5.2 Multiframe Analysis
Each girder was treated as a constant radius arch. We used the design and load
analysis specified in AITC Timber Construction Manual 5.13.8. The arch is divided
up into 40 separate sections. The dead, live, and wind loads are then applied to the
arch in a series of different combinations. Please refer to Appendix D for the various
combinations and results.

19
 3.5.3 Conclusions
It was determined that the Glue-laminated Pine arches were optimal for use in the
construction of this bridge. This is mainly due to their ability to be formed into a
constant radius arch of adequate length, given that this will simplify construction as
it does not necessitate moment connections. EcoBoard is much denser proving for
much heavier members. GluLam members are also the most readily available and
the least expensive of the two options. The optimal cross section we determined had
a size of 5 1/2” x 3 1/8”.

3.6 Connections Design

3.6.1 Deck to Girders

The decking members will be screwed directly into the girders using stainless
steel square head #10 decking screws. Two screws should be used at each end of the
plank. All fasteners should be placed no closer than 1” from any edge nor protrude
from any board closer than 1” from any edge. Additionally, the screw heads will
need to be countersunk. This will be cumbersome, but is necessary to ensure
smoothness along the deck.
In the design that uses Glue-lam structural members and wood planking, a
membrane will need to be placed in between the decking and the girders. The
recommended membrane is a self-adhesive waterproof flashing membrane. This
membrane has a self-sealing rubberized asphalt core and is reinforced by a strong
cross-laminated high-density polyethylene film.
In the design that uses Ecoboard planking, pilot holes will need to be pre-drilled
at the desired location of each screw due to the hardness of the material.
If installation takes place at temperatures over 45°F, all ends should be butted
tightly together. In all other conditions, a space of _” should be allowed between
ends.
3.6.2 Railing Posts to Girders
Posts for railings will be connected to the girders using aluminum angles. These
should be tag bolted to the girder on the outside edge. It is imperative to refrain from
notching posts during construction. Details can be found in Appendix E.
3.6.3 Railing Components
The railing components will be screwed together using #10 stainless steel screws.

20
 3.6.4 Girder Diaphragms
Diaphragms should be screwed in horizontally between the three girders every
nine feet. These will be offset from railing posts to avoid connection conflicts. This
will serve to ensure equal distribution of the loads on each girder. This will allow the
girders to deflect equally. This blocking can be attached to girders using stainless
steel screws.
3.6.5 Arch to Abutment
These connections will be hinge connections. There will be a total of six, one at
each end of each girder. At these connections a steel bearing plate will be bolted to
the abutment and the hinge will be connected to this plate. The other side of the
hinge will be bolted to the end of each girder. Details can be found in Appendix E.

21
 4.0 Design of Substructure

4.1 Design Process Overview

The substructure consists of all elements required to support the superstructure.

The basic substructure is composed of abutments, bearings, and footings. The
function of a foundation is to transfer the loads from the bridge elements above
ground to the soil or rock without objectionable vertical or lateral movement.
Selection and design of the proper foundation is dependent upon the design structural
loading conditions and surface and subsurface conditions at the site [Tonais].

4.2 Abutments

4.2.1 Design Considerations

Bridge abutments are structures at the two ends of a bridge used for the double
purpose of transferring the loads from the bridge superstructure to the foundation bed
and giving lateral support to the approach embankment. In the case of a river
crossing, an abutment may also function to protect the embankment against scour of
the stream.
The foundation should be located as high as feasible, since costs increase
significantly with depth. The foundation elevation should also be deep enough to
provide long term bearing support, to prevent undue total and differential settlement,
to resist lateral forces and to avoid problems from ground movement (such as frost
heave), scour and/or future deepening of a channel area.
Scour is one of the basic characteristics of streams and is defined as the removal
of stream bed material by stream or tidal currents. It may naturally occur as the result
of channel construction or changes in the flow pattern. Local scour may occur, in this
case, due to obstructions: the local scour hole around a bridge abutment occurs
because the abutment is an obstruction to the flow [Troitsky].
The need for scour protection can be minimized by locating bridges on stable
tangential reaches of channels and by placing foundations on inerodible materials.
However, such a solution is not always practical, economical or desirable from a

22
usage standpoint. In addition to these, abutment scour could be reduced by rip-rap
protection, a sheet pile or a spur dike.
In designing water crossing bridges an estimate of possible scour is required
because scour may occur unless the stream bed is inerodible rock. The following
three design factors should be considered: the flood frequency and magnitude, the
flow pattern for each flood with geometry of the given design, and the resulting
scour. If a scour prediction cannot be made explicitly, as is the case of our design,
the foundation should be designed more conservatively to accommodate unexpected
scour depth.
Bridge abutments are generally made of reinforced concrete. Stonemasonry may
be used, but is ordinarily incorporated as a facing backed with concrete in the case
when architectural effects and durability or surface are desired, as in this case.
The forces considered for the design of abutments are: to prevent uplift on the
back side of the footing; the resultant load of the lateral earth pressure and weight of
the masonry and bridge must fall inside the middle third of the base; for embankment
stability the design must be of sufficient depth of the abutment below the ground
surface combined with a sufficient shear strength of the soil; proper drainage of the
fill immediately behind the abutment; and because of the considerable difference in
loadings it is advisable to consider the wing walls as structures separated from the
abutment and to provide expansion joints completely through walls and footings
[Troitsky].
4.2.2 Abutment Types
Though we have had courses in geotechnical engineering in which we gained
experience designing retaining walls, we possessed very little experience with
designing abutments. Thus, concurrent with our structural design we conducted a
literature search of abutments that might be acceptable for use with our bridge. Faced
with actually designing our own abutments, we were forced to go into more detail
but the following types were investigated.
Wing Type Abutment: In the wing-wall type the wings may be at any angle
with the breast wall (angles of 30 and 45 degrees are commonly used). The wing
wall abutment is used to protect the embankment against washing out under high

23
water as well as to furnish better hydraulic conditions by providing a gradual change
in the cross section of the channel. In general, such an abutment is heavy and is most
suitable on firm soils. The wings are designed as retaining walls.
Straight Wing Abutment: This is a special form of wing wall abutment.
Essentially, these are retaining walls modified so as to support the superstructure.
They are used with embankments of moderate height and mainly for smaller bridges.
Straight wing abutments are often built at stream crossings where the wings prevent
the fill from blocking the stream and where they tend to restrict the scouring action
of water eddying around the main support. Such abutments are usually massive and
must resist large overturning moments. The tops of the wings are sloped to conform
to the slope of the embankment fill.
Flanking Span Abutment: It is logical in many cases to reduce the lateral
pressure on abutments and reduce costs further by use of a flanking abutment, which
stands free of the fill at the edge of the water except for the small piece that serves to
anchor it to the fill.
4.2.3 Conclusions
We designed our abutments as wing-type abutments due to the desirable aesthetic
nature of these walls. Because the abutments will function much like retaining walls,
they were designed as such and then modified so as to include a bridge seat and
bearing pad. Since the bridge is relatively small, as is the quantity of soil behind the
abutments, the abutments were designed as gravity walls. These walls use their own
weight to resist failure. Thus, a gravity wall must be heavy enough and of sufficient
proportions to be able to safely withstand the tendency to slide and the tendency to
overturn.
The abutment will be made almost entirely from concrete, but will have dowels
where the wing walls connect to the main wall and reinforcement where the bearing
plate bolts into the wall. Additionally, the bearing plate bolts will be cast in place
with the wall. The wall may also be faced with masonry for aesthetic purposes if the
community so desires. Drainage should be provided behind the wall in the form of a
gravel drain along the back of the wall and a pipe drain at the base of the wall.

24
 The abutment will have a height of 7-ft and a base of 6-ft. The footing will be 2-
ft thick and the bridge seat will be 2-ft wide and 1-ft high. These dimensions lead to
a Factor of Safety against Overturning of 2.42 and a Factor of Safety against Sliding
of 3.42. Both values are more than ample. The comprehensive abutment design can
be found in Appendix E in addition to the design assumptions.
The exact dimensions of the abutment will not be known until a more detailed
survey of the site is performed and a span length is determined, indicating the
amount of fill that will be needed. The design is a simple one and a spreadsheet was
created so as to facilitate any changes that need to be made. The general abutment
geometry will remain as shown in Appendix E.

4.3 Bearings

Bearings are mechanical systems which transmit the vertical loads of the
superstructure to the substructure. Bearings come in a variety of shapes and sizes.
The applicability of certain types of bearings will vary depending on the loads and
movements the bearing is required to sustain. In this case, hinges will be employed
as the connection from the superstructure to the abutment. Each hinge will be
attached to a bearing plate bolted to the abutment. The abutment will be reinforced
with dowels at these connections to resist pulling out of the bearing plate from the
abutment. The details of the bearing design for this bridge can be found in Appendix
F.

4.4 Footings

As bearings transfer the superstructure loads to the substructure, so in turn do the

abutment footings transfer loads from the substructure to the subsoil. In the case of
the gravity wall type retaining wall, there is not a footing in the conventional sense
of the word. The wall retains the earth entirely by its own weight, as opposed to a
cantilever retaining wall which is a vertical wall held in place by the footing. Though
there is not a footing, there is a base to the wall. In this case the base is 6 feet in
width and 2 feet in height.

25
 Thus, in this case the only real considerations in the design of the footing were to
ensure that the weight of the whole wall was high enough to offset that of the soil
and to ensure that the allowable bearing pressure of the soil was not exceeded. The
footing does not require reinforcement, but care should be taken that the base is set
deep enough to avoid exposing the footing to freezing. As can be seen in the design,
this necessitates a minimum of 36” of soil above the base of the footing.

Figure 4.1: Abutment side view

26
 5.0 Cost Estimate

5.1 Introduction and Assumptions

As of the conclusion of this project the engineers were unable to obtain pricing
information of more detail than to be able to provide a relative measure of overall
cost. This problem was mainly due to the unwillingness of the suppliers to provide
cost estimates without reviewing the final design of the bridge, which was not
completed until the final compilation of this report. Supplier contact information has
been included in Appendix J so that once a final design has been chosen by the
Quadrangle community, obtaining materials should be a simple matter.

5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

From the relative pricing information available, it is the recommendation of the

engineers that Cedar be used for the deck and railings of the bridge and Glue-lam
Pine should be used for the structural members.
The span length of 35 feet is also recommended, given that this will supply the
most stable bridge site and will require the least earthwork. The cost may be slightly
greater due to the additional materials and larger abutments needed; however, this
cost is justified to ensure the longevity of the bridge.

27
 6.0 Environmental Impact Statement
The environmental impacts of our bridge were examined under the framework of
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Categorical Exclusion Evaluation
Form. While the form is meant to be used for the evaluation of a highway project,
the environmental constraints on a project are similar. There were multiple codes and
provisions included in the form that were not accessible and therefore were not
consulted. The form provides a opportunity for commentary on the following (those
that were applicable are marked with an * and remarks are provided):
• Land acquisition
• Involvement with utilities*
o There are electrical and water utilities that lead to the fountain in the
pond. These should not be in the way of construction, but their
presence should be noted.
• Roadway characteristics
• Setting*
o rural
• Topography*
o Rolling to mountainous
• Design vehicles
• Design speeds*
o The scooters travel at a maximum speed of , no posted speed limit
needed.
• Traffic control measures
• Estimated project costs*
o See Section 5.0 for cost estimate.
• Aquatic resources
o Streams, rivers and watercourses*
 The drainage ditch and thus the steam that it feeds into may be
impacted.
o National and state wild and scenic rivers and streams
o Navigable waterways
o Other surface waters*
 The artificial pond is identified as one such water body.
o Groundwater resources
o Wetlands
o Coastal zone
o Floodplains
o Soil erosion and sediment*
 Permanent effects due to construction activities have the
potential to enflame the soil and erosion situations in the area.
An erosion and sedimentation (E&S) control plan should be

28
 drafted before construction begins and there should be
coordination with the *** County Conservation District.
• Land
o Agricultural resources
o Vegetation*
 Minimal impact to vegetation will occur. Clearing of shrubs
and undergrowth will be required in order to install the bridge.
The removal of trees on the east bank will also be necessary.
The maintenance of the willow tree on the west bank has been
a major construction consideration. The bridge has been sited
accordingly.
o Unique geologic resources
o Parks and recreation facilities
o National natural landmarks
o Natural and wild areas
o Hazardous or residual waste sites
o Wildlife and habitat*
 The only wildlife in the construction area is a large flock of
Canadian Geese, who use the pond as a migratory stop over.
Construction may disturb this pattern for a short time, but
upon completion of construction the habitat should not be
impacted.
o Threatened and endangered plants and animals
o Cultural resources
 Prehistoric archeology
 Historic archeology
 Historic structure
 Historic transportation corridor
o Section 4(f) resource
o Air quality and noise
o Socioeconomic areas
 Regional and community growth
 Public facilities and services
 Community cohesion
 Environmental justice
 Displacement of people, businesses or farms
 Maintenance and operating costs of the project and related
facilities*
• The maintenance of the bridge will be paid for by the
management company responsible for the land,
Marriott. It is also possible that the ** family may be
willing to pay for some of these costs. These costs will
vary depending on the initial design choosen.
 Public controversy on environmental grounds
 Aesthetics and other values*

29
 • This structure will enhance the scenic nature of the
pond and will bring to fruition the community’s wish
for the bridge.
• Temporary impacts
o Temporary impacts to resources
 Air quality
 Noise levels*
• Noise levels during construction may be an issue,
especially given the proximity of the construction site
to the residence buildings. Since this is unavoidable,
heavy machinery hours of operation will be limited
and the construction period should not be prolonged.
 Water quality*
• The water quality of the pond may be negatively
impacted due to the large amounts of earthwork that
will be required; however, this earthwork may result in
better water quality in the long term.
 Soil erosion and sedimentation*
• Soil erosion and sedimentation may be affected by
construction given the relatively large amounts of
earthwork required. As noted earlier, a erosion and
sedimentation control plan should be made prior to
beginning construction.
 Wetlands
 Agricultural resources
• Consistency determinations
o DEP Costal Zone Management Plan (NA)
o DEP/NPS Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NA)
o FEMA Flood Map Modification (NA)

30
 7.0 References

[1] American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) (1996). Load and Resistance
Factor Design Manual for Engineered Wood Construction. AFPA.
[2] American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC) (1994). Timber Construction
Manual. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[3] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1994).
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Washington, D.C. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc.
[4] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures of the Standing Committee on
Highways (1997). Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges.
Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Inc.
[5] Beer, F.P., Johnston Jr., E.R., & DeWolf, J.T. (2001). Mechanics of Materials
(3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
[6] Breyer, Donald E. (1988). Design of Wood Structures (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
[7] Crews, F., Schor, S., & Hennessy, M. (1993). The Borzoi Handbook for Writers
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
[8] Faherty, Keith F. & Williamson, T.G. (1989). Wood Engineering and
Construction Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
[9] Green, D.W., Winandy, J.E., & Kretschmann, D.E. (1999). Ch. 4: Mechanical
Properties of Wood. In United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service Forest Product Laboratory (FPL), Wood Handbook: Wood as
an Engineering Material (pp. ). Madison, WI: FPL USDA Forest Service.
Retrieved 20 Feb 2005, from USDA Forest Service FPL Website:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf
[10] Hibbeler, Russell C. (2002). Structural Analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
[11] Hool, George A. and W.S. Kinne (1924). Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
[12] International Code Council (2003). International Building Code 2003 (1st ed.).
Thomas Delmar Learning.
[13] Spiegel, Leonard and George F. Limbrunner (2003). Reinforced Concrete
Design. Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall.
[14] Tonias, Demetrios E. (1995). Bridge Engineering: Design, Rehabilitation, and
Maintenance of Modern Highway Bridges. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
[15] Troitsky, M.S. ((1994). Planning and Design of Bridges. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

31
[16] Urquhart, Leonard Church and Charles Edward O’Rourke (1954). Design of
Concrete Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
[17] Ipe. (no date). Retrieved 24 Feb 2005 from DLH-Nordisk South American
Timber Specifications
Website:http://www.dlhnordisk.com/timbers/technical_
descriptions/southamerica.htm
[18] Specifications. (no date). Retrieved 24 Feb 2005 from American Ecoboard Inc.
Website: http://www.recycledplastic.com/specs.html

Software:

[19]AutoCAD LT 2003
[20] Microsoft Office Excel 2003
[21] Microsoft Office Word 2003
[22] Multiframe3D 8.63
[23] OmniGraffle 3.1.2 (v70)

32
Appendices
A. AutoCAD Drawings
B. Multiframe Analysis of Deck
C. Multiframe Analysis of Handrails
Figure 0.1: Multiframe Railing Frame

C-29
Figure 0.2: Multiframe Railing with labeled Joints

C-30
Figure 0.3: Multiframe Railing with labeled members

C-31
D. Multiframe Analysis of Arch
E. Abutments and Footings Design
Figure 0.4: Abutment plan view

Figure 0.5: Abutment side view

E-2
F. Connections Design
Connection Summary:
o Deck to Girders
o #10 Stainless Steel Screws
o Placed through the center of the girders
o Two are placed equidistant from each other and the edge of the
decking plank. The minimum distance between the screws is 1”.
o Railing posts to Girders
o Bolted in with two _” diameter bolts.
o Pre-drilled bolt holes.
o Holes go through the center of the Railing posts through the girders
o 1/8” washers.
o Railing Components & Girder Bracing
o Bolted in with 1/4” Aluminum plates.
o Plates are 2” wide and 4” long.
o Arch to Abutment
o Steel hinged connection, Figure F.1.
G. IBC Specifications
 Handrail Code
Taken From 2003 International Building Code

1009.11.1 Height. Handrail height, measured above stair tread nosings, or finish
surface of ramp slope, shall be uniform, not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not
more than 38 inches (965 mm).

1009.11.3 Handrail graspability. Handrails with a circular cross section shall have an
outside diameter of at least 1.25 inches (32 mm) and not greater than 2 inches (51
mm) or shall provide equivalent graspability. If the handrail is not circular, it shall
have a perimeter dimension of at least 4 inches (102 mm) and not greater than 6.25
inches (160 mm) with a maximum cross-section dimension of 2.25 inches (57 mm).
Edges shall have a minimum radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm).

1009.11.4 Continuity. Handrail gripping surface shall be continuous without

interruption by newel posts or other obstructions.

1607.7.1 Handrails and guards. Handrail assemblies and guards shall be designed to
resist a load of 50 plf (0.73 KN/m) applied in any direction at the top and to transfer
this load through the supports to the structure.

1607.7.1.1 Concentrated load. Handrail assemblies and guards shall be able to resist
a single concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN) applied in any direction at any
point along the top, and have attachment devices and supporting structure to transfer
this loading to appropriate structural elements of the building. This load need not be
assumed to act concurrently with the loads specified in the preceding paragraph.
H. AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Specifications
 Pedestrian Bridge Code
Taken From AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges
1997

1.2 Design Loads

1.2.1 Live Loads
1.2.1.1 Pedestrian Live Loads: Main supporting members, including girders, trusses,
and arches, shall be designed for a pedestrian live load of 85 pounds per
square foot (psf) of bridge walkway area. The pedestrian live load shall be
applied to those reas of the walkway so as to produce maximum stress in the
member being designed. There is a separate equation for bridge walkways
with decks exceeding 400 square feet.
1.2.1.2 Vehicle Load: Pedestriab/bicycle bridges should be designed for an
occasional single maintenance vehicle load provided vehicular axxess is no
physically prevented. A specified vehicle configuration determined by the
Operating Agency may be used for this design vehicle.
1.2.2 Wind loads: A wind load of the following intensity shall be applied
horizontally at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the structure. The wind
load shall be applied to the projected vertical area of all superstructures
elements, including exposes truss members on the leeward truss. For girders
and beams, the load is 50 pounds per square foot.
1.2.3 Combination Loads: The load combinations. i.e., allowable stress percentages
for service load design and load factors for load factor design as specified in
Table 3.22.1A of the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, shall be
used while modifying both the longitudinal force , LF, and the wind on live
load, WL, to zero.
1.3 Design Details
1.3.1 Deflection: Members should be designed so that the deflection due to the
service pedestrian live load does not exceed 1/500 of the length of the span.
It is 1/300 for the length of cantilever arms.
I. Time Log and Critical Path Method
J. Materials & Supplier Information
Table 0.1: Detailed Material Properties
h w b Area Spec Density E Fb Fv Mom Shear
h (in) Ix Iy sx sy
(mm) (mm) (in) (sq in) Grav (pcf) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (kipin) (kip)
IPE 19 90 0.748 3.54 2.65 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 5.411 2.396 0.1236 2.773 0.3304 1.565
19 145 0.748 5.71 4.27 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 8.717 3.860 0.1991 11.60 0.5324 4.063
21 120 0.827 4.72 3.91 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 8.813 3.531 0.2225 7.265 0.5382 3.076
21 145 0.827 5.71 4.72 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 10.65 4.267 0.2688 12.82 0.6504 4.491
25 145 0.984 5.71 5.62 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 15.09 5.079 0.4536 15.26 0.9217 5.346
28 145 1.10 5.71 6.29 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 18.93 5.689 0.6373 17.09 1.156 5.987
35 145 1.38 5.71 7.87 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 29.58 7.111 1.245 21.36 1.807 7.484
45 145 1.77 5.71 10.11 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 48.90 9.143 2.645 27.47 2.986 9.623
Handrail 37 40 1.46 1.57 2.29 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 9.120 2.074 0.4056 0.4741 0.5569 0.6021
42 70 1.65 2.76 4.56 1.04 66.6 3302 24.08 2.26 20.56 4.120 1.038 2.884 1.256 2.093
Post 80 80 3.15 3.15 9.92 1.04 66.6 3301 24.08 2.26 85.27 8.968 8.201 8.201 5.207 5.207
100 100 3.94 3.94 15.50 1.04 66.6 3302 24.08 2.26 166.5 14.012 20.02 20.02 10.17 10.17
145 145 5.71 5.71 32.59 1.04 66.6 3303 24.08 2.26 507.7 29.460 88.50 88.50 31.01 31.01
Cedar nominal size 0.75 3.5 2.63 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 0.5667 0.2310 0.1230 2.680 0.3281 1.531
1 6 0.75 5.5 4.13 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 0.8906 0.3630 0.1934 10.40 0.5156 3.781
2 4 1.5 3.5 5.25 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 5.290 0.4620 0.9840 5.359 3.063 1.313
2 6 1.5 5.5 8.25 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 13.06 0.7260 1.547 20.80 7.563 2.063
Post 3 3 2.5 2.5 6.25 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 4.498 0.5500 3.255 3.255 2.604 2.604
4 4 3.5 3.5 12.25 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 12.34 1.078 12.51 12.51 7.146 7.146
6 6 5.5 5.5 30.25 0.35 22 1110 2.54 0.22 47.89 2.662 76.26 76.26 27.73 27.73
EcoBoard 2 6 12.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 6.800 4.733 4.000 36.00 4.000 12.00
2 8 16.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 9.067 6.310 5.333 85.33 5.333 21.33
3 8 24.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 20.40 9.466 18.00 128.0 12.00 32.00
Handrail 2 2 4.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 2.267 1.578 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333
2 4 8.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 4.533 3.155 2.667 10.67 2.667 5.333
Posts 4 4 16.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 18.13 6.310 21.33 21.33 10.67 10.67
5 5 25.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 35.42 9.860 52.08 52.08 20.83 20.83
6 6 36.00 0.965 60.12 330.4 2.50 0.986 61.20 14.20 108.0 108.0 36.00 36.00
GluLam Lam 1 3/8 5 4/8 3 1/8 17.19 36 1400 4.07 0.505 24.94 3.472 43.33 13.99 15.76 8.95
Tague Lumber (for both Cedar & Ipe)

325 Media Station Road

Media, PA 19063-4755
1-877-566-WOOD
Phone: 610-566-1200
Fax:(610) 565-2107
[email protected]

American Ecoboard Inc. (for Ecoboard)

200 Finn Court

Farmingdale, NY 11735
Phone: 631.753.5151
Fax: 631.753.5165

Tony Conte
[email protected]
K. Load and Resistance Factor Calculations