Bridging Historic Spring 2021Troutdale Downtown Troutdale and The Confluence Site Evan Kristof PSU Civil & Environmental Engineering Capstone Spring 2021 Troutdale Bridging Historic Downtown Troutdale and The Confluence Site Evan Kristof Senior Instructor • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY Acknowledgments The CBD-URA Design Team acknowledges all those throughout history that have contributed to the development of knowledge and understanding in science, math, and engineering. We acknowledge and appreciate those who have instructed us in all aspects of life throughout our education at Portland State University. Special acknowledgements and thanks to those who have directly guided our work on this project: Evan Kristof, Patrick McLaughlin, Dr. Thomas Schumacher, Dr. Avinash Unnikrishnan, Mary Ann Triska, and Dean Richard Corsi. Furthermore, we are grateful to the Community of Troutdale, and all the shareholders of the CBD-URA Bridge Project for placing their trust in us. Special acknowledgments to those we are directly in contact with, Amber Shackelford and Chris Damgen, without whom this project would not be possible. We would also like to thank Hardman Geotechnical Services Inc (HGSI) for allowing us to use their tools and laboratory equipment to gather data on-site. This hands-on experience was invaluable to our learning process and would not have been possible without their help. We are honored to contribute in some small way to the betterment of the community and acknowledge that we truly do stand on the shoulders of the giants who have come before. This report was prepared as part of a class project for the Civil and Environmental Engineering Project Management and Design course at Portland State University. The contents of this report were developed by the student authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Portland State University. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the report should not be construed as an engineering report or used as a substitute for professional engineering services. This report represents original student work and recommendations prepared by students in the Sustainable City Year Program for the City of Troutdale. Text and images contained in this report may not be used without permission from the University of Oregon. Contents 4 About SCI 4 About SCYP 5 About City of Troutdale 6 Course Participants 7 Executive Summary 9 1.0 Project Background 16 2.0 Alternatives Analysis 27 3.0 Facility Design 43 4.0 Regulatory Compliance and Permitting 44 5.0 Conclusion 45 References 48 Appendices Spring 2021 Bridging Historic Downtown Troutdale and The Confluence Site About SCI The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) 2. Our Urbanism Next Center, which is an applied think tank focusing on focuses on how autonomous vehicles, sustainability and cities through applied e-commerce, and the sharing economy research, teaching, and community will impact the form and function of partnerships. We work across cities. disciplines that match the complexity of cities to address sustainability In all cases, we share our expertise challenges, from regional planning to and experiences with scholars, building design and from enhancing policymakers, community leaders, and engagement of diverse communities project partners. We further extend to understanding the impacts on our impact via an annual Expert-in- municipal budgets from disruptive Residence Program, SCI China visiting technologies and many issues in scholars program, study abroad course between. on redesigning cities for people on SCI focuses on sustainability-based bicycle, and through our co-leadership research and teaching opportunities of the Educational Partnerships for through two primary efforts: Innovation in Communities Network (EPIC-N), which is transferring SCYP 1. Our Sustainable City Year Program to universities and communities (SCYP), a massively scaled university- across the globe. Our work connects community partnership program that student passion, faculty experience, matches the resources of the University and community needs to produce with one Oregon community each innovative, tangible solutions for the year to help advance that community’s creation of a sustainable society. sustainability goals; and About SCYP The Sustainable City Year Program learning courses to provide students (SCYP) is a year-long partnership with real-world projects to investigate. between SCI and a partner in Oregon, Students bring energy, enthusiasm, in which students and faculty in courses and innovative approaches to difficult, from across the university collaborate persistent problems. SCYP’s primary with a public entity on sustainability value derives from collaborations and livability projects. SCYP faculty that result in on-the-ground impact and students work in collaboration with and expanded conversations for a staff from the partner agency through community ready to transition to a a variety of studio projects and service- more sustainable and livable future. 4 About City of Troutdale About City of Troutdale Troutdale is a dynamic suburban community in Multnomah County, situated on the eastern edge of the Portland metropolitan region and the western edge of the Columbia River Gorge. Settled in the late 1800s and incorporated in 1907, this “Gateway to the Gorge” is approximately six square miles in size with a population of nearly 17,000 residents. Almost 75% of that population is aged 18-64. Troutdale’s median household beautiful natural setting, miles of trails, income of $72,188 exceeds the State and parkland and conservation areas of Oregon’s $59,393. Troutdale’s draw residents and visitors alike. The neighbors include Wood Village and City’s pride in place is manifested Fairview to the west, Gresham to the through its monthly gatherings and south, and unincorporated areas of annual events, ranging from “First Multnomah County to the east. Friday” art walks to the city’s long- For the first part of the 20th century, standing Summerfest celebration the city remained a small village serving each July. A dedicated art scene and area farmers and company workers an exciting culinary mix have made at nearby industrial facilities. Starting Troutdale an enviable destination and around 1970, Troutdale became a underscore the community’s quality of bedroom community in the region, with life. Troutdale is home to McMenamins subdivisions and spurts of multi-family Edgefield, one of Portland’s beloved residential housing occurring. In the venues for entertainment and 1990s, efforts were made to improve hospitality. the aesthetics of the community’s In recent years, Troutdale has original core, contributing to an award- developed a robust economic winning “Main Street” infill project that development program. The City’s helped with placemaking. In the 2010s, largest employers are Amazon and the City positioned itself as a jobs FedEx Ground, although the City center as it worked with stakeholders to also has numerous local and regional transform a large superfund area to one businesses that highlight unique assets of the region’s most attractive industrial within the area. Troutdale’s recent centers – the Troutdale-Reynolds business-related efforts have focused Industrial Park. on the City’s Town Center, where 12 The principal transportation link “opportunity sites” have been identified between Troutdale and Portland is for infill development that respects the Interstate 84. The Union Pacific Railroad small-town feel while offering support main line runs just north of Troutdale’s to the existing retail environment. The city center. The Troutdale area is the next 20 years promise to be an exciting gateway to the famous Columbia River time for a mature community to protect Gorge Scenic Area and Sandy River what’s loved and expand opportunities recreational areas, and its outdoor that contribute to Troutdale’s pride in pursuits. Troutdale’s appealing and place. 5 Spring 2021 Bridging Historic Downtown Troutdale and The Confluence Site Course Participants NOAH SOLOMON-LOPEZ TRICIA OLESON EVGENY KOZYAEV MOHAMMED AL MANEA ANNECY BAL PHILLIP GRIGOROV CHAD HARDMAN HUSSAM FALLATAH ETHAN JUDD JOSH LAYMAN JARED KITTLE MAX VAN DONSEL MARDAS AL SULEIMANI EMILY RICHARDS 6 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Troutdale’s Town Center District was established in the 19th century by pioneering families and is considered the cultural heart of their community. The Town Center District is 270 acres located south of Interstate I-84, and west of the Sandy River. The City of Troutdale has a robust Capital Improvement Plan with goals for the city's growth, supportable employment, civic-use spaces, and future economic development of the empty Confluence site behind the Columbia Gorge Outlets Shopping Center. Currently, there is no safe or direct route for pedestrian traffic from Historic Downtown Troutdale to the Confluence site as an active main-line Union Pacific Railway creates a barrier between these two areas. The purpose of this project is to connect the Downtown area to the newly developing Confluence site using a pedestrian bridge. This proposed design would be inclusive to pedestrians, cyclists, and neighborhood electric vehicles (golf carts). The scope of this project is a 30% initial design along with costing estimates for design, permitting, and construction that could take place in the next five years. The foundation design was performed in accordance with geotechnical standards of practice using resources available from previous nearby geotechnical investigations, United States Geological Survey (USGS) data, as well data gathered on-site. In all cases, conservative design values are used in calculations and design as described herein. At this time, any design recommendations should be considered preliminary, and further geotechnical exploration and data collection should be done to verify the design recommendations of this report. A shallow foundation analysis was performed. A range of allowable vertical loads was determined for a variety of footing geometries, and the most reasonable geometries were selected and recommended herein as potential footing geometries for the loads calculated in the preliminary analysis. Preliminary CAD drawings and typical detail are provided for these shallow foundation geometries in appendix C. In general, the loads determined require relatively large shallow footing supports. Due to the space limitations of the project, it is likely that deep foundations will be preferred as they will take less space and perhaps be less costly. Cursory deep foundation analysis has been performed using SHAFT software, and those calculations and preliminary design recommendations are provided in section 3.4.1 and appendix C and D. 7 i CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) For the structural design, the truss of the bridge is made out of W18x86 I-beams, except diagonal members that are made of W18x158. The horizontal perpendicular and diagonal members are made of W12x53 and W12x87 respectively since they are only for the lateral stiffness of the bridge. This means that they have a small axial loading where similar ones are used in the Lafayette street pedestrian bridge. The loading conditions and calculations followed the AASHTO LRFD 2012 Bridge Design Specifications 6th Ed (US) code, as shown in section 3.4.2 and the appendix. The columns of the bridge are constructed of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete with rectangular cross-section 3 ft x 6 ft, concrete compressive strength of 4000 psi, and grade 60 reinforcing steel. The longitudinal reinforcement is provided by 26-#9 bar and the transverse reinforcement is provided by overlapping closed-loop #3 ties, following the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge specifications. For the slab design, corrugated steel was used as a reinforcement with a two-inch concrete cover. U.S. BRIDGE provided the tests for the designed loading using different spans. Through two load combinations, the max moment of the floor beams was found and used to determine adequate members. A W10x17 section was selected and placed at a 4.33 feet spacing and at a 3-floor beam per panel. 8 ii CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) The following report and subsequent sections will cover the background of the area and the need for a pedestrian bridge as well as alternative designs, proposed design along, cost analysis, construction schedule, and permitting prepared by Portland State University CEE Capstone Class. 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Troutdale is located south of Interstate I-84, approximately 12 miles east of Portland, OR. It is a growing city with a population of about 17,000 people. The Downtown district and Columbia Gorge Outlets Shopping Center are disconnected due to elevation and a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railway (Figure 1.1). This project aims to provide connectivity and access between the two districts by beginning the design of a pedestrian and light vehicle bridge. Figure 1.1: Troutdale Town Center District (City of Troutdale, 2020) Due to natural growth, downtown Troutdale has a low population density. The City of Troutdale is expanding but remains disconnected from surrounding areas. To stabilize the population and bring more people into this area, there is a need for more development. The largest developable area is the Confluence site and is located inside the City’s urban renewal area (URA). The URA includes Columbia Gorge Outlets, The Confluence site, and Depot Park. It is located north of an active, main-line Union Pacific railroad, south of I-84, east of Graham Rd. and west of the Sandy River. Figure 1.2 shows the URA adjacent to downtown, also called the central business district (CBD) of the City of Troutdale. The development of the URA will play a critical role in the long-term success of the City of Troutdale. Currently, it is separated from downtown Troutdale by an active, main-line Union Pacific railroad right-of-way. The railroad makes the connections between the two areas involve indirect routes, which are unsafe and inconvenient for pedestrian and bike traffic. A multipurpose bridge would directly connect the CBD of downtown Troutdale to the 9 1 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Confluence site of the URA (Figure 1.3). Therefore, the proposed bridge would directly link the existing infrastructure of the downtown CBD to the future development in the URA. Figure 1.2: Neighborhoods within the Town Center District (City of Troutdale, 2020) 10 2 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Figure 1.3: Proposed Location of the Pedestrian Bridge (City of Troutdale, 2020) The Pedestrian bridge will be located north of the East Historic Columbia River Highway, Troutdale, OR, in between the 200 and 300 blocks. The bridge crosses the active, main-line Union Pacific railroad. The yellow dashed lines outline the URA and the location of the bridge, the yellow shading covers the area of the confluence site, and black hash marks were used to outline the location of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks traveling east and west (see Figure 1.3). 11 3 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 1.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITION In this section, the existing site conditions and structures for the CBD-URA pedestrian bridge location are outlined. The City of Troutdale owns The Confluence site within the URA. The water tank located in the middle of The Confluence site belongs to the City of Troutdale. The proposed bridge location will pass over an active, main-line Union Pacific railroad South of the URA. The northern border of the URA is shared with the State of Oregon which owns the I-84 property. The southern and western borders are shared with CBD (privately owned properties), and the eastern border is defined by the Sandy River. 1.1.1 Geology Per the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) mapping, the geology of the site is identified as Quaternary (about 10,000 years) alluvial and colluvial deposits caused by the Missoula and Bonneville flood events. This deposit is known as the “Missoula Flood Deposit” (Figure 1.1.1.1). According to USGS, Missoula Flood Deposits are described as “Deposits of unconsolidated sediments. Includes alluvium, colluvium, river and coastal terrace, landslide, glacial, eolian, beach, lacustrine, playa, and pluvial lake deposits, and outburst flood deposits left by the Missoula and Bonneville floods.” Figure 1.1.1.1: Geologic Map for the City of Troutdale (DOGAMI, 2021) 12 4 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) The thickness of this strata usually extends more than 100 feet. These deposits are expected to be underlain by Boring Lava Flows, which were the dominant geologic formation in the area before the flooding events. The Missoula Flood strata is likely overlain by topsoil in many areas, consisting of a nonplastic, noncohesive, organic silt. Some surficial geotechnical evaluation, including shallow dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests and hand auger borings, would give valuable data about the project’s specific shallow depth geologic conditions. Deeper Standard Penetrometer Testing (SPT) would give insight on geologic conditions deeper into the strata. 1.1.2 Topography The topography of the project varies widely from south to north. The southern portion is mainly flat and covered in hardscape and landscape that supports the existing business structures and pedestrian traffic associated with the commercial district. Moving to the North, a concrete stairway and landscaping connect the frontages on Historic Columbia River Highway to the lower back elevation and parking. In this area, the topology is relatively flat. North of the railroad tracks, the grade drops steeply again (Figure 1.1.1.2). Figure 1.1.1.2: Preliminary Cross-Sectional Sketch of Project Area (City of Troutdale, 2020) 13 5 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Figure 1.1.1.3: Actual View Point of Proposed Bridge Site. Taken from the Confluence Site Looking South Towards Downtown (Oleson, Patricia. 2021) 1.1.3 Climate Troutdale has dry and warm summers with powerful winds in the Pacific North-West. Strong eastern winds from the Columbia River Gorge affect the city's temperature as well as its climate. Annually there are about 58 inches of rain, 4 inches of snow, and 145 sunny days (Best Places 2021). 1.1.4 Current Usage Currently, the Confluence site is empty, except for a temporary disc golf course and a water tower that the City of Troutdale owns. According to Troutdale’s 2020-2040 Town Center Plan, the water tower is for emergency fire usage. It should be retained as an iconic feature of the site and future development. 14 6 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 1.2 STAKEHOLDERS In this section, the stakeholders for the CBD-URA pedestrian bridge project are outlined. ● Town Center Committee ● Other government agencies in the region, particularly Multnomah County. ● Community and interest-based groups, ranging from visual artists to avid cyclists ● Adjacent property owners that will be affected by the construction of the bridge, and will have their property imposed on by the bridge's presence. ● Pedestrians because they can use this bridge as a link between the downtown CBD city of Troutdale and the URA ● City workers operating electric vehicles will be able to use this bridge as a link between the downtown CBD and future developments in the URA Chris Damgen, Community Development Director, and Amber Shackelford, Assistant Planner, will use our calculations and ideas when working on the pedestrian bridge design, which will make this process more efficient. This project will serve pedestrians, bikes, small electric vehicles such as golf carts, and emergency vehicles of the designated future build locations. 15 7 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS In this section, the design considerations of the project will be analyzed. Four different designs will be reviewed and scored based on the discussed criteria. 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four alternative bridge types are considered for this project: a concrete box-girder, a steel truss, a timber truss, and a no-build option. This section will explain how each material can be used and the advantages and disadvantages in using the material based on the specified criteria discussed in section 2.2, The Alternatives Selection Criteria. Option 1: Concrete Box-Girder (Poured-in-Place) Design Figure 2.1.1: Concrete Box-Girder System (Concrete Construction, 2019) A concrete box girder bridge is made up of hollow rectangular or trapezoidal girders that span the length of the bridge. Concrete is poured into formwork on-site. Any shape can be formed that is desired for the concrete structure. The costs are estimated to be between $800 and $1300 per linear foot. Since excavation is done before concrete pouring, this eliminates potential vibrational damage when a pile is driven into the ground. While any large project may have construction delays, one specific time estimation to poured-in-place concrete is cure time related to weather conditions. Generally, pour-in-place concrete bridges are more economical as long as the formwork does not interfere with traffic (Barker & Puckett, 2013). 16 8 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Option 2: Steel Truss Design Figure 2.1.2: Steel Truss Pedestrian Bridge (Architecture & Design, 2008) In a steel truss bridge (Figure 2.1.2), the superstructure is composed of interconnecting steel triangles. Truss designs include through trusses that contain lateral support or pony trusses that do not contain lateral support. Only upper truss designs will be considered to limit possible interference with the railroad. Truss designs have effective weight distribution and load-bearing capacity across a short span. This will allow for an economically equivalent design to have a significantly higher capacity, allowing the bridge to be effective for current and future demands (Barker & Puckett, 2013). The use of welded and bolted connections will be considered for ease of construction and effectiveness of connection. Truss design is expected to have lower material costs, and it will create no additional environmental impacts compared to other steel designs. The major advantage to a steel truss is the aesthetically pleasing look that can be obtained. 17 9 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Option 3: Timber Truss Figure 2.1.3: Timber Truss Design Pedestrian Bridge (Brampton Woodworks, 2017) For this option, timber will be the principal material used for the bridge. Comparing Figures 2.1.2 to 2.1.3 shows that a wood truss configuration is similar to a steel truss design. As a structural material, timber has some benefits and drawbacks. Wood is considered one of the most efficient materials as it is low cost, sourced locally, and a faster build time, and can be used to build year-round in almost any climate. (Think Wood, 2021). Additional benefits include the following: easily manufactured and produced, easily modified as the need grows or changes, environmentally friendly (Bergman, 2011), can reduce carbon footprint, and timber bears greater loads per unit weight than concrete or steel (Carmichael, 2018) Some of its drawbacks are low durability if it is not adequately protected against weather, insects, and significant damage in a fire. Additionally, timber has low shock resistance (for example, due to a possible vehicle collision) and requires yearly maintenance that can be costly (Mt Copeland Technologies, 2021). 18 10 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Option 4: No Build Option Figure 2.1.4: Existing Site Conditions, Taken from the Historic Columbia River Highway Looking North Towards the Confluence Site (Kozyaev, Evgeny. 2021) No bridge is constructed in the proposed area. This option is the most economical where the cost to design and build the bridge is saved toward other essential projects and improvements within the city of Troutdale. One good reason for the bridge not to be constructed is the lack of pedestrian crossing demand. However, some drawbacks of this option are the following: there will be no connection between the central business district (CBD) of downtown Troutdale and the Confluence site. It would reduce a potentially positive impact on the economy since people do not have safe and quick access to downtown. 19 11 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 2.2 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA The following is a ranking of importance for all criteria relative to each other. Each criterion is defined and evaluated as an independent value and assigned a score in line with the outlined rubric. The weights assigned to each criterion were evaluated in relation to all other criteria in total effect on the project. Cost - Cost is defined as the cumulative cost per linear foot for constructing the bridge alternative considered. The estimates within Table 2.2.1 have been calculated using loose figures readily available online. These values may not reflect actual costs and are being used to compare the alternatives, not for cost estimation or proposing purposes. Cost-efficient alternatives will score higher than more expensive or less efficient options. This criterion received a weighting of 8, the greatest of all categories, due to limitations on the available budget and an emphasis on efficient resource allocation. Table 2.2.1: Cost Rubric Cost: Score: The cumulative construction cost is below $800 per linear foot of bridge. 3 The cumulative construction cost of the project remains between $800 and $1,300 per linear 2 foot of material. Cumulative construction costs exceed $1,300 per linear foot of material. 1 20 12 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Maintenance - Maintenance is defined as the maintenance cost per square foot of bridge decking. Other factors have also been considered, such as the interval at which maintenance could be expected. Also included in the maintenance criterion is the requirement that the City of Troutdale can subcontract local agencies to service the bridge as they do with other bridges in the city. As shown in Table 2.2.2, alternatives that require less frequent or less expensive upkeep will score higher than those that are more expensive. Bridges that will be difficult to subcontract out have been omitted from the list of alternatives. Criteria directly correlated with project cost are prioritized in matrix analysis; this criterion received a weighting of 6 as a result. Table 2.2.2: Maintenance Rubric Maintenance: Score: Maintenance costs are estimated between $80/sq.ft and $95/sq.ft; based on material composition, ease of access, and occurrence 3 interval. Maintenance costs are estimated between $95/sq.ft and $110/sq.ft; based on material composition, ease of access, and occurrence 2 interval. Maintenance costs exceed $110/sq.ft; based on material composition, ease of access, and 1 occurrence interval. 21 13 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Construction Schedule - The construction schedule criterion is defined as the period of active bridge construction. Construction time estimates readily available via online research have been used to evaluate each of the alternatives. These values are estimates and are used for the comparison of the alternatives only. Bridges with low active construction time limit the disruption to the community and therefore score higher than alternatives that take longer to construct, as shown in Table 2.2.3. Due to low variability between the considered alternatives and an emphasis on cost-efficient design, this criterion received a weighting of 2. Table 2.2.3: Construction Schedule Rubric Construction Schedule: Score: The bridge is functional after less than 2 years of active construction. 3 The bridge is functional within 2-4 years of construction onset. 2 Project completion requires 4 or more years of active construction. 1 Lifespan - The lifespan criterion is defined as the time before structural decay renders the structure unsafe to use. These values are not intended as design recommendations and are only being used to evaluate the alternatives comparatively. Furthermore, this criterion does not consider increasing demand on bridge design, only the structure’s longevity. This criterion received a weighting of 3. Table 2.2.4: Lifespan Rubric Lifespan: Score: The structure is expected to remain functional for at least 80 years. 3 The structure is expected to remain functional for 50 to 80 years. 2 The structure is expected to remain functional for 20 to 50 years. 1 The structure is expected to remain functional for less than 20 years, despite routine 0 maintenance. 22 14 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Aesthetics - Aesthetics ranking is a value assigned to the appearance of the design alternatives. This value is based on the surrounding design of the community, and the preferred stylistic branding of the City of Troutdale. Some consideration has been given to the flexibility of each alternative’s appearance and the visual appeal of the materials. Aesthetic appeal is an important concern for structures located in densely populated environments. This criterion received a weighting of 4 as a result. Table 2.2.5: Aesthetics Rubric Aesthetics: Score: The bridge has a positive impact on the aesthetic of Troutdale’s Town Center District. No complications due to color, texture, ornamentation, barrier detail, 3 or superstructure shape are observed. Minor complications due to color, texture, ornamentation, barrier detail, or superstructure 2 shape affect the aesthetic rating of the bridge. Complications due to color, texture, ornamentation, barrier detail, or superstructure shape have a significant impact on the aesthetic rating of the 1 bridge. The bridge does not enrich the local aesthetic due to severe color, texture, ornamentation, barrier detail, 0 or superstructure shape complications. 23 15 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Environmental Impact - The environmental impact criterion accounts for the total impact of design, construction, and the bridge’s existence on the environment. The relevance of this criterion can vary based on the practices of the construction teams involved. The City of Troutdale emphasizes sustainability through design. Alternatives with the potential to damage the local environment are not considered. This criterion received light-weighting, as environmentally problematic alternatives are already eliminated. Table 2.2.6: Environmental Rubric Environmental Impact: Score: Constructing the bridge poses no risk to the local environment. 3 Mitigating environmental hazards leads to a minor increase in cost or assembly time, but construction causes no significant impact on 2 the environment. Mitigating environmental hazards greatly increases either cost or assembly time, but construction causes no significant impact on 1 the environment. Constructing the bridge may have a negative impact on the local environment, including the 0 Columbia River. 24 16 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 2.3 ALTERNATIVE SCORING The following Pugh Matrix contains the scoring for all proposed alternatives. Each criterion was assigned a score with a maximum of 3. The total score is a product of the row scores multiplied by the weight of their respective criterion category and divided by 3. Table 2.3.1: Pugh Matrix The decision process was carefully studied for each of the alternatives. Starting with the No-Build option, which earned the lowest score of 18.0 out of 25.0, this alternative will require no cost, no maintenance cost, no time spent on a project, and it would not cause changes to the environment. However, this option will add zero aesthetics to the community, and there will be no lifespan of a structure connecting the central business district to the Confluence site. The Timber Truss alternative has two significant drawbacks: maintenance and lifespan. It scored 19.0 out of 25.0. Timber has a low lifespan expectancy compared to the other design options. It also requires consistent care and maintenance that will add to the cost of the project. Other than that, it stands out as the most environmentally friendly bridge design option. The bridge can be fully functional in less construction time than concrete box-girder options. The Concrete Box-Girder score was the second-best option, earning a score of 19.7. This option is the most cost-intensive out of the three bridge design alternatives, and it requires the most construction time to obtain a finished functional bridge. It stands out as the least maintenance requiring bridge design option, and that will reduce the cost contributed to the maintenance of the bridge. 25 17 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) The best scoring alternative is the Steel Truss Design, earning 22.3 out of 25. It stands out as the most cost-efficient design option, and it is also the option with the most extended lifespan. The bridge can be fully functional in less construction time than concrete box-girder options. In terms of environmental impact, it scored lower than concrete and timber design. The leading pedestrian bridge alternative is the steel truss design, with a final score of 22.3. In addition to receiving high scores, this alternative is efficient due to effective weight distribution and load-bearing capacity across short spans. Compared to relevant timber or box-girder designs, steel truss design options also provided more flexibility to fit future needs. 2.0 c 3.0 26 18 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 3.0 FACILITY DESIGN The CBD-URA Bridge is intended to be used as a connection from Troutdale’s Central Business District to the Urban Renewal Area. The proposed bridge design will allow pedestrians, bicycles, and neighborhood electric vehicles to safely cross over the railroad that currently divides the two areas. 3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA The steel truss was the preferred alternative based on the Pugh matrix in Table 2.3.1. The overall structure selected was the Warren truss because the repetitive geometry was aesthetically pleasing, it matched the existing bridge near the site being used by the Union Pacific Railway, and this style of the truss has the ability to spread loads more evenly across a number of different members. Locally, the Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge has the same style truss system that was researched and visited by team members for visualization and comparison purposes. The AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges was used to have a more conservative design that exceeds the required strength needed for the structure. Detailed drawings that support the facility design can be found in Appendix C. Figure 3.1.1: The Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge, Portland OR (KPFF Consulting Engineers, 2021) 27 19 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 3.2 GEOMETRY The main geometry of our existing site was provided by our client in the form of LIDAR data, GIS layers, a County design manual, City CIP, and SketchUp modeling. Additionally, both the Historic Downtown area and the Confluence site were visited by members of the team to do geological testing, take pictures, and gain a physical visual perspective of the site. The LIDAR data was used together with AutoCAD Civil3D to determine bridge length, pile locations, bridge height, and clearances. The current length of the bridge is 239 feet and consists of three spans, the main steel truss and two voided slabs. Further details on dimensions and spans of the bridge can be found in section 3.4.2.1 through 3.4.2.4 of this report. The width of the bridge is 14 feet to accommodate clearances for two way traffic of bicycles and golf carts. Elevation diagrams provided by the client allowed the geotech team to calculate the appropriate graduation for the first four bridge piles. The exact location of the bridge as well as the section that will extend after the fourth pile north of the railway are still being studied by our client, therefore the proposed length and width of the bridge are estimates and will need to be reevaluated or updated as new information is gathered. 3.3 CODES AND STANDARDS This section describes the codes and standards that are relevant to and control this project. The governing code of this project is the AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Design Guide. This guide references other manuals such as the AASHTO Highway Bridge Design Manual. The ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual also provides design guidance that overrides AASHTO at times. 3.3.1 Geotech Codes/Standards The standards from The Engineering of Foundations textbook (Salgado 2008) was used to calculate deep and shallow foundation, and to approximate the values of the SPT Blow Count Correction. The correlations between SPT blow counts and peak friction angle are analysed using the De Mello (1971) method, the correlations for relative density came from Idriss and Boulanger (2003), and the SPT correlations for Clays was from Stroud (1975), all modified by the Salgado textbook. 3.3.2 Transportation Codes/Standards This section will contain AASHTO, ADA, ODOT, and other codes that relate directly to the way pedestrians, bicycles, and NEVs interact on the bridge. These codes describe sidewalk requirements, lane widths, camber, etc. 28 20 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 3.3.2.1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has set forth AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges which references the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. These standards are to guide geometry of facility design. 3.3.2.2 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act sets forth design guides relevant to geometry of the proposed facility design. All design guides are detailed in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and referenced in all AASHTO design guides. 3.3.2.3 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) The Oregon Department of Transportation has set forth the ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual to provide guidance in bridge design and drafting. These standards are used for aspects of the design and drafting process that the City of Troutdale does not cover. The relevant regulatory provision addressed by ODOT is the Oregon Bridge Design Manual. 3.3.3 Structural Codes/Standards This section will contain specifications by AASHTO, ASCE, and other relevant structural design groups that guide this project’s design. These codes will describe the design structural elements such as rebar reinforcement, steel member capacity, etc. AASHTO 6.8 Tension Members, 6.9 Compression Members, 6.10 I-Section Flexural Members The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has set forth AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges which references the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. This design code provided all the requirements for the structural design process for the bridge for the member selection for the truss. 29 21 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) ASCE 7-10.2.3 Combining Factored Load Using Strength Design The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) design code provided the equations for the seismic as well as gravity load combinations for loading conditions that were used for analysis of bridge members. 3.6.1.6 - Pedestrian Loads Specifications for pedestrian loading on bridges. Bridges intended for only pedestrian, equestrian, light maintenance vehicle, and/or bicycle traffic should be designed in accordance with AASHTO’s LFRD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. 6.12.2.2.1 - Noncomposite Members Nominal flexural resistance for I- and H-shaped members. The provisions of this Article apply to I- and H-shaped members consisting of two channel flanges connected by a wed plate. 3.4 CALCULATIONS This section will include calculations for all aspects of the project, including design, material costs, construction costs, and other costs associated with building a pedestrian bridge. 3.4.1 Geotechnical Design This section details the geotechnical design considerations of the proposed design of the structure. 3.4.1.1 Existing Geotechnical Conditions To perform initial analysis of the foundation dimensions required to support the expected loads from the bridge, several soil properties were assumed based on a variety of available information. GRI, a local geotechnical engineering firm, performed a geotechnical investigation for a site approximately 1500 feet northwest of the CBD-URA bridge location. This report is titled “Geotechnical Investigation of Sandy Riverfront Park” with a draft date of March 22, 2021. This report forms the basis for many of the estimated soil properties used for these geotechnical calculations and is provided in the appendix. 30 22 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) In addition to the GRI report, CBD-URA team members visited the site to perform a hand auger boring log and sample collection near the location of the northernmost bridge footing. The hand auger location and boring log are attached in the appendix, and soil descriptions and USCS classifications are summarized as follows: Fractured Aggregated (GM) - At the location of HA-1, from ground surface to about 1.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) material consisted of a fractured aggregate. The aggregate was a mix of recycled fractured concrete and fractured basalt rock. This section is non-native, and has been installed and used for vehicle access. Sandy Silt (ML) - From 1.5 to about 7.5 feet bgs the material consisted of a light brown, slightly micaceous sandy silt material. This material is a quaternary deposit of alluvial sediments likely deposited during flooding of the Columbia and the Sandy Rivers. This material was moist at the time of boring, and was medium stiff in situ. Fine-Grained Sand (SM) - From 7.5 to 10 feet bgs, the strata becomes more sandy and less cohesive. At the time of boring, there was also substantially more moisture in this material than in shallower strata. This material is likely a transitional material from the alluvial deposits to the Troutdale formation which underlays this layer. Well-Graded Sand (SW) - From 10 feet bgs to the termination of the boring at about 12 feet bgs, the material changed to a brownish-gray well graded sand with rounded cobbles. This material was entirely saturated at the time of boring and standing water was present. This material is known as the “Troutdale Formation” as discussed above in section 1.1.1. Assumed standard penetration test (SPT) blow count values are assumed using a combination of the blow counts in similar materials from the GRI report. The assumed blow counts are then corrected to N60 values and averaged (Figure 3.4.1.1.1). For complete estimated values and calculations see Appendix D.2. 31 23 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Figure 3.2.1.1.1 - N60 Values With Depth Other values that have been assumed for the purpose of design have been estimated and are “typical values” assumed based on the soil types identified on site. The average unit weight of the material was assumed to be 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Peak effective friction angle based on the N60 values was assumed to be 28 degrees. Also, for the purposes of the design, the primary soil behavior is assumed to be ideal sand. This means the material is free draining, and entirely non-cohesive. These estimates are intentionally conservative as soil conditions can be highly variable and no data is available for soils at the foot locations. Specific geotechnical analysis can be done to provide more confident design parameters. 3.4.1.2 Shallow Foundation Analysis Shallow foundations are a method of transferring a load from a structure to the ground by way of spreading that load over an area and distributing it somewhat evenly into the earth. Shallow foundations are typically constructed out of reinforced concrete. The sizing of shallow foundations has been performed in accordance with typical industry standards. At this stage of design, only vertical loads have been analyzed with a factor of safety of 3. In the future, horizontal loading and moment loads should be considered and analyzed. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the footings will behave as spread footings as they will likely be rectangular in geometry. Analysis was performed in accordance with Terzaghi’s method as published in “The Engineering of Foundations” by Rodrigo Salgado. A factor of safety of 3 has been used in accordance with industry standards of practice. Other soil properties have been 32 24 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) assumed as stated above. Figure 3.4.1.2.1 shows allowable loads per footing geometries. Figure 3.4.1.2.1 - Graph of Allowable Loads per Terzaghi’s Method. A plot of this nature can be used to appropriately size footing geometry as needed. Should loading conditions change somewhat during the course of design, the footing dimensions can also change to accommodate. At this point in the design, there are four footings with varying expected vertical loads. Four recommended footing geometries have been provided based on these calculations (Table 3.4.1.2.2): Table 3.4.1.2 - Preliminary footing geometry design recommendations. Support Designs Footing Geometry Pallow > Load (Length by Depth by Width) DF1 12x3x6 256 > 221 DF2 12x3x10 556 > 506 DF3 12x4x10 633 > 611 DF4 12x4x9 471 > 427 33 25 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) As stated, these geometries are subject to change and are likely to be reduced in size as more precise geotechnical data becomes available through site specific investigations and testing. However, these geometries are quite large considering the space limitations on site. Deep foundations could provide a cost effective and space saving solution for bridge support. 3.4.1.3 Earthquake Design - Liquefaction Analysis A liquefaction analysis was conducted using standard penetration test parameters obtained from boring B-3 of the attached GRI report. Boring B-3 was selected to represent onsite conditions, as B-3 layer classifications resembled those observed through hand auger investigation, and B-3 was located nearest to the site. Of the parameters required to perform a liquefaction analysis, layer classification, sample depth, water table depth, sample blow count, measured fines content, borehole diameter, and rod length are directly available within the GRI report. To complete a preliminary liquefaction analysis for 30% design, common soil density values of 18 kN/m3 below the water table and 20 kN/m3 above the water table are assumed. Peak ground acceleration was estimated at 0.24g based on a seismic design contour map for the state of Oregon (ODOT, 2004). The design earthquake magnitude was tabulated as 7.5 for the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Two examinations were conducted - one assuming the water table was located 1.5m below ground surface (as observed for boring B-3), and another analysis for a water table at ground level. The flood conditions in Analysis 2 are assumed for conservative design as well as potential seasonal variability near the Columbia River. 34 26 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Figure 3.4.1.4.1: Analysis 1 - Water Table 1.5m Below Surface Figure 3.4.1.4.2: Analysis 2 - Water Table at Ground Surface 35 27 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Analyzing for expected site conditions yields a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0. However, the flood conditions analysis predicted topsoil liquefaction. Large spikes in cyclic resistance ratio from data points at 3.1 m. and 6.1 m. are likely due to boulders affecting SPT testing; a complication that was also observed through field visits. As this preliminary examination has produced factors of safety below 1.2, a more comprehensive liquefaction analysis is recommended, and some form of remediation may be necessary. 3.4.2 Structural Design The structural analysis for the bridge was completed for the slab, floor beam, truss, and column components of the proposed bridge solution. The depth dimensions of the prestressed concrete voided slabs is based on our designed loading conditions and are provided by the Knife River company. 3.4.2.1 Truss Analysis The MathCad, SAP2000, and Excel computer programs are used for the truss analysis. The dead loads were calculated in MathCAD and confirmed in Excel. The truss structural analysis was performed in SAP2000 and Excel. All our calculations are attached in Appendix D. The applied loads were defined based on slab and floor beam calculations. Due to symmetry, one truss was analyzed using a tributary area of half of the slab and half the weight of floor beams. To account for future loads, the dead load of the slab and floor beams were multiplied by a factor of 15% in addition to the factors determined by the LRFD. The expected future loads that were unaccounted for are a fence, small steel railing, and any necessary utilities. The loading for the slab and floor beams were calculated and applied to the truss at the floor beam points located at one third points on the bottom chords. A load of 0.5 kips was added to the top chord at the panel points to allow for future top chord bracing. The analysis was prepared using the SAP2000 computer program. The self-weight of the truss members were determined using a self-weight multiplier to the beams. This allowed for a more efficient iteration process. The dead loads, H10 truck live load, and pedestrian load were added to the truss. Arbitrary members were originally chosen to allow for a hand check of the reasonability of the model. Our SAP2000 model was checked with an excel calculation, and got approximately a 5% difference between our results and the SAP2000 results. This difference in the results is quite typical since the moving live load from the H10 truck was not calculated. Our SAP2000 model was determined to be correct by using our Excel 36 28 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) spreadsheet. For the remainder of calculations, the SAP2000 Model calculated stresses and forces are used. Once our structural check for the truss was finished , then the most economic beam that will provide optimum demand over capacity ratio (D/C), serviceability check, and frequency of vibration was calculated. For this calculation, an Excel spreadsheet was created to check the sufficiency of beams. Using the first arbitrary beam selection, smaller members were selected. The SAP2000 Model calculated the new results for the truss members. These stresses and members were inputted into the excel spreadsheet to check the structural efficiency. Using the results of the excel, new members were chosen, and the iterative process was executed again. The process was repeated over 20 times to produce the lightest weight beams that were sufficient for the structure according to LRFD Pedestrian Bridge Standards. 3.4.2.2 Floor Beams All floor beam calculations and analysis are attached in Appendix D.5. The tributary width was found by assuming one-way slab behavior and three floor beams per panel. A 6.5-inch slab was designed (Appendix D.6) and used for the dead load. A dead load factor of 1.25 was used per AASHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-2. A railing deadweight was assumed to be 5 plf from the truss analysis. Using the tributary width, point loads were found and were placed 6-inches from each side. A 90 psf live load was placed onto the floor beams per AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. A live load factor of 1.75 was used per AASHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-1. A H10 design truck live load was used from Table 3.2-1 of the Pedestrian Bridge AASHTO LRFD Guide. Two loading combinations were determined. Combination 1 included the dead load and pedestrian live load. Combination 2 included the dead load and H10 truck live load. By cutting into the section, moment equations were solved for and calculated. Combination 2 was determined to be the controlling load combination. By assuming continuous lateral support and a yield strength of 50 ksi, the Zx required could be calculated per AASHTO LRFD 6.12.2.2.1. From the AISC Steel Manual, a member was picked from the required Zx. Max moment and shear values were then checked for adequacy. 3.4.2.3 Slab Design The slab design analysis was performed following The AASHTO LRFD Specifications, and MathCad was used to perform calculations (see Appendix D.6). For the corrugated metal deck, there was no design specification in AASHTO 37 29 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) LRFD. However, the only restrictions were to show that the concept works. Two, show that the deck can resist the compressive forces associated with the composite action (see section, 9.8.5- AASHTO LRFD-2012, for more information). The proof of concept using corrugated steel for different loads and spans was demonstrated and examined by U.S. BRIDGE (see tables in Appendix D.6). The slab was designed as a one-way slab with a width of one foot. The slab was checked for flexural resistance and live load deflection limit. A 90 psf live load and a dead load based on a 6.5 slab thickness are used (see Appendix D.6). The live and dead loads factors of 1.75 and 1.25 are used respectively for load combination as per AASHTO LRFD Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2. For flexural design, the slab was treated as a simply supported beam to get the moment (Mu), which is the moment generated by the load. Then, equation 5.7.3.2.1-1 from the AASHTO LRFD code is used to check for moment strength (ɸMn), which is the resistance moment provided by the reinforcement. Since the Generated moment (Mu) is less than the resistance moment (ɸMn), the design is ok. The deflection check was performed using section 9.5.2 from the AASHTO LRFD code (see Appendix D.6). The maximum allowable deflection was taken for a deck with a significant pedestrian load (Δ allowable). The generated deflection was based on the live load design (Δ). Since the maximum allowable deflection (Δ allowable) is bigger than the live load generated deflection (Δ), the design is ok. As a result, the total thickness of the slab was determined to be 6.5 inches. A 4.25X12 gage 9 corrugated steel was used for reinforcement, and wire size 8 at 6 inches spacing was used for shrinkage and temperature reinforcement (see Appendix C.6 for visual representation). 3.4.2.4 Columns For the design of the bridge columns, all calculations were performed using Mathcad Prime (see appendix D.7). The column loading conditions were determined by the bridge weight estimate calculations performed in Excel (see appendix D.8 and D.4). To determine preliminary values for the demand on the columns, the bridge spans are assumed to be simply supported, thus one half of the weight of each span, gravity factored dead and live load, are supported by the columns. The maximum load is supported by column 2 which supports the truss and prestressed spans of the bridge. Therefore, column 2 was chosen as the control for the design of all column cross sections and reinforcing. 38 30 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) For the calculations all equations and constants are taken from AASHTO LRFD 2012 Bridge Design Specifications 6th Edition (US). The load cases of all axial and no moment, and all moment and no axial are used in the design to produce the maximum load effects for a conservative preliminary design to provide cost estimation of the bridge materials and construction. A large cross section of 3 ft by 6 ft was chosen as an initial value for the cross section of the bridge columns to ensure that no slenderness effects would need to be considered which simplifies calculations, and increases the factor of safety of the columns. The longitudinal reinforcement was determined using values from AASHTO article 5.10.11.4.1a, the minimum area of steel was chosen as one percent of the gross area of the column cross section. A total of 26 #9 rebars are distributed throughout the cross section to provide well distributed reinforcement which prevents brittle failure modes of the column under loading conditions. The transverse reinforcement in the column was chosen as sets of overlapping #3 rebar closed ties spaced at a minimum 12 inches per AASHTO article 5.8.2.7. Overlapping closed ties were specified due to the wide cross section used, these will help to ensure the multiple rows of longitudinal rebar are well confined. The concrete compressive strength and steel reinforcement grade are specified as 4000 psi, and grade 60 respectively. The nominal axial capacity of the column is computed using AASHTO eq. 5.7.4.4-3 with a resistance factor of 0.75 per AASHTO article 5.5.4.2.1, the magnitude of nominal axial capacity was calculated to be 8228 kips. The nominal flexural capacity of the column is computed using AASHTO eq. 5.7.3.2.2-1 with a resistance factor of 0.9 per AASHTO article 5.5.4.2.1. The flexural capacity is considered in the weak axis direction as this controls the design for flexure, the magnitude of nominal flexural capacity in the weak axis was calculated to be 3430 kip*ft. The flexural demand is controlled by seismic loading conditions, the factored moment Mu is taken as 5% of superstructure dead weight acting at a lever arm of the column unbraced length with load factor 1.0 per ASCE 7-16 factored load combinations. The distance to the neutral axis from the extreme compressive fiber “c” is approximated using AASHTO eq. 5.7.3.1.2-4 with factor 𝜷𝜷1 equal to 0.85 per AASHTO article 5.7.2.2. For both load conditions, axial and flexure, it was found that the capacity is far greater than the demand (see Appendix D.7). Thus, the column design is considered to be highly conservative for the preliminary design and should provide a reasonably accurate cost estimation for a 30 percent design of the pedestrian bridge. 39 31 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 3.5 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE This section will include the cost estimates for the primary aspects of construction. Line-item rates were based on average historical bid prices supplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, 2019) and the RSMeans pricing database (RSMeans, 2021). Quantities were estimated using units recommended by the 2018 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. Labor expenses associated with bridge construction were included in the various estimates depicted within Table A.1 in the Appendix. Transportation expenses associated with delivering heavy machinery and materials were approximated to be 8.0% of total unfactored material costs. 3.5.1 Steel Beams A992 steel beams composing the bridge’s superstructure were categorized, and quantities of each beam were calculated. The length of each beam was then multiplied by their respective quantities, resulting in the pricings of Table A.1 by linear foot. Beams with non-standard dimensions were upsized to the nearest available unit. The length of required fencing and railing along both sides of the bridge was taken to be twice the structure's length, totaling 540 ft of material. 3.5.2 Aggregate Base The quantity of crushed aggregate base beneath the bridge's piers was approximated by adding a 1ft perimeter around each column, then multiplying the resulting surface area by a unit depth of 12in and an average density of 168 lb/ft3. Any aggregate used to rebuild the approaches connecting to the bridge was not included in this preliminary estimate. 3.5.3 Concrete Slabs The cost of six 54.5ft long by 26in deep prestressed concrete voided slabs that constitute the bridge decking were calculated, on a linear foot basis, as shown in Table A.1. Following conservative design for non-standard units, the depth of each 26in slab was upsized so that historic bid prices could be applied. 3.5.4 Wearing Surface The total cost of the wearing surface was estimated by adding the weight of two 6ft asphalt lifts together (HMAC Level 2). The weight of each asphalt lift was calculated by multiplying an approximate material density of 145 lb/ft3 by a 6ft depth, 13ft width, and 260 in paved surface length. 40 32 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 3.5.5 Structural Concrete The amount of structural concrete needed for the bridge was estimated by determining the volume of concrete required for each part of the structure. The concrete elements of the bridge structure consist of the slab, the columns, and the footings. The slab volume was calculated as the bridge length multiplied by the bridge depth multiplied by the bridge width, 240ft x 6.5/12ft x 15ft = 1950 ft3. Each column's concrete volume was calculated as the column width multiplied by the column length multiplied by the column height, 3ft x 6ft x 18.8ft = 338.4ft3. Each footing had different dimensions, and the volume for the footing was calculated as the footing length multiplied by the footing depth multiplied by the footing width, 12ft x 3ft x 6ft = 216ft3. The total volume needed for the structural concrete was calculated to be approximately 180 cubic yards. 3.5.6 Reinforcement The amount of reinforcement used in the structure was determined from the three parts of the bridge that require reinforcement, the slab, the columns, and the footings. The slab was assumed to have a minimum reinforcement, which had a ρ value of 0.0018. This would provide a steel area of approximately 0.0018 x 14.5ft x 6.5/12ft = 0.014ft2. That totaled to a volume of 3.38ft3, after multiplying by the bridge length, for the slab's horizontal reinforcement. Similarly, the transverse reinforcement was also accounted for. Two columns had similar volumes of reinforcing steel, while the third longest one had more volume of reinforcing steel. The columns had a rebar number 9, and there were 26 vertical rebars in each column. The reinforcement volume was calculated as the cross-sectional area of the steel in the columns multiplied by the length of the column, 1in2 x (1ft/12in)2 x 26 bar x (18.8ft + 1ft) = 3.575ft3. Note that an additional foot was added to the length of the rebars in the columns to account for steel development length. A similar approach was taken to estimate the reinforcement volume for the footings. Then, from the total volume of required steel reinforcement, the approximate weight of steel needed was determined to be 17,500 lbs. 3.5.7 Excavation The amount of general site excavation required was determined by calculating the site surface area and estimating the excavating depth. The site surface area was estimated to be rectangular. The site width was assumed to be 10ft to the left of the bridge width and 10ft to the right of the bridge width, resulting in approximately 35ft total width for the site. The site length was taken as the length of the bridge itself and was approximated to be 240ft. The excavation is assumed to take place in the site surface area. However, the surface area where the rails are located will not 41 33 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) be included in the excavation. The excavation was assumed to be 1.5ft deep, and therefore, the estimated volume of general site excavation required would approximately be 400 cubic yards. 3.6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE This section outlines the construction schedule in Appendix B. This preliminary schedule is to provide an estimated timeline of critical tasks for the construction of the proposed design. 42 34 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) 4.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PERMITTING This section outlines the regulatory agencies and relevant codes or standards. Any new construction must follow applicable regulations and obtain proper permits from relevant authorities prior to starting construction. 4.1 CITY OF TROUTDALE The Community Development Department’s Building Division is responsible for reviewing construction drawings and documents to insure compliance, issuance of building permits, inspection of construction sites and reporting construction compliance to relevant agencies. Permit requests, plan reviews, and inspections can be scheduled online through the Citizen Self-Service portal on the Community Development website (Community Development). 4.2 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) All projects are required to follow 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design requirements, including the Title II and III regulations to ensure people with disabilities can use public spaces safely. The 2010 ADA regulations relevant to bridge projects include railing heights, edge protections, accessible routes, path of travel, etc. These regulations should be addressed with the building permit application by providing the following information: applicant information, property owner information, contractor information, project site information, and project description. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues permits in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issues NPDES permits, and a 1200-C Construction Stormwater permit would be required for stormwater discharges to surface waters from the construction if stormwater leaves the site through a "point source" and reaches surface waters either directly or through storm drainage. 4.4 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD A Preliminary Engineering Agreement, location map, and concept plan needs to be provided to Union Pacific for their review of the proposed project. The Preliminary Engineering Agreement is used to address preliminary engineering issues related to operations, property issues, or effect on Union Pacific’s facilities. When the final plans and approval of Union Pacific’s cost estimate is complete, Union Pacific will prepare the appropriate license, right of entry, and construction and maintenance agreement(s). Construction may begin after this step is completed. 43 35 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) All aforementioned permits will require their own individual submittal with the necessary project attachments. The project attachments that are needed to complete all permits are as follows: applicant information, consultant/agent information, proposed bridge design, legal authority for proposed action, dimensions of bridge clearance, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Plan sheets that are required to be attached and include the following: general dimensions and distances, title blocks, location and vicinity map, plan view, elevation view, typical section view, temporary structure/falsework. 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on the building site’s existing conditions, and the goals set forth by the City of Troutdale, the recommended facility design is three spans that total 239 feet. The main span is a 130-foot steel truss span that connects the urban renewal area up to the central business district downtown area. The other two spans are voided slabs with a length of 54.5 feet each. To preserve the architecture, views of the current tenants, and to minimize the intrusiveness of machinery during construction these slabs will be made from prestressed concrete and will run from the East Historic Columbia Highway to the back edge of the Union Pacific Railroad Property Line. The width of the bridge is 14 feet to accommodate clearances for two-way traffic of bicycles and golf carts. This design option will be the most economical and practical for this pedestrian bridge’s use, as summarized in this report's alternative scoring section. The scope of this project was a 30% initial design that stopped just north of the railway along with cost estimates and a goal of the construction taking place in the next five years. Future steps should include additional analysis and design for the northern side connection of the bridge after the railway, design work of the bent caps, a deep foundation analysis, and finalization of the construction schedule. We recommend further exploration of earthquake loadings, soil liquefaction, runoff effects, and pedestrian-vehicle interaction. 44 36 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for The Design of Pedestrian Bridges.” AASHTO, Washington, DC. December 2009. Architecture & Design , (n.d.) “K1105 Murray steel truss bridges available from Landmark Products” Architecture & Design, (March 10, 2021) Barker, R. M., and Puckett, J. A. (2013). DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES: An LRFD Approach. JOHN WILEY & SONS, Inc, S.l. Benito G., J. E. O'Connor, (2003). “Number and size of last-glacial Missoula floods in the Columbia River valley between the Pasco Basin, Washington, and Portland, Oregon”, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 155-5, pg.15 “Best Practices in Accelerated Bridge Construction.” (2019). Concrete Construction, (Mar. 18, 2021). Brampton Woodworks, (2017). “Timber Bridges.” Brampton Woodworks,” (March 11, 2021) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19): an ACI standard ; commentary on building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318R-19). (2020). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19): an ACI standard ; commentary on building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318R-19). (2020). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. Bergman, Richard, Ritter, Skog. “Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction”. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory. General Technical Report FPL–GTR–206. Madison, WI. December 2011 Carmichael, Stephen W. “Imagining Wood Stronger Than Steel”. Published online by Cambridge University Press: July 6, 2018. Microscopy Today. Vol 26, Issue 4, pg. 8-11. July 2018 45 37 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) City of Troutdale. (2016). “City of Troutdale Public Works Department Capital Improvement Plan”. Resolution NO. 2331 Troutdale, OR. City of Troutdale. (2020). “Town Center Plan 2020-2040”. Troutdale, OR. Code of standard practice for steel buildings and bridges. (2010). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. Committee, ACI. 2002. "Building code requirements for structural concrete:(ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02)." In.: American Concrete Institute. Committee, 2005. "Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05)." In.: American Concrete Institute. Committee, ACI, and International Organization for Standardization. 2008. "Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary." In.: American Concrete Institute. “Community Development.” (n.d.). Troutdale Oregon, (May 1, 2021). GRI. “Geotechnical Investigation Sandy Riverfront Park”. March 22, 2021. Print KPFF Consulting Engineers. “Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge”. 2015. https://www.kpff.com/. Accessed: https://www.kpff.com/portfolio/project/lafayette-pedestrian-bridge. 5/20/2021 Ma, Z. Tadros, M. Sun, C. (2004). “Prestressed Concrete Box Girders Made from Precast Concrete Unsymmetrical Sections” PIC.org, (March 10, 2021) Mt Copeland Technologies, Inc. “All about Wood Construction: Advantages and Disadvantages”. https://mtcopeland.com/blog/all-about-wood-construction-advantages-disadvantages/. Accessed 5/21/2021 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, (n.d.). Geologic map of Oregon, (Mar. 1, 2021). Pedestrian bridge as a clarifying example of FRP-RC/PC design', 333: 96-118. Rossini, Marco, Saverio Spadea, and Antonio %J ACI: Special Publication Nanni. 2019. Salgado, Rodrigo. “The Engineering of Foundations.” McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print 46 38 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) Sperling’s Best Places (n.d.) “Climate in Troutdale, Oregon” BestPlaces, (February 24, 2021)] Think Wood. “Benefits of Using Wood: What Could Wood Do?”. https://www.thinkwood.com/benefits-of-using-wood Accessed 5/21/2021 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. (n.d.). “Search ADA.gov. 2010” https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm. Government , U. S. F. (2021, May 17). Laws & Regulations. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations. 47 39 CBD-URA Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 Design Report (Draft III) APPENDICES The following appendices are attached. A. Construction Cost Estimate This section details the cost estimation calculation process described in Section 3.5 Construction Cost Estimate. B. Construction Schedule This section details the construction schedule described in section 3.6 Construction Schedule. The construction schedule is based on assumptions provided by section 3.6 Construction Schedule. C. Drawings This section contains the computer aided design models to demonstrate facility design. D. Calculations This section contains the calculations detailed in section 3.4 Calculations. E. Project Posters F. Final Presentation 48 40 APPENDIX A CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 49 Table A.1 Construction Cost Estimate UNIT SECTION REF. ITEM QUANT. UNIT TOTAL COST TOTAL MOBILIZATION & TRAFFIC CONTROL $232,814 00210-90 Mobilization 1 LS $105,664 $105,664 00225-90 Temporary Signs 150 Ea. $24 $3,600 00225-98 Flaggers 2000 Hr. $40 $80,000 00280-90 Construction Entrances 2 Ea. $1,486 $2,972 00280-90 Plastic Sheeting 270 S.Y. $3 $788 00280-90 Matting 270 S.Y. $3 $845 00290-90 Pollution Control Plan 1 LS $9,195 $9,195 00290-90 Work Containment Plan 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 00270-90 Temporary Type 1 Fence 650 L.F. $15 $9,750 ROADWAY $4,089 00150-15 Construction Survey Work 3 Day $1,363 $4,089 EARTHWORK $31,008 00510-90 General Excavation 400 C.Y. $11 $4,236 00510-90 Structure Excavation 100 C.Y. $36 $3,642 00320-90 Clearing and Grubbing 0.2 Acre $6,127 $1,225 01040-90 Soil Testing 6 Ea. $415 $2,492 01040-90 Topsoil 400 C.Y. $49 $19,412 BRIDGE $811,595 00530-90 Reinforcement 17500 Lb. $3 $59,850 00540-90 Structural Concrete, 3600 180 C.Y. $1,328 $239,067 00587-90 Pedestrian Rail 520 L.F. $104 $54,168 00550-90 Prestressed Concrete Voided Slabs 26" 327 L.F. $263 $85,945 R051223-10 W18x86, A992 1024 L.F. $145 $148,562 R051223-10 W12x87, A992 195 L.F. $147 $28,741 R051223-10 W18x158, A992 368 L.F. $263 $96,902 R051223-10 W12x53, A992 159.5 L.F. $100 $15,896 R051223-10 W10x17, A992 449.5 L.F. $33 $14,807 01050-90 Chain Link Fence 520 L.F. $30 $15,668 00970-90 Street Lights 1 LS $4,050 $4,050 00545-90 Reinforced Concrete Bridge End Panels 109 S.Y. $404 $44,036 R050516-30 Galvanized Coating 5070 S.F. $1 $3,904 BASE $12,710 00640-90 Aggregate Base (12") 310 Ton $41 $12,710 WEARING SURFACE $29,444 00744-90 Level 2, 1/2-in Dense HMAC Mixture 122.5 Ton $120 $14,722 00744-90 Level 2, 1/2-in Dense HMAC Mixture 122.5 Ton $120 $14,722 ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST $1,121,660 30% CONTINGENCY $336,498 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,458,158 50 APPENDIX B CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 51 ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 Mode 28 1 4 7 1013161922252831 3 6 9 12151821242730 3 6 9 121518212427 1 [Capstone] CBD-URA 57 days? Tue 5/4/21 Wed Pedestrian Bridge Project 7/21/21 2 Begin Construction 57 days? Tue 5/4/21 Wed 7/21/21 3 1.0 Foundations 51 days Tue 5/4/21 Tue 7/13/21 4 1.1 Mobilzation & 2 days Tue 5/4/21 Wed 5/5/21 Staging 5 1.2 Demo/Site Prep 5 days Wed 5/5/21 Wed 5/12/21 11 1.3 Footing Excavation 5 days Thu 5/13/21 Wed 5/19/21 12 1.4 Footing Basing & 2 days Thu 5/20/21 Fri 5/21/21 Prep 13 1.5 Concrete Forms & 4 days Mon Thu 5/27/21 Reinforcing 5/24/21 14 1.6 Concrete Pour 2 days Fri 5/28/21 Mon 5/31/21 15 1.7 Concrete Curing 28 days Tue 6/1/21 Thu 7/8/21 16 1.8 Backfill & Grading 2 days Fri 7/9/21 Mon 7/12/21 17 1.9 Demobilization 1 day Tue 7/13/21 Tue 7/13/21 18 2.0 Substructure 1 day? Wed 7/14/21Wed 7/14/21 19 2.1 Columns 1 day? Wed 7/14/21Wed 7/14/21 20 2.2 Stringers 1 day? Wed 7/14/21Wed 7/14/21 21 3.0 Superstructure 57 days Tue 5/4/21 Wed 7/21/21 22 3.1 Truss Section 40 days Tue 5/4/21 Mon 6/28/21 23 3.1.1 Truss 40 days Fabrication 24 3.2 Slab Section 5 days Thu 7/15/21 Wed 7/21/21 Task Inactive Summary External Tasks Split Manual Task External Milestone Milestone Duration-only Deadline Project: [Capstone]CBD-URA Co Date: Fri 6/11/21 Summary Manual Summary Rollup Progress Project Summary Manual Summary Manual Progress Inactive Task Start-only Inactive Milestone Finish-only Page 1 52 APPENDIX C DRAWINGS 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 APPENDIX D CALCULATIONS 69 D.1 Earthquake Design - Liquefaction Analysis D.2 Shallow Foundation Analysis and Footings D.3 Truss Analysis (Excel) D.4 Truss Analysis I-Beam Selection D.5 Floor Beams D.6 Slab Design D.7 Columns D.8 Prestressed Concrete Voided Slabs 70 Liquefaction Analysis 1 - Water Table 1.5m Below Surface Boring B-3 Input Parameters Peak Ground Acceleration (g) = 0.24 Earthquake Magnitude, M = 7.5 Water Table Depth (m) = 1.52 Average g above water table (kN/m3) = 18 Average g below water table (kN/m3) = 20 Borehole Diameter (mm) = 127 Requires correction for sampler liners (Yes/No) No Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5m (for the above ground extension) Flag "Clay" Fines Energy SPT sample Measured "Unsaturated" Content ratio, ER number Depth (m) N Soil Type "Unreliable" (%) (%) CE CB CR CS N60 1 0.76 7 FILL 22 75 1.25 1.05 0.75 1 6.9 2 1.52 5 FILL 24 75 1.25 1.05 0.8 1 5.3 4 3.05 32 FILL 36 75 1.25 1.05 0.85 1 35.7 7 4.57 13 Sandy SILT 31 75 1.25 1.05 0.95 1 16.2 8 6.1 22 SILT 31 75 1.25 1.05 0.95 1 27.4 9 7.62 15 SILT 26 75 1.25 1.05 0.95 1 18.7 10 9.14 14 SILT 38 75 1.25 1.05 1 1 18.4 CRR for Stress M=7.5 & DN for fines reduct. MSF for Ks for svc' = Factor of svc (kPa) svc' (kPa) CN (N1)60 content (N1)60-cs Coeff. rd CSR Sand sand 1atm CRR Safety 14 14 1.70 11.7 4.8 16.5 1.00 0.156 1.00 1.10 0.169 0.186 1.19 27 27 1.70 8.9 5.0 13.9 1.00 0.155 1.00 1.10 0.147 0.162 1.04 58 43 1.25 44.7 5.5 50.2 0.98 0.207 1.00 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 88 58 1.24 20.1 5.4 25.5 0.97 0.228 1.00 1.09 0.303 0.331 1.45 119 74 1.11 30.3 5.4 35.7 0.95 0.238 1.00 1.09 1.301 1.412 2.00 149 90 1.05 19.6 5.1 24.8 0.93 0.242 1.00 1.02 0.285 0.290 1.20 180 105 0.98 18.1 5.6 23.6 0.91 0.243 1.00 0.99 0.261 0.260 1.07 71 Liquefaction Analysis 2 - Water Table at Ground Surface Boring B-3 Input Parameters Peak Ground Acceleration (g) = 0.24 Earthquake Magnitude, M = 7.5 Water Table Depth (m) = 0 Average g above water table (kN/m3) = 18 Average g below water table (kN/m3) = 20 Borehole Diameter (mm) = 127 Requires correction for sampler liners (Yes/No) No Rod lengths assumed equal to the depth plus 1.5m (for the above ground extension) Flag "Clay" Fines Energy SPT sample Measured "Unsaturated Content ratio, ER number Depth (m) N Soil Type " "Unreliable" (%) (%) CE CB CR CS N60 1 0.76 7 FILL 22 75 1.25 1.05 0.75 1 6.9 2 1.52 5 FILL 24 75 1.25 1.05 0.8 1 5.3 4 3.05 32 FILL 36 75 1.25 1.05 0.85 1 35.7 7 4.57 13 Sandy SILT 31 75 1.25 1.05 0.95 1 16.2 8 6.1 22 SILT 31 75 1.25 1.05 0.95 1 27.4 9 7.62 15 SILT 26 75 1.25 1.05 0.95 1 18.7 10 9.14 14 SILT 38 75 1.25 1.05 1 1 18.4 CRR for Stress M=7.5 & DN for fines reduct. MSF for Ks for svc' = Factor of svc (kPa) svc' (kPa) CN (N1)60 content (N1)60-cs Coeff. rd CSR Sand sand 1atm CRR Safety 15 8 1.70 11.7 4.8 16.5 1.00 0.306 1.00 1.10 0.169 0.186 0.61 30 15 1.70 8.9 5.0 13.9 1.00 0.305 1.00 1.10 0.147 0.162 0.53 61 31 1.36 48.7 5.5 54.2 0.98 0.300 1.00 1.10 2.000 2.000 2.00 91 47 1.35 21.8 5.4 27.2 0.97 0.296 1.00 1.10 0.354 0.389 1.32 122 62 1.16 32.0 5.4 37.4 0.95 0.290 1.00 1.10 1.916 2.000 2.00 152 78 1.11 20.7 5.1 25.9 0.93 0.284 1.00 1.04 0.313 0.327 1.15 183 93 1.03 19.0 5.6 24.5 0.91 0.278 1.00 1.01 0.280 0.283 1.02 72 D.2 Shallow Foundation Analysis and Footings Figure D.2.1 Normalization and determination of design blow count calculation spreadsheet. Terzaghi bearing capacity equation: qult = qb (Nq+0.5) * γs * b * Nγ Where: qult = Ultimate bearing capacity of soil qb = Weight of soil removed = γsdf Nq= Coefficient of lateral earth pressure γs= Unit weight of soil b = Footing width Nγ = Coefficient of soil unit weight Allowable bearing capacity: qallow = FS * qult Allowable axial load: Pallow= qallow / Af Where: Af = Total area of the footing Allowable axial load example calculation spreadsheet. 73 Figure D.2.2 Example of allowable axial loads based on formulas above. 74 Footing Design Assumptions are many, behavior is sand like, no cohesion, peak effective friction angle is 28 degrees, unit weight of sand is assumed. Footing Footing Footing Footing Length, l Depth, df Width, b Area, Af Unit weight of (ft) (ft) (ft) (sq ft) qb Nq sand, ws (pcf) Nsig qult FS qallow Pallow (kips) 12 3 1 12 330 17.6 110 14.7 6616.5 3 2205.5 26.466 12 3 2 24 330 17.6 110 14.7 7425 3 2475 59.4 12 3 3 36 330 17.6 110 14.7 8233.5 3 2744.5 98.802 12 3 4 48 330 17.6 110 14.7 9042 3 3014 144.672 12 3 5 60 330 17.6 110 14.7 9850.5 3 3283.5 197.01 12 3 6 72 330 17.6 110 14.7 10659 3 3553 255.816 12 3 7 84 330 17.6 110 14.7 11467.5 3 3822.5 321.09 12 3 9 108 330 17.6 110 14.7 13084.5 3 4361.5 471.042 12 4 10 120 440 17.6 110 14.7 15829 3 5276.333333 633.16 Support Load F1 221 South F2 506 F3 611 F4 427 North Footing Designs L x d x b Pallow > Load F1 12x3x6 256>221 F2 12x3x10 556>506 F3 12x4x10 633>611 F4 12x4x9 471>427 *Where DF = Design for Footing 75 Bridge Truss Dimensions and Weight Height of the truss 13 ft Legth of each horizontal chord of the truss 13 ft Number of each horizontal chord of the truss 10 pc Length of the truss 130 ft Width of the truss (inside) 14.5 ft Live Load (LL) Loading factor 1.75 - Pedestrian 90 lb/ft2 Truck H10 20 kips Total pedestrian load 169650 lb Total pedestrian load 169.7 kips Factored Weight of Truck H10 35 kips Factored Total pedestrian load 296888 lb Factored Total pedestrian load 296.9 kips Maximum Live Load (LL) 296.9 kips Unit conversion factor 1ft = 12in 1 foot 12 in Dead Load (DcL) Unit weight of concrete 150 lb/ft3 Slab (Using corrugated steel sheets gauge #9) Thickness 2 in Ribs thickness (effective) 2.1 in Effective Slab Thickness 4.1 in Linear weight 747.7 lb/ft Linear weight for a single truss 373.8 lb/ft Total Weight 97195 lb Total Weight 97.2 kips Corrugated Steel (Gauge #9) Area 1885 ft2 Weight per ft2 12.5 lb/ft2 Total weight 23562.5 lb Total weight 23.6 kips Tributary load 54.2 lb/ft Tributary load for a single truss 27.1 lb/ft Decking Total weight 120758 lb Total weight 120.8 kips Linear weight 928.9 lb/ft Linear weight for a single truss 464.5 lb/ft Tributary point load at the middle section of the truss 4025.3 lb Tributary point load at the middle section for a single truss 2012.6 lb Tributary point load at the end of truss 2012.6 lb Tributary point load at the end for a single truss 1006.3 lb Floor Beams Length 14.5 ft Linear weight 17 lb Weight of each 246.5 lb Point load from each to a single truss 123.3 lb Number of floor beams per span 3 pc Distance between floor beams 4.3 ft Number of floor beams per truss 31 pc Total weight 7642 lb Total weight 7.6 kips 76 Loading at Panel Points for a single truss Decking load (at the ends of the truss) 1006 lb Floor Beams 123.3 lb Total 1130 lb Decking load (in the middle of the truss) 2013 lb Floor Beams 123.3 lb Total 2136 lb Truss Bottom Chord Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length 260 ft Linear weight 86 lb/ft Total weight 22360 lb Total weight 22.4 kips Top Chord Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length 208 ft Linear weight 86 lb/ft Total weight 17888 lb Total weight 17.9 kips Vertical Diagonal Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length of each 18.4 ft Length 367.7 ft Linear weight 158 lb/ft Distance between diagonal beams 13 ft Number of vertical diagonal beams 20 pc Total weight 58096 lb Total weight 58.1 kips Vertical Straight Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length of each 13 ft Linear weight 86 lb/ft Distance between vertical beams 13 ft Number of vertical beams 22 pc Total weight 24596 lb Total weight 24.6 kips Horizontal Perpendicular beams above the bridge Length of each 14.5 ft Linear weight 53 lb/ft Distance between perpendicular beams 13 ft Number of perpendicular beams 11 pc Total weight 8454 lb Total weight 8.5 kips Horizontal Diagonal beams above the bridge Length of each 19.5 ft Linear weight 87 lb/ft Distance between perpendicular beams 13 ft Number of perpendicular beams 10 pc Total weight 16943 lb Total weight 16.9 kips Connections (10% of structural steel weight) Total weight 17954 lb Total weight 18.0 kips 77 Total Dead Load (DcL) Loading factor 1.25 - Summation of all Dead Loads 294689 lb Summation of all Dead Loads 294.7 kips Factored Total Deadload 368362 lb Factored Total Deadload 368.4 kips Maximum Dead Load DcL 368.4 kips Dead Load (DwL) Pavement (DwL) Loading factor 1.5 - Thickness 1 in Linear weight 181.3 lb/ft Total Weight 23563 lb Total Weight 23.6 kips Factored weight 35344 lb Factored weight 35.3 kips Utilities DwL Loading factor 0.15 - Linear weight 148.2 lb/ft Length of the bidge 130 ft Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Total length of utilities 260 ft Total weight 38520 lb Total weight 38.5 kips Total factored weight 57780 lb Total factored weight 57.8 kips Utilities DwL as a point load Loading factor 1.15 - At the end of the truss 1299 lb In the middle of the truss 2456 lb Total Dead Load (DwL) Loading factor 1.5 - Summation of all Dead Loads 62082 lb Summation of all Dead Loads 62.1 kips Factored Total Deadload 93123 lb Factored Total Deadload 93.1 kips Maximum Dead Load DwL 93.1 kips Total Load From the Truss Dead Load (DC) + Dead Load (DW) + Live Load 526422 lb Dead Load (DC) + Dead Load (DW) + Live Load 526.4 kips Factored Dead Load + Live Load 758373 lb Factored Dead Load + Live Load 758.4 kips Total Unfactored Load From the Truss 526.4 kips Total Factored Load From the Truss 758.4 kips AASHTO 2009 page 5 Section C3.3; and page 21 Load Factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.4.1-1) 78 Total Dead Load (DcL) Loading factor 1.25 - Total Unfactored Weight of the Steel Truss Summation of all Dead Loads 294689 lb Section of the Bridge 526.4 kips Summation of all Dead Loads 294.7 kips Factored Total Deadload 368362 lb Total Unfactored Load From the Single Truss -263.2 kips Factored Total Deadload 368.4 kips 0.5*Total Unfactored Load From the Truss Maximum Dead Load DcL 368.4 kips (Applied point load to each of 2 supports) -131.6 kips Dead Load (DwL) Support Reaction at Point A 131.6 kips Pavement (DwL) Loading factor 1.5 - Support Reaction at Point B 131.6 kips Thickness 1 in Number of Sections 10 pc Linear weight 181.3 lb/ft Number of Point Loads 11 pc Total Weight 23563 lb Legnth of Truss 130 ft Total Weight 23.6 kips 0.5 Legnth of Truss 65 ft Factored weight 35344 lb Factored weight 35.3 kips Top Chord Horizontals 101-108 Element Number Utilities DwL Bottom Chord Horizontals 201-210 Element Number Loading factor 0.15 - Diagonals 301-310 Element Number Linear weight 148.2 lb/ft Verticals 401-409 Element Number Length of the bidge 130 ft Point Loads P 1-11 Element Number Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Total length of utilities 260 ft Height (vertical) = 13.0 ft Total weight 38520 lb Length (horizontal) = 13.0 ft Total weight 38.5 kips Length (diagonal) = 18.3848 ft Total factored weight 57780 lb Unfactored Loadings Total factored weight 57.8 kips P 1, 11 = -13.16 kips Utilities DwL as a point load P 2-10 = -26.32 kips Loading factor 1.15 - At the end of the truss 1299 lb In the middle of the truss 2456 lb Zero-force members Total Dead Load (DwL) 401 0 kips Loading factor 1.5 - 403 0 kips Summation of all Dead Loads 62082 lb 405 0 kips Summation of all Dead Loads 62.1 kips 407 0 kips Factored Total Deadload 93123 lb 409 0 kips Factored Total Deadload 93.1 kips Maximum Dead Load DwL 93.1 kips Total Load From the Truss Dead Load (DC) + Dead Load (DW) + Live Load 526422 lb Dead Load (DC) + Dead Load (DW) + Live Load 526.4 kips Factored Dead Load + Live Load 758373 lb Factored Dead Load + Live Load 758.4 kips Total Unfactored Load From the Truss 526.4 kips Total Factored Load From the Truss 758.4 kips AASHTO 2009 page 5 Section C3.3; and page 21 Load Factors (AASHTO LRFD, Table 3.4.1-1) 79 Vertical members 402 -26.32 kips Compression 404 -26.32 kips Compression 406 -26.32 kips Compression 408 -26.32 kips Compression Diagonal members 301 -167.50 kips Compression 302 130.28 kips Tension 303 -93.06 kips Compression 304 55.83 kips Tension 305 -18.61 kips Compression 306 -18.61 kips Compression 307 55.83 kips Tension 308 -93.06 kips Compression 309 130.28 kips Tension 310 -167.50 kips Compression Horizontal Members Top Chord 101 -118.44 kips Compression 102 -210.56 kips Compression 103 -276.36 kips Compression 104 -315.84 kips Compression 105 -315.84 kips Compression 106 -276.36 kips Compression 107 -210.56 kips Compression 108 -118.44 kips Compression Horizontal Members Bottom Chord 201 118.44 kips Tension 202 210.56 kips Tension 203 276.36 kips Tension 204 315.84 kips Tension 205 329.00 kips Tension 206 329.00 kips Tension 207 315.84 kips Tension 208 276.36 kips Tension 209 210.56 kips Tension 210 118.44 kips Tension 80 Vertical members 402 -26.32 kips Compression Total Factored Weight of the Steel Truss 404 -26.32 kips Compression Section of the Bridge 758.4 kips 406 -26.32 kips Compression 408 -26.32 kips Compression Total Factored Load From the Single Truss -379.2 kips 0.5*Total Factored Load From the Truss Diagonal members (Applied point load to each of 2 supports) -189.6 kips 301 -167.50 kips Compression Support Reaction at Point A 189.6 kips 302 130.28 kips Tension Support Reaction at Point B 189.6 kips 303 -93.06 kips Compression Number of Sections 10 pc 304 55.83 kips Tension Number of Point Loads 11 pc 305 -18.61 kips Compression Legnth of Truss 130 ft 306 -18.61 kips Compression 0.5 Legnth of Truss 65 ft 307 55.83 kips Tension 308 -93.06 kips Compression Top Chord Horizontals 101-108 Element Number 309 130.28 kips Tension Bottom Chord Horizontals 201-210 Element Number 310 -167.50 kips Compression Diagonals 301-310 Element Number Verticals 401-409 Element Number Horizontal Members Top Chord Point Loads P 1-11 Element Number 101 -118.44 kips Compression 102 -210.56 kips Compression Height (vertical) = 13.0 ft 103 -276.36 kips Compression Length (horizontal) = 13.0 ft 104 -315.84 kips Compression Length (diagonal) = 18.3848 ft 105 -315.84 kips Compression Factored Loadings 106 -276.36 kips Compression P = 107 -210.56 kips Compression 1, 11 -18.96 kips 108 -118.44 kips Compression P 2-10 = -37.92 kips Horizontal Members Bottom Chord Zero-force members 201 118.44 kips Tension 401 0 kips 202 210.56 kips Tension 403 0 kips 203 276.36 kips Tension 405 0 kips 204 315.84 kips Tension 407 0 kips 205 329.00 kips Tension 409 0 kips 206 329.00 kips Tension 207 315.84 kips Tension 208 276.36 kips Tension 209 210.56 kips Tension 210 118.44 kips Tension 81 Vertical members 402 -37.92 kips Compression 404 -37.92 kips Compression 406 -37.92 kips Compression 408 -37.92 kips Compression Diagonal members 301 -241.32 kips Compression 302 187.69 kips Tension 303 -134.07 kips Compression 304 80.44 kips Tension 305 -26.81 kips Compression 306 -26.81 kips Compression 307 80.44 kips Tension 308 -134.07 kips Compression 309 187.69 kips Tension 310 -241.32 kips Compression Horizontal Members Top Chord 101 -170.64 kips Compression 102 -303.36 kips Compression 103 -398.16 kips Compression 104 -455.04 kips Compression 105 -455.04 kips Compression 106 -398.16 kips Compression 107 -303.36 kips Compression 108 -170.64 kips Compression Horizontal Members Bottom Chord 201 170.64 kips Tension 202 303.36 kips Tension 203 398.16 kips Tension 204 455.04 kips Tension 205 474.00 kips Tension 206 474.00 kips Tension 207 455.04 kips Tension 208 398.16 kips Tension 209 303.36 kips Tension 210 170.64 kips Tension 82 Vertical members 0.5P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 0.5P Point Load Distribution P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 Point Loads 402 -37.92 kips Compression 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Top Chord member number 404 -37.92 kips Compression 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 Diagonal member number 406 -37.92 kips Compression A B 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 Bottom Chord member number 408 -37.92 kips Compression 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 vertical member number 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 ft 26 26 26 26 26 ft Diagonal members 65 65 ft130 ft 301 -241.32 kips Compression 302 187.69 kips Tension 303 -134.07 kips Compression 304 80.44 kips Tension 305 -26.81 kips Compression 306 -26.81 kips Compression 307 80.44 kips Tension 308 -134.07 kips Compression 309 187.69 kips Tension 310 -241.32 kips Compression Horizontal Members Top Chord 101 -170.64 kips Compression 102 -303.36 kips Compression 103 -398.16 kips Compression 104 -455.04 kips Compression 105 -455.04 kips Compression 106 -398.16 kips Compression 107 -303.36 kips Compression 108 -170.64 kips Compression Horizontal Members Bottom Chord 201 170.64 kips Tension 202 303.36 kips Tension 203 398.16 kips Tension 204 455.04 kips Tension 205 474.00 kips Tension 206 474.00 kips Tension 207 455.04 kips Tension 208 398.16 kips Tension 209 303.36 kips Tension 210 170.64 kips Tension 83 477.5 Load taken from SAP2000 in kips -455.0 Maximum absolute value for compression 4.9% Percent difference compared to SAP2000 Most likely that this percent difference is because of the H10 truck moving live load that was not calculated in Excel and all the load was applied to the top chord, where in SAP2000 the weight of the top chord and top half of the diagonal members will be attached to the top chord and everything else will be attached to the bottom chord. 496.7 Load taken from SAP2000 in kips 474.0 Maximum absolute value for tension 4.8% Percent difference compared to SAP2000 Most likely that this percent difference is because of the H10 truck moving live load that was not calculated in Excel and all the load was applied to the top chord, where in SAP2000 the weight of the top chord and top half of the diagonal members will be attached to the top chord and everything else will be attached to the bottom chord. 84 85 Member Top Chord Bottom Chord Diagonal Vertical Diagonal Vertical Vertical Straight Vertical Sraight Horizontal Perpendicular Horizontal Diagonal Section Shape: W18X86 W18X86 W18x158 W18x158 W18x86 W18x86 W12x53 W12X87 Slenderness Check for Flanges Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Non-Slender Compaction Check for Web min Non-Compact Non-Compact Compact Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Compaction Check for Web max Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Compaction Check for Flanges min Compact Compact Compact Compact Compact Compact Compact Compact Compaction Check for Flanges max Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact Load Type C T C T C T T T From SAP2000 Analysis Length (ft) 13 13 18.385 18.385 13 13 14.5 20.506 Based on our design Point Load (kips) 547.960 571.374 292.392 227.285 7.809 40.695 5.042 7.642 From SAP2000 Analysis Moment 3-3 (kip-ft) 36.193 58.8239 5.8835 5.8835 0 0 19.7744 23.6666 From SAP2000 Analysis Shear 2-2 (kip) 2.96 14.54 1.28 1.28 0 0 2.548 1.916 From SAP2000 Analysis Spacing between girders "s" (ft) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Based on our design Kx 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.3 Ky 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.3 Lp 9.29 9.29 9.68 9.68 9.29 9.29 8.76 10.84 AASHTO LRFD, Article (6.10.1.6) (6.10.10.4.2) (6.12.2.2.5) Lr 28.57 28.57 42.83 42.83 28.57 28.57 28.21 43.05 AASHTO LRFD, Article (6.7.4.2) (6.12.2.2.5) KL/rx ≤120 29.92 29.92 40.48 40.48 29.92 29.92 49.57 68.15 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry≤120 88.38 88.38 119.97 119.97 88.38 88.38 104.54 119.43 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 Design Check Demand over Capacity Ratio Available Compressive Strength !cPn 0.85 0.88 0.53 0.42 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.2.1-1 Verify limit 0.01/1.47 >0.003 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 AASHTO LRFD, APPENDIX B3, page 3-169 Available Flexural Strength !bMnx 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.05 AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 Available Strength in Tensile Yielding !tPn 0.48 0.50 0.14 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Available Strength in Tensile Rupture !tPn 0.58 0.60 0.17 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Available Strength in Shear !vVn 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis !bMny 0.20 0.32 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.10 AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 DEFLECTION (SPECIFICATION, AASHTO, ARTICLE 5): Maximum pedestrian LL Deflection = 1/360 of the span length Length of truss 130 ft Maximum pedestrian LL Deflection 4.33 in Based on our design Deflection from Truss Analysis Due to Live Load 0.6132 in From SAP2000 Analysis Deflection from Truss Analysis Due to Full factored Load 2.4377 in From SAP2000 Analysis VIBRATIONS (SPECIFICATION, AASHTO, ARTICLE 6): Vertical Direction g 32.2 ft/s2 acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2 ) maximum vertical deflection ofthe truss due to the dead load "DL (in) 1.0917 in From SAP2000 Analysis maximum vertical deflection ofthe truss due to the dead load "DL (ft) 0.0910 ft From SAP2000 Analysis f 3.3864 Hz The fundamental frequency in a vertical mode without consideration of live load should be greater than 3.0 Hz to avoid the first harmonic. TOP CHORD COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE (AASHTO LRFD, ARTICLE 6.9.2): Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Z 3x 186 in Zy 48.4 in3 E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi Slenderness Check bf 11.1 in tf 0.77 in (bf)/(2tf) 7.21 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 !r = 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 33.40 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check for Flanges Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check bf/tf 14.42 - bf 11.1 in tw 0.48 in bw/tw 23.13 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I1S0C.8 .D2.e2s-i4gn Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I9S.4C.2 D.2e sign Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I9S.4C.2 D.2e sign Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I1S0C.1 .D10es.2ig-4n Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min !p Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max !r Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min !p Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max !r Non-Compact Good As 25.3 in2 d 18.4 in tw 0.48 in rx 7.77 in ry 2.63 in rts 3.05 in J 4c 4.1 in Sx 166 in3 ho 17.6 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 9.29 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.6 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 156 in KL/rx <120 29.92 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 6.8.4—Limiting Slenderness Ratio KL/ry<120 88.38 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 6.8.4—Limiting Slenderness Ratio KL/rs 88.38 - rs 2.63 in ! = (KL/rs")2*(Fy/E) 1.36 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.5.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then P = 0.66!n FyAs 717.55 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.5.1-1 If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 611.86 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.5.1-2 #c 0.9 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Pn 717.55 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 645.80 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.2.1-1 D / C 0.85 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 8370 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 136710029.4 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 11392502.45 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 13 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) I 175 in4y0 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 1530 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 697.5 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 8370 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 Pavg 548 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK AASHTO LRFD, APPENDIX B3, page 3-169 LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 3.68 kip Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 573.70 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 47.81 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Gross Area, A 25.3 in2g Ae = 0.75Ag 18.98 in2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 1138.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 948.75 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 948.75 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.48 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.58 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Mrx 484.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 435.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 775.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMpx 697.50 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 719.04 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 647.13 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.06 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 181.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.20 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Available Strength in Shear Vr = #vVn 264.96 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.01 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6- Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 645.80 kips Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 647.13 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1138.5 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 948.75 kips N/A Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 181.5 kip-ft Good 86 TOP CHORD COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE (AASHTO LRFD, ARTICLE 6.9.2): Bottom Chord Member, Tension Resistance Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Z 3 3x 186 in Zx 186 in Zy 48.4 in3 Zy 48.4 in3 E 29000 ksi E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi Fu 65 ksi Slenderness Check bf 11.1 in bf 11.1 in tf 0.77 in tf 0.77 in (bf)/(2tf) 7.21 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 (bf)/(2tf) 7.21 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 !r = 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 33.40 - h/tw 33.40 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check for Flanges Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check Compaction Check bf/tf 14.42 - bf/tf 14.42 - bf 11.1 in bf 11.1 in tw 0.48 in tw 0.48 in bw/tw 23.13 - bw/tw 23.13 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I1S0C.8 .D2.e2s-i4gn Manual 16.1.17-19 !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I9S.4C.2 D.2e sign Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I9S.4C.2 D.2e sign Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq A6.I1S0C.1 .D10es.2ig-4n Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min !p Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max !r Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min !p Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max !r Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good As 25.3 in2 As 25.3 in2 d 18.4 in d 18.4 in tw 0.48 in tw 0.48 in rx 7.77 in rx 7.77 in ry 2.63 in ry 2.63 in rts 3.05 in rts 3.05 in J 4.1 in4 J 4.1 in4c c Sx 166 in3 Sx 166 in3 ho 17.6 in ho 17.6 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 9.29 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lp 9.29 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.6 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.6 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 156 in L 156 in KL/rx <120 29.92 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 6.8.4—Limiting Slenderness Ratio KL/rx <120 29.92 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 88.38 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 6.8.4—Limiting Slenderness Ratio KL/ry<120 88.38 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 88.38 - KL/rs 88.38 - rs 2.63 in rs 2.63 in ! = (KL/r 2s") *(Fy/E) 1.36 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.5.1-3 ! = (KL/r ")2s *(Fy/E) 1.36 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then If "⩽2.25, then P = 0.66!n FyAs 717.55 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.5.1-1 Pn = 0.66!FyAs 717.55 kips If ">2.25, then If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 611.86 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.5.1-2 Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 611.86 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #c 0.9 - Pn 717.55 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pn 717.55 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 645.80 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.2.1-1 Pr =#cPn 645.80 kips D / C 0.85 Good Demand / Capacity for compression D / C 0.88 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 8370 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mn 8370 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 136710029.4 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 136710029.4 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 11392502.45 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) Mcr 11392502.45 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 13 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) L 13 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) Iy0 175 in4 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) I 4y0 175 in out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 1530 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 1530 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 697.5 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 697.5 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 8370 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) #bMpx 8370 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 K 1.49 Pavg 548 Pavg 571.37 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK AASHTO LRFD, APPENDIX B3, page 3-169 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK AASHTO LRFD, APPENDIX B3, page 3-169 LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 3.68 kip Hf 3.83 kip Length of vertical 156 in Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 573.70 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 598.22 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 47.81 kip-ft Lateral Moment in Vertical 49.85 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Gross Area, Ag 25.3 in2 Gross Area, Ag 25.3 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 18.98 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 18.98 in2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 1138.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Yielding #yPn 1138.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 948.75 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 948.75 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 948.75 kips Minimum 948.75 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.48 Good Design Check D/C Yielding 0.50 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.58 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.60 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Mrx 484.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 Mrx 484.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 435.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 #fMrx 435.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 775.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 Mp 775.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMpx 697.50 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 #fMp 697.50 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 719.04 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Mnx 719.04 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 647.13 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 647.13 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.06 Good Design Check D/C 0.09 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 181.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 181.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.20 Good Design Check D/C 0.32 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Available Strength in Shear Vr = #vVn 264.96 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.01 Good Design Check D/C 0.05 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6- Design Check Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6-89)Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Section Shape: W18X86 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 645.80 kips Good Available Compressive Strength #cPn 645.80 kips N/A Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 647.13 kip-ft Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 647.13 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1138.5 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1138.5 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 948.75 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 948.75 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 181.5 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 181.5 kip-ft Good 87 Diagonal Member, Compression Resistance Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Z 3x 356 in Zy 94.8 in3 E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi bf 11.3 in tf 1.44 in (bf)/(2tf) 3.92 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 19.80 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check bf/tf 7.85 - bf 11.3 in tw 0.81 in bw/tw 13.95 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good As 46.3 in2 d 19.7 in tw 0.81 in rx 8.12 in ry 2.74 in rts 3.2 in Jc 25.2 in4 Sx 310 in3 ho 18.3 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 9.68 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 42.8 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 220.62 in KL/rx <120 40.48 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 119.97 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 119.97 - rs 2.74 in ! = (KL/r ")2s *(Fy/E) 2.51 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then P = 0.66!n FyAs 814.37 kips If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 607.68 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - Pn 607.68 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 546.91 kips D / C 0.53 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 16020 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 136122868.4 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 11343572.37 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 18.38 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) I 347 in4y0 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 3060 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 1335 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 16020 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 Pavg 292 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK AASHTO LRFD, APPENDIX B3, page 3-169 LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 1.96 kip Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 306.13 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 25.51 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Gross Area, A 46.3 in2g Ae = 0.75A 34.73 in2g #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 2083.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 1736.25 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 1736.25 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.14 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.17 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Mrx 904.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 813.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 1483.33 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMp 1335.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 1425.30 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 1198.10 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 355.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.02 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Available Strength in Shear #vVn 478.71 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6- Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 546.91 kips Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 1198.10 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 2083.5 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 1736.25 kips N/A Available Strength in Shear #vVn 478.71 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 355.5 kip-ft Good 88 Diagonal Member, Compression Resistance Diagonal Member, Tension Resistance Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Zx 356 in3 Zx 356 in3 Zy 94.8 in3 Z 94.8 in3y E 29000 ksi E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi Fu 65 ksi bf 11.3 in bf 11.3 in tf 1.44 in tf 1.44 in (bf)/(2tf) 3.92 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 (bf)/(2tf) 3.92 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 19.80 - h/tw 19.80 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check Compaction Check bf/tf 7.85 - bf/tf 7.85 - bf 11.3 in bf 11.3 in tw 0.81 in tw 0.81 in bw/tw 13.95 - bw/tw 13.95 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min Compact Good Compaction Check for web min Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good As 46.3 in2 As 46.3 in2 d 19.7 in d 19.7 in tw 0.81 in tw 0.81 in rx 8.12 in rx 8.12 in ry 2.74 in ry 2.74 in rts 3.2 in rts 3.2 in J 25.2 in4c Jc 25.2 in4 Sx 310 in3 Sx 310 in3 ho 18.3 in ho 18.3 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 9.68 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lp 9.68 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 42.8 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 42.8 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 220.62 in L 220.62 in KL/rx <120 40.48 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rx <120 40.48 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 119.97 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 119.97 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 119.97 - KL/rs 119.97 - rs 2.74 in rs 2.74 in ! = (KL/rs")2*(Fy/E) 2.51 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 ! = (KL/r 2s") *(Fy/E) 2.51 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then If "⩽2.25, then Pn = 0.66!F !yAs 814.37 kips Pn = 0.66 FyAs 814.37 kips If ">2.25, then If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 607.68 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 607.68 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - #c 0.9 - Pn 607.68 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pn 607.68 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 546.91 kips Pr =#cPn 546.91 kips D / C 0.53 Good Demand / Capacity for compression D / C 0.42 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 16020 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mn 16020 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 136122868.4 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 136122868.4 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 11343572.37 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) Mcr 11343572.37 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 18.38 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) L 18.38 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) Iy0 347 in4 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) I 4y0 347 in out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) I 3060 in4x0 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 3060 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 1335 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 1335 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 16020 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) #bMpx 16020 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 K 1.49 Pavg 292 Pavg 227 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK AASHTO LRFD, APPENDIX B3, page 3-169 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 1.96 kip Hf 1.53 kip Length of vertical 156 in Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 306.13 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 237.96 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 25.51 kip-ft Lateral Moment in Vertical 19.83 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Gross Area, A 2 2g 46.3 in Gross Area, Ag 46.3 in Ae = 0.75Ag 34.73 in2 Ae = 0.75A 2g 34.73 in #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 2083.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Yielding #yPn 2083.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 1736.25 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 1736.25 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 1736.25 kips Minimum 1736.25 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.14 Good Design Check D/C Yielding 0.11 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.17 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.13 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Mrx 904.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 Mrx 904.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 813.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 #fMrx 813.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 1483.33 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 Mp 1483.33 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMp 1335.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 #fMp 1335.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 1425.30 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Mnx 1425.30 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 1198.10 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 1198.10 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 355.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 355.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.02 Good Design Check D/C 0.02 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Available Strength in Shear #vVn 478.71 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Available Strength in Shear #vVn 478.71 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6- Design Check Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6-Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Section Shape: W18x158 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 546.91 kips Good Available Compressive Strength #cPn 546.91 kips N/A Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 1198.10 kip-ft Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 1198.10 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 2083.5 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 2083.5 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 1736.25 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 1736.25 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 478.71 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 478.71 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 355.5 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 355.5 kip-ft Good 89 Vertical Member, Compression Resistance Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Zx 186 in3 Z 48.4 in3y E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi bf 11.1 in tf 0.77 in (bf)/(2tf) 7.21 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 33.40 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check bf/tf 14.42 - bf 11.1 in tw 0.48 in bw/tw 23.13 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good As 25.3 in2 d 18.4 in tw 0.48 in rx 7.77 in ry 2.63 in rts 3.05 in Jc 4.1 in4 Sx 166 in3 ho 17.6 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 9.29 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.6 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 156 in KL/rx <120 29.92 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 88.38 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 88.38 - rs 2.63 in ! = (KL/rs")2*(Fy/E) 1.36 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then Pn = 0.66!FyAs 717.55 kips If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 611.86 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - Pn 717.55 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 645.80 kips D / C 0.01 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 8370 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 136710029.43 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 11392502.45 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 13 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) I 175 in4 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4y0 ) Ix0 1530 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 697.5 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 8370 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 Pavg 7.81 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 0.05 kip Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 8.18 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 0.68 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Gross Area, A 25.3 in2g Ae = 0.75Ag 18.98 in2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 1138.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 948.75 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 948.75 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.01 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Mrx 484.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 435.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 775.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMp 697.50 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 719.04 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 647.13 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 181.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6- Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 645.80 kips Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 647.13 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1138.5 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 948.75 kips N/A Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 181.5 kip-ft Good 90 Vertical Member, Compression Resistance Vertical Member, Tension Resistance Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Zx 186 in3 Zx 186 in3 Zy 48.4 in3 Zy 48.4 in3 E 29000 ksi E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi Fu 65 ksi bf 11.1 in bf 11.1 in tf 0.77 in tf 0.77 in (bf)/(2tf) 7.21 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 (bf)/(2tf) 7.21 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 33.40 - h/tw 33.40 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check Compaction Check bf/tf 14.42 - bf/tf 14.42 - bf 11.1 in bf 11.1 in tw 0.48 in tw 0.48 in bw/tw 23.13 - bw/tw 23.13 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good As 25.3 in2 A 2s 25.3 in d 18.4 in d 18.4 in tw 0.48 in tw 0.48 in rx 7.77 in rx 7.77 in ry 2.63 in ry 2.63 in rts 3.05 in rts 3.05 in Jc 4.1 in4 Jc 4.1 in4 Sx 166 in3 Sx 166 in3 ho 17.6 in ho 17.6 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 9.29 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lp 9.29 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.6 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.6 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 156 in L 156 in KL/rx <120 29.92 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rx <120 29.92 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 88.38 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 88.38 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 88.38 - KL/rs 88.38 - rs 2.63 in rs 2.63 in ! = (KL/r 2s") *(Fy/E) 1.36 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 ! = (KL/rs")2*(Fy/E) 1.36 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then If "⩽2.25, then Pn = 0.66!F !yAs 717.55 kips Pn = 0.66 FyAs 717.55 kips If ">2.25, then If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 611.86 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 Pn = (0.66FyAs)/(!) 611.86 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - #c 0.9 - Pn 717.55 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pn 717.55 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 645.80 kips Pr =#cPn 645.80 kips D / C 0.01 Good Demand / Capacity for compression D / C 0.06 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 8370 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mn 8370 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 136710029.43 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 136710029.43 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 11392502.45 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) Mcr 11392502.45 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 13 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) L 13 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) I 4y0 175 in out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Iy0 175 in4 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 1530 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 1530 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 697.5 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 697.5 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 8370 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) #bMpx 8370 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 K 1.49 Pavg 7.81 Pavg 40.70 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 0.05 kip Hf 0.27 kip Length of vertical 156 in Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 8.18 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 42.61 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 0.68 kip-ft Lateral Moment in Vertical 3.55 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Available Tensile Strength in Axial Tension From AISC Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Gross Area, Ag 25.3 in2 Gross Area, Ag 25.3 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 18.98 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 18.98 in2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 1138.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Yielding #yPn 1138.5 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 948.75 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 948.75 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 948.75 kips Minimum 948.75 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Yielding 0.04 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.04 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Mrx 484.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 Mrx 484.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 435.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 #fMrx 435.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 775.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 Mp 775.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMp 697.50 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 #fMp 697.50 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 719.04 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Mnx 719.04 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 647.13 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 647.13 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 181.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 181.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Design Check D/C 0.00 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces AISC (page 6- Design Check Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Section Shape: W18x86 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 645.80 kips Good Available Compressive Strength #cPn 645.80 kips N/A Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 647.13 kip-ft Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 647.13 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1138.5 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1138.5 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 948.75 kips N/A Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 948.75 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 264.96 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 181.5 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 181.5 kip-ft Good 91 Horizontal Perpendicular Member, Tension Resistance Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Z 77.9 in3x Zy 29.1 in3 E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi bf 10 in tf 0.575 in (bf)/(2tf) 8.70 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 28.10 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check bf/tf 17.39 - bf 10.0 in tw 0.35 in bw/tw 28.99 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good A 2s 15.6 in d 12.1 in tw 0.345 in rx 5.23 in ry 2.48 in rts 2.79 in Jc 1.58 in4 Sx 70.6 in3 ho 11.5 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 8.76 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.2 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 174 in KL/rx <120 49.57 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 104.54 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 104.54 - rs 2.48 in ! = (KL/r 2s") *(Fy/E) 1.91 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then Pn = 0.66!FyAs 352.84 kips If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.88FyAs)/(!) 359.53 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - Pn 352.84 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 317.56 kips D / C 0.02 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 3505.5 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 42851256.08 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 3570938.01 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 14.5 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) I 4y0 95.8 in out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 425 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) #bMpx 292.125 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 3505.5 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 Pavg 5.04 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 0.03 kip Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 5.28 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 0.44 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Gross Area, Ag 15.6 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 11.70 in2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 702.0 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 585 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 585 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.01 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Mrx 205.92 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 185.33 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 324.58 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMp 292.13 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 298.71 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 260.60 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.08 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 109.125 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.18 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Available Strength in Shear #vVn 125.235 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.02 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 317.56 kips N/A Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 260.60 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 702.0 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 585 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 125.235 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 109.125 kip-ft Good 92 Horizontal Perpendicular Member, Tension Resistance Horizontal Diagonal Member, Tension Resistance Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Section Shape: W12X87 I-beam Zx 77.9 in3 Z 132 in3x Zy 29.1 in3 Z 60.4 in3y E 29000 ksi E 29000 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fy 50 ksi Fu 65 ksi Fu 65 ksi bf 10 in bf 12.1 in tf 0.575 in tf 0.81 in (bf)/(2tf) 8.70 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 (bf)/(2tf) 7.47 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-3 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 0.56*√(E/Fy) 13.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.8.2.2-5 h/tw 28.10 - h/tw 18.90 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - !r = 1.49*√(E/Fy) 35.88 - Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Slenderness Check for Web Non-Slender Good Compaction Check Compaction Check bf/tf 17.39 - bf/tf 14.94 - bf 10.0 in bf 12.1 in tw 0.35 in tw 0.52 in bw/tw 28.99 - bw/tw 23.50 - !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p =0.38*√(E/Fy) 9.15 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 1.0*√(E/Fy) 24.08 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !p = 3.76*√(E/Fy) 90.55 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 !r = 5.70*√(E/Fy) 137.27 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.2.2 AISC Design Manual 16.1.17-19 Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web min Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for web max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges min Compact OK Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good Compaction Check for flanges max Non-Compact Good A 2 2s 15.6 in As 25.6 in d 12.1 in d 12.5 in tw 0.345 in tw 0.515 in rx 5.23 in rx 5.38 in ry 2.48 in ry 3.07 in rts 2.79 in rts 3.46 in Jc 1.58 in4 Jc 5.1 in4 Sx 70.6 in3 Sx 118 in3 ho 11.5 in ho 11.7 in Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Kx 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Ky 1.49 - Plate buckling coefficient as specified in Table 6.9.4.2.1-1 Lp 8.76 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lp 10.84 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 28.2 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft Lr 43.1 ft Limiting Unbraced Lengths, ft L 174 in L 246.0731599 in KL/rx <120 49.57 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rx <120 68.15 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 104.54 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/ry<120 119.43 Good Slenderness ratio AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.3 KL/rs 104.54 - KL/rs 119.43 - rs 2.48 in rs 3.07 in ! = (KL/r 2 2s") *(Fy/E) 1.91 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 ! = (KL/rs") *(Fy/E) 2.49 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-3 If "⩽2.25, then If "⩽2.25, then Pn = 0.66!FyAs 352.84 kips Pn = 0.66!FyAs 454.53 kips If ">2.25, then If ">2.25, then Pn = (0.88FyAs)/(!) 359.53 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 Pn = (0.88FyAs)/(!) 452.06 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.9.4.1-2 #c 0.9 - #c 0.9 - Pn 352.84 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pn 452.06 kips Nominal compressive resistance per AASHTO LRFD, Article 6.9.4 (kips) Pr =#cPn 317.56 kips Pr =#cPn 406.85 kips D / C 0.02 Good Demand / Capacity for compression D / C 0.02 Good Demand / Capacity for compression Mn 3505.5 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mn 5940 kip-in nominal in-plane flexural resistance of one girder (kip-in.) Equation (7.2.2-1) Mcr 42851256.08 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 44841561.01 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-in.) Mcr 3570938.01 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) Mcr 3736796.75 kip-in critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of one girder (kip-ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 13 ft spacing between girders (ft.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) s 156 in spacing between girders (in.) L 14.5 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) L 20.506 ft effective buckling length for lateral-torsional buckling (ft) I 95.8 in4y0 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Iy0 241 in4 out-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) Ix0 425 in4 in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in.4) I 4 4x0 740 in in-of-plane moment of inertia of one girder (in. ) #bMpx 292.125 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 495 kip-ft in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-ft.) #bMpx 3505.5 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) #bMpx 5940 kip-in in-plane plastic moment of one girder (kip-in.) K 1.49 K 1.49 Pavg 5.04 Pavg 7.64 Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK Verify limit 0.01/1.49 >0.003 0.007 OK LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): LATERAL FORCE TO BE RESISTED BY VERTICALS (SPECIFICATION, ARTICLE 7.1.1): Hf 0.03 kip Hf 0.05 kip Length of vertical 156 in Length of vertical 156 in Lateral Moment in Vertical 5.28 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 8.00 kip-in Lateral Moment in Vertical 0.44 kip-ft Lateral Moment in Vertical 0.67 kip-ft Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Available Tensile Strength from AISC Chapter 6.8 of the AASHTO LRFD code Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Section Shape: W12X87 I-beam Gross Area, Ag 15.6 in2 Gross Area, Ag 25.6 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 11.70 in2 Ae = 0.75Ag 19.20 in2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #y 0.90 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 #u 0.75 - AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.5.4.2 Yielding #yPn 702.0 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Yielding #yPn 1152.0 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 585 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Rupture #uPn 960 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.8.2.1-1 Minimum 585 kips Minimum 960 kips Design Check D/C Yielding 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Yielding 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.01 Good Design Check D/C Rupture 0.01 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Available Flexural Strength #fMnx Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Section Shape: W12X87 I-beam Mrx 205.92 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 Mrx 344.17 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.12 #fMrx 185.33 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 #fMrx 309.75 kip-ft factored flexural resistance equal to #f times the nominal flexural resistance determined, Article 6.10, 6.11 or 6.13 Mp 324.58 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 Mp 550.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-1, Eq 6.10.7.1.2-2 #fMp 292.13 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 #fMp 495.00 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.7.1.1 Mnx 298.71 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Mnx 536.22 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 260.60 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx #fMnx 439.43 kip-ft Interpolation between Mrx and Mpx Design Check D/C 0.08 Good Design Check D/C 0.05 Good Available Flexural Strength #fMny Available Flexural Strength #fMny Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Section Shape: W12X87 I-beam Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 109.125 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #fMny 226.5 kip-ft AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.2, Article 6.12 Design Check D/C 0.18 Good Design Check D/C 0.10 Good Available Strength in Shear !vVn Available Strength in Shear !vVn Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Section Shape: W12X87 I-beam Available Strength in Shear #vVn 125.235 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Available Strength in Shear #vVn 193.125 kips AASHTO LRFD, Eq 6.10.3.3-1 Design Check D/C 0.02 Good Design Check D/C 0.01 Good Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Design Check Available Strength for Members Subject to Axial, Shear, Flexural and Combined Forces Section Shape: W12x53 I-beam Section Shape: W12X87 I-beam Design Check Available Compressive Strength #cPn 317.56 kips N/A Available Compressive Strength #cPn 406.85 kips N/A Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 260.60 kip-ft Good Available Flexural Strength #bMnx 439.43 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 702.0 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Yielding #tPn 1152.0 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 585 kips Good Available Strength in Tensile Rupture #tPn 960 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 125.235 kips Good Available Strength in Shear #vVn 193.125 kips Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 109.125 kip-ft Good Available Strength in Flexure about Y-Y axis #bMny 226.5 kip-ft Good 93 l Floorbeam_CDB-URA.mcdx CBD-URA Bridge 1 of 4 Phillip Grigorov 4/16/2021 Floor Beam Dimensions Ltruss.to.truss≔14.5 ft Ltruss.to.truss=14.5 ft 14 widthtributary≔― ft widthtributary=4.667 ft 3 Dead Load γconcrete≔150 pcf γconcrete=150 pcf 6.5 tdeck≔――ft tdeck=0.542 ft 12 wslab≔γconcrete ⋅ tdeck ⋅widthtributary wslab=379.167 plf γp≔1.25 (AASHTO LFRD Table 3.4.1-2) γp=1.25 wdead.fact≔γp ⋅wslab wdead.fact=0.474 klf wrailing≔5 plf wrailing=5 plf Prailing≔widthtributary ⋅wrailing Prailing=0.023 kip Prail.fact≔γp ⋅Prailing (acting 6 inches from each side) Prail.fact=0.029 kip Live Load Wped.≔90 psf (AASHTO LFRD GSDPB 3.1) Wped.=90 psf wped.≔Wped. ⋅widthtributary wped.=0.42 klf γ≔1.75 (AASHTO LFRD Table 3.4.1-1) γ=1.75 wped.fact≔γ ⋅wped. wped.fact=0.735 klf PH10≔8 kip (AASHTO LFRD GSDPB Table 3.2-1) PH10=8 kip PH10.fact≔γ ⋅PH10 PH10.fact=14 kip 94 Floorbeam_CDB-URA.mcdx CBD-URA Bridge 2 of 4 Phillip Grigorov 4/16/2021 Structural Analysis (2 load combinations) Combination 1: Dead + Pedestrian 2 ⋅ ⎝⎛P ⎞ ⎛rail.fact⎠+⎝wdead.fact+w ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ped.fact⎠ ⋅ ⎝Ltruss.to.truss⎠ RA1≔――――――――――――――― RA1=8.794 kip 2 Ltruss.to.truss xmax.M≔―――― xmax.M=7.25 ft 2 x1≔xmax.M 95 Floorbeam_CDB-URA.mcdx CBD-URA Bridge 3 of 4 Phillip Grigorov 4/16/2021 - 2x1 M ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞max.1≔――⎝wdead.fact+wped.fact⎠-Prail.fact ⋅ ⎝x1-0.5 ft⎠+RA1 ⋅ ⎝x1⎠ Mmax.1=31.788 kip ⋅ft 2 Vmax.1≔RA1 Vmax.1=8.794 kip Combination 2: Dead + H10 Truck 2 P ( )rail.fact+2 PH10.fact+wdead.fact ⋅ (14.5 ft) RA2≔―――――――――――――― RA2=17.465 kip 2 - 2x1 Mmax.2≔――⎝⎛w ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞dead.fact⎠-Prail.fact ⋅ ⎝x1-0.5 ft⎠-PH10.fact ⋅ ⎝x1-4.25 ft⎠+RA2 ⋅ ⎝x1⎠ 2 96 Floorbeam_CDB-URA.mcdx CBD-URA Bridge 4 of 4 Phillip Grigorov 4/16/2021 Mmax.2=71.971 kip ⋅ft Vmax.2≔RA2 Vmax.2=17.465 kip Combination 2 controls design. Mmax≔Mmax.2 Vmax≔Vmax.2 Steel Design Assuming continous lateral support. Fy≔50 ksi Fy=50 ksi Mp≔Mmax Mp=71.971 kip ⋅ft Mp Zx.req≔―― (AASHTO LFRD 6.12.2.2.1) Z 3 x.req=17.273 in Fy from Table 1-1 (AISC Steel Manual): Use W10x17 section Z 3 3x.new≔18.7 in Zx.new=18.7 in Mp.new≔Fy ⋅Zx.new Mp.new=77.917 kip ⋅ft Mp.new>Mp ϕVVn≔72.7 kip from Table 6-2 ϕVVn=72.7 kip ϕVVn>Vmax 97 momma Slab Design_CBD-URA CBD-URA Bridge 1 of 2 Hussam Fallatah momma Slab Design: Span≔4.334 ft Span Length Ix≔9.1137 in 4 Moment of inertia P≔200 kip Point Load E≔29000000 psi Modules of elasticity of steel W≔7.5 lbf―― Distributed Load fc≔4000 psi Compressive strength in of concrete b≔1 ft Design Width As1≔3.013 in 2 Area of steel for tension db≔4.4 in Steel Diameter h≔6.5 in Thickness of the slab γ≔150 pcf Unite weight of Fy≔50000 psi Yield strength of steel concrete β1≔0.85 Stress block factor ϕ≔0.75 Flexural resistance factor d≔h- db―=4.3 in Effective depth SteelW≔8.63 psf Weight of corrugated 2 steel SlabW≔h ⋅γ=81.25 psf Weight of slab Flexural Design: DL≔SteelW+SlabW=89.88 psf Dead Load LL≔90 psf Live Load Wu≔((1.25 ⋅DL))+((1.75 ⋅LL))=269.85 psf Factored Load (AASHTO LRF 3.4) Wu1≔Wu ⋅b=269.85 plf Mu≔ Wu1 ⋅Span 2 98 ―――――=7.603 in ⋅kip8 Slab Design_CBD-URA CBD-URA Bridge 2 of 2 Hussam Fallatah 2 Mu≔ Wu1 ⋅Span―――――=7.603 in ⋅kip Factored Moment 8 C≔ As1 ⋅Fy――――=3.692 in Distance between the neutral (AASHTO LRF 5.7.3.1.1-4) 0.85 ⋅fc ⋅b axis and the compressive face a≔C ⋅β1=3.139 in Depth of the equivalent stress (AASHTO LRF 5.7.2.2) block ⎛ ⎞ Mn≔Fy ⋅As1 ⋅ d- a⎜ ―⎟=411.384 in ⋅kip Nominal (AASHTO LRF 5.7.3.2.2 - 1) ⎝ 2 ⎠ resistance ϕMn≔Mn ⋅ϕ=308.538 in ⋅kip Factored resistance Since Mu<ϕMn design is OK Use 4.25 X 12 Gage 9 corrugated steel For reinforcement As2≔0.002 ⋅h ⋅b=0.156 in 2 Shrinkage and temperature reinforcement Use wire size 8 @ 6 inches spacing Deflection Design: Δallowable≔ Span――=0.043 in Maximum allowable (AASHTO LRF 9.5.2) 1200 deflection 4 Δ≔ 5⋅W ⋅Span―――――=0.003 in Deflection due to Live load 384 ⋅E ⋅ Ix Since Δ<Δallowable Design is ok 99 4 1/4 x 12 Flooring 9 8 PROPERTIES DEFLECTION LIMIT DESIGN PLANK PLANK Sxt Zxt WEIGHT OF GRADE ASD HS20 ASD HS25 LRFD HL93 I d d NOMINAL THICKNESS WIDTH AREA xx b t S Z PLANK MATERIAL (f )xb xb y SPAN SPAN/Δ SPAN SPAN/Δ SPAN SPAN/Δ GAGE SPECIFICATIONS in. in. in2 in4 in. in. in3 in3 psf ksi in. in. in. 3.976 4.661 9.0 0.1495 14.25 3.013 9.1137 2.108 2.292 8.63 ASTM A 1011-SS 50 51.00 826 44.00 842 43.00 804 4.323 5.074 4.735 5.587 7.0 0.1793 14.25 3.6114 10.9236 2.123 2.307 10.35 ASTM A 1011-SS 50 58.00 836 50.00 810 47.50 801 5.145 6.082 5.486 6.514 5.0 0.2092 14.25 4.211 12.738 2.138 2.322 12.07 ASTM A 1011-SS 50 66.00 817 55.00 839 53.25 806 5.958 7.091 6.227 7.441 3.0 0.2391 14.25 4.810 14.552 2.153 2.337 13.78 ASTM A 1018-HSLAS 50 71.50 809 59.50 824 58.50 813 6.759 8.100 3 x 9 Flooring 9 8 PROPERTIES DEFLECTION LIMIT DESIGN PLANK PLANK Sxt Zxt WEIGHT OF GRADE ASD HS20 ASD HS25 LRFD HL93 I d d NOMINAL THICKNESS WIDTH AREA xx b t S PLANK MATERIAL (f )xb Zxb y SPAN SPAN/Δ SPAN SPAN/Δ SPAN SPAN/Δ GAGE SPECIFICATIONS in. in. in2 in4 in. in. in3 in3 psf ksi in. in. in. 4.734 5.605 7.0 0.1793 20.125 4.973 7.550 1.584 1.595 10.09 ASTM A 1011-SS 50 39.00 833 36.00 839 36.00 820 4.767 5.724 5.445 6.513 5.0 0.2092 20.125 5.804 8.783 1.596 1.613 11.78 ASTM A 1011-SS 50 42.00 808 38.50 800 37.50 829 5.503 6.690 6.126 7.397 3.0 0.2391 20.125 6.633 9.986 1.609 1.630 13.46 ASTM A 1018-HSLAS 50 44.00 826 40.00 810 39.00 815 6.206 7.644 Assumptions for Span Table Calculations: Notes: 1 Strength and deflection limits report the maximum center to center dimension based on various wearing surface thickness - beam flange width = 9 in. above the corrugations - roadway width = 24 ft. 2 Effective Span for ASD defined as per AASHTO 3.25.1.2. - crown = 3/16" per ft. 3 ASD/HS20 curves use a wheel load of 12k as per notes from AASHTO Figure 3.7.7.A. - asphalt density = 140 pcf 4 ASD/HS25 curves use a wheel load of 15k proportioned from AASHTO Figure 3.7.7.A. 5 LRFD/HL93 curves use a wheel load of 16k per AASHTO LRFD 3.6.1.2.5 and distribution per 9.8.5.2 6 Analysis assumes a pinned end-span support condition at each end 7 The LRFD span limits are based on a continuous beam analysis using load positioning to produce a maximum load effect 8 The deflection limits are based on meeting AASHTO's optional criteria of L/800. These values are calculated using an asphalt thickness of 1.5 in above the plank corrugations. Like the strength charts show, a higher deflection limit can be expected for thicker asphalt amounts. 9 Plank dimensions and property calculations can be downloaded at www.usbridge.com 10 Detailed proof-of-method for these span limits can be downloaded at www.usbridge.com 100 STRENGTH LIMIT For 4 1/4 x 12 FLOORING   ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN (ASD) USING HS20 TRUCK 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 4.25x12 Gage 9 85 4.25x12 Gage 7 80 4.25x12 Gage 5 75 70 4.25x12 Gage 3 65 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 Surface Thickness (in) 101 Max C/C Span (in) Column_CBD-URA.mxcd Max Van Donfsel 5/4/2021 CBD-URA_Bridge 1 of 2Column 2 Material Properties fy≔60000 psi f'c≔4000 psi Design of Column 2 for compression and flexure Column Info b≔36 in Column width h≔72 in Column depth Ag≔h ⋅b=⎛⎝2.592 ⋅10 3 ⎞⎠ in 2 Gross area Pu≔548.86 kip Factored axial load cover≔3.0 in AASHTO Table 5.12.3-1 k≔0.65 Design effective length factor (fixed-pinned) Lu≔18.8 ft Unbraced column length r≔0.3 ⋅h=21.6 in Radius of gyration Select Reinforcing Longitudinal Reinforcement ⎛⎝0.135 ⋅Ag ⋅f' ⎞Asrequired≔――――― c⎠ =23.328 in 2 AASHTO eqn. 5.7.4.2-3 fy Check Asmin and Asmax Check: Asmin≔0.01 ⋅Ag=25.92 in 2 Asmax≔0.04 ⋅Ag=103.68 in 2 AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1a Choose: A 2s≔Asmin=25.92 in Select 26 #9 bars for longitudinal reinforcement Asprovided≔26.00 in 2 Transverse Reinforcing 102 Non-Commercial Use Only Column_CBD-URA.mxcd Max Van Donsel 5/4/2021 CBD-URA_Bridge 2 of 2 Transverse Reinforcing smin≔12.0 in AASHTO 5.8.2.7 Choose #3 bar at 12 inches on center Axial Capacity Pn≔0.80 ⋅ ⎣⎡0.85 ⋅f'c ⋅ ⎝⎛A ⎡ 3 ⎤ g-Asprovided⎠⎞+fy ⋅Asprovided ⎤⎦=⎣8.228 ⋅10 ⎦ kip AASHTO eq. 5.7.4.4-3 ϕaxial≔0.75 AASHTO 5.5.4.2 ϕaxial ⋅P =⎡n ⎣6.171 ⋅10 3 ⎤⎦ kip > Pu = 548.86 kip OK Flexural Capacity Weak Axis bending β1≔0.85 AASHTO 5.7.2.2 ⎛As c≔―⎝ ―prov―ided ⋅f ―y ⎞ ―⎠ =7.497 in AASHTO eqn. 5.7.3.1.2-4 0.85 f'c ⋅β1 ⋅h a≔c ⋅β1=6.373 in AASHTO 5.7.3.2.3 db≔1.0 in d dweak≔b-cover-― b =32.5 in 2 ⎛ ⎞ Mn ≔As ⋅f ⋅ ⎜d - a ―⎟=⎝⎛3.811 ⋅103 ⎞weak provided y weak ⎠ kip ⋅ft AASHTO eq. 5.7.3.2.2-1⎝ 2 ⎠ ϕflexure≔0.9 AASHTO 5.5.4.2 ϕflexure ⋅Mn =⎛weak ⎝3.43 ⋅10 3 ⎞⎠ kip ⋅ft Moment demand is controlled by seismic loading conditions, factored moment Mu is taken as 5% of superstructure dead weight acting at a lever arm of column unbraced length with load factor 1.0 per ASCE 7-16 factored load combinations. Mu≔246 kip ⋅ft < ϕMn = 3430 kip*ft OK Check Slenderness ⎛⎝k ⋅L――u ⎞⎠―=6.789 <22 OK r 103 Non-Commercial Use Only Bridge Beam Dimensions and Weight (DcL) Loading Factor 1.25 - Height of the beam 26 in Height of the beam 2.167 ft Cross-sectional area of concrete only 846 in2 Cross-sectional area of concrete only 5.875 ft2 Legth of each beam 54.5 ft Width of the beam 4 ft Width of the bridge 15 ft Number of beams 3.75 pc Assigned number of beams 3 pc Unit weight of concrete 150 lb/ft3 1 foot 12 in Concrete/Total volume ratio 0.68 - Weight of each beam 48.03 kips Factored weight of each beam 60.04 kips Total weight from all beams 144.08 kips Factored weight of all beams 180.11 kips Live Load (LL) Loading factor 1.75 - Pedestrian 90 lb/ft2 Truck H10 20 kips Total pedestrian load 73575 lb Total pedestrian load 73.575 kips Factored Weight of Truck H10 35 kips Factored Total pedestrian load 128756.25 lb Factored Total pedestrian load 128.76 kips Maximum Live Load (LL) 128.76 kips Unit conversion factor 1ft = 12in 1 foot 12 in Dead Load (DcL) Unit weight of concrete 150 lb/ft3 Slab (DcL) Thickness 5 in Linear weight 937.5 lb/ft Total Weight 51093.75 lb Total Weight 51.09 kips Fence (DcL) Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length 54.5 ft Linear weight 20 lb/ft Total weight 2180 lb Total weight 2.18 kips Street Lights (DcL) Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length 54.5 ft Linear weight 5 lb/ft Total weight 545 lb Total weight 0.545 kips 104 Hand Rails (DcL) Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Length 109 ft Linear weight 349 lb/ft Total weight 38041 lb Total weight 38.04 kips Dead Load (DwL) Pavement (DwL) Loading factor 1.5 - Thickness 1 in Linear weight 187.5 lb/ft Total Weight 10218.75 lb Total Weight 10.22 kips Factored weight 15328.13 lb Factored weight 15.33 kips Utilities (DwL) Loading factor 1.5 - Linear weight 20 lb/ft Length of the bidge 54.5 ft Number of sides of the bridge 2 sides Total length of utilities 109 ft Total weight 2180 lb Total weight 2.18 kips Total factored weight 3270 lb Total factored weight 3.27 kips Total Live Load (LL) Loading factor 1.75 - Summation of all Dead Loads 73.58 kips Factored Total Deadload 128.76 kips Maximum Dead Load DwL 128.76 kips Total Dead Load (DcL) Loading factor 1.25 - Summation of all Dead Loads 235.94 kips Factored Total Deadload 294.93 kips Maximum Dead Load DwL 294.93 kips Total Dead Load (DwL) Loading factor 1.5 - Summation of all Dead Loads 12.40 kips Factored Total Deadload 18.60 kips Maximum Dead Load DwL 18.60 kips Total Load From the Prestressed Concrete Single Beam Dead Load (DcL) + Dead Load (DwL) + Live Load (LL) 321.92 kips Factored Dead Load + Live Load 442.28 kips Total Unfactored Load From the Prestressed Beam 321.92 kips Total Factored Load From the Prestressed Beam 442.28 kips 105 Appendix e Project Posters Note: Guidelines have been set to represent the 0.50” margin on each side of the poster CBD-URA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Department of Civil and Environmental PROJECT Engineering, Capstone 2021 Capstone Organization Chart Need/Purpose Proposed Design Solution The purpose of this project is to provide connectivity and access between the two districts by designing a mixed-use (pedestrian, bicycle, and light vehicle) bridge over a railroad that separates the districts. Based on our alternatives analysis, the Steel Truss Design ranks the highest in meeting the needs of the City of Troutdale. The steel truss system has a high strength-to-weight ratio making it cost-efficient. The other positive aspect of this design is its effective weight distribution and load-bearing capacity across short spans. The beginning portion of the bridge will be made out of precast, prestressed concrete for ease of construction and to prevent obstruction of the historic architecture and views of tenants. Noah Solomon-Lopez Tricia Oleson Evgeny Kozyaev Project Manager Assistant Project Manager Assistant Project Manager Steel is incredibly durable, fire and pest resistant, and has more flexibility to be retrofitted for future needs. Currently, Troutdale is revitalizing the area, and more than one bridge is in the d esign process. A truss system Transportation Group Geotechnical Group allows for large ordering from one supplier lowering the overall cost of materials and working with the same Structural Group contractors. Jared Kittle Mohammed Al Manea Annecy Bal Permitting Engineer Geotech Lead Structural Lead Multidisciplinary Aspect of the Project Figure 2: Overview of Current Location and Proposed Solution This project required more than one engineering discipline to complete. Collaboration efforts were made with professionals to gather information and resources. The project team communicated over Zoom, Slack, and Mardas Alsuleimnai Emily Richards Troutdale currently has a low population density with 15,965 people as of 2010. The City of Troutdale has been Ethan Judd Max Van Donsel group text messages. QA/QC Engineer Geotech Designer CAD Engineer CAD Analysis Engineer expanding by 1.4% for the last 10 years due to natural growth but remains disconnected from surrounding areas. To stabilize the population and bring more people into the City of Troutdale, there is a need for more development in the Three main disciplines involved: Professional interactions: Troutdale’s Town Center District. The Confluence Site is considered the largest developable area in the city’s urban ● Structural ● Evan Kristof - CAD and general project assistance. renewal area (URA) shown in Figure 2, above. It is separated from downtown Troutdale by an active, main-line Union ● Geotech ● Mary Ann Triska - Structural codes and calculations. ● Knife River Corporation - Information and calculations on Pacific Railroad right-of-way, making the connections between the two areas indirect. The desired outcomes of the ● Transportation prestressed concrete beams. multipurpose bridge are to directly link existing and future development, which will cause improvements to infrastructure and civic pride. Josh Layman Sam Fallatah Phillip Grigorov Geotech Designer CAD Engineer Structural Designer Alternatives Analysis SAP2000 3D Model Material and design alternatives were evaluated through the decision-matrix method, as shown below. Selection criteria included cost, upkeep, time, lifespan, aesthetics, and environmental impact. Each alternative was assigned rankings with a maximum value of 3, and a minimum value of 0. Categories were weighted with an emphasis on efficient resource Chad Hardman allocation, due to limitations on the available budget. Bridge designs that posed subcontracting difficulties or had the Geotech Designer potential to damage the local environment were omitted from the list of alternatives. Project Background Location: Between the 200 and 300 blocks of the Historic Columbia River Highway, Troutdale, Oregon Figure 3: Alternatives Matrix Figure 4: 3D Model of our steel truss design from SAP2000 computer program ● Cost (8) - The cumulative material, labor, and transportation expenses required to construct a given alternative. ● Upkeep (6) - The sum of all expenses required to maintain the structure after construction. ● Time (2) - The period of active bridge construction, where the structure is not yet serviceable to the community. ● Lifespan (3) - The period before structural decay renders the bridge unsafe to use. Figure 1: Overview of the URA with proposed pedestrian crossing location ● Aesthetics (4) - The value assigned to the appearance of each design alternative. Overview: ● Environmental Impact (2) - The impact that design, construction, and the bridge’s existence have on the ● Urban Renewal Area (URA) to the north environment. ● Central Business District (CBD) to the south ● URA and CBD are separated by active railroad tracks (UPRR) Total Possible: 25 Maximum Score: 22.3 Minimum Score: 18 Figure 5: Axial load diagram for our truss model from SAP2000 computer program 106 Note: Guidelines have been set to represent the 0.50” margin on each side of the poster CBD-URA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Department of Civil and Environmental PROJECT Engineering, Capstone 2021 Geotechnical Considerations and Designs Railway Clearance ● Site photos from the visit conducted by Chad Hardman, Evgeny Kozyaev, Tricia Oleson, and Emily Richards. Thank you to Chad and Evgeny for providing the The truss span of this design will extend over Union Pacific Railroad property into the urban renewal area, per their standard regulations all proposed structures are required to maintain a minimum clearance of 23’ vertically from the top surface of any existing rail, as well as 25’ horizontally from its centerline. Figures 10 and 11 show our CAD drafts of what the proposed will necessary tools to make the sampling as efficient as possible. look like. ● Hand tools were used to obtain soil samples and observe the geology near the location of the northern footing. ● The geologic information collected will be extrapolated to all footing locations for preliminary design. ● On site, soils consist of a quaternary surficial deposit of alluvial sandy silt. This material transitions to well-graded sand and large rounded rock (Troutdale Formation) at a depth of 10 to 12 feet. ● SPT data collected from nearby locations were aggregated to provide some preliminary soil bearing capacity values that allow for initial footing design. ● The preliminary average allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundation design is 1950 pounds per square foot. This value will govern the design dimensions of the footings. ● Should shallow foundations be prohibitively costly or spatially inefficient, deep foundation design could be pursued as the design develops further. Figure 10: Proposed Bridge Elevation View Figure 7: Soil sample taken with a hand auger at roughly 5 feet deep Figure 11: Proposed Bridge Plan View Figure 8: Tricia Oleson taking a sample with the hand auger Consideration of Professional Practice Next Steps This project has provided opportunities for the team to enhance their technical skills At the current stage of the project, we have completed extensive research of the site and knowledge which will contribute to their development and success. The conditions as well as an overall design of the proposed bridge and its loading subsequent skills have been utilized to complete project analysis: conditions. Professional Discipline: Utilized Softwares: ● Project management ● AutoCad Looking forward, further steps the project will need to take to finalize the design ● QA/QC ● Sap2000 are: ● Engineering design codes ● MathCAD & standards ● Microsoft office suite ● Earthquake loading analysis ● Construction scheduling & ● Civil 3D ● Soil liquefaction analysis cost estimation ● Clockify ● Foundational cost analysis (load capacity) ● Effective communication ● ProjectLibre ● Runoff analysis Figure 9: Evgeny Kozyaev starting ● Problem solving ● MS Project ● Transportation impacts (pedestrian vs vehicle interaction) the sampling with a drilling tool ● Technical writing Figure 6: Hand Auger Boring Log from site visit on 19 April 2021 Acknowledgements Impact on Society The Portland State University Capstone Team working on the CBD-URA Pedestrian Bridge Project would like to acknowledge all those who have instructed us in all aspects of life throughout our education at Portland State University. Special acknowledgments and thanks to those who have directly guided our work on this project: The impact of this multi-purpose crossing pedestrian bridge on society is significant, especially in the near future. Some of the project’s potential effects include the following: ● Amber Shackelford, Assistant Planner, City of Troutdale ● Dr. Avinash Unnikrishnan, Associate Professor, Portland State University ● Chris Damgen, Community Development Director, City of Troutdale ● Mary Ann Triska, Instructor, Portland State University ● Improvement of public safety ● Easy and quick route and crossing for cyclists ● Evan Kristof, , Portland State University ● Dr. Richard Corsi, Dean, Portland State University ● Potential increase to land price mark ● Positive impact on businesses in the area ● Patrick McLaughlin, Instructor, Portland State University ● Eric Holje, Estimator, Knife River Prestress ● Easier access from the Confluence site to downtown ● A step forward toward tourism promotion ● Dr. Thomas Schumacher, Associate Professor, Portland State University ● Sam Jewell, Outside Sales - Bridge, Knife River Prestress 107 Appendix F Final Presentation CBD-URA Pedestrian Bridge (2021.TROUT.01) 2021 CEE Capstone: Final Design Presentation Noah Solomon-Lopez Annecy Bal Ethan Judd Max Van Donsel Tricia Oleson Phillip Grigorov Josh Layman Mardas Al Suleimani Evgeny Kozyaev Chad Hardman Jared Kittle Emily Richards Mohammed Al Manea Hussam Fallatah 1 Introduction ▪ Org. Chart ▫ Client: City of Troutdale: Amber Shackelford & Chris Damgen ▫ PSU Capstone Team: - PM Team: Noah Solomon-Lopez, Tricia Oleson, Evgeny Kozyaev - Transportation Team: Mardas AlSuleimani, Jared Kittle - Geotech Team: Mohammed Al Manea, Emily Richards, Joshua Layman, Chad Hardman - Structural Team: Annecy Bal, Ethan Judd, Sam Fallatah, Max Van Donsel, Phillip Grigorov 2 108 Roadmap ▪ Project Background ▪ Alternative Analysis ▫ Column Design ▪ Facility Design ▫ Shallow Foundation Design ▫ General Layout Parameters ▫ Design Choices ▫ Footing Design ▫ Truss Design ▫ Cost Analysis ▫ Slab Design ▫ Construction Schedule ▫ Floor Beam Design ▪ Conclusion 3 Project Background ▪ City of Troutdale ▪ Multipurpose Bridge to connect the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) and Urban Renewal Area (URA) ▫ Areas are disconnected by elevation and Union Pacific railway ▪ Current Population of 17,000 people ▫ Downtown has low population density ▫ Confluence site is the largest developable area - Located in the City’s Urban Renewable Area 4 109 Alternative Analysis ▪ Hybrid Truss Design ▫ Cost-Effective - less than $800/ft3 to install - less than $95/ft3 to maintain ▫ Aesthetically Pleasing 1. Concrete Box-Girder 2. Steel Truss Design 3. Timber Design Concrete Construction, 2008 Architecture & Design, 2008 Brampton Woodworks, 2017 5 Facility Design - General layout Lafayette Street Pedestrian Bridge ▪ Bridge Spans ▫ Voided Slabs - Knife River ▫ Warren Truss ▪ Design inspiration ▫ Lafayette Street Pedestrian Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge (Source: www.kpff.com) Bridge Concrete section detail from design report 6 110 Facility Design - Design choices ▪ Union Pacific Railroad clearance envelope ▫ Reduced during cons. ▫ 25’ Horizontally from rail center Clearance detail from design report ▫ 23’ Vertically from surface of the rail ▫ As close as we can get with footings ▪ Approach slope ▫ 5.00% Initially ▫ 4.00% Possible with current members ▫ Cambering the truss - Reduce approach slope - Increase material costs 7 Facility Design - Design choices ▪ Railing options ▫ ODOT Standard rails - BR246 (Possibly inadequate for bicycles and small vehicles) - BR250 (much heavier) ▫ Modified Standard ▫ Custom designs BR250 Pedestrian rail BR246 Pedestrian rail (Source: https://www.oregon.gov/odot) (Source: https://www.oregon.gov/odot) 8 111 Facility Design - Truss Design ▪ Conservative weight choices ▫ 10% connections ▫ 15% utilities (future / building) ▫ Simplified calculations Assigned point load at each joint of the truss (kips) 9 Facility Design - Truss Design ▪ Initial member selection ▫ Example from Lafayette bridge ▪ Loading conditions 2D vs. 3D (SAP2000 model) Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge (Source: www.kpff.com) 3D model of our truss in SAP2000 computer program 10 112 Facility Design - Truss Design ▪ Difference in results between SAP2000 analysis and hand check in Excel ▫SAP2000 vs Excel ▪ I-beam selection ▫ Serviceability check ▫ Vibration analysis ▫ Design check Selected members for the truss ▫ Depth of each I-beam - Economy ▫ Final selection Exaggerated deflection of the truss due to full factored loading condition (in) 11 Facility Design - Slab Design ▪ Design ▫ Load design - Heavy pedestrian use - Small trucks ▫ Design check - Maximum allowable deflection ▪ Corrugated Steel - Moment resistance ▫ Cost reduction ▪ - Reduce thickness by 2 “ ( save on Design Decision material) ▫ Traditional rebar - No need for wooden cast ( save on ▫ Corrugated steel labor and material) 12 113 Facility Design - Floor Beam Design ▪ Load Combinations ▫ Designed section: W10x17 (AISC Steel Manual) 13 Facility Design - Column Design ▪ Cast in place column ▫ Rectangular cross section: 3ftx6ft ▫ 4000 psi concrete ▫ Grade 60 steel ▫ Vertical reinforcement: #9 bar ▫ Transverse reinforcement: #3 bar - Overlapping closed ties ▫ AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications - Gravity and seismic loading 14 114 Facility Design - Shallow Foundation Design Parameters ▪ Hand Auger Boring 80 feet NE of northern bridge footing ▫ Existing Soil Conditions Photos from geotechnical investigation by CBD/URA Bridge Design Team. - Surface to 10 feet bgs · Alluvial silt - 10 to 12 feet · Gradual (transition) contact - 12 to deep · Troutdale Formation · Well-graded sand, gravel, and boulders ▫ Shallow groundwater - About 12 feet at time of investigation · 15 Facility Design - Shallow Foundation Design Parameters ▪ GRI Report Boring and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Logs ▫ SPT blow counts (N) give information about the strength of the soil. - The N value is adjusted for energy, depth, and sampling method - Correlations between a soil’s “bearing capacity” and its N value are well established experimentally ▫ Throughout the analysis conservative values were used - For less conservative values perform foundation specific geotechnical investigations - Liquefaction and seismic factors should be considered in future designs · 16 115 Facility Design - Footing Design ▪ We decided to use shallow foundations. ▫ Shallow foundation analysis was the initial option based on the loadings given. - Footings were designed based off Terzaghi’s bearing capacity method. Footing Designs L x d x b Pallow > Load F1 12x3x6 256>221 F2 12x3x10 556>506 F3 12x4x10 633>611 F4 12x4x9 471>427 Figure 1 Figure 2 17 Facility Design - Cost Analysis ▪ Sources of Pricing ▫ ODOT, 2019 data ▫ RSMeans ▪ The units of quantities ▫ Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction of 2018 ▪ Cost of Labor ▫ Accounted for in each construction item ▪ See Appendix A for more details 18 116 Facility Design - Cost Analysis ▪ Construction concrete quantity estimation ▫ Three major bridge parts - The slab - The columns - The Footings ▪ Having precautions assumptions and measurements 19 Facility Design - Construction Schedule ▪ Tentative Schedule ▫ Mobilization - Permits and Site Preparation ▫ Substructure Installation - Foundations, Abutment, and Columns ▫ Superstructure Fabrication - Delivery, Inspection, and Assembly ▫ Superstructure Placement Tandem crane emplacing pedestrian bridge in Fort Collins, CO over BNSF Railway - Truss, Precast, and Details tracks. (Shelby, 2014) ▫ Demobilization - Inspection, Consolidation, and Opening 20 117 Conclusion ▪ Final Design ▫ Total Length 239 feet - 2 prestressed concrete slabs (54.5’) - Warren Steel Truss System (130’) ▪ Current Estimated Cost ▫ $1,458,158 ▪ Next Steps and Further Exploration ▫ Northern Side of Bridge ▫ Earthquake Loadings ▫ Bent Caps ▫ Runoff Effects ▫ Deep Foundations ▫ Pedestrian Vehicle Interaction 21 118 SCI Directors and Staff Marc Schlossberg SCI Co-Director, and Professor of Planning, Public Policy and Management, University of Oregon Nico Larco SCI Co-Director, and Professor of Architecture, University of Oregon Megan Banks SCYP Director, University of Oregon Nat Kataoka Report Coordinator Danielle Lewis Graphic Designer