James DeCelle

Nathaniel Efron

Wilfredo Ramos Jr.

Jeffrey Tully

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

February 29, 2013

March 11, 2013 - MQP

GFS-1304

Professor Guillermo

Salazar

Professor Pinar Okumis

A Major Qualifying Project Report

Submitted to the Faculty of

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

James DeCelle

Nathaniel Efron

Wilfredo Ramos Jr

Jeffrey Tully

WPI Pedestrian Bridge Study

i

Abstract

This project explored alternative structural solutions for a pedestrian bridge to connect the field

atop of the new Parking Garage to the alleyway behind Harrington Auditorium at the Worcester

Polytechnic Institute Campus. Four basic bridge types, each consisting of steel or concrete,

were initially considered. Two alternatives, a steel truss bridge and a steel arch bridge, were

designed in detail. A Building Information Model was generated to visualize the two

alternatives. The supporting bridge structure using cast-in-place reinforced concrete for both

cases was also designed.

ii

Capstone Design Experience Statement

The Capstone Design Experience is a requirement by the Civil and Environmental Engineering

department at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) for all Major Qualifying Projects (MQPs).

This experience helps students to be prepared for engineering practice based on the knowledge

and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating engineering standards and realistic

constraints. In order to meet this requirement this MQP prepared two bridge design alternatives,

each with a BIM model, and addressed realistic constraints of economic, ethics, health and

safety, and manufacturability and constructability.

This project explored alternative structural solutions for a pedestrian bridge to connect the field

atop of the new Parking Garage to the alleyway behind Harrington Auditorium at the Worcester

Polytechnic Institute Campus. Four basic bridge types, each consisting of steel or concrete, were

initially considered. Two alternatives, a steel truss bridge and a steel arch bridge, were designed

in detail. A Building Information Model was generated to visualize the two alternatives. The

supporting bridge structure using cast-in-place reinforced concrete for both cases was also

designed.

The following realistic constraints were addressed by the design:

Economic: We evaluated cost as a key constraint, which required a complete cost analysis for

both bridge design alternatives. The cost of the raw materials, on-site preparation, and labor all

affect the cost of the project.

Ethical: ASCE states that engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the

engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare

and the environment, being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their

employers and clients, striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering

profession, and supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines (ASCE,

2010). The project was completed while upholding all of these principles.

Health and Safety: Health and safety always plays a major role in any project. The two bridge

design alternatives were prepared in accordance with AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Manual,

AASHTOs LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The

two bridge designs were compared, determining the design loads that each will support, selecting

the appropriate member dimensions and performing a structural analysis on each design.

Constructability: This project considered the means and methods of construction of both

alternatives including accessibility, methods of fabrication delivery and erection within the

context of a college campus operating under regular functional conditions,

iii

Authorship Table

Section Major Author Major Editor

Abstract James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron

CDES James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron

Introduction All All

Assessing the Need for a Bridge Wilfredo Ramos Wilfredo Ramos

Site layout Nathaniel Efron All

Concrete Nathaniel Efron All

Steel Jeffrey Tully All

Composite James DeCelle All

Simply-Supported Jeffrey Tully All

Truss Nathaniel Efron All

Arch Wilfredo Ramos Wilfredo Ramos

Cable-Stayed James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron

Design Criteria All All

Design Tools Nathaniel Efron All

Preliminary Design Nathaniel Efron James DeCelle

Wilfredo Ramos

Selection Criteria Nathaniel Efron All

Construction Documents Nathaniel Efron All

Site Survey James DeCelle

Wilfredo Ramos

All

Structural Analysis James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron

General Analysis James DeCelle

Jeffrey Tully

Nathaniel Efron

Truss Design Nathaniel Efron James DeCelle

Arch Design James DeCelle Nathaniel Efron

Foundation Design Wilfredo Ramos All

Results & Analysis Nathaniel Efron All

Conclusions &

Recommendations

Jeffrey Tully

Nathaniel Efron

Nathaniel Efron

iv

Acknowledgements

Our team would like to thank the following individuals, organizations, and institutions for their

help and support throughout our project:

Professor Guillermo Salazar, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for his overall guidance and support throughout our project.

Professor Pinar Okumus, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for her overall guidance and support throughout our project.

Gilbane Co, for allowing us insight into their meetings, providing plan sets, and allowing access to the site; specifically Neil Benner (Project Manager).

Worcester Polytechnic Institute facilities, for providing us with resources and guidance throughout our project; specifically Fred Di Mauro for his valuable time in allowing us to

interview him.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................

Capstone Design Experience Statement ......................................................................................... ii

Authorship Table ........................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Background .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Assessing the Need for a Bridge ...................................................................................... 3

2.0.1 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Site Layout ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Materials ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Concrete .................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Steel........................................................................................................................... 9

2.2.3 Composite ............................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Bridge Systems ............................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Simply Supported Beam ......................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Truss ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.3.3 Arch......................................................................................................................... 14

2.3.4 Cable-Stayed ........................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1 Americans with disabilities Act (ADA) .................................................................. 18

2.4.2 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 19

2.4.3 Site & Constructability ........................................................................................... 20

2.4.4 Economy ................................................................................................................. 21

2.4.5 Environment ............................................................................................................ 21

2.4.6 Fire Code ..............................