Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

Empirical Design Solutions

Team 7

Structural Master Report


(Pedestrian Bridge)
Chandler Municipal Airport Expansion
Author: Matthew Smith

November 21, 2014


Empirical Design Solutions 2
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary..4
2. Introduction5
2.1. Purpose...5
2.2. Project Location.5
2.3. Discussion of Project.......6
3. Site Specifications..8
3.1. Soil..8
3.2. Drainage.8
3.3. Flooding..8
3.4. Utilities.8
4. Pedestrian Bridge Designs9
4.1. Concrete AASHTO I-Beam Type II Bridge Preliminary Design9
4.2. Concrete AASHTO Box Beam BIII-48 Bridge Preliminary Design..12
4.3. Pedestrian Bridge Specifications14
4.4. Retaining wall/Abutments....14
4.5. Ramps..15
4.6. Aesthetics..15
5. Construction15
6. Costs.16
7. Bridge Selection18
8. Sustainability..18
9. References19

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Project Location.5


Figure 2-2: Land Use Bubble Plan.6
Figure 2-3: Bridge Location on Lake ..7
Figure 4-1: AASHTO I Beam type II Profile View.9
Figure 4-2: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48..9
Figure 4-3: Plan View I Beam......10
Figure 4-4: I Beam Dimensions.....10
Figure 4-5: I Beam Properties..10
Figure 4-6: I Beam Strand Chart....11
Figure 4-7: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Profile View..12
Figure 4-8: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Cross Section.....12
Figure 4-9: Plan View Box Beam......13
Figure 4-10: Box Beam Properties...13
Figure 4-11: Box Beam Strand Chart..13
Empirical Design Solutions 3
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

List of Tables

Table 4-1: AASHTO I Beam type II Specifications...13


Table 4-2: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Specifications...13
Table 4-3: AASHTO I Beam type II Cost Breakdown....16
Table 4-4: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Cost Breakdown..17

Appendices

Appendix 1: Concrete AASHTO Box beam calculations.20


Appendix 2: Concrete AASHTO I beam calculations.21
Appendix 3: Abutment Calculations22
Appendix 4: Project Validation Form..24
Empirical Design Solutions 4
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

1. Executive Summary
The Chandler Municipal Airport Expansion will be constructed on the northwest
corner of Gilbert Rd and Queen Creek Rd. It will take place on 422 acres of land with
zoning spanning from commercial, residential, parks and recreation, all the way to
multiple airport zonings. Most of the land being development is in agricultural zoning, so
rezoning these areas will be easier because the land is already flat which makes
construction faster and cheaper. The airport will incur an additional runway to
accommodate a higher volume of planes landing and taking off. This increase in volume
is due to the addition of the aviation school and residential parcels that include personal
hangers. A taxi-way will be added to the south eastern portion of the airport for the pilots
that own a house in the residential area. This taxi-way will be limited to residential
owners only. The taxi-way will lead to the front of all the homes. Driveways will then part
off from the taxi-way and lead to hangers in the residents lot. On the northern portion of
the development an aviation school will be added to help anyone pursuing a pilots
license and also students learning about aviation. The majority of the zoning along the
two arterial roads surrounding the corner of Gilbert Rd and Queen Creek Rd are going
to be commercial because they generate the highest volume of traffic and need the
easiest access.
On the southern portion of the land development there will be a park built with a
large pond that flows under Cooper Rd and also flows under a pedestrian bridge. The
pedestrian bridge has been designed to be 52 feet long and 8 feet wide spanning the
width of the pond. Two alternative designs have been presented in detail further in this
report. The first design consists of two type II AASHTO I beams supporting the decking
of the bridge. The second design consists of two 4ft wide type BIII-48 AASHTO box
beams. Both designs will have a concrete slab above the beams but will have different
thickness. Both designs will also have steel handrails and solar panels as the top
decking.
These solar panels are called Type 2 Prototype solar panels that are considered the
future of solar power. They are designed to replace asphalt concrete in a pavement
design so they will be more than strong enough to withstand pedestrian and OHV(off
highway vehicle) loading. The solar panels will produce enough power to run all
electrical services on the park grounds.
After considering both bridge designs, the I beam bridge has been chosen to be the
more reasonable option. It was chosen based off of price, aesthetics, and functionality.
The box beam bridge uses a higher volume a concrete which causes higher loading on
the foundation and also a higher cost in concrete. The pedestrian bridge will be
considered a monument of the park in future years to come.
Empirical Design Solutions 5
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

2. Introduction
2.1 Purpose
Included in the Chandler Municipal Airport Expansion will be a pedestrian bridge that
gives pedestrians access from one side of the park in parcel 3 to the other side. The
bridge will be running north and south and its main purpose is to get people over the
pond/lake in the park area. It will also be built to withstand OHV (off highway vehicles)
travel that is used for park maintenance if needed. It will be designed according to
AASHTO standards with pre-cast beams.

2.2 Project Location


The proposed airport expansion will take place at Chandler Municipal Airport which is
located at the northwest corner of Gilbert road and Queen Creek road in Chandler, AZ.
The Loop 202 Santan Freeway is a half mile north and the 87 highway (Arizona Ave) is
just over a mile west of the project.

Figure 2-1: Project Location


Empirical Design Solutions 6
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

2.3 Discussion of Project


The project will be executed on the northeast corner of Queen Creek Rd and Gilbert Rd
next to the already existing Chandler Municipal Airport as previously discussed. The
new land proposed to be developed contains 12 new zones that range from commercial
all the way to park and recreation. There are no major washes flowing through this site.
The majority of proposed zoning along the major arterials is commercial seeing that it
needs the easiest access and generates the largest traffic volume of all the zones. A
residential area in parcel 6 as seen below in figure has been created for pilots that want
to land their planes and then pull their plane into their own hanger instead of the airport
hangers. This residential area will contain homes that can be used daily or as vacation
homes depending on the owner. They will have direct access to the runway through
parcel 5 that serves as a taxi-way.

Figure 2-2: Land Use Bubble Plan


Empirical Design Solutions 7
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Just south of the residential area is an area zoned for a park that will contain a
pond/lake with a 52 pedestrian bridge spanning across it as seen in figure just below.

Figure 2-3: Bridge Location across Lake

The bridge will be made from either concrete type II AASHTO I beams or from concrete
BIII-48 AASHTO box beams. Abutments will be constructed on each end of the bridge
to provide a foundation and support for the beams to be placed on. Each end of the
bridge will have a concrete ramp for access to the bridge. The pond will be about 5 ft
below the top of the bridge depending on how much rain has fallen. The bridge will be
covered in Phase II Prototype solar panels that will provide power to park features such
as lighting and water features in the park to be as sustainable as possible. The bridge
will be aesthetically pleasing and be considered a park monument for years to come.
Empirical Design Solutions 8
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

3. Site Specifications
3.1. Soil

The predominant soil found in Chandler is a gravel with some stiff clay with an
average unit weight of 115 lb/ft^3. Clay is an expansive soil but the percentage of
clay compared to gravel in the area isnt high enough to be factored in into the
bridge design. This soil is considered strong enough to withstand the bearing
pressure of the pedestrian bridge.

3.2. Drainage

All water that falls onto the bridge from rain will runoff into the pond below. The small
amount of rain water that hits the ramps on each end will also drain the rain water
out into the park grass.

3.3. Flooding

Flooding will not be a major issue in regards to the pedestrian bridge. The bridge will
be high enough above the surface of the water that heavy rains will not overflow
onto the bridge. The overflow will go out into the park grass. The pond will not be
used for a retention. The only water that can enter the pond is from direct rain fall
into the water. The park will be flat so that rainwater will leach into the ground where
it lands, this way the pond will not overflow from heavy rains.

3.4. Utilities

The bridge is located in the middle of the park therefore there will not be many
existing utilities except for possible irrigation lines. The whole site will be blue-staked
and all existing utilities will be accounted for. For proposed utilities there will be
electrical lines that run to and from the solar panels and future lighting being placed
in the park. There will also be electrical lines installed that can run to the future
possible water fountain in the pond. A small version of the Bellagio fountains may
look nice as far as aesthetics which could run off of power from the output of the
solar panels.
Empirical Design Solutions 9
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

4. Pedestrian Bridge Designs


4.1 Concrete AASHTO I-Beam Type II

The I beam bridge was the first of the two bridges to be designed and calculated. All
dead loads, live loads, and wind loads were calculated using AASHTO guidelines.
Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A. The live load for pedestrians
came out to be 1.187 kip/ft and 1 kip/ft for OHV. The dead load came out to be 1.02
kip/ft. The beam may seem a bit over built in regards to a pedestrian bridge but it is
not only limited to pedestrians. The bridge has been designed to also withstand
loads from OHV (off highway vehicles) such as rhinos, gators, rzrs, rangers, and any
sort of buggy that the landscapers and parks and rec. workers may use. The horse
shoe shaped pond covers a large portion of the park and access is needed over the
water to minimize haul time.

Figure 4-1: AASHTO I Beam type II Profile View

Figure 4-2: AASHTO I Beam type II Cross Section


Empirical Design Solutions 10
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Figure 4-3 shows a profile view of the bridge in the park. The water can be seen in
blue and grass can be seen around the bridge ramps in green. The solar panels are
located atop of the bridge in a box/textile format. A small gap of soil can be seen
between the pond water and grass to show the level that the water will be at the
majority of time depending on rainfall.
Figure 4-3: Profile View I Beam

Below a detailed figure of the dimensions of the AASHTO I Beam type II are shown.
Figure 4-4: I Beam Dimensions
Empirical Design Solutions 11
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Figure 4-5 shows more detailed information about the I beams properties and
dimensions.

Figure 4-5: I Beam Properties

The Type II beam was chosen because it has a max span length of 55 ft. The
pedestrian bridge being built is 52 feet long which made it a great fit. The Type I beam
had a max span length of 40 feet which made it too small for this project. The Type III
beam was taken into consideration but because of its larger area it would be considered
over built. The factor of safety would have been too safe on the Type III beam making it
too expensive for this project.
Figure 4-6 shows a detailed chart on how to determine the amount of reinforcing steel
needed in the beam. The spacing of the I beams was predetermined to be 6 feet and
the span to be 52 feet long. By using both of these numbers it can be seen on the chart
that the I beam will need 13 strands per beam. The concrete will need to be 7000 psi as
shown circled in lower right hand corner of the chart.

Figure 4-6: I Beam Strand Chart


Empirical Design Solutions 12
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

4.2 Concrete AASHTO Box Beam BIII-48

The box beam bridge was the second bridge designed and calculated. All dead
loads, live loads, and wind loads were calculated using AASHTO guidelines.
Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix B. The live load came out to be .335
kip/ft for pedestrians and 1k/ft for OHV. The dead load came out to be 1.187 k/ft.
This beam may also seem a bit over built in regards to a pedestrian bridge but it is
not only limited to pedestrians. The bridge has been designed to also withstand
loads from OHV (off highway vehicles) such as rhinos, gators, rzrs, rangers, and any
sort of buggy that the landscapers and parks and recreation workers may use. The
horse shoe shaped pond covers a large portion of the park and access may be
needed over the water to minimize haul time if necessary.

Figure 4-7: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Profile

Figure 4-8: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Cross Section


Empirical Design Solutions 13
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Figure 4-9 shows a plan view of the bridge in the park. The water can be seen in
blue and grass can be seen around the bridge ramps in green. The solar panels are
located atop of the bridge in a box/textile format. A small gap of soil can be seen
between the pond water and grass to show the level that the water will be at the
majority of time depending on rainfall.

Figure 4-9: I Profile View Box Beam

Figure 4-10 shows more detailed information about the box beam properties and
dimensions.

Figure 4-10: Box Beam Properties


Empirical Design Solutions 14
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Figure 4-11 shows a detailed chart on how to determine the amount of reinforcing steel
per box girder like in Figure 4-6 for the I beam. Using an 8 foot wide bridge at 52 feet
long gives a strand count of 17. The strand locations inside the box beams can be find
in the cross section of the bridge of the bridge in figure 4-8 above.

Figure 4-11: Box Beam Strand Chart

4.3 Pedestrian Bridge Specifications


Both of the tables below have shown all specifications and totals needed to complete
each beam.
Table 4-1: AASHTO I Beam type II Specifications
Total per
Description Specification Dimensions item Quantity
Excavation remove/compact CYD 6CYD 2
Labor assembly HRS 112HRS 5
Foundation 7000 PSI CYD 4.59CYD 2
I Beams 7000 PSI 52' long 4.93CYD 2
Reinforcing Steel 15,000 lbs .5"diamx52' 676 ft 2
Concrete Slab 4000 PSI 8'x4"x73'5" 7.24CYD 1
Railing steal 3"diameter 128LF 2
Solar Panels 2'x2'x4" 4SQFT 78
Empirical Design Solutions 15
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Table 4-2: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Specifications

Description Specification Dimensions Total per item Quantity


Excavation remove/compact CYD 6CYD 2
Labor assembly HRS 112HRS 5
Foundation 7000 PSI CYD 4.59CYD 2
Box Beams 7000 PSI 52' long 10.87CYD 2
Reinforcing
Steel 15,000 lbs .5"diamx52' 676 ft 2
Concrete Slab 4000 PSI 8'x4"x73'5" 7.24CYD 1
Railing 3"diameter 128LF 2
Solar Panels 2'x2'x4" 4SQFT 78

4.4 Abutments
There will be a 2ft 10in retaining wall on top of a 1ft thick foundation on each end of the
bridge holding the soil pressure back. The retaining walls have been designed to hold
the soil pressure back but they will also have water from the pond loading the insides of
the walls. The retaining wall/abutment will be a monolific pour and is 3ft 10in deep.
These structures will hold the live and dead loading of the bridge. These structures have
been designed to meet all specs necessary and provide efficient safety and will hold all
forces being loaded on them.
4.5 Ramps
On both ends of the bridge ramps will be constructed for access to the bridge. These
ramps will be wheel chair accessible at an angle of 21 degrees from horizontal. These
ramps will also allow OHV traffic to access the bridge. The ramps will be constructed
from compacted dirt covered with a 4in slab of 4000 psi concrete.
4.6 Aesthetics
The final bridge will not be painted but will actually be a bit rustic looking to the eye. As
seen around the valley some buildings have steel as their outer surface and when
rained on it gives off a rustic type of look. This type of aesthetic will be used on the
bridge outer surface and handrails. A thin metal sheeting will be placed on the outer
visible sides of the bridge.
Empirical Design Solutions 16
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

5. Construction
The construction of this project will be as efficient as possible to keep costs under
the GMP of the project. The soil taken from the pond will be used to build the ramps
at each end of the pedestrian bridge. The excess soil taken from the pond will be
used to create a slope like surrounding in some parts of the park. Some soil can also
be used to build some of the nearby building pads if it meets spec.
First the foundations and retaining wall areas will be dug and compacted to meet
spec. The abutment will then be poured mono-lifically. The precast beams will then
be placed on top of the abutments by a large crane and bolted down to their anchor
bolts. The ramps will then be backfilled with soil and then compacted. The upper
slab will then be poured on top of the beams and for the ramps. Next, the railing will
be installed and bolted down to the slab. Lastly the solar panels will be installed and
all aesthetic related portions will be executed to leave a well-constructed and
beautifully designed bridge.

6. Costs
The following tables will give a cost breakdown of the two different concrete bridges
being designed.
Table 4-3: AASHTO I Beam type II Cost Breakdown
Total per
Description Specification Dimensions item Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Excavation remove/compact CYD 6CYD $20/CYD 2 $240
Labor assembly HRS 112HRS $17/hr 5 $9,520
Foundation 7000 PSI CYD 4.59CYD $300CYD 2 $2,755
I Beams 7000 PSI 52' long 4.93CYD $300/CYD 2 $2,958
Reinforcing
Steel 15,000 lbs .5"diamx52' 676 ft $0.95/LF 2 $1,284.00
imperial flat
metal sheeting sheet SQFT 200SQFT $1.66/SQFT 2 $666.66
Concrete Slab 4000 PSI 8'x4"x73'5" 7.24CYD $90/CYD 1 $652.44
Railing steel 3"diameter 128LF $9/LF 2 $2,304
Solar Panels Type 2 2'x2'x4" 4SQFT $135/panel 78 $10,530
Total $30,910.10

Contingencies
(15%) 15%
Total $35,546.62
Empirical Design Solutions 17
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Table 4-4: AASHTO Box Beam type BIII-48 Cost Breakdown


Total per
Description Specification Dimensions item Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Excavation remove/compact CYD 6CYD $20/CYD 2 $240
Labor assembly HRS 112HRS $17/hr 5 $9,520
Foundation 7000 PSI CYD 4.59CYD $300CYD 2 $2,755
Box Beams 7000 PSI 52' long 10.87CYD $300/CYD 2 $6,522
Reinforcing
Steel 15,000 lbs .5"diamx52' 676 ft $0.95/LF 2 $1,284.00
metal imperial flat
sheeting sheet SQFT 200SQFT $1.66/SQFT 2 $666.66
Concrete
Slab 4000 PSI 8'x4"x73'5" 7.24CYD $90/CYD 1 $652.44
Railing steel 3"diameter 128LF $9/LF 2 $2,304
Solar Panels Type 2 2'x2'x4" 4SQFT $135/panel 78 $10,530
Total $34,474.10

Contingencies
(15%) 15%
Total $39,645.22

Both bridges have similar prices because they are made from a lot of the same
materials. The main differences of the two bridges are the difference in the beams
used and the size of the concrete slabs used for the decking. In the I beam bridge it
was chosen to use a thicker 6 concrete slab because the I beams wont give as
much support in the center of the bridge because it will be overhanging the water.
Where as in the box beam bridge it will have a 3 concrete slab because it already
has deck support from the 5.5 thick upper portion of the beam that spans across the
whole width of the bridge.
The largest costs to the bridges were the labor costs and the cost of the solar
panels. Labor was determined by estimating it would take 5 labors at 8 hours a day
for 2 weeks to complete the bridge. The solar panels seem like a large cost, but with
most solar investments, they will pay themselves off and then save money in the
long run. They are also a needed sustainability factor for the project.
Empirical Design Solutions 18
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

7. Bridge Selection
After taking both designs into consideration, a decision has been made to forward
with the I beam bridge for multiple reasons. The most important reason for choosing
the I beam bridge is based off of cost of materials. A lot the materials on both
bridges are the same but the largest difference is the type of beams used. The I
beam uses a little less than half of the concrete that the box beam uses. This excess
use of concrete with the box beam will be about $4,000 more expensive than the I
beam bridge. The extra 5cyd of concrete will also result in a higher dead load that
ultimately will affect the foundation in a negative way. The I beam is cheaper, more
functional, and more aesthetically pleasing and that is why it has been chosen as the
beam of choice for this project.

8. Sustainability
One of the main goals of the Chandler Municipal Airport Expansion is to develop and
construct the property to be as sustainable as possible. In pre-job meetings it will be
a main focus point. All contractors will try their best to not waste any materials in the
building process and try to be as efficient as possible when using large equipment to
avoid excess greenhouse gases.
For the pedestrian bridge, instead of having a top decking of steel or a concrete slab
it will have type II prototype solar panels. These solar panels are in the process of
being patented by their inventing company but will be ready for use by the time of
construction of the project. These solar panels are strong enough to withstand the
weight and loading of large vehicles. They are designed to replace asphalt paving on
roadways but will be used at a walkway in this case. There will be OHV (of highway
vehicle) loading from groundskeepers and landscapers for the park that need to get
from one side of the pond to the other. This type of loading will be no problem for the
solar panels as they are rated for heavier vehicles. The cutting edge solar panels will
feed power to the surrounding lighting of the bridge and park but also to the water
feature/fountain in the underlying pond. The initial cost of these solar panels will be
$10,530 but they will pay themselves off in the near future by providing power to the
entire park and recreational area.
The final choice of designing a concrete bridge was mainly decided by cost but also
for sustainability reasons. Concrete has a long lifespan that can go over 100 years in
some cases. Concrete needs less maintenance than the alternative of steel.
Empirical Design Solutions 19
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

9. References
http://www.solarroadways.com
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/bridges/pbeswebinartraining/s3_m7.cf
m
http://www.oceansteel.com/aashtotech.aspx
http://www.solarhome.org/solartech40wsolarpanel.aspx?gclid=CIbGwfyHq8ECFeZAMgodGywA
QQ

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/pc-box-beams-12.pdf
http://www.lowes.com/Hardware/Structural-Hardware/Sheet-Metal
Empirical Design Solutions 20
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Appendix 1: Concrete AASHTO Box Beam calculations


Empirical Design Solutions 21
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Appendix 2: Concrete AASHTO I Beam calculations


Empirical Design Solutions 22
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Appendix 3: Abutment Calculations


Empirical Design Solutions 23
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)
Empirical Design Solutions 24
Structural Master Report (Pedestrian Bridge)

Appendix 4: Project Validation Form

Вам также может понравиться