Bicycle-ped Bridge Engineering Part 2

7/21/2019 Bicycle-ped Bridge Engineering Part 2

1/12

roduction to Bridge Design and

nstruction

6/28/2011 1

Bridge Engineering 101Part 2 -Planning and Design

Questa Engineering Corporation

Sydney Temple, P.E.

6/28/2011 2

IntroductionTodays Talk:

General Design Steps

Planning to ConstructionBridge foundation types

Environmental Review & Permits

Construction

6/28/2011 3

Multi-Discipline Approach

Structural Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering

Civil Engineering

Planning and Permitting

Geomorphology

Hydraulic Engineering

Biologic Evaluations

Geologic Evaluations

6/28/2011 4

Basic Design StepsInvestigate the site

Survey, Geotech, Hydrology, Biology

Opportunities and constraints

Determine bridge type and location

40% Design

Permitting

Final foundation and superstructure design

Construction drawings

Construction

Construction management

6/28/2011 5

Site Survey Data

Site Survey General topography for 100 feet upstream/downstream min. Channel slopes

Long profile at 350 feet upstream and downstream

Existing structure data Slope, shape, dimensions, top of roadway, top of culvert, apron

slopes and wing wall geometries

Make sure bridge approach roads are surveyed including edge ofpavement, roadway crowns, super elevations

Map utilities and nearby structures


2/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 7

Site Analysis

Site analysis:

Geotechnical Considerations Hydrologic/Hydraulic Studies

Geomorphic Considerations

Biologic issues

Bridge Layout

6/28/2011 8

Geotechnical Investigations

Regional geologic and seismic

conditionsLocal Soil conditions

Local Geologic hazards

Subsurface exploration

Design recommendations

6/28/2011 9

Subsurface Investigations

Exploratory holes; 10 - 100+ feet

Soil samples are collected for analyticaltesting

Perform Standard Penetration Test (SPT)sampling for strength characteristics (I.e.Blow Counts/ft)

Determines groundwater levels

6/28/2011 10

Types of Drilling

6/28/2011 11

Geotechnical Reports

Summarize geological hazardsLocal site conditions

Provide recommendations forfoundation design

6/28/2011 12


3/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 13

H & H Investigations

Hydrology data

Regional sourceFlood Control Agencies Site specific modeling

Hydraulics analysis

Governmental sources; Caltrans, FEMA,and County Flood Control Agencies

Complete site specific analysis

6/28/2011 14

6/28/2011 15

Project Site

6/28/2011 16

Design Water Surface Elevations

Hydraulic Design Criteria and Freeboard

Vary by Jurisdiction

50-year with 2 ft of freeboard

100-year with at least 1 ft freeboard

Leveesthree feet of freeboard

6/28/2011 17 6/28/2011 18

Geomorphic Analysis

Vertical & Lateral creek movement Sediment transport

Bankfull channel

Low-Flow (scour line) channel


4/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 19

Determining Vertical and LateralCreek Movement

Historic profile analysis

Existing condition long profile analysisHistoric air photo examination

Historic topographic map analysis

6/28/2011 20

Lateral movement

Longitudinal Profile Analysis

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

-1+50 3+50 8+50 13+50 18+50 23+50 28+50 33+50

River Station (ft)

FlowL

ineElevation(ft)

Reach 3Reach 2Reach 1

MitigatedKnickpoint (armored)

Un-mitigatedKnickpoint

DriscollRoad

PalmAvenue

SF Aqueduct,

concrete

6/28/2011 22

6/28/2011 23

Fall 2003 March 2005

6/28/2011 24


5/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 25

Biological Reconnaissance

Special-Status Species

Existing Habitat ID and MappingOHW/Wetland Delineation

CNDDB Search

6/28/2011 26

6/28/2011 27 6/28/2011 28

Bridge LayoutStructure Positioning

Right of Way

Alternative alignments

Approaches

ADA Requirements

Traffic/Roadway design issues

Utilities

6/28/2011 29 6/28/2011 30

Roadway Design Issues

AlignmentsApproach elevations

Vertical curves- approach slopes

Will you need embankments or otherretaining structures?


6/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 31 6/28/2011 32

Bridge Widths

Typical trail - 10 feet width

Major trail - 12 foot width lanes plus 2feet of railing/curb

Single lane = 18 feet, 14 feet betweenrailings/curbs

Two Lane = 28 feet, 24 feet betweenrailings/curbs

6/28/2011 33 6/28/2011 34

Bridge Design and Impacts

Goal: shortest bridge with the leastamount of impact

Design Criteria

Passes design flows with freeborad

50-year with 2 ft of freeboard

100-year with at least 1 ft freeboard

No increase in flood threat

Minimizes scour and deposition

6/28/2011 35

Planning Level Bridge Costs

Pedestrian Bridge construction costs in northern California $125-$140 per square feet (sf) for cast in place concrete, $115-$150 per sf for prefabricated bridges. $1,500 per lineal foot

Traffic Rated Bridges Two Lane light to medium traffic

$350-500 sf

Major arterial structures $600-$750 sf


7/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 37

Project Concept

CEQA

Certification

Flood Control

Public Safety

Permits

Environmental

Permits

Implementation

6/28/2011 38

Project Permit Documents

Site MapWater of the USCOE Jurisdictional AreaProject Description Detailed Alternatives examined/project justification 40% design drawings

Project Analysis Technical analysis or separate back up design

memorandum (H&H, Geotech, etc.)

Biologic Reconnaissance

6/28/2011 39

Project Description

Project Justification Site plan

Project channel bed profiles

Project cross section views

Habitat enhancement features

Limits of work, Mobilization

Area of impact

USCOE, riparian area, vegetated area

Determination of cut and fill quantities

6/28/2011 40

CEQA Review

Categorical Exemption

Initial Study Preparation

Mitigated Negative Declaration

EIR/EIS

Lead Agency

City, County or Special District

State for some grant funded projects

6/28/2011 41

Environmental Permits

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Endangered Species Act Consultation

California Department of Fish & GameStreambed Alteration Agreement

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Water Quality Certification & General StormwaterConstruction Permit

Coastal Development Permit

6/28/2011 42

USCOE Permits

Reviews application and notifiesNational Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) and/or US Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS)

May ask for formal or informal consultation

May require preparation of a BiologicOpinion (BO) and/authorization for take

NMFS will review Fish passage analysis


8/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 43

Streambed AlterationAgreements

CDFG staff review

Must have CEQA completed to issueIncludes impacts to riparian areas

6/28/2011 44

Coastal Development Permit

Usually processed through the County

May require architectural reviewMay require separate monitoringprotocols

6/28/2011 45

Permit Timeline

6 month is likely minimum

1 year is not out of the question

NMFS and USFWS have 135 days

CDFG - 30 days

Coastal Development Permit6months+

6/28/2011 46

Design Breakdown

Foundation design

Bridge deck design

Channel Design if needed

6/28/2011 47

AASHTO & Caltrans

American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials

National Association which establishes andpromotes highway construction and safetystandards.

California Department of Transportation

Manages State Highway System

Issues permits for encroachment into state ownedhighways and properties

6/28/2011 48

Typical Light-Duty Bridge Crossing Profile

80

0+00 0+40 0+80 1+20 1+60 2+00 2+40 2+80

94.4

94.3

94.1

93.5

93.1

90.7

89.7

86.0

82.9

81.2

83.9

86.5

92.5

96.0

97.0

98.0

98.8

99.7

100.2

100.2

100.2

100.2

100.2

99.2

98.2

97.2

90

100

94.4

95.3

96.2

97.1

96.8

96.7

2+91

80

90

100


9/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 49 6/28/2011 50

Required Load Capacityand Anticipated Uses

Public Trails-Pedestrian/Bicycle/Equestrian/Disabled Users

Light-DutyTypically ResidentialAutomobiles/Light Trucks

Highway TrafficHeavy Trucks HS20-25 loads(AASHTO Load Standards)

6/28/2011 51

Bridge Foundation Considerations

Required Load Capacity and Anticipated Uses

Site Conditions & Geotechnical Investigations

Foundation Types Spread Footings

Driven Piles

Drilled Cast-In-Place Piers

6/28/2011 52

Foundation Types - Spread Footings

Relatively shallow reinforced concrete mats todistribute bridge loads over wide area of supportingsoils.

Advantages

Typically least expensive option

Minimal equipment mobilization requirements

DisadvantagesNot suitable over soft or liquefiable soils

Minimal resistance to undermining or slope instability

Moderate to heavy site disruptions

6/28/2011 53

Typical Spread Footing Bridge Foundation

6/28/2011 54

Foundation Types - Driven Piles

Tubular and Sheet Steel, Reinforced Concrete or

Composite Piles driven into soils using a droppedweight or piston hammer, applied typically in marinesettings.

Advantages Minimal site disruption

Provides support over soft or variable subgrade conditions

Applied in areas prone to flooding or with very soft soils

Disadvantages Requires mobilization of large equipment and materials

Requires minimum embedment depth into soil


10/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 55

Reinforced Concrete Piles Being Installed in a MarineEnvironment

6/28/2011 56

Foundation Types - DrilledCast-In-Place Piers

Drilled holes filled with cast-in-place reinforcedconcrete piers.

Advantages Typically provides greatest resistance to vertical and lateral

loads

Provides excellent resistance to scour

Used in steep and/or unstable slope areas

Disadvantages Typically highest cost

Difficult to apply in areas of shallow ground water or loosesoils

Moderate site disruptions

6/28/2011 57

Drilled Pier Foundation Design for Timber FramedBridge

#4BAR

#4BARSFORSTEMWALL

1'

3'-4"

14'-8"

#4HOOPS@12"O.C.

4#5

3" COVER3'COVER

58 " X 12" ANCHOR

BOLT @48" O.C.

12"

#4HOOPS@12"O.C.

4#5

9#5

7#4

8"

12"

1'

5'-8"

10'-0"

12"

8"

3" COVER

3" COVER

2'-4"

7#4

12"

12"

12"

12"

14'-8"

3'-8"

10'-0"

#5#4

C'

B

3" COVER3" COVER

#4HOOPS@12"O.C.

4#5

#4HOOPS@12"O.C.

4#5

3'MIN.

12"

12"

7#4

B

PLANSECTION B-B'

SECTION C-C'

SECTION A-A'

C

6/28/2011 58

Photo of Drilled Cast-In-Place Pier Installation

6/28/2011 59 6/28/2011 60

Public Safety Permits

County/ City Building Permits Structural & Roadway Design Review

Floodplain Management

Caltrans

Primarily concerned with impacts to theirfacilities and safety

Maintenance responsibility


11/12


nstruction

6/28/2011 61

County/City Review

Reviews detail plans and calculations

Roadway design Structural design

Geotechnical design

Flood control

Construction Drawings

Plan set

Site Plan and layout Foundation plans

Superstructure plans

Road or trail plans

Erosion Control

Ancillary structures

6/28/2011 62

6/28/2011 63

Construction Specifications

Bidding instructions

Work hours

Contracting requirements

Construction and material specifications

6/28/2011 64

6/28/2011 65

Picture of ferrasci improvements

6/28/2011 66

Construction Factors

Site and Channel AccessWork Conditions

Biological monitoring

Restricted Seasons

Mobilization and Staging Areas

Materials Storage Areas

Dewatering

Limits of Work


12/12


6/28/2011 67

Construction Sequence

Water control

Foundation construction Drilling

Concrete forming

Grading

Installation or construction

Approach construction

Erosion control

6/28/2011 68

6/28/2011 69 6/28/2011 70

Contact Info

Sydney TempleQuesta Engineering Corp.

[email protected]

(510) 236-6114 ext 220

6/28/2011 71
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]