Drexel University Senior Design: Group 17

March 16, 2012

Dr. Franklin Moon
3141 Chestnut Street
Alumni Engineering Labs Room 280-G
Philadelphia, PA 19104


Dr. Franklin Moon:
We are submitting a progress report that you requested for the Drexel Senior Design course. The report
contains the work completed thus far in the winter term for the Burlington Bridge located in Burlington
County, New Jersey. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
James Drogalis
Brandon Glencross
Neil Patel
Brandon Weaver
Charlie Young















Progress Report of:
Feasibility Study to Investigate the Need for a Public
Transportation Connection across the Delaware River
within Burlington County, New Jersey












Design Team:

James Drogalis
jad83@drexel.edu

Brandon Glencross
bcg37@drexel.edu

Neil Patel
nbp28@drexel.edu

Brandon Weaver
bw78@drexel.edu

Charlie Young
cty23@drexel.edu


Advisor:

Dr. Franklin Moon
franklin.l.moon@drexel.edu

Technical Reviewer:

Dr. Joseph Mullin
joseph.v.mullin@drexel.edu


Owner:
Burlington County Bridge Commission




Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Advantages of Modeling ........................................................................................................................... 2
Modeling of Structural Systems ................................................................................................................ 3
Construction Plans and Documents .......................................................................................................... 5
Construction of 3-D CAD Model .................................................................................................................... 6
Modeling of Floor System ............................................................................................................................. 7
Modeling of Secondary Elements ............................................................................................................. 9
Member Cross Sections .............................................................................................................................. 10
Error Screening Process .............................................................................................................................. 13
Future Work ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Appendix A: Project Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix B: Tower Span Model .................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix C: Floor System Photographs ..................................................................................................... 21




Table of Figures

Figure 1: Macro-Level Model of a Structure. ................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: Element Level Modeling of a Structure. ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 3: Micro-level Finite Element Model. ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Burlington Bristol Bridge Elevation View.... .............................................................................. 5
Figure 5: CAD Wireframe Model of Lift Span. ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Plan View of Lift Span Roadway Steel Grate. ................................................................................. 7
Figure 7: Lift Span Steel Grate Roadway Deck. ............................................................................................. 7
Figure 8: Typical Cross Section of Lift Span Deck. (Keystone Structure Steel Co., 1993)............................. 8
Figure 9: Cross Section View of Lift Span Steel Grate for Roadway Deck. .................................................... 8
Figure 10: Cross Section View of Lift Span Steel Grate for Sidewalk. ........................................................... 8
Figure 11: Tower and Lift Span Floor Systems.9
Figure 12: Lift Span Floor System. ................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 13: Modeling of Cross-sectional Properties. .................................................................................... 10
Figure 14: Modeling Using SAPs Section Builder. ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 15: Typical Single Lacing in Truss Member. ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 16: Approximate Analysis of a Simply Supported Beam. ................................................................. 13
Figure 17: Moment Diagram of Simply Supported Beam. .......................................................................... 13
Figure 18: Moment Arm Calculation for Approximate Analysis. ................................................................ 14
Figure 19: Maximum Deflection of Simply Supported Beam. .................................................................... 15
Figure 20: Chord Member Cross Sectional Area Diagram. ......................................................................... 15
Figure 21: 2D CAD Model of Tower Span. ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 22: 3D CAD Model of Tower Span with Lateral Members. .............................................................. 19
Figure 23: 3D CAD Model of Tower Span with Floor System. ..................................................................... 20
Figure 24: SAP Model of Tower Span. ......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 25: Lift Span during Bridge Opening20
Figure 26: Underside of Lift Span. ............................................................................................................... 21
Figure 27: Lift Span Guiderail. ..................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 28: Lift Span in Open Position. ......................................................................................................... 21







1

Executive Summary

Burlington County, New Jerseys public transportation system is currently inaccessible and
inefficient for many of the countys residents. As a result, public transportation ridership within the
county is low in comparison to surrounding counties. Commuters wishing to cross the Delaware River
into and out of Burlington County by rail currently have two options. These options are to cross the
Delaware River at the Morrisville Trenton Bridge to the north or the Ben Franklin Bridge to the south.
Both bridges are approximately 20 miles in either direction of Burlington County.
In order to eliminate the inconvenience to the countys residents, a feasibility study is being
conducted to investigate the need and practicality of a rail crossing within Burlington County. During a
previously conducted investigation, the Burlington Bristol Bridge was selected as a potential candidate
for a light rail crossing.
The project scope over the past ten weeks intended to develop a tool to evaluate the structural
capacity of the Burlington Bristol Bridge. A significant investment in time was dedicated to the creation
of an element level finite element model. The finite element model was created in SAP2000 and is
believed to have great value for assessing the current behavior of the bridge as well under the design
train loading. The model, if constructed properly, has the ability to predict local member actions much
more realistically than traditional methods.
Sites visits, photographs, construction drawings and inspection reports were gathered before
the model was begun. AutoCAD was then utilized to draw a single-line model of three spans of the
bridge. These spans included the two tower spans and well as the vertical lift span as shown in Figure 4.
The model was imported into SAP, where member cross sections and material properties were assigned.
Further information about member geometry may be found in Member Cross Sections.
Simultaneously as the model was being created, it was constantly being error screened. Refer
to Error Screening Process for the methodology behind the error screening as well as some
approximate techniques that were leveraged.
The SAP model is currently at 90% completion. The remaining tasks for the model include
accounting for additional dead load of the structure and well as a mesh sensitivity study. Final design
including any necessary retrofits will begin after the model has been validated. A detailed project
schedule may be found in Appendix A: Project Schedule.




2

Project Overview
Residents of Burlington County, New Jersey currently lack an efficient public transportation
system. As a result, a significantly lower number of residents utilize public transportation than in
surrounding counties. A major reason why people are not using public transportation is accessibility and
convenience. With about 15% of commuters traveling into Pennsylvania daily, only a small number
choose to use public transportation. In fact, only 3% of Burlington County commuters chose to ride
public transportation as a mode to work. (DMJM Harris/AECOM, 2006)
Commuters from Burlington County who wish to cross the Delaware River into Pennsylvania
only have a choice of crossing over the Morrisville-Trenton Bridge or the Ben Franklin Bridge to the
south. Travelers have a commute of about 20 miles in either direction to each river crossing.
A proposal was prepared in the preliminary stages of this project to determine the feasibility of
a light rail transportation connection over the Delaware River in Burlington County. The Burlington
Bristol and Tacony Palmyra Bridge were considered as possible alternatives for a light rail crossing. It
was determined after the study that the Burlington County Bridge was the most suitable option. The
current proposed alignment is over what is now the roadway of the bridge. Temporary traffic stoppages
would be conducted as necessary while still maintaining it as a vehicular bridge. Further details of the
objectives and findings of the study are contained in the project proposal.
Advantages of Modeling
In order to justify the importance of the work explained in detail throughout this report, it is
important to explain the significance and meaning of what can be accomplished through creating an
analytical computer-based model of a structure. With a structure as complex as the Burlington Bristol
Bridge, an inherent level of uncertainty in analyzing any structural system only increases with the
complexity of the system. Every structure has its own unique level of uncertainty, which is influenced by
parameters including the amount of documentation available on its construction, redundancy of its
design, degrees of indeterminacy, ease of visual inspection, access restrictions, etc. Depending on the
application, there can also be a level of uncertainty associated with the demand required of a structure.
These forms of inherent uncertainty can oftentimes necessitate an iterative process to achieve reliable
and thereby meaningful results.
With a design such as the one proposed, it is of the upmost importance to analyze the structure
in a way that will yield the most accurate results. This project involves both analyzing the structural
responses of the bridge due to its current demand and ensuring structural adequacy that will result from
increasing the demand. For this reason, the required level of accuracy of the analysis leaves little room
for error. By leveraging the power of computer based modeling, it is possible to change certain
parameters of the model with relative ease, thereby minimizing uncertainty. It is also makes it possible
to minimize inaccuracies due to human error through various error screening techniques; therefore, it is
the concept of reproducibility that makes the model so valuable. Although a model typically requires a
significant effort upfront, it allows the user to run an infinite number of scenarios. These results are not
only quicker than hand calculations, but ultimately provide a more accurate representation of actions on
the local member level.
3

Modeling of Structural Systems
Because the Burlington Bristol Bridge was originally designed exclusively for vehicular traffic, a
detailed analysis must be conducted to determine the current capacity of the structure. The overall cost
of incorporating light rail transportation onto the bridge hinges largely on the extent of retrofits that
need to be designed. For this part of the analysis, only three spans of the bridge were considered. The
vertical lift span and two tower spans were considered to be the most costly and difficult areas of the
bridge to retrofit. These spans are shown in Figure 4. If the bridge proves to be sufficient in these three
spans, appropriate modifications can be made to the remaining approach spans.
In order to assess the feasibility of incorporating light rail, it is imperative that a model be
created to monitor these changes. One of the most useful types of models for analyzing the response of
the structure is a finite element model. Finite element models are especially useful for existing
structures for several reasons. If the structure is modeled correctly, it can be an extremely useful tool
for performing load ratings, detecting signs of distress and quantifying the effects of changing loads.
Different levels of finite element models can be created depending upon level of sophistication
required, cost and computing power available. Modeling can be classified into three categories:
Macro-level models This is the most general way of representing a structure. This is the least
sophisticated type of model and simplifies the structure by incorporating rotational and
longitudinal springs. Complex systems are reduced to just a few members that can simulate the
behavior of the real system.
For example, the deck truss shown in Figure 1 may be represented as just a few
members, but given properties to simulate the behavior of the entire truss.



Figure 1: Macro-Level Model of a Structure.
Deck Truss
4

Element level Element level models are more sophisticated than macro- level models. Beams
are represented by frame elements which are drawn along the neutral axis of the members.
Because the frame elements are represented by single lines, they must be connected to other
members through rigid links. The rigid links account for the differences in geometry and are
infinitely stiff. The links help to enforce continuity. A diagram showing this type of modeling is
shown in Figure 2. The structure may be represented by smaller areas of shells and more frame
elements. This is often referred to as the discretization. A model that is discretized more will
take longer for a computer to analyze, but may give more accurate results up to a certain point
where results will plateau.


Figure 2: Element Level Modeling of a Structure.
Micro-level models Micro-level models are the most sophisticated type of finite element
models; therefore, they may require the most computing power when modeling large systems.
This type of model actually represents each piece of material in the structure. The discretized
elements are referred to as bricks or meshing. An example of a micro-level model is shown in
Figure 3.
Frame Element
Shell
Rigid Link
5


Figure 3: Micro-level Finite Element Model.
Due to the nature of this project, it was decided that an element-level finite element model was
most appropriate. The entire structure could be represented using shell, link and frame elements. An
element level model can accurately model the behavior of such a large structure and give useful results
in a reasonable amount of time.
Construction Plans and Documents
Plans were obtained from the original construction of the bridge as well as several retrofits. To
construct the model, the following plan sets were utilized:
1930 Original contract and shop drawings
1976 - Deck Replacement of Spans 4 & 6
1988 Replacement of Sidewalk on Spans 4 & 6
1993 Lift Span Deck Replacement (Span 5)



Figure 4: Burlington Bristol Bridge Elevation View. (Howard-Needles-Tammen & Bergendoff, 1976)
Span 4 Span 5 Span 6
N
6

Shown above in Figure 4 is an elevation view of the bridge. Note that only Spans 4, 5 and 6 were
constructed in the finite element model. These spans were considered the most critical parts of the
analysis. If the analysis shows that the light rail loading is feasible for these spans, then the remaining
approach spans can be retrofit accordingly.
A 2010 in-depth fractural critical member inspection report was also used as a reference for this
project. The inspection was conducted in December 2010 by Pennoni Associates Inc.
Construction of 3-D CAD Model
The first step in creating a finite element model was to convert the structures 2-D paper
drawings into a 3-D single line structure. AutoCAD was used to create this 3-D drawing. This drawing is
often referred to as a wireframe model because it does not incorporate any of the structures cross
sectional properties. These will be assigned later in the finite element analysis program. Members with
the same cross sectional properties were grouped on the same layer. This made assigning cross-
sectional properties easier when they were imported into the finite element software.
Shown below in Figure 5 is the wireframe model created for the lift span. First, the frame
elements were drawn in 2-D, adding rigid links where necessary. Taking advantage of symmetry, the
model was drawn in 3-D and connected with lateral bracing members. The last step was to draw the
floor system where shells, link and frame elements were all used. A similar approach was used for the
tower span of the bridge also taking advantage of symmetry. Figures of the CAD model for the tower
span may be found in Appendix B: Tower Span Model.

Figure 5: CAD Wireframe Model of Lift Span.
7

Modeling of Floor System
The floor system on the lift span portion of the bridge (Span 5) consists of a steel grate deck
which was last replaced in 1993. The steel grate is ASTM A709 Grade 36 steel as indicated on the as-
built drawings. The steel grate on the roadway has a thickness of 5 3/16 built on top of spacer tee
beams running longitudinally to the roadway. A typical plan view is shown in Figure 6 and a cross
section view is shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 is a typical view at the center of the lift span where a 60
maintenance sidewalk exists. The maintenance sidewalk also has a steel grate deck with a 2 thickness
as shown in the cross section in Figure 10. Additional site photographs of the floor system can be found
in Appendix C: Floor System

Figure 6: Plan View of Lift Span Roadway Steel Grate.


Figure 7: Lift Span Steel Grate Roadway Deck.

8


Figure 8: Typical Cross Section of Lift Span Deck. (Keystone Structure Steel Co., 1993)

Figure 9: Cross Section View of Lift Span Steel Grate for Roadway Deck.

Figure 10: Cross Section View of Lift Span Steel Grate for Sidewalk.
2 Grating
Cover Plate
Typical Floor Beam
9

The steel grate is represented in the model as shell elements. These shells were assigned the
appropriate thickness and material properties. Continuity was enforced through rigid links and frame
elements.

Figure 11: Tower and Lift Span Floor Systems. Figure 12: Lift Span Floor System.

Modeling of Secondary Elements
Attention was given to secondary elements of the bridge including the concrete sidewalk,
barriers and pavement. Omitting some of these elements can lead to modeling errors and caution must
be exercised. For this model, it was determined that the concrete sidewalk would be modeled with shell
elements. By choosing to model the sidewalk on the tower and lift spans, the model became more
realistic of the true behavior. The contribution of the mass and stiffness of the sidewalk is a critical part
of structures resistance. Because of the extremely low stiffness of the steel guiderail and pavement,
these secondary elements were chosen not to be modeled as shells. Instead, the guiderail and
pavement were simply modeled as distributed and line loads. This means that their mass is accounted
for, but no stiffness is provided by them. (Goulet, Kripakaran, & Smith, 2009) Refer to Figure 27 for a
photo of the lift span guiderail.





Shell Elements
10

Member Cross Sections

Each beam was imported from the 3-D CAD model as a frame element. Cross sectional
properties needed to be assigned to each member. To do this, the member cross section needed to be
created using SAPs section builder. Cross sectional properties were determined from original
construction and rehabilitation drawings. The drawings provided a standard section callout and a visual
representation of the sections configuration. The sections in the drawing were compared to the real
member to ensure that they were being properly represented in the model. An example of this is
shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Modeling of Cross-sectional Properties.


Figure 14: Modeling Using SAPs Section Builder.

11

Most of the sections of the Burlington Bristol Bridge also consisted of lacing. The lacing for each
member pairs sections in parallel and makes them continuous. An example of a truss member with
lacing is shown in Figure 13. During excessive compression in the members, the main sections tend to
move away from the central axis. The lacing connects resists this action. Despite assisting the full
sections compatibility, the lacing will carry minimum force compared to the overall section. Therefore,
the sections in the model were designed to ignore lacing. The cross sections were modeled in the
section designer, as shown in Figure 14, to ignore the forces carried by the lacing. Although the lacing is
being ignored in the cross section designer, full compatibility was assumed over the entire section.
Unaccounted Dead Load
Estimating the true dead weight of a structure can be a very difficult task. The Burlington Bristol
Bridge is a unique case because the structure is a vertical lift span bridge. The mass of the
counterweights is known to be approximately equal to the mass of the lift span. Based upon field tests
and plan sets, the totally dead load of the lift span is known to be 2,536 kips. (Moon, Aktan, &
Lowdermilk, 2010) With this extremely valuable information, the dead weight of the structure in the
model was constantly compared to the known information.
The model currently has a dead weight of 1,400 kips. Dead weight was only being accounted for in
the beam and deck areas. As discussed in the previous section, the lacing was ignored in the cross
section builder. The unaccounted weight of the lacing can lead to significant underestimation in the
dead load. The correction for the error is discussed further.
Other significant sources of dead weight that are not currently modeled are the following:

Control Tower
Crows Nests
Paint
Gusset Plates
Rivets
Machinery
Cables
Utility Conduits


Figure 15: Typical Single
Lacing in Truss Member.
12

Assigning Sections
Members of the same property were created on similar layers in AutoCAD. When single layers
were imported into SAP, the layers were assigned to a group. Groups were created so that all members
contained in it have the same cross sectional properties. This kept the model organized and will make it
easier to modify properties.
Use of Mass Modifiers to Correct for Unaccounted Dead Load
As discussed in the previous section, the presence of lacing was ignored in the creation of cross
sectional geometry. The additional contribution to the dead load must be accounted for. Through the
use of a mass multiplier, the members mass can be increased without increasing the cross sectional
area of the member. This will allow the model to account for the lacing mass, but not contribute any
additional capacity to the member. A simple calculation was performed to determine a reasonable mass
multiplier to apply to frame elements. An example calculation is shown as follows:

Further work will be conducted in the future to determine other sources of unaccounted dead
load. Mass corrections will be modified as necessary.




13

Error Screening Process
The most vital part of the development of the finite element model involves verifying the results
to ensure that the structure is being accurately represented. This involves checking the numerical
results, interpreting deflected shapes for compatibility as well as using structural engineering intuition
to ensure that the results make sense. Oftentimes, the results can be compared to previously computed
values if available. (Fisher, 1983)
Approximation of Axial Force in the Lift Span
After the lift span portion and floor system of the bridge were imported into SAP,
approximations were made about the axial forces in the top and bottom chord members. A simplifying
assumption was made to reduce the lift span into a simply supported beam as shown in Figure 16. The
bracing in the face of the truss was assumed to have infinite stiffness thus reducing the structure into a
2D face.





Using the model, the support reactions were applied from the SAP model, which are
represented by R. To put the beam into equilibrium, a uniformly distributed load, w, was spread over
the entire structure to put the beam into equilibrium. The moment diagram from this type of loading is
shown below in Figure 17. A constant height of 65 was assumed over the entire length of the beam.
This is the height from top to bottom chord on the real structure. This 65 acts as a moment arm
between the two chords as shown in Figure 18. By summing the forces about a point, the total axial
compression or tension in the chords could be solved.



Figure 17: Moment Diagram of Simply Supported Beam.
R = 636 kips
w = 2.39 kips/ft
= 533 ft
Figure 16: Approximate Analysis of a Simply Supported Beam.
R = 636 kips
14



Figure 18: Moment Arm Calculation for Approximate Analysis.

Table 1: Comparison of Axial Force in Chord Members for the Simply Supported Beam Approach.



A comparison of the approximate analysis values and SAP results can be found in Table 1. These
results are for axial force in the top and bottom chords. The approximate technique assumed equal
compression and tension in the top and bottom chords. The results were then compared to the SAP
model including the entire floor system. The results showed a major discrepancy in the bottom chord
member. This is due to the floor system acting to stiffen the entire lower portion of the structure. The
top chord member still remained consistent with the approximate analysis. To further validate this
trend, the floor system was removed from the bridge in the SAP model. The results were shown to
agree within 30%. The reduced values of the moment couple was due to the loss of dead load from the
floor system. At this stage in the model development, this was considered to be acceptable given the
amount of simplifying assumptions that were being made.


Approximation of Deflection in the Lift Span
Another form of approximate analysis was performed for the lift span portion of the bridge by
determining if the deflection in the model was reasonable. A simplification was made to reduce the
structure to a simply supported beam as shown in Figure 19. Figure 20 also shows a cross section view
of lift span of the bridge where the moment of inertia was calculated for each of the chord members.
The results of this analysis are shown in

Table 2.
Hand Calculation SAP with Floor
System
SAP without
Floor System
Top Chord (kips) 652 (c) 693 (c) 530 (c)
Bottom Chord (kips) 652 (t) 176 (t) 457 (t)

15

The hand approximate analysis was then compared to the SAP model and AASHTO allowable
deflection. The results agreed closely, but further investigation must be completed to verify these
results.












Table 2: Approximate
Analysis of Lift Span Deflection.



Knowing there is 44% of the actual load missing in the model, the deflections are expected to
increase. Since deflection is directly related to the distributed load, it is expected that the deflection will
increase by a factor of 1.81. This will still allow the deflection to satisfy the AASHTO limit.
Future Work
The future work of the project can be simplified into two categories. These are completion of
the model and the final design phase of the project. Further information about project scheduling may
be found in Appendix A: Project Schedule.
Model Development
Currently, the SAP model is at 90% completion. Two vital tasks must be completed to further
validate the model. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of unaccounted dead weight of the
structure. The current dead weight of the lift span is 1400 kips, while the true dead weight of the span is
Hand Calculation SAP Model
AASHTO Allowable
Deflection (l/800)
2.8 2.9 8

Figure 19: Maximum Deflection of Simply Supported Beam.
Figure 20: Chord Member Cross Sectional Area Diagram.
16

known to be 2,536 kips. (Moon, Aktan, & Lowdermilk, 2010) Mass multipliers will be determined with
more confidence and assigned as necessary to the appropriate frame sections.
A mesh sensitivity study must be completed particularly for the shell elements of the deck. This
entails reaching a careful balance between discretization and computing time. The mesh will reach an
acceptable level of discretization at the point when further increase in shell elements yields no further
change in results.
Final Design Phase
After the performance of the model is validated, the final design stage can begin. During this
stage, a load rating as per AASHTO will be performed. This will ensure that the bridge currently rates as
it stands today. A load rating will then be performed per the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) loading configuration. At this point, the behavior of the
bridge under the train loading will be known and retrofits can be performed as necessary. The final
alignment of the tracks will be selected and construction costs will be determined.
















17




Bibliography
Ash-Howard-Needles & Tammen. (1930). Burlington Bristol Bridge: Original Construction Drawings. New
York, New York.
DMJM Harris/AECOM. (2006, March). New Jersey Long-Range Transportation Plan 2030. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Retrieved Novemeber 2011, 25
Fisher, T. A. (1983). Long-Span Bridge Computer Modeling. Journal Of Structural Engineering, 1402.
Goulet, J. A., Kripakaran, P., & Smith, I. F. (2009). Estimation of Modelling Errors in Structural System
Identification. Lausanna, Switzerland: cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne.
Howard-Needles-Tammen & Bergendoff. (1976). Burlington Bristol Bridge: Reconstruction of the Bridge
Deck. Fairfield, New Jersey.
Industrial Engineering Works. (1988). Deck Replacement at Beam and Truss Spans. Trenton, New Jersey.
Keystone Structure Steel Co. (1993). Burlington Bristol Bridge: Lift Span Deck Replacement. Newtown,
PA.
Moon, F. L., Aktan, A. E., & Lowdermilk, D. S. (2010). Model Experiment Correlation I. Philadelphia, PA:
Intelligent Infrastructure Systems.
Pennoni Associates. (2010). Burlington Bristol Bridge: In-Depth and Fracture Critical Member Bridge
Inspection Report. Haddon Heights, New Jersey.

18

Appendix A: Project Schedule

10/1/2011 11/30/2011 1/29/2012 3/29/2012 5/28/2012
Conduct Surveys
Collect Site Data
Proposal Preparation
Construct CAD Model of Truss
Construct CAD Model of Deck
Insert Section Properties
Progress Report Preparation
Select Alignment
Contact Permitting Agencies
Develop Operational Plans
Stakeholders Meetings
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
19

Appendix B: Tower Span Model


Figure 21: 2D CAD Model of Tower Span.


Figure 22: 3D CAD Model of Tower Span with Lateral Members.
20


Figure 23: 3D CAD Model of Tower Span with Floor System.




Figure 24: SAP Model of Tower Span.


21

Appendix C: Floor System Photographs


Figure 25: Lift Span during Bridge Opening. Figure 26: Underside of Lift Span.












Figure 28: Lift Span in Open Position.

Figure 27: Lift Span Guiderail.