Bridge 1926 Final Report

Crane Bridge Design Project

April 29, 2004

 STJ Engineering
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
5500 Wabash Avenue
Terre Haute, Indiana 47803

April 29, 2004

Mr. Dave Burrus, P.E.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division
Bldg. 2516
300 Highway 361
Crane, Indiana 47522-5001

Dear Mr. Burrus:

We at STJ Engineering are pleased to provide you with this final report for the design of
Bridge 1926. We have enjoyed working with you throughout the design process. Once
our design has been reviewed and approved by a registered professional engineer,
construction can begin as soon as Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) receives
funding.

Included in this report are a brief project description, list of design requirements, and the
final design. A discussion of the various crossing options considered is also provided
with this report. The final design to replace Bridge 1926 is an 80-foot, single-span
prestressed concrete bridge. STJ Engineering determined that this is the optimal design
for Crane NSWC’s needs. This report includes final design information on every aspect
of the bridge design including deck, beams, and foundation.

We look forward to hearing from you soon and are very excited to collect your feedback
on the final design. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (317) 695-
0342 and ask for Noah. Thank you for your support on this project.

Sincerely,

Noah Fehrenbacher Matthew Albert

Project Manager Report Editor

Aaron J. Chandler Jacob Gennicks

Project Engineer Project Engineer

Jacob Wilhoit
Project Engineer
 DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report were prepared by senior civil engineering students in the
design and synthesis class of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. STJ Engineering is a
fictitious company created by Matthew Albert, Aaron J. Chandler, Noah Fehrenbacher,
Jacob Gennicks, and Jacob Wilhoit for the purpose of this course. We feel confident in
our work as students, however you should be aware that we are not registered
professional engineers. All material presented herein should be reviewed and approved
by a professional engineer prior to construction.
Executive Summary

The Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Crane Division was constructed in the early
1940’s as a Naval Ammunition Depot during World War II. Currently, the base serves as
a center for weapons development, as well as a storage and distribution center for the US
Navy. Much of the infrastructure is nearing the end of its service life and is in need of
repair or replacement.

Crane NSWC’s engineering department is in the process of repairing or replacing key

bridges throughout the base. This report concerns Bridge 1926, which is in a state of
severe disrepair. Bridge 1926 has a timber superstructure and foundation with four spans
totaling 80 feet. The bridge carries a two lane highway that runs throughout the base.
Repairs or a replacement bridge must be in compliance with Indiana Department of
Transportation (INDOT) codes and regulations.

After evaluating the current condition of the bridge, STJ Engineering determined that a
replacement structure is needed. This decision is based on the fact that much of Bridge
1926 is highly deteriorated, and the cost of repair would be greater than that of a
replacement structure. The final recommendation is an 80-foot, single-span bridge,
utilizing five prestressed concrete beams. This configuration will eliminate all piers in
the stream bed which will help to reduce the time of construction as well as the cost. The
prestressed concrete beams are 45 inches high and 22 inches wide at the base. The slab
will be an eight-inch-thick, concrete slab with a half-inch wearing surface. The total
width of the bridge will be 33 feet including two concrete parapets that will line either
side. This option was chosen because of its relatively low cost of construction, its long
lifespan, its low cost of maintenance, and its ease of construction. The design meets all
INDOT standards and environmental requirements for this location. The final cost of the
bridge will be approximately $180,000. This includes the cost of materials as well as
labor. The cost of demolition of the old bridge will be approximately $55,000.
 Table of Contents
Page #
1.0 Project Description ......................................................................................1
2.0 Design Requirements ...................................................................................2
3.0 Project Approach .........................................................................................3
4.0 Completed Design ........................................................................................4
4.1 Topographic Survey...........................................................................4
4.2 Preliminary Soil Investigation ...........................................................5
4.3 Hydrologic Study ...............................................................................5
4.4 Hydraulic Analysis.............................................................................6
4.5 Codes and Regulations.......................................................................6
4.6 Design Options...................................................................................7
4.7 Recommendation ...............................................................................7
4.7.1 Bridge Superstructure ...........................................................7
4.7.2 Deck ......................................................................................8
4.8 Loading ..............................................................................................8
4.9 Deck Design.......................................................................................10
4.10 Beam Design......................................................................................10
4.11 Foundation Design .............................................................................11
4.12 Cost Estimate .....................................................................................12
4.13 Traffic Control Plan ...........................................................................13
4.14 Environmental Permits and Regulations...........................................13
4.15 Erosion Control.................................................................................13
5.0 References.....................................................................................................14

Appendices

Appendix A Topographic Survey

Appendix B Preliminary Soil and Bedrock Investigation
Appendix C Hydrologic Study
Appendix D Hydraulic Analysis
Appendix E Codes and Regulations
Appendix F Design Options
Appendix G Assessment of Design Options
Appendix H Loading
Appendix I Deck Design
Appendix J Beam Design
Appendix K Foundation Design
Appendix L Cost Estimate
Appendix M Traffic Control Plan
Appendix N Environmental Permits and Regulations
Appendix O Erosion Control
1.0 Project Description

The Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Crane Division located in Crane, Indiana
was constructed in the early 1940’s as a Naval Ammunition Depot during World War II.
Today the base serves as a center for weapons
development, as well as a storage and distribution
center for the US Navy. It covers 100 square miles in
Martin County, Indiana, making it the third largest
Navy installation in the world. (See Figure 1.) Crane
NSWC is also the second largest employer in
southwest Indiana with nearly 4,000 military and
civilian personnel.

The infrastructure within the base has mostly

remained unchanged since its opening, resulting in
much of it being in great need of repair or
replacement. Specifically, Bridge 1926 has Figure 1 - Location of Crane NSWC
(DeLORME, 2000)
deteriorated to the point that it is in need of
immediate attention. The goal of this project is to provide a design solution for a
replacement structure at that location.

Bridge 1926 is located on a main thoroughfare

within the base providing base access for truck
traffic. (See Figure 2.) It was built in 1941
and was repaired in 1956. At that time, the
timber decking was replaced with steel
decking, and an asphalt overlay was installed.
Since that time, no major repairs have been
Figure 2 – Existing bridge

Page 1
made to the bridge. The abutments are currently constructed from timber with timber
pilings. The two lane wood structure extends over Sulphur Creek, spanning
approximately 80 feet with four equal spans.

2.0 Design Requirements

After meeting at the site with Mr. Dave Burrus, the contact for this project, on September
17, 2003, STJ Engineering developed an understanding of the main guidelines presented
by Crane NSWC. The project includes a geotechnical subsurface investigation
completed by a contractor to determine soil properties for use in the design. It was
necessary for STJ Engineering to perform additional surveying to determine the existing
topography and provide a topographic map with one-foot contour intervals within the
proposed limits of construction, because current topographical maps are limited to 10-
foot contour intervals. The project required a hydraulic analysis to determine the bridge
opening requirements. STJ Engineering was required to investigate all necessary
environmental permits so Crane NSWC will only need to apply for them prior to
construction. In addition, complete design solutions and construction drawings for the
bridge are required.

This report is the final deliverable for the project. It includes an explanation of the
existing site conditions at the bridge location including site topography, a preliminary soil
investigation, a hydrologic study, a hydraulic analysis, and highlights from the pertinent
codes and regulations involved in bridge design. In addition, preliminary design options
are included for the bridge with STJ Engineering recommending the option that optimizes
the criteria: initial cost, lifespan, maintenance, and constructability. This report also
includes calculations for the loading on the bridge, the deck design, the beam design, and
the foundation design. In addition to the calculations, detailed plan and profile design

Page 2
drawings for Bridge 1926 are included. A cost estimate for the construction of the
bridge, a traffic control plan, and steps required to obtain all environmental permits are
also included. Final deliverables include this report (hard copy) and electronic copies of
all drawings (D-size sheets) on a CD.

3.0 Project Approach

STJ Engineering completed all the design requirements present by Crane NSWC based
on the following project approach.
• Topographic Survey – Provide a topographic map with one-foot contour
intervals within the construction limits.
• Preliminary Soil and Bedrock Investigation – Research subsurface conditions
to determine placement of soil borings.
• Hydrologic Study – Complete to determine the 100-year peak flow for Sulphur
Creek at Bridge 1926.
• Hydraulic Analysis – Perform to size the bridge opening by using the 100-year
peak flood elevation to determine the minimum elevation of the bridge beams.
• Codes and Regulations – Comply with all Indiana Department of Transportation
(INDOT) standards in designing Bridge 1926. INDOT prescribes the use of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
standards, so these are used in the design.
• Design Options – Provide a variety of bridge options in order to determine the
optimal crossing to replace Bridge 1926.
• Assessment of Design Options – Analyze the different bridge options to
determine the option that will best meet all of Crane NSWC’s desires.
• Loading – Determine all the loads that apply to the design of a new bridge
including those that act on the bridge deck, beams, and abutments.

Page 3
 • Deck Design – Perform the design of the bridge deck including the barrier walls.
• Beam Design – Complete the design of the beams.
• Foundation Design – Provide the design of the concrete pile cap based on the
data received from the soil borings.
• Cost – Determine all construction costs consisting of materials, labor, and
equipment used in the construction of the bridge.
• Traffic – Provide a traffic plan according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) (Federal Highway Administration, 2001) that will
reroute existing traffic around the limits of construction.
• Environmental – Provide sufficient information for Crane NSWC to obtain all
pertinent environmental permits.

4.0 Completed Design

4.1 Topographic Survey

STJ Engineering completed a site survey of Bridge 1926 on Wednesday, October 15,
2003. STJ Engineering used a Nikon DTM-350 electronic total station from Rose-
Hulman Institute of Technology to collect the surveying data points, and the SurvCADD
(Carlson Software, 1999) program to construct the contour lines. The final topographic
maps were drawn using AutoCAD 2004 (AutoDesk, Inc., 2003) but will be delivered
electronically to the client in AutoCAD 2000 format as well as a hard copy. This field
data is important because it allowed STJ Engineering to produce a topographic map with
one-foot contour intervals and show the proposed limits of construction. (See Appendix
A.) STJ Engineering also gathered cross-sections of Sulphur Creek, taken at multiple
locations along the stream to be used for the hydraulic study.

Page 4
4.2 Preliminary Soil and Bedrock Investigation
STJ Engineering performed an initial geotechnical investigation, determined various
subsurface properties (in order to have a representation of the underlying conditions), and
recommended placement of soil borings. According to the Soil Survey of Martin County,
Indiana (Soil Conservation Service, 1964), which is published by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Haymond silt loam (Hd), Gilpin silt loam (WgG), and
Zanesville silt loam (ZaC2) are located within the construction area. These soils have
moderate water capacity, moderate permeability, and a slight erosion hazard exists within
the soils. Refer to Appendix B for soil maps and complete engineering properties of
these soils.

Using the Bedrock Geologic Map of Indiana (Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey, 1987), the preliminary investigation determined that the bedrock near
Bridge 1926 consists of micritic, skeletal, and oolitic limestone. According to the Martin
County soil survey, the depth to bedrock under Bridge 1926 varies between two and five
feet. The reasonableness of this depth has been verified in the field by the sighting of
bedrock at shallow depths under a nearby bridge also crossing Sulphur Creek. The
bedrock depth is important because it can determine whether deep or shallow foundations
will be necessary. The information gathered from the preliminary soil investigation was
a major factor in the decision to recommend further subsurface investigation which is
used in the geotechnical design. Four soil borings, two near each abutment, are
recommended. Appendix B contains a more detailed description of the preliminary soil
and bedrock investigation, along with the specific location of the recommended borings.

4.3 Hydrologic Study

According to AASHTO (1994) design specifications, a hydrologic study must be
completed to determine the 100-year peak flow of Sulphur Creek at the bridge site. STJ
Engineering completed the hydrologic study with guidance from the manual,

Page 5
“Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Streams in Indiana”
(Glatfelter, 1984) and found the peak flow during the 100-year flood event to be 932 cfs
(cubic feet per second). This value is used in the hydraulic analysis to size the bridge
opening and select the minimum elevation of the bridge beams. This is done to ensure
that during the 100-year flood, the bridge will not interfere with the flow of Sulphur
Creek. Appendix C contains a detailed description of the hydrologic process used and
the supporting calculations.

4.4 Hydraulic Analysis

STJ Engineering utilized the hydraulic modeling program, HEC-RAS, version 3.1.1
(United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003), to complete the hydraulic analysis.
After determining the 100-year peak flow from the hydrologic study, STJ Engineering
performed a hydraulic analysis to determine the peak flood elevation as required by the
AASHTO (1994). The peak flood elevation during the 100-storm is 85.6 feet, which is
slightly less than eight feet under the existing bridge. This elevation is used as the
minimum elevation of the superstructure of Bridge 1926. Appendix D contains a detailed
description of the hydraulic analysis and supporting model printouts.

4.5 Codes and Regulations

An extensive search of relevant codes and regulations was completed to ensure that the
bridge design meets INDOT standards. INDOT will begin using the American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load Factor Resistant
Design (LRFD) (1994) in the near future, so STJ Engineering used the AASHTO LRFD
to ensure that the replacement bridge performs adequately and meets INDOT codes. STJ
Engineers have also consulted the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal
Highway Administration, 2001), for specific traffic maintenance design guidelines.
Appendix E contains a detailed description of the codes and regulations that will control
the replacement bridge design. Specifically, these codes and regulations relate to load

Page 6
and load factors, structural analysis, deck design, superstructure design, foundations,
abutments and piers, and other general design considerations.

4.6 Design Options

A number of bridge types and materials have been studied by STJ Engineers to determine
the best bridge option for crossing Sulphur Creek. The advantages and disadvantages of
each design option were determined, particularly with regards to expected initial cost,
lifespan, maintenance, and constructability. This data has been gathered by researching
state highway records, institutional websites, and construction cost manuals. STJ
Engineering narrowed the crossing options to the following: prestressed concrete beams
and steel beams for a single, 80-foot span; cast-in-place concrete beams, precast
nonprestressed concrete beams, prestressed concrete beams, and steel beams for two 40-
foot spans; and a preengineered multiple span bridge system. Appendix F contains
detailed background information on the bridge types and materials that were investigated.

4.7 Recommendation
4.7.1 Bridge Superstructure
STJ Engineering compared two 80-foot single span options, four 40-foot dual span
options, and one multiple span option. Each design option was evaluated based on the
following criteria: initial cost, lifespan, maintenance and constructability. A relative
importance or weighting was assigned to each of the criteria based on the client’s needs.
Initial cost and lifespan are the two most important criteria for this bridge and are
weighted at 35 percent each. Maintenance is weighted at 20 percent, and constructability
is 10 percent of the design recommendation.

STJ Engineering recommends a single span bridge with prestressed reinforced concrete
beams to replace Bridge 1926. This option scored 4.55 points out of a possible 5.00
points, while the next highest option is a single span steel beam bridge system, which

Page 7
received a score of 3.80 points out of 5.00. The remaining five options rated lower and
will not be considered. Appendix G contains a thorough explanation of the decision
making process. It should be noted that the preliminary design is based on shallow
foundations; therefore, if geotechnical studies indicate the need for deep foundations, the
initial cost and time of construction will increase.

4.7.2 Deck
STJ Engineering evaluated both a cast-in-place and a precast deck based on initial cost,
lifespan, maintenance and constructability. As in the superstructure, initial cost and
lifespan are the two most important criteria for this bridge and are weighted at 35 percent
each. Maintenance is weighted at 20 percent and constructability is 10 percent of the
design recommendation.

STJ Engineering recommends a precast concrete deck in the replacement of Bridge 1926.
The precast concrete deck received a score of 4.30 out of a possible 5.00 points.
Appendix G contains a thorough explanation of the decision making process. After
submitting the progress report to Crane NSWC, Dave Burris decided on a cast-in-place
concrete deck for Bridge 1926. Even though STJ Engineering recommended a precast
concrete deck, Dave Burris was concerned about the long term durability of such a deck.
Furthermore, precast concrete deck panels are difficult to form into a cohesive unit and
have a tendency to separate during expansion and contraction. Thus, STJ Engineering
followed the request of the client, Crane NSWC, and designed a cast-in-place concrete
deck for Bridge 1926.

4.8 Loading
Before the design of the bridge could begin, the loads that it would have to carry had to
be determined. According to the AASHTO LRFD (1994) the loads that act on the bridge
deck are the dead load, live load, and wind load. The dead load consists of the weight of
the deck (100 lbs/ft) and two point loads (387 lbs) which represent the concrete barrier

Page 8
walls. The live load consists of a distributed design lane load (640 lbs/ft) and two point
loads (16 kips) representing the design truck. The horizontal wind load is caused by the
wind blowing on the design truck creating an increase in the point load (3 kips) on the
opposite side of the design truck from the wind.

The loads that act on the beams of the bridge are the dead load, live load, braking force,
horizontal wind load, and earthquake load. The dead load to be carried by the beams
consists of a distributed load from the weight of the deck along with the weight of the
beams (1183 lbs/ft). The live load consists of the distributed design lane load (640 lbs/ft)
along with three point loads to represent the axles of the design truck (8 kips, 32 kips, and
32 kips). For safety purposes, the design truck is situated on the beams in such a way as
to create the maximum moment. In addition to these gravity loads, there are several
lateral and longitudinal loads that the bridge must resist. The lateral loads are resisted by
the pot bearings located at each end of the bridge which connect the beams to the
abutment. The longitudinal load is created by the design truck braking on the bridge (24
kips). The lateral loads are comprised of a horizontal wind load (12 kips) and an
earthquake load (19 kips).

From these loads the maximum factored moments and shears can be determined for all of
the components. The maximum factored shear force that must be resisted by the deck is
40.1 kips and the maximum factored moment is 81.8 kip-ft. The maximum factored
shear force developed in the beams is 205 kips while the maximum factored moment is
3980 kip-ft. The longitudinal force to be resisted by the abutments is 44 kips, and the
lateral force is 20 kips. For a more detailed explanation of the loads and how they were
obtained, see Appendix H.

Page 9
4.9 Deck Design
After determining the loads that act on the concrete deck, the cast-in-place slab was
designed according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (1994). The bridge deck was
designed for flexural, shear, and shrinkage failure. These calculations require that the
final design be a concrete deck 80 feet long, 33 feet wide, and 8 inches thick (see Figure
3 for a drawing of the deck). The primary reinforcement is two layers of #8 epoxy-
coated bars spaced every 2.5 inches running perpendicular to traffic. The secondary
reinforcement is two layers of #8 epoxy-coated bars spaced every 3.5 inches running
parallel to traffic. Appendix I contains detailed calculations of the bridge deck design
and drawings.

Figure 3 - Deck
4.10 Beam Design
After determining the loads acting on the bridge as well as the deck, the design of the
prestressed concrete beams begins. The design of the prestressed concrete beams is
completed in accordance with the 2002 ACI 318 Building Code and Commentary (2002)

Page 10
and the Design of Prestressed Concrete (Nilson, 1987). The main components of the
beam design are determining suitable dimensions for the beam, finding a prestressing
force in the prestressed strands, and choosing the path those strands must follow through
the beam. The final beam design for Bridge 1926 is an AASHTO Type III beam. The
dimensions of beams are 45 inches deep with a top width of 16 inches, a bottom width of
22 inches, and a weight of 582 pounds per linear foot. Five of these beams are required
in order to span the 80 feet over Sulphur Creek (see Figure 4 for a cross section drawing
of the bridge deck and beams). For a more detailed explanation of the design of the
prestressed concrete beams, see Appendix J.

Figure 4 – Cross section drawing of bridge deck and beams

4.11 Foundation Design

The contractor, ATC Associates Inc., preformed the soil borings and provided STJ
Engineering with a geotechnical investigation report. Since Bridge 1926 is a single span
structure, there are only the two foundations at each end of the bridge acting as supports.
ATC Associates Inc. recommended in their report that a driven steel pile foundation be

Page 11
used. This steel pile foundation consists of four H-piles (HP 12x53 as interior piles and
HP 12x74 as exterior piles). Using this recommendation STJ Engineering designed the
concrete pile cap. The design of the pile cap structure is completed in accordance with
the 2002 edition of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, produced by
the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and resulted in a cap with dimensions of 33 feet
long, 36 inches high, and 30 inches deep (see Figure 5 for a drawing of the foundation).
Appendix K contains the calculations and drawings of the pile cap.

Figure 5 – Foundation dimensions

4.12 Cost Estimate
After completing all aspects of the design, STJ Engineering finalized the quantities for
Bridge 1926 to perform a final cost estimate for the project. STJ Engineering used the
Unit Price Summary Report for INDOT Bridge Contracts (INDOT, 2004) to determine
the final estimated cost for the construction of Bridge 1926 at $179,000. The final

Page 12
project cost including the demolition of the existing bridge totals to $233,000. For all
items included in the final cost estimation, see Appendix L.

4.13 Traffic Control Plan

During the construction of Bridge 1926, Highway 165 will be completely closed to
traffic. For this reason, STJ Engineering completed a traffic control plan following the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway Administration, 2001).
This plan consists of a detour route marked with temporary traffic control devices which
are used to regulate, warn, and guide the traffic around the base. The detour route is
approximately 11.1 miles in length. The traffic control plan should be implemented
before construction occurs and continue throughout the construction period of the project.
Appendix M contains all the details of the traffic control plan.

4.14 Environmental Permits and Regulations

Before construction on Bridge 1926 commences, all required environmental permits need
to be obtained from the regulatory agencies. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
only requires a Letter of Permission because the construction of the bridge has minimal
impacts on the surrounding area. The Indiana Department of Environmental
Management requires a Regional General Permit because the impacted stream length is
less than 300 feet. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water does
not require a permit because, according to the Indiana Administrative Code, Bridge 1926
is located in a rural area and construction projects in rural areas do not need permits.
Appendix N contains further explanation of the permitting process including examples of
the required permits.

4.15 Erosion Control

Due to the fact that Bridge 1926 passes over a stream, it is necessary to implement
several erosion control measures. This is done in order to keep excess sediment from

Page 13
entering the natural environment surrounding the bridge. STJ Engineering recommends
the use of silt fences in order to reduce the amount of soil that leaves the construction
site. The construction time and extent of construction will be minimized and permanent
seeding will immediately follow construction. It is also recommended that the slope
leading up to the abutments be limited to a 3:1 slope to further reduce sediment runoff.
See Appendix O for a full listing of all recommendations and a drawing depicting the
placement of the silt fences.

5.0 References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications, First Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1994.

American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2002.

AutoDesk, Inc., AutoCAD 2004, Version 2004, United States, 2003.

Carlson Software, SurvCADD, Version 2000, United States, 1999.

DeLORME. 3-D TopoQuads, computer software, DeLORME, Yarmouth, ME, 1999.

DeLORME. Street Atlas USA, computer software, DeLORME, Yarmouth, ME, 2000.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, http://

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_12.28.01.htm, Federal Highway Administration,
2001.

Fisher, Joe. Project Consultant, BridgeTek, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, 2003.

Glatfelter, Dale R. Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Flood on

Streams in Indiana, United States Geological Survey, Water Resource Division,
Indianapolis, IN, 1984.

Houghtalen, Robert and Hwang, Ned. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering Systems,

Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996.

Page 14
Hunt, Roy E. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1984.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), Ryan Cassidy, 2004.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation, Indiana

Handbook for Erosion Control in Developing Areas, October 1992.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water (INDNRDOW). Becky

Davis, 2004.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water (INDNRDOW).

http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/permits/application_manual/photos.html#4a2, 2004.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey. Bedrock Geologic Map of

Indiana, Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey, 1987.

Indiana Department of Transportation. 3-Sided Culverts Cost Evaluation, Available:

http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/design/pdf/3sidedculv.pdf, 2003.

Nilson, Arthur H. Design of Prestressed Concrete, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2nd
Edition, 1987.

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. Best Non-Highway Bridge, Available: http://

www.pci.org/markets/markets.cfm?path=bridges&id=arbor.cfm, Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 2003.

R.D. Ziemian and W. McGuire, Mastan 2, Version 2.0, United States, 2000.

Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Martin County Indiana, Series 1959, No. 38,
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, 1964.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. HEC-RAS, Washington, D.C., Hydrologic

Engineering Center, 2003.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District (USACE). Leanne Divine,
2004.

Waier, Phillip R. RS Means, Building Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Company,
Inc., Ed. 61, 2003.

Page 15
Appendix A – Topographic Survey

Topographic Survey
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 STJ Engineering completed a site survey for Bridge
1926. Because current topographic maps are limited to 10-foot contour intervals, the
client requested that STJ Engineering provide one-foot contour intervals within the
proposed limits of construction. STJ Engineering surveyed three cross-sections of
Sulphur Creek in the vicinity of the bridge for use in the hydraulic analysis: 100 feet
upstream, at the bridge, and 100 feet downstream. Data points were also collected
sufficiently far along the road so the topographic map can be used to locate the
construction limits. STJ Engineering used a Nikon DTM-350 electronic total station
from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology to collect the surveying data points. The
SurvCADD (Carlson Software, 1999) program was used to draw the contour lines. The
final topographic maps were drawn using AutoCAD 2004 (AutoDesk, Inc., 2003), but
will be delivered electronically in AutoCAD 2000 format at the request of the client. The
map on the next page shows the entire construction area, while the second map focuses
on the area surrounding the bridge.

A-1
 97

9
6

8
9

9
5

88
92

92
94

87
93

93
90

1'
5'
Key
94

Culvert
86

Treeline

Contour
Contour
91

Bridge Deck
Edge of Road
N

90

95
92

93

90
85

85 8
7
8
5

82
83

83
83
8

83
3

85
82

88
9
85

0
93
87

95
90

93

99
95

96

98
97
9
6

95

Drawing STJ Engineering Notes:

Drawn By: Matthew Albert

1 Checked By: Matthew Albert
BR 1926 Topographic Map
of 2 Date: Fall 2003 Scale: 1"=40'
 N

1'
5'
90
95

Key

Culvert
Treeline
92

93

Contour
Contour
90

Bridge Deck
85

Edge of Road
85 8
7
8
5

82
83

83
83
8

83
3

85

1"
82

=
88
9
85

Scale
25'
93
87

95
90

93

95

96

97
9
6

95

STJ Engineering Notes:

Drawn By: Matthew Albert

A-3 Checked By: Jake Gennicks
BR 1926 Topographic Map
Date: Fall 2003 Scale: 1"=25'
Appendix B – Preliminary Soil and Bedrock Investigation

Soil Classifications
Soil types found at and near the location of Bridge 1926 were determined using the Soil
Survey of Martin County, Indiana (Soil Conservation Service, 1964) which is published
by the United States Department of Agriculture. According to the survey, there are three
soil types that are located within the construction area. These are Haymond silt loam
(Hd), Gilpin silt loam (WgG), and Zanesville silt loam (ZaC2). (See Figure B-1.) A
short description, from the Martin County Soil Survey, (Soil Conservation Service, 1964)
of each of these soils including some general development limitations follows.

Haymond silt loam (Hd): Haymond silt loam has a high water capacity and moderate
permeability. A slight erosion hazard exists within this soil; however, it is rated good for
roadway fill. Bedrock typically exists at a depth of over 60 inches.
Gilpin silt loam (WgG): Gilpin silt loam has a moderate water capacity along with
moderate permeability. The erosion hazard within this soil is slight, and it is rated poor
for roadway fill. Bedrock is typically shallow at a depth of about 28 inches.
Zanesville silt loam (ZaC2): Zanesville silt loam has a moderate water capacity along
with a moderate permeability. The soils erosion hazard is slight, and roadway fill
properties are fair. Bedrock typically exists at a depth of about 60 inches.

Bridge 1926

2 inch = 1 mile

Figure B-1: Soils Map near Bridge 1926 (Soil Conservation Service, 1964)

B-1
Bedrock Geology Description
Using the Bedrock Geologic Map of Indiana (Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey, 1987), STJ Engineering conducted a preliminary investigation of the
general bedrock types near Bridge 1926. The bedrock near Bridge 1926 is primarily of
the “Blue River Group” which consists of mostly micritic, skeletal, and oolitic limestone
as shown in Figure B-2.

Bridge 1926

1 inch = 3 Miles

Figure B-2: Bedrock geology near Bridge 1926 (Indiana

Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey, 1987)

Analysis
As shown, there are a variety of soils found within the construction limits. The properties
of these soils, along with their underlying geology can have many implications for the
foundation design of a structure. By investigating soil properties using the Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation Manual (Hunt, 1984), estimations of soil strength
characteristics have been obtained. For example, the soils surrounding Bridge 1926 are
estimated to have a unit weight of 110 pounds per cubic foot and an unconfined
compressive strength of approximately 4,000 pounds per square foot (PSF). These
properties are fairly good for construction. It is common for bridge construction to be
done on soils having a bearing pressure of 3,000 PSF. However these are just estimates,

B-2
and in the event that soil borings are unavailable, these estimations will be combined with
additional field testing methods to complete the foundation design.

Soil Borings
The soil boring recommendations include both placement of borings and the depth to
which they should be taken. STJ Engineering recommends four borings be conducted for
Bridge 1926. A boring should be taken on either side of the bridge at a distance from the
abutment equal to 1.5 times the height of the slope (or in this case 15 feet). Two more
borings should be taken on opposite sides of the bridge, one on the north side and the
other on the south side at the abutment. (See Figure B-3.) The borings should be drilled
down to bedrock, but need not penetrate deeper than 35 feet. A Shelby tube sample
should be taken every 5 feet along with a sample penetration test. These soil samples
should then be tested in order to determine their unconfined compressive strength, void
ratio, soil classification, moisture content, liquid and plastic limits and consolidation of
the soil. These tests will be required to determine the engineering properties of the soil,
including bearing capacity as well as unit weights and other properties which will affect
the design of our structure.

Figure B-3: Recommended location of soil borings for Bridge 1926

B-3
Appendix C – Hydrologic Study

Purpose and Procedure

A hydrologic study must be completed in order to determine the 100-year peak flow for
Sulphur Creek at Bridge 1926. This value is used in the hydraulic analysis to size the
bridge opening and select the elevation of the bridge beams. The peak flow
determination has been preformed with guidance from the manual, “Techniques for
Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Streams in Indiana” (Glatfelter,
1984). This manual supplies design equations for peak flows of every stream in
Indiana, within certain parameters. These equations are based on regression analysis of
data obtained from gauged streams throughout the state. The method requires certain
data: location of the watershed (to place it within one of the six regions in the state), the
drainage area, the channel slope, and the precipitation intensity.

Drainage Area: The contributing drainage area, DA, is the area contributing directly to
surface runoff. The drainage area for Bridge 1926 is determined by delineation of the
appropriate topographic watershed map (DeLORME, 1999). This method is described by
the following steps: draw a watershed delineation line beginning at the design point (the
bridge), continuing perpendicularly through the contour lines along the watershed divide,
and finishing at the design point. (See Figure C-1.) The planimeter tool located in the
DeLORME program was used to determine the enclosed area. The resulting drainage
area for Bridge 1926 is 1.1 square miles.

Channel Slope: The channel slope, Sl, is calculated as the slope of the creek bed between
points that are 10 percent and 85 percent of the distance from the design point on the
creek to the drainage area boundary. These values were determined based on the same
topographic map. (See Figure C-1.) The channel slope for Bridge 1926 is 54.2 feet per
mile.

Precipitation Intensity: The precipitation intensity, I, is the maximum amount of

precipitation likely to occur in a 24-hour period having a recurrence interval of two years.

C-1
This value is determined to be 3.2 inches per hour from Figure 4 in the manual by
Glatfelter (1984).

Design Region: It was first determined that Bridge 1926 is located in region 3 according
to the manual (Glatfelter, 1984). Peak flow (Q100) for this region is given by:
Q100 = 181* DA0.779 * Sl0.466 * (I - 2.5)0.831
where: Q100 = peak flow during the 100-year flood event (cfs)
DA = drainage area (square miles)
Sl = channel slope (ft/mi)
I = precipitation intensity (in/hr)
Calculation:
Q100 = 181* DA0.779 * Sl0.466 * (I - 2.5)0.831
DA = 1.1 mi2 Sl = 54.2 ft/mi I = 3.2 in/hr
Q100 = 181 * (1.1)0.779 * (54.2)0.466 * (3.2-2.5)0.831
Q100 = 932 cfs
The peak flow is 932 cubic feet per second (cfs).

85% point

10% point

Sulphur Creek Drainage Area

Location of Bridge 1926

Figure C-1: Delineated Drainage Area of Sulphur Creek (DeLORME, 1999)

C-2
Conclusion
Having completed the hydrologic study of Sulphur Creek, the peak flow during the 100-
year flood event has been determined to be 932 cfs (cubic feet per second) at the location
of Bridge 1926. This value will be used elsewhere in the design process, in particular the
hydraulic analysis to size the bridge opening and superstructure design, to determine
lowest elevation of the bridge beams.

C-3
Appendix D – Hydraulic Analysis

Hydraulic Analysis
The height of the peak floodwaters is used to determine the minimum elevation for the
bottom face of the beams for Bridge 1926. A hydraulic modeling program, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS), version 3.1.1, was used to complete the hydraulic analysis. HEC-RAS is
widely used and accepted for determining flood elevations in the United States. It is able
to model one-dimensional steady and unsteady flow analyses for creeks and streams.

Data Input into HEC-RAS

Certain data was required to compute peak flood levels using HEC-RAS. First,
geometric data (stream cross-sections), obtained while collecting data for topographic
maps of the site, were required to create a representation of the creek channel. (See
Appendix A.) Topographic quadrangle maps, referenced from DeLORME topographic
mapping software data (1999), were utilized to expand upon the limited information the
survey data contained. The information from the topographic survey and topographic
quadrangle mapping software was combined to create cross sections of the creek channel
and floodplain at the following locations:
o One bridge length (a bridge length is the distance the bridge spans from
bank to bank, in this particular case, 80 feet) upstream from the bridge.
o Just upstream from the bridge.
o Just downstream from the bridge.
o Four bridge lengths downstream from Bridge 1926.
o Six bridge lengths downstream from Bridge 1926.
o Eight bridge lengths downstream from Bridge 1926.
The locations of the six cross sections are shown on a topographic quadrangle map, taken
from DeLORME software data (1999). (See Figure D-1.)

D-1
 Cross Section #1

Cross Section #2
Cross Section #3

Bridge 1926
Bridge 1926

Cross Section #4

Cross Section #5

Scale

Cross Section #6 0 ft 250 ft

Figure D-1: Stream Cross-Section Locations

Also included with the geometric data were the coefficients of friction for the channels
and overbanks and the location of the left and right banks of Sulphur Creek. Finally,
geometry of the bridge deck and substructure abutments was entered to complete the
geometric model in HEC-RAS.

Entering steady flow data was the next step in completing the hydraulic analysis using
HEC-RAS. This included entering the slope for the creek, which was determined by
computing the slope between cross sections three and six. Also, the 100-year peak flow
was entered, as determined by hydrologic analysis utilizing the “Techniques for
Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Steams in Indiana” manual
(Glatfelter, 1984). (See Appendix C.)

Calculating Peak Flow Levels with HEC-RAS

Peak flow elevations for Sulphur Creek were determined by the HEC-RAS program. To
determine the boundary condition at the downstream study limits, Manning’s Equation
was used. The boundary condition was then used to balance energy between adjacent
cross-sections.

D-2
 (V 1)2 (V 2)2
+ Z1+ h1 + Z2+ h2+ hL
2g 2g

The energy equation balances the sum of the kinetic head, streambed elevation, and
stream depth of the upstream section with the sum of the kinetic head, streambed
elevation, stream depth, and head loss of the downstream section (Houghtalen, 1996).
The river analysis system software used variables defined by geometric and steady flow
data to complete the energy balance and create a water surface profile (flood elevations)
of the stream reach.

HEC-RAS Results
The primary result of the HEC-RAS analysis is the water surface profile of Sulphur
Creek. The result of the computations is shown in the profile plot. (See Figure D-2.)

Top of Pavement

Bottom Face of Bridge

Beams

Figure D-2: HEC-RAS Analysis Results - Profile

D-3
 Table D-1: Profile Output Table

Min.
W.S. Crit. E.G. E.G. Vel. Flow Top Froude
Q Total Ch.
El. W.S. El. Slope Ch. Area Width #
El.
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (fps) (sq. ft) (ft)
1 931.6 81.89 86.15 86.15 87.84 0.009925 10.46 90.87 30.64 0.98
2 931.6 81.00 85.62 84.12 86.00 0.001931 4.93 189.79 56.03 0.46
2.5 Bridge
3 931.6 81.00 85.47 - 85.87 0.002058 5.04 185.53 55.74 0.48
4 931.6 79.05 83.53 83.40 84.86 0.009279 9.27 100.81 34.49 0.94
5 931.6 77.97 82.41 82.29 83.75 0.009262 9.26 100.97 34.79 0.94
6 931.6 76.89 81.34 81.18 82.64 0.009003 9.17 102.06 35.20 0.93

The data can also be viewed in HEC-RAS in the form of a profile output table, which
gives numerical values to the water surface profile plot. (See Table D-1.) The bottom
face of the beams for Bridge 1926 is over five feet above the 100-year peak flood level,
as can be viewed in Figure D-2. The bottom of the existing bridge beams is at an
elevation of 90.95 feet on the west end of the bridge and 89.84 feet on the east end of the
bridge. The 100-year peak floodwater elevation, as determined by hydraulic analysis, is
85.62 feet at the upstream side of the bridge. Therefore, the replacement bridge must be
designed with the bottom of the bridge beams at an elevation of at least 85.62 feet
(preferable 86.0 feet) provided no additional encroachment (approach fill) projects into
the floodplain by the new bridge.

D-4
Appendix E – Codes and Regulations

Project Description
Crane NSWC has specified that STJ Engineering must comply with the Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT) standards in designing Bridge 1926. INDOT
prescribes the use of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards so these will be followed in the design of Bridge 1926.
The text that follows is a brief overview of the codes relevant to the design and
construction of Bridge 1926.

E.1 General Design and Location Features

Section 2 of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) (1994) manual includes many of
the initial processes that must be completed before the bridge design can commence.
This includes the overall layout of the bridge and the route leading to it. The
specifications for a foundation investigation along with design objectives are also
included. Design objectives include such items as serviceability, constructability, and
economic feasibility. Specifications for the hydrology and hydraulics of the site are also
provided in this section.

E.2 Load and Load Factors

Section 3 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies how loadings shall be determined for
the design of a bridge. It includes loadings related to permanent loads, live loads, water
loads, wind loads, ice loads, earthquake effects, earth pressures, superimposed
deformations, friction forces, and vessel collisions. Due to the fact that Bridge 1926 will
be above the 100-year flood, and the location of the bridge is below the 2000-foot
elevation and east of longitude 105°W, ice and water loads will not be considered. Wind
loads on the structure will be considered although earthquake loads will most likely
govern. Dead loads will be incurred due to the deck and superstructure components. HS-
20 loading, specified in the AASHTO LRFD, will be used for the live loads. Earthquake

E-1
effects will be determined using acceleration equal to 0.075 times gravity. Earth
pressures and superimposed deformations will also have to be considered.

E.3 Structural Analysis and Evaluation

In order to determine the performance capabilities of Bridge 1926, STJ Engineering will
perform a thorough structural analysis by mathematically modeling the bridge. STJ
Engineering will focus on a static analysis of the bridge, although dynamic loads will also
be considered in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 1994,
Section 4.

E.4 Super Structure

E.4.1 Concrete
Section 5 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies the design and installation of concrete
in a bridge. This section specifies material properties of the concrete. This includes
properties of the concrete mix as well as reinforcing, prestressing, and post tensioning
steel reinforcement and ducts that are used in the design and construction of the bridge.
In addition to specifying properties of the steel reinforcement, this section also includes
design and construction methods for reinforcing bars by incorporating design
requirements for flexural, axial, and shear forces including torsion effects. This section
of the code also specifies measures to be taken in order to ensure the durability of the
bridge.

E.4.2 Steel
Section 6 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) discusses regulations concerning the use of steel
in the design and construction of a bridge. It specifies acceptable properties of steel to be
used in beams, bolts, welds, and cables. Even though this section covers many different
aspects of the use of steel in a bridge, STJ Engineering will focus on the key aspects.
These include flexure, composite action, fatigue and fracture considerations, general
dimensions, tension and compression members, and provisions for structure types.

E-2
E.5 Decks and Deck Systems
Section 9 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) provides provisions and guidance for design and
construction of bridge decks and deck systems. Specifically, this section covers general
design requirements for deck systems including concrete slabs, metal, and wood decks.
The concrete deck section covers the design of the deck, stay in place formwork, precast
deck sections, and segmental deck slab construction. The metal deck section specifies
design and construction of metal grid, orthotropic steel, and corrugated metal decks.

E.6 Foundations
Section 10 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) provides provisions for the design and
installation of foundations. This section includes the determination of soil properties
which covers both laboratory and in-situ tests. It also provides specifications for spread
footings, driven piles, and drilled shafts. For all three of these methods, the manual
specifies general considerations, movement and bearing pressure at the service limit state,
resistance at the strength limit state, and structural design.

E.7 Abutments, Piers and Walls

Section 11 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies the design and installation
requirements for abutments, piers, and retaining walls. This section specifies the soil
properties that must be present for various types of abutment, pier and wall
configurations. Specifically for abutments and retaining walls, Section 11 specifies
general considerations, movement at the service limit state, bearing resistance, stability at
the strength limit state, and safety against structural failure. The provisions for retaining
walls include anchored, mechanically stabilized earth, and prefabricated modular walls.
For all three types of walls, the code specifies loading and safety against soil and
structural failures.

E.8 Buried Structures and Tunnel Liners

Section 12 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) covers buried structures and tunnel liners.
This section covers soil and material properties along with general design features for
buried structures and tunnel liners. Specifically, this section covers metal and reinforced

E-3
concrete pipes, long-span structural plate and box structures, box culverts, and arches.
Most pertinent to our design will be the specifications on concrete box culverts including
cast-in-place and precast structures. This section specifies loads, service limit state, and
safety against structural failure for concrete box culverts and arches.

E.9 Railings
Section 13 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) discusses traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, and
combination railings, along with curbs and sidewalks. Barriers will have to be placed on
Bridge 1926 along with transition railings. The railings will be designed based on a
Performance Level 1 classification.

E.10 Joints and Bearings

Section 14 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) covers joints and bearings for a bridge.
Specifications for bridge joints include selection, design, fabrication, installation, and
general provisions. Bearings covered in this section include sliding surfaces, curved
sliding surfaces, pot bearings, steel reinforced elastomeric pads, elastomeric pads, bronze
or copper alloy sliding surfaces, and disc bearings. Section 14 also specifies load plates
and anchorage for bearings.

E.11 Traffic Regulations

Traffic maintenance will conform to the 2000 edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) (Federal Highway Administration). Minimum signage
requirements will comply with Section 2. Required advance warning distances, sign
spacing, detour requirements, as well as barricade types are governed by Section 6. Upon
completion of construction of the bridge, roadway and barricade markings as well as
delineators must conform to Section 3.

E-4
Appendix F – Design Options

Crossing Options
STJ Engineering has researched a variety of options in our search for the optimal bridge
system to replace Bridge 1926 across Sulphur Creek. STJ Engineering has considered
two separate options for a single span crossing, four separate options for a two span
crossing, and a preengineered three span crossing. STJ Engineering has also presented
information on two different decking and two different foundation options. The
following is a summary of the most appropriate options.

Superstructure
Prestressed Concrete Beams - Single Span
One option for crossing Sulphur Creek is the use of prestressed concrete beams. In using
prestressed concrete beams it is possible to utilize a single span configuration. This
option eliminates the need for piers which exist for the current bridge and partially
restrict the flow of water under the bridge. A total of five prestressed, 80-foot beams are
needed to provide the desired 30-foot width for the bridge. The beams will each need to
be 33 inches deep and spaced at eight feet two inches (Waier, 2003).

After contacting Michael Johnson at the Illinois Concrete Company, we have determined
that the cost for five, 80-foot beams is $31,625. The estimated cost of placement for the
beams is approximately $4000. The estimated time of construction is one half to one
month, with at least one month added for the beams to be fabricated. The precast beams
have a high durability, so it is expected that maintenance for the beams to be minimal
with a lifespan estimated at 100 years.

Steel Beams – Single Span

A crossing made with steel girders provides a cost effective and easy to assemble method
of replacing Bridge 1926. Steel beams are much lighter than concrete beams which allow
them to be supported with smaller foundations. After a preliminary analysis, it has been

F-1
determined that five W24 X 84 steel beams will be sufficient to span 80 feet while
carrying the design load.

From the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data Manual (Waier, 2003), the
projected price of the steel is $23,600. The estimated cost for labor and equipment for
the installation of the beams is $3,000 with the estimated time of construction at one half
to one month. The maintenance for a steel bridge is greater than that of concrete bridge
and the life span is shorter, but its light weight and ease of construction make it an
attractive option.

Prestressed Concrete Beams – Two Spans

Another option to span Sulphur Creek is through the use of prestressed girders in a two
span configuration. Since the geometry of the creek channel under the bridge is roughly
symmetric, the pier can be placed in the center of the bridge. Therefore the two spans
will be equal in length. After completing a preliminary analysis, it has been determined
that in order to span the two 40-foot long sections, ten 27-inch deep prestressed beams
are required.

After contacting Michael Johnson at the Illinois Concrete Company, we have determined
that the cost for ten, 40 foot long beams is $25,600. After adding in the cost of a pier in
the center of the creek the total cost of materials comes to $36,500. The projected cost of
labor and equipment for placement of the beams is $5000. The estimated time of
construction is one to 1.5 months, with at least one month added for the beams to be
fabricated. The precast beams have a high durability, so it is expected that the
maintenance for the beams is minimal, and the lifespan is estimated at 100 years.

Cast-in-Place Concrete Beams – Two Spans

Another option to span Sulphur Creek is to use cast-in-place concrete girders in a two
span configuration. As in the previous option, the pier can be placed in the center of the
bridge, making the two spans equal. After completing a preliminary analysis it has been

F-2
determined that in order to span the two 40-foot long sections, ten 60-inch deep by 24-
inch wide beams are required.

From the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data Manual (Waier, 2003), the
projected price for cast-in-place concrete beams is $31,000. After adding in the cost of a
pier in the center of the creek the total cost of materials comes to $41,500. The projected
cost of labor and equipment for placement of the beams is $56,000. This brings the total
cost for labor and materials for the beams and the center pier to $97,500. The estimated
time of construction is four to five months, with at least one month added for the beams
to cure. The estimated lifespan of cast-in-place concrete beams is 65 years. The cost and
short lifespan of cast-in-place beams make them a less attractive option.

Steel Beams – Two Spans

By using steel girders in a two span configuration, the member size and thus the cost of
the steel girders can be greatly decreased compared to a single span configuration. As in
the previous two options the geometry of the creek channel is roughly symmetric so the
pier can be placed in the center of the bridge, making the two spans equal. After a
preliminary analysis, it has been determined that ten W16 X 31 steel beams will be
sufficient in spanning the two 40-foot spans while carrying the design load.

From the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data Manual (Waier, 2003), the
projected price of materials is $8,600. After adding in the cost of a central pier, the total
estimated material cost is $19,100. The estimated cost for labor and equipment for the
placement of the beams is $4,000 with the estimated time of construction at one to 1.5
months. The maintenance for a steel bridge is greater than that of a concrete bridge and
the life span is shorter, but its light weight and low profile make it an attractive option.

Precast, Non-Prestressed Concrete Beams - Two Spans

An additional option for replacing Bridge 1926 is to utilize non-prestressed, precast
concrete beams with two spans of 40 feet each. As in the previous options the geometry
of the creek channel under the bridge is roughly symmetric so the pier can be placed in

F-3
the center of the bridge, making the two spans equal. A total of 10 precast concrete
beams are needed in order to span the two 40-foot distances. After a preliminary
analysis, and comparison to similar projects, ten forty-foot long 52-inch deep beams are
required.

From the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data (Waier, 2003), the projected price
for precast concrete beams is $23,000. After factoring in the added cost of a central pier
the cost totals $34,500. The projected cost of labor and equipment for placement of the
beams is $5000. The estimated time of construction is one to 1.5 months, with at least
one month added for the beams to be fabricated. Because precast beams have a high
durability, maintenance for the beams is minimal.

Preengineered Bridge System

Another option is a preengineered bridge in which the entire bridge is prefabricated and
shipped to the site. One of the more common types of preengineered bridges is the
CONSPAN system. This system consists of an entirely prefabricated concrete bridge
system, including the deck, abutments, as well as the wing walls. In some cases the
foundation system can also be precast, eliminating almost entirely the need for on-site
construction. In order to span the creek, three separate structures placed side by side
would be required. This three span configuration would place two piers in the creek bed.

After gathering information from BridgeTek LLC, Indiana’s CONSPAN dealer, STJ
Engineering has been able to estimate the cost of the system at around $215,000. This is
assuming that the soil bearing pressures in the area are at least 3,000 pounds per square
foot. This estimate also includes anti-scour protection at the base of the bridge
abutments.

Deck
Cast-In-Place Deck
One option for the bridge deck is a cast-in-place concrete deck. The deck will be 30 feet
wide, 80 feet long, and 12 inches thick, with heavy reinforcement. The cost for materials

F-4
is projected to be $13,000 for a cast in place deck, with the cost of labor and equipment
for construction estimated to be $29,000. The estimated time of construction is one-half
to one month for the deck with an additional one month for curing. The concrete deck
will wear over time and will need to be repaired or possibly replaced during the life of the
bridge. The maintenance of a cast in place deck can be very high depending on the traffic
volume and loads it receives. INDOT bridge decks usually require an overlay and
possibly a complete deck rehabilitation within the first 20 years. STJ Engineering does
not anticipate Bridge 1926 to deteriorate at such a rapid pace because of the low volume
of traffic.

Precast Concrete Deck Panels

A second option for topping the bridge is through the use of precast concrete deck panels.
Precast concrete deck panels are fabricated offsite and then shipped to the site where they
are placed on the bridge’s superstructure. Precast deck panels provide a durable, easy to
construct option for Bridge 1926. The deck needs to be 30 feet wide, 80 feet long and 12
inches thick. From the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data Manual (Waier,
2003), the cost of materials is estimated to be $15,000. With labor and equipment the
cost of a precast deck is estimated at $16,000. The estimated time of construction is two
to three weeks. A precast concrete deck requires very little maintenance and in the event
the deck needs to be replaced it can be done easily with minimal effect on the
superstructure.

Foundation
Shallow Foundation
STJ Engineering has also completed a preliminary shallow foundation design for Bridge
1926. Shallow foundations consist of excavating earth, then replacing it with a sufficient
amount of reinforced concrete to spread the loads from the deck into the soil. The
shallow foundation construction may become a very time consuming construction
process on a job of this magnitude, and will certainly be expensive. STJ Engineering
predicts that shallow foundations will only be considered for multiple span options,

F-5
because single span options will probably exceed the bearing pressure that a shallow
foundation can provide.

STJ Engineering expects the shallow foundations and the pier to require 147 cubic yards
of concrete for the project. Using the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data
(Waier, 2003), STJ Engineering has calculated the materials cost of shallow foundations
to be $27,425. The additional cost of labor and equipment places the total cost at
$34,300. Maintenance for the shallow foundations could become an issue if scour from
the flowing water is allowed to occur. There are many techniques available to prevent
scour including protecting the foundation with rip rap. The lifespan of the shallow
foundation should exceed that of the bridge.

Deep Foundations
If a single span option is chosen in order to span Sulphur Creek it will most likely require
deep foundations in order to support the added loads at the abutments. Deep foundations
have the added advantage of being resistant to scour. Deep foundations consist of
abutments sitting on piles hammered into the ground. The cost of deep foundations is a
drawback, but their ability to support higher loads can offset that cost. It is estimated that
materials for deep foundations will cost $10,000, with the total cost including labor to be
$37,000.

F-6
Appendix G – Assessment of Design Options

This portion of the report ties together the findings from Appendix F to help form final
recommendations for the bridge superstructure and deck for Bridge 1926. STJ
Engineering has created a decision matrix based on four criteria which are weighted on
the understanding of NSWC Crane’s desires. These criteria and their respective
weightings are initial cost (35%), lifespan (35%), maintenance (20%), and
constructability (10%).

Bridge Superstructure
STJ Engineering reviewed the use of seven separate superstructure systems to be used in
the construction of Bridge 1926. The seven different superstructures are ranked based on
their performance in the four criteria STJ Engineering has chosen. From those rankings a
final recommendation has been chosen.

Initial Cost
STJ Engineering weighted project cost for the beams and central pier at 35 percent. Cost
is always a major aspect of any construction project, and this one is no different. This is
why cost received the highest weighting, along with maintenance. Table G-1 identifies
the rating system for the project cost.

Table G-1: Cost Analysis Ratings

Points Initial Cost
1 > $60,000
2 $50,000-60,000
3 $40,000-50,000
4 $30,000-40,000
5 <$30,000

G-1
 Lifespan
STJ Engineering decided to weight lifespan at 35 percent in the decision matrix.
Lifespan is considered the point at which the structure becomes unable to carry its entire
rated load. After examining the findings from Appendix F, STJ Engineering rated
lifespan according to the criteria displayed in Table G-2.

Table G-2: Lifespan Analysis Ratings

Points Lifespan
1 < 30 years
2 30-50 years
3 50-70 years
4 70-90 years
5 > 90 years

Maintenance
Performing routine maintenance on a structure can be very significant when completing a
life cycle analysis. Because of this and the desire of NSWC Crane that the maintenance
on a replacement structure be very low, STJ Engineering decided to weight maintenance
at 20 percent. Ratings for maintenance were done according to the percentage of the
structure that has deteriorated after 50 years. This is not the same as percent of lifespan
used at 50 years. Table G-3 displays the maintenance rating criteria.

Table G-3: Maintenance Analysis Ratings

Points Maintenance (% deteriorated after 50 years)
1 70-100%
2 50-70%
3 30-50%
4 20-30%
5 < 20%

G-2
 Constructability
Constructability was also based on the findings from Appendix F. Constructability is an
important part of this project, but because traffic flow is low and alternate routes can be
taken by those normally using the bridge, it received the lowest weighting at 10 percent.
Table G-4 specifies the criteria for constructability rankings.

Table G-4: Constructability Analysis Ratings

Points Constructability
1 > 12 weeks
2 8-12 weeks
3 4-8 weeks
4 2-4 weeks
5 < 2 weeks

G-3
 Decision Matrix
After examining the findings from Appendix F and combining this with the relative
weightings of the criteria, STJ Engineering formulated the decision matrix displayed in
Table G-5. Based on the results, STJ Engineering recommends the 80-foot span bridge
with prestressed concrete beams to replace Bridge 1926 because it has the highest
average rating.

Table G-5: Decision Matrix

Initial Cost Lifespan Maintenance Constructability
(35%) (35%) (20%) (10%) Total

80 Foot Span
Prestressed Concrete Beams 4 5 5 4 4.55
Steel Beams 5 3 3 4 3.80

40 Foot Span
Prestressed Concrete Beams 2 4 5 3 3.40
Cast-in-Place Concrete Beams 1 4 5 1 2.85
Steel Beams 4 3 3 3 3.35
Precast Concrete Beams 3 4 5 3 3.75

Multiple Span
Prefabricated Multiple Span 1 4 4 5 3.05

G-4
Bridge Deck
STJ Engineering reviewed the use of two separate decking systems to be used in the
construction of Bridge 1926. These two decking systems are a cast-in-place concrete
deck and a precast concrete deck. The two different decking systems are ranked based on
their performance in the four criteria STJ Engineering has chosen. From those rankings a
final recommendation has been chosen.

Initial Cost
STJ Engineering has weighted the cost of the decking at 35 percent. Like the
superstructure, cost is an important factor in determining a decking system and thus
received the highest weighting along with maintenance. The ratings for cost of each deck
were determined in accordance with Appendix F. Table G-6 displays the rating system
for the project cost.

Table G-6: Cost Analysis Ratings

Points Initial Cost
1 >$30,000
2 $25,000-30,000
3 $20,000-25,000
4 $15,000-20,000
5 <$15,000

G-5
 Lifespan
After consideration of NSWC Crane’s desires, STJ Engineering decided to weight
lifespan at 35 percent in the decision matrix. Lifespan is considered the point at which
the structure becomes unable to carry its entire rated load. STJ Engineering rated
lifespan according to the criteria displayed in Table G-7.

Table G-7: Lifespan Analysis Ratings

Points Lifespan
1 < 30 years
2 30-50 years
3 50-70 years
4 70-90 years
5 > 90 years

Maintenance
Performing routine maintenance on a structure can be very significant when completing a
life cycle analysis. Because of this and the desire of NSWC Crane that the maintenance
requirement on a replacement structure be very low, STJ Engineering decided to weight
maintenance at 20 percent. Ratings for maintenance were done according to the
percentage of the deck that has deteriorated after 50 years. This is not the same as
percent of lifespan used at 50 years. Table G-8 displays the maintenance rating criteria.

Table G-8: Maintenance Analysis Ratings

Points Maintenance (% deteriorated after 50 years)
1 70-100%
2 50-70%
3 30-50%
4 20-30%
5 < 20%

G-6
 Constructability
Constructability was also based on the findings from Appendix F. Constructability is an
important part of this project. However, traffic flow is low and alternate routes can be
taken, so it received the lowest weighting at 10 percent. Table G-9 specifies the criteria
for constructability rankings.

Table G-9: Constructability Analysis Ratings

Points Constructability
1 > 12 weeks
2 8-12 weeks
3 4-8 weeks
4 2-4 weeks
5 > 2 weeks

Decision Matrix
After examining the findings from Appendix F and combining this with the relative
weightings of the criteria, STJ Engineering recommends a precast concrete deck because
it has the highest average rating according to the decision matrix (Table G-10).

Table G-10: Lifespan Analysis Ratings

Initial Cost Lifespan Maintenance Constructability
Bridge Deck (35%) (35%) (20%) (10%) Total
Cast-in-Place Concrete Deck 2 3 4 3 2.85
Pre-Cast Concrete Deck 4 4 5 5 4.30

G-7
Appendix H – Loading

When designing a bridge, the first step is to determine the loads that act on the structure.
Section 3 of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) LFRD Bridge Design Specifications (1994) specifies the minimum
requirements for loads, the limits of their application, and the load factors and
combinations which are used for the design of a new bridge. To determine the design
internal forces for Bridge 1926, STJ Engineering has divided the loads into two sections:
those acting on the bridge deck and those acting on the bridge girders.

H.1 Loads Applied to Both the Bridge Deck and Beams

Vehicular Dynamic Load Allowance (IM)
The vehicular dynamic load allowance is applied to the static wheel load to account for
wheel load impact from moving vehicles and must be determined following Section 3.6.2
of the AASHTO LRFD (1994). The point loads of the live load are the only loads
multiplied by the dynamic load allowance. According to the AASHTO LRFD (1994) this
value is 33% because “field tests indicate that in the majority of highway bridges, the
dynamic component of the response does not exceed 25% of the static response to
vehicles. However, the specified live load combination of the design truck and lane load
represents a group of exclusion vehicles which are at least 4/3 of those caused by the
design truck alone on short-and-medium-span bridges. The specified value of 33% is the
product of 4/3 and the basic 25%.”
Calculations:
33
IM := 1 +
100
IM = 1.33

Vehicular Braking Force (BR)

Section 3.6.4 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) describes the vehicular braking force as
“25% of the axle weights of the design truck or tandem per lane placed in all design lanes
which are considered to be loaded in accordance with Article 3.6.1.1.1 and which are

H-1
carrying traffic headed in the same direction.” Therefore, the vehicular braking force
does not apply to the bridge deck because the traffic runs perpendicular to the deck. The
vehicular braking force also does not apply to the beams because they are resisted by the
connections of the beams to the abutment.

Earthquake Loads (EQ)

Section 3.10.1 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the earthquake loads “shall be
taken as the horizontal force effects.” Thus, an earthquake does not have an effect on a
bridge deck because they act in the axis of the deck. Interestingly, earthquake effects are
not considered for the beams of single span bridges; however, they are included in the
design of the connections of the beams to the abutment.

Ice and Snow Loads (IC)

Section 3.9 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) explains how ice and snow loads affect the
design of a new bridge. Section 3.9.6 declares that “snow loads, other than those caused
by an avalanche, need not be considered.” Ice loads from freezing water in the creek also
do not need to be considered because there are not any piers in the creek bed. Thus,
neither snow nor ice loads are applied to the bridge deck or the beams.

H.2 Loads Applied Only to the Bridge Deck

Dead Load (DC)
The only permanent load, dead load, acting on the bridge deck is the weight of the
structural components and structural attachments. The dead load is a combination of a
distributed load due to the slab and two point loads due to the concrete barrier walls.
Calculations:
Slab:
lbf
SlabThickness := 8in StripWidth := 1ft ConcreteUnitWeight := 150
3
ωDC := SlabThickness ⋅ StripWidth ⋅ ConcreteUnitWeight ft

lbf
ωDC = 100
ft

H-2
 Barrier Wall:
2
CrossectionalArea := 371.1in
Pbw := CrossectionalArea ⋅ StripWidth ⋅ ConcreteUnitWeight
Pbw = 387lbf

Wind on Live Load (WL)

Section 3.8.1.3 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that “when vehicles are present, the
design wind pressure shall be applied to both structure and vehicles. Wind pressure on
vehicles shall be represented by an interruptible, moving force of 0.10 kips per linear foot
(KLF) acting normal to, and 6.0 feet above, the roadway and shall be transmitted to the
structure.” Thus, there is an increase in the vertical point loads for the wheels on the
opposite side from where the wind hits the design truck.
Calculations:
lbf
WLforce := 100 MaxTruckLength := 30ft
ft
WL := WLforce⋅ MaxTruckLength

WL = 3 kips

Wind Load on Structure (WS)

Section 3.8.2 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the vertical wind pressure “shall
be applied only for limit states which do not involve wind on live load.” Thus, the wind
load is not considered on the bridge deck structure because its contributions are already
added to the live load.

Vehicular Live Load (LL)

Section 3.6.1.3.1 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the “extreme force effect shall
be taken as the effect of one design truck combined with the effect of the design lane
load.” The design lane load is 640 pounds per linear foot and can act on the entire 30-
foot width of the bridge or any 10-foot segment. The design truck produces two 16.0-kip
point forces spaced six feet apart. The point force is then multiplied by the vehicular
dynamic load allowance of 1.33 to produce point forces of 21.3 kips. These must be two
feet from the edge of the design lane or one foot from the face of the barrier wall. Figure

H-3
H-1 shows a cross-section of the bridge deck. The letters on the figure represent
locations on the deck, either above a support or at the midspan of two supports. Figure
H-2 shows the different live loading scenarios that produce the largest moments and
shears across the deck. Table H-1 is a summary of the different internal forces at points
along the cross-section of the bridge deck. These total factored internal forces are
determined by using the load combinations and factors shown in Table H-2. A maximum
factored moment of 82,000 lb*ft and a shear of 40,000 lbs were used in the design of the
bridge deck. (See Appendix I.)

Figure H-1: Bridge 1926 Cross-Section

Figure H-2: Live Loading Options

H-4
 Table H-1: Summary of Internal Forces on Bridge Deck
Unfactored Internal Unfactored Internal Unfactored Internal
Forces Due to Dead Loading Forces Due to Live Forces Due to Total Factored
Load (DC) Option Load (LL) Wind Load (WL) Internal Forces
Pos M @ A (ft-lbs) 0 l 0 0 0
Neg M @ A (ft-lbs) -2498 k -42850 -6000 -81810
V (rt) @ A (lbs) 770.9 e 16080 2433 30482
V (lt) @ A (lbs) -836.6 k -21470 -3000 -40448
R @ A (lbs) 1607 b 35990 4331 68070
Pos M @ B (ft-lbs) 327.9 n 1881 381 3877
Neg M @ B (ft-lbs) 0 h -22690 -1890 -41589
V (rt) @ B (lbs) 143 f 19860 2541 36589
V (lt) @ B (lbs) 170.9 i -19930 -2718 -36369
R @ B (lbs) -27.87 h 28200 2265 51662
Pos M @ C (ft-lbs) 0 d 1635 113.1 2997
Neg M @ C (ft-lbs) -613.9 l -20760 -1446 -38855
V (lt) @ C (lbs) -457 m -19420 -2608 -36193
R @ C (lbs) 913.9 l 26270 1821 49347
Pos M @ D (ft-lbs) 0 g 21890 3786 40122
Neg M @ D (ft-lbs) -634.8 a -4963 -1802 -9928
Pos M @ E (ft-lbs) 307 j 18660 3237 34604
Neg M @ E (ft-lbs) 0 c -3945 -276.8 -7231
Note: Pos M @ A = Positive moment at A
Neg M @ A = Negative moment at A
V (rt) @ A = Shear at A from the right
V (lt) @ A = Shear at A from left
R @ A = Reaction in the y-direction at A

Table H-2: Load Combinations and Factors

Load Factors
DC LL WL
Limit State Max Min
Strength-I 1.25 0.90 1.75 0
Strength-II 1.25 0.90 1.35 0
Strength-III 1.25 0.90 0 0
Strength-IV 1.25 0.90 0 0
Strength-V 1.25 0.90 1.35 0.40
Extreme Event-I 1.25 0.90 0 0
Extreme Event-II 1.25 0.90 0.50 0
Service-I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30
Service-II 1.00 1.00 1.30 0
Service-III 1.00 1.00 0.80 0
Fatigue 0 0 0.75 0

H-5
H.3 Loads Applied to the Beams
Dead Load (DC)
The only permanent load acting on the bridge beams is the dead load of the structural
components and structural attachments. The dead load is a combination of a distributed
load due to the slab along with the weight of beams and two point loads due to the
concrete barrier walls. The distributed load placed on each beam is calculated to be
1,183 lb/ft due to the dead loads. (See Calculation Sheet H-1 on page H-11.)

Vehicular Live Load (LL)

Section 3.6.1.3.1 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the “extreme force effect shall
be taken as the effect of one design truck combined with the effect of the design lane
load.” The design lane load is 640 pounds per linear foot and acts over the entire 80-foot
length of the bridge. The design truck produces a single 8.0-kip point force that
represents the front axle and two 32.0-kip point forces spaced between 14.0 and 30.0 feet
apart that represent the rear axles. (See Calculation Sheet H-2 on page H-12.)

Centrifugal Forces (CE)

Section 3.6.3 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the “centrifugal forces shall be
taken as the product of the axle weights of the design truck or tandem and the factor C”
which is a coefficient dependent on the highway design speed and the radius of curvature
of the traffic lane. Because Bridge 1926 is not on a curved section of roadway,
centrifugal forces do not apply.

Vehicular Collision Force (CT)

Section 3.6.5 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies loads associated with vehicular
collisions against the bridge piers. The vehicular collision forces do not need to be
considered because the bridge does not have any piers.

Water Loads (WA)

Section 3.7 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the static pressure of water “shall
be calculated as the product of the height of water above the point of consideration and

H-6
the specific weight of water.” After conducting a hydraulic analysis in Appendix D, STJ
Engineering determined that the 100-year flood does not reach the bottom elevation of
the bridge beams so water loads are not included in the loading.

Wind Load on Structure (WS & WV)

Section 3.8.1.2 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies that the horizontal wind
pressures for the bridge are assumed to be uniformly distributed on the area which is
exposed to the wind. The horizontal wind loads (WS) are not included in the beam
design but are taken into account for the beam to abutment connections. The vertical
wind load (WV) is 0.02 kips per square foot times the effective width of the slab for each
beam. (See Calculation Sheet H-3 on page H-14.)

Wind on Live Load (WL)

Section 3.8.1.3 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that “when vehicles are present, the
design wind pressure shall be applied to both structure and vehicles. Wind pressure on
vehicles shall be represented by an interruptible, moving force of 0.10 KLF acting normal
to, and 6.0 feet above, the roadway and shall be transmitted to the structure.” The
additional force applied to the outside wheels of vehicles due to wind is considered to be
negligible for the loads on the beams.

Final Loads
Table H-3 shows the different load combinations that are analyzed to determine the
maximum moment produced from the different load scenarios. The maximum factored
moment that each beam must carry in flexure is 3980 kip-ft. Table H-4 shows the
different load combinations that are analyzed to determine the maximum shear force.
The maximum factored shear force that each beam must carry is 205 kips. The maximum
moment and shear forces include a load modifier, “n,” which acts as a safety factor and
are used in the design of the bridge beams. (See Appendix J.)

H-7
 Table H-3: Factored Moments for Beam Design
Slab & Beam 1115.0 kip*ft
Wearing Surface 341.6 kip*ft
Live Load 1081.9 kip*ft
n 1.047
LL
DC DW IM Max (kip*ft) Max*n (kip*ft)
Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 3799.40 3979.40
Strength II 1.25 1.50 1.35 3366.66 3526.15
Strength III 1.25 1.50 0.00 1906.15 1996.45
Strength VI 1.25 1.50 0.00 1906.15 1996.45
Strength V 1.25 1.50 1.35 3366.66 3526.15
Extreme Event I 1.25 1.50 1906.15 1996.45
Extreme Event II 1.25 1.50 0.50 2447.08 2563.01
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 2538.46 2658.72
Service II 1.00 1.00 1.30 2863.02 2998.65
Service III 1.00 1.00 0.80 2322.09 2432.10
Fatigue 0.00 0.00 0.75 811.39 849.83
Max Moment = 3979 kip*ft

Table H-4: Factored Shear Forces for Beam Design

Slab & Beam 55.75 kips
Wearing Surface 17.08 kips
Live Load 57.65 kips
n 1.047

LL
DC DW IM Max (kips) Max*n (kips)
Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 196.20 205.50
Strength II 1.25 1.50 1.35 173.14 181.34
Strength III 1.25 1.50 0.00 95.31 99.82
Strength VI 1.25 1.50 0.00 95.31 99.82
Strength V 1.25 1.50 1.35 173.14 181.34
Extreme Event I 1.25 1.50 95.31 99.82
Extreme Event II 1.25 1.50 0.50 124.13 130.02
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 130.48 136.67
Service II 1.00 1.00 1.30 147.78 154.78
Service III 1.00 1.00 0.80 118.95 124.59
Fatigue 0.00 0.00 0.75 43.24 45.29
Max Shear = 205 kips

H-8
H.4 Lateral and Longitudinal Loads Applied to the Abutment
Braking Force (BR)
Section 3.6.4 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies the braking forces “as 25% of the
axle weights of the design truck or tandem per lane placed in all design lanes which are
considered to be loaded.” This results in a total force of 24 kips. (See Calculation Sheet
H-4 on page H-14.)

Water Loads (WA)

Section 3.7 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the static pressure of water “shall
be calculated as the product of the height of water above the point of consideration and
the specific weight of water.” After conducting a hydraulic analysis in Appendix D, STJ
Engineering determined that the 100-year flood does not reach the bottom elevation of
the bridge beams so water loads do not need to be resisted by the abutments.

Wind Loads (WS)

Section 3.8.1.2 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) specifies that the horizontal wind
pressures for the bridge are assumed to be uniformly distributed on the area which is
exposed to the wind. The horizontal wind pressure multiplied by the height of the beams,
barrier walls, the cross sectional area of the design truck and half of the length results in a
16 kip horizontal force. (See Calculation Sheet H-5 on page H-15.)

Ice Loads (IC)

Section 3.9 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) explains how the ice loads that act on a
bridge. Because the new bridge has no piers and the 100-year flood elevation does not
reach the bottom elevation of the beams, there are no ice loads that act on the abutments.

Earthquake Loads (EQ)

Section 3.10.1 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) states that the earthquake loads “shall be
taken as the horizontal force effects.” These lateral loads are resisted by the abutments.
This lateral load has a magnitude of 19 kips. (See Calculation Sheet H-6 on page H-16.)

H-9
The longitudinal forces that must be resisted by the abutments are summarized in Table
H-5 and Table H-6.

Table H-5: Maximum Factored Lateral Moment

Wind (WS) 240.0 kip*ft
Wind/Vehicle (WL) 80.0 kip*ft
Earthquake (EQ) 0.0 kip*ft
n 1.047

WS WL EQ Max (kip*ft) Max*n (kip*ft)

Strength I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strength II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strength III 1.40 0.00 0.00 336.00 351.92
Strength VI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strength V 0.40 0.40 0.00 128.00 134.06
Extreme Event I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Extreme Event II 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Service I 0.30 0.30 0.00 96.00 100.55
Service II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Service III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fatigue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max Lateral Moment = 352 kip*ft

Table H-6: Maximum Factored Lateral Shear

Wind (WS) 12.0 kips
Wind/Vehicle (WL) 4.0 kips
Earthquake (EQ) 18.8 kips
n 1.047

WS WL EQ Max (kips) Max*n (kips)

Strength I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strength II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strength III 1.40 0.00 0.00 16.80 17.60
Strength VI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strength V 0.40 0.40 0.00 6.40 6.70
Extreme Event I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Extreme Event II 0.00 0.00 1.00 18.80 19.69
Service I 0.30 0.30 0.00 4.80 5.03
Service II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Service III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fatigue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max Lateral Shear = 20 kips

H-10
 Calculation Sheet H-1
Dead Load for Beams
Section 3.5

lbf lbf Dead load from wearing

Wgtconcrete := 150 Unit weight of concrete DW := 427
3 ft surface
ft

BeamSpacing := 6.0ft On center spacing of the beams

2
A Beam := 559.5in L := 80ft SlabDepth := 8in kips := 1000lbf

Beam Weight Slab Weight

BeamDL:= Wgtconcrete ⋅ A Beam SlabDL := SlabDepth ⋅ BeamSpacing⋅ Wgtconcrete

lbf
lbf SlabDL = 600
BeamDL = 582.8 ft
ft

3 lbf
DC := ( BeamDL + SlabDL) DC = 1.183 × 10
ft

Moment caused by beams and slab

M BeamSlab :=
(DC⋅L2) M BeamSlab = 946.3kips⋅ ft
8

Moment caused by wearing surface

2
DW⋅ L
M WearSurface := M WearSurface = 341.6kips⋅ ft
8

Moment caused by beams, slab and superimposed dead load

3
M Total := M BeamSlab + M WearSurface M Total = 1.3 × 10 kips⋅ ft

Shear caused by slab

L
VBeamSlab := ⋅ ( BeamDL + SlabDL) VBeamSlab = 47.3kips
2

Shear caused by wearing surface

L
VWearSurface := DW⋅ VWearSurface = 17.1kips
2
Total shear caused by beams, slab and superimposed dead load

VTotal := VBeamSlab + VWearSurface VTotal = 64.4kips

H-11
 Calculation Sheet H-2
Live Load on Beams
Section 3.6

Design tandem combined with design lane load

Factors

mp := 1.00⋅ 0.95 Table 3.6.1.1.2-1

p := 0.85 Section 3.6.1.4.2

Moment and shear ratios Section 3.6.1.2.1

IM := 1.33 Dynamic Load Allowance. Section 3.6.2

CE := 0 Centrifugal forces. There is no radius of curvature. Section 3.6.3

L := 80ft Length of Bridge centerLD := 40ft Location of Midpoint

NumberLanes := 3 NumberBeams := 5

NumberLanes
factor := Percentage of lane load that each beam will carry
NumberBeams

kips
w := 0.64 ⋅ factor Weight from the distributed load that will placed on each beam
ft

TandemLoad := 12.5kips⋅ IM The tandem load consists of the live point loads increased by
33% to account for the dynamic load allowance.
Find Max Moment

( TandemLoad ) ⋅ ( centerLD − 2⋅ ft) + ( TandemLoad ) ⋅ ( centerLD + 2⋅ ft)

Reaction :=
L

Reaction = 16.6kips Shear reaction at each end of a beam

2
w⋅ L
M TL := + ( centerLD − 2⋅ ft) ⋅ Reaction + ( TandemLoad − Reaction ) ⋅ ( 4ft)
8

M TL = 939kips⋅ ft Moment at the center of the beam due to the tandem load

Find Max Shear

TandemLoad ⋅ 4ft w⋅ L
ShearTL := TandemLoad − + TandemLoad +
80ft 2

ShearTL = 47.8kips

H-12
Live Load: one design truck with lane load Section 3.6
Find the centroid of the loading

TireSpacing := 14ft Spacing between rear axles of design truck

SemiAxle:= 4kips⋅ IM Point load created by design truck cab

TrailerAxle:= 16kips⋅ IM Point load created by design truck trailer

centroid := 4ft Distance from center wheel to the center of gravity

Given
TrailerAxle⋅ centroid TrailerAxle⋅ ( TireSpacing − centroid ) − SemiAxle⋅ ( TireSpacing + centroid )
centroid := Find( centroid )
centroid = 4.7ft

Find Max Moment

centroid
CL :=
2

Shear reaction at each abutment

TrailerAxle⋅ ⎡⎢⎛⎜ + CL − TireSpacing ⎞ + ⎛ L + CL⎞⎤ SemiAxle⋅ ⎛ L + CL + TireSpacing ⎞

L
⎜ ⎥ ⎜
Reaction :=
⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠⎦ + ⎝2 ⎠
L L
Reaction = 22.5kips
Moment at the center of the beam due to the design truck and lane load
2
M NL := Reaction ⋅ ⎛⎜ − CL − TireSpacing ⎞ + ( Reaction − SemiAxle) ⋅ TireSpacing +
L w⋅ L
⎝2 ⎠ 8

3
M NL = 1.1 × 10 kips⋅ ft

Find Max Shear

⋅
TrailerAxleTireSpacing + SemiAxle2
⋅ ⋅ TireSpacing
ShearDueToTrailer := ( TrailerAxle + SemiAxle) −
L
w⋅ L
ShearNL := ShearDueToTrailer + TrailerAxle +
2
ShearNL = 57.7kips

(
Mmax := max M NL, M TL )
3 Maximum Moment and Shear are due to
Mmax = 1.1 × 10 kips⋅ ft the design truck with the lane loading
(
Shearmax := max ShearNL, ShearTL )
Shearmax = 57.7kips

H-13
 Calculation Sheet H-3
Vertical Wind Pressure on Beams
Section 3.8.2

kips
VertPress := 0.02
2
ft
kips
WV := BeamSpacing⋅ VertPress WV = 0.1
ft

L
VWindVertical := −WV⋅ VWindVertical = −4.8 kips This is an upward force
2

Calculation Sheet H-4

Braking Forces
Section 3.6.4

IM := 1.33 Dynamic Load factor

TandemLoad := 12.5kips⋅ IM Load created by two closely spaced semi axles

SemiAxle:= 4kips⋅ IM Load of one semi axle for the design truck

TrailerAxle:= 16kips⋅ IM Load of one trailer axle for the design truck

BRTL := TandemLoad ⋅ 4⋅ 0.25 BRNL := 0.25( TrailerAxle4

⋅ + SemiAxle2
⋅ )
OR
BRTL = 16.625kips BRNL = 23.94kips

(
BR := max BRTL, BRNL )
BR = 23.94kips Force applied to the connection due to
the design truck braking

H-14
 Calculation Sheet H-5
Wind Loads
Section 3.8

mi kips
VB := 100 Base wind velocity PBeam := 0.05 Wind pressure on beams
hr 2
ft
mi
VDZ := 100 Design wind velocity kips
hr PLFS := 0.04 Wind pressure on barrier
2 wall
ft
HBeam := 45in Height of beam HBarrier := 33in Height of barrier wall L := 80ft Length of bridge

Design wind pressure on beams

2
⎛ VDZ ⎞ kips
PDbeam := PBeam⋅ ⎜ PDbeam = 0.05
⎝ VB ⎠ ft
2

Design wind pressure on barrier wall

2
⎛ VDZ ⎞ kips
PDLFS := PLFS⋅ ⎜ PLFS = 0.04
⎝ VB ⎠ ft
2

Force applied to beams due to wind pressure

WS Beams := PDbeam⋅ HBeam kips

WS Beams = 0.188
ft
Force applied to barrier wall due to wind pressure

WS Barrier := PDLFS⋅ HBarrier kips

WS Barrier = 0.11
ft
Total force applied to entire bridge
kips
WS D := WS Beams + WS Barrier WS D = 0.297 but not less than
ft
kips
WS C := 0.3 as specified in Section 3.8.1.2
ft

(
WS := max WS D , WS C ) WS = 0.3
kips
ft
Total force applied to entire bridge

L Shear applied to connection due to

VWS := WS ⋅ VWS = 12kips wind load
2

Wind pressure on vehicles Section 3.8.1.3

kips
WL := 0.1 Force applied due to vehicle on bridge
ft
Shear applied to connection due to vehicle on bridge
L
VWL := WL⋅ VWL = 4 kips
2

H-15
 Calculation Sheet H-6
Earth Quake Loads
Section 3.10
lbf
Wgtconcrete := 150 lbf
3 Unit weight of concrete DW := 427 Dead load from wearing surface
ft ft

BeamSpacing := 6.0ft On center spacing of the beams SlabDepth := 8in Depth of slab

2
A Beam := 559.5in Cross sectional area of beam

Beam Weight Slab Load

BeamDL:= Wgtconcrete ⋅ A Beam

SlabDL := SlabDepth ⋅ BeamSpacing⋅ Wgtconcrete
lbf lbf
BeamDL = 582.813 SlabDL = 600
ft ft

Dead load of structural components and nonstructural components

DC := ( BeamDL + SlabDL) 3 lbf

DC = 1.183 × 10
ft

A := 0.09 Acceleration coefficient S := 1.0 Site Coefficient

Period of Vibration

Tm := 2.5⋅ A Tm = 0.225

Elastic seismic response coefficient

1.2⋅ A ⋅ S
Csm :=
2 Csm = 0.292
3
Tm
Lateral shear applied to connection due to earthquake load
L
VlateralEQ := Csm⋅ ⋅ ( DW + DC) VlateralEQ = 18.799kips
2

H-16
Appendix I – Deck Design

The concrete deck for Bridge 1926 is designed according to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (1994). Section 9 of the AASHTO LRFD (1994) contains the provisions
for the analysis and design of concrete bridge decks. In addition to this, Section 5 applies
to the design of concrete bridges constructed of normal density concrete and reinforced
with steel bars. Using these sections of the code, the design of the deck must be able to
overcome the maximum loading that can be applied to the bridge. (See Appendix H.)

The next part of the appendix shows all the calculations for the deck design. Calculation
Sheet I-1 (page I-2) gives the concrete properties, Calculation Sheet I-2 (page I-3) shows
the calculations for the flexure design of the deck, and Calculation Sheet I-3 (page I-5)
displays the shear design. These calculations reveal the final design which is a cast-in-
place concrete deck 80 feet long, 33 feet wide, and 8 inches thick. The primary
reinforcement is two layers of #8 epoxy-coated bars spaced every 2.5 inches running
perpendicular to traffic. The secondary reinforcement is two layers of #8 epoxy-coated
bars spaced every 3.5 inches running parallel to traffic. A drawing of these dimensions is
located on page I-7. An INDOT drawing of the barrier wall is located on page I-8.

I-1
 Calculation Sheet I-1
Concrete Properties

fc = Compressive strength of concrete at 28 days

fc := 4500psi ACI Table 4.2.2

Section 5.4.2.1 specifies that fc must be 4.0 ksi < fc < 10.0 ksi.

fy = Minimum yield strength of reinforcing bars

fy := 60ksi Section 5.4.3.1 specifies that fy must be 60.0 ksi < fy < 75.0 ksi.

Es = Modulus of Elasticity

Es := 29000ksi Section 5.4.3.2 specifies that Es = 29,000 ksi.

φ = Resistance factor
φ := 0.9 Section 5.5.4.2.1 specifies that φ = 0.90 for shear.

β1 = Ratio of the depth of the equivalent uniformly stressed compression zone assumed in
the strength limit state to the depth of the actual compression zone.
fc
β1 := 1.05 − 0.05⋅ β1 = 0.825 Section 5.7.2.2
1000psi

Cover = Cover for unprotected main reinforcing steel

Cover := 1.0in Table 5.12.3-1

Note: The steel is epoxy-coated steel.
h = Thickness of concrete deck

h := 8in Section 9.7.1.1 specifies that the minimum h is 7.0 in.

b = Width of the compression face of the member

b := 45in Table 4.6.2.1.3-1

I-2
 Calculation Sheet I-2
Flexure Design

Choose spacing of reinforcement.

spacing := 2.5in This is the spacing that is assumed and then checked.

Choose reinforcing bars

This design will use #8 bars as the primary reinforcing steel.

BarDiameter := 1.00in Bar diameter for a #8 bar.

Determine the number of bars for every 12 inches of the deck.

12in
NumberOfBars := NumberOfBars = 4.8
spacing

Determine the area of steel.

As = Area of steel

2 2
As := NumberOfBars⋅ 0.79in As = 3.79in
Determine d
d = Distance from top of slab to the center of the area of steel
BarDiameter
d := h − Cover − d = 6.5in
2
Rectangular Stress Distribution
a = Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
As ⋅ fy
a := a = 1.322in
0.85⋅ fc⋅ b

c = Distance from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis

a
c := c = 1.602in
β1
Determine φ for flexure
εs = Strain level in the steel reinforcement
0.003⋅ d −3
εs := − 0.003 εs = 9.17 × 10
c

εsy = Strain corresponding to the yield strength of steel reinforcement

fy −3
εsy := εsy = 2.07 × 10
Es

I-3
 x,y, and z are variables used to determine φ

x := εs − 0.005 φ1 := 0.90 Tension Controlled

y := εs − εsy φ2 := 0.65 Compression Controlled

( 0.9 − 0.65) ⋅ ( 0.005 − εs )

z := 0.9 − φ3 := z Compression Controlled
(0.005 − εsy )
−3 If x is positive, then φ = φ 1.
x = 4.2 × 10
If y is negative, then φ = φ 2. φ := φ1
−3 If x is negative and y is positive, then φ = φ 3.
y = 7.1 × 10

Determine φ Mn
Mn = nominal flexural resistance

φMn := φ⋅ ⎡⎢As ⋅ fy⋅ ⎛⎜ d −

a ⎞⎤
⎥ φMn = 99.6ft⋅ kip
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦

Check Mu < φ Mn
Mu = factored moment This moment is determined by taking the moment from
the distributed loads and multiplying it by 45/12 and
Mu := 92252ft⋅ lbf adding it to the moment due to the point load. This is
because b = 45in.

Mu = 92.3ft⋅ kip < φMn = 99.6ft⋅ kip Design Works

Therefore, #8 bars spaced every 2.5 inches will be the primary reinforcement perpendicular
to traffic.

Secondary Reinforcement
Reinforcement shall be place in the secondary direction in the bottom of slabs as a
percentage of the primary reinforcement for positive moment as follows:
For primary reinforcement perpendicular to traffic:
220
≤ 67% Section 9.7.3.2
S
S = Effective span length S := 6ft

Since 220/sqrt(S) = 89.8%, the controlling factor is 67%. Thus, the

reinforcement in the secondary direction = 2.5 in / 67% = 3.73 in. However,
the spacing will be 3.5 in for constructibility.

Therefore, #8 bars spaced every 3.5 inches will be the secondary reinforcement parallel to
traffic.

I-4
 Calculation Sheet I-3
Shear Design

Shear in slab from point load. Section 5.13.3.6

Tire Contact Area Section 3.6.1.2.5

Width = Width of the tire contact area

Width := 20.0in
Length = Length of the tire contact area
in
γ := 1.75 γ = Load factor (largest γ for live load from Table H-2)
lbf

IM := 33 IM = Dynamic load allowance % (See page H-2.)

P := 16kips P = 16.0 kip force for the design truck (See page H-3.)

Length := γ ⋅ ⎛⎜ 1 + ⎞ ⋅ 1000
IM
Length = 14.90in Equation 3.6.1.2.5-1
⎝ 100 ⎠ 2.5

βc = Ratio of long side to short side of tire contact area

Width
βc := βc = 1.343
Length

bo = Perimeter of the tire contact area

bo := 2⋅ Width + 2⋅ Length bo = 69.8in

Determine φ Vn
Vn = Nominal shear resistance Equation 5.13.3.6.3-1

⎡ kips⎤ ⎛ kips ⎞
φVn := ⎢φ⋅ ⎛⎜ 0.063 +
0.126 ⎞ fc fc
⋅ ⋅ bo ⋅ d ⋅ ⎥ ≤ ⎜ 0.126⋅ ⋅ bo ⋅ d ⋅
⎣ ⎝ ⎠
βc 1000⋅ psi 2 1000psi 2
in ⎦ ⎝ in ⎠

φVn = 121.3kips

Check Vu < φ Vn
Vu = Factored shear force

Vu := 40.4kips Vu from Table H-1.

Vu = 40.4kips < φVn = 121.3kips Design Works

I-5
Shear of overhang
Determine φ Vn
Vn = Nominal shear resistance

lbf fc
φVn := 2 ⋅ ⋅ b⋅ d φVn = 39.2kips ACI Eq. 11-3
2 psi
in

Check Vu < φ Vn

Vu = Maximum shear due to dead load and distributed live load

Vu := 1447lbf

Vu = 1.447kips < φVn = 39.2kips Design Works

Therefore, the deck is designed for both shearing off of the overhang and punching through of a tire

I-6
 33'

30'

2.0"

Notes:
8.0"

Details
4'-6.0" 6' 6' 6' 6' 4'-6.0"
Scale: 1" = 3'

Deck
Detail #1: Detail #2:

1926
Cross-Section of Slab Top View of 2'x2' Section of the Bridge

2'

BR
3.5" Gr. 60 #8 epoxy-coated

Checked By: Jake Gennicks

2'

Drawn By: Matthew Albert

2.5"
Traffic
6.5"

Date: Spring 2004

8.0"

STJ Engineering
3.5"

Note: All steel rebars are Gr. 60 #8 epoxy-coated

Scale: 1" = 6"

I-7
Scale: 1" = 1'
I-8
Appendix J – Beam Design

In order to complete the design of the prestressed concrete beams, it is necessary to

follow the 2002 ACI 318 Building Code and Commentary (2002) and the Design of
Prestressed Concrete (Nilson, 1987). In addition, the loads acting on the beams must be
determined, and the bridge deck must be designed. (See Appendix H and Appendix I.)

The design process for the beams begins by selecting a compressive strength of concrete.
Using this value, the allowable compressive and tensile stresses that can be tolerated in
the beam are determined. (See Calculation Sheet J-1 on page J-3.) Initially the beam is
designed using only the self-weight of the beam, excluding the weight of the bridge deck
and exterior loads. This ensures that the tensile forces placed in the prestressing strands
do not cause the stresses in the beam to exceed the allowable compressive and tensile
limits when it is removed from the casting bed. (See Calculation Sheet J-2 on page J-4.)

Next, a minimum value for section modulus is calculated using the moments found from
full loadings. (See Calculation Sheet J-3 on page J-4.) Using this minimum section
modulus, an American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) type beam can be selected. (See Calculation Sheet J-4 on page J-5.) After
the beam is chosen, it is checked again to ensure that the addition of the dead load from
the deck does not exceed the allowable stresses. (See Calculation Sheet J-5 on page J-6.)
After the deck cures, its strength is included with the beam which creates a composite
action. The composite beam/deck must be checked to ensure that the live loads do not
cause the stresses in the beam or deck to exceed the maximum allowable stresses. (See
Calculation Sheet J-6 on page J-7.)

Finally, the design moment capacity is calculated and checked against the factored
moments caused by the dead and live loads. (See Calculation Sheet J-7 on page J-9.)
After it is determined that the AASHTO type beam meets or exceeds all the
requirements, the beam design is complete.

J-1
The final design for the beams of Bridge 1926 is an AASHTO Type III bulb-tee beam.
The general dimensions of the beam without the slab are 45 inches deep with a top width
of 16 inches and a bottom width of 22 inches. (See Drawing J-1 for beam cross-section
drawings.) The initial tensile force provided by the prestressing strands is designed to be
890 kips. The prestressing strands are to be harped at the 1/3 points with a maximum
eccentricity of 16 inches in the middle one third of the beam. The supplier of the
prestressed beams will design the final placement and number of strands required for
prestressing. The weight of each beam is 582 pounds per linear foot. Five of these
beams are required to support the 33 feet wide deck and are spaced 6 feet center to center.
(See Drawing J-2 for plan and profile views of the bridge deck and placement of the
beams.) The pot bearings which connect the beams to the abutment will be designed by
the supplier. The pot bearings allow the bridge to expand and contract while resisting
gravity, longitudinal, and lateral loads. A drawing of the placement of the pot bearings
and the directions in which they resist movement can be found on Drawing J-3.

J-2
 Calculation Sheet J-1
Initial and final stresses in the prestressed beam
Strength of concrete used in beam

fcBeam := 8000

Percent of ultimate strength attained at time of transfer

PercentUltStrength := 0.80
Effectiveness ratio

R := 0.85
Area of concrete
2
Ac := 559.5in
Thickness of slab

tslab := 8in

Length of beams

L := 80ft
Space between beams

BeamSpacing := 6.0ft
Unit weight of concrete
lbf
UnitWgtConc := 150
3
ft
Location of hold down points
L
LocofM 0Prime := LocofM 0Prime = 26.67ft
3
Compressive strength of beam at transfer
3
fciPrime := PercentUltStrength ⋅ fcBeam fciPrime = 6.4 × 10
Allowable compressive stress immediately after transfer
lbf kip
fci := −0.60 ⋅f fci = −3.84
2 ciPrime 2
in in
Allowable tensile stress after transfer
lbf kip
fti := 3 ⋅ fciPrime fti = 0.24
2 2
in in
Allowable compressive stress at service load, after all losses
lbf kip
fcs := −0.45 ⋅ fcBeam fcs = −3.6
2 2
in in
Allowable tensile stress at service load, after all losses
lbf kip
fts := 6 ⋅ fcBeam fts = 0.54
2 2
in in

J-3
 Calculation Sheet J-2
Moments in prestressed beam due to self weight
Weight of beam per foot
lbf
SelfWgtBeam := Ac ⋅ UnitWgtConc SelfWgtBeam = 583
ft
Moment at center of beam due to self weight
2
SelfWgtBeam⋅ L
M 0 := M 0 = 466kip⋅ ft
8
Moment at hold down location due to self weight

M 0Prime := ⎛⎜
SelfWgtBeam⋅ L
− SelfWgtBeam⋅ LocofM0Prime⎞ ⋅ LocofM 0Prime ...
⎝ 2 ⎠
+ ⎛⎜ ⋅ SelfWgtBeam⋅ LocofM 0Prime ⎞
1 2
⎝2 ⎠
M 0Prime = 414kip⋅ ft

Dead load of slab

lbf
DLofSlab := BeamSpacing⋅ t slab ⋅ UnitWgtConc DLofSlab = 600
ft
Moment at center of beam due to slab weight
2
DLofSlab⋅ L
M d := M d = 480kip⋅ ft
8
Moment due to live load will be ignored for the initial guess
M l := 0kip⋅ ft Moment due to the live load

Calculation Sheet J-3

Minimum permissible section moduli

Find the minimum section moduli

Section modulus of the top of the beam
( )
( 1 − R) ⋅ M 0Prime + M 0 − M 0Prime + M d + M l 3 3
S1pi := S1pi = 1.87 × 10 in
R⋅ fti − fcs

Section modulus of the bottom of the beam

( )
( 1 − R) ⋅ M 0Prime + M 0 − M 0Prime + M d + M l 3 3
S2pi := S2pi = 1.88 × 10 in
fts − R⋅ fci

J-4
 Calculation Sheet J-4
Actual section moduli of AASHTO Type III beam

Choose a Type III Beam

Height of beam
h := 45in
Area of beam
2
Ac = 3.89ft
Moment of Inertia of the beam
4
Ig := 125390in
Distance from top of beam to the centroid
c1 := 24.73in

Distance from bottom of beam to the centroid

c2 := 20.27in
Square root of radius of gyration

Ig 2 2
r := r = 224.11in
Ac
Self-weight of beam
lbf
w0 := 583
ft
Bottom width of beam

b := 22in
Actual upper section moduli of a type III beam
Ig 3 3
S1p := S1p = 5.07 × 10 in
c1

Actual lower section moduli of a type III beam

Ig 3 3
S2p := S2p = 6.19 × 10 in
c2

J-5
 Calculation Sheet J-5
Actual stress in the prestressed beams due to self weight
Concrete centroidal stress under initial conditions
S1p
fcci := fti − ⋅ f −f
S1p + S2p ti ci
( ) fcci = −1.598 × 10
3 lbf
2
in
Initial prestressing force in tendons

(
Pi := Ac ⋅ −fcci ) Pi = 893.977kip
Prestressing force in tendons after relaxation
Pe := R⋅ Pi Pe = 759.88kip
Prestress eccentricity
⎛ S1p ⎞ ⎛ M0Prime⎞
(
e := fti − fcci ⋅ ⎜ ) + ⎜ e = 16in
⎝ Pi
⎠ ⎝ Pi ⎠
Using tendons that are 0.25 inches in diameter the minimum tensile strength according to Table
2.1 of "Design of Prestressed Concrete" is 240ksi.

Minimum tensile strength

kip
fpu := 240
2
in
Yield strength for normal prestressing wire
kip
fpy := 0.85⋅ fpu fpy = 204
2
in

ACI codes states in Table 3 for Pi cannot exceed the following

Permissible stress in the wire immediately after transfer

kip
Pi1 := 0.85⋅ fpy Pi1 = 173.4
2
in
Permissible stress in the wire immediately after transfer
kip
Pi2 := 0.74⋅ fpu Pi2 = 177.6
2
in
Minimum permissible stress in the wire immediately after transfer

( )
kip
Pimin := min Pi1, Pi2 Pimin = 173.4
2
in
Required area of prestressing steel
Pi
A p := 2
Pimin A p = 5.156in

Stress at the top of the beam at midspan

−Pe ⎛ e⋅ c1 ⎞ M 0 + M d
⋅⎜ 1 −
kip
f1Pi := − f1Pi = −1.201
Ac ⎜ 2 S1p 2
⎝ r ⎠ in
Stress at the bottom of the beam at midspan
−Pe ⎛ e⋅ c2 ⎞ M 0 + M d
⋅⎜ 1 +
kip
f2Pi := + f2Pi = −1.487
Ac ⎜ 2 S2p 2
⎝ r ⎠ in

J-6
 Calculation Sheet J-6
Calculate new stresses in the beams including the slab
Calculate new moment of Inertia with the slab
Effective Width ACI 8.10.2

( )
L
b eff1 := b eff2 := 2⋅ 8⋅ t slab b eff3 := BeamSpacing
4
Minimum effective width of the slab
(
b eff := min b eff1, b eff2, b eff3 ) b eff = 6 ft

The transformed width of the slab =

3
fcBeam = 8 × 10
Concrete compressive strength of the slab
fcSlab := 4500
Modulus of elasticity of the beam
lbf 6 lbf
Ebeam := 57000 ⋅ fcBeam Ebeam = 5.098 × 10
2 2
in in
Modulus of elasticity of the slab
lbf 6 lbf
Eslab := 57000 ⋅ fcSlab Eslab = 3.824 × 10
2 2
in in
Transformed effective width of the slab
⎛ Eslab ⎞
b effTR := b eff ⋅ ⎜ b effTR = 4.5ft
⎝ Ebeam ⎠
Moment of Inertia for the beam and slab
Ibeam := Ig 5 4
Ibeam = 1.254 × 10 in
1 3
Islab := ⋅ b effTR⋅ tslab 3 4
12 Islab = 2.304 × 10 in
The distance to the neutral axis measured from the top of the slab
Cross sectional area of the slab
2
A slab := b effTR⋅ tslab A slab = 432in

Cross sectional are of the beam

2
Ac = 559.5in
Distance from top of slab to the centroid of the slab
t slab
y islab := y islab = 4 in
2
Distance from top of slab to the centroid of the beam
y ibeam := tslab + c1 y ibeam = 32.73in

Distance to the neutral axis of the composite section measured from the top of the slab
A slab ⋅ y islab + Ac ⋅ y ibeam
YN.A. := YN.A. = 20.212in
A slab + Ac

J-7
Find the moment of inertia for the beam and slab combined together
Distance from neutral axis of the slab to the neutral axis of the composite section
tslab
d slab := YN.A. − d slab = 16.21in
2
Distance from neutral axis of the beam to the neutral axis of the composite section

( )
d beam := c1 + tslab − YN.A. d beam = 12.52in

Moment of inertia of the slab and beam combined

Icomposite := ⎛ A slab ⋅ d slab + Ac ⋅ d beam

2⎞
⎠ + ( Islab + Ibeam)
2
⎝
5 4
Icomposite = 3.29 × 10 in

Calculate the stresses in the composite beam

Area of the composite beam
A Tbeam := Ac + A slab
lbf kip
fcs := −0.45 ⋅ fcBeam fcs = −3.6
2 2
in in
lbf kip
fts := 6 ⋅ fcBeam fts = 0.54
2 2
in in
M dc := 0kip⋅ ft M dc = 0 kip⋅ ft

Moment due to the live load at the center of the beam

M l := 1081.85kip⋅ ft

Find the section modulus

Section modulus of the top section of the composite beam
Icomposite 4 3
S1c := S1c = 1.33 × 10 in
c1

Section modulus of the bottom section of the composite beam

Icomposite 4 3
S2c := S2c = 1.62 × 10 in
c2

Stress at the top of the beam at midspan

−Pe ⎛ e⋅ c1 ⎞ M 0 + M d M dc + M l
⋅⎜ 1 −
kip
f1Pe := − − f1Pe = −2.18
Ac ⎜ 2 S1p S1c 2
⎝ r ⎠ in
Stress at the bottom of the beam at midspan

−Pe ⎛ e⋅ c2 ⎞ M 0 + M d M dc + M l
⋅⎜ 1 +
kip
f2Pe := + + f2Pe = −0.69
Ac ⎜ 2 S2p S2c 2
⎝ r ⎠ in

J-8
 Calculation Sheet J-7
Find permissible moment for the Prestressed Beam
Yield strength prestressing strands
kip lbf
fpu := 250 fcBeam := fcBeam ⋅ 1
2 2
in in
Effective depth to the centroid of the prestressing steel

d p := c 1 + e + t slab d p = 4.06 ft
I assumed 2 inches cover for the additional non-prestressed reinforcement
d := h − 2in d = 43 in
Width of the top of the beam
b w := 16in
Beam spacing
b := BeamSpacing b = 6 ft
Slab thickness

h f := t slab h f = 8 in
Yield strength of the non-prestressed reinforcement
kip
fy := 60
2
in
Area of steel

2
A s := 3in
Per table 3.3 of the Design of Prestressed Concrete book (pg 84)

B1 := 0.65

Coefficient for ordinary stress relived tendons

γ p := 0.4

Prestressed reinforcement ratio

Ap
ρ p := −3
b⋅dp ρ p = 1.47 × 10
Stress in the prestressed steel when the beam fails
⎛ γ p ρ p ⋅ fpu ⎞ kip
fps := fpu ⋅ ⎜ 1 − ⋅ fps = 242.93
⎝ B1 fcBeam
⎠ in
2

Compression in the overhanging portion of the flange

(
Apff ps := 0.85⋅ fcBeam ⋅ b − b w ⋅ h f) Apff ps = 3.05 × 10 kip
3

Remaining part of the total tension force

3
Apwfps := A p ⋅ fps + A s ⋅ fy − Apff ps Apwfps = −1.61 × 10 kip

Depth of the compression block

−Apwfps
a :=
0.85⋅ fcBeam ⋅ b w a = 14.83 in

Moment that the beam can carry

⎞ + A ⋅ f ⋅ ( d − d ) + Apff ⋅ ⎛⎜ d − f ⎞
h
φMn := Apwfps ⋅ ⎛⎜ d p −
a
s y p ps p
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
3
φMn = 5.71 × 10 kip ⋅ ft

J-9
 80'

" 24.7"
45.0

61" 26'-8"
2 21"
2
Prestressing Steel
Reinforcement
Profile View

Beam
Scale: 1" = 6.5'

16.0"

Prestressed
41"
7" 2

41"

BR 1926
2
7"
45.0 "

Drawn By: Noah Fehrenbacher

Checked By: Matthew Albert
71"
2 51"
2 71"

Date: Spring 2003

2 Notes:

STJ Engineering
(Pi=890 kips) (fci=6400psi)
(f'c=8000psi) (R=0.85)
7"
Longitudinal Reinforcement:
22.0"
3, # 9 bars, Gr 60, Epoxy coated
Transverse Reinforcement:

J-1
Cross Section View It is required but not yet
designed
Scale: 1" = 10"
 N

6'

95'

81'
2"

90.6'
4'-6"

Deck
80'

Barrier Wall
Plan View

Profile View

Beam
Abutment
2'-6"

1'-4"

STJ Engineering Notes: Deck f'c = 4500psi

Drawn By: Noah Fehrenbacher BR 1926 Plan and Profile View Barrier Wall f'c = 4500psi
J-2 Checked By: Matthew Albert Abutment f'c = 4500psi
Date: Spring 2003 Scale: 1"=10' Beams f'c = 8000psi
 20 kips
5 kips
5 kips

5 kips

5 kips

5 kips

Barrier
Wall
Plan
N

View

Bearing Pot
of
Denotes
Resistance
20 kips

Direction

STJ Engineering Notes: Forces in kips are the

Drawn By: Noah Fehrenbacher required forces that each
J-3 BR 1926 Bearing Pot Placement
Checked By: Matthew Albert bearing pot must resist
Date: Spring 2003 Scale: 1"= 6'
Appendix K – Foundation Design

The first step in the construction of a new bridge is the formation of the foundations. In
the case of Bridge 1926, a single span structure, there are only two foundations at each
end of the bridge. In their geotechnical investigation report, ATC Associates Inc.
recommended that driven steel piles be used for the foundation. This steel pile
foundation consists of four H-piles (two HP 12x53 as interior piles and two HP 12x74 as
exterior piles). Because of the foundation recommendation by ATC Associates Inc., STJ
Engineering only needed to complete a concrete pile cap design. The design of the pile
cap structure is done in accordance with the 2002 edition of the Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete, produced by the American Concrete Institute
(ACI).

Driven Steel H-Pile Capacities

The driven steel pile capacities taken from the geotechnical investigation report are used
in the design of the concrete pile cap. (See Table K-1.)

Table K-1: H-Pile Capacities

Allowable Vertical
H-Pile Section Downward
Load (lbs/pile)
HP 12x53 120,000
HP 12x74 170,000

Static Analysis
In order to complete the pile cap design, it was necessary to conduct a static analysis of
the pile cap. Using strut-and-tie modeling as described in the ACI Code (2002), the
reinforcement within the pile cap is selected. The static analysis was performed on the
reinforcing steel configuration shown in Figure K-1, using Mastan 2 software (Ziemian
and McGuire, 2000) resulting in the design loads shown in Table K-2.

K-1
 Figure K-1: Strut and Tie Model for Pile Cap (tension steel shown as solid lines and
struts shown as dashed lines)

Table K-2: Design Loads for Foundation Design

Maximum Tension 125,000 lbs
Maximum Compression 100,000 lbs
Two Interior H-Pile Reactions 50,000 lbs
Two Exterior H-Pile Reactions 137,600 lbs

Pile Cap Design

After determining the internal forces acting within the pile cap through static analysis,
STJ Engineering finalized the pile cap design. The compressive strength of concrete used
for the design is 4,500 psi. The required length of the pile cap is 33 feet, which is the
width of the bridge. This is necessary since the pile cap also acts as a retaining wall for
the structure. Because of the required depth of the reinforcing steel within the concrete, as
well as reinforcing cover requirements, the final height dimension of the pile cap is 36
inches. Due to shear requirements in the concrete, the determined depth of the pile cap is
30 inches. These considerations designate our final pile cap size to be 33 feet wide, 36
inches high, and 30 inches deep.

Check to determine Punch Shear Capacity

The only part of the concrete pile cap that prevents the steel H-piles from punching
through is the shear strength of the concrete. The height of the pile cap above the pile

K-2
must be thick enough to prevent this failure. STJ Engineering completed the following
calculations in accordance with Chapters 9 and 11 of the ACI code (2002).

Calculations:
Maximum reaction at pile = 137,600 lbs
φVn = φ*2*f’c.5*d*bw
φ = strength reduction factor = 0.9
f’c = concrete strength = 4500 psi
d = height of concrete above pile = 27 in
bw = perimeter of H-Pile = 47.6 in
φVn = 155,000 lbs
Since the φVn value of 155,000 lbs is larger than the required value of 137,600 lbs, the
design satisfies punching shear capacity.

Determine the required Area of Reinforcement

Since concrete has little tensile strength, the tension that occurs in the pile cap must be
carried by steel reinforcement. Using strut-and-tie modeling of the ACI Code, STJ
Engineering has determined the required reinforcement necessary within the pile cap.

Calculations:
Largest tension obtained = 125,000 lbs = T
To satisfy for design T ≤ φ*fy*As
φ = strength reduction factor = 0.75
fy = yield strength of steel = 60,000 psi
As = required cross sectional area of steel
As = 2.77 in2
The required area of steel reinforcement is 2.77 in2, therefore to satisfy this condition STJ
Engineering recommends using three #9 reinforcing bars which produce a total As of 3.00
in2. Refer back to Figure K-1 to see a schematic drawing of the locations of the
reinforcing steel within the pile cap.

K-3
Check Compression Capacities
The concrete in the pile cap itself carries the compression forces needed to ensure a safe
design. These compression forces must be checked according to Chapter 9 and Appendix
A of the ACI Code to ensure that they have the required capacity.

Calculations:
Largest compression obtained = 100,000 lbs = C
To satisfy for design C ≤ φ*.85*B*f’c*b*ws
φ = strength reduction factor = 0.75
B = strut strength factor = 0.6
f’c = concrete strength = 4500 psi
b = width of flange of H-Pile = 12 in
ws = width of compression strut in concrete
ws = 6.00 in
Due to the fact that φ*strut capacity = 124,000lbs, which is greater than the design
compression, the pile cap will not experience a failure in compression.

Check H-pile Embedment Length

Any steel that is going to be embedded within concrete must meet certain coverage
guidelines specified in the ACI Code. Since these embedment lengths for piles are not
specifically covered in the code, STJ Engineering chose to embed the piles a total of six
inches. Because this distance is not covered in the code, STJ Engineering ensured that
the six inch depth is capable of carrying the horizontal loads that may be concentrated on
the piles. This is completed by ensuring that the total horizontal shear capacity of the
concrete around H-piles is greater than the force that can be exerted by wind loads.

Calculations:
Total lateral wind load per pile cap, determined earlier = 13,920 lbs = V
To satisfy for design V ≤ φVn
φVn = φ*2*f’c.5*d*bw
φ = strength reduction factor = 0.9

K-4
 f’c = concrete strength = 4500 psi
bw = with of flange on H-Pile = 12 in
d = embedment depth = 6 in
φVn = 17,387 lbs - for the middle two H-Piles
Since the middle two H-Piles alone provide a capacity greater that what is required, STJ
Engineering has determined that a 6 inch embedment depth for the H-piles is sufficient.

K-5
Appendix L – Cost Estimate

After the design of Bridge 1926 was accomplished, the cost estimates for the bridge were
completed. These costs will be used by Crane NSWC in the bidding process as an
engineer’s estimate for the project. The total cost of the project includes cost associated
with mobilization and demobilization, demolition and deconstruction of the existing
bridge, foundation construction, superstructure construction, barriers and railings
installation, site improvement, and striping. Unit pricing for the different items included
in the project can be found by utilizing the Unit Price Summary Report for INDOT
Bridge Contracts (INDOT, 2004). The unit prices in these tables include material cost,
equipment cost, and labor cost. The total cost of the bridge excluding demolition of the
existing bridge totals $179,000. The total cost of the project comes to $233,000. A full
listing of costs including unit price and quantity of material can be found in Table L-1.

Superstructure Construction Costs

• AASHTO Type III Bulb T Beams, 80 feet in length. (See Appendix J.)
• A cast-in-place concrete deck. (See Appendix I.)
• Steel Reinforcement – Epoxy coated (# 8 bars)
• Three-quarters of an inch thick asphalt wearing surface placed on top of the
concrete deck. This also included the asphalt tack coat between the concrete
deck and the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) surface.
• Steel H-Piles driven to bedrock. (See Appendix K.)
• A cast-in-place concrete pile cap, including the excavation for that cap. (See
Appendix K.)
• Cast-in-place concrete barrier walls. (See Appendix I.)
• Galvanized steel railing, extending 75 feet on the west end of Bridge 1926
(both sides of the road), and 210 feet and 130 feet on the east end of the bridge
(north and south sides of the road, respectively). This includes anchorages to
the concrete barrier wall, as well as end treatments to each railing.

L-1
Site Improvement Costs
• Riprap to be laid under the newly designed bridge on the slope leading down
to the creek bed. This includes geotextile fabric that creates a medium
between the soil and riprap.
• Backfilling the excavated areas from the removal of the existing concrete end
bents in the creek bed.
• Seeding and mulching all disturbed areas on the site.
Demolition and Deconstruction Costs
• Removal of the existing concrete deck system.
• Removal of the existing timber beams.
• Removal of the existing timber pier columns and the existing concrete end
bents for the piers (including excavation of fill underneath and around the
concrete end bents).
• Removal of the existing timber bracing.
• Removal of the existing guardrail and bridge railing system.
• Removal of the existing timber footings and timber retaining walls.

L-2
 Table L-1: Table of Costs
Task Item Cost per Unit # of Units Total Cost
Mobilization Cost of Mobilizing and Demobilizing Construction 5.00% / Tot. Cost 1 $8,512
Timber Beams, 16"x16", Removal $27.06 / LF 1200 $32,472
Timber Columns, 12"x12", Removal $40.59 / LF 153 $6,210
Timber Bracing, 2"x12", Removal $6.77 / LF 258 $1,747
Cast-in-Place Concrete Deck, Removal $3.54 / CYD 36 $127
Deconstruction Guardrail Removal $2.15 / LF 450 $968
and Demolition Bridge Railing, Removal $5.53 / LF 160 $885
Concrete End Bent, Removal $16.70 / CYD 5.5 $92
End Bent Backfill, Excavation $10.10 / CYD 5 $51
Timber Footings, 12"x12", Removal $27.10 / LF 285 $7,724
Timber Retaining Wall, 2"x12", Removal $6.77 / LF 522 $3,534
Foundation Excavation $16.69 / CYD 20 $334
Foundation Substructure Concrete, 4500 psi, Type A $433.55 / CYD 18.3 $7,951
Construction Pile, Steel H, HP 12x53 $31.80 / LF 100 $3,180
Pile, Steel H, HP 12x74 $44.40 / LF 100 $4,440
Conc. Bulb-T Beam, 22x45, 80-ft $98.30 / LF 400 $39,320
Cast in Place Concrete Deck, 4500 psi, Class C $461.67 / CYD 65.5 $30,239
Superstructure
Reinforcement Steel (# 8 bars) $0.61 / LBS 56390 $34,398
Construction
HMA Surface, Type A $72.42 / TON 8 $579
Asphalt for Tack Coat $313.40 / TON 2.7 $846
Conc. Barrier Walls, 4500 psi, Type A $484.34 / CYD 15.3 $7,430
Barriers and
Corr. Steel, Galvanized Steel Posts 6'3" O.C. $75.10 / LF 490 $36,799
Railing
End Section, Galvanized, Flared $74.20 / EA 4 $297
Construction
Anchorage Units $652.50 / EA 4 $2,610
Riprap, Revetement $19.96 / TON 60 $1,198
Site Geotextiles $2.26 / SYD 65 $147
Improvement Seed Mixture, T, Kentucky Bluegrass $3.70 / LBS 60 $222
End Bent Backfill $13.40 / CYD 11 $147
Line Thermoplastic, Solid, White, 4 in $0.32 / LF 160 $51
Striping
Line Thermoplastic, Solid, Yellow, 4 in $0.32 / LF 160 $51
Cost of Replacment Bridge (excluding demolition) = $179,000
TOTAL = $233,000

L-3
Appendix M – Traffic Control Plan

One of the steps in the planning for the replacement of Bridge 1926 is to create a traffic
control plan. This plan will divert the thru traffic from crossing Bridge 1926, so
construction is not disturbed. Also, traffic control is needed to provide for the safe and
efficient movement of vehicles, while protecting workers and equipment. The traffic
control plan complies with the current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) (Federal Highway Administration, 2001). The temporary traffic
control devices that are used are any signs, signals, markings, or other devices used to
regulate, warn, or guide traffic on a roadway by an authoritative body or official having
jurisdiction (Federal Highway Administration, 2001).

Signs
The MUTCD designates different specifications for placing signs for temporary road
closures during construction periods. The specifications from the MUTCD directly
related to this project, a complete rural bridge closure, are described below:
• All signs located along the roadway used for traffic control shall be on the
right side of the road.
• Where special emphasis on a specific sign group is needed, signs may be
placed on both the left and right sides of the roadway as designated in this
report.
• Post-mounted signs installed on the side of the road shall be mounted at a
height of at least five feet from the bottom face of the sign to the nearest
edge of pavement elevation. (See Figure M-1.)
• Signs on barricades shall be crash-worthy, and the bottom face of the sign
is to be at least one foot above the pavement surface.

M-1
 Figure M-1 – Height and Lateral Location of Rural Signs

Crane NSWC has instructed STJ Engineering that Bridge 1926 can be completely closed
during construction. However, Highway 165 (H165), on which Bridge 1926 is located,
also has several bunkers along side of it which must stay open during construction.
Therefore, the road will only be completely closed to thru traffic so the bunkers can
remain open. Traffic Control Signs should be placed at the east end of H165 denoting the
closure of Bridge 1926 to thru traffic. (See Figure M-2.) Also, Traffic Control Signs and
Type III Barricades are to be placed 150 feet west of Bridge 1926 as well as at the east
end of H165 completely closing the construction area to all traffic.

While Bridge 1926 is closed, a detour route is to be designated so that thru traffic may be
guided around the construction site efficiently. The detour route is shown on the map of
the Naval Base. (See Figure M-2.) This route to be used is represented by a thick line,
and follows H162, H58, H99, and H45. Also, H165 is shown, represented by a thick,
dashed line. Detour signs including direction arrows are to be used in accordance with
Section 6 of the MUTCD (Federal Highway Administration, 2001) to guide traffic
through the detour route. The approximate locations of these signs, and a schematic of
sign types corresponding to these locations, are shown on Figure M-2.

The traffic control plan should be implemented before construction occurs and continue
throughout the construction period of the project. All traffic control devices are to be
removed as soon as they are no longer practical or needed.

M-2
Figure M-2 – Detour Route for Highway 165 with Traffic
Sign Locations

M-3
Appendix N – Environmental Permits and Regulations

All required environmental permits need to be obtained from the regulatory agencies
before construction on Bridge 1926 begins. The three regulatory agencies that issue the
environmental permits are the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), and the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Water (IDNR-DOW). The contact information needed
to apply for the permits is shown below including an explanation of why the permits are
required and examples of the application materials.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District (USACE)

After contacting Leanne Divine at the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville
District, STJ Engineering was informed that because the construction of Bridge 1926 has
minimal impacts on the surrounding area, a Letter of Permission (LOP) is the only
document that needs to be obtained from USACE. The Letter of Permission is obtained
by writing to the USACE. The USACE requires a USGS quadrant map, such as the one
shown in Figure N-1, as well as a plan and cross-sectional view of the structure.
Contact Information: Leanne Divine
(502) 315-6692
Attn: Permits and Regulations
USACE, Louisville District
P.O. Box 59
Louisville, KY 40201

N-1
Figure N-1: USGS TopoQuad Map (DeLorme, 1999)
N-2
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
After contacting Ryan Cassidy at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
on November 12, 2003, STJ Engineering was informed that IDEM requires the following
three items for the permitting process: the total linear feet of impacted stream, the total
area of fill below the streamline, and photographs of the construction site. The total
linear feet of impacted stream is obtained from measuring upstream and downstream of
Sulphur Creek starting at the bridge location. If this distance is less than 300 feet, a
Regional General Permit (RGP) is required. However, if this measurement is longer than
300 feet, a 401 Water Quality Certification is necessary. Mr. Cassidy also indicated that
endangered species are taken into consideration in the event that a 401 Water Quality
Certification is required. In the case of Bridge 1926 and Sulphur Creek, the total linear
feet of impacted stream is less than 300 feet, so only a Regional General Permit is
required. Figure N-2 is a copy of the Regional General Permit that must be obtained
before the start of construction.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management must also know the total area of
fill, if any, that is going to be placed below the 100-year flood elevation. This quantity
includes any temporary sediment traps or cofferdams that are used during construction.
In addition to this information, Mr. Cassidy also request that photographs be taken of the
project site. The recommended layout of these photos is shown in Figure N-3. STJ
Engineering has been informed by IDEM that because the existing bridge is constructed
out of timber, all creosote treated timber must be disposed of in a licensed landfill due to
their hazardous material status.
Contact Information: Ryan Cassidy
(317) 234-1221

N-3
 Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
Office of Water Quality
Section 401 Water Quality
Certification Program

Regional General Permit - IDEM Notification Form (Revised January 1, 2002)

FOR IDEM USE ONLY Date Rec’d IDEM ID:

1. Applicant Information
Applicant: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Agent:

Contact person: Dave Burris Contact person:

Address: Public Works Center, Crane Detachment
Code 536, Bldg. 2516 Address:
300 Highway 361
Crane, IN 47522-5001
Phone: (812) 854-4761 Phone:

2. Project Location
County: Martin Nearest Town: Owensburg

Quad: Owensburg Township: 5 N Range: 3 W Section: 10

Latitude: N 38 53.36’ Road Directions:

Longitude: W 86 44.10’

3. Existing Conditions
Wetlands: NO Acreage onsite: 0

Wetland type: None

Stream: YES Stream name: Sulphur Creek

Open water: NO Open water type: None

Figure N-2: IDEM RGP Permit Application (IDEM, 2004)

N-4
4. Project Impacts

Activity description:
Removal and replacement of timber bridge with concrete bridge

Purpose of project:
To replace the timber bridge because of its deterioration

Acres of wetland impact - Emergent: none Scrub/shrub: none Forested: none

Linear feet of stream impact: 200 Acres of open water impact: 0

Area of riprap below the Ordinary High Water Mark: 650 Square Feet

Figure N-2: IDEM RGP Permit Application (IDEM, 2004)

N-5
Signature of Applicant - Statement of Affirmation

I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this notification and, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, such information is true and accurate. I certify that I have the authority to
undertake and will undertake the activities as described in this notification. I am aware that there are
penalties for submitting false information. I understand that any changes in project design subsequent
to IDEM's granting of authorization to discharge to a water of the state are not authorized and I may be
subject to civil and criminal penalties for proceeding without proper authorization. I agree to allow
representatives of the IDEM to enter and inspect the project site. I understand that the granting of other
permits by local, state, or federal agencies does not release me from the requirement of obtaining the
authorization requested herein before commencing the project.

Applicant's Signature: ___________________________________ Date: _____________________________

Print Name: ___________________________________________ Title: _____________________________

Submit this form and a copy of the USGS Quadrangle map showing the location of the project clearly
denoted on the map to:

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Water Quality
Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015

Please note:

1. IDEM will review this form for completeness and accuracy. You will be contacted within 10 working days of
the receipt of this form only if problems are identified. IDEM may require additional information to verify that
the project meets all conditions of the Regional General Permit and the Section 401 WQC. If you are not
contacted by IDEM within 10 working days of the receipt of this form by IDEM, your project is thereby
authorized, subject to the terms and conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification and its
conditions. You will not receive a written confirmation of authorization.

2. Read all the terms and conditions of this regional general permit, including all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Indiana Department of Environmental Management conditions. Do not submit this form or commence
work on the proposed project until you understand and are familiar with the limitations and restrictions of this
regional general permit.

Figure N-2: IDEM RGP Permit Application (IDEM, 2004)

N-6
 1. Roadway in the left floodplain looking
downstream at the left floodplain
2. Structure looking downstream at the channel
3. Roadway in the right floodplain looking
downstream at the right floodplain
4. Roadway in the left floodplain looking
upstream at the left floodplain
5. Structure looking upstream at the channel
6. Roadway in the right floodplain looking
upstream at the right floodplain
7. Downstream floodplain looking upstream at
the structure
8. Upstream floodplain looking downstream at
the structure
9. Structure looking at the roadway in the left
floodplain
10. Structure looking at the roadway in the
right floodplain

Figure N-3: Recommended Layout of Site Photographs (IDNRDOW, 2004)

N-7
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water (IDNR-DOW)
After contacting Becky Davis at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Water, STJ Engineering was informed that if the stream drainage area is greater than
one square mile, a Construction in Floodway Permit is required. However, if the bridge
is located in a rural area as defined by Indiana Administrative Code 312 IAC 10-2-36, no
permit is required. Indiana Administrative Code 312 IAC 10-2-36 states that an “area for
a construction or reconstruction project on a state or county highway bridge” is
considered rural if the upstream drainage area is fifty square miles or less and “the flood
protection grade of each residential, commercial, or industrial building impacted by the
project is higher than the regulatory flood elevation under the project condition; and” the
construction site is outside “corporate boundaries of a consolidate city or an incorporated
town.” After review, STJ Engineering determined that Bridge 1926 meets this criterion
for a rural area, so a permit is not required by IDNR-DOW.
Contact Information: Becky Davis
1-877-928-3755

N-8
Appendix O – Erosion Control
During the construction of a bridge, the amount of soil that is washed into the creek must
be limited. Excessive sediment in a natural environment like a stream can cause the
degradation of the natural habitat and the wildlife that resides within. In order to prevent
this degradation from occurring, it is necessary to implement several erosion control
measures. STJ Engineering used the Indiana Handbook for Erosion Control (Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, 1992) in recommending the portion of the stream near
the construction be lined with a silt fence. It is also recommended that the forest abutting
the property to the north and south of the bridge be lined with a silt fence. The
construction time and extent of construction will be minimized and permanent seeding
will immediately follow construction. See Drawing O-1 to view the placement of the silt
fence. The slope leading from the abutment to the stream should be at a 3:1 slope to
prevent erosion of the slope. It should also be lined with seed matting as soon as possible
in order to start vegetation growth and further reduce erosion.

O-1
 N

Treeline

Bridge Deck
Edge of Road
Key

1'
Silt
River
Fence
Contour

STJ Engineering Notes:

Drawn By: Noah Fehrenbacher BR 1926 Erosion Control

O-1 Checked By: Matthew Albert
Date: Spring 2004 Scale: 1"=25'