1. Improving Operational and Structural Performance of the Burlington-Bristol Bridge Design Team 25: Dan Kramer Nate Dubbs Tom Golecki Jim Gardner Kyle Kessler Faculty Advisor: Dr. Frank Moon Industry Sponsor: Pennoni Associates Inc.

2. December 5, 2007 Project Objective Investigate means to improve the operational and structural performance of the Burlington- Bristol Bridge (including, but not limited to increasing sufficiency rating)

3. December 5, 2007 Location

4. December 5, 2007 Background and Description of Structure Location, connects Burlington, NJ with Bristol, PA Constructed 1930-31 Steel truss bridge Consists of two tower spans (200’ each) and a lift span (540’) Use of counter weights to raise lift span Built based on traffic of the time Current traffic is wider, faster, heavier Bridge services 25,000 vehicles per day (AADT) (2) 10’ Lanes, below AASHTO minimum for Interstates, 12’ Current AASHTO standard states 10’ lanes may stay “where alignment and safety record are satisfactory”

5. December 5, 2007 Pictures

6. December 5, 2007 During Opening

7. December 5, 2007 Definition of Terms Functionally Obsolete: – Having deck geometry (e.g., lane width), load carrying capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment that no longer meet the criteria for the system of which the bridge is a part. Structurally Deficient: – Those that are restricted to light vehicles, require immediate rehabilitation to remain open, or are closed. – Categorized by a rating of 4 (poor) or less in any category Sufficiency Rating: – Sufficiency rating is a label given to a bridge as an attempt to quantify its condition – Factors such as serviceability, functional obsolescence, structural adequacy, safety, and essentiality for public use are used to compute a sufficiency rating.

8. December 5, 2007 Sufficiency Rating

9. December 5, 2007 Existing Conditions Current sufficiency rating 31.1 - why? Functionally Obsolete Structural Condition Rating: – Substructure – Deck – Superstructure – Lifting Assembly NJDOT - 2007

10. December 5, 2007 Role within Transportation Network Turnpike Bridge ADT = 42,600 (9 mile detour) Burlington-Bristol Bridge ADT = 25,000 Tacony Palmyra Bridge ADT = 50,000 (24 mile detour)

11. December 5, 2007 Internal Criteria Maintain operational capacity No total replacement No restriction of river traffic (maintain clearance) No new structures on PA side Budget funded from tolls Keep toll plaza location

12. December 5, 2007 External Criteria Jurisdictions and Codes Maintain operational capacity Maintain minimum river clearance Limited space on NJ side Must maintain lift span

13. December 5, 2007 Overview of Phased Solutions Option I – Operational Safety – Utilize inexpensive actions to enable the near-term mitigation of operational safety concerns Option II – Structural Safety and Serviceability – Identify appropriate intervention strategies to improve the structural safety and serviceability of the bridge (including the sufficiency rating) Option III – Operational Capacity – Identify approaches to improving the operational capacity and bringing the entire structure up to current standards

14. December 5, 2007 Option 1 – Operational Safety Do Nothing – Existing conditions – 10’ lanes – No barrier

15. December 5, 2007 Option 1 – Operational Safety Remove sidewalk – 12’ lanes – No barrier – Low cost and impact to traffic

16. December 5, 2007 Option 1 – Operational Safety Remove sidewalk, add barrier – 10’-6” lanes – Protected lanes – Low cost and impact to traffic

17. December 5, 2007 Option II – Structural Safety and Serviceability Superstructure – Identify significant deterioration of truss members – Analyze structure for capacity – Design new members to assist or replace existing members as needed – Clean and paint superstructure to inhibit future deterioration Substructure – Design bearings – Design retrofit for areas with significant section loss – Inspect foundations for scour and design new scour resistant foundation systems as needed

18. December 5, 2007 Option III – Operational Capacity Total Replacement – New structure could be designed without need for a lift – Standard lanes and shoulders would be incorporated into design – Structural sufficiency would score a near perfect – However, replacement was attempted in the past – Proved difficult for political reasons – Loss of tolls due to diverted traffic

19. December 5, 2007 Option III – Operational Capacity Superstructure Replacement – Utilize existing piers – Additional capacity – 12’ lanes & median – Requires closure

20. December 5, 2007 Option III – Operational Capacity Cantilevered Lanes – Maintain traffic flow – Increased lane width – High quantity of new material – Added weight to lift

21. December 5, 2007 Option III – Operation Capacity Additional Deck on Top Chord – Added stiffening of truss “flange” – Minimal amount of new material – Significant approach work – Through towers – Counterbalance

22. December 5, 2007 Decision Criteria Quantitative Considerations: Criteria were chosen based on objective means of quantifying options – Construction – Time of lost revenue, traffic routing – Operational Capacity – Number and width of lanes – Environmental Impact – Amount of new materials – Sufficiency Rating – Based on Condition, geometry – Cost – Materials, labor Qualitative Considerations (not adding to Sufficiency Rating): – Barriers would increase safety – Traffic Directions, safer with opposing traffic By constructing a decision matrix we were able to compare options and eliminate those with the lowest scores. For example: – Total replacement – Deck hung beneath the existing truss – Widening of the existing truss.

23. December 5, 2007 Decision Matrix These influence coefficients represent each option's performance in each category on a scale from 0 to 1. The better an option is for a specific category, the higher its influence should be. Option 3 - Operational Capacity Option 2 - SufficiencyOption 1 - Safety Rating Category Weight Factor Total Duplication of Bridge Superstructure Replacement Additional Deck on top Chord Additional Lanes Cantilevered Evaluate and Repair Structural Problems Add Barrier Widen Lanes Operational Capacity0.250.750.50 0.250.000.25 Environmental Impact0.200.220.500.680.630.830.870.85 Sufficiency1.000.570.820.65 0.48 Construction0.601.000.000.400.60 0.80 Cost0.750.450.250.710.660.870.900.92 Results-0.620.440.600.630.680.650.67 Input from sponsor about relative importance of each criteria.

24. December 5, 2007 Decision Matrix Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

25. December 5, 2007 Design Tools 3D CAD Model – Visualization of Options – Traffic Planning Finite Element Model – Locate Structural Inefficiencies – Develop Retrofits

26. December 5, 2007 Path Forward Make final decision on improvement option Gather technical information Construction drawings, traffic counts, soil profiles, inspection reports Assess current conditions and determine necessary rehabilitation to facilitate improvements Preliminary designs Progress presentation (March 2008)

27. December 5, 2007 Schedule

28. December 5, 2007 Budget Method of Developing Design Costs Assumed pay rate x 100% overhead x 50% markup Assume 10hr/week/team member for Winter term Assume 8 hr/week/team member for Spring term Design Team 25EngineersRate Hours TotalCost WinterSpring Structural Engineers3$120/hr300144444$53,280 Geotechnical Engineer1$120/hr10048148$17,760 Transportation Engineer1$120/hr10048148$17,760 Technical Consultant: Dr. Moon1$200/hr10818$3,600 Total =$92,400

29. December 5, 2007 Questions/Suggestions?

30. December 5, 2007 References (1) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Engineering, Bridge Division, National Bridge Inventory database, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm/\ulnone, as of December 2002. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm/\ulnone (2) NJDOT Bridge Report 10/20/07 (3) National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). (1996). Code of federal regulations, No. 23CFR650, \i0 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 238-240. (4) Discussion with Mr. David Lowdermilk P.E. and Mr. Lawrence Egan P.E. 11/29/07 (5) http://www.phillyroads.com (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacony-Palmyra_Bridgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacony-Palmyra_Bridge (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Bristol_Bridgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Bristol_Bridge (8) http://www.bcbridges.org/bridge_info/toll.asp

31. December 5, 2007

32. Case Studies Armour-Swift Burlington Bridge – Missouri River, Kansas City MO – Double deck, lift structure – Roadway above, Rail below Steel Bridge – Williamette River, Portland OR – Double deck, lift structure – Rail and pedestrian below, roadway and streetcar above – Independent lifts Tamar Bridge – Tamar River, England – Widened from 3 to 5 lanes while maintaining traffic during construction

33. December 5, 2007 Information Requests Survey Information – Existing topography, roadway, ROW, utilities and drainage Traffic Information – Traffic counts, CBR values, Truck volume, Traffic forecasting, Accident Data Site Information – Sub-surface profiles, Cross-section and profile of Delaware River, Aerial photographs Structure and Foundation Information – Design plans, construction plans, retrofit design plans, governing design specifications