1. BRIDGE BREAKDOWN: EVALUATING THE ARCOLA BRIDGE ANNA GEORGE GRADE 12 METHACTON HIGH SCHOOL 3 RD YEAR AT PJAS

2. BACKGROUND Built in 1896 and Re-Built in 1931 Bridge inspected in Feb 2013 and Aug 16, 2013 February inspection found some deterioration in floor beams Limited weight capacity from 6 tons to 3 tons August inspection found additional deterioration Many residents and their properties will be affected during construction period Detour due to shut down (total length is 5.5 miles) Arcola Road, 1.5 miles Eagleville Road, 1.1 miles Park Avenue, 0.5 miles Eqypt Road, 0.9 miles Cider Mill Road, 1.5 miles Problems associated with the bridge Small weight capacity Narrow bridge causes traffic problems Heavy rain storms causes severe flooding Cost can cause economic problems

3. PROBLEM QUESTION Which variables better fit the safety and needs of the public to improve the Arcola Bridge?

4. HYPOTHESIS If the bridge design focuses on width, water level, weight, and cost, it will satisfy the public’s safety and needs of transportation.

5. MATERIALS AND SOURCES Computer Montgomery County Infrastructure Resources FEMA Tax Map (flood map) West Point Bridge Designer Interviews and Contacts Mrs. Kala Suri (Bridge Design Engineer) Mr. Vijay Gupta (PhD, PE, President of American Engineers Group) Mr. Kenneth Starr (Director of Department of Assets & Infrastructure

6. VARIABLES Independent Variables Weight Capacity Water Elevations Width of bridge Dependent Variables Cost of bridge Constant Same Bridge Location Control Original Arcola Bridge

7. WIDTH OF BRIDGE Determination of traffic flow Original bridge width consisted of 2 lanes Each 10 feet wide Total length = 20 feet Proposed bridge width consists of 3 lanes, with 2 shoulders Each lane will be approximately 11 feet wide Shoulders will be approximately 5 feet wide Total length = 43 feet Traffic flow (as of 2013) ADT (Average Daily Traffic) = 8,857 vehicles per day Population of surrounding area = 26,993 people (2% annual growth) Projections for ADT will vary directly with growing population

8. ADT PROJECTIONS YearPopulationADT 2013269938857 201427532.749034.14 201528083.49214.823 201628645.079399.119 201729217.979587.102 203844284.6914530.85 Bridge Re-Opens 25-Year Projection ADT n = (ADT n-1 )(1.02) (Varies directly with 2% Growth Population)

9. WATER ELEVATION Determination of flooding dangers to the bridge Water from Perkiomen Creek has reached to level of bridge Recent flooding was fall of 2011 Flood Elevation Levels 10 year – 96.31 feet 50 year – 99.65 feet 100 year – 102.55 feet Bridge rests 25-30 feet above the water Solution: raise height of bridge and connecting roads Drawback: COST

10. ARCOLA ROAD FLOOD MAP

11. WEIGHT CAPACITY Deterioration caused shutdown Bridge could not withstand posted weight capacity (3 tons) Designing Process has no weight capacity requirements Companies designing bridge have not decided a weight capacity Bridge SR 345 over Hay Creek in Birdsboro, PA Construction projected to end by June 2014 ADT (2007 Census) = 8,111 vehicles per day Estimated ADT (2014) = 9,317 vehicles per day Weight Capacity = 100 tons Birdsboro contains smaller population than area around Arcola Bridge Arcola Bridge must have a minimum of 100 ton weight capacity to support growing population

12. COST Cost is dependent on other bridge designing variables Proposed plan is projected to cost $7.8 million Construction alone is projected to cost $6.92 million Covers equipment, labor, and materials Simulation Focus on overall cost of materials 2 lanes Pier underneath

13. COST EVALUATION (SIMULATION)

14. CONCLUSION The Arcola Bridge design should integrate on variables such as width, water level, and weight Cost projections will vary, based on which variables are prioritized

15. IMPROVEMENTS Analyze other variables associated with Arcola Bridge Ecology Disturbances in Perkiomen Creek Residential Impact Focus on other bridges affecting same population 422 Bridge

16. REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS The Arcola Bridge is a popular travel route between Lower Providence and Upper Providence Shutdown impacted local population Travel route Adjacent residential homes will be affected during construction

17. FUTURE EXPERIMENTS Expand research to other bridges in other counties Research other variables Types of vehicles and their impacts on bridges Habitat Disturbances (Animals, Ecosystems, etc.) Ability to withstand other weather conditions (snow, ice, etc.)

18. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to these experts, scientists, and engineers: Mrs. Kala Suri (Bridge Design Engineer) Mr. Vijay Gupta Mr. Kenneth Starr Mr. Brian J. Kadunc