project
Bridge Engineering
CEE 08486 / 08586
Spring 2021
Dr. Adriana Trias
Class Project – Highway Bridge
02/01/2021 2
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
• Objective:
The objective of the project is to design a highway
bridge. The existing bridge is functionally obsolete,
therefore, a new bridge needs to be constructed
based on the new traffic/load requirements.
The project will consider structural engineering,
transportation planning, geotechnical and
foundation engineering, as well as quantities and
cost estimation.
Class Project – Highway Bridge
02/01/2021 3
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
Class Project – Highway Bridge
02/01/2021 4
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
Class Project – Highway Bridge
02/01/2021 5
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
Class Project – Highway Bridge
02/01/2021 6
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
Class Project – Highway Bridge
02/01/2021 7
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
Step # Beginning Date Title Due Date
1 Feb. 01 General Planning Feb. 15
2 Feb. 08 Preliminary Design – Superstructure Feb. 22
3 Feb. 15 Preliminary Design – Substructure Mar. 01
4 Feb. 22 Preliminary Drawing Mar. 08
5 Mar. 01 Final Design – Superstructure Mar. 15
6 Mar. 08 Final Design – Substructure Mar. 22
7 Mar. 15 Quantities and Cost Estimates Mar. 29
8 Mar. 22 Presentation of Results Apr. 05
9 Mar. 29 Project Final Report Apr. 19
Bridge Type Selection
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 8
Factors to Consider:
• Bridge Length
• Feasibility (Money)
• Vertical clearance required
• Curvature (Vertical) and Alignment (Horizontal)
• Aesthetics
• Temperature conditions
• Time constrains
• Construction site conditions
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 9
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 10
Typical Evaluation Matrix
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 11
CRITERIA FACTOR
Cost 30%
Constructability 20%
Maintenance/Inspection 20%
Aesthetics 15%
Environmental Factor 5%
Future Expansion 5%
Construction Time 5%
Total 100%
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 12
Bridges in the United States
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 13
US Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
RURAL
Principal Arterial – Interstate 25,024 25,176 25,231 25,105 24,844
Principal Arterial – Other 36,619 37,236 36,978 36,962 36,540
Minor Arterial 38,084 37,942 37,991 38,165 37,971
Major Collector 92,547 92,142 91,593 91,167 90,879
Minor Collector 47,649 47,721 47,818 47,611 47,080
Local 203,169 203,393 203,115 202,824 201,502
% of total 72% 72% 72% 72% 71%
URBAN
Principal Arterial – Interstate 31,859 32,133 32,396 32,781 33,337
Principal Arterial – Other
Freeways or Expressways
20,522 20,695 20,902 21,311 21,781
Other Principal Arterial 29,090 29,478 29,701 29,967 30,479
Minor Arterial 30,646 31,515 31,576 31,864 32,271
Collector 22,355 23,007 23,529 23,934 25,635
Local 34,281 33,948 34,148 34,405 34,764
% of total 28% 28% 28% 28% 29%
TOTAL 611,845 614,386 614,978 616,096 617,083
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 14
State No. Highway Bridges % of US Total
Texas 54,432 8.8%
Ohio 27,167 4.4%
Illinois 26,825 4.3%
California 25,771 4.2%
Kansas 24,934 4.0%
Missouri 24,494 4.0%
Iowa 24,043 3.9%
Oklahoma 23,138 3.7%
Pennsylvania 22,911 3.7%
Tennessee 20,226 3.3%
Indiana 19,284 3.1%
North Carolina 18,407 3.0%
New York 17,540 2.8%
Mississippi 17,019 2.8%
Alabama 16,162 2.6%
Nebraska 15,332 2.5%
Georgia 14,940 2.4%
Kentucky 14,394 2.3%
Wisconsin 14,249 2.3%
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 15
State No. Highway Bridges % of US Total
Virginia 13,933 2.3%
Minnesota 13,346 2.2%
Arkansas 12,902 2.1%
Louisiana 12,884 2.1%
Florida 12,518 2.0%
Michigan 11,244 1.8%
South Carolina 9,419 1.5%
Colorado 8,785 1.4%
Arizona 8,320 1.3%
Washington 8,300 1.3%
Oregon 8,211 1.3%
West Virginia 7,291 1.2%
New Jersey 6,786 1.1%
South Dakota 5,821 0.9%
Maryland 5,402 0.9%
Montana 5,278 0.9%
Massachusetts 5,233 0.8%
Idaho 4,493 0.7%
Connecticut 4,336 0.7%
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 16
State No. Highway Bridges % of US Total
North Dakota 4,329 0.7%
New Mexico 4,014 0.7%
Wyoming 3,114 0.5%
Utah 3,063 0.5%
Vermont 2,818 0.5%
New Hampshire 2,502 0.4%
Maine 2,461 0.4%
Puerto Rico 2,315 0.4%
Nevada 2,029 0.3%
Alaska 1,595 0.3%
Hawaii 1,138 0.2%
Delaware 879 0.1%
Rhode Island 779 0.1%
District of Columbia 244 0.0%
U.S. Virgin Islands 24 0.0%
Guam 10 0.0%
Totals 617,084 100.0%
Appearance of Bridge-Related Terms in Books Published in English 1840-2005
Pacific Railroad
Act (1862)
Ford Model T
Introduced (1908)
Great
Depression
(1929)
Federal-Aid
Highway Act
(1956)
AASHTO LRFD
Introduced
(1994)
WWI (US)
USAGE OF BRIDGE-RELATED
TERMS
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 18
• Structurally Deficient (SD):
• This term was previously defined
in https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm as having a condition rating of 4
or less for Item 58 (Deck), Item 59 (Superstructure), Item 60 (Substructure), or Item
62 (Culvert), OR having an appraisal rating of 2 or less for Item 67 (Structural
Condition) or Item 71 (Waterway Adequacy) Beginning with the 2018 data archive,
this term will be defined in accordance with the Pavement and Bridge Condition
Performance Measures final rule, published in January of 2017, as a classification
given to a bridge which has any component [Item 58, 59, 60,
or 62] in Poor or worse condition [code of 4 or less]
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/rule.cfm
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 19
• Functionally Obsolete (FO):
• This term was previously defined
in https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm as having an appraisal rating of 3
or less for Item 68 (Deck Geometry), Item 69 (Underclearances), or Item 72
(Approach Roadway Alignment), OR having an appraisal rating of 3 for Item 67
(Structural Condition) or Item 71 (Waterway Adequacy). FHWA is no longer tracking
this measure. Our focus has shifted to a performance-based program as established
in Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP) MAP-21 and continued in the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. As such, we encourage the use of the Good-Fair-
Poor bridge condition measures outlined in the Pavement and Bridge Condition
Performance Measures final rule, published in January of 2017.
• Is a bridge that does not comply with current standards
(lane width, shoulder width, vertical clearance, flood
requirements, …).
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/rule.cfm
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 20
• FHWA uses a metric known as the Sufficiency Rating (SR)
to quantify the ability of a bridge with vehicular traffic to
remain in service. SR is on the scale from 1 to 100, where
100 is considered entirely efficient, and less than 50
classifies the bridge as structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete.
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 21
SR calculated as:
S1 + S2 + S3 – S4. Where:
I. S1: Structural adequacy and safety (0 to 55):
S1 = 55 – (A +I), where “A” is a reduction due to
deterioration and comes from the lowest value of
either the superstructure or substructure rating, while
“I” is the reduction for load capacity and comes from
calculating inventory rating.
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 22
II. S2: Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (0 to
30): S2 = 30 – (J – (G + H) +I), where “J” is a rating
reduction, “G+H” calculated based on the roadway
width rating and the inventory route ADT, and “I” is the
vertical clearance insufficiency factor.
III. S3: Essentiality for public use (0 to 15): S3 = 15 – (P +
M), where “P” is the public use factor based on ADT of
the road and intersecting route, and “M” is the military
use factor.
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 23
IV. S4: Special Reduction (0 to 13; applicable only if S1 +
S2 + S3 ≥ 50): calculated as S4 = R + S + T, where “R” is
a detour length reduction, “S” is the structure type
reduction, and “T” is the traffic safety feature
reduction.
Bridge Condition
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 24
The importance of the SR is that not only it is used for
determining the acceptability of a structures performance, it
is also a factor that defines the eligibility of bridge for federal
funds to support repair and/or replacement.
If a bridge results with an SR of less than 60 it is eligible for
federal repair funds, and if a bridge has an SR of less than 50
it is eligible for replacement under federal funds.
Bridge Condition – US
Bridge Engineering – Rowan University
02/01/2021 25
45.3%
47.2%
7.5%
Good
Fair
Poor
Good Fair Poor TOTAL
279582 291339 46163 617084
45.3% 47.2% 7.5% 100%
81.5% 16.6% 1.9% 100%ADT of Bridges
# of Bridges
The total ADT in the US is 278,043,101. 81.5% of this ADT goes over
bridges in Good condition, 16.6% over bridges in Fair condition, and
1.9% over bridges in Poor condition.