You are on page 1of 23

Dougherty Mills Bridge

Sackett Engineering
Dougherty Mills Bridge Site
Pre-existing Bridge
» 1929, Two-lane, 140 ft span
» PA 173 (Centreville Pike)
» Rock Falls Park
» Slippery Rock Creek Twp.
Butler County,PA
» Historic
» Stoughton Beach Rd
» Heavily Forested
Project Overview
» Replacement of pre-existing bridge
» Site investigation
· Boring logs
· Lab tests
· Subsurface profiles
» Foundation Design
· Corrosion analysis
· Slope stability
· Spread footings
· Drilled Shafts
· Final recommendation
Site Ìnvestigation
Boring Logs
» 14 Boring Logs
» Locations
· Abut 1 - 4 borings
· Abut 2 - 5 borings
· 5 Spread out
Abnormalities
» DOU-905
» DOU-005
» DOU-003
» DOU-907
Subsurface Profiles
Perpendicular
to Bridge
Subsurface Profiles
Parallel
to
Bridge
Corrosion Analysis
Subsurface Conditions: Boring Holes: DOU-903 and DOU-907
» Acidic levels of soil: 6.1 pH and 3.2 pH
(Deterioration increases as pH decreases under 6.5)
» Chloride Concentration: 406 ppm and 466 ppm
(Principle cause of steel corrosion)
» Sulfate Concentration: 200 ppm and 300 ppm
(reacts with concrete chemicals and can cause cracks)

Corrosion Analysis
» Presence of both increase corrosive process
(S>200 ppm, Cl > 100 ppm)
» Specific Resistance: 1083 ohm*cm and 1575 ohm*cm
(common avg.15,800 and max 135,000)
» High Risk ÷ Resistivity <2000 ohm*cm
FinaI Breakdown:
1. Low pH
2. High ion concentration
3. Low Resistivity
Corrosion Protective
Systems
Subsurface Protection:
» Main Goal: Create dense, impervious, resistant concrete
» Limiting water to cement ratio to .45
» Limit any chloride additives (including accelerants CaCl2)
» Sulfate resistant cement: Type ÌÌ or V
» Minimum thickness of about 2-4'' Concrete Cover for rebar
» Minimum thickness of 4'' for cast-in-place concrete piles
» Larger cross sectional area or coating protection (ex.cathodic system)
Corrosion Protective
Systems
Deck SIab Protection:
» Dual Deck protective system
» Filled Galvanized metal deck with 1.5'' microsilica concrete overlay
(Decrease pore size in cement)
SteeI Member Protection:
» Paint- inorganic zinc rich paint
» Life Expectancy - 20 years without replacement
Slope Stability Analysis
» Program: Geo-Slope student version from 2012
» Conducted at the cross section of Station 181+00 at the culvert
(information provided by PennDOT)
» Additional surcharge loading of 360 psf was accounted for by the addition
of 3 feet of the topsoil layer for each analysis
» Water table was determined to be at a depth of 14 ft
» Cooperation of contractor is needed to provide sufficient cut and fill
material for proper sloping along roadway
Slope Stability Analysis
Right Side
Factor of Safety: 1.165
Recommendations: With the existing R class rock fill along this side it provides
sufficient support for the slope. The roadway can not be extended out further
due to the historical site along this side.
Sand
Clay
R
o
c
k

F
i
l
l
Slope Stability Analysis
Left Side with Gabion Wall
Factor of Safety: 0.780
Recommendations: Due to the low FS, the slope of this slope must be adjusted
to prevent the localized failure at the existing gabion wall.
Sand
Clay
Sandy Gravel
Left Side with New Slope
Factor of Safety: 1.491
Recommendations: This newly proposed slope (approximately 21°) yields a
much larger FS, eliminating the localized failure at the old gabion wall. Backfill
material identical to the silty sand fill is needed.
Slope Stability Analysis
Sand
Clay
Sandy Gravel
Foundation Design
» Spread Footings
» Drilled Shafts
» Shallow depth of sandstone
· Ultimate bearing resistance = 99 ksf
» DOU 903 & DOU 906 basis for design of Abutment 1 & 2
· Best representative profiles based on bedrock depth and soil
stratigraphy
» Factored Service Load for Design
· Abutment 1: 3320.79 kips
· Abutment 2: 3334.14 kips
» Designed Based on LRFD
» Process and resistance factors based on Penndot DM-4
Spread Footing
» Chosen Footing Dimensions:
· Width = 10 feet
· Thickness = 2 feet
· Length = 45 feet

Spread Footing Analysis
» Limit States considered for analysis:
· Sliding
· Overturning
· Bearing Capacity
Abutment 1-Current Conditions
» Starting at proposed elevation of
1148.5 ft
» 3.5 ft of Poorly Graded Sand
» 4 ft of Clayey Sand
» Sandstone
» Water table encountered 4.4ft below
starting elevation
» Average soil properties from USCS
» Tip and Side Resistance values
according to DM-4
» Compressive strength of Sandstone
according to DM-4
Abutment 2-Current Conditions
» Starting at proposed elevation of 1149 ft
» Sandstone
» Tip and Side Resistance values
according to DM-4
» Compressive strength of Sandstone
according to DM-4
Pile Dimensions-Abutment 1
» 2 piles placed 11ft apart along
centerline of abutment
» Factored Resistance of 3580 kips
· 3580kips>3320.79kips
» Side resistance of sand neglected
» Bottom 1 diameter of socket
neglected
» 3.5 ft of effective socket length
Pile Dimensions-Abutment 2
» 2 Piles placed 11ft apart along
centerline of abutment
» Pile is entirely in the sandstone
» 3.5 ft effective pile length
» Factored resistance of 3569.65 kip
· 33569.65kip>3334.14kip
» Bottom 1 diameter of socket
neglected
Final Design Recommendation
"From the engineering judgment of Sackett Engineering, we recommend the
use of drilled shafts for construction. While spread footings meet the design
requirements, they are much less cost effective for the design. The ease of
construction for drilled shafts along with the sufficient structural properties, we
believe that our design will best suit the customers needs."
SACKETT
ENGINEERING
WE HAVE A SOLID FOUNDATION
'Improving the world one
design at a time"
QUESTÌONS?