1

University of Toronto

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering


CIV 313 Reinforced Concrete
Pedestrian Bridge Design Project
Project Submission

April 11, 2012



Prepared by:
Oscar Kwok 997812728
Shuliang Sun 996007440






2

Table of Contents

Page
1.0 Introduction. 1
2.0 Slab / Deck Design..1
2.1 Slab Design....1
2.1.1 Simply Supported vs. Continuous....1
2.2 Deck Design...3
2.2.1 Deck Aesthetics / Safety...........3
2.3 Slope of Slab..4
2.4 Shear Reinforcement Design.4
3.0 T-Beam / Girder Design...5
3.1 Bending Moment5
3.1.2 Rebar cut-offs (for Girder)..6
3.1.3 Splicing of Reinforcement..6
3.1.3.1 Positive Moment Reinforcement ..7
3.1.3.2 Negative Moment Reinforcement..7
3.2 Dimensions.....7
3.3 Shrinkage / Temperature Reinforcement Design....8
3.4 Stirrup Design.9
3.5 Shear Reinforcement of Girder..10
4.0 Column Design.11
4.1 Slab below Girder...12
4.1.1 Dimensions of Slab....12
4.1.2 Transverse/Temperature reinforcement ....13
4.1.3 Design for Shear Reinforcement...13
4.2 Column Design...14
4.2.1 First Iteration. 15
4.2.1.1 Slenderness Checks...16
4.2.2 Second Iteration..17
5.0 Cost Estimating..17
5.1 Slab / Deck Cost Analysis....18
5.2 Girder Cost Analysis....18
5.3 Column Cost Analysis..19
5.3.1 Slab below Girder...19
5.3.2 Columns..19
5.4 Total Cost..19
6.0 Deflections..20
7.0 Conclusion...20
Appendix
3

1.0 Introduction

Our design team has designed a pedestrian bridge for the development of an
extensive system of hiking and walking trails within the East Humber River Valley.
Our design presents a balance between minimal construction costs, aesthetics, and
safety. This report will comprise of the decisions we made to come up with the
final design of the slab, column, girder, and deck.

2.0 Slab / Deck Design
2.1 Slab Design

Concrete slabs are shallow reinforced structural members. The function of the slab
is to span between the beams, girders, and columns. For the design of the
pedestrian bridge, the deck will sit on top of the slab
2.1.1 Simply supported vs. Continuous

This design considers different alternatives, which consisted of the simply
supported and continuous beam. To arrive at the final decision of a simply
supported beam, shear and moment diagrams were developed for all cases. This
included the case of a 3 & 4 span pedestrian bridge for the simply supported (see
figure A below) / continuous case (see figure B below).

By developing a chart to compare the 4 different cases, it was easily determined
that the simply supported beam with 4 spans is the optimal alternative (see chart 1).


Simply Supported
3-span
Simply Supported
4-span
Continuous 3-
span
Continuous 4-
span
Large shear x Small shear Large shear x Large shear x
Large moment x Large moment x Large moment x Small moment
Consistent Consistent Not consistent x Not consistent x

Chart 1: Alternative comparison chart for Simply Supported and Continuous beam
cases
4


Figure A: Shear and Moment diagrams for Simply Supported beam Cases



Figure B: Shear and Moment diagrams for Continuous Beam cases
5

As seen from chart 1 above, the simply supported beam for 4 spans prevails over
the other cases. This is the best case as the shear and moment diagram was
consistent throughout the entire beam. This is significant because it signifies that
one design will fit all properties and aspects of the bridge designs. If the
continuous beam was chosen with the inconsistent shear and moment, it would
impact the design greatly because different amounts of reinforcements and
supports would have to be provided in different parts of the bridge. This would
considerably increase complication for the workers who provide the labor.
Therefore, with a simply supported beam, the same specifications and amounts of
reinforcements can be provided throughout the entire bridge which would increase
efficiency during construction. In addition, the 4-span simply supported beam has
low shear which is the most expensive part of labor in North America.

The slab will be sectioned off into four, 15m clear spans for a total clear distance of
60m. The slab will rest on top of a designed T-beam and column at each of these
clear span sections. This was designed so that the columns will not touch the water
in the centre of the valley.

The slab will be 120mm thick. This was decided as to provide a slab that has high
strength and is relatively light to stand on top of the girders and columns. Other
dimensions used include 40mm cover and reinforcements of #30 bars @150mm.

2.2 Deck Design

The deck must be smooth and safe for pedestrians to walk and travel on. It must
also account for all types of loads that may be put on it.

For our pedestrian bridge design, the following loads were considered:

- Superimposed dead load: 0.5 kN/m
2

- Live load: 4.8 kN/m
2

- Snow load: 2.4 kN/m
2

- Side railings: 0.5 kN/m
2
(included in dead load)
- Concrete own weight: m kN m mx x m kN / 28 . 11 4 120 . 0 / 5 . 23
3
=
36.72kN/m 2.4))) * (4 * (0.5 + 4)) * (4.8 * ((1.5) + 0.5)) + 0.5) * ((4 * (((1.25) = = Wf

2.2.1 Deck Aesthetics / Safety

Wood will be used as a layer on top of the deck. This decision was based on the
6

relative light weight of wood, which will not contribute much to the weight of the
pedestrian bridge. Therefore the weight of the wood is negligible. Wood is also
easy to obtain and install which makes it a good choice in supplementing the
concrete deck.

The use of wood is significant in our design of the pedestrian bridge because it is
aesthetically pleasing to the eye. When people walk on the bridge or look at it from
afar, they will see a beautiful wooden bridge instead of a grey slab of concrete.

It also adds safety to our design because it eliminates the rough surface created by
the concrete. Side railings will also be placed on two sides so it will provide safety
buffer for pedestrians traveling on the bridge.

2.3 Slope of slab

The issue of ponding and build-up of rain and snow is an inevitable problem with
all bridges. This creates safety and health concerns. Therefore a slope must be
incorporated into the structural slab design to drain the excess water that
accumulates on the bridge. A slope of 1-2% is needed on the bridge slab to prevent
the buildup of rain and snow during extreme weather.

The slope must be kept at an angle of 1-2% so as to keep the pedestrians from
noticing while allowing the drainage to flow off the bridge efficiently.

2.4 Shear Reinforcement Design

For the design of the shear reinforcement of the one-way slab, we used the general
method because this method allows for shallower crack angles, which permit more
resistance.

Although it is difficult and expensive to reinforce slabs for shear, a check is
necessary to determine whether they are required or not just to be safe.

From: m 15 ln = , m kN wf / 72 . 36 = , assuming #10 stirrups and maximum aggregate
size of 20mm

The following can be determined:

kN wf V
f
4 . 275 2 / (ln)) ( = = (at the face of support)
7

)) 120 72 . 0 ( ), 65 9 . 0 (( ) 72 . 0 , 9 . 0 max( x x h d dv = = =86.4mm
At a distance of dv from the face of support:
kN m kN kN V
f
272 ) 0864 . 0 )( / 72 . 36 ( ) 4 . 275 ( = = (critical section)











- Estimate longitudinal strain at mid-depth:
3 3
10 0 . 3 10 554 . 0
=
s = x x x c
- Estimate Crack spacing parameter, Sze: mm
ag
Sz
Sze 4 . 86
15
35
=
+
=
- Determine u and | factors:

33 = u 158 . 0 = |

Through these calculations, the concrete shear resistance can be determined:
kN dv b c f c Vc
w
6 . 48 ) 4 . 86 )( 1000 )( 30 )( 158 . 0 )( 65 . 0 ( ' = = = | |

kN V V
f c
30 ~ > and shear reinforcement is not required.


3.0 T-Beam / Girder Design

The T-beam system consists of the slab (which supports the reinforced concrete
beams) and girder. The slab and girder framework is then supported by the
columns.T-beams are included in the design to support the slab and deck.

3.1 Bending Moment

T-beams are useful in resisting compression and shear stresses. In the analysis of
the design, the concrete slab and t-beam interact as a unit to resist positive bending
moment. The t-beam has a disadvantage to the I-beam when dealing with tensile
forces because it has no bottom flange. This was taken into account and solved by
dv
275.4
272

8

setting the t-beams on top of another smaller slab to help balance the negative
bending moments.

3.1.2 Rebar cut-offs (for Girder)

The moments on the bridge vary along the length of the member. Therefore, the
actual cut-off of the bars must be considered and continued a certain distance so as
to develop the strength of the bar. *use the shear criterion in the assessment

ln = 15,000mm
Wf = 36.72 kN/m + 11.28 kN/m = 48 kN/m
- M(max) = kNm
wf
75 . 1032
8
(ln)
2
=
M(x) = 0
2
) (
2
=
x wf
Mc

Recall, for the cross-section of the girder was 2 layers of 6 #30 bars 1136.2kNm

- Location at which Mf is equal to 1136.2 kNm:
M(x) = kNm
x wf
Mc 2 . 1136
2
) (
2
= =
2
) (
48 75 . 1032
2
x
9.5m, or 5493.5 mm
from support. Therefore, at this point, the reinforcement can be cut back.



Development lengths:

mm d
c f
fy
k k k k l
b d
34 . 1025 ) 30 )(
30
400
)( 8 . 0 )( 0 . 1 )( 0 . 1 )( 3 . 1 ( 45 . 0
'
45 . 0
4 3 2 1
= = =





- Add
d
l to actual bar cut-off, 5494 + 1025 = 6519 mm

3.1.3 Splicing of Reinforcement

The splicing of reinforcement must be considered when
More than
300mm of
concrete
below bar
uncoated
Normal density
concrete
Slab reinf. Bars
are #10 < (#20)
9

- i) the reinforcement required is in greater length than commercially available
- ii) when bars are placed short of required length.

In the case of this pedestrian bridge design, we may consider splicing of
reinforcement from the case i. For the design, lap spices would work the best as
they are easy to install and economical. The lap splice would develop more than
the yield strength of the reinforcement.

3.1.3.1 Positive Moment Reinforcement

-
) (
3
1
+
As for the simply supported pedestrian bridge. The beam is
constructed monolithically with support and the embedment length
satisfies the condition: max(150mm, ) cot u dv
- At simple supports: la
Vf
Mr
ld + s
3.1.3.2 Negative Moment Reinforcement
The negative moment reinforcement is considered by anchoring in the supporting
member with the development length (above).
-
) (
3
1

As provided at the support and extended beyond the point of
inflection


3.2 Dimensions

The dimensions of the t-beam are as follows (see figure 1 below):

hmin =
16
000 , 15
16
ln
= 940mm
lw=3000mm
bw=300mm
hf=120mm (slab)
d(eff.) = 940-40-10-30-(
2
65
) = 830mm
As= 4200mm
2
(6 #30 bars)
bt = 12hf = (12x120) = 1440mm
bf = 2bt+bw = 2(1440)+300 = 3180mm
Cover = 40mm (for exterior slabs)
Spacing (min) = 42mm, use 65mm
10



Figure 1: Schmatic of T-beam design

- Use a case 1 situation because of calculated, Mrf > Mf
Mrf = K kNm x x d bw bf
rf
05 . 4157 10 ) 810 )( 300 3180 )( 2 . 2 ( 10 ) (
6 2 6 2
= =


Mf = kNm
w
75 . 1032
8
) 15 ( 72 . 36
8
ln
2 2
= =

- The As(req) fulfilled the area constraints as As(max) = 6.77x10
4
mm
2
and
As(min) = 772 mm
2
. Therefore, As(max) > As(req) > As(min)
- The moment resistance is fulfilled as Mr (=1136.2 kNm) > (=1032.75 kNm)


3.3 Shrinkage / Temperature Reinforcement Design

Reinforcements on the slab is needed to take into account effects of concrete
shrinkage and temperature. These effects can cause the slab to crack, therefore
adding reinforcements to the slab wil negate these effects. (See figure 2 below)

As
2
) (
240 ) 120 )( 1000 )( 002 . 0 ( 002 . 0 mm bh
req
= = =

hmin
Per 1m spacing
11

By using #10 bars, with an Ab = 100
2
mm , the spacing could be determined using,
( )
mm
As
Ab
s 416 ) 1000 (
240
100
) 1000 ( = = s


s
max
=500mm, therefore, use #10bars @ 416 mm on one face


Figure 2: Shrinkage / Temperature Reinforcement design

3.4 Stirrup Design

For the design of the stirrups of the girders, it is best to use #10 stirrups because
this is the standard that the industry uses. As the design does not have a top
compressive layer of longitudinal reinforcements, there is no need to 90

or
135

hooks.

Determine required stirrup spacing (using simplified method):

2
200 ) 100 ( 2 mm Av = =
mm h d dv 729 ) 677 , 729 max( ) 72 . 0 , 9 . 0 max( = = =
kN bwdv c f c Vc 140 ) 729 )( 300 )( 30 )( 18 . 0 )( 65 . 0 ( ' = = = | |
kN V
f
275 = (from initial shear diagram refer to figure A)

hmin =
940mm
#10
@500mm
6 #30
#30 @ 150mm (from slab design)

12

kN Vc V
f
135 = (how much stirrup resistance we need) kN Vs 135 =

Determine spacing:
s
sAvfydv
Vs
u | cot
= s= mm
x
524
10 135
) 35 )(cot 729 )( 400 )( 200 )( 85 . 0 (
3
=
- Use s= 500mm



Final Design of Slab & Girder:


3.5 Shear Reinforcement of Girders

The design of the shear reinforcements of the girder will be calculated using the
simplified method because of ease of calculation and proven efficiency.

The procedure used to calculate the shear reinforcements is as follows:

1. Determine parameters:
m 15 ln = , m kN m mx x m kN m kN wf / 48 ) 120 . 0 4 / 5 . 23 ( / 72 . 36
3
= + =
2. Calculate 747 ) 72 . 0 , 9 . 0 (max( = = h d dv
3. Calculate , 720 ) 15 )( 48 ( ln kN wf Vf = = = At face of support: kN Vf 684 =
#10 @ 500mm
#30 @ 150mm (from slab design)
13

For region 2, using:
4. kN bwdv c f c Vc 287 ' = = | | , Vc Vf > and kN Vc Vf Vs 397 = =
5. Determine spacing, s= mm
Vs
sAvfydv
182
cot
=
u |
, mm d S 581 ) 600 , 7 . 0 min( max = = ,
mm use 200 @ 10 #
For region 1:
6. max 528 ' s mm s < = , use s = 528 mm
7. kN
s
sAvfydv
Vs 181
cot
=
u |
, with kN Vc 287 = (as above) kN Vf Vr 468 = =
8. in region 1, starting about 5242 mm from support, provide #10 @ 400mm
For region 0,
9. 132 . 0
1000
230
=
+
=
dv
| , Vf kN bwdv c f c Vc = = = 210 ' | |
10. in region 0, starting about 10612 mm from support, no stirrups are
required





4.0 Column Design

7500
1750
mm
14

Columns are vertical structural members that transmit axial compression forces
and resist moments.

4.1 Slab below Girder

It was decided that adding a slab below the t-beams to help provide support to the
beams and to increase the aesthetics of it (see figure 3 below) will be beneficial. If
the column had been placed directly underneath the t-beams, then the columns
would have had to be significantly large to fit the large clear span of the beams. It
would also not look good to have the columns underneath the t-beams.



Figure 3: Slab below girder


4.1.1 Dimensions of slab

The slab below the girders was designed to be a bit bigger than the t-beams and fit
directly underneath it. Therefore, the dimensions were designed as follows:

m l 8 . 3 =
m h 9 . 0 =
m b 5 . 0 =

By considering the super imposed loads, and the own weight of the concrete slab
and girders, the weight that the slab would have to support was determined,
15

m kN Wf / 712 = and kNm Mf 1174 =

By choosing 2 layers of #30 reinforcements, the depth of the reinforcements was
determined as: mm er mm d 845
2
30
) (cov 40 900 = =

With 6, #30 bars, we determined As(req) to be 4200
2
mm which fulfills the flexure
requirements since As(min) = 1232
2
mm and As(max) = 10979
2
mm . Therefore,
(max) ) ( (min) As req As As < <

In addition, spacing was calculated by s= mm
As
Ab
167 ) 1000 (
4200
700
) 1000 ( = =

Finally, the moment resistance was concluded to be larger than the factored
moment:
kNm
a
d sfy As Mr 1052 )
2
216
( 845 )( 400 )( 85 . 0 )( 4200 ( )
2
( = = = | > kNm Mf 915 = (refer to
appendix A for more details)

4.1.2 Design of transverse / temperature reinforcement for slab under girders

2 6
900 10 ) 9 . 0 )( 5 . 0 )( 002 . 0 ( 002 . 0 ) ( mm m m bh req As = = =
Assuming #10 bars and one-half As(req) on each face:
mm
As
Ab
s 222 ) 1000 (
2
900
100
) 1000 ( =
|
.
|

\
|
= s , but mm h s 500 ) 500 , 5 min(
max
= =


4.1.3 Design for Shear Reinforcement

Similar to the above calculations of shear reinforcement for the original concrete
slab, except the calculations for the slab under the beams will use the simplified
method as this slab is considerably smaller than the original slab. But the
simplified method is still able to ensure a safe and more efficient design (see figure
6 below).

Calculations for the shear reinforcement are as follows:
- kN
Wf
Vf 4 . 1423
2
ln
= =
- mm mm x mm x h d dv 5 . 760 ) 900 72 . 0 ( ), 845 9 . 0 (( ) 72 . 0 , 9 . 0 max( = = =
16

- mm xdv Sz 600 ) 600 ), 7 . 0 max(( = =
- kN bwdv c f c Vc 146 ) 5 . 760 )( 300 )( 30 )( 18 . 0 )( 65 . 0 ( ' = = = | | , Vc Vf >
- kN Vc Vf Vs 1277 146 4 . 1423 = = =
- mm
Vs
sAvfydv
s 43
1277
)
35 tan
1
)( 5 . 760 )( 400 )( 100 )( 85 . 0 (
cot
= = =
u |

- mm xdv S 35 . 532 ) 600 ), 7 . 0 (( max = = , S < Smax
- kN Vs Vc Vr 4 . 1423 1277 146 = + = + =
- mm mm cbwdv cf Vr 1854 ) 5 . 760 )( 500 )( 30 )( 65 . 0 )( 25 . 0 ( ' 25 . 0 (max) = = = | , (max) Vr Vr <

4.2 Column Design

The design of the pedestrian bridge consist of 3 columns that separate the bridge
into four, 15m spans (see figure 4 below). As described above, the columns are
situated below the slab which creates an aesthetic appeal.

The design make use of both slender and short columns. Slender columns are used
because the moments induced by slenderness effects, weakens the column
appreciably. This is true for the column in the middle (see figure 4).



Figure 4: Overview of popsicle columns


The use of tied rectangular columns will be used because they provide a variable
17

cross-sectional shape The ties included in tied columns provide restraint to
longitudinal bars from buckling out through the cover of the column, and hold the
reinforcement during construction. They also confine concrete core, providing
increased ductility, as well as serve as shear reinforcement.

The columns will be installed as rigid connections because the use of pins will
provide a more stable connection and will not allow the columns to roll off as what
would happen if rollers were used. Additionally, as a means to prevent sway; the
columns will be designed as a braced frame.

4.2.1 First Iteration

Procedure to determine specifications (see appendix A for detailed calculations):

1. Point load on the slab below girder is 554kN (half of point load on the side
of the slab). So to combine the two side loads to calculate the total load
acting on the column, kN P
f
1108 2 * 554 = =
2. Select 02 . 0 =
g

3. Calculate
| |
2
1
62738
) 1 ( ' 8 . 0
mm
sfy c cf
P
Ag
g g
f
=
+
=
| | o

4. Adjust b & h so that they are equal: mm Ag h b 250 = = =
5. Calculate
2
1255mm Ag Ast
g req
= =
6. Select 4 #25 bars,
2
2000mm Ast =
7. Check capacity: 024 . 0 = =
Ag
Ast
g

8. Determine | | kN sfyAst Ast Ag c cf 1169 ) ( ' 8 . 0 max Pr
1
= + = | | o

4.2.1.1 Slenderness Checks

The pedestrian bridge design must be checked for slenderness which is significant
because slender columns carrying axial load and bending moments will have
reduced strength due to increased moments arising from transverse deflections.

Slenderness checks procedure (see appendix B for detailed calculations):

1. kN Pf 1108 = , kNm M 0 1= , kNm M 159 2 = (see figure 5 below)
18


Figure 5: M
2
calculation

2. Assume L-type section
3. Using similar triangles, determine heights of columns:
1
lu = 7.5m,
2
lu =
10m,
3
lu = 5m
4. Determine radius of gyration, r=0.3h
5. Check slenderness if
) ' (
) 2 / 1 ( 10 25
cAg f
Pf
M M
r
klu
<
|
.
|

\
|
, k=0.67
6. Find EI
d
EcIg
| +
=
1
4 . 0
19
,
2
2
) (klu
EI
Pc
H
=
7. Using: 75 . 0 = m | , 6 . 0 )
2
1
( 4 . 0 6 . 0 = + =
M
M
Cm ,
8. Determine whether Magnified Moment: ) 03 . 0 15 (
) ( 1
2
h Pf
mPc
Pf
CmM
Mc + >

=
|

9. Determine longitudinal Reinforcement:
Ag
Pf
,
Agh
Mc

10. Finally, find
req
from interactive tables in handbook


The above calculations were checks for column specifications of 250mm x 250mm
(length x width). The results (refer to appendix B) show that slenderness is not an
issue, but we found that these columns are too thin and resemble popsicle
19

columns (see figure 7 above). This wouldnt make the pedestrian feel safe when
they are walking on the bridge.

4.2.2 Second Iteration

To give pedestrians a feeling of safety when walking across the bridge and to
increase the aesthetics of it, a specification of 500mm x 500mm for the design of
the bridge was used. The cost isnt a burden to the project either as the increased
volume only results in 2606$ increase in cost compared to 250mm x 250mm
columns.

The above procedure for slenderness checks was repeated and determined that the
500mm x 500mm columns are not slender. (refer to appendix C)

This column design does not fail as the (Mr, Pr) is within the failure envelop (see
Appendix E).

5.0 Cost Estimating
For the design of the pedestrian bridge, a concern is with the construction costs
which include the cost of materials and labour.
The importance of cost estimating when designing for the pedestrian bridge is
crucial because if our estimates go over the allocated budget, the project will not be
able to be implemented.

As can be seen on the design specifications that were initially proposed, the rebar /
stirrups & ties are the most material costly and labour intensive aspect of the
design. Therefore, minimization of these features whenever possible is beneficial.
For the calculations of the materials, an application of a safety factor of 1.3 to
ensure there is enough materials to support all the loads and moments applied on
the bridge is needed. This is necessary since there will always be unexpected
situations that occur which may add to the bridges loads.
*Note: assume the density of steel to be 8000
3
m
kg








20

5.1 Slab / Deck Cost Analysis

The following table summarizes the costs for the slab and deck in one 15m span.
Materials Labour
Concrete/m^3
Rebar
/tonne
Formwork
/m^2
Concrete/
m^3
Longitudinal
Rebar
/tonne
stirrups &
ties Formwork
9.4 0.76 83.93 18.7 11.4 0 83.93

Summing the costs for the materials and labour, we get the total costs:


Cost
Materials Labour Total Cost
3175 7416 10592

Therefore the cost for the entire four 15m spans will be 10592 x 4 = $42368.00


5.2 Girder Cost Analysis

The following table summarizes the costs for the girder (t-beams) in one 15m span.


volume (m^3) steel (tons) labor (hrs)
Concrete
/m^3
Formwork
/m^2
Rebar
/tonne Stirrups&ties
Concrete
/ m^3 Formwork
Longitudinal
Rebar
/tonne
stirrups
& ties
9.6 75.7 1.3 0.0036 19.2 75.7 20 0.089
Summing the costs for the materials and labour, we get the total costs:

cost $
Materials Labour Total Cost
3978 7449 11426

Therefore the cost for the entire four 15m spans will be 11426 x 4 = $45704.00



21

5.3 Column Cost Analysis

The cost analysis of the columns will consist of the slab under the girder and each
individual column.

5.3.1 Slab below Girder

The following table summarizes the costs for one of the three slabs below the
girder.

volume weight of steel labour (hrs)
concrete
(m^3)
formwork
(m^2)
rebar
(tonne)
stirrups and
ties (ton) concrete formwork
longtitudinal
rebar
stirrups
and ties
2.2 15.0 0.17 0.14 4.4 15.0 2.5 3.5

Summing the costs for the materials and labour, we get the total costs:

Cost $
material labour total cost
907 1655 2562

Therefore the cost of all 3 of the slabs will be 2565 x 3 = $7695.00

5.3.2 Columns

For the 500 x 500mm columns the following table summarizes the costs for the 3
different columns:

volume weight of steel labour (hrs)

concrete
(m^3)
formwork
(m^2)
rebar
(tonne)
stirrups
and ties
(tonne) concrete formwork
longitudinal
rebar
stirrups
and
ties
col1 1.8 14.6 0.12 0.003 3.6 14.6 1.7 0.076
col2 2.63 21.1 0.17 0.004 5.3 21.1 2.53 0.11
col3 1.0 8.1 0.06 0.002 2.0 8.1 0.97 0.042





22

Summing the costs for the materials and labour, we get the total costs:

Cost $
material labour total cost
col1 562 1302 1863
col2 812 1883 2695
col3 311 720 1031
Therefore the cost of the 3 columns are: 1863+2695+1031=$5589.00

5.4 Total Cost

Total Cost = $101,356.00
The total cost for the design of the pedestrian bridge is reasonable.

6.0 Deflections

The design of the pedestrian bridge must be checked for deflection to ensure its
safety. To validate the design, the deflections must be less than the maximum
allowable.

The following data is given:
- m kN m kN m x m kN Wd / 59 . 22 2 ^ / 5 . 0 ) 940 . 0 / 5 . 23 (
3
= + = (assuming per 1 m
width). 22.59kN/m + 0.5 kN/m (side railings) = 23.09 kN/m
- h(min)= mm 940
16
15000
=
Calculate the immediate dead load deflection and immediate deflection due to dead
load using the following formulas:
-
11
ln
2
w
Ma = ,
yt
frIg
Mcr =
-
12
3
bh
Ig = ,
2 3
) ( ) (
3
1
kd d nAs kd b Icr + =
-
3
) / )( ( Ma Mcr Icr Ig Icr Ie + =
-
EcsIe
w
384
ln
4
= A (for simply supported)
Our deflection calculation came out to be 6.18mm which is significantly smaller
than the check of mm 3 . 83
180
ln
=
*see appendix D for detailed calculations
23

7.0 Conclusion

The development of the extensive system of hiking and walking trails within the
East Humber River Valley has been designed and satisfies all the codes and
requirements of the Concrete CSA handbook.

The use of a simply supported bridge with the dimensions chosen for the slab and
girder worked extremely well. Along with our unique combination of a slab under
the girder, we were able to bring out the aesthetics and increase the efficiency of
our bridge design. Additionally the four 15 m spans that are separated by our three
columns continues the aesthetic appeal and supports all the loads applied on it.
Finally, we have sufficient rebar and reinforcements to support the concrete which
makes the design extremely strong and safe for the pedestrians to walk on. For the
final determined cost, it is reasonable and affordable.