Career Episode 1

CAREER EPISODE: 1

CE1.1 Introduction:

Chronology: Project duration from October 2011 to January

2013
Geographical Location: Mahal River, Bagh - Pakistan
Organization: Expertise (Private) Limited.
My Position: Civil Design Engineer
Project: Design vetting and optimization of Huller Bridge.

Background:

CE1.2 Expertise (Private) Limited had been awarded a project in October 2011 from
Earth quake reconstruction and rehabilitation authority (ERRA) by the name of
“Design vetting and Optimization of Huller Bridge “in Bagh city. This project was
under AJ & K Urban Development Program. It was a 5 span bridge with piers,
abutment walls, piles and pile caps arrangement in its substructure.

CE1.3 The project was initially awarded to M/s CECON, Civil Engineers and Consultants
but their submitted bridge design seemed to be unrealistic due to having massive
components and ultimately resulted in excessive cost. The client of the project
engaged M/s Expertise (Private) Limited for vetting of structural design and
drawings prepared by M/s CECON and, if required, redesigning of the structural
system.

CE1.4 For the stated job, I worked in this company as a Civil Design Engineer. In this
career episode, I shall explain in detail the outcome of the vetting design and
optimization of structure according to the clauses of AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications 2010.

CE1.5 I was involved in vetting structural design of Huller Bridge. The main objective of
the vetting was to establish a modified structural design as per Design

1
 Career Episode 1

Requirements for bridge in seismic category “D” and seismic Zone 4 in which the
bridge was constructed.

CE1.6 First I developed understanding about the given project through provided design
calculations and drawings prepared by the other consultant. Then I studied in
detail the relevant clauses of bridge standards and specifications to ensure
compatibility with assumptions made in the analysis and design phase. The
amount of reinforcement and its detailing was checked against the design
calculations and bridge Code requirements for seismic Zone 4 and seismic
category “D” in which the bridge is sited.

Organizational Chart:

DIRECTOR TECHNICAL
Asif Raza Mirza

Chief Engineer
Shaukat Qadeer

Principal Engineer
Malik Saeed

Civil Design Engineer

Muhammad Umair Khan

CAD Operators

Personal Workplace Activity

CE1.7 In the initial phase of the project, Chief Engineer gave me the task of vetting the
structural design of bridge. He provided me all data received from client
containing soil investigation report, design calculation sheets, architectural and

2
 Career Episode 1

structural drawings with computer models made in STAAD Pro and SAP
software.

CE1.8 He guided me how to carry out the design review in connection with International
standards and bridge codes. I reviewed design criteria which included the
information related to Codes and Standards, material properties, design loads
which the designer used in their calculations. All these are discussed one by one
hereunder.

CE1.9 I carried out structural review of the bridge as per “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications 2010” and ASTM Standards. Both of these standards and
specifications are internationally accepted for structural design concrete
structures.

CE1.10 First, I Checked the Grillage model of superstructure by observing geometric and
material properties, superimposed dead load, self weight of girders and live loads
of truck and tank.

CE1.11 In General, Prestressed design calculations performed using the cross sectional
properties of interior girder only. Design of external pre-stressed girder with lesser
composite moment of inertia had not been furnished in super structure design
calculation sheets. I highlighted this issue because the behaviour, sectional
properties and reinforcement amount of end girders were totally different in
actual.

CE1.12 Footpath load had not been taken into account as superimposed dead load on
the bridge as mentioned in bridge drawings. I pointed out this factor and added
load of footpath on the left exterior girder.

CE1.13 I analyzed that maximum moment caused by the superimposed deal load of New
Jersey barrier is less in the external girder as compared to interior girder which
seemed to be unrealistic. So I commented to recheck the loads applied as a
barrier load at external girders in the grillage model to sort out error.

3
 Career Episode 1

CE1.14 In the fatigue limit state, the designer used gross cross section properties of
girder to check flexure stress at bottom (fb) which was more than the tensile limit.
I recommended that the crack section properties should be used to check fatigue
limit state as stipulated in Clause 5.5.3.1 of AASHTO LRFD 2010.

CE1.15 For strength limit state, c/de is greater than 0.42. Hence, I specified the clause
5.5.4.2.1 of AASHTO LRFD 2010 for the reduction in factored resistance.

CE1.16 I also highlighted the issue that Strength limit calculations had not been
performed for normal relaxation strands. Instead those were performed for low-
relaxation tendons which were not being used in the prestressed girders.

CE1.17 The design loads were suitable in general. However, I recommended to generate
tank loading in addition to truck loads as per actual in grillage analysis because in
some circumstances live loads due to tank loading gave higher results at certain
parts of the bridge. I also included this comment in design review report and
advice to specify it separately.

CE1.18 For Sub Structure review, I had done detailed study of hydrological and
geotechnical data used for sub structure design. I observed that no hydrological
studies had been carried out to find out actual discharge, scour depth and flow
velocity for substructure design. Then I wrote a memorandum to the client for
exact hydrological investigation on site.

CE1.19 I pointed out that monolithic behaviour of the bridge super structure and sub
structure was not considered in the model, instead separate model were
prepared for the super and sub structure design. This assumption had led to
over design of bridge sub structure. In order to get true behaviour, I strongly
recommended in comments to prepare composite model (Grillage + Modelling of
piles along with substructure) of bridge by adding actual stiffness at connection
ends to obtain a realistic estimate of the forces and moments for checking the
substructure design.

4
 Career Episode 1

CE1.20 I examined that the design of Pier and Abutment piles and pile cap had been
based on a seismic response modification factor R of “3.5” instead of “1” as
stipulated in Clause 3.10.7.1 of AASHTO LRFD 2010. As R factor scales down
seismic forces, the piles and pile cap are designed for just 20% of the code
required forces. Further, by using seismic modification factor “R” as per Clause
3.10.7.1 of AASHTO LRFD 2010, the reinforcement in pier/abutment piles
exceeds considerably. So I raised this comment to revise the sub structure
design and subsequent drawings accordingly.

CE1.21 I checked that Springs stiffness were not based on the soil investigation report
instead same value of springs were assigned throughout the length of pile which
was unrealistic and I also conveyed this to my senior.

CE1.22 I mentioned another comment that for Pier and Abutment design same value of
dead as well as live load is applied on each girder point (exterior and interior)
which was absolutely impractical.

CE1.23 Stream flow loads were not assigned at piers and piles instead only applied at the
top of transom in the form of point loads. This was due to the fact that all
hydraulic parameters are based on assumption.

CE1.24 I found out that abutment model had quite a few “connectivity” issues particularly
due to poor meshing size selection for modelling abutment walls and wing walls
as a plate element. This had led to inappropriate distribution of loads as well as
moments and numerical errors during the analysis.

CE1.25 I noted that pile caps, nearly square in cross-section, were modelled and
designed as beam elements. These should be treated as plate elements with
proper meshing for accurate distribution of moments and shear especially at
critical locations (e.g. edges of pile cap and near the face of piers).

5
 Career Episode 1

CE1.26 Furthermore, I assessed that Pile capacity curves were not established for 1.2 m
diameter piles in soil investigation report, therefore, length of the piles needs to
be finalized.

CE1.27 I evaluated that different compressive strengths for piles and pile cap (4000 psi
and 3000 psi respectively) will result in construction issues in areas where piles
were partially embedded in pile cap .So I discussed this issue with my chief
engineer and recommended to use concrete compressive strength of 3000 psi for
transom, retaining walls, wing walls and piers and 4000 psi for pile caps and
piles.

CE1.28 No dynamic soil pressure on the abutment walls had been considered in the
analysis and design. I recommended using Mononobe Okabe equation for the
calculation of seismic active earth pressure coefficient K ae and respectively active
seismic force Pae as stated in clause 11.6.5.3-2 AASHTO LRFD 2010.

CE1.29 I summarized all my comments after discussion with my principal engineer and
conveyed to client. Redesign of the substructure was considered necessary
because the substructure was overdesigned due to lots of assumptions used
during analysis and design.

CE1.30 After detailed discussions and several meetings with client, it was finalized that
the redesign of the substructure was also carried out by Expertise (Private)
Limited and provide a cost effective solution and prepared final construction
drawings.

CE1.31 As I was involved throughout in the review process and well familiar with the data
provided for bridge, therefore, Chief Engineer had given me the responsibility to
collect all the necessary missing data and prepared a composite model of bridge
on CSI Bridge wizard V 15.0.1.

CE1.32 First of all I listed down all the missing data such as highest flood level (HFL),
Scour depth, actual discharge, flow velocity, pile capacity curves and soil springs

6
 Career Episode 1

for substructure design. For this purpose I wrote a memorandum to client for
conduction of actual hydrological studies and soil investigation at bridge site.

CE1.33 Then structural department arranged a site visit in order to check the topography
of the area. I also visited that site and take photographs at upstream and
downstream side of bridge to finalized the suitable location for the proposed
bridge.

CE1.34 After getting all inputs the next step was to model the bridge on CSI Bridge
wizard V 15.0.1.In order to get complete knowhow about the software I attended
15 days training on the above stated software because before this project nobody
used this software for modeling of composite structures. This software mainly
encountered the effects of earthquake.

CE1.35 I used Bridge Wizard tool that guided me step-by-step through the creation of a
complete bridge model with instructions at each step to ensure that all of the
necessary components had defined in the model. I defined deck section
diaphragms, bearings, restrainers, soil spring, abutments, pier, hinges and
tendons by using Bridge object model. Then I modelled pile caps and piles
beneath piers and abutments.

CE1.36 I assigned all the superimposed dead loads (wearing surface, barriers, and
footpath) in bridge deck loads. Then I defined lanes and standard truck and train
loading as vehicular loads. I also assigned actual soil springs at 1m interval to
analyse the exact behaviour of piles under soil pressure.

CE1.37 The next step was to define response spectrum for Seismic category “D” and soil
Profile Type 3. I used Response spectrum functions tool for this purpose.

CE1.38 After completion of composite bridge model I carried out static and dynamic
analysis. Then I perceived from analysis results a considerable reduction in
moments and axial forces on which the previous design is based. Therefore, I
refined the cross sectional dimensions of pier, pile cap and piles as well as the no
of piles to achieve safe, lighter and economical structure.

7
 Career Episode 1

CE1.39 I observed that seismic Load combination governs after performing dynamic
analysis, then I carried out design of bridge substructure components for the
governed seismic load combinations in order to calculate the amount of
reinforcement.

CE1.40 I summarized all outputs of the bridge model and presented following results to
chief engineer for their approval.

■ Replacement of 16-1200Ф piles with 16-1000Ф piles at Pier location

■ Replacement of 5-1200Ф piles with 5-1000Ф piles at Abutment location
■ Replacement of 2.7 m depth of pile cap with 2.2 m depth at Pier location
■ Replacement of 13.2 x 13.2 m pile cap size with 11 x 11 m pile cap size at
Pier location
■ Replacement of 10.4 x 4.1m dimension of transom with 10.5 x 3 m at pier
location

CE1.41 Due to structural optimization, volume of structural concrete had been reduced
from 8420 m3 to 6824 m3. Similarly, a considerable reduction in reinforcement had
been observed from 830 ton to 513 ton. The design calculation sheets which I
prepared during this project were extremely appreciated by my design team and
were archived in data bank to further use by others.

Summary

CE1.42 Reviewing the bridge design gave me a lot of self-assurance in my capabilities for
composite and complex structure designing. I also learnt working with senior staff
about using international standards and codes and special provisions for bridges.
This project provided me great opportunity to become familiar with latest bridge
engineering software for analysis and design of composite structures. I made
noteworthy efforts to ensure that all aspects of design at design stage are being
used correctly. This was my first design review project and hence it provided me
practical knowledge and technical strength for future projects.