Team 3:
Puente con la Gente
Bridge with the People

Addottey Allotey
Molly Dahmer
Will Thies
Melissa Vander Ziel

Engineering 339/340
Senior Design Project
Calvin College
November 16, 2015
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© 2015, Team 3 and Calvin College 
 

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Rio del Potrero is a river that travels through the village of El Potrero, Honduras. The village
experiences flooding that separates one side of the village from the other during biannual rainy seasons.
This restricts access to church, school, farmland, and medical supplies, and locals have nearly drowned
trying to cross it during the rainy season. The Puente con la Gente team is designing a bridge over the Rio
del Potrero. It will be a suspended pedestrian bridge that will meet the needs of the village and specified
design conditions. This project is conducted with the help of a Honduran engineer, Diaconia Nacional,
World Renew, and the Community Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Survey, soil, and water level data was collected by the team at the bridge site in August of 2015. The team
has modeled the riverbed and banks 200 feet upstream and downstream in AutoCAD Civil 3D. The 49-
square mile watershed was outlined in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Using this information, the
team modeled the river flows using the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System
(HEC-HMS) and River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). These programs allowed the team to make informed
decisions about which design standards to follow and helped estimate velocities.
Cable, abutment, and anchor calculations, which will help the team design the main cables and foundations
to meet the existing site conditions, will be completed in the coming months. The team has calculated the
pressure exerted by the current abutments on the soil. Using Bridges to Prosperity design loads, the design
stress on the cables was calculated.
The bridge will withstand its own dead load, the live load of pedestrians, and a wind load. The team is
designing it for a 24-hour, 1-year storm that reaches the high water level noted by the community. The sag
of the bridge will remain a minimum of 2 meters above this water level, per international standards set by
Bridges to Prosperity. The abutments of the bridge will be designed to protect against scour when water
reaches the abutments at high velocities or for extended periods of time. The bridge will be designed in
accordance with Bridges to Prosperity and American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) pedestrian bridge guidelines.
This Project Proposal and Feasibility Study examines project specifications, data collection, design process,
and construction. It also provides preliminary calculations and a confirmation of the feasibility of the
project. In light of the team's understanding of the project, extensive research, the presence of similar
bridges nearby, and the determination of the El Potrero community, the team believes the pedestrian bridge
is a viable solution to the village's current problems.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. The Project ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. Project Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2. Location ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.3. Need .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. The Team ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Addottey Allotey ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2. Molly Dahmer ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3. Will Thies .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2.4. Melissa Vander Ziel .................................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Senior Design Course ...................................................................................................................... 2
2. Project Management ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1. Project Breakdown ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1. Survey and Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2. Modeling and Design ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1.3. Construction .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2. Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Budget .............................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Project Specifications ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Standards .......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2. Design Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.3. Materials .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4. Design Norms .................................................................................................................................. 6
4. Data Collection in Honduras .................................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Overview of Trip ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.2. Meeting with Honduran Engineers .................................................................................................. 7
4.3. Bridge Site ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.4. Stream Cross-Sections and Abutment Topography ......................................................................... 8
4.5. Soil Borings ..................................................................................................................................... 9
5. Design Process ....................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1. Survey Modeling............................................................................................................................ 11

iii
 5.2. Stream and Region Hydraulic Analysis ......................................................................................... 12
5.2.1. Relation to Bridge Design ....................................................................................................... 12
5.2.2. Rainfall .................................................................................................................................... 12
5.2.3. Hyetograph .............................................................................................................................. 13
5.2.4. Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 15
5.2.5. Stream Flow ............................................................................................................................ 15
5.2.6. High Water Level .................................................................................................................... 18
5.2.7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 20
5.3. Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 22
5.4. Bridge Design ................................................................................................................................ 22
5.4.1. Loading.................................................................................................................................... 23
5.4.2. Foundations ............................................................................................................................. 24
5.4.3. Wind ........................................................................................................................................ 26
5.4.4. Modeling ................................................................................................................................. 26
5.5. Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 27
5.6. Deliverable Plans and Details ........................................................................................................ 27
6. Construction ........................................................................................................................................... 28
6.1. Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 28
6.2. Construction Plan ........................................................................................................................... 28
7. Future Work ........................................................................................................................................... 29
8. References .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Appendix A: Gantt Chart .......................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Standards ............................................................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Stream Cross-Sections ......................................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Hydraulic Calculations ........................................................................................................ D-1
Appendix E: Current Preliminary Plans.................................................................................................... E-1
Appendix F: Structural Calculations ......................................................................................................... F-1

 
   

iv
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. El Potrero location on map of Honduras [1] ................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Suspended vs. suspension bridge types [3] ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Areas of public land, on which the bridge abutments can be built [1] ............................................ 8
Figure 4. Soil boring at east abutment location ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 5. Location of rock layer relative to soil sample location................................................................ 10
Figure 6. 3D model of cross-sections and topography ................................................................................ 11
Figure 7. An interpolated estimate of the elevation of bedrock under the west abutment .......................... 12
Figure 8. Relative proximity of El Potrero to Yoro[1] ................................................................................. 13
Figure 9. An example of a Type III hyetograph for a 50-year rainfall event .............................................. 14
Figure 10. The four different rainfall distribution curves used in the United States[6] .............................. 14
Figure 11. The El Potrero Bridge watershed with numbered sub-basins and contributing streams ........... 15
Figure 12. Land use in Honduras (1983) .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 13. Hydrograph showing flow under the bridge over time for a Type III 100-year, 24-hour storm 18
Figure 14. Hydrograph showing flow under the bridge over time for a Type IA 50-year, 24-hour storm . 18
Figure 15. Cross-section with faulty boundaries ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 16. The water surface elevations for a 100-year, 50-year, and 1-year 24-hour storm ..................... 20
Figure 17. Bridge cross-section where the dotted line represents the HWL for setting the freeboard ....... 21
Figure 18. Catenary curve relative to linear HWL ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 19. Sag diagram ............................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 20. Abutment key diagram in bedrock ............................................................................................ 25
Figure 21. Schematic of abutment, anchor, and cable connections ............................................................ 25
Figure 22. A cable anchor with distributed loads ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 23. Existing anchor example ........................................................................................................... 26
   

v
ABBREVIATIONS:
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AutoCAD AutoCAD Civil 3D
B2P Bridge to Prosperity
CRC Christian Reformed Church
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
HELVETAS HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation
HWL High Water Level
NCEES National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
WSE Water Surface Elevation
 

vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Project
1.1.1. Project Summary
Team 03 is designing a pedestrian bridge for the village of El Potrero, Honduras. The team has chosen the
name Puente con la Gente, which is Spanish for “Bridge with the People.” This team name explains both
the objective of the project and the team's desire that it be a communal project alongside the people of El
Potrero.

1.1.2. Location
El Potrero is located in the rural northeast of Honduras at 15°00'18.2" N 86°49'51.8" W, as seen in Figure
1. The village is home to 33 households, separated by the Rio del Potrero. About two thirds of those homes,
along with the village’s church, are on the west side of the river. The village is in a mountainous region that
experiences heavy rainfalls during biannual rainy seasons.

Figure 1. El Potrero location on map of Honduras [1]

1.1.3. Need
The Rio del Potrero experiences flooding and drastic increases in the water level during the rainy seasons.
This high water level and accompanying high velocities make it dangerous and nearly impossible to cross.
According to some, a number of people who have attempted to cross during high water levels have nearly
died. Without the ability to cross the river, many people in the village have no access to church, school,
farmland, and medical supplies for months at a time
This problem is not simply one of inconvenience. It is one of personal safety and community well-being.
The village of El Potrero is an extremely close-knit community that places great value on relationships
among families. A flooded river causes a physical barrier to this well-being. The pastor of the village’s
church, who lives on the east side of the Rio del Potrero, is a very important member of the community.
During the rainy season, he crosses the river on a weekly basis to continue his ministry among the village’s
families, no doubt putting himself in harm’s way to do so. The same is probably true if there is a medical
emergency. These and other problems are among those that the team hopes to resolve with the construction
of a pedestrian bridge.

1
1.2. The Team
1.2.1. Addottey Allotey
Nee Addottey Allotey comes from Accra, Ghana. He is studying civil engineering and has particular interest
in sustainable design. In his free time, Addottey enjoys playing the bass guitar, basketball, football, and
chess. He also has a love for photography. Addottey intends to pursue a master’s degree in civil engineering
and eventually work internationally.
As the team's webmaster, Addottey is responsible for designing and updating the project website. He is also
in charge of calculations, particularly those involving the cable anchoring system and foundations.

1.2.2. Molly Dahmer

Molly Dahmer was born and raised in Stevensville, Michigan. She is studying civil and environmental
engineering and is particularly interested in site development and stormwater management. In her free time,
Molly enjoys hiking, biking, reading, crafting, playing on intramural sports teams, and spending time with
family and friends. After graduation, Molly will be marrying her fiancé, Lucas, and plans to continue
working in the civil engineering department at Progressive Architects and Engineers in Grand Rapids.
Molly has the role of project manager for this project. Her main responsibilities include keeping the team
on track, checking calculations, and putting together documents.

1.2.3. Will Thies

Will Thies is from Portage, Michigan. Will's particular interests include water resources, distribution, and
management. His opportunities to apply those disciplines locally and through international projects have
strengthened his love for solving water-related problems. He also enjoys reading, singing, hiking, serving
at his local church, and spending time with his friends and family. Will plans to work for Prein&Newhof
in Muskegon while exploring opportunities in international work.
His primary responsibilities for the project include editing documents and using hydraulic modeling to
predict water surface elevations and flow velocities. These parameters have better informed the team’s
design and will help with performing scour calculations and foundation design.

1.2.4. Melissa Vander Ziel

Melissa Vander Ziel was born and raised on a farm outside of Lowell, Michigan. She is studying civil
engineering with a special interest in bridges and construction. In her spare time, Melissa enjoys sports,
Jeeping, spending time with friends and family, and anything outside. After graduation, Melissa intends to
work in bridge engineering and construction at LS Engineering/Scott Civil Engineering Co in Grand
Rapids.
Due to her special interest in and experience with bridge design, Melissa's role for this project is design
specialist. She will be leading and guiding the design process and plan formulation.

1.3. Senior Design Course

Senior Design is the capstone course for engineering students at Calvin College. It is comprised of two
courses: ENGR 339 in the fall and ENGR 340 in the spring. The class focuses on a large scale design project
while also including lectures that touch on life skills specific to the engineering field, such as ethics, cost
estimating, and project management. Members of the class form teams and spend the entire academic year
working on their senior design project, focusing primarily on research and a Project Proposal and Feasibility
Study in the fall, and design and implementation in the spring. It is an integral part of the Calvin College
engineering education, which “equips students to glorify God by meeting the needs of the world with
responsible and caring engineering.” [2]

2
2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
2.1. Project Breakdown
2.1.1. Survey and Data Collection
The first stage of the project was focused on collecting the data necessary for the bridge design. Much of
this data was collected during a trip to El Potrero in August of 2015. The team received information from
Honduran engineers, established the bridge site, surveyed the river bed and abutment areas, and obtained
soil samples. The team continued to collect applicable design standards and the remaining hydraulic data,
including rainfall, land use information, and regional topography, through online and software resources.
Data collection is further discussed in Section 4.

2.1.2. Modeling and Design

The phase that has taken the majority of the fall semester has been focused on modeling the river and
surrounding areas, performing a hydraulic analysis of the river, and designing the bridge. This was done
with the assistance of multiple computer programs. AutoCAD Civil 3D (referred to as AutoCAD) was used
to model the riverbed 200 feet upstream and downstream of the potential bridge site and the topography
near the abutment sites. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to find the watershed of the bridge
site. The watershed is the area of land that is sloped in such a way that any rainfall that becomes surface
runoff in that area will eventually flow under the bridge. GIS was also utilized in numerous additional
calculations involving topography and aerial imagery. These calculations were used to make the hydraulic
model as representative of reality as possible. The Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling
System (HEC-HMS) and River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) were used to predict the flow rates and high
water levels of the river, respectively. The hydraulic data, in addition to soil and other data, impacts the
final design of the bridge, which is currently being modeled in AutoCAD.
The modeling and design phase also includes structural specifications, including abutment type, foundation
size and location, connection specifications, and other aspects. Some of these decisions have been made
and are outlined in this document, while others will be completed in the coming months. The final product
will be a set of plans sent to the Honduran engineers that contains the necessary notes and details.

2.1.3. Construction
The final step in the process is to ensure the actual building of the bridge. The Honduran engineers will be
organizing and overseeing the construction. While the team will not physically be a part of the building
process, the plans they create will tremendously impact the construction outcome. It is of extreme
importance that the team give clear instructions on the plans in order for the final bridge to match their
design. This will be challenging, since instructions will need to be stated in a way that allows construction
with limited and relatively basic equipment. A set of base plans will be sent in December to provide an
opportunity for preliminary feedback from the engineers since the team will not be on site to prevent
mistakes and any communication will not be immediate.

2.2. Schedule
For ease of construction, the engineers and the community of El Potrero want to build the bridge during the
dry season. The earliest dry season will be during the months of April and May of 2016. With this
construction schedule in mind, the team has set the goal of completing all the preliminary plans and sending
them to the engineers for approval by the first week of February. Completion will likely be acceptable
throughout the month of February, but a conservative deadline will allow for more time for modification if
necessary. At the beginning of the fall semester the team created a Gantt chart, provided in Appendix A,
for all the major tasks that need to be accomplished in this time.

3
2.3. Budget
The team is given a budget of $500 from Calvin College for their senior design project. It is hoped that this
money can be put toward the construction costs of the bridge to supplement the funds already raised. The
Honduran engineers provided an estimated cost of $20,000 for engineering, labor, and materials. As of
November 22, 2015, Community CRC had received commitments for $12,000. They are hoping to receive
more before the February deadline. The team is also planning to help raise some of the funds by adding a
link on their website to a GoFundMe page started by Community CRC. The combination of these efforts
will, God willing, help to provide the remaining $8,000.

4
3. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
3.1. Standards
Research was performed regarding standards and guidelines specifically for pedestrian suspension bridges.
No such standards were found for Honduras, and few were found for international purposes. Additionally,
there are no relevant standards for pedestrian bridges in the United States or Honduras.
The team discovered an international non-profit organization called Bridges to Prosperity (B2P), which
“provides isolated communities with access to essential health care, education and economic opportunities
by building footbridges over impassable rivers." B2P has participated in the building of 166 footbridges in
17 countries, 11 of which were in Honduras. In 2002, B2P collaborated with HELVETAS Swiss
Intercooperation, an organization that is considered a pioneer of the idea that bridges and the programs
accompanying their construction can help combat poverty. Using existing HELVETAS guidelines in
addition to several AASHTO guidelines, B2P has produced their own set of standards that has been
successfully used on all of their bridges since 2002.[3] The team will base design considerations on these
B2P standards, provided in Appendix B. The B2P standards were chosen over HELVETAS standards due
to accessibility and language differences. The standards include equations for loads, foundation design, and
other calculations.
It was during the research process that the team learned about the differences among suspension type
bridges. There are two prevalent types of suspension bridges for this situation: suspension and suspended
(see Figure 2). A suspension bridge is a self-anchored structure that typically has two towers with cables
strung between them. These cables support the full load of the deck, which is roughly horizontal or concave
down. Suspended bridges have two main cables on each side that support the full weight of the bridge. For
suspended bridges, the cables and the deck itself hang freely. The differences between these two bridge
types were analyzed during the design process to ensure that the team was recommending the most
appropriate design.

Figure 2. Suspended vs. suspension bridge types [3]

3.2. Design Constraints

In addition to following pedestrian bridge standards, the bridge is being designed based on multiple
constraints unique to this project. It is important that the bridge consist of local materials as much as
possible. This keeps the cost and difficulty of the project at a minimum, which will be a large advantage
for the community.
The bridge must also have a similar design to other bridges in the area. This will ensure that local foremen
who have experience with similar projects will be able to instruct the community. Allowing the community
to do most of the labor will significantly reduce the cost of construction and instill a sense of pride and

5
responsibility in the community.
It is important that the amount of concrete be minimized. This forces increased efficiency of the abutment
design. It also impacts the cost of materials and the time to finish construction. All of these constraints at
least partially relate to cost, proving that money is also a large constraint in this design.
Finally, safety is a primary factor in the bridge design. It is of utmost importance that anyone who uses this
bridge, no matter their age or physical ability, is able to cross the river safely. The entire town should be
able to stand on the bridge and be confident in its structural stability. This constraint will, within reason,
overcome any other since the value of human life and health is greater than any amount of money.

3.3. Materials
Bridge materials will be resourced locally as often as possible. Concrete for the abutments and cable
anchoring system will be mixed from local gravel. Wood for the decking will be from trees cut locally and
treated if possible to slow the rotting of the boards. Steel cables and fasteners will need to be ordered from
outside the local community, most likely from the capital, Tegucigalpa. Critical specifications for materials
will be provided as part of the preliminary plans.

3.4. Design Norms

Design norms are ethical viewpoints specified by the Calvin engineering department that guide the design
and implementation of engineering projects. Three design norms are particularly important to this project:
cultural appropriateness, caring, and trust. These design norms act as a foundation for the team throughout
the design process.
It is critical to consider cultural appropriateness when working in another country or with culture. For the
community of El Potrero, it is important that the locals be able to do most of the construction themselves.
In order for the bridge to be successful, the community of El Potrero must take pride in it and have a sense
of ownership. This will be accomplished through community involvement, which must be factored into
design. This is a primary reason why the team chose to use a suspended bridge design, which allows for
greater community participation. It also influenced where the team placed the abutments and anchors, since
they wanted to be sure to honor the property rights of the locals.
The team also believes that caring is an important part of this project. The members of the team will be able
to use their abilities as engineers to care for a deserving community with a specific need. When the team
travelled to El Potrero, they were able to meet the members of the village and understand how great the
need for this bridge is. During their trip, the community treated the members of the team with kindness and
hospitality. By designing this pedestrian bridge, the team will be able to care for the community in return.
Another essential part of this project is trust. The community of El Potrero must be able to trust the bridge.
The people must be able to have confidence that the bridge will remain standing even under intense storm
conditions with high water levels, wind, and velocities. The team is designing the bridge with this in mind
and will incorporate factors of safety and conservative assumptions in order to ensure the safety of the
bridge design.

6
4. DATA COLLECTION IN HONDURAS
4.1. Overview of Trip
Molly, Will, and Melissa traveled to Honduras from August 28 to September 2, 2015 to gather site data.
Some time was spent in Tegucigalpa while the rest of the trip was in the village of El Potrero. The data
collected during this trip was essential to the function and design of the bridge. The team was able to meet
with some Honduran engineers, verify the proposed location for the bridge, gather stream cross-sectional
data and topographic data around the bridge site, learn what the annual high water level was, and obtain
soil samples. Perhaps equally important, the team was able to see the bridge site and the surrounding area
for themselves for an extended period of time, taking numerous photos throughout the process.
Equipment for the trip, including a tripod, level, measuring rod, measuring tapes, auger, and other assorted
tools, was generously loaned by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., a civil engineering consulting
firm based in Grand Rapids. The team is extremely grateful for their support since, without it, a trip to El
Potrero would have been relatively fruitless.

4.2. Meeting with Honduran Engineers

While in Tegucigalpa, the team had the opportunity to meet with three local engineers. As a result of the
discussion, the team was able to learn about the unique process of rural bridge construction in Honduras
and was provided with a set of plans from a similar bridge project. This contact with the Honduran engineers
was important because they will approve the team’s plans and oversee construction.
A follow-up conversation is currently being planned and will hopefully happen before the end of the year.
Information still desired from the engineers includes soil data for the contributing watershed and bridge
design standards used in Honduras.

4.3. Bridge Site

Once in El Potrero, the team thought about possible bridge site locations; however, the people of the
community knew where they wanted the bridge to be located. An existing path leads from the west side of
the village to a bend in the river. On either side of this bend in the river is a small portion of publicly owned
land. The community has planned for the bridge to stretch from one piece of public property to the other.
Originally the landowners surrounding this public property had not consented to having a bridge on their
land, but they have since given permission to use some portions if necessary. This will not change the
abutment locations, but it will allow the supporting anchors to be placed at the proper location and may also
provide additional space for stairs if needed. The areas of public land are shown in Figure 3.
The team also spoke with the local community to determine the high water level during any rainy season
in recent history. This was significant since the B2P standards state that a bridge shall be designed based
on the highest water level the community remembers. So the locals pointed out approximate heights along
the river bank to which the water had extended. These points were surveyed so they could be included in
subsequent work. After the trip was complete and communication was continued via email, the team
discovered that the water level verified by the community was the level to which the water rose every year.
However, since it seems to have been the highest water level the community remembers and the team has
not been able to verify anything higher, it was used for the purposes of design (see Section 5).

7
 Figure 3. Areas of public land, on which the bridge abutments can be built [1]

4.4. Stream Cross-Sections and Abutment Topography

The team surveyed the river to collect information for hydraulic modeling. One of the first things they did
was identify and survey benchmarks, which are features in the proximity of the bridge site used as a
reference for all surveyed topography. It is important to choose benchmarks that will not move, such as
large trees or rock formations. By setting benchmarks at three different trees, the team ensured that any
measurements can be made consistently in the future. One benchmark elevation of 100 feet was established
and all subsequent elevation measurements were relative to that point. Because the bridge site is at the river
bend, the team defined a bend point on which all stream cross-sections were based. Two lines were defined
from the bend point extending about 200 feet upstream and downstream roughly along the center of the
river.
The team then put stakes along the centerline of the stream at points where the cross-sectional geometry of
the riverbed changed. At each stake, a cross-section of the river was surveyed from the top of one bank to
the other, or as high as could easily be reached. Elevations were measured with the level and measuring rod
wherever the slope of the cross-section changed and at other significant locations. The riverbed material
and the vegetation along the bank were also noted. The team collected seven cross-sections upstream, four
downstream, and one at the bend point. Two of the upstream cross-sections were located at approximately
the same location and angle as the future bridge.
Stations were set up so that the most downstream cross-section was at Sta. 00+00, the bend was at Sta.
02+01.8, and the most upstream cross-section was at Sta. 04+02.8. Stationing is a tool used by civil
engineers to reference distances along a road or, in this case, a stream. Each station represents 100 feet, so
each number to the right of the + symbol represents one foot. Plots of all cross-sections are located in
Appendix C. Since all measurements were recorded in English units and later converted to metric, the
stations remain in English units for consistency.
In addition to surveying the cross-sections, the team recorded the elevations of the high water levels pointed
out by the community so they could be included in subsequent design decisions. Significant topographic
features such as trees, property lines, and walking paths near the location of the future abutments were also
surveyed. This allowed the team to know what features would need to be removed or avoided.

8
4.5. Soil Borings
At the site of the future bridge abutments, the team took soil samples to depths of about one and a half feet
on the west bank and three feet on the east bank, continually noting the soil type and other key
characteristics of the soil. One of the samples taken can be seen in Figure 4. The hardness and rockiness of
the soil prevented drilling the auger any deeper. On the the west side near the surface, the soil was composed
of fine sand with a trace of fine gravel, a little clay, and some peat. As depths increased, amount of peat
decreased and amount of gravel increased. The evidence of a solid rock bank below the west abutment
location suggests a solid rock layer below the clay layer (see Figure 5). On the east side of the river, soil
was consistently fine sand with little clay. No evidence of peat was discovered on the east side.

Figure 4. Soil boring at east abutment location

The soil borings were an important part of the design process since some soil types support foundations
better than others due to their strength, cohesion, grain size, and sorting. By classifying the soil, accurate
foundation design could be completed. The team currently estimates that the base area of the abutments
will be approximately 10.2 square meters. Soil borings were also important because they gave the team an
idea of how hard the soil was, even though bedrock was never reached.

9
 Soil Sample Location

Rock 

Figure 5. Location of rock layer relative to soil sample location

10
5. DESIGN PROCESS
5.1. Survey Modeling
The modeling process mimicked the data collection process. First, the bend representing the river was
created in AutoCAD (see Figure 6). Next, locations of the cross-sections were placed along the bend lines
at each measured distance from the bend point (wherever the team had placed a stake). Perpendicular to
each cross-section, points were placed at specified distances from the stake’s location and assigned their
measured elevation. A line then connected all of the points of each cross-section, showing the full cross-
section of the stream. This was repeated for all 12 cross-section.

Figure 6. 3D model of cross-sections and topography

An interpolated ground surface was added for aesthetic purposes. At each cross-section, the water surface
elevation (WSE) was modeled using the stream edges specified during surveying as boundaries. The water’s
surface was then interpolated between each cross-section. For simplicity, only measurements were modeled
while stream material and vegetation were not. Since all measurements were recorded in English units, a
simple scaling factor was necessary to convert to metric, which will be the unit system for the design.
Since bedrock formed a large part of the material at the bend and extended partly up the west bank, its
surface was interpolated into the clay layer and under the abutment location to give the team a reasonable
idea of how far below the ground surface bedrock would be found (see Figure 7).

11
 Figure 7. An interpolated estimate of the elevation of bedrock under the west abutment

5.2. Stream and Region Hydraulic Analysis

5.2.1. Relation to Bridge Design
Specifications regarding the effect of hydraulic analysis on bridge design differ between B2P and US
standards. The team’s goal is to create a bridge that will survive the weather at least as long as the expected
life span of the bridge's materials. B2P standards state the lifespan of their bridges is a minimum of 30
years.[3] Since the team is designing a bridge with similar materials, it will be built to last at least as long as
the materials.
The high water level (HWL), according to B2P standards, is "the absolute highest point noted by the
community, including such cases as a hurricane or other large flood events."[3] For the area surrounding the
bridge, a freeboard of 2 meters is appropriate. The freeboard is the distance from the lowest point of the
loaded bridge to the HWL.
According to US standards, the lowest part of the bridge must remain above the 100-year WSE for the
stream at the bridge location. A 100-year WSE is the water level sufficiently high that it is only reached
every 100 years or more. A 100-year WSE has a 1 percent chance of occurring during any given year.
The team's industrial consultant, local bridge engineer Janelle Musch, suggested that either standard could
be used, provided the team’s decision was justified. Since the community HWL had been already been
obtained in El Potrero, an investigation of the 100-year WSE needed to be performed in order to compare
the two options.
A design water level will determine necessary abutment heights to satisfy appropriate standards. Also, a
water velocity is needed to ensure that proper scour countermeasures are placed around the bridge
abutments and footings. These hydraulic factors were calculated using computer modeling and data
regarding rainfall, soil material, and other variables.

5.2.2. Rainfall
The first step in performing the hydraulic analysis was to research rainfall in Honduras and decide what
rainfall depth would produce a 100-year WSE. Due to the tropical climate in Honduras, the country
experiences extensive rainfall during certain periods of the year and limited rainfall at other periods.
According to Rolando Pinzon, a member of World Renew working in Honduras, the country's rainy season
generally occurs twice annually, once in May-July and once in October-January. The region is also subject

12
to hurricanes, which bring large amounts of rainfall over a short period of time.
While researching previous years of climatic data, the team assumed that a 100-year rainfall event would
produce a 100-year discharge and thus a 100-year WSE in the Rio del Potrero. Although not always the
case, it was a reasonable assumption since land use, soil type, river boundaries, rainfall duration, and other
variables were constant during analysis.
After conducting research, no data was found regarding 100-year rainfall in the area of El Potrero. However,
in 1998, a hurricane known as Hurricane Mitch struck Central America, bringing significant damage to
Honduras. It was such a destructive event that no hurricane as deadly had occurred in the Atlantic since
1780.[4] Because of the uniqueness of Hurricane Mitch, extensive data was collected, recorded, and
analyzed, providing the team with a reasonable estimate of the amount of rain it would have brought to the
El Potrero area. The 24-hour rainfall depth from this storm experienced by the nearby town of Yoro (see
Figure 8) was used as the 100-year storm event, even though it is closer to a 200-year event.

Yoro El Potrero

Figure 8. Relative proximity of El Potrero to Yoro[1]

Precipitation data for a 50-year storm in Yoro was also found and recorded for the sake of comparison,
since designing the bridge for a hurricane may not be feasible given the limited land and resources
available.[5] The 50-year and 100-year rainfall depths, along with the rainfall that produced the annual HWL
observed by the community (the 1-year depth), are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Rainfall depths for annual, 50-year, and 100-year storms in El Potrero, Honduras.
Probable Recurrence
Rainfall Amount [mm]
Interval [years]
1 68*
50 204
100 237
* This value was changed until the WSE of the 1-year storm matched the level pointed out by the
community. It is subject to change, however, since the record rainfall in the capital during a 24-
hour period before Hurricane Mitch was only 79.2 mm. This shows that there may be errors in
the hydraulic model.

5.2.3. Hyetograph
In addition to knowing how much rain falls in the bridge site's watershed over a 24-hour period, it is also
important to know the hourly distribution of that rainfall. This is done using a hyetograph, which plots
incremental rainfall depths over time (see Figure 9). The hourly intensity of a storm directly affects how

13
much water will end up flowing under the bridge at a single moment.

40

35

30
Rainfall [mm]

25

20

15

10

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Time [hr]
Figure 9. An example of a Type III hyetograph for a 50-year rainfall event

Another way to visualize rainfall over time is by way of a cumulative distribution curve. There are four
types of rainfall distributions used in the United States (see Figure 10). Each represents a certain intensity
and duration. The Type III rainfall distribution occurs around the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastal areas
and is characterized by “tropical storms [that] bring large 24-hour rainfall amounts”.[6] Because this is the
nearest geographically and climatically to Honduras, this rainfall distribution was selected to model a
rainfall event in the bridge’s watershed.

Figure 10. The four different rainfall distribution curves used in the United States[6]

14
5.2.4. Watershed
In addition to determining a rainfall amount and distribution, the watershed had to be “delineated,” or its
boundaries drawn. This was done using GIS, a program that allows topographic mapping while
georeferencing to global coordinates. Using 20 meter contours and an online topographic map,[7] the
watershed and five sub-basins were delineated (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. The El Potrero Bridge watershed with numbered sub-basins and contributing streams

5.2.5. Stream Flow

Once the watershed had been determined, the team started modeling what happened to rain when it fell on
that area. Not all of the rain that falls on a given area of land is converted to surface runoff. Much of it
infiltrates into the ground. Additionally, some of it doesn’t reach the land immediately, but is instead
temporarily suspended on the leaves of trees and other surfaces. Some of the factors that influence these
parameters are surface material, soil type, and type of vegetation. Surface material includes soil, trees, and
pavement. Soil type ranges from dense clay to loose sand. And vegetation can be open forest, row crops,
grass, or anything in between. These factors are collectively referred to as land use. Figure 12 shows a map
of land use in Honduras, which was used for the team’s hydraulic modeling.

15
 Figure 12. Land use in Honduras (1983)

For hydraulic design purposes, soil has been divided into four different hydrologic groups based on their
potential to contribute to runoff. Group A soils contribute little to runoff and are composed primarily of
sand or gravel. Group B soils have more clay and less sand, and so they have a moderately low runoff
potential. Group C soils, which are comprised of 20-40 percent clay and less than 50 percent sand, have a
moderately high chance of contributing to runoff since flow through the pore space is more restricted by
the clay. Group D soils generally have more than 40 percent clay and convert a lot of the rainfall to surface
runoff by allowing little infiltration.[8]
Because a clayey soil causes the most runoff, and since the team did not have access to soil data for the rest
of the watershed, it was assumed that the entire watershed consisted of Group D soil. This is a very
conservative assumption, as the relatively impervious nature of a Group D soil will cause the water surface
elevation at the bridge site to be higher than any other soil group.
Once land use and soil type were determined, the curve number could be calculated. The curve number is
a dimensionless parameter, used in hydraulic analysis, that describes the degree to which a soil and surface
material together contribute to surface runoff. The higher the curve number, the more runoff is produced.
The curve numbers of each sub-basin are shown in Table 2, and the calculation process is outlined in
Appendix D.

16
 Table 2. Curve numbers for each sub-basin, based on land use and hydrologic soil group
Sub-basin No. Hydrologic Soil Group Curve Number
1 D 83.9
2 D 83.8
3 D 81.5
4 D 82.6
5 D 82.6

One more important consideration is how long a raindrop takes to reach the design point once it has hit the
ground surface and has become runoff. The time of concentration (Tc) is the longest time it takes any
raindrop in a watershed to reach the design point, and it is calculated using the slope of the land, the type
of flow, and the length of the flow path:

√ (1)

In Equation 1,[9] L is the length of the flow path in feet, K is a factor based on the type of flow (small
tributary, waterway, or sheet flow), and S is the slope in percent. GIS was used to draw the flow paths and
calculate the lengths and slopes. The resulting time of concentration is calculated in feet per second.
Because the slope of the land consistently changed throughout each sub-basin, separate times of
concentration were calculated for flow paths of a constant slope and were then summed. The values of Tc
for each sub-basin are displayed in Table 3, and an example of the calculation process is shown in Appendix
D.
Table 3. Soil and Flow Characteristics Used in HEC-HMS
Sub-basin No. Tc[min]
1 184
2 339
3 176
4 104
5 94

HEC-HMS is a program produced by the US Army Corps of Engineers that predicts the amount of discharge
at a particular point, in this case the stream under the bridge. It factors in watershed parameters, such as
land use and lag time, and applies a hyetograph and design storm to calculate how much rainfall actually
reaches the bridge and when the peak discharge will be. Lag time is 60% of the time of concentration, in
hours. It accounts for the fact that, due to the delay in surface flow from extreme parts of the watershed, the
peak discharge in the stream occurs later than the peak rainfall. HEC-HMS then produces a hydrograph,
which is similar to a hyetograph (see Figure 9) but instead plots flow rate at the design point over time. The
most important result of this hydrograph is the peak discharge. Also of interest is the amount of time after
the storm starts until the river is flowing at its maximum rate. This time will hopefully help locals get a
sense of how long they have until the river level is at its highest.
For modeling purposes, channel side slopes were assumed to be 1H:1V and the channel width was assumed
to be 7 meters. Once the initial HEC-HMS model had been run, the estimated peak discharges for a 100-
year, 24-hour storm and a 50-year, 24 hour storm were 1,007 cubic meters per second (cms) and 840 cms,
respectively. This is equivalent to 29,700 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 35,600 cfs. The associated
hydrographs are displayed in Figures 13 and 14.

17
 Figure 13. Hydrograph showing flow under the bridge over time for a Type III 100-year, 24-hour storm

Figure 14. Hydrograph showing flow under the bridge over time for a Type IA 50-year, 24-hour storm

5.2.6. High Water Level

HEC-RAS, also developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, has the ability to take a discharge amount
and, using cross-sectional data and stream characteristics, convert it to a water surface elevation. This was
a critical part of the project since the 100-year WSE would determine whether the team designed based on
that elevation or that of the annual HWL.
To generate a water surface elevation from HEC-RAS, all of the cross-sectional data from the bridge site
survey was entered into HEC-RAS. Manning's n values were also determined and entered. Manning's n is
a dimensionless parameter that helps factor in the resistance of a surface material to the flow of water over
it. When entering them in HEC-RAS at each cross-section, the team used a table of values for different
materials that was cited by United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2339[10] (see Table 4 and
Appendix D). A preliminary simulation was run, but some errors were discovered.

18
 Table 4. Manning’s n values used for HEC-RAS

First, the surveyed cross-sections were too small to handle all the flow. Once the water level went beyond
the extents of the cross-sections, HEC-RAS assumed that the sides extended vertically up, which created
an artificially high WSE (see Figure 15). To fix this, the team extended the cross-sections as far as was
needed, using general topography from pictures and satellite imagery to provide reasonable estimates.
Honduras Plan: Plan 04 12/8/2015
Downstream Extent
.05 .05 .07
125 Legend

120 EG 50 year
WS 50 year
115
Ground
110
Elevation (ft)

Bank Sta

105

100

95

90

85
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)

Figure 15. Cross-section with faulty boundaries

19
Second, the velocities at the bend were not representative of the variation in flow across the cross-section.
In reality, during high water levels, the water on the outside of the bend flows at rapid and turbulent rates,
forming eddies and likely causing bank erosion, while the water on the inside of the bend flows slowly. The
team lowered the values of the Manning’s n coefficients at the outside of the bend, making HEC-RAS treat
it as a relatively frictionless bank. This made the flow through that region become faster, which was what
was needed to better align the model with reality.
Once these errors had been resolved, the various water levels were compared. According to modeling
results, a 100-year, 24-hour storm reached an elevation of 114.18 feet at the bridge cross-section, a 50-year
storm reached 112.79 feet, and the 1-year storm reached 102.35 feet. The 1-year storm precipitation was
changed in HEC-HMS so that the resulting water level would be close to the community’s annual HWL
estimate at 102.48 +/- 0.5 feet. The three water levels, along with a corrected cross-section, are shown in
Figure 16.

Honduras Plan: Plan 05 12/8/2015

Bridge
.01 .025 .075
125 Legend

120 WS 100 year

WS 50 year
115 WS 1 year
Ground
110
Elevation (ft)

Bank Sta

105

100

95

90

85
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)

Figure 16. The water surface elevations for a 100-year, 50-year, and 1-year 24-hour storm

5.2.7. Conclusions
After comparing the two alternative storm events, the team decided to design according to B2P standards
rather than US standards. This will mean sizing the abutments so that the low point of the loaded bridge
will be two meters above the 1-year HWL, an elevation of 108.91 feet, rather than just above the 100-year
WSE, an elevation of 114.28 feet. By doing so, the team will reduce the necessary abutment height by more
than 5 feet.
In addition to the significant decrease in cost and labor offered by the B2P standards, a primary reason the
team decided to avoid designing for a 100-year storm was because the lack of data made it necessary to
make multiple conservative assumptions. These conservative assumptions compiled to an overly
conservative, inaccurate 100-year WSE. Because soil information could not be obtained for the entire
contributing watershed, it was assumed that all soils were Type D, the type predicted to produce the most
runoff. Also, since no data is available for a 100-year storm, the team used precipitation from Hurricane
Mitch, which is closer to a 200-year storm. These and possibly other worst-case scenarios make it likely

20
that the modeled 100-year water level is higher than it is in reality. The team considers increasing the cost,
time, and other factors to account for design requirements that are based on a lack of data to be a poor
approach to design, especially when alternative reputable standards are available.
The decision to design for a HWL, which is what B2P’s standards dictate, instead of for the 100-year storm
calculated by the team will not put the villagers at a much greater risk. This is because the team’s design
for a HWL is itself conservative, with the specified freeboard. As Figure 10 shows, in order to set the bottom
of the loaded bridge two meters above the HWL, it was assumed that the water level decreased linearly
from one known HWL on the west bank to the other, where the HWL on the east bank is less than a foot
deep. This is not actually the case, however; the water level is at roughly the same elevation as the bottom
of the east abutment until it reaches approximately Sta. -00+50 along the cross-section (see Figure 17).
There, at the outside of the bend, the water characteristically rushes up the bank and back down in a
turbulent manner during annual high flows, according to the local community. Thus, the bottom of the deck
is slightly higher than it needs to be, again ensuring a sufficiently high and safe bridge (Figure 18).

Honduras Plan: 1) Plan 04 12/8/2015

Bridge
.01 .025 .075
110 Legend

WS 1 year

105 Ground
Bank Sta
Elevation (ft)

100

95

90

85
-100 -50 0 50 100
Station (ft)

Figure 17. Bridge cross-section where the dotted line represents the HWL for setting the freeboard

Figure 18. Catenary curve relative to linear HWL

Should an unusually severe storm occur, the team has decided to sacrifice the bridge. The alternative would
be to design for a hurricane-like event that brings water levels more than 2 meters above the highest water

21
level seen by the community and velocities fast enough to destroy the bridge. The team has decided
constructing such a bridge would be unnecessarily expensive and feels confident the B2P standards are
adequately conservative.

5.3. Alternatives
The team received plans for a suspended bridge from the Honduran engineers. The team also considered
designing a suspension bridge as specified in the Bridges to Prosperity standards. After making a decision
matrix (see Table 5) the team decided to proceed with designing a suspended bridge. The team also decided
on abutment type, hanger orientation, and decking orientation.
Table 5. Decision matrix for suspension vs. suspended bridge
Suspended Suspension
Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score
Community involvment 0.16 7 1.12 3 0.48
Ease of design 0.08 6 0.48 4 0.32
Terrain 0.09 6 0.54 4 0.36
Familiarity 0.02 8 0.16 2 0.04
Fear factor 0.02 3 0.06 7 0.14
Maintenance 0.04 6 0.24 4 0.16
Ease of construction 0.35 7 2.45 3 1.05
Freeboard 0.08 7 0.56 3 0.24
Sag 0.08 3 0.24 7 0.56
Tower height difference 0.08 7 0.56 3 0.24
Total 6.41 3.59

The results of the decision matrix revealed that a suspended bridge design would have a significant
advantage over that of a suspension bridge, largely because of the allowable community involvement and
the ease of construction.
The other decisions included hanger and decking orientation. On a suspended bridge, the hangers are
smaller cables that tie the handrail cables to the walkway cables and help support the load. These hangers
are responsible for distributing forces from the deck and the walkway cables to the handrail cables. Hangers
can be vertical or inclined. Studies have been performed regarding the orientation of these hangers on
suspension type bridges.[11] Neither the B2P standards nor the HELVETAS standards included a reference
to inclined hangers. A specific study was performed on suspension bridges comparing inclined and vertical
hangers, and a modified inclined hanger system was developed as a result of this study. It was evident,
however, that the results were specific to suspension bridges. Since the team decided to design a suspended
bridge, these results were inconsequential. As a result, vertical hangers were chosen due to their use in both
B2P and HELVETAS standards.
The deck of the bridge is the part that transfers the pedestrian load to the cables and ultimately to the cable
anchoring system. The B2P standards have design specifications for longitudinal decking. The team
considered transverse decking, but longitudinal decking proved to be better for this project, partly because
it provides a redundancy that transverse decking does not in the event of a board failure. See Appendix B
for the B2P standards.

5.4. Bridge Design

Currently, the team is in the process of designing a suspended bridge with a 46-meter span and is modeling

22
it using AutoCAD. The bridge is currently proposed to stand 5.8 meters above the ground on the east bank
and 5.5 meters on the west bank to keep the bridge bottom 2 meters above the high water level. The bridge
will have longitudinal decking and concrete abutments. The steel cables of the bridge will be held by a
concrete anchoring system buried in the ground beyond the abutments. All dimensions on the plans will be
in metric units, consistent with typical Honduran designs, and all notes on the construction drawings will
be translated into Spanish. Current plans are located in Appendix E.

5.4.1. Loading
B2P specifies sag distances as percentages of span for three cases: hoist sag, design sag, and breaking sag.
The sag of the bridge is defined as the distance from the lowest point of the cable to the inclined plane
between abutments (see Figure 19). The hoist sag is the sag during construction with no load, specified as
4.6% of the span. The design sag is the sag under full dead load, or 5% of the span. The breaking sag is the
sag under full dead and full live load, defined as 6.12% of the span, and is used for the freeboard distance.
Since B2P loads will be used for design, these sag percentages can be used for the El Potrero bridge.

Figure 19. Sag diagram

The cables of a suspended bridge follow a catenary curve, due to the free-hanging nature of the cables. The
weighted cables of a suspended bridge follow a parabolic curve. The equation for the catenary curve is
shown in Equation 2.

(2)
The coefficient A in Equation 2 was determined in Microsoft Excel by setting the distance between the
lowest point of the curve and the lower abutment equal to the associated percentage of span. At first, the
abutment elevations were determined by topography, with the west abutment higher than the east. Once the
catenary curve was quantified, it was determined the abutments needed to be raised significantly in order
to meet the specified freeboard above the HWL.
The team is using the B2P specifications for the design loads. These standards take into account the wind
load, dead load, and live load of the bridge. The calculations used 7.18 kN/m2 for the live load and 1.7
kN/m2 for the wind load. The B2P standards also demanded a dead load of 4.07 kN/m2. These loads will
be used because they are the ultimate loads and exceed the calculated operating loads. They will be applied
over a decking area of 64.9 square meters (55.9 meters long by 1.16 meters wide). Using these numbers,
the team will calculate the strength capacity required by the decking, cables, and the cable anchoring
system.
The live load of the bridge is 85 psf under normal circumstances, but the ultimate load is 150 psf when the
entire bridge is full of people. This latter value is what will be used for designing the anchoring system. See
Table 6 for a summary of the loads.

23
 Table 6. Summary of Standard Load Values

Type of Load Load [kN/m^2] Load [psf]

Live 7.18 150

Wind 1.7 35.5

Dead 4.07 85

5.4.2. Foundations
Currently, the calculations for the abutment foundations are being completed (see Appendix F). The team
is designing reinforced concrete abutments using calculated loads. The allowable force on the soil is 95.8
kPa (2000 psf). The area of the bases of the abutments must be large enough to spread the weight of the
abutments and the vertical forces acting on them.
One of the primary threats to both abutments is scour, which is the gradual erosion of soil away from the
base of an abutment or pier due to the flow of water around or beside its base. Scour depth, or the depth of
soil that will be eroded over time, was calculated at both abutments. Due to the somewhat cohesive nature
of clay, which makes up a portion of the soil at the bridge site, it will take longer time for the scour depth
to reach its maximum amount than if there was no clay.[12]
Scour depth was calculated using Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, a manual published by the Federal
Highway Administration that outlines a number of methods for calculating scour depth. The scour depth at
the west abutment was calculated to be 12.8 feet, and the scour depth at the east abutment was calculated
to be 3.3 feet. Since the abutments will act like piers once the water level gets high enough, with water
flowing around them on both sides, the calculations were performed by treating the abutments as piers. The
predicted depths may be changed as additional information becomes available. To overcome the risk of
local scour at the abutments, the team will likely request the community to dig to bedrock for the west
abutment and to scour depth on the east abutment.
It is recommended that the abutment be anchored in bedrock by digging a key and securing it with rebar. A
key is a man-made channel dug into the bedrock along the full length of the base of the abutment
perpendicular to the direction of the cables and into which concrete can be poured (see Figure 20). Professor
Masselink, the team’s advisor, conveyed that utilizing bedrock will likely stabilize the abutment from the
risk of scour. The team conservatively estimates that bedrock exists approximately 3 meters below the
ground surface. If the community is not able to dig a hole at the abutment location and verify the depth to
bedrock, the team recommends that the foundation be dug to bedrock or to scour depth, whichever is
reached first.

24
 Figure 20. Abutment key diagram in bedrock

To further protect against scour, the team will recommend that riprap composed of rocks of various sizes
be placed in the soil around the base of the abutment. Vegetation would also likely help to stabilize the soil,
but it is doubtful whether the community would be able to easily grow the necessary vegetation or maintain
it long enough to be of help.
The cables behind the abutments, which will support much of the load, are buried in a concrete block
approximately 2.5 meters wide, 2.8 meters long, and 2.5 meters deep (see Figure 21). Both will be buried
at a depth of approximately 1.5 meters below the ground surface to allow for a sufficient friction force
against the soil and to allow for continued crop growth at the surface. The steel cables extending from the
abutment will connect into the anchor in a loop to distribute the load, as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 21. Schematic of abutment, anchor, and cable connections

25
 Figure 22. A cable anchor with distributed loads

The cables from the abutment to the anchor will be angled at 24 degrees relative to horizontal per B2P
standards. Steel reinforcing bars will be used to secure the connection between the cables and the anchor
and to reinforce the concrete, similar to what is shown in Figure 23 taken from the nearby Mangulile bridge.
The rebar, however, will be buried below the ground surface, completely in the concrete and protected
against the risk of corrosion. The team recommends distributing the load to allow for less concentrated
stress on any one area of the concrete (see Figure 22).

Figure 23. Existing anchor example

5.4.3. Wind
Because the decking will be longitudinal to provide redundancy, it is recommended that the decking boards
be no longer than three feet to provide frequent open spaces between them. Wind will likely be a significant
factor, so openings in the deck are important in order to allow for the passage of air. If the boards are too
long, the wind will cause a large lateral force against the bridge as there will be little space for it to pass
through. The vertical hangers connecting the cables will be spaced so that they combat the threat of resonant
motion.

5.4.4. Modeling
A 3D model of the design thus far has been created in AutoCAD. Three-dimensional modeling was chosen
for ease of viewing and presentation, in addition to the drastic changes in elevation which cannot be
effectively shown in 2D. The 3D model will easily be converted to design plans in AutoCAD to deliver to

26
the engineers. Connections and other plan details will be created in AutoCAD. Unfortunately, AutoCAD is
incapable of loading and testing structures but is rather simply a modeling tool. Potential testing software
include Staad PRO and Autodesk Revit.

5.5. Cost Analysis

When the team met with the Honduran Engineers in Tegucigalpa, they were able to obtain a preliminary
cost estimate. The engineers, who have experience with similar suspended pedestrian bridges in the country,
estimated that the bridge will cost about $20,000. The team will also be performing a cost estimate to verify
that the Community CRC has the right target amount to raise for the bridge.

5.6. Deliverable Plans and Details

The Honduran engineers are expecting a detailed preliminary bridge design plan and all design calculations.
The plans will be sent by mail and by email. The plans will include the details of the bridge location and
span, abutment design, decking design, hanger design, cable design, connections, and any other
specifications required.

27
6. CONSTRUCTION
6.1. Funding
Funding is a critical part of the design process. Without the funds, the bridge cannot be built. The
Community CRC in Fort Wayne is currently using the Honduran Engineers' estimate of $20,000 for their
fundraising goal.
Jim Halstead, the pastor of Community CRC, who traveled with the team to Honduras, is pursuing the goal
of raising that money through the church. However, as of December 10, $12,000 had been raised. The team
decided to consider other options for raising money.
One option was to apply for a scholarship funded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering
and Surveying (NCEES). This organization provides 6 scholarships (one $25,000 grand prize and five
$7,500 prizes) to engineering programs that "[engage] their students in collaborative projects with licensed
professional engineers.”[13] Because plans are needed by February, the team hopes to spend time applying
for this scholarship during the spring semester to meet the May deadline.
Another option was to provide an avenue for interested individuals to contribute money to the Community
CRC in Fort Wayne online using GoFundMe. Because this fundraising strategy would be relatively easy to
set up, the team decided to pursue it as well.

6.2. Construction Plan

The Honduran engineers have experience working with small scale projects in rural communities
throughout Honduras. They use a process that optimizes the uses of local resources. The local community
will perform the majority of the manual labor. This reduces the cost of the project due to the eliminated
labor cost.
The engineers hire a foreman that has experience with the necessary materials. In the case of this project,
the foreman will teach the members of the community how to mix and pour the concrete for the abutments
and cable anchoring system, hoist the steel cables, and cut and lay the wood for the decking. The materials
for the concrete, decking, and riprap will be sourced locally, which will also greatly reduce the total cost.
The ordering of all other materials will be managed by the Honduran engineers.
The Honduran engineers will also oversee the construction of the bridge to make sure it is built according
to the plans. They will perform the necessary tests to validate that the bridge is built to code. The team plans
to stay in communication with the Honduran engineers throughout the construction process to stay up to
date on the project and help with any possible complications.

28
7. FUTURE WORK
During December, the team will finalize foundation, cable, and abutment design and create a set of base
plans to send to the Honduran engineers for preliminary comments and recommendations. In January, these
base plans will be converted into a set of preliminary plans, including necessary construction notes and
details. Because the team will not be able to oversee the actual construction of the bridge, it is important
that these plans include all critical information. It is unlikely that the team will be contacted in the spring,
but communication may need to be kept up throughout construction.
Using the soil bearing capacity calculated, the team will calculate and design the abutments and
foundations, producing specific dimensions that will be included in the plans. Finally, the cables will be
sized according to B2P standards; the connections between the cables, decking, and hangers will be
designed; and the spacing for the deck boards and the hangers will be specified.

29
8. REFERENCES
[1] Google Maps. (2015). In Google Maps. Retrieved November, 2015, from
https://www.google.com/maps
[2] Calvin College Engineering Mission Statement. (2015). In Calvin College Engineering. Retrieved
November, 2015, from http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/about/mission.html
[3] Bridges to Prosperity. (2014). Cable Suspended Bridges. In Bridge Builder Manual (4th ed., Vols. 1
- 3). Denver, CO: Author.
[4] Wikipedia. (2015, November 20). Hurricane Mitch. In Wikipedia. Retrieved November, 2015, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Mitch
[5] Mastin, M. C. (2002). Flood-Hazard Mapping in Honduras in Response to Hurricane Mitch (Water-
Resources Investigations Report 01-4277 ed.). Tacoma, WA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Retrieved October, 2015, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri014277/pdf/WRIR01-4277.pdf
[6] United States Department of Agriculture. (1986). Appendix B: Synthetic Rainfall Distributions and
Rainfall Data Sources. InUrban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (Technical Release 55 ed.).
N.p.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044171.pdf
[7] Honduras. (2015). In topographic-map.com. Retrieved September, 2015, from http://en-
gb.topographic-map.com/places/Honduras-2754927/
[8] United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil Groups. In National
Engineering Handbook ((210–VI–NEH ed.). N.p.: Author. Retrieved November, 2015, from
http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba
[9] Sorrell, R. C. (2010). Computing Flood Discharges For Small Ungaged Watersheds. N.p.: Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and Environment Land and Water Management Division.
Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/lwm-scs_198408_7.pdf
[10] Arcement Jr., G. J., & Schneider, V. R. (1989). Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains (Water-Supply Paper 2339 ed.). Denver,
CO: United States Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf
[11] Faridani, H., & Madasiogh, L. (2012). INVESTIGATION OF SOME STRUCTURAL
BEHAVIORS OF SUSPENSION FOOTBRIDGES WITH SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 4.1, 1-14.
Retrieved from ProQuest.
[12] Evaluating Scour at Bridges: HEC 18, 2nd Edition (1993, February). In U.S. Department of
Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from Google.
[13] NCEES Engineering Award. (2015). In George Mason University. Retrieved November, 2015, from
https://volgenau.gmu.edu/sr/undergraduate/announcements-news-events/undergraduate-
scholarship-announcements/-/asset_publisher/NHWD9Ai6CYYK/content/id/1705733

30
APPENDIX A: GANTT CHART

A-1
ID Task Name Duration Start ep 13, '15 Sep 27, '15 Oct 11, '15 Oct 25, '15 Nov 8, '15 Nov 22, '15 Dec 6, '15 Dec 20, '15 Jan 3, '16 Jan 17, '16 Jan 31, '16
T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S
1 Determine Project objective and scope 3 days Mon 9/21/15
2 Create AutoCAD topo map 5 days Mon 9/21/15
3 Determine watershed area 9 days Mon 9/21/15
4 Determine Loads 5 days Mon 9/28/15
5 Research standards 11 days Mon 9/21/15
6 Develop PPFS Outline 13 days Mon 9/21/15
7 Perform Hydraulic analysis 11 days Fri 9/25/15
8 Provide brief for consultant 21 days Mon 9/21/15
9 Develop Design Alternatives 11 days Fri 10/9/15
10 Post Project Website 28 days Mon 9/21/15
11 Perform Calcs 2 wks Sat 10/24/15
12 Put up updated project poster 16 days Sat 10/17/15
13 Complete PPFS Draft 28 days Thu 10/8/15
14 Model Bridge 2 wks Fri 11/6/15
15 Optimize 3.4 wks Fri 11/20/15
16 Submit PPFS to advisor 26 days Mon 11/9/15
17 Develop Base Plan 20 days Fri 11/20/15
18 Produce Final Cost Analysis 8 days Wed 1/6/16
19 Develop Preliminary Plans/Details 23 days Wed 1/6/16

Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline

Project: Gantt Chart 2 Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress

Date: Fri 12/11/15 Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress

Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone

Page 1
APPENDIX B: STANDARDS
 
 
 

B-1
BRIDGE
BUILDER
MANUAL

2014

VOLUME 3.1

SUSPENDED CABLE BRIDGE

DESIGN
FOURTH EDITION 2014
SUSPENDED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE MANUAL
Introduction

The designs included in the

Volume 3 Suspended Pedestrian
Bridge Manual originated with
Helvetas Nepal’s Short Span Trail
Bridge Handbook that reflects
Helvetas’ experience building more
than 3,400 bridges over the past
30 years. By taking the suspended
bridge design around the world,
B2P hopes to honor Helvetas’
leadership in addressing the global
challenge of rural isolation.

In 2003, the Bridges to Prosperity

(B2P) staff traveled to Nepal to
train with Helvetas to learn about
their cable-suspended bridge
technology. In addition to learning
about design and construction of
the suspended bridge, Helvetas
also taught B2P their approach to
participatory bridge building at the community level. B2P has introduced this highly efficient and economical suspended footbridge
design to countries in need of this technology all around the world.

B2P has encountered new technical and cultural challenges as we have taken the technology from Asia to Africa, and then to Latin
America. The designs have been modified and adapted to better suit local conditions in each given area of work. B2P has modified
construction practices and expanded flexibility in design alternatives and design process materials to ensure that the suspended
pedestrian bridge remains a locally sustainable option for communities in varying topographic and geographic regions of the world.

There are four sections in Volume 3: Suspended Pedestrian Bridge Manual, structured as follows:
Part 1: Design and Analysis
Part 2: Technical Drawings
Part 3: Construction Guide
Part 4: Operations & Maintenance

As with any modulated design, usage assumptions must be made by the bridge designer. The following manual will attempt to
provide both modulated drawings and design guides for those interested in bridge uses not covered within these manuals. For
further design and loading assumptions, please reference the Helvetas Nepal Short Span Trail-Bridge Technical Handbook as well
as internationally accepted design standards and locally pertinent design codes and standards.

Terms of Use and Disclaimer

No representations or warranties are implied or expressed herein. In consideration of this manual being provided gratis to others,
all users agree to allow a listing and brief description of footbridges built with this manual on the B2P website, so that others in the
same geographic region can visit such bridges for observation and training. Furthermore, all users agree to hold B2P, its employees,
partners, sponsors, contractors and agents harmless from any and all liability arising from the use or application of the information
provided herein.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis

VOLUME 3 SUSPENDED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
Part 1: Design and Analysis
Table of Contents
Section 1: Suspended Bridge: Design Background
1.1 Design Criteria and Material Properties
1.2 Cable Analysis
1.3 Anchor Analysis
1.4 Foundation Analysis
1.5 Suspender (Hanger) Analysis
1.6 Timber Decking & Crossbeam Analysis
1.7 Factors of Safety
1.8 Manual Limitations

Section 2: Suspended Design Procedure

2.1 Overview
2.2 Abney & Auto Level Survey
2.3 Bridge Profile & Fix Foundation Location
2.4 Calculate Required Number of Tiers
2.5 Finalize Position of Foundations
2.6 Select Tier & Anchors Designs
2.7 Select Cable Sizes: Cable Lookup Tool
2.8 Select Construction Drawings
2.9 Compile Final Drawings
2.10 Design Example
2.11 Design Example with Drafting Tools

Section 3: Material Estimate
3.1 Cable & Clamps
3.2 Steel Reinforcement Bar
3.3 Concrete
3.4 Decking
3.5 Other Materials
3.6 Material Quantities Example

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis

 SECTION 1: SUSPENDED BRIDGE: DESIGN BACKGROUND

The following section details basic design criteria and assumptions used by Bridges to Prosperity when modifying
and extrapolating upon the B2P Standard
PRODUCED Drawings.
BY AN AUTODESK This section
EDUCATIONAL is intended for use in design verification and
PRODUCT

need not be referenced for non-engineer designers, as all modular designs have already considered the following
codes and assumptions. For typical bridge project use, skip to Section 2: Bridge Design Process.

1.1 Design Criteria & Material Properties

Bridge Layout

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Minimum Freeboard = 2.0 m (floodplains)

= 3.0 m (gorges)

Minimum Setback = 3.0 m or 35 degrees from bank (for soil)

= 1.5 m or 60 degrees from bank (for rock)

Maximum Span = 120 m

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Design Sag
The Design Sag, B d , is assumed 5% throughout this manual. B d is a percentage value that must be
multiplied by the span length to find the sag height value, h sag , discussed later in this section.

h sag is used to calculate the Lowest Point of Cable (f) as shown below. Freeboard can then be
calculated as the distance between the high water level and the lowest point of the cable.

Note: While preparing for construction, the Hoisting Sag B h is used when calculating sag height which
is then used in calculating the Distance to the Lowest Point of Cable (f). This reduced sag for hoisting
accounts for elastic stretch of the cable when load is applied. No additional cable stretch is assumed as
cable is typically re-purposed.

Maximum Height Difference (∆H) ΔH ≤ Span 25

(4 ⋅ hsag − ΔH )2
Distance to Lowest Point of Cable (f) f= (measured from low side)
16 ⋅ hsag
Deck Width = 1.0 m

Walkway Width = 1.9 m (measured at handrail cable)

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 5

 Design Loads
Assumed Material Unit Weights

Steel = 7850 kg/m3 = 490 lb/cf
Concrete = 2400 kg/m3 = 150 lb/cf
Gabions = 1600 kg/m3 = 100 lb/cf
Timber = 900 kg/m3 = 60 lb/cf
General Soil (sand) = 1800 kg/m3 = 110 lb/cf

Dead Load
The actual dead load of the bridge is to be based on material takeoff. For both the B2P Suspension and
Suspended bridges,100 kg/m (for a 1m wide deck) is a reasonable assumption.
DL = 100 kg / m

Live Loads
Reference AASHTO Guide Specification for Design of Pedestrian Bridges, 1997.
Note: Newer versions increase the design live load to 90 psf, a measure not adopted by B2P.

Distributed Live Loads:

Assuming 1.0 meter deck:

kgf 4.57 ≥ 320 kgf m 2 (65 psf )
LL = 415 ⋅(0.25 + )
m 2
L ≤ 415 kgf m 2 (85 psf )
L = Span(m)
Point Live Loads:
The deck system shall support this point load anywhere between suspenders:
PL = 226kgf (500 lb)
Base Wind Load:
The base wind load is the pressure resulting from a 100 mph wind
kN
WF = 1.7 2 (500 lb)
m

kgf
30 kN (500 lb)
WL = Load:
Wind
InWF 1.7 ofma2 typical
the=case (500 lb)suspended bridge, the linear loading on the bridge can be taken as the
m
following:
kgf
WL = 30 (500 lb)
m
Reference Helvetas Short Span Trail Bridge Manual (2003), SSTB-D type for additional information.

Load Combinations
DL + LL (applicable for most components)
DL + LL + WL (applicable for loaded windguy design)
DL + WL (applicable for unloaded windguy design)

Material Properties
Determine actual strength values via certification and or testing. B2P otherwise assumes the following strengths:
'
Concrete: f c = 15 MPa = 2200 psi (mixed by drum mixer, or other)
'
f c = 10.3 MPa =1500 psi (mixed by hand)

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 6

 Steel Pipe: fy = 240 MPa = 35 ksi

Steel Reinforcing: fy = 275 MPa = 40 ksi

Timber: fb = 3.96 MPa = 575 psi

v = 1.44 MPa f = 210 psi
Soil: q allowable = 143 kPa = 3,000 psf
Y = 1.8T/m3 = 112 pcf
φ = 33 degrees

Cable/Wire Rope: Per certification: If using re-purposed wire rope, a certified breaking strength can be
attained through load testing the cable at the section showing its greatest wear.

1.2 Cable Analysis

Overview
Though the cable’s geometry most closely resembles that of a catenary curve, it can be analyzed as a parabolic
curve for simplicity. There are three sag values to consider when designing the main cables for a bridge: Hoisting
sag, design sag and breaking Sag.
Hoisting sag is the resting position of the cable when it is only under its own weight.
Design sag is the cable’s position under full dead load.
Breaking sag is the sag of the cable under full dead load plus full live load.
The typical values to be used for hoisting, design and breaking sag are 4.6%, 5% and 6.12% respectively. The
breaking sag is increased to reflect elastic elongation in the main-span and backstays at full dead load and full live
load. The increased sag will decrease the horizontal tension and therefore the overall tension in the cables so it
should be used in sizing the main cables.

Reference: Hanes Supply Catalog; Modulus of Elasticity for 6x19 IWRC EIPS, or other appropriate cable section.

Geometry and Forces

The following equations and diagrams describe the theory governing the geometry of the main span cables and the
resulting forces.
Phb = Ptb ⋅sin (α )
α = Angle of the cable on the backstay
Pv = Pvm + Pvb

Phb = Ptb ⋅sin (α )
α = Angle of the cable on the backstay
Pv = Pvm + Pvb

Horizontal Tension: P = ω c ⋅ L (kgf, equal throughout main span)

2

8 ⋅ hsag
h

Distributed Load: kgf
ω c = Total Distributed Load ( )
m2

Sag Definition: hsag = Bd ⋅ L where: L = Span (m)
and: Bd = 0.05 or 5%

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 7

 Phm
Total Tension (Main Span): Ptm =
cos θ high
Pvm = Ptm ⋅sin(θ high )
Vertical Tension (Main Span):
4 ⋅ hsag + ΔH
Cable Angle Max (Main Span): θ high = tan −1 ( ) (deg)
L
Angle to Horizontal (Main Span, High Side): θ high = tan −1 S 4 $ h sag + DH X
L
i low = tan -1 $ S 4 $ h sag - DH X
Angle to Horizontal (Main Span, Low Side):
L
P
Total Tension (Backstay): tb = Ptm

Vertical Tension (Backstay): Pvb = Ptb ⋅sin(α )

Phb = Ptb ⋅sin (α )
Angle to Horizontal (Backstay): α = Angle of the cable on the backstay
Pv = Pvm + Pvb
Horizontal Force (Backstay): Phb = Ptb ⋅ cos(α )

Total Vertical Reaction (at Tower): Pv = Pvm + Pvb

Cable Design
Available cable diameters and associated certified breaking strengths should be researched. Bridges to Prosperity
Program Staff will provide certified breaking strengths of available inventory in B2P Program Countries.

To determine the required number of cables, take the maximum tension in the cable per the above outlined
process, multiply by the factor of safety (minimum 3.0) and divide by the breaking strength of the cables available.
B2P provides a spreadsheet to assist in the determination of main cables. This topic is covered in greater detail in
Section 2.7 of this Volume.

Total Number of Cables Required:

= Maximum Calculated Tension x FS
Certified Breaking Strength of Cable

Resultant Force & Eccentricity
The geometry of the layout is also critical for the tower, tier and foundation design, and should be considered
when finalizing the layout of a bridge project. The resultant force R (shown in the following diagram) of the cable,
considering the backstay and main span components of the cable’s influence on the tower saddle, must remain within the
kern distance for both the towers and the foundation tier. Eccentricity is measured from directly below the saddles all the way
to the foundation tier (note that this does not correspond to the center of the towers nor to the center of the foundation tier).
Equations dictating allowable eccentricity are as follows:

Tower Width
Maximum Eccentricity (at Tower): E max - tower = 3

Found.Width
Maximum Eccentricity (at Foundation): E max - found. = 2
Angle of Resultant, β (from CL Tower): b = (90 - ( [(90 − α ) + (90 − θ )] 2 + i))

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 8

 Eccentricity (at Tower): E tower = H tower $ tan (b)

Eccentricity (at Foundation): E foundation = H found. $ tan (b)

1.3 Anchor Analysis
Overview

This section describes the details of the deadman anchor design and associated assumptions. Rock anchor
design discussion is beyond the scope of this manual. Refer to a licensed Professional Engineer for rock anchor
analysis support.

In the case of the standard B2P design, the anchor is connected to the foundation and tiers via a continuously
supported rock masonry wall. Note that these walls are imperative to the standard design and cannot be omitted
without a thorough design check of the anchor acting by itself. Also note any assumptions made in regard to the
existing ground conditions, as a lot of soil will need to be excavated in front of the anchor in order to safely bench
or slope the excavations and to allow the cable to extend from the towers to the anchor at roughly the same angle
the cables will be at when the bridge is complete.

If deviating from the standard designs, the following assumptions can be used when looking at the anchor acting
by itself or acting with the foundation and tiers if walls or designed compression beams exist between the two:

• Soil wall friction ( d ) is neglected as a conservative simplification.

• Friction on the base of the foundation and approach walls is considered only when a compression
member has been constructed between the anchor and foundation. Coefficient of friction, n = 0.45,
between the earth and these components is recommended.

• Soil is conservatively assumed to be sand and therefore assumed cohesionless (i.e. c = 0).

• No consideration of earthquake design has been taken into account.

• Backfill is required above the deadman anchor to provide the necessary resistance. Earth must be
backfilled to the minimum required ‘Y’ dimension from the standard drawings before any live load is
applied to the deadman.

• Design has been completed assuming deadman anchors are in non-saturated conditions. Where a high
water table is a concern, assume saturated condition is possible and deduct the buoyant force of the
anchor beam and soil.

• Assume there are no surcharge loads acting on the anchor.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 9

 Passive and Active Earth Pressure

The principle forces acting on the deadman anchor are depicted in the following figure. This figure is referred to
throughout this section. The principle modes of failure of the deadman anchor are sliding, uplift, and overturning,
although the latter of the three is typically judged as an unrealistic mode of failure. Sliding and uplift are both
checked herein, while overturning is deemed adequate via engineering judgement.

The forces acting on the anchor cause an active lateral pressure to develop behind the deadman (i.e. the earth
exerts a force on the anchor – an additional force to the pull from the cable), and a passive pressure to develop
in front of the deadman (i.e. the anchor exerts a force on the earth – the earth creates a resisting force to the pull
from the cables). Since soils have a greater passive resistance, the earth pressures are not the same for active
and passive conditions.

For a cohesion-less soil, the earth pressure theory of Rankine provides expressions for the active and passive
earth pressure at a state of failure. The coefficient of earth pressure (K) is the term used to express the ratio of
the lateral earth pressure to the vertical earth pressure (weight of the soil above).

If the embankment is level, the coefficients according to Rankine’s theory are given by the following expressions:

Active Earth Pressure Coefficient: 1 - sin (z) (unitless)
K a = 1 + sin
1 + sin (z)
11 +
+ sin
sin (z) (unitless)
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient: Kp =
1 - sin (z)

where z is the internal angle of friction, assumed 33 .
%

The lateral earth pressures acting on the anchor are equal to the area of the trapezium along the height H 4 :
1
Active Earth Pressure: Pa = K a ⋅ γ ⋅ H 1 [ m ]
2 kN

2

1
Passive Earth Pressure: Pp = K p ⋅ γ ⋅ H 12 [ kN
m ]
2
The resultant forces on the anchor due to the pressures act at 1 the height from the base of the anchor, and are
3
given as the following:
Force due to Pa : F Q K aV = Pa $ L !kN $

Force due to Pp : F Q K pV = Pp $ L !kN $

where L is the length of the anchor.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 10

 Frictional Forces

Friction will also be helping to resist any movement of the anchor. In the typical case when the anchor is
connected to the abutment, frictional forces can be considered to act on all of the elements. Depending on the
demand, different friction values can be used for varying parts. For the anchor, use a frictional coefficient for
concrete sliding on soil (~ 0.45 ), but if more resistance is needed, the material of the approach can be treated as
soil on soil, rather than concrete on soil.

Note: If separating the sections for analysis, be careful to not count any of the mass twice, or to omit the mass of
the abutment. The vertical force from the cable can also be added to the overall weight of the tiers and
towers. If the anchor is not connected to the abutments as recommended, friction should only be taken as acting
on the bottom side of the anchor.

The following is an example equation for the frictional forces, but assumes one coefficient of friction. Consider
additional coefficients of friction and mass as necessary.

Total Vertical Load: W total = W foundation + W tiers + W towers + VPB v

Resisting Force Due to Friction: F Q Ff V = W total $n

Anchor: Check Against Sliding

When checking the anchor or whole abutment against sliding, sum all of the resisting forces and divide by the
demand from the cables. The result should be greater than 1.5.

F (K p )
F Q K aV + Ph
Factor of Safety (Sliding): = ≥ 1.5

Anchor: Check Against Uplift

A check of the deadman anchor for safety against uplift is calculated by resolving the forces acting on the anchor
and ensuring that the vertical resisting forces are at least 1.5 times greater than the vertical driving forces (i.e. a
factor of safety of 1.5).
QW soil + W conc.V ≥ 1.5
Factor of Safety (Uplift): = Pv

Water Table and Buoyant Forces

If the water table rises above the base of the deadman anchor, the unit weights of the soil and concrete must be
taken as buoyant unit weights i.e. typical unit weight of the material minus the buoyant force acting on
the material. The buoyant force is equal the amount of water displaced. In the case of concrete, it can be
assumed that it will displace 100% of its volume that is submerged whereas soil will displace approximately 60%
of its volume that is submerged. As such, the submerged situation will significantly decrease the resisting forces.

Depending on the duration of the submerged case, the factor of safety may be reduced. For a Temporary Case
(referring to a single event in a season), F.S. = 1.0. For a Long Term Case (referring to the entire rainy season),
F.S. must remain = 1.5. Seek support from a Professional Engineer for all saturated cases.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 11

1.4 Foundation Analysis
Overview

All of the vertical forces generated in the cables are transferred through the towers and tiers into the foundation,
in addition to the extra loading generated from the self-weight of the towers. To perform satisfactorily, the
total distributed load generated must not exceed the bearing capacity of the soil. The load per unit area of the
foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs is called the ultimate bearing capacity ( q u ).

Some of the general assumptions used throughout the design process that may be of interest to the Professional
Engineer verifying or otherwise modifying B2P modular designs are below:

• No consideration of earthquake design has been taken into account.

• Design has been completed assuming foundations are constructed on level ground.

• Design has been completed assuming foundations are in non-saturated conditions. Where saturated
conditions are of concern, deduct the buoyant force of the soil.

Design Calculations

The allowable soil bearing capacity q allow is the maximum bearing stress that can be applied to the foundation
such that it is safe against instability due to shear failure. Specific values for the allowable should be determined
for your soil. The designs in this manual assumes allowable soil bearing, q allow = 3,000 psf.

The maximum bearing stress ( q max ) is calculated by summing the total vertical load on the foundation (total
vertical tension at the towers plus the self weight of the foundation, tiers, and towers) and dividing by the area of
the foundation.
Maximum Bearing Stress:

The allowable bearing capacity is calculated from the ultimate bearing capacity, using a factor of safety
of 2.0.
W foundation + Wtiers + Wtowers + Vc
qmax =
Total Bearing area of Foundation
q allowable ≥ 2.0
Factor of Safety (Shear):
q max

1.5 Suspender (Hanger) Analysis

Overview

In order to design the suspenders, a safety factor of 5.0 should be used. The increased factor of safety is to
account for the likelihood of cyclical bending and thus, repeated yielding of the steel during installation. The
increased factor of safety is also to help account for the likelihood of corrosion of the steel over time. Based on
the loads and yield strength assumed, B2P recommends no less than a 10mm deformed reinforcing bar
for suspenders or #3 bar. Smooth rebar often is of inferior quality and strength, and should thus be
avoided.

The 10mm ribbed reinforcement bar provides an excessive factor of safety when considered only static loading,
but has been sized to withstand corrosion over the design life of the bridge. Furthermore, the bars are oversized
as a single suspender (hanger) failure will result in increasing the tributary load on neighboring suspenders,
thereby inducing progressive failure.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 12

1.6 Timber Decking & Crossbeam Analysis
Overview
The B2P standard timber cross beams and decking boards have been designed according to NDS 2005. NDS
designs using Allowable Strength Design. These boards for crossbeams and the deck need to be sized to support
the design loads. With timber design it is typical to compare demand stress to allowable stress rather than
comparing shear forces or moments.

Design Calculations
For the calculation of member capacity the following equations have been used:

Maximum Shear Due to Distributed Load: Vdistributed = W c L

2

Maximum Shear Due to Point Load: P
V po int = 2

W c L2
Maximum Moment Due to Distributed Load: M distributed = 8

Maximum Moment Due to Point Load: PL
M po int = 4

All assume the structure is simply supported 1m lengths, which is a conservative assumption.

Check against Bending Moment

To design both the crossbeams and the decking, the actual stress in the member due to bending must be less
than or equal to the allowable stress of the given material. Timber material properties for the actual types of
timber should be referenced from local suppliers. B2P assumes Fb = 3.96 MPa for allowable stress in bending.

Stress due to bending: fb ≤ F b'

Where: F b = Fb C d C m C t C L C F C v C
l
CfCui C irC
fu CrcC
CcfC f
b allowable stress in bending F =
C d = load duration factor (assume 1.25)
C f = shape factor (assume 1.2)
C m C CL
= tmoisture factor (assume 0.97 for moisture >19%)
C m C t C L F v ffuu C i C r C
C C C
C =c other factors (assume 1.0)
fb = actual stress in bending
M max
fb = S (where greater of2 M dist. or po int is used)
M
S = Section Modulus = bd
6
Check against Shear
To design both the crossbeams and the decking, the actual stress in the member due to shear must be less
than or equal to the allowable stress of the given material. Timber material properties for the actual types of
timber should be referenced from local suppliers. B2P assumes Fv = 1.44 MPa for allowable stress in shear.

Stress due to shear: fv ≤ F v'

Where: F v = Fv C d C m C t C i l

Fv = allowable stress in shear

C d = load duration factor (assume 1.25)
C m C CL
= tmoisture factor (assume 0.97 for moisture >19%)
C m C t C i = other factors (assume 1.0)

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 13

 fv = actual stress in shear
fv = V $ 3 (where greater of Vdist or V po int is used for rectangular
2bd
members)
1.7 Factors of Safety
Overview
For the design of the main cables:
FS = 3.0
For the design of bridge suspenders:
FS = 5.0
For design of “deadman” anchors, use conventional passive/active soil resistance methods. Where saturated conditions
are of concern, deduct the buoyant force of the anchor beam and soil above it. Note, a long term saturated condition refers
to the entire rainy season, while a temporary saturated condition refers to a single flooding event.

• Anchor Sliding: FS = 1.5 (Unsaturated)

FS = 1.5 (Saturated, long term)
FS = 1.0 (Saturated, temporary)

• Anchor Uplift: FS = 1.5 (Unsaturated)

FS = 1.5 (Saturated, long term)
FS = 1.0 (Saturated, temporary)

For the design of bearing capacity of the foundation:
FS = 2.0

Design of all other structural elements shall be per recognized design codes using Safety Factors consistent with
Allowable Stress Design methodology.

Referenced design codes include;

• AASHTO Guide Specification for Design of Pedestrian Bridges, 1997.
• Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary.
• AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) Steel Construction Manual, 13th Edition.
• NDS (National Design Specification) Supplement, Design Values for Wood Construction, 2005 Edition.

1.8 Manual Limitations

The suspended bridge is intended for pedestrians, livestock and narrow transportation aids (bicycles,
wheelbarrows, etc.) capable of crossing on the 1.0 meter wide deck. Widening the deck up to 1.5 meters
is possible with further engineering of the anchor, tower and decking plans, but any additional width in excess
of 1.50m risks the inadvisable use by small cars. It is recommended that any bicycles, animals or motorbikes be
walked across, but all are considered acceptable for crossing.

Wood decking changes the deadload depending on the weight of the wood being used. If a steel deck is chosen,
the corresponding deadload also changes.

Although the lateral wind loadings proportionally increase with increased span, there is a design limit of 120
meters without wind guy structures and design by a Professional Engineer. The longitudinal rigidity of the bridge is
compromised beyond 120 meters without the additional lateral support. Wind guys significantly increase the overall
cost of the structure as two (2) additional cables and four (4) additional anchors are required. Contact Bridges to
Prosperity for wind-guy design guides and tools.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 14

SECTION 3: MATERIAL ESTIMATE

The following section details material quantity take-offs. This section is intended for use only with B2P suspended
bridges and should not be referenced for modified structures.

3.1 Cable & Clamps

Select steel cable based on cable breaking strengths and the Cable Look-Up Tool, available at bridgestoprosper-
ity.org/resources, as outlined in Section 2. After initially selecting the optimum combination of cables for the given
span, calculate the total quantity to order by multiplying the number of cables by the length of each cable, L cable .

L cable = 1.04 (L + 14 + d left + d right)

This is an empirical formula developed through experience in the field. 14 meters provides excess horizontal
length that is helpful while laying out cables (particularly in long-spans) and provides length to account for cable
sag and wrap-back around the anchors. The distance between anchors and towers d left and d right can be found
using B2P Construction Drawings and site topography.

Consider the costs of several combinations of cable before moving on. Often, cable is sold by the reel of 500 me-
ters, so if one combination requires slightly more than 500 meters, it may be worth the additional cost to increase
the size of the cable to reduce the number of cables and thus the total required length.

The quantity of clamps per cable is dependent on the size of the cable and the type of clamp selected. The table
below is the Bridges to Prosperity standard for torque requirements for drop-forged cable clamps at given cable
and clamp diameters. Cable clamp manufacturer provide specifications that must be verified as this is included
only as a guideline.

Cable Diameter Spacing Drop-Forge clamps

(inch) (mm) (mm) # of clamps Torque (ft-lbs)
5/8 16 102 3 95
3/4 19 114 4 130
7/8 22 121 4 225
1 25 132 5 225
1 1/8 29 144 6 225
1 1/4 32 160 7 360
1 3/8 35 160 7 360
1 1/2 38 171 8 360

3.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT BAR

Towers
- 4 pieces steel rebar, 19mm z (#6) x 4.50 meters in length
- 3” angle iron x 67cm in length
- Rebar guides for walkway cables: (optional)
# of walkway cables + 1, 16mm x 20cm each
- 4 x cut tire rims (2 complete tire rims)
Suspenders (hangers)

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 27

 Suspenders (hangers)
- 2 x (Span + 1), minimum 10mm z (#3), deformed rebar (#3), cut to 2.0m length

Anchors: Gravity (Deadman) Beams

Small/Medium anchor Large Anchor

Rebar size
(up to 60m span) (up to 120m span)
19mm z x 2.9 m 4 8
11
10mm z x 2.2 m N/A
bent into square 0.5m per side
11
10mm z x 3.4 m N/A
bent into square 0.8m per side
3 3
19mm z x 3 m bent into U-shape for erection bent into U-shape for erection
hooks hooks

Anchors: Rock Drum (Drilled Pier)

Spans 40 meters or less
• Anchor rods, 16 pieces, 25 mm z , cut at 1.50 meters
• Inner drum: 8 pieces, 10 mm z , cut at 3.40 meters, bent into 0.85 m
diameter circle
• Outer drum: 8 pieces, 10 mm z , cut at 5.25 meters, bent into 1.45 m
diameter circle

Spans 41-60 meters
• Anchor rods, 20 pieces, 25 mm z , cut at 1.50 meters
• Inner drum: 8 pieces, 10 mm z , cut at 4.15 meters, bent into 1.10 meter
diameter circle
• Outer drum: 7 pieces, 10 mm z , cut at 5.90 meters, bent into 1.65 meter
diameter circle

3.3 CONCRETE

Refer to this section to calculate all concrete materials - cement, sand, gravel and relative water ratios. Bag
quantities included herein assume 42.5kg bags. If local supply is provided in a different quantity, adjust estimates
accordingly.

Masonry:
The quantities provided below are given to the 3G series but should be adjusted based on the actual drawing used.
They include the 2 bags poured while grouting the interior of each tier and the capping of that tier.

Foundation 18 bags Towers (masonry) 8 bags

Tier 1 16 bags Approach walls 16 bags (for 2m height)
Tier 2 14 bags Approach cap 16 Bags
Tier 3 12 bags

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 28

 Poured concrete:
The proportions we recommend for poured concrete (anchor, towers fill, etc.) is 1:2:3
(cement: sand: gravel) and should be revised when needed based on the materials
available. The sum of the ingredient volumes will be greater than the volume of concrete,
because the sand will fill the voids between the coarse aggregate. The materials normally
have 30% to 50% greater volume than the concrete mix. Clean water should be added on
a visual and texture basis as outlined in Volume 3.3.

If accelerant is to be used to expedite the curing time, take care to note the quantity
required as specified on the product. When developing the project schedule, four days
curing time for the anchor should be adequate, as the crushing load of the cable is only on
the order of 250psi. Reference Volume 3.3 for additional detail.

3.4 DECKING

Bridges to Prosperity uses wood decking when a sustainable source of wood is a viable
option. If you choose to use metal or plastic decking, research and address deadloads
accordingly.

There are two wood decking options: with or without a nailer. The nailer is the same width
as the decking panels, and is attached to the top of a narrower cross-beam to increase
the amount of surface area available for nailing the decking panels. The nailer improves
constructability and allows for a smaller crossbeam size while increasing the total length
of decking panels required.

Decking panels are to be cut to 3.0 meters for any span over 60 meters, and preferably all
spans. If the bridge is shorter than 60 meter span, 2.0 meter decking panels are allowable.
The total number of decking panels is equal to [span divided by length of each board
(either 2.0 or 3.0)] multiplied by five (5), as there will be five decking panels across, each
20cm wide. If nailers are to be used, an additional (span plus one) meters of decking
panels will be required, cut at 1.0 meters.

Nailer (Recommended) No Nailer

Quantities

Crossbeams: (Span + 1)
Decking: (Span / length of each board (either 2.0 or 3.0) x 5)
Nailers (optional): (Span + 1)

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 29

3.5 OTHER MATERIALS

Flexible plastic tubing: 3” diameter*
Flexible plastic tubing: 2” diameter*
Tie-wire
Galvanized tie-wire
U-nails/Staples
Screws: 5/16 x 10 cm (4”)
Anti-corrosive paint
Fencing: 1.20 m high (4’)
Roofing tar
Handrail saddles or tier rims
67cm 3” angle iron / walkway saddles
Sand / gravel
Masonry block / Bricks
4 meter per cable (around adjustable anchor)
1 meter per cable (threaded over tower)
10 kg
5 kg
1 kg per 10 linear meters
5-6 per deck panel+ 4 per cross beam if using Nailer
1 gallon (3.8 L) per 50 linear meters
Bridge span x 2
1 gallons
4 pieces
2/4
Varies based on design
Varies based on design

* The best product for this purpose is reinforced tube, often found at plumbing stores.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 30

 3.6 MATERIAL QUANTITIES EXAMPLE

Bridge Location: Cahuac District, Huanuco

Span: 60m
Item Unit Units required
Cable and clamps
Cable 26mm m 391.04
Clamps 26mm piece 64.00

Construction Materials
Cement bags of 40kg 173.66
Concrete Blocks = 40 x 20 x 15 (cm) unit 180.00
Rebar 10mm (3/8") (9m) 6.00
Rebar 16mm (5/8") (9m) 11.00
Rebar 20mm (3/4") (9m) 4.00
Handrail saddles unit 4.00
Walkway saddles - 2 cable unit 4.00
Tying wire kg 10.00
Plastic suction tube 3" mts 20.00
Roofing Tar gal 8.00

Deck
Wood crossbeams - (10cm x 20cm) x 140cm piece 62.00
Wood platform - (5cm x 20cm) x 200cm piece 155.00
Screw - 8mm x 10cm(nailing panel to crossbeam connection) unit 62.00
Nails - 15cm kg 26.00
Smooth iron bar 10mm (3/8") (suspenders) (9m) 32.00
Anti-rust paint (suspenders) gal 1.00
Safety fencing = 1.5m in height mts 76.00
U-Nails kg 6.00
Tying wire kg 20.00

Local Materials
Sand m³ 40.00
Gravel m³ 10.00
River rock m³ 80.00
Dressed Stone m³ 40.00

Transportation
Transportation of materials per trip 6.00

Labor and Technical Support

Mason daily 180.00
Supervision daily 90.00
Logistical Support per visit 12.00

Note: For pricing estimate, local material and labor costs must be considered.

Volume 3: Suspended Bridge Part 1 Design & Analysis 31

APPENDIX C: STREAM CROSS-SECTIONS
140
130
Elevation (ft)

120
110
100
90
80
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-1. Cross-Section at Station 7+98.2

160
150
140
Elevation (ft)

130
120
110
100
90
80
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-2. Cross-Section at Station 8+70.1

160
150
140
Elevation (ft)

130
120
110
100
90
80
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-3. Cross-Section at Station 8+90.6

C-1
 160
150
140
Elevation (ft)

130
120
110
100
90
80
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-4. Cross-Section at Station 9+09.0

160
150
140
130
Elevation (ft)

120
110
100
90
80
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-5. Cross-Section at Station 9+41.1

140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-6 Cross-Section at Station 9+64.0

C-2
 140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-7. Cross-Section at Station 9+74.0

140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-8. Cross-Section at Station 10+00.0

140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-9. Cross-Section at Station 10+48.0

C-3
 140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-10. Cross-Section at Station 10+80.0

140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-11. Cross-Section at Station 11+16.1

140
130
120
Elevation (ft)

110
100
90
80
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Stake (ft)
Figure C-12. Cross-Section at Station 12+01.0

C-4
APPENDIX D: HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
Curve Number
The curve number for each sub-basin was calculated individually. It depended on the land use and the
hydrologic soil group. Since each sub-basin had multiple types of land use, each contributed to the curve
number based on their percentage of the total area of the sub-basin. For example Sub-basin 1 had
86.4% scrub woodland and 13.6% open woodland. So each contributed to the curve number by the same
ratio. The resulting curve numbers for each sub-basin are shown in Table D1.
Table C1. The calculation process for the curve number of each sub-basin.
Partial Final
Soil Fraction Curve
Land Use Curve Curve
Group of Area Number
Number Number
Scrub woodland D 0.864 84 72.56 83.86
Sub-basin 1
Open woodland D 0.136 83 11.31
Scrub woodland D 0.953 84 80.07 83.77
Sub-basin 2
Dense woodland D 0.047 79 3.69
Scrub woodland D 0.489 84 41.09 81.45
Sub-basin 3
Dense woodland D 0.511 79 40.35
Scrub woodland D 0.100 84 8.38 82.63
Sub-basin 4 Open woodland D 0.782 83 64.91
Dense woodland D 0.118 79 9.34
Scrub woodland D 0.417 84 35.02 82.64
Sub-basin 5 Open woodland D 0.390 83 32.34
Dense woodland D 0.193 79 15.28

Time of Concentration
Calculating the time of concentration was done incrementally using GIS. The longest flow path in each
sub-basin was first outlined and then divided into sections as the type of flow or the slope of the flow
path changed. The incremental values were then added to provide an overall time of concentration. The
results are shown in Table D2.
Table D2. The calculation process for Tc.
K Length Slope Incremental
Type of flow
Factor [ft] [%] T_c [min]
Sheet flow 0.48 229.0 18.6 1.8
Waterway 1.2 1032.9 29.2 2.7
Waterway 1.2 4254.2 3.1 33.6
Waterway 1.2 1509.1 13.0 5.8
Waterway 1.2 4050.9 3.6 29.5
Waterway 1.2 4025.4 22.4 11.8
Waterway 1.2 3061.0 10.7 13.0
Waterway 1.2 2879.0 38.7 6.4
Small tributary 2.1 8665.2 4.7 31.6
Small tributary 2.1 7630.5 1.6 48.0

Manning’s n
When defining the Manning’s n values for the channel banks in HEC-RAS, Table D3i was used. It takes a

D-1
base Manning’s n value and modifies it based on things like vegetation and river meander. Table D3 will
likely be used in the future as Manning’s n values are updated in additional HEC-RAS simulations.
Table D3. Manning’s n modification factors

                                                            
i
Arcement Jr., G. J., & Schneider, V. R. (1989). Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural
Channels and Flood Plains (Water-Supply Paper 2339 ed.). Denver, CO: United States Geological Survey.
Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf

D-2
APPENDIX E: CURRENT PRELIMINARY PLANS

E-1
APPENDIX F: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

F-1
Bridge Loads
N
Live Load LL  4070
2
m
N
Dead Load DL  4070
2
m

Deck Length Dlength  55.9m

Deck width Dwidth  1.16m Deck Area Darea  Dlength  Dwidth

5
Total Bridge Load TL  ( LL  DL)  Darea  5.278  10 N

Abutment Properties

West Abutment
kg
Density of concrete ρ  2400
3
m
Volume 3
Vw  54.35m
Area of base 2
Awb  10.04m
TL Fw 5
Total force on the soil Fw   g  ρ Vw  1.537  10 Pa
2 Awb

East Abutment
3
Volume Ve  47.49m
2
Area of base Aeb  8.7m
TL Fe 5
Total force on the soil Fe   g  ρ Ve  1.588  10 Pa
2 Aeb