Honduras Bridge

Final Report

Prepared by:
William Hellman
Caroline Janssen
Miranda Mangahas
Nathan Miller
Cole Siegenfeld

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 3

II. PRE-DESIGN 3
Literature Review Overview 3
Codes & Technical Specifications 3
Site Assessment 4
Hydrological Assessment 4
Geotechnical Assessment 4

III. DESIGN 5
Bridge Choice 5
Superstructure 6
Substructure 7
Constructability 9

IV. CLOSING ASSESSMENTS 10

Community Assessment 10
Environmental Assessment 10
Cost Estimate 11

V. LESSONS LEARNED 12

VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK 13

Bridge Maintenance 13

VIII. APPENDICES 14
Appendix A: References 1​5
Appendix B: Schedule 1​8
Appendix C: Hydrological Assessment 1​9
Appendix D: Geotechnical Assessment 27
Appendix E: Calculations 53
Appendix F: Community Assessment 64
Appendix G: Environmental Assessment 69
Appendix H: Cost Assessment 70
Appendix I: Design Documents 72

2
I. INTRODUCTION
For several communities near the rural village of Bacadillas, Honduras, access to the Predisan
medical clinic is restricted by a steep riverbed which becomes impassable during the rainy
season. In recent years, locals have annually constructed makeshift bridges to allow access to the
clinic, only to have them washed away as the river level inevitably ​rises. The team aims to
eliminate this issue by producing construction-ready documents for a ​long-term ​pedestrian
bridge.
The design will be founded upon input from the community and direct measurements
taken of the area, gathered during a team trip to the village in the Fall of 2019. Furthermore, the
design emphasizes safety, constructability, economic feasibility, resiliency, and sustainability.
An environmental assessment and community impact assessment were performed to ensure
sustainability and safety in the design. A cost estimate was created to determine the economic
feasibility of the project. A final pitch was then performed in conjunction with the Lipscomb
Design Team to Predisan Health Ministries, owners of the clinic. The team hopes that the
preliminary design documents and subsequent bridge construction will allow for safe and
sustained travel to the clinic and consequently an improved quality of life for the surrounding
communities.

II. PRE-DESIGN

Literature Review Overview

An extensive literature review was performed by all members of the team. During the first round
of the literature review, information was found on numerous methods of footbridge design.
Articles were found pertaining to modular footbridges, unconventional materials for footbridges
such as thinning logs, and footbridge design in foreign countries. Information was also gathered
on Bridges to Prosperity, including their design manuals and past projects. The information
collected by each member was shared at a team meeting and compiled for use in brainstorming
and design.
The team then performed a second round of literature review to cover some gaps in
knowledge. More information on the land conditions in Honduras, specifically the local geology,
hydrology, topology, available materials, and the flora/fauna, was found. This round of literature
review focused more on learning about the site conditions rather than potential bridge ideas.
Both of these reviews resulted in valuable information relating to international bridge design and
site specific details. The information was later used in assessments during the pre-design and
further informed decisions throughout the project.

Codes & Technical Specifications

The Bridges to Prosperity Bridge Builder Manual was referred to throughout the project. It
provided valuable information and commonly accepted standards for portions of our bridge
design including ramps, foundation placement, loadings, allowable deflections, and site sample
collection advice. Creating quality plans was an initial objective during the planning aspects of
this project. Following these standards that were made for international design, maintains the
bridge’s integrity. During the initial design phases, the specialization in suspension and
suspended bridges made this manual invaluable.

3
The AASHTO Pedestrian Bridge Design standards were also referred to throughout the
project. The full set of standards were not accessible, instead the mentors provided the necessary
pages used in design. These standards were used to help with loadings, thermal expansion
calculations, railing opening design, and railing strength design. The American Institute of Steel
Construction Manual was referenced for steel member sizing and strength calculations, and the
AISC Steel Bridge Alliance splice calculator was used in tandem with hand calculations to size
splices.

Site Assessment
In November 2019, three of the five members of the team traveled to the site for three days of
assessment work in conjunction with the Lipscomb Design Team. The goal of the visit was to
procure engineering information concerning the topography, hydrology, geology, and material
availability. An investigation into community wants and needs was conducted, ensuring that the
community is a part of the decision process. By giving community members a stake in the
project, they will be active members in the design and upkeep of the bridge.
The assessments performed were surveying, geological sample analysis, discussions with
a local contractor, and discussions with members of the community. The team surveyed the
proposed bridge site, including the topography near the clinic, the houses by the roadway, and
the riverbed. The surveying data was then imported into AutoCAD Civil 3D and a surface was
made for design. During the geotechnical investigation, geological samples were taken, 3 on the
clinic side and 1 on the roadway side. Auger sampling and cone penetration tests were performed
on site. Of the samples taken, only two samples made it through customs. These samples were
used for further analysis in the geotechnical assessment. Onsite, multiple community meetings
occurred. Learning more about the community and their desires and needs ensures that the
community is actively involved and invested in this project.

Hydrological Assessment
The hydrological assessment is attached in Appendix B. This assessment utilized the
hydrological modeling system HEC-HMS. Storm information was found from Hurricane Mitch,
a 1 in 500 year storm that hit Honduras in 1998. Using this storm data and topographical data
found online, a computer model on HEC-HMS was made of the watershed feeding into the
bridge site. The maximum water flow was determined from the model, assuming large amounts
of runoff from the surrounding hills into the stream system. From this flow, the high water mark
was calculated using Manning’s equation. The other variables were determined from the survey
data and by estimating the roughness of the stream bed. The high water mark was calculated to
be 100.4 feet from the model. However, testimonies from community members stated the water
had risen as high as 101.4 feet, so the larger number was used to set the high water mark. Using
the high water mark and 3 feet of freeboard, the bottom bridge elevation was set to 104.4 feet,
resulting in a deck elevation of 106.6 feet. This data was later used for the foundation placement.

Geotechnical Assessment
The geological assessment is attached in Appendix D. This assessment was conducted by the
Lipscomb Design Team. Both onsite and offsite testing results are summarized. This includes all
estimates and reasonings in determining the geological layout of the site. Onsite testing consisted
of auger sampling and the dynamic cone penetration test. Then the auger samples we packed to

4
bring back to the US. The samples that made it through customs were analyzed in Lipscomb’s
lab. In the lab, the Lipscomb Design Team ran an atterberg limit tests and a sieve analysis. The
type of soil was classified under USCS as poorly graded sand. The ultimate bearing capacity was
an estimated 2000 pounds per square-foot. This data was later used for the foundation design.

III. DESIGN

Bridge Choice
Following the initial assessments, the team looked towards similar projects to find guidance as to
which bridge type would best suit the site. The design standards initially chosen were those of
Bridges to Prosperity (B2P), a well-established international pedestrian bridge design and
implementation organization. B2P specializes in suspension and suspended bridges and so those
were the primary bridge options originally pursued. Alternatives, such as the truss bridge, were
also entertained, but initially ruled out in comparison to the less expensive and more
constructable nature of suspended and suspension bridges.
Upon delving deeper into the design process for these wire rope bridges, some
significant challenges arose. The most problematic issues encountered included limited
international availability and high expense of steel cables, difficulties in meeting freeboard
clearance requirements due to bridge sag, and minimal space for tie-back foundations on the
road-side. Upon notification of Predisan’s preference for a steel-beam bridge, the team decided
to pivot the design intentions to accommodate the wants and needs of those the bridge would be
serving.
Before resorting to a truss bridge design, the team thoroughly researched all available
options and discovered the stringer bridge. Reservations with the truss bridge primarily laid with
the relatively complex on-site assembly involved. These concerns were solved by the stringer
bridge, which basically consists of two simply supported beams spanning the entire length of the
bridge. Not only are on-site assembly and construction efforts reduced when compared to the
truss bridge, but difficulties in satisfying foundation spacing and freeboard clearance
requirements were resolved as well. Additional benefits of the stringer bridge design include an
overall smaller footprint because of its minimized weight, no need for heavy equipment or
special tools during construction, and a design that can primarily be constructed by local
residents to support community involvement. ​It became clear that a stringer bridge was the best
option for this project.

Beam Selection
The beam selection calculations are attached in Appendix E.1. As the primary load-bearing
component of the bridge, choosing the beam was an important decision that would influence the
rest of the bridge’s configuration.
To begin, some initial assumptions had to be made. Informed by the hydrological and
topographical analyses of the site, a span length of 80 feet was decided upon. Three
equally-spaced lateral bracings were assumed for an unbraced length of 20 feet.
As for loadings, conservative values were used as safety and durability were top
priorities. For the dead loads, a 30 pound per linear foot uniform load was chosen for the decking
components, a 40 pound per linear foot uniform load was chosen for the railing components, and
a 70 pound per linear foot uniform load was chosen for the beams and additional steel

5
components. For the live load, a uniform load of 255 pounds per linear foot was used for strength
design. While this may seem excessive for a pedestrian footbridge, this loading accounts for
community members traversing the bridge using motorcycles within reason. Live load deflection
checks account for twenty-five, 200-pound people and motorcycle use. Beam deflection was also
checked for a 500 pound point load acting at midspan to represent a motorcycle. While the use of
motor vehicles is strongly discouraged by the rest of the bridge’s design, it was decided to
accommodate the occasional vehicle on the bridge for safety purposes.
Using a factor of safety of 1.25 for the dead load and 1.75 for the live load, a uniform
load of 0.3106 kips per linear foot was required per beam. Multiple beams were tried and
checked for moment capacity and live load deflection serviceability. After meticulous calculation
and careful consideration, W24x68 Grade 50 steel beams were chosen.
The bridge span will be 80 feet, with an additional 2 feet on each end to connect the
beams to the abutments. It is not feasible to transport 2 84-foot beams to the bridge site that each
weigh over 5,700 pounds. It was expedient to divide the bridge into 3 smaller sections, each 28
feet long. These members will fit into a tractor trailer and will be transported to their final
location with some methods discussed below.

Superstructure

Splices
Since each beam will be divided into three sections, it was necessary to design beam splice
connections. The connections consisted of bolted plates on the top and bottom flanges and on the
webs of the W-shape steel members. Using 3 beams of equal length, the splices would occur at
the third points of the span. Using an Excel Spreadsheet from the ​American Institute of Steel
Constructio​n (AISC) in tandem with hand calculations for assurance, the specifications were
input for the bridge. In return, the number of bolts needed for both the flange and web splice
plates were given. In this case, the flanges required two rows of 3 bolts each and the webs
required two rows of 5 bolts each. Conceptual drawings can be seen below in Figures 1 and 2:

Figure 1: ​ Splice Elevation View ​Figure 2: ​Splice Cross Section

6
Cross-Frames
In the process of sizing the steel members, an unbraced length of 20 feet was assumed. Unbraced
length is a key component in the lateral-torsional buckling failure mode. The cross-framing every
20 feet along the span prevents this failure mode from occurring and allows the choice of smaller
steel sections for the superstructure. Channel sections (C12x20.7) were used for each brace in the
design. For added stability against any unexpected lateral load on the structure such as wind,
cross-framing was used at each end of the span. These elements consisted of angles connected
together in a cross shape to additionally support the span. For these steel pieces, L4x4x3/8
members were chosen. The layout of these elements can be seen in Figure ​3 below, and the
design details can be found in Appendix​ ​I.

Figure 3:​ Cross Frame Layout

Decking
The walkway design can be composed of either composite material or treated wood. Each option
has advantages and disadvantages. However, composite material is more durable and
long-lasting so it is the recommended choice for this design. The decking must be water-resistant
and must be able to span 2 feet with the design loadings without failure. Most composite
materials meet this standard. The local availability of composite materials for decking is a
possible issue. Treated wood would be a viable substitute given the low environmental impact,
but it is not widely available locally.

Railings
Railings on the side of the bridge ensure the safety of the users. They are designed to support a
lateral load in accordance with AASHTO Standards and maintain spacing such that a 6-in
diameter sphere could not pass through the railing at any point (AASHTO).
The railings will consist of 4-inch by 4-inch posts spaced at 8 feet connected to a handrail
and a toe board, each sized at 2 inches by 4 inches. Chain link fencing will be stapled to the
horizontal members of the railings with heavy-duty staples. Wood was selected as the railing
material because it is both less expensive and more environmentally friendly than steel. Chain
link fence was selected to ensure safety of the users by minimizing gaps in the railings.
The railings will be connected to the bridge at two places. First, a C7x9.8 will be bolted
to a 20-inch by 4.25-inch by 0.5-inch stiffener plate welded to the W24x68. The C-shape will
also bolt to the 4-inch by 4-inch post. The post will also bolt to two L3x3x½’s that will connect
the post to the nailer board.

Substructure

Approach Ramps
The Bridges to Prosperity Bridge Builder Manual (​Bridges to Prosperity)​ was used to design the
approach ramps. The ramps will consist of 8-inch concrete masonry block walls supported by a

7
1-foot-thick concrete footer. Inside the walls, levels of fill consisting of rock, gravel, and sand
will meet the top of the masonry blocks. The ramp will be capped with a 4-inch-thick concrete
slab.
Railings will be embedded in the ramp. The posts will be 4 inches by 4 inches and extend
at least 42 inches above the surface of the ramp. Horizontal 2-inch by 4-inch members at the top
and bottom of the posts will be attached to chain link fencing with heavy-duty staples.
The ramps will be no steeper than a 5:1 (20%) slope to ensure usability for clinic patients.
The exact dimensions of the ramps will be determined in the field by the contractor in
accordance with the given specifications. The base of the ramp will match the existing grade.

Foundation
The foundation design relies heavily on the information gathered in the geotechnical assessment.
The maximum gross allowable bearing capacity of the soil is 2000 pounds per square foot. This
value is potentially conservative, as every boring hit rock before the 6.5 feet specified by B2P,
which qualifies the ground conditions as rock (​Bridges to Prosperity​). However, the cause of
refusal could also be large boulders suspended throughout the subsurface profile, so the
conservative value was used. The foundations are constructed of three elements, as seen in
Figure 4: a footing (foundation), an abutment, and an endwall.

Figure 4:​ Bridge Foundation Design

The footing must be large enough to spread the weight of the bridge-foundation-combo over the
soil, so as not to exceed 2000 pounds per square foot. The abutment raises the bridge elevation
so that it is above the maximum water level determined in the hydrological assessment, and the
endwall acts as a retaining wall to hold backfill material from under the ramps. The foundation
will be made of concrete, and will need enough rebar for possible tension forces in the concrete.
The bridge is relatively light compared to the weight of large buildings that foundations
often need to support. The calculations for the dimensions/thickness of the concrete and the area
of steel were both calculated, as can be found in Appendix E.4. However, the calculated values
were all below the minimum required footing thickness and area of steel, so the minimum
specifications were utilized for the design. This resulted in a 1 foot thick footing, 5.3/5.8 foot tall
abutments, and 458​ ​feet of rebar​.

8
Abutment Connections
Due to the variation in temperature, slotted holes on one side of the bridge was deemed
necessary. The connections between the beams and abutments on the north end will be bolted in
place while the south end will have slotted holes to allow for thermal expansion and contraction.
Using AASHTO’s Pedestrian Bridge Guidelines, the thermal expansion was estimated to be
around 0.76 inches. To allow for this expansion, the slotted holes are designed to be 2.5 inches
long with a 1.125 inch width to accomodate the 1 inch anchor bolt. The 2.5 inch slot size allows
for an expansion or contraction of 1.25 inches, allowing for a large clearance of our estimated
expansion length.
To connect the W24x68 beams to the abutment, a bearing plate, a neoprene pad, and
anchor bolts are utilized, as visualized in Figure 5. The beams are attached with a fillet weld to
the bearing plate, which lays on top of the neoprene pad. The base plates on the south end of the
bridge will have the aforementioned slot hole to allow for thermal expansion and contraction.
The neoprene pad, however, will not have a slotted hole and will remain stationary.

Figure 5:​ Beam-to-abutment connection geometry.

Constructability
A differentiating factor of this bridge design is the simplicity in construction. The small bridge
footprint fits perfectly between the existing houses. For a bridge of this span, and without the
help of machinery, it is anticipated that shoring will be required for construction. This will be
true for a truss or a stringer bridge, eliminating potential additional costs. This simple and
intuitive design consists of two beamlines. The designed field splices allow for each individual
piece that could be positioned by hand without the need for construction equipment. Eliminating
the need for construction equipment further increases the cost savings of this design. With few
members, this design offers straightforward construction and avoids the confusion of many
structural components. Volunteers will be helping with the construction and safety is integral. A
simple design is safer for all those involved.
Potential challenges may arise during the transportation of the large members to the rural
community and moving the heavy members from the bank onto the falsework. Transportation of
such large members has been considered. The longest members are about 28 feet in length and
large trucks are necessary. During the site visit, trucks of this size were seen near the proposed
bridge site, indicating it is possible to get the materials to site. The heaviest members weigh

9
approximately 1,900 pounds. Once onsite, members can be transferred one of two ways or a
combination of both. By rolling members on top of logs or carrying them using straps, the beams
can be safely moved towards the falsework. Rolling members is a cheap method to move the
beams without necessarily having to completely lift them. Using straps, volunteers will stand on
each side of the bridge and lift together to move the bridge. The simplicity of construction
minimizes risks to both the bridge's integrity and those who construct it.

IV. CLOSING ASSESSMENTS

Community Assessment
The community assessment is attached in Appendix F​. ​The assessment was led to confirm that
the addition of a bridge to the community would be an effective solution. While on the site visit,
team members were able to interact with community leaders and with the community at large.
Afterward, it was determined that the clinic is incredibly well run. Patients attend their
appointments and the staff members
consistently update knowledge on the
medical conditions of the communities
they serve, meaning that a bridge would
solve the last issue tampering with the
effectiveness of the clinic: being able to
physically cross the river. Furthermore,
community members are engaged in
community projects and are willing to
lend a hand for the construction and
upkeep of the bridge. This is proven in
their meeting engagement, as seen in
Figure 6, as well as with a past
bridge-build to a soccer field. Finally,
the needs of the community had to be
taken into account in the design process. While the team initially chose a suspended/suspension
bridge for their low cost and ease of construction, there was potential for the tiebacks from such
a bridge to infringe on private property. As such, it was not the right choice for the community
and a stringer bridge was utilized instead.

Environmental Assessment
The environmental assessment is attached in Appendix G. This assessment was conducted to
examine both the carbon impacts of this project and the impact on the local ecosystem. A goal
during the design process was to remain environmentally conscious of this impact and minimize
the impact when able. Total steel was reduced as much as possible in the bridge design. Carbon
emissions were further minimized by the usage of local resources. To maintain the local
ecosystem, there was a focus on managing erosion, water runoff, and sedimentation throughout
the construction process.

10
Cost Estimate
The cost estimate spreadsheet is attached in Appendix H. This spreadsheet details each bridge
component’s total cost, total quantity, and unit cost. Table 1 below provides a summary of the
design’s most significant cost categories.

Table 1: ​Cost Estimate Summary

Throughout the bridge’s design, cost was always minimized without compromising
safety or design quality. Some of the ways in which costs were reduced include:
● The use of long, continuous spans to lessen the number of expansion joints and
bearings required, consequently limiting the future maintenance costs accompanied
by these design aspects​ ​(​Steel Bridge Design Handbook)​
● Minimizing the bridge span while complying with freeboard requirements
● Choosing the most economical and effective beam shape
● Maximizing the use of locally sourced materials, such as in the design of railing
components
The overall bridge construction is expected to cost $30,770. This total cost includes the
transportation fees associated with all the materials needed. Note that all values listed are
educated estimations informed by industry professionals’ pricing knowledge and reliable online
resources and therefore do not guarantee the price of any specific material or bridge component.
For this reason, a 10% contingency of $3,077​ ​has been included in the cost assessment.

11
V. LESSONS LEARNED
During the fall semester, a professor from the Peabody school came to the senior design seminar
to deliver a lecture on small group dynamics. He talked about the four stages of group
development, one of which is “norming.” During norming, group members are finding their
place in the group, how they will contribute, and who the leaders are. One thing a group can do
to help during this time is to create structures that promote interpersonal relationships that are not
project-based and make members feel included. The Honduras Bridge Design Team attempted to
accomplish this through monthly social events. Group members would take turns hosting a meal
at their home, and other group members would often bring ingredients and help cook. The team
found these events helped tremendously to boost morale and develop friendships.
On the site visit to Honduras, it was very evident the bridge would not be designed and
built in an ideal environment. One example of this was the difficulty of collecting data. With no
GPS or standardized coordinate system to tie into, the engineering survey was done using
relative coordinates based on benchmarks set near the site. Not all necessary geotechnical
equipment was able to be transported to the site from the United States, so data collection was
limited for the geotechnical report. Some of the soil samples were confiscated when reentering
the United States because they contained trace amounts of organic material. The team was
unable to obtain local precipitation data, so data from a singular storm was used to run the
hydrologic model. All of these demonstrate that, while ideal data sets may not be available or
possible, an engineering team must be resourceful in obtaining the information required to
deliver a robust, safe design. This may necessitate using a conservative estimate on some design
aspects, which will increase costs. However, the extra expense is worth the assurance of safety.
The site visit also helped contribute to the team’s understanding of the needs of the
Bacadillas community. An engineering solution that does not account for these needs is at best
useless and at worst harmful to the people it serves. Care was taken to interview community
leaders so as to ensure a design that benefited the community and would protect their safety.
Working on a project in another country poses unique challenges. The site visit helped
with many of these challenges, but the team still had to work around many of them, such as a
language barrier in many reports, working in both metric and english units, and ensuring the
bridge could be constructed with minimal equipment and volunteer labor. These challenges
helped give the team a deeper experience and a greater appreciation for the necessary codes and
standards in the United States.
There were many entities that contributed to this project, and lines of communication
needed to be open between all of them. The design team needed to communicate with Predisan
staff, community members, the Lipscomb Design Team and their faculty, and the professional
mentors. The team also needed to communicate among its own members. Communication was
typically communicated via email outside the group, and via Slack and team meetings within.
The members of the team learned to communicate clearly and succinctly over the course of the
year, which increased the efficiency of work. One example of how this impacted the project was
the bridge type. Initially, the team planned to design a suspended or suspension bridge. However,
after presenting this idea to Predisan, they expressed concerns over obtaining steel cables. This
allowed the team to switch to a stringer design, which will be of better service to Predisan and
avoid impinging on private property near the clinic, serving the needs of the community better.
Each aspect of the bridge needed to be designed with attention to detail. Unfortunately, it
was a learning curve to reach the appropriate level of detail needed for the final plan set. Each

12
aspect of the bridge took several iterations of design, team discussion, and mentor review before
it reached an appropriate level of detail. In retrospect, a better understanding of the amount of
specifications required for each component of the bridge would have streamlined design.
The team was made up of five members, all with different experiences, strengths, and
interests. Each member did a good job of articulating which aspects of the project they were
interested in and being proactive about contributing to those aspects. This allowed the project to
run more efficiently and gave each team member incentives to work hard on things they were
interested in.

VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

Attached to this report are construction-like documents that can aid the Predisan Health Ministry
in deciding on a final bridge design. Construction of the substructure was originally planned to
begin during the summer while the superstructure was to go in August. Due to COVID-19, the
construction schedule is now uncertain. Lipscomb University has a hopeful estimate that the
substructure will now go in around August 2020, and the superstructure will follow a few months
after. The attached design documents will need review by professional engineers if this design is
chosen. They are not construction-ready. After this review and updated cost assessment, a bill of
materials can be compiled and construction may begin. The Vanderbilt Design team has included
all calculations used in the design process to this point for optimal clarity, but the team will
gladly work with any engineers with questions as the process moves forward.

Bridge Maintenance
In order to be a successful long-term solution, the bridge will have to be regularly maintained.
The members of the community will play a large role in this. During the site visit, several
community leaders testified that the community is well versed with forming effective committees
to complete tasks. The community will have to organize groups that will repaint the bridge
regularly, as well as perform structural checks to ensure no deformations are forming in the
bridge. If any decking or railing components decay or are damaged, they will need to be replaced
promptly for safety purposes.

13
VIII. APPENDICES

Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Schedule
Appendix C: Hydrological Assessment
Appendix D: Geotechnical Assessment
Appendix E: Calculations
E.1: Beam Choice
E.2: Splice Design
E.3: Railing
E.4: Foundation
E.5: Thermal Expansion
E.6: Beam-to-Abutment Connections
E.7: Loadings on Shoring
Appendix F: Community Assessment
Appendix G: Environmental Assessment
Appendix H: Cost Assessment
Appendix I: Design Documents

14
Appendix A: ​References
“1"x18" w/ 4" Thread Straight Anchor Bolt.” ​Anchor Bolt Express.​ ​www.anchorboltexpress.com,​
http://www.anchorboltexpress.com/1x18-w-4-thread-straight-anchor-bolt/​. Accessed 29
Apr. 2020.

“2020 Topsoil, Sand & Fill Dirt Delivery Costs (Prices Per Yard).” ​HomeGuide.​
homeguide.com,​ ​ ​https://homeguide.com/costs/fill-dirt-sand-topsoil-cost​. Accessed 29
Apr. 2020.

“AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.” Washington, D.C., ​American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials,​ 2008.

AASHTO Rubber Bearing Pads by WARCO BILTRITE​.

http://www.warco.com/construction/aashto-bearing-pads/​. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

ASTM A36 Structural Steel Angle Section Properties Moment of Inertia, Steel Beam Size,
CrossSection Area - Engineers Edge​.
https://www.engineersedge.com/standard_material/Steel_angle_properties.htm​. Accessed
29 Apr. 2020.

Baez, Fabian Augusto Lamus, Carlos Felipe Urazan Bonells, and Sofía Andrade Pardo.
"Modular Footbridges of Guadua Angustifolia Kunth." Key Engineering Materials 668
(2015): 218-26. ProQuest. Web. 29 Sep. 2019.

Bang, Avery Louise. “Cable-Suspended Pedestrian Bridge Design for Rural Construction.”
University of Colorado Graduate School.​ 2009.

“Bridge Design Based on Construction Material Type.” Innovative Bridge Design Handbook:
Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance, by Alessio Pipinato, Elsevier, 2016, pp.
273–298.

Bridges to Prosperity Bridge Builder Manual_5th Edition (2016).Pdf | Powered by Box​.

https://bridges.app.box.com/v/5thEditionManualDownload/file/204455143392​. Accessed
27 Apr. 2020.

Buy A325 & A490 Structural Bolts - Heavy Hex Structural Bolts in Bulk | AFT Fasteners​.
https://www.aftfasteners.com/structural-bolts/#/Bolts-C732/Structural-Bolts-C1677/?sort
=Price-F2D&Grade=A325%2C+Type+1-F12196&Length=6%22-F1082&noidx=1​.
Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

“Chain-Link Fence Fencing & Gates at Lowes.Com.” ​Lowe’s​. ​www.lowes.com​,

https://www.lowes.com/pl/Chain-link-fence--Fencing-gates-Building-supplies/42948581
78?refinement=4294402450​. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

15
Design and Estimating | American Institute of Steel Construction.​
https://www.aisc.org/nsba/design-and-estimation-resources/​. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird
(Amazilia Luciae).” ​Federal Register​, 29 July 2015. ​www.federalregister.gov​,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/29/2015-18602/endangered-and-thre
atened-wildlife-and-plants-listing-the-honduran-emerald-hummingbird-amazilia​.

FRP Profiles & Products | Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer Materials.​

https://bedfordreinforced.com/products/​. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

June Climate History for Catacamas | Local | Honduras.​

http://dev.myweather2.com/City-Town/Honduras/Catacamas/climate-profile.aspx?month
=6​. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

Lowe’s Home Improvement.​ ​ ​https://www.lowes.com/​. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

Lumber & Composites​.​ ​https://www.lowes.com/c/Lumber-composites-Building-supplies​.

Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

Matthews, Kayla. “How Engineering Footbridges Improves Rural Economies.” Engineering For
Change, Engineering For Change, 15 Aug. 2018,
www.engineeringforchange.org/news/how-engineering-bridges-can-save-developing-co
mmunities/​.

Position Paper on Climate Change​. ​www.worldsteel.org,​

http://www.worldsteel.org/publications/position-papers/steel-s-contribution-to-a-low-carb
on-future.html​. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020.

Steel Bridge Design Handbook - Steel - Structures - Bridges & Structures - Federal Highway
Administration​.​ ​https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/pubs/if12052/​. Accessed 29 Apr.
2020.

Steel Is the World’s Most Recycled Material | SRI - Steel Recycling Institute​.
www.steelsustainability.org,​ ​ ​https://www.steelsustainability.org/recycling​. Accessed 27
Apr. 2020.

Structural A36 Steel Channel Section Properties Table Chart - Engineers Edge.​
https://www.engineersedge.com/standard_material/Steel_channel_properties.htm​.
Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

“The Carbon Footprint of Steel.” ​Newsteelconstruction.Com,​ 1 Jan. 2010.

www.newsteelconstruction.com​,
https://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/the-carbon-footprint-of-steel/​.

16
“Wood Screws at Lowes.Com.” ​Lowe’s.​ ​www.lowes.com,​
https://www.lowes.com/pl/Wood-screws-Screws-Fasteners-Hardware/4294710838​.
Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

World Record Temperatures -Highest Lowest Hottest Coldest Temperatures-.​

http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm​. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

Xiao, Yan and Zhou, Quan and Shan, Bo. “Design and Construction of Modern Bamboo
Bridges.” ​Journal of Bridge Engineering.​ vol 15, no. 5, 2010, pp. 533-541.
10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000089.

17
Appendix B: Schedule

Final Schedule
Deadlines shown in bold on chart September October November December January February March April
Phase Item 2 9 16 23 1 7 14 21 1 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 1 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 2 9 16 23 1 6 13 20 27
Start Teams Announced 9/9
Initial Literary Review
Specific Literary Review
Initial Mentor Meeting
Preliminary Project
Work Planning trip to Bacadilla
Researching standards and ratings
Prepare First Semester Presentation
First Semester Report
Site Visit and Engineering data collection
Assessment Community data collection
Finalize design standards
Pre-Design Brainstorm bridge type, materials, logistics
Determine bridge type, materials, logistics
Geotechnical Assessment 2/2 4/12
Hydrological Assessment 2/2
Design Iteration 1 2/23
Engineering Design
Design Iteration 2 3/22
Final Engineering Design 4/3 4/29
Perform environmental assessment
Draft 1 of Report 4/3
Final Draft of Report Complete 4/12 4/29
Final Deliverables
Practice Presentation 4/2
Final Presentation 4/15
End Design Day 4/20

Actual Schedule
Planned Schedule
Missed Original Deadline
Met Original Deadline

18
Appendix C: ​Hydrologic Assessment

Vanderbilt University Hydrologic Assessment of Bacadillas Watershed

Watershed Description
The watershed boundary was delineated by hand using a topographical map (attached).
The watershed boundary was then drawn onto the topographical map in AutoCAD Civil 3D, then
delineated into 9 separate subbasins. There are four stream reaches in the watershed located in
subbasin 1, subbasin 2, subbasin 6, and subbasin 8. The delineations are outlined in Figure 1
below. The X is the approximate location of the bridge site.

Figure 1: Watershed and Subbasin Overview

The SCS Curve Number Loss Method was used to estimate runoff. A curve number for
each subbasin had to be estimated. The curve number relates the land use to infiltration rates.
Based on the soil map in Figure 2, the predominant soil surrounding our area of interest were
alluvial soils. We used both this map and our observations from the auger samples to determine
the soil to be class D. We assumed a wet antecedent moisture Based on these properties and the

19
land use we estimated the curve number to fall between 65-90. Using google maps, we estimated
the impervious areas for each subbasin.

Figure 2: Honduras Soils Map

Synder’s Unit Hydrograph Method is the transform method used. The time to peak and
peaking coefficient were used in the model. The time to peak was determined by estimating L​ca​,
the distance along the main stream from the base to a point near the center of gravity of the basin
and L, the length of the main stream channel. The C​t​ values inputted into the model were
determined from typical values found for foothills areas (0.7) and mountainous watersheds (1.2)
[2]. Using google maps, the site visit, and the topographical map, we estimated the basin
roughness to determine the C​t​. The peaking values (C​p​) values were determined from the
common range of 0.4-0.8 [2]. The higher values correspond to more mountainous areas, while
the smaller values correspond to flatter areas.
The Muskingum Routing method was used to route the reaches in the watershed. This
storage routing method depends on two parameters, X and K. The K value is the travel time
through the reach determined by finding the time of concentration using estimates from the
USBR Designs of Small Dams equation. It is dependent on the change in elevation between the
outlet and divide and the channel length. We deemed this was applicable to our watershed and
the error from estimating the parameters is minimal compared to other time of concentrations
equations. The X value is a storage constant. Based on literature, the X is typically 0.2. This X

20
value corresponds with the roughness of the stream routing channels observed near Radnor Lake,
which would disseminate the peak flow entering the stream reach before it reaches the lake.

Computer Model
HEC-HMS is the computer system used to analyze the watershed. The data outlined in
Appendix A was inputted into the model. The basin model for Bacadillas is seen in ​Figure 3​ .
The precipitation data used for this analysis was from a 72-hour storm from Hurricane Mitch.
This storm was estimated to be a 1 in 500/600 year storm event.

Figure 3. HEC-HMS Basin Model

After inputting all necessary information, the model computed the maximum flow
downstream at Junction 1. This flow was then used to compute the maximum water height using
Manning’s equation for open channel flow based on an estimated cross section seen in Figure 4.

21
Figure 4: Stream Crossing at Proposed Bridge Location

Table 1: Curve Numbers, Discharge, and Max Elevation

CN Q (cfs) H (ft)
65 1321.4 8.079
70 1500.0 8.867
75 1566.2 9.139
79 1651.5 9.446
85 1758.5 9.786
90 1825.4 9.980

This process was repeated at the varying range of curve numbers to determine how our
estimations affect the flow and consequently the maximum water height.
A roughness coefficient (n) of 0.15 was estimated for the stream channel based on the
high amount of trees, shrubs, rocks, etc. found in the stream.

Results
Based on our model, the maximum flood height using the most conservative curve
number estimate is approximately 10-ft. The measured high water marks are about 11-ft above
the bottom of the river. Therefore we recommend the lowest point of the bridge should be 11 feet
above the centerline of the stream, which is an elevation of 101.4’ at the proposed bridge site.
This elevation corresponds to the elevation of the back porch of one of the community member’s

22
homes, which was presented as a high water mark by the local residents. However, the bridge
could be lowered if it is determined that a 500-year design is too cautious.
Many assumptions were made using this model and a lot of the data was older. The
precipitation storm data was gathered from Tegucigalpa during Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which
is considered a 1 in 500/600 year storm. The topographic map used to delineate the subbasins
was from 1998. Using Manning’s equation, the bottom of the riverbed was assumed to be flat
and the slope was extended linearly to counter lack of data.

Sources
http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/honduras/la_bacadia-honduras-50k-3060ii-1988.pdf
http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11688488_06.pdf
https://aguadehonduras.gob.hn/delimitacioneshonduras/

Data

Table 2: Stream Reach Data

L, Length H, elevation
L, Length H, elevation of time of
Reach of longest of diff. b/w K
of course, diff. b/w divide concentration, X
No. water divide and (hrs)
feet and outlet, ft (minutes)
course, mi outlet, m
1 (sub 1) 1526 0.289 10 32.8 9.68 0.161 0.2
2 (sub 2) 6664 1.262 165 541.2 18.06 0.301 0.2
3 (sub 8) 4987 0.945 15 49.2 32.52 0.542 0.2
4 (sub 6) 4376 0.829 60 196.8 16.40 0.273 0.2

Table 3: SCS Curve Number Data

SCS Curve Number Method
Curve Impervious
Subbasin No. Area (sqft) Area (sq mi) Number (%)
1 3342486 0.120 65-90 0
2 14514673 0.521 65-90 0
3 8981561 0.322 65-90 0
4 20030828 0.719 65-90 0
5 17372249 0.623 65-90 0
6 19915403 0.714 65-90 0
7 20709632 0.743 65-90 0

23
8 11198907 0.402 65-90 1
9 18577955 0.666 65-90 0

Table 4: Snyder’s Method Data

Snyder's UH Method
Subbasin No. Ct Lca (mi) L (mi) tl (hr) Cp
1 0.7 0.271 0.3258 0.338 0.8
2 0.9 0.709 0.9517 0.800 0.7
3 1.0 0.754 0.9614 0.908 0.6
4 0.9 0.676 1.1566 0.836 0.7
5 1.2 0.799 0.9883 1.118 0.4
6 1.0 0.756 0.8470 0.875 0.6
7 1.1 0.977 1.2566 1.170 0.5
8 0.7 0.549 0.9182 0.570 0.8
9 1.1 0.795 1.0735 1.049 0.5

Table 5. Precipitation Data, Hurricane Mitch 1 in 500/600 year storm (Incremental Inches)

Hour Rainfall (in)

0 0.000
1 0.011
2 0.000
3 0.008
4 0.017
5 0.026
6 0.157
7 0.219
8 0.050
9 0.000
10 0.000
11 0.000
12 0.035
13 0.039

24
14 0.000
15 0.005
16 0.000
17 0.000
18 0.048
19 0.000
20 0.000
21 0.000
22 0.000
23 0.000
24 0.017
25 0.005
26 0.092
27 0.037
28 0.164
29 0.153
30 0.127
31 0.109
32 0.087
33 0.131
34 0.119
35 0.066
36 0.535
37 0.394
38 0.234
39 0.149
40 0.087
41 0.085
42 0.015
43 0.151
44 0.151
45 0.234
46 0.297
47 0.814

25
48 0.525
49 0.755
50 0.569
51 0.510
52 0.503
53 0.477
54 0.433
55 0.212
56 0.235
57 0.026
58 0.026
59 0.168
60 0.096
61 0.328
62 0.262
63 0.042
64 0.009
65 0.011
66 0.007
67 0.079
68 0.014
69 0.000
70 0.007
71 0.000
72 0.007

26
NECT Solutions Project No. 19001 

Appendix D: Geological Assessment

Bacadilla Pedestrian Bridge

Geotechnical Engineering Report 
April 16, 2020

NECT Solutions
Noah Kimbrough, Emily Morgan, Chris Schneider, Trent Beacham
One University Park Drive
Nashville, TN 37204

27
2 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Table of Contents

- Introduction 3
- Site Conditions 4
- Project Description 5
- Geotechnical Characterization 6
- Geotechnical Overview 8
- Earthwork 8
- Shallow Foundations 9
- Deep Foundations 9
- Seismic Considerations 9
- General Comments 10
- Attachments 11
- Exploration and Testing Procedures
- Site Location and Exploration Plans
- Exploration Results

28
3 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Introduction
This report documents the findings of our surveying and geotechnical

investigation for the proposed bridge for the Predisan clinic located in Bacadilla,

Honduras. This report will include information on existing site conditions, foundation

design, and more.

Information regarding testing of the soil samples and results of the testing will be

in the Exploration and Testing Procedures and Exploration Results sections,

respectively. In addition the Boring Logs will also be located in the Exploration Results

section.

29
4 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Site Conditions
The following description of the existing site conditions is from our site visit in

November 2019 in collaboration with the Vanderbilt Team.

Item Description

Parcel Information Proposed site is located in Bacadilla,

Honduras.
N14°47.746’ W085°42.574’

Existing Improvements Some houses with wall

Current Ground Cover Vegetation in and around river

Existing Topography Site slopes down from southeast to

northwest about 96 feet to 90 feet, MSL,
into the river bed. Then it slopes back up
from southeast to northwest about 90 feet
to 106 feet, MSL, to top of river bank.

30
5 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Project Description
Our scope of project can be located in our initial proposal. A brief overview of the

project will be stated below:

Item Description

Project Description Predisan plans to build a permanent bridge to

replace the temporary wooden bridge that
allows the villagers to cross the river in order
to access the clinic. They have procured a
new site for the proposed bridge.

Proposed Structure The proposed structure consists of a steel

truss bridge with carbon fiber decking. The
bridge is approximately 100’ in length. In
addition to the bridge, there will be a retaining
wall added to the site as well.

Bridge Construction The means of construction are undecided at

this time.

Finished Deck Elevation The finished deck elevation will be

approximately El. 108 feet, MSL.

Maximum Loads Reactions= 27.7 kips per abutment

Grading/Slopes A 10% approach has been proposed on both

the clinic and the road sides of the bridge.

Below Grade Structures Both foundations and the retaining wall will be
partially below grade.

Free-Standing Retaining Walls One retaining wall will be built on the road
side of the site.

Pavements There are no proposed pavements included

in this project.

31
6 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Construction was planned to start in May of 2020 but due to the unforeseen

circumstances of Covid-19, the new construction date is TBD.

Geotechnical Characterization
Much of the geotechnical information for this site is unknown as some of the soil

samples were confiscated when traveling back to the United States. Only two samples

made it back. Both of these samples were disturbed, therefore we have no samples to

test for unconfined compressive strength.

Subsurface Profile

We have a basic idea of the subsurface profile of the site based on the site visit

and research of previous projects in Honduras. Borings B-1 to B-4 revealed around 1

foot to 4 feet of sandy soil before auger refusal. The area around the site has many

large boulders which was the cause of the auger refusal.

Two penetration tests were executed but due to a missing cone, a modified

version had to be created. Unfortunately, there was no opportunity to correctly calibrate

the dynamic cone penetration test values to standard penetration test values due to the

Covid-19 outbreak. One calibration was done but due to incorrect testing procedures,

32
7 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N
the results are inaccurate. Under the observation that the standard cone tip will be

more resistant than the modified cone bit leading to an increased number of blows with

the standard tip. Therefore, our values will be considered a conservative estimate due to

the decreased number of blows.

Finally, due to the limited geotechnical samples obtained, we assumed a

maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2000 psf for the foundations and retaining wall.

For the complete boring logs, please see the Exploration Results section. Below is a

table giving a brief overview of our borings:

Boring No. Approximate Auger Refusal Approximate Auger

Surface Elevation Depth (feet) Refusal Elevation
(feet) (feet)

B-1 100.23 2 98.23

B-2 100.23 4 96.23

B-3 100.23 1.83 98.4

B-4 100.23 1 99.23

Groundwater Conditions

No groundwater was observed within the boreholes. We are assuming a deep

groundwater table and therefore neglecting it.

33
8 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Geotechnical Overview
Based on the information from our investigation, the site can be developed for

the proposed bridge and retaining wall. Although, the following geotechnical

considerations were identified:

● Rock Excavation- ​Due to the nature of our borings, there is sure to be rock that

we run into when constructing the foundations and retaining walls. It is unsure

whether this rock is bedrock or not but for now it is assumed to be boulders.

These boulders will need to be excavated before placement of the foundations

and the retaining wall.

Earthwork
The fill material that will be used for the approach on both sides of the bridge will

be local river soil that will allow for optimum drainage in high water conditions. The

roadside approach requires 275 square feet of fill to produce a 10% slope. The clinic

side approach will require 279 square feet of fill to produce a 10% slope. These fill

estimates were generated in NECT Solutions Civil 3D site design model.

34
9 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Shallow Foundations
The proposed bridge design will include two strip footings, one on each side of

the bridge. The base of each footing will be 5’ x 6’ x 1’ .The entire height of the

foundation will be 10’ tall and approximately 3’ will be below ground surface. The top of

the foundation will be a 2’ x 6’ x 6’ wall.

Some considerations for the foundation and retaining wall construction is the rock

within the soil at the site. There were large boulders discovered in the boreholes which

will need to be excavated prior to construction.

Deep Foundations
There is no need for any deep foundations for this project.

Seismic Considerations
There are no seismic considerations for this project.

35
10 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

General Comments
This report was based upon research of past projects, site visits, and educated

assumptions due to missing data. Let it be known that site conditions could change due

to natural causes such as weather or due to the construction. Not included in our scope

is environmental or biological investigations of the site. Please note that this report is

solely for design purposes.

36
11 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Attachments

37
12 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Exploration and Testing Procedures

38
13 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N
We had access to two samples from the bridge site in Bacadilla, Honduras.

Both samples were taken from the clinic side of the river. We started our soil testing by

pulverizing each sample to remove any large clumps. This step was needed for both the

sieve analysis and the Atterberg limits tests. We then weighed out a decent portion of

the soil. This allowed us to have enough for our tests but also enough left over to use in

case something went wrong with the tests. These samples were classified using the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) which can be seen in figure 6.

Sample 1

We classified soil sample 1 by doing a sieve analysis and calculating the

percent passing each sieve. The data gathered from sample 1 is included in figure 1.

Once we exhausted the percent passing information, we looked at the uniformity

coefficient and the coefficient of curvature. We plotted the grain size distribution which is

included in figure 2. Using this graph, we were able to calculate the coefficients we

needed to classify the soil. The uniformity coefficient is 12 but the coefficient of

curvature is 0.6. Using the USCS, sample 1 is a poorly graded sand.

39
14 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Mass of dry sample:

(g) 655.88

Diam. Mass % Retained

Sieve no. (mm) Retained % Retained Cumulative % Passing

3/8 9.5 93.8 14.3013966 14.3013966 85.6986034

4 4.75 54.24 8.269805452 22.57120205 77.42879795

8 2.36 70.88 10.80685491 33.37805696 66.62194304

16 1.18 93.16 14.20381777 47.58187473 52.41812527

30 0.6 82.81 12.6257852 60.20765994 39.79234006

50 0.3 113.24 17.26535342 77.47301336 22.52698664

100 0.15 81.95 12.49466366 89.96767701 10.03232299

200 0.075 48.45 7.387022016 97.35469903 2.64530097

Pan 16.25 2.477587364 99.83228639

Figure 1: Soil Sample 1 Data

40
15 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Figure 2: Soil Sample 1 Grain Size Distribution

Sample 2

We classified soil sample 2 by doing a sieve analysis and Atterberg limits

test. Once we exhausted the percent passing information, we looked at the uniformity

coefficient and the coefficient of curvature. Using figure 4, we were able to calculate the

coefficients we needed to classify the soil. The uniformity coefficient is 10.67 which

satisfies the requirements but, the coefficient of curvature is 0.91. This information

helped us determine the sample is poorly graded. After following the USCS chart with

the sieve analysis data, we used the Atterberg limits data to finish classifying the

sample. Using the values calculated for liquid limit and plasticity index, we plotted the

41
16 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N
sample of the plasticity chart, shown in figure 8, and gathered that the sample is a

poorly graded sand with silt.

Mass of dry
sample: 370.5

Diam. Mass Retained % Retained

Sieve no. (mm) (g) % Retained Cumulative % Passing

3/8 9.5 86.55 23.36032389 23.36032389 76.63967611

4 4.75 10.36 2.796221323 26.15654521 73.84345479

8 2.36 17.49 4.720647773 30.87719298 69.12280702

16 1.18 38.5 10.39136302 41.26855601 58.73144399

30 0.6 46.39 12.52091768 53.78947368 46.21052632

50 0.3 52.42 14.14844804 67.93792173 32.06207827

100 0.15 59.52 16.06477733 84.00269906 15.99730094

200 0.075 40.7 10.9851552 94.98785425 5.012145749

Pan 15.47 4.175438596 99.16329285

Figure 3: Soil Sample 2 Data

42
17 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Figure 4: Soil Sample 2 Grain Size Distribution

Figure 5: Sample 2 Atterberg Limit Test Data

43
18 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Figure 6: Soil Sample 2 Liquid Limit Determination

Figure 7: USCS Chart

44
19 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

​ ource: https://www.nzgs.org/library/nzgs20_hind/​)
Figure 8: Casagrande Plasticity Chart (S

45
20 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Site Location and Exploration Plans

46
47
21 ​ ECT Solutions: Bacadilla Bridge 19001  
N

Exploration Results

48
SUBSURFACE
LOG Page ​ 1 ​ of ​ 1

Project Number 101 Location Bacadilla, Honduras

Project Name Bacadilla Pedestrian Bridge Boring No. 1 Total Depth SP @ 2’
Country Honduras Surface Elevation 100.23’
Project Type Geotechnical Investigation Date Started 11/23/19 Completed
Supervisor Chris Gwaltney Driller Noah Kimbrough Depth to Water N/A Date/Time
Logged By Trent Beacham Depth to Water N/A Date/Time

Lithology Sample # Depth

Elevation Depth Description Run Remarks
100.23’ 0’ Top of Ground 1 0’

98.23’ 2’ Poorly Graded Sand 1.75’ 98.48’

(SP)

49
SUBSURFACE
LOG Page ​ ​ of ​

Project Number 101 Location Bacadilla, Honduras

Project Name Bacadilla Pedestrian Bridge Boring No. 2 Total Depth SP​ @ 3’ 1.5”
Country Honduras Surface Elevation 100.23’
Project Type Geotechnical Investigation Date Started 11/23/19 Completed
Supervisor Chris Gwaltney Driller Noah Kimbrough Depth to Water N/A Date/Time
Logged By Trent Beacham Depth to Water N/A Date/Time

Lithology Sample # Depth

Elevation Depth Description Run Remarks
100.23’ 0’ Top of Ground 2

98.23’ 2’ Poorly Graded Sand 1.75’ 98.48’

(SP)

97.1’ 3’ 1.5” Poorly Graded Sand 4’

(SP)

96.23’ 4’ Refusal

50
SUBSURFACE
LOG Page ​ ​ of ​

Project Number 101 Location Bacadilla, Honduras

Project Name Bacadilla Pedestrian Bridge Boring No. 3 Total Depth 1’10”
Country Honduras Surface Elevation 100.23’
Project Type Geotechnical Investigation Date Started 11/23/19 Completed
Supervisor Chris Gwaltney Driller Noah Kimbrough Depth to Water N/A Date/Time
Logged By Trent Beacham Depth to Water N/A Date/Time

Lithology Sample # Depth

Elevation Depth Description Run Remarks
100.23’ 0’ Top of Ground 3 0’

98.4’ 1’10” Soil 1’10”

51
SUBSURFACE
LOG Page ​ ​ of ​

Project Number 101 Location Bacadilla, Honduras (Road Side)

Project Name Bacadilla Pedestrian Bridge Boring No. 4 Total Depth 1’
Country Honduras Surface Elevation 100.23’
Project Type Geotechnical Investigation Date Started 11/23/19 Completed
Supervisor Chris Gwaltney Driller Noah Kimbrough Depth to Water N/A Date/Time
Logged By Trent Beacham Depth to Water N/A Date/Time

Lithology Sample # Depth

Elevation Depth Description Run Remarks
100.23’ 0’ Top of Ground 4 0’

99.23’ 1’ Soil 1’

52
Appendix E.1: Beam Choice 28 Apr 2020 15:52:30 - Beam_Selection_Calculations.sm
BEAM SELECTION CALCULATIONS
Loadings

deck 30 plf pedestrians_and_motors 255 plf

railing 40 plf Live_Loads_strength 255 plf
steel 70 plf
200
Dead_Loads deck railing steel 140plf ped_load 25 0.0312 klf
160 1000

1.25 Dead_Loads 1.75 Live_Loads_strength kip

Factored_Load 0.3106
1000 2 ft beam

Assume lateral bracing at 1/3 points (20 ft)

Dimensions

L_b 20 ft
L 80 ft

Design Moments From Table 3-10 in AISC 15th Edition

W24x68
2
Factored_Load L ϕM_n 362 kip ft
M_u 248.5 kip ft
8 W21x62
ϕM_n 282 kip ft

Deflection Calculations

W24x68
4
I_xx 1830 in
E 29000 ksi

4 3
5 ped_load L 12
Δ_LL 0.5427 in GOOD
384 E I_xx

W21x62
4
I_xx 1330 in

4 3
5 ped_load L 12
Δ_LL 0.7467 in GOOD
384 E I_xx

Choose W24x68 for greater moment capacity

1/1
53
Appendix E.2: Splice Design 29 Apr 2020 19:01:54 - Splice_Design_Calculations.sm
SPLICE DESIGN CALCULATIONS

Loadings Bolt Properties

A325
Dia 0.875 in
DC_M 100 kip ft DC_V 1.82 kip
All Threads Excluded
LL_M 182.5 kip ft LL_V 3.32 kip
Surface Condition B
Girder Properties Standard Hole Size
All Grade 50 Steel Top_N 2
Flange_t .5625 in Bottom_N 2
Flange_w 12.91 in Web_N 2
Web_t 0.4375 in Spacing 3 in
Web_d 22.53 in Flange_edge 1.5in
Flange_end 1.5 in
Miscellaneous Web_edge 1.75 in
Stiffner_spacing 20 ft Web_end 1.75 in
Web_ws .75 in
Web_wc .5 in
Web_gap .5 in
Splice Plates Enter_clr 3 in
All Plate Material Grade 50 Steel
PFlange_t 0.5 in Assumed Number of Bolts
IFlange_w 3 in Top_Flange 6
OFlange_w 8.97 in Bottom_Flange 6
2 Web 10
Inner_Ag 3 in

2
Outer_Ag 4.485 in
PWeb_t 0.5 in

I. Factored Loadings
M_u_Positive 1.25 DC_M 1.75 LL_M 444.375 kip ft
M_u_Negative 0.9 DC_M 90 kip ft
M_service_positive DC_M 1.3 LL_M 337.25 kip ft
M_service_negative DC_M 100 kip ft
V_service_positive DC_V 1.3 LL_V 6.136 kip
V_service_negative DC_V kip

II. Factored Yield Resistance

Flange Outer Plates ---
2
A_e 4.36 in φ_y 0.95
2
P_Fy 50 A_e 218 kip A_g_O 4.49 in
Design_Strength_O 0.6 P_Fy 130.8 kip Plate_Strength_O φ_y A_g_O 50 213.275 kip
GOOD

2 2
A_n A_e 4.36 in 0.85 A_g_O 3.8165 in A_n A_g_O GOOD

Flange Inner Plates --- 2

A_g_I 3.0 in
Design_Strength_I 0.4 P_Fy 87.2 kip Plate_Strength_I φ_y A_g_I 50 142.5 kip
GOOD

1/3
54
29 Apr 2020 19:01:54 - Splice_Design_Calculations.sm

Web Plate ---

F_y 50 ksi 2
2 A_vg 19 in
A_gross_web 9.86 in
Web_Strength A_vg F_y 0.58 551 kip
V_n 0.58 F_y A_gross_web 285.94 kip
GOOD

III. Net Section Fracture

Flange Outer Plates ---
Design_Strength_O 130.8 kip φ_u 0.8
F_u 65 ksi
2
A_control_O 3.55 in
O_Flange_Strength φ_u F_u A_control_O 184.6 kip
GOOD
Flange Inner Plates ---
2
Design_Strength_I 87.2 kip A_control_I 2.06 in
I_Flange_Strength φ_u F_u A_control_I 107.12 kip
GOOD
IV. Block Shear

Flange Plates --- Flange_Plate_DS 130.8 kip

2
A_vn 5.16 in
2
A_tn 1.03 in
R_r 0.58 F_u A_vn F_u A_tn 0.8 209.1856 kip R_r Flange_Plate_DS
GOOD
Web Plate ---
2
A_vn_w 13.03 in
V_r_w 285.85 kip
2
A_tn_w 3.34 in

R_r_w 0.58 F_u A_vn_w F_u A_tn_w 0.8 566.6648 kip R_r_w V_r_w

GOOD

V. Slip Resistance

Flange Check --- Service_Moment 337.25 kip ft

Moment_Arm 23.09 in
bolt_tension 234 kip
Moment_Arm
Resistance_Strength_f bolt_tension 450.255 kip ft
12
Resistance_Strength_f Service_Moment
GOOD
Web Check ---
Positive Shear Check
Bolts 10 Service_shear_p 6.14 kip
Shear_per_bolt 39 kip
Total_Strength Bolts Shear_per_bolt 390 kip Total_Strength Service_shear_p

GOOD
Negative Shear Check
Service_Shear_n 1.82 kip Total_Strength Service_Shear_n

GOOD

2/3
55
29 Apr 2020 19:01:54 - Splice_Design_Calculations.sm

VI. Bearing Resistance

Outer Flanges ---

End_resistance 64.35 kip Outer_Design_Force 130.57 kip
Interior_resistance 129.31 kip
Outer_resistance End_resistance Interior_resistance 193.66 kip
Outer_resistance Outer_Design_Force

GOOD
Single Outer Plate
end_res 72.39 kip
single_design_force 217.91 kip
int_res 245.70 kip
single_resistance end_res int_res 318.09 kip
single_resistance single_design_force
GOOD

Inner Plate
end_res_i 64.35 kip inner_design_force 87.34 kip
int_res_i 129.31 kip
inner_resistance end_res_i int_res_i 193.66 kip
inner_resistance inner_design_force

GOOD
Web
end_web_res 69.96 kip web_design_strength 290.79 kip
interior_web_res 279.83 kip
web_resistance end_web_res interior_web_res 349.79 kip

web_resistance web_design_strength

GOOD

3/3
56
Appendix E.3: Railing 29 Apr 2020 19:08:59 - Railing_Strength_Design.sm

RAILING STRENGTH DESIGN CALCULATIONS

L 8 ft Live Load on Post. Extra 0.015 Term for Chain Link
3.5
P_LL 0.2 0.05 L 0.015 8 0.81 kip
2
kip
Bolt_Strength 39 Using 2 Bolts
bolt
Bolt Strength > Design Loading
GOOD
Induced moments from the Live Loading are negligable compared to both strength
and the steel sectional strengths.

1/1
57
Appendix E.4: Foundation 29 Apr 2020 11:39:27 - FoundationCalcs3.sm

L 72 in C_L 60 in
B 48 in C_B 36 in
f'c 3000 psi
2000
qagross qagross 13.8889 psi
144
150
γconc γconc 0.0868 pci
1728
T 12 in

qanet qagross γconc T qanet 12.8472 psi

factor 1.4
q_u qanet factor q_u 17.9861

Column Bearing
2
A_1 C_B C_L A_1 2160 in
A_2 B L
ϕ_c 0.65

bearing__on__footing

A_2
ϕBn_1 ϕ_c 0.85 f'c A_1 6
A_1 ϕBn_1 4.5286 10 lb

ϕBn_2 ϕ_c 2 0.85 f'c A_1 6

ϕBn_2 7.1604 10 lb

bearing__on__column

ϕBn_3 ϕ_c 0.85 f'c A_1 6

ϕBn_3 3.5802 10 lb
ϕBn_4 ϕ_c 2 0.85 f'c A_1 6
ϕBn_4 7.1604 10 lb

B_u q_u A_2 B_u 62160 lb

Confirm that B_u is <= ϕBn

One Way Shear

ϕ_s 0.75
q_u
α_s1 α_s1 0.1095
4 ϕ_s f'c

Lc_s1 L C_L Lc_s1 12 in

Lc_s2 B C_B Lc_s2 12 in

Lc_s 12 Set Lc_s equal to the larger of Lc_s1 and Lc_s2

Lc_s
d_s1 d_s1 1.0776 in
1
2
α_s1

1/3
58
29 Apr 2020 11:39:27 - FoundationCalcs3.sm

Two Way Shear

d_temp 6 in Set equal to d_s1 or something larger

α_s 40

C_L β 1.6667
β
C_B
b_0 2 C_B C_L 2 d_temp b_0 216

v_c1 4 f'c v_c1 219.089

4 v_c2 240.9979
v_c2 2 f'c
β

d_temp v_c3 170.4026

v_c3 2 α_s f'c
b_0

v_c v_c3 v_c 170.4026 Set equal to the least of the three v_c's

q_u α_s2 0.1407

α_s2
ϕ_s v_c

a α_s2 4 a 4.1407

b α_s2 2 C_B C_L b 205.5105

c α_s2 C_B C_L B L c 182.3916

2
b b 4 a c d_s2
d_s2 0.8722 in
2 a

Flexure
d_temp2 6 in Set >= previous d's

longer__side,__L=72__in Shorter__Side,__L=48__in

B C_B
L C_L Lc_f1 6 in Lc_f2 Lc_f2 6 in
Lc_f1 2
2
2
2 q_u L Lc_f2
q_u B Lc_f1 Mu_1 1.295 k ft
2 Mu_2 1.9425 k ft
2 Mu_2
Mu_1 12000
12000

Mu_1 As_1 0.054 in Mu_2

As_1 As_2 As_2 0.0809 in
4 d_temp2 4 d_temp2

d_b 0.75 in Set based on size needed to meet As

T_2 12 in Set T_2 >= to d+1.5(d_b)+3

2/3
59
29 Apr 2020 11:39:27 - FoundationCalcs3.sm

As_min_1 0.0018 L T_2 As_min_1 1.5552 in As_min_2 0.0018 B T_2 As_min_2 1.0368 in

Development__Length

ld_1 44 d_b ld_1 33 in ld_2 44 d_b ld_2 33 in

Ensure that ld_1 <= (Lc_f1-3") Ensure that ld_2 <= (Lc_f2-3")

Currently, our ld_1 and ld_2 are too big

As_2final As_min_2 As_2final 1.0368 in

As_1semi As_min_1 As_1semi 1.5552 in

Set equal to the larger of As_min_1 and As_1 Set equal to the larger of As_min_2 and As_2

Distribution__of__Short__Bars

L
β_2 β_2 1.5
B

2
γs γs 0.8
β_2 1

As_short β_2 γs As_1semi As_short 1.8662

As_1final As_short As_1final 1.8662 in

3/3
60
Appendix E.5: Thermal Expansion 29 Apr 2020 18:58:04 - Page1

THERMAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS

Per AASHTO 3.12.3.3-1

Procedure A:
6
α 6.6 10 in /in / degrees F
L 80 12 960 in
T_max 120 degrees F
(World Record Temperatures)
T_min 0 degrees F

Δ_T α L T_max T_min 0.7603 in

Procedure B:
T_min 45 degrees F
(June Climate History for Catacamas)
T_max 103 degrees F

Δ_T α L T_max T_min 0.3675 in

Oversized / Slotted Hole

Table J3.3
small slot -- 0.25 inches
long slot -- 0.75 inches

No matter the procedure (A or B), we use a long slot.

1/1
61
Appendix E.6: Beam-to-Abutment Connections
29 Apr 2020 19:55:35 - AbutmentCalcs_V2.sm

Tensile and Shear Strength of Bolts and Threaded Parts Minimum Bolt Strength
ϕR_n1s ϕ_1 F_ns A_b ϕR_n1t ϕ_1 F_nt A_b ϕR_n 0.25 d_l
ϕ_1 0.75 d_l 33 kip
F_nt 45 ksi
F_ns 27 ksi ϕR_n 8.25 kip

d_1 1 in
2
π d_1 2
A_b in
4

ϕR_n1s 15.9043 kip ϕR_n1t 26.5072 kip

High Strength Bolts in Slip-Critical Connections

ϕR_n2 ϕ_2 μ D_u h_f T_b n_s

ϕ_2 0.70
μ 0.50
D_u 1.13
h_f 1.0
T_b 51 kip
n_s 1
ϕR_n2 20.1705 kip

Bearing Strength at Bolt Holes

ϕR_n3 ϕ_3 2.4 d t F_u

ϕ_3 0.75
d 1.0 in
t 0.585 in
F_u 36 ksi
ϕR_n3 37.908 kip

Tearout Strength at Bolt Holes

ϕR_n4 ϕ_4 1.2 l_c t F_u

ϕ_4 0.75
l_c 2.4375 in
t 0.585 in
F_u 36 ksi
ϕR_n4 46.2004 kip

1/1
62
Appendix E.7: Loadings on Shoring 29 Apr 2020 16:15:27 - Page1
FALSEWORK SUPPORT DESIGN CALCULATIONS

lb
Dead_Load 70 DL_safety_factor 1.4
ft beam
lb bridge_width 3.3 ft
Construction_Load 50
2 tributary_width 27 ft
ft

Calculations
lb
factored_DL Dead_Load 2 DL_safety_factor 196
ft
lb
total_construction_load Construction_Load bridge_width 165
ft

tributary_width
Support_Load factored_DL total_construction_load 9.747 kip
1000

Use 9.75 kip per falsework support

1/1
63
Appendix F: Community Assessment

BACKGROUND
The community of Bacadillas, Honduras has requested assistance in the form of a bridge built to
connect the community (along with 11 other nearby communities) to a medical clinic across a
river. The clinic serves 3,165 people in 12 districts, taking care of medication, check-ups,
prenatal care, and more. The design team, along with designing said bridge, also wants to ensure
that a bridge is the right solution for the community, and that the community is able take care of
the bridge after it is built. As such, the team performed a community assessment to consolidate
community information gathered on-site and discuss what the right solution is for the
community.

SITE VISIT
In order to assess the community, one must interact with the community. Three members of the
design team travelled to Bacadillas, Honduras in November 2019 with students from Lipscomb
University. While there, they performed tests and collected measurements to design the bridge.
Significant time, however, was also dedicated to connecting with residents and leaders, to
understand the capabilities and dynamic of the community. This was accomplished through
casual interactions while working on data collection, as well as several meetings with various
groups.

Welcome Reception
The design team was kindly welcomed upon arrival to the community. Children from the
kindergarten school in the community joined in the reception, dancing to music and creating
their own music, visible in Figure 1. Louisa, the head nurse at the clinic who owns the clinic
land and has built a new wooden bridge every year after it is washed away, lead the reception.
She shared information about the clinic, the districts it serves, and introduced different
community leaders.
This reception also
emphasized the importance of having
a strong foundation of culture, as
emphasized in the Bridges to
Prosperity Bridge Builder Manual.
Visitors must be aware of local
culture, language, sociopolitical
history, and economics (Bridges to
Prosperity). A member of the design
team joined in the school children
Figure 1: A warm welcome who were dancing during the
reception. The team member was not

64
aware that in the religious culture observed by the community pastor, however, it is not
considered proper for adults to dance in such circumstances.

Community Leaders
The second meeting the team got to take part in was with the community leaders, including the
pastor, two of the clinic’s health promoters, the president of the committee of neighbors, a nurse
from the clinic, and Louisa. This meeting allowed for a dive into the inner workings of the
clinic. The leaders shared that the clinic serves around 30 patients per day, mostly seniors for
diabetes and hypertension, young children, and pregnant women. The furthest district is 28
kilometers away, and yet people from that district still reliably attend their appointments. This is
ensured by neighbors who lend car rides and the health promoters who make house visits to
check on the medical status of all community residents.
After the meeting, the design team got a tour of the clinic itself. The clinic is well-
outfitted to handle most minor medical events, as well as reliably provide medication. Any
major medical event or surgery, however, is taken into Catacamas, the city about 30 minutes
away from the clinic by car. On the walls of the clinic, the staff has a map of all 12 communities
and the houses within each, as seen in Figure 2. There are pins in each house to indicate the
medical conditions of any occupants. Detailed information such as this map show that the clinic
is serving its constituents well.

Figure 2: A map displaying the medical conditions of residents in all 12 districts

65
Neighbors
Next, the team met with those who live nearby the proposed build site. Several neighbors
offered to store materials in their house during construction. This could help preserve the
materials and minimize environmental impact of construction. The group of neighbors also told
of a bridge they built in the past across the river to connect the community to a soccer field. The
group then walked around and pointed out several high water marks from past flood events, to
flesh out the hydrologic analysis. The two neighbors living directly adjacent to the bridge site
were not able to make the meeting.

Community at Large
Each meeting was structured to gather information on the community and its structure while also
spending time asking about the desires and needs of the community. The large community
meeting allowed this on the biggest scale. The design team got to see the united nature of the
community, as many residents showed up and voiced their opinions, as seen in Figure 3. When
asked about their bond, residents said that they are “very united” and that it has “always been this
way.”
The team also learned
the importance of inquiring into
the community’s desires and
needs while also not offering the
world. When asked if they
wanted a roof to the bridge, they
said “yes!”. When asked if they
wanted motorcycles to be able to
traverse the bridge, they said
“yes!”. When asked how wide
they wanted the bridge, they said Figure 3: A community member speaking up during the
“2 meters!”. They were large community meeting
incredibly engaged, which is something to be very grateful for, but they naturally wanted the
bridge to be as amazing as it could possibly be.

Casual Interactions
Outside of the structured meetings, the design team also had many casual interactions with the
community. The temporary bridge installed by Louisa had worn out for the year, so residents
were navigating the riverbed to cross the river. The sides were often steep and unstable, visible
in Figure 4, and older residents were helped across by other members of the community. It was
already precarious during the dry season, putting into perspective how dangerous it could
become during the wet season.

66
Team members got to talk with residents who
would come watch the surveying, getting to know
several of the families of the community. At the end
of the trip, the team played a soccer game with
residents, seeing firsthand how the community comes
together and spends time amongst one another.

DISCUSSION
After getting to know the community on the site visit,
the design team took those interactions and applied
them to three questions concerning the bridge and its
design.

Is this solution right for the community?

If the clinic was not serving its constituents well, or if
residents were not attending appointments, a bridge
would not suddenly create the perfect circumstances
Figure 4: Community members
for the community. On the contrary however, the clinic
crossing the river
is quite well run, particularly since Predisan partnered
with the clinic several years ago. Patients regularly attend their appointments and take part in
social groups to connect with others who have similar medical conditions. The health promoters
ensure that members from far away districts have the transportation needed to get to the clinic.
Communication between the clinic and patients is strong, with the wall map painting a detailed
picture of the health of all patients. The very last problem is that, once residents reach the clinic,
they simply cannot cross the river safely in order to attend their appointment. As such, a bridge
is the right solution for the community.

Is the community invested?

The bridge will not be successful unless the community has a stake in the project. Our many
meetings set out to understand the bond of the community and its ability to take on such a task.
Sure enough, the community shared their desire and preparedness. They want the bridge,
meaning that it is not an attempt by some outside entity to throw in a solution that was not
requested. The community members are able to help with the bridge, shown in their work on a
similar bridge over to a soccer field in the past. Finally, there must be accountability for upkeep
of the bridge in the future. Not only was the community willing to provide this upkeep, but they
put immense trust in their community leaders (such as Louisa and the president of the committee
of neighbors), who will lead the charge.

67
How will the design change to adapt to community needs?
Finally, the team had to be sure to make sure their design fully fit the community’s needs. The
original design plan was a suspended or suspension bridge, as they are cheaper and easy to build
given the site conditions and unknown construction timeline (it is difficult to build shoring
during the wet season in a fast-flowing river). However, there was potential for the tiebacks of
the cables to infringe upon the private property of the two families living directly adjacent to the
bridge. As the team was not able to speak to these families while in Bacadillas, the team
contacted Predisan asking if it was okay. Predisan asked the team to move away from a
suspension design. They did not want to infringe on private property, and they were also
concerned able acquiring the high-quality cables necessary for such a bridge. The design team
eventually settled on a stringer bridge, which best considered the needs of the community, as
well as constructability.

CLOSING
To ensure an effective bridge, the design team completed a community assessment. This
allowed the team to take the community’s desires and needs into consideration at every step. As
a result of the assessment, the bridge is deemed an effective solution, one that the community has
a stake in.

68
Appendix G: ​Environmental Assessment

This environmental impact assessment is an overview of carbon costs associated with this
project and the project’s influence on the surrounding ecosystem. Our goal was to create a design
that would have the minimum carbon output and have little local environmental impact. Based
on data from the World Steel Association, there is approximately 1.85-tonnes of CO2 emitted for
every tonnes of steel produced (​Position Paper on Climate Change​). However, recycling scrap
steel there is an approximate 0.464-tonnes of CO2 emissions per tonne of steel produced. (“The
Carbon Footprint of Steel”) The design consists of two 80-feet W24x68, resulting in
10,880-pounds of steel. There’s approximately 12-tonnes of steel within the design, this includes
all structural components, plates, and bolts. The steel used in the stringer design results in
approximately 22.2-tonnes of carbon. This bridge design is more conservative with respect to
total steel usage seen by the usage of wood railings rather than fully steel railings. Steel is also
one of the most recycled materials in the world (​Steel is the World’s Most Recycle Material​).
Using the recycled steel scrap CO2 conversion rate, the carbon emissions is approximately
5.57-tonnes. Using recycled material and minimizing total steel will reduce the carbon impact.
Other design considerations taken to minimize carbon emissions is the usage of as many
in-country and local resources. This not only minimizes transportation emissions, but also
supports the local economy. During the site visit in November, local hardware shops were visited
to determine available resources. Minimizing the haul distances reduces gas carbon emissions
and other international transport impacts.
This bridge is constructed across a river in rural Honduras in Bacadilas. The impacts on
the surrounding ecosystem is an important consideration for bridge location, design, and
construction methods. The Hondurand Emerald Hummingbird is the only recorded endangered
species in the region. This species preference for arid climates indicates the lack of likelihood
that the species will be near the bridge location (“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants). Site access remains a critical factor in determining the feasibility of the project. Due to
the limited space on the roadside of the bridge location, it is necessary to have a bridge design
that minimizes impact to the surrounding properties.
A major consideration for construction is to manage erosion, water runoff, and
sedimentation. Some construction methods to reduce impacts on the environment are to utilize
perimeter control barriers if applicable, minimize the total disturbed area, and apply erosion
controls.It is already planned to store and stockpile materials in local community member’s
houses. This may reduce potential water pollution into the river. All of these aspects will
minimize the direct impact on the ecosystem during the bridge’s construction process.

69
Appendix H: Cost Assessment

Total Unit Total

Categorization Description Quantity Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Cost ($) Sources
Superstructure Girders W24x68 steel beams, Grade 50, 28' in length, 80' span length 6 1 lb 11,424 lbs $1.25/lb 14,280.00
Splices Bolts Top Flange A325 bolts for splice connections 176 1 bolt 176 bolts $4.00/bolt 704.00 (Buy A325 & A490)
Plates Top Flange Inner Grade 50 steel plates, 4.25"x9"x0.5", used for both splice
connections, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 8 1 lb 43.30 lbs $1.25/lb 54.13
Outer Grade 50 steel plates, 9"x18.5"x0.5", used for both splice
connections, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 4 1 lb 94.24 lbs $1.25/lb 117.80
Bottom Inner Grade 50 steel plates, 4.25"x9"x0.5", used for both splice
Flange connections, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 8 1 lb 43.30 lbs $1.25/lb 54.13
Outer Grade 50 steel plates, 9"x18.5"x0.5", used for both splice
connections, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 4 1 lb 94.24 lbs $1.25/lb 117.80
Web Grade 50 steel plates, 15.5"x14.5"x0.5", used for both splice
connections, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 8 1 lb 254.42 lbs $1.25/lb 318.02
Cross-Framing Members Cross-Frames L4x4x3/8 steel angles, 1.5' length, 9.8 lb/ft 8 1 lb 117.6 lbs $1.25/lb 147.00 (ASTM A36 Structural Steel)
Diaphragm C12x20.7 steel C-shapes, 33" length 3 1 lb 170.78 lbs $1.25/lb 213.48 (Structural A36 Steel Channel)
Plates Beam Connection 4"x4"x1/2" steel plates to connect cross-frames to beams, 0.283
lb/cubic-in 8 1 lb 18.11 lbs $1.25/lb 22.64
Cross-Frame 12"x12"x0.5" steel plates to connect cross-frames to eachother,
Connection 0.283 lb/cubic-in 2 1 lb 40.75 lbs $1.25/lb 50.94
A325 bolts connecting cross-framing members to steel beams
Bolts and plates 44 1 bolt 44 bolts $4.00/bolt 176.00 (Buy A325 & A490)
Stiffeners 20"x4.25"x0.5" steel stiffeners, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 6 1 lb 72.17 lbs $1.25/lb 90.21
Railing Posts 4x4x69" wooden posts oriented vertically, locally sourced
materials, located along each side of the bridge for its entire span
including the ramps, spaced every 8' along the bridge, 127' in
total 22 1 post 22 posts $7.50/post 165.00 (Lumber & Composites)
Longitudinal Members 2x4" wooden boards, used for hand railing and toe boards 320 1 ft 320 ft $0.75/ft 240.00 (Lumber & Composites)
Wood Screws $7.00/100
Used for railing and decking connections 2,300 1 screw 2,300 screws screws 161.00 (Wood Screws)
Chainlink Fence Chainlink fence connected to the posts and longitudinal members
on each side of the bridge and for the bridge's entire length 1 square- $0.375/square-
including approach ramps 640 ft 640 square-ft ft 240.00 (Chain-Link Fence)
C-shape C7x9.8 C-shapes connecting railing posts to beam webs, 9"
length 22 1 lb 161.7 lbs $1.25/lb 202.13 (Structural A36 Steel Channel)
Bolts A325 bolts for decking and railing connections 88 1 bolt 88 bolts $4.00/bolt 352.00 (Buy A325 & A490)
Brackets L3x3x1/2 brackets connecting posts to composite deck panels, 3"
length, 9.4 lb/ft 44 1 lb 103.4 lbs $1.25/lb 129.25 (ASTM A36 Structural Steel)
Stiffeners 20"x4.25"x0.5" steel stiffeners, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 22 1 lb 264.61 lbs $1.25/lb 330.76
Decking Panels Composite decking panels spanning the entirety of the bridge's 1 square- $20.00/square-
length excluding the ramps 280 ft 280 square-ft ft 5,600.00 (FRP Profiles & Products)
Counter Sunk Bolts Counter sunk bolts connect nailer boards to beams 42 1 bolt 42 bolts $4.00/bolt 168.00 (Buy A325 & A490)
Nailer Board 1 square-
Nailer boards placed between composite decking and steel beams 194 ft 194 square-ft $0.60/square-ft 116.40 (Lowe's)
Wood Screws Included in railing calculations See Above (Wood Screws)
Ramps Walls Comprised of stone and masonry, 8" masonry blocks 650 8" block 650 blocks $1.00/block 650.00
Fill 60 cubic yards of ramp fill consisting of locally sourced
materials, starting with large stones followed by small stones and 1 cubic- $10.00/cubic-
finally gravel and sand 60 yd 60 cubic-yds yd 600.00 (2020 Topsoil)
Approach Slabs 79 cubic feet concrete per slab, will be placed on top of ramp 1 cubic-
walls 2 ft 158 cubic-ft $4.82/cubic-ft 761.56

70
Total Unit Total
Categorization Description Quantity Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Cost ($) Sources
Substructure Primary Bearing North End 21"x18"x0.5" steel bearing plates, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 2 1 lb 106.97 lbs $1.25/lb 133.72
Foundations Plates South End 21"x17"x0.5" steel bearing plates, 0.283 lb/cubic-in 2 1 lb 101.03 lbs $1.25/lb 126.29
Neoprene North End 1 cubic-
Pads 21"x18"x0.5" neoprene pads 2 in 378 cubic-in $1.00/cubic-in 378.00 (AASHTO Rubber)
South End 1 cubic-
21"x17"x0.5" neoprene pads 2 in 357 cubic-in $1.00/cubic-in 357.00 (AASHTO Rubber)
Anchor Bolts 1" diameter, 18" length anchor bolts 8 1 bolt 8 bolts $20.00/bolt 160.00 (1"x18" w/ 4" Thread)
Concrete North End 1 cubic-
115.5 cubic-ft concrete for footings, piers, and end walls 1 ft 115.5 cubic-ft $4.82/cubic-ft 556.71
South End 1 cubic-
123.0 cubic-ft concrete for footings, piers, and end walls 1 ft 123.0 cubic-ft $4.82/cubic-ft 592.86
Rebar North End 217.8' of #6 rebar for footings, piers, and end walls, 1.502 lb/ft 1 1 lb 327.14 lbs $1.00/lb 327.14
South End 239.3' of #6 rebar for footings, piers, and end walls, 1.502 lb/ft 1 1 lb 359.43 lbs $1.00/lb 359.43
Ramp Rebar 134' of #4 rebar, 0.668 lb/ft 1 1 lb 89.51 lbs $1.00/lb 89.51
Foundations Concrete 1 cubic-
200 cubic-ft concrete 1 ft 200 cubic-ft $4.82/cubic-ft 964.00
Excavation Excavation for substructure 1 1 cubic-ft 598 cubic-ft $1.11/cubic-ft 663.78

Overall 30,770.69

Structural Steel 13,110.62 lbs $1.25/lb 16,388.30

$20.00/square-
Decking Panels 280 square-ft ft 5,600.00
Concrete 596.5 cubic-ft $4.82/cubic-ft 2,875.13
Bolts and Screws 1,721.00
Rebar 776.08 lbs $1.00/lb 776.08
Masonry 650 blocks $1.00/block 650.00

Superstructure 26,062.25
SUMMARY
Girders 14,280.00
Splices 1,365.88
Cross-Framing 700.27
Railing 1,820.14
Decking 5,884.40
Ramps 2,011.56

Substructure 4,708.44
Primary Foundations 2,991.15
Ramp Foundations 1,053.51
Excavation $1.11/cubic-ft 663.78

71
Appendix I: Design Documents PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 72

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

EXISTING
BRIDGE

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PROPOSED BRIDGE

CLINIC

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 73

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

80' SPAN
28' (TYP.)
8' (TYP.)
DECK EL. = 106.6'
NAILER BOARD AND DECKING
APPROACH RAMP

L3 X 3 X 1/2
ENDWALL W24 X 68 SPLICE AT 31 SPAN LENGTH C7 x 9.8
BOTTOM BRIDGE EL. = 104.4'
3' FREEBOARD HWL EL. = 101.4' NEOPRENE PAD
ABUTMENT

EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND

SOUTH FOUNDATION PROTECTIVE RIP RAP NORTH FOUNDATION

BASE EL. = 97.5' BASE EL. = 98.0'

ELEVATION VIEW

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 74

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

80' SPAN
28'
W24 X 68 SPLICE AT 31 SPAN LENGTH

ENDWALL
BOTTOM BRIDGE EL. = 104.4'
ABUTMENT

EXISTING GROUND

SOUTH FOUNDATION
BASE EL. = 97.5'
TEMPORARY FALSEWORK
(BY CONTRACTOR)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 75

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

3'
1' 3'
1'
ENDWALL G

2' - 4"
H ENDWALL

2' - 4"
TOP EL. = 104.3'' I
C
TOP EL. = 104.3' D
J

4' - 4"
5' - 4"
G

4' - 10"
E

5' - 10"
F

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

GL = 100'
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

G
1'

GL = 99.5'
A

1'
1'

B A
4'

1'
B
4'
ELEVATION:
NORTH FOUNDATION, SOUTH FOUNDATION,
ABUTMENT, ENDWALL ABUTMENT, ENDWALL

H ENDWALL
C ENDWALL
2' - 4"

2' - 4"
#6 REBAR AT
3' #6 REBAR AT
12" SPACING
12" SPACING

ABUTMENT
4' - 4'
5' - 4"

4' - 10"
5' - 10"
F
G
6'

5'
F

GL = 100' ABUTMENT
1'

GL = 99.5'

1'
1'

ABUTMENT
A B FOUNDATION 4' FOUNDATION

1'
6'
PLAN A B FOUNDATION
6'
(REBAR NOT SHOWN)
SECTION:
NORTH FOUNDATION, SOUTH FOUNDATION,
ABUTMENT, ENDWALL ABUTMENT, ENDWALL

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 76

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

5' 5'

ENDWALL ENDWALL

12"
12"

1.5"
21" 21"
1 81" DIAMETER HOLE

6"
3" 3"

18"
16.5"

24"
24"

1 1/8"

9"
2 1/2"
14.25" 6" 6"

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

BEARING
BEARING
EL. = 104.4'
EL. = 104.4'

27" 27"
PLAN VIEW: SOUTH
PLAN VIEW: NORTH
ABUTMENT, GIRDER
ABUTMENT, GIRDER
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT

27"

5
16" WELDED FILLET
BEARING
EL. = 104.4'
1
2"STEEL
1 BASE PLATE
2"
THICK
NEOPRENE PAD
1" DIAMETER
ANCHOR BOLT
18"

5'

SECTION VIEW: GIRDER

ATTACHMENT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 77

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

POSTS SPACED EQUALLY, 8' MAX B

GAP TO BE NO A
GREATER THAN 6"

8" CONCRETE BLOCKS 5:1 MAX

CONCRETE SLAB CAP
CHAIN LINK FENCE
MATCH EXISTING GRADE

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

12"
CONNECT SLAB TO 16" STEP WHERE
DECKING NEEDED (TYP.)
CONCRETE FOOTER A
ABUTMENT
B
16" STEP WHERE
NEEDED (TYP.) ROCK FILL FOUNDATION

6'

4'
42" MIN

EMBED POST 15" INTO FILL BLOCKOUT

WRAP MASONRY
6" WIDE BLOCKOUT WITH CONCRETE
BLOCKS TO OVERLAP
ABUTMENT

12" MIN. COVER

CONCRETE FOOTER
#4 REBAR, MID-DEPTH 18" - 24"

SECTION AA
SECTION BB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 78

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

9"
14.5" 4.25" A
7" K
0.5" B
A B C

3"
1.75" 3" 2.25" B
B 1.75"

15.5"
3"
D
C

15.5"

20"
D

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

B B

B 1.75" 5.5" A
B

3" A SPLICE
2.25"
1.75" D CROSS SECTION
9"
18.5"
SPLICE
ELEVATION VIEW

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 79

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

I
3"
G
3"
F
11"

20"
F
J H

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

E
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

"
18
K
DIAPHRAGM
SECTION VIEW CROSS-FRAMING
PLAN VIEW

20' SPACING (TYP.)

G E G K
H
K

27"
8' (TYP.)
E

PLAN VIEW

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 80

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

8' POST SPACING

CHAIN LINK FENCE 2" X 4" HAND RAIL

CHAIN LINK FENCE

SHALL BE
STAPLED TO
4" X 4" POST
HAND RAIL
48"

69"
DECKING

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

NAILER BOARD 2" X 4" TOE BOARD CHAIN LINK FENCE

SHALL BE STAPLED
L 3 X 3 X 21 TO TOE BOARD

CONNECT ANGLE TO
NAILER AND POST
WITH SCREWS

C 7 X 9.8 C 7 X 9.8
W24 X 68
ELEVATION VIEW

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 81

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

DECK SCREWS TO
40" BRIDGE WIDTH CONNECT DECKING TO
NAILER BOARD. MIN. 6
SCREWS PER MEMBER
PER SIDE

4" X 4" POST

2" X 4" TOE BOARD
NAILS OR
DECK SCREWS
COMPOSITE DECKING
B B
4" X 4" POST

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

NAILER BOARD
2" DECKING NAILER
1
L 3 X 3 X (TYP.) CONNECT BOARD
2 A WITH
A
20" X 4.25" X SCREWS
1 PLAN VIEW BB
2" STIFFENER
AT 8'
SPACING

18"
3.5" (TYP.)
14.5"

C 7 X 9.8

A325 BOLTS

9" 27" CENTER TO CENTER

W 24 X 68

SECTION VIEW

4' SPACING
NAILER BOARD

4" X 4" POST

NAILER BOARD

CUT OUT 4" X 4"

NOTCH FOR
BOLTS TO CONNECT BOLTS COUNTER RAILING POSTS
FLANGE TO NAILER BOARD. SUNK INTO NAILER
COUNTER SINK IN BOARD BOARD THROUGH
FLANGE. SPACED AT
4', ALTERNATING
SECTION VIEW W 24 X 68
SIDE OF FLANGE

PLAN VIEW AA

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION 82