m4 corridor around newport - public inquiry server)bailey.persona-pi.com/public-inquiries/m4 -...

M4 Corridor around Newport Approval in Principle – SBR-0650 Duffryn Railway Underbridge

Welsh Government

M4 Corridor around Newport

Approval in Principle – SBR-0650 Duffryn Railway Underbridge

M4CaN-DJV-SBR-Z2_0650-RP-CB-0001

P05 Issue | 09 December 2016

This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied

upon by any third party and no responsibility

is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 242707

CJV/DJV

3rd

Floor

Longcross Court,

47 Newport Road,

Cardiff

CF24 0AD

Welsh Government M4 Corridor around NewportApproval in Principle – SBR-0650 Duffryn Railway Underbridge

Contents

Page

1 Highway Details 1

2 Site Details 1

3 Proposed Structure 1

4 Design Criteria 15

5 Structural Analysis 20

6 Geotechnical Conditions 22

7 Check 24

8 Drawings and Documents 25

9 The Above is Submitted for Acceptance 26

10 The Above is Agreed Subject to the Amendments and Conditions Shown Below 27

Appendix A – List of the Relevant Documents from the TAS 24

Appendix B – Drawings 32

Appendix C – Form C Geotechnical Summary Sheet 33

Appendix D – CDM Hazard Log 38

Appendix E – Idealised Structure Diagrams 39

Appendix F – Schedule of Eurocode Options and Choices 40

Appendix G – Key meeting minutes with Network Rail 41


M4CaN-DJV-SBR-Z2_0650-RP-CB-0001 | P05 Issue | 09 December 2016

\\COSTPW01ICS01\ICS_WORKIN_DIR\1271\7920_20\M4CAN-DJV-SBR-Z2_0650-RP-CB-0001.DOCX

Page 1

1 Highway Details

1.1 Type of highway

Over Structure: Proposed M4 Corridor around Newport, dual three lane

motorway.

Under Structure: N/A – crosses South Wales Main Line Railway, Engineers Line Reference: SWM2

1.2 Permitted traffic speed

Over Structure: 70mph

Under Structure: South Wales Main Line Railway – Line speeds:

• 95mph (High Speed Train) / 75mph (other) Up and Down Main;

• 60mph on Up and Down Relief;

1.3 Existing restrictions

None.

2 Site Details

2.1 Obstacles crossed

The bridge crosses the South Wales Main Line Railway, ELR SWM2, between approximate railway chainage 161m 50ch and 161m 65ch, chainages based on 5

Mile Civil Engineering Plan No. SWM-17

The railway is currently not electrified, however works to electrify the line are to commence in 2015 with completion estimated by 2017. The proposed structural

clearances to the railway were agreed in principle in a meeting between CVJV, Welsh Government and Network Rail on the 8th December 2015, refer to minutes and drawing provided in Appendix G.

South Wales Main Line railway is four line track, comprising Up and Down Main,

Up and Down Relief.

3 Proposed Structure

3.1 Description of structure and design working life

SBR-0650 Duffryn Railway Underbridge will be a single span portal frame structure carrying the proposed M4CaN over the South Wales Main Lines and Up and Down Relief lines. The structure carries a dual three lane motorway. The




Page 2

motorway above crosses the railway at high skew. The proposed structure spans square to the railway, thus there will be two triangular “dead” areas on plan that do not support any carriageway. There shall be no direct access for vehicles to

the dead areas and as such all vehicles including maintenance vehicles shall be prohibited as agreed in principle in a meeting between CVJV and Network Rail on the 15th February 2016, refer to minutes provided in Appendix G. The bridge

structure is to be back filled along its length including areas where the highway embankment is not required. This serves to balance the earth pressures, insulate the bridge structure and screen large areas of concrete abutment walls that

would otherwise be exposed and visible across the Gwent levels.

As this structure crosses a Trans-European (TENS) railway route and the overall length of this structure is greater than 0.1 km, the structure is be classified as a

tunnel in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2014 concerning the Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) relating to ‘safety in railway tunnels’ of the rail system of the European Union. The actual length of

the tunnel is approximately 208 m. Network Rail confirmed that the structure would be classed as a tunnel in a meeting with CVJV on the 30th July 2015, refer to minutes provided in Appendix G.

Reinforced soil wing walls are to be provided at the south-east and north-west

corners of the bridge running parallel to the road to retain the highway back of verge from the railway, the adjacent proposed National Grid St. Brides 25kV Substation and the adjacent proposed Network Rail Trackside Substation. At the

south west and north east corners of the bridge, reinforced soil wing walls are to be provided running perpendicular to the bridge abutments to retain the structure backfill from the railway.

The bridge structure and associated retaining walls are to have a design working life of 120 years, category 5 in accordance with clause NA 2.1.1 of UK National Annex to BS EN 1990, and IAN 124/14(W), table A.1.

Bridge parapets are to have a design working life of 50 years, category 2 in

accordance with NA 2.1.1 of UK NA to BS EN 1990 and IAN 124/14(W), table A.1.

3.2 Structural type

The superstructure comprises a single span integral bridge formed from precast

prestressed concrete W beams acting compositely with an in-situ reinforced concrete deck slab. The beams are supported on reinforced concrete abutment walls.

The approaches to the bridge will comprise a combination of reinforced soil

retaining walls with precast concrete facing panels and embankments with 1 in 2 batter side slopes.

The highway parapets on the approaches to the bridge shall be supported on in-

situ reinforced concrete anchor slabs.

3.3 Foundation type

The bridge structure is intended to be founded on a single row of bored cast in place reinforced concrete piles along each abutment wall, installed through a




Page 3

layer of Estuarine Alluvium (soft clay) and Glaciofluvial deposits (sands and gravels) and founded into the Mercia Mudstone bedrock. Raking piles will be avoided to reduce risk of track and line side equipment disturbance.

The plan area of embankment and structural fill behind the abutments and reinforced soil walls is to be supported on a piled load transfer platform. The piled load transfer platform is to be provided where the embankment and structural fill

is greater than 5 m in vertical height. The piles supporting the approach embankments are intended to be driven precast concrete piles installed through the Estuarine Alluvium (soft clay) and founded in the Glaciofluvial deposits (sands

and gravels).

Spread in-situ mass concrete strip foundations to the precast concrete reinforced earth wall panels are to be provided on the load transfer platform.

The vehicle restraint system situated off the bridge will be founded on spread in-

situ reinforced concrete anchor slabs.

3.4 Span arrangements

The clear square span will be approximately 29.91 m, the length of each abutment will be approximately 208 m and the beams will be set perpendicular to the abutments. The motorway above crosses the structure at approximately 70°

to the abutments.

The lengths and maximum heights of wing walls are as follows:

1. North west - 145 m length, 10 m maximum height

2. South east - 63 m length, 10 m maximum height

3. South west - 25 m length, 10 m maximum height

4. North east - 25 m length, 10 m maximum height

3.5 Articulation arrangements

The pre-stressed concrete beams will behave as simply supported beams during construction

In the permanent condition the prestressed beams and in-situ reinforced concrete

slab will be cast integral into the abutment in order to create a full moment connection.

No joints or bearings are proposed as this is an integral structure. Thermal actions on the structure will be reduced by the regulating coursing and fill

between the deck surface and the carriageway.

Contraction joints to be provided at approximately 20 m centres in the abutment walls, these will consist of crack inducers with horizontal stainless steel

reinforcement running continuously through the joints. A water bar would be provided at locations where the joint is buried.

http://specs4.ihserc.com/Document/Document/ViewDoc?docid=FMNOLCAAAAAAAAAA




Page 4

3.6 Proposed Classes and levels

3.6.1 Consequence class

Consequence Class 2 (CC2) in accordance with BS EN 1990 clause B3.1, National Annex clause NA.3.2 and IAN 124/14(W) table A.2.

3.6.2 Reliability class

Reliability Class 2 (RC2) in accordance with BS EN 1990 clause B3.3 and IAN 124/14(W) table A.2. KFI = 1.0.

3.6.3 Inspection level

Inspection Level IL2 (Normal Inspection), in accordance with BS EN 1990 cl. B5,

Table B.5 and IAN 124/14(W) Table A.2.

3.7 Road restraint systems requirements

Solid infill reinforced concrete very high containment parapets 1.50 m high minimum will be provided above and adjacent to the railway in accordance with

BS EN 1317, TD19 and BS 6779-2. The extent of the very high containment parapet provision will be determined in accordance with the RRRAP at detailed design. An absolute minimum extent is assumed based on a plan offset of 15m

from back of verge to the nearest rail track. Solid infill reinforced concrete parapet transitions to normal containment shall be provided at the extent of the very high containment parapets. The normal containment parapet provision shall extend as

required by the RRRAP and transitions to safety barriers provided.

The vehicle parapets shall run parallel and along the back of verge to maintain aesthetic continuity with the highway restraint system as the road crosses the bridge. The parapet will also act to prevent vehicles, including maintenance

vehicles, from entering onto the areas of the deck that do not support carriageway.

Over and adjacent to the railway, solid infill pedestrian parapets 1.80 m high

minimum shall be provided along the extreme deck edges and tops of wing walls in accordance with BS EN 50122-1. Pedestrian parapets to be load class 3, infill class C in accordance with BS 7817 cl.2.4.4 for use over railways. No further

anti-climb measures are proposed, as agreed in principle with Network Rail on 15th April 2016, refer to minutes contained in Appendix G.

Away from the railway edge protection to the wing walls will consist of a strained wire fence to HCD Drawing H13.

Vehicle restraint in the central reservation is to be a concrete step barrier, not structurally connected to the bridge deck.

Additional debris netting may be required adjacent to the proposed National Grid 25kV St. Bridges Feeder Station and Network Rail Trackside Substation to

protect against loose articles being blown into them by passing traffic. These details shall be confirmed at detailed design stage.

The environmental design requires environmental barriers to be provided along

the east bound carriageway. These details shall be confirmed at detailed design stage.




Page 5

3.8 Proposed arrangements for future maintenance and inspection

3.8.1 Traffic management

Lane closures on the M4 Corridor around Newport when required.

Railway possessions may be required for certain work, but this type of structure should not require frequent maintenance. Possessions will be required for Principal Inspections at 6 yearly intervals or as determined by a risk based

approach.

3.8.2 Arrangements for future maintenance and inspection of structure. Access arrangements to structure

All future inspection and maintenance works to structure elements interfacing

with the railway shall be carried out under the control of the Network Rail asset protection team as agreed in principle in a meeting with Network Rail on the 15th May 2016, refer to minutes provided in Appendix G.

Access to the structure from the highway shall be along the strips at the bottom of

the approach embankments and wing walls. Access through the structure will be along safe cess walking routes alongside the rail tracks along the entire length of the structure in front of each abutment. Temporary scaffold towers or mobile

elevated work platforms will be required for access to the soffit, edge beams and outer face of parapets over the railway. Installation, inspection and use of the scaffold and work platforms will require rail track possessions.

Safe access to be provided at the tops of retaining walls. Temporary scaffold towers or mobile elevated work platforms will be required for access to outer faces of reinforced earth retaining walls. Installation, inspection and the use of

scaffold and work platforms will require rail track possessions where within the Network Rail boundary.

The bridge structure is proposed to be concrete, including parapets, to reduce maintenance requirements.

Network Rail will access their assets through the structure via the safe cess walking routes alongside the rail tracks along the entire length of the structure in front of each abutment.

3.9 Environment and sustainability

The design proposed addresses sustainability issues as follows:

a) Integral deck construction with abutments will minimise inspection and maintenance requirements, particularly adjacent the railway tracks

b) The structure is a new bridge and will be constructed before the highway network is open to use in the area. That will minimise traffic disruption and

reduce the CO2 output resulting from the any delays. However, possessions will be required for the railway during construction.

c) GGBS cement replacement will be used in concrete mixes which reuses a by-

product from iron blast furnaces which is abundant in South Wales. GGBS




Page 6

also improves the durability of concrete by reducing its permeability and increasing its resistance to chloride ingress and chemical attack.

d) Reinforced soil walls provide a proven economical solution with minimal use of

off-site materials. It is also proposed that modified 6I/6J materials will be obtained from site won materials.

3.10 Durability, materials and finishes

3.10.1 Concrete classes

Blinding concrete is to be Class ST1 subject to satisfying design chemical class for ground water.

Structural Element

Co

mp

res

siv

e

Str

en

gth

Cla

ss

Surface

Exposure Class

Δc (mm)

Nominal cover for XC/XD/XF(mm)

XC XD XF

In-situ Deck Slab

C40/50

Exposed surfaces

XC4 XD1 XD3

XF4 10 40/45 55/55

Surfaces covered by waterproofing

XC3 - - 10 40

In-situ Parapet Stitch and Ground Slabs

C40/50 Exposed surfaces

- XD3 XF4 15 60/60

Precast Beams

C50/60

Exposed surfaces

XC3 XD1 XF2 5 35

Internal surfaces XC3 - - 5 35

Precast Parapets

C40/50 Exposed surfaces

- XD3 XF4 5 50

Abutment C40/50

Exposed surfaces

XC3 XD1 XD3

XF4 15 45/50 60/60

Buried surfaces XC2 XD2 XF1 15 40/55/55

Wing wall facing panels

C40/50

Exposed surfaces

XC3 XD3 XF4 15 45/60/60

Buried surfaces XC2 XD2 XF1 15 40/55/55

Pile cap / Foundation

C32/40 Buried surfaces XC2 XD2 - 15 40/55/55

Pile C32/40 Buried surfaces XC2 XD2 - N/A 75

Concrete mixes and covers to comply with BS 8500 generally.

3.10.2 Reinforcement Steel




Page 7

Ribbed bars to BS 4449:2005, BS 8666 and BS EN 10080.

Characteristic yield strength fyk = 500MPa; Grade B500B unless otherwise stated.

3.10.3 Stainless Steel

Rebar and dowel bar - BS 6744+A2: Stainless steel bars for the reinforcement of

and use in concrete — Requirements and test methods. Grade 1.4436 in accordance with BS EN 10088-5

3.10.4 Prestressing Strand

The strand size and type shall be 15.7 mm diameter 7-wire super strands with nominal tensile strength of 1860 N/mm2 and relaxation class 2. Strands are typically prestressed to 209 kN per strand. The material of prestressing strands shall be in accordance with BS EN 10138-3: Prestressing steel Part 3 – Strand and the UK National Annex.

3.10.5 Concrete Finish Classes

Structural Element Finish Class

Exposed deck F4

Precast parapets F3, U3

Exposed abutments / wing walls F4, U3

Buried faces of abutments / wing walls / pile caps / ground

slabs

F1, U1

Surfaces to be waterproofed F2, U4

Precast beams F5

3.10.6 Silane Finish

In areas affected by de-icing salts, low toxicity hydrophobic impregnant is to be

applied in accordance with BD 43/03 provided there are no environmental constraints. There are no environmental constraints identified for Duffryn Railway Underbridge at this stage

3.10.7 Structural Steel

None

3.10.8 Paint System

None

3.10.9 Waterproofing

Waterproofing to deck: proprietary waterproofing system to BD47/99. Buried

parts of the structure are to have two coats of bituminous paint or equivalent, to SHW clause 2004.

3.10.2 Reinforcement Steel




Page 8

Reinforced earth wall facing panels need not be painted for the purposes of waterproofing.

3.10.10 Road Construction

Full depth road construction to continue over structure.

3.10.11 Lighting

None.

3.10.12 Bearings

None, fully integral.

3.10.13 Joints

None, buried structure.

3.10.14 Drainage

Surface and subsurface drainage of the area between the road parapets will be via a combined kerb drainage system and connected into the general highway drainage at each end of the structure. This will significantly reduce the overall

volume of rainfall reaching the existing track drainage system.

Surface and subsurface drainage of the triangular areas outside the parapets is to be taken by falls, created in the top surface of the deck slab, to points at the

corners of the bridge structure. From here, drainage will connect positively into the highway drainage.

Positive carrier drain back of wall drainage is proposed to connect into project drainage at embankment toe. A rodding point will be provided in the wing wall

and one in the centre of the abutment.

Positive drainage at the toe of the reinforced earth walls is proposed to connect into project drainage at embankment toes.

3.10.15 Structural Fill

Structural fill above foundations and behind bridge abutments to be Class 6N. Structural fill within reinforced soil blocks of retaining walls to be Class 6I/6J.

Characteristic fill material properties are provided below and will be verified on site during construction.

Property Fill Value Reference

Unit Weight 6N/6P γ = 19 kN/m3 BS EN1991-1-1 Table A6

6I/6J γ = 19 kN/m3

Cohesion 6N/6P c = 0

6I/6J c = 0

Angle of Friction 6N/6P Φ’ = 38°

6I/6J Φ’ = 38°

3.10.16 Dead Area Construction




Page 9

The triangular dead areas of the bridge deck shall be covered 600mm minimum overburden, inclusive of 50mm surfacing finish.

These areas will be recorded as being off limits to maintenance vehicle, as

agreed in principle in a meeting between CVJV and Network Rail on the 15th February 2016, refer to minutes provided in Appendix G

3.10.17 Permanent Formwork

GRC permanent formwork is proposed for spanning between beams, chosen

over GRP due to its superior fire resistance characteristics.

3.10.18 Fire Protection

In accordance with the Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) relating to ‘safety in railway tunnels’ of the rail system of the European Union’, the structure

should be able to withstand the temperature of the fire for a period of time sufficiently long to permit evacuation. This has been assumed as withstanding the industry standard Eureka fire curve for a minimum of 2 hours.

The three options for to ensure compliance with the TSI requirements are:

• Polypropylene fibres cast into the beam.

• fire protection boarding

• spray applied fire protection

1. Polypropylene fibres within the concrete. This has been used previously on railway structures and it is understood to be the preferred option by Network Rail, as advised in a meeting between CVJV and Network Rail on 15th February 2016, refer to minutes provided in Appendix G. The fibres are designed to help maintain cover and limit the extent of damage to the concrete. The concrete itself is the main insulator for the prestressing strand. Reinforcement will be only considered as effective where temperature is limited to 250oC in a fire (standard tunnel normal specification limit for fire protection board applications). The use of polypropylene fibres would allow unimpeded visual inspection of the soffit. The cost of adding polypropylene fibres has been included in the capital cost estimate. There would not be an increase in the Whole Life Cost estimate for maintenance activities and infrequent extreme events such as fire are not built into the WLC figures.

2. Fire protection boards bolted to soffit with the system tested mechanical fixings. These boards could be installed prior to lifting in place, or installed after erection, noting that with live OLE lines, work to the soffit will require a greater interface with Network Rail (NR). Fire protection boards would prevent visual inspection of the beam soffits unless removed (note complication above with NR). It is not unusual for bridge soffits to be hidden and fire protection board is a standard method of protection cut and cover tunnels. The structure itself would still be able to be inspected and common deterioration mechanisms would still be observable such as severe cracking (reflecting in the stiff fire protection boards) and rust staining through the gaps between boards). This would then serve as a prompt for more detailed investigation. The cost of using fire protection board has not been included in the capital cost estimate or WLC model compared to using polypropylene fibres. There would be an increase in construction cost and the small increase in the

3.10.16 Dead Area Construction




Page 10

inspection cost should it become necessary to remove panels. Panels would not normally be removed unless there were other defects indicated. Whole Life Cost may increase as it is possible that the board may need to be replaced after say 60 years this is estimated at an additional £500k for an intervention in 60 years. Infrequent extreme events such as a fire are not built into the WLC figures.

3. Spray system approx. 50mm thick which has been accepted by highways for tunnel temperatures up to 1350OC. The spray system could be partially installed prior to lifting in place but would need to be completed once the deck was finished. Note that with live OLE lines, work to the soffit will require a greater interface with Network Rail (NR). Spray applied fire protection would prevent visual inspection of the beam soffits and could not be easily removed. The structure itself would still be able to be inspected and common deterioration mechanisms would still be observable such as severe cracking (reflecting in the bonded spray). Rust staining is less likely to be visible at first owing to the greater cover. The cost of using fire protection spray has not been included in the capital cost estimate or WLC model compared to using polypropylene fibres. There would be an increase in construction cost. There would be no increase in the inspection unless it was decided to remove the fire protection. Whole Life Cost may has been increased slightly allowing for possible patch repairs to the protection system. This is estimated at an additional £100k. Infrequent extreme events such as a fire are not built into the WLC figures.

The deck soffit comprises the U beams and GRC permanent formwork spanning between beams. At detailed design stage the extent or fire protection will be determined including whether the GRC permanent formwork requires fire protection or localised damage can be accepted in meeting the TSI requirements

above.

3.10.19 Emergency Escape Signage

Escape signage designed in accordance with European Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 shall be provided on the abutment walls to indicate the distance

and the direction to the nearest tunnel portal. The maximum distance between signs shall be 50 m.

3.10.20 Other Ancillary Items

For debris netting and environmental barriers please refer to section 3.7.

3.11 Risks and hazards considered for design, execution, maintenance and demolition.

Details of the hazards identified, associated design mitigation measures and residual hazards are recorded in Appendix D. Each hazard listed has an

associated item in the scheme CDM Hazard Log which is regularly reviewed by the CDM Principal Designer and project team.

A summary of key hazards is given below:

a) Working next to OLE infrastructure;

b) Structural stability during construction;




Page 11

c) Heavy craneage – stability on soft ground;

d) Accuracy and completeness of available information, including on existing services;

e) Maintenance access adjacent to the railway and OLE infrastructure;

f) Train fire during operation, evacuation and emergency response needs – refer to Section 4.4.1 for further details;

g) Demolition of bridge over a railway track with OLE infrastructure.

Railway possessions required for some operations. Network Rail will require

representation on site and a track monitoring system in accordance with NR/BS/LI/045 Issue 2.

3.12 Estimated cost of proposed structure together with other structural forms considered (including where appropriate proprietary manufactured structure), and the reasons for their rejection (including comparative whole life costs with dates of estimates)

The following alternative options were considered for the bridge structure:

a) Long spanning structure running parallel with the motorway. Any bridge structure running with the skew of the road would need to span 100 m and

would require considerable construction depth (which could be achieved, for example, using a large arch structure). These options were therefore rejected based on cost and the project commitment to minimise the visual

impact on the Gwent Levels.

b) Twin portal – reduced spans and structure length but would require the realignment of railway tracks for the positioning of a central pier/wall.

c) Steel girders with reinforced concrete deck slab. Steel was rejected for

being less favourable compared with concrete in terms of maintenance (requires painting) and in terms of fire resistance.

d) Preferred option: single span concrete portal frame bridge spanning square to the railway. This minimises the structural depth and does not

require any realignment of the railway. Concrete offers reduced maintenance and increased fire protection over steel.




Page 12

The below table gives a summary of cost estimates for each bridge option.

Option Capital Cost Operational Cost Whole Life Cost

a) Rejected Rejected Rejected

b) Rejected Rejected Rejected

c) Painted

Weathering

£16.9M

£16.9M

£4.2M

£3.4M

£21.1M

£20.3M

d) £17.3M £3.4M £20.7M

For the purposes of this estimate, it has been assumed that the operational costs are 20% of the capital cost for concrete structures and weathering steel structures. This is reflect the need to arrange for isolation of OLE equipment and

for inspection of the tunnel lighting. For painted steel structures the operational costs are assumed to be 25% of the capital cost. The cost estimates are dated 01-03-2016

The following alternative options were considered for the wing wall structures:

a) Piled cantilever stem reinforced concrete retaining walls. More extensive piling operations required.

b) Steepened reinforced earth embankments. Requires relatively high maintenance, and space constraints adjacent to the railway limit their use

at this location.

c) Preferred option: Reinforced soil walls, less land take than steepened embankments. Less concrete structure compared to a piled cantilever

stem reinforced concrete wall.

The below table gives a summary of cost estimates for each wing wall option.


a) £1.6 £240K £1.8M


c) £1.2M £120K £1.3M

For the purposes of this estimate, it has been assumed that the operational costs are 10% of the capital cost for both the concrete stem wall and reinforced soil

wall options. The cost estimates are dated 01-03-2016.

The below table gives a summary of cost estimates for each bridge option.


a) Rejected Rejected Rejected


c) Painted

Weathering

£16.9M

£16.9M

£4.2M

£3.4M

£21.1M

£20.3M

d) £17.3M £3.4M £20.7M

For the purposes of this estimate, it has been assumed that the operational costs are 20% of the capital cost for concrete structures and weathering steel structures. This is reflect the need to arrange for isolation of OLE equipment and

for inspection of the tunnel lighting. For painted steel structures the operational costs are assumed to be 25% of the capital cost. The cost estimates are dated 01-03-2016

The following alternative options were considered for the wing wall structures:

a) Piled cantilever stem reinforced concrete retaining walls. More extensive piling operations required.

b) Steepened reinforced earth embankments. Requires relatively high maintenance, and space constraints adjacent to the railway limit their use

at this location.

c) Preferred option: Reinforced soil walls, less land take than steepened embankments. Less concrete structure compared to a piled cantilever

stem reinforced concrete wall.

The below table gives a summary of cost estimates for each wing wall option.


a) £1.6 £240K £1.8M


c) £1.2M £120K £1.3M

For the purposes of this estimate, it has been assumed that the operational costs are 10% of the capital cost for both the concrete stem wall and reinforced soil

wall options. The cost estimates are dated 01-03-2016.




Page 13

Refer also to work done at KS2 and document titled “M4 Corridor around Newport - Motorway to the South of Newport Structures Preliminary Design Report” for further details about options considered.

3.13 Proposed arrangements for construction

3.13.1 Construction of structure

The following construction sequence is proposed for the bridge structure:

a) Divert watercourse from existing culvert under the railway towards east end of structure. Carry out agreed treatment to existing culvert under the railway (to

be confirmed). Refer to section 3.13.4

b) Install pile mat and piles. The requirements for piling in proximity to the railway are to be agreed with Network Rail;

c) Excavate and break out top of piles;

d) Construct abutments to beam shelf level;

e) Install precast beams;

f) Install bridge deck (prior to casting in beam ends to abutment);

g) Cast in beam ends to abutments;

h) Install fire proofing (if not preinstalled on beams/soffit prior to lifting into place), refer to 3.10.18;

i) Install bridge deck parapets and finishes

Refer to also to 4.4 for Network Rail requirements on construction activities.

The following construction sequence is proposed for the approach embankments and retaining walls:

a) Surcharge embankment adjacent to piled approach embankments

b) Install approach embankment piles and load transfer platform. The requirements for piling in proximity to the railway are to be agreed with Network Rail.

c) Install fill to embankments, only backfilling to bridge structure once deck and

cast in beam ends reach 80% of design compressive strength. Install reinforced soil walls.

d) Filling to stop at underside of road construction

e) Install parapet ground slabs

f) Install parapets once embankments settlement is complete

g) Install road construction and finishes

3.13.2 Traffic management

The M4CaN is an offline bypass route thus construction of this bridge will not require any traffic management to the existing M4.




Page 14

Railway possessions will be required for some phases of construction, e.g. erection of precast beams and permanent formwork. The type and length of railway possessions are subject to agreement with Network Rail.

3.13.3 Service diversions

There is a possible fibre optic cable passing under the railway in the location of the structure. At present the Design Joint Venture is awaiting survey information. If confirmed, the service may either need to be diverted, or works designed to

miss the cable location.

3.13.4 Interface with existing structures

The design is to be coordinated to avoid clashes with Network Rail existing line side equipment and proposed OLE portals. Where clashes are identified,

diversions and equipment relocation is to be discussed with Network Rail. The bridge span and vertical head room clearances incorporate minimum clearances from the proposed OLE portals through the structure. The layout was agreed in

principle with Network Rail and given on Network Rail feasibility drawing number W1008B-TTS-SKE-EOH-430002 Revision P02, provided in Appendix B.

The bridge structure piles will impose ground movements at the proposed OLE

portal piled foundations. The OLE foundations will therefore need to be designed to accommodate these movements. The magnitude of these movements is to be agreed with Network Rail.

Abutments from a now demolished accommodation overbridge exist on each side

of the railway towards the east end of the structure. These abutments are to be removed in their entirety prior to construction of the bridge.

A culvert carrying a watercourse under the railway exists at Fox Covert

immediately west of the existing bridge abutments. Network Rail 5 Mile Diagrams indicate that this culvert may be a 5ft span brick arch. The watercourse is to be diverted prior to construction and treatment of the existing culvert is to be agreed

with Network Rail.




Page 15

4 Design Criteria

4.1 Actions

4.1.1 Permanent actions

Permanent Actions will be applied using the recommended values in BS EN

1991-1-1 and the associated National Annex. The values given in the table below clarify the density and action that will be used in design where a range is provided in BS EN 1991-1-1:

Structural concrete 25 kN/m3

Concrete infill 24 kN/m3

Surfacing 23 kN/m3

Soil infill (class 6N material), typical value given 19 kN/m3

4.1.2 Snow, Wind and Thermal actions

Snow actions will be disregarded in accordance with the UK National Annex to

BS EN 1991-1-3, clause NA.4.1.1.

Wind actions will be determined in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-4, its UK National Annex and PD 6688-1-4.

The following fundamental basic wind velocity (before the altitude correction) will

be used:

Vb,map= 22 m/s

Wind and thermal actions will not be used in the same design combination in accordance BS EN 1990:2002, cl.A2.2.2(6).

Thermal actions will be applied to the structure in accordance with BS EN 1991-

1-5 and it’s UK National Annex.

The following minimum and maximum shade air temperatures will be used (before adjustment for annual probability of being exceeded p other than 0.02):

Tmin= -12°C

Tmax= 32°C

Due to the proposed minimum level overburden to the structure, parts of the bridge structure away from the open portals may be considered to be protected from climatic and operational temperatures in accordance to clause NA.2.2.1 of

BS EN 1991-1-5 and the UK National Annex.

4.1.3 Actions relating to normal traffic under AW regulations and C&U regulations

Load Model 1 and 2 in accordance with BS EN 1991-2 and UK National Annex.

4.1.4 Actions relating to General Order Traffic under STGO regulations

Load model 3 will be considered in accordance with BS EN 1991-2. Special

vehicles (LM 3) to be considered as follows:

SV 80




Page 16

SV 100

SV 196

4.1.5 Footway or footbridge variable actions

Actions on footways in accordance with BS EN 1991-2 clause 5.3.2 shall be

applied at verges and on the dead areas of deck.

4.1.6 Actions relating to Special Order Traffic, provision for exceptional abnormal indivisible loads including location of vehicle track on deck cross-section

Not applicable

4.1.7 Accidental actions

Accidental vehicle loading will be applied to the verges in accordance with BS EN 1991-2 clause 4.7.3.

Substructure will not be designed for the derailment loading where lateral clearance between the substructure and the running rail is at least 4.5m

(NR/L3/CIV/020 clause 14.4).

Collision forces on vehicle restraint systems that are transferred to the bridge deck will be applied in accordance with clause 4.7.3.3 of BS EN 1991-2 and the

UK National Annex.

The impact forces on CSB shall be considered at detailed design in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements.

4.1.8 Action during construction

Actions during construction will be calculated in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-6

and the UK National Annex. The actions during execution will consider the construction sequence.

Refinements or amendments to the options and choices will not be known until

the detailed design stage. These may include restriction of free construction loads, the specification of fixed loads, other specialist controls, the use of special construction vehicles/equipment on the structure, changes to the return periods

for the calculation of design loads, or the specification of different loads or factors.

These controls, restrictions or amendments will be confirmed at detailed design stage and recorded in the Project Specification, Drawings or Contractor’s Method

Statement as appropriate.

Prestressed concrete beams shall be checked for execution load cases including prestress transfer, handling and transport.

The bridge abutments will be designed for lateral loads from construction for the

un-propped case.

4.1.9 Any special action not covered above

Structures will not be designed for seismic actions described in BS EN 1998-2 and the UK National Annex.




Page 17

Fatigue Load Model 3 (single vehicle model) in accordance with EN 1991 shall be applied.

4.2 Heavy or high load route requirements and arrangements being made to preserve the route, including any provision for future heavier loads or future widening

The structure is not on a Heavy or High Load Route.

4.3 Minimum headroom provided

Minimum headroom from top of highest rail is 5.45 m, as agreed in principle with

Network Rail, refer to minutes provided in Appendix G.

Deflections under serviceability limit state loading will be taken into account during the design to ensure this headroom is not encroached upon.

4.4 Authorities consulted and any special conditions required

The following parties will be consulted regarding the relevant issues:

Statutory Consultees

a) Welsh Government Technical Approval Authority (TAA)

b) Welsh Government Network Management Operations Team

c) Network Rail

d) Natural Resources Wales (NRW)

e) Newport County Council (NCC)

Other consultees

a) Statutory Undertakers

b) Design Commission for Wales (DCfW)

c) ABC Electrification

Additional Notes with regards to Network Rail:

The railway at the bridge location is part of the Trans-European Rail network and therefore is subject to the European Union Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI).

Coordination and agreement will be required with Network Rail with a view to securing if there is a requirement for the following items:

a) Track monitoring scheme for any works likely to affect the line or level of the rails;

b) Lighting system to enable inspection of the rails;




Page 18

c) Operation of piling rigs perpendicular to the tracks to reduce the risk of toppling across the lines. What limits there are on the collapse radius of a crane in operation close to the railway;

d) If piling rigs can operate cross carriage;

e) The avoidance of raking piles if reasonably practicable;

f) A programme of works showing all operations likely to affect the railway, together with a programme of possessions required to complete the works;

g) Method statements produced and approved for all works likely to affect the

railway;

h) Insulation screens and other requirements to create green zone areas of safe working;

The following items have been agreed in principle with Network Rail, the minutes

of meetings where the items were discussed are provided in Appendix G:

a) The bridge is to be classified as a tunnel – 30 July 2015;

b) Structure clearances to railway – 8th December 2015

c) Vehicles are to be prohibited from the bridge deck in the triangular dead areas

– 15th February 2015

d) No anticlimb measures, other than the proposed parapets, are required – 15th April 2016

e) All access to the structure from the railway shall be under the control of the

Network Rail Asset Protection team -15th May 2016.

4.4.1 Operational Plans

In accordance with the Guidance Notes to the Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) relating to 'safety in railway tunnels' of the rail system of the

European Union, an Emergency Plan will not be required to be prepared for the structure. A bespoke plan of action may be required for the structure, or it could be managed under normal Network Rail operating procedures. Agreement is

required with Network Rail.

Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RFO) it is the responsibility of the Owners to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This responsibility may be transferred to Network Rail, who will have their own

procedures and fire engineers that will comply with the RFO. A legal agreement may be required to transfer this responsibility, the details of which are beyond the scope of the AIP

4.5 Standards and documents listed in the Technical Approval Schedule

Refer to Appendix A.




Page 19

4.6 Proposed Departures relating to departures from standards given in 4.5

Not applicable.

4.7 Proposed Departures relating to methods for dealing with aspects not covered by standards in 4.5

Not applicable.

4.8 List of record of options and choices (for Categories 2 and 3 checks)

The Eurocode related choices list will be completed as part of the detailed design process and will be distributed to the Category 2 checker.

Refer to Appendix F.




Page 20

5 Structural Analysis

5.1 Methods of analysis proposed for superstructure, substructure and foundations

The analysis of the superstructure will be carried out by linear elastic methods using Oasys GSA (General Structural Analysis) or similar. Analysis of the deck will be carried out using a 3 dimensional grillage analysis. Local effects in the

deck slab will be determined either by refinement of the grillage or by strip analysis assuming a linear dispersion of forces and moments and checked using Pucher charts.

The deck grillage will be connected to a 3 dimensional space frame model of the

abutments, piers and piles so that the soil-structure interaction can be modelled correctly. PIGLET or similar will be used for creating flexibility matrices for the piled pier foundation.

Analysis of lines of piles for the abutments to determine bending moments and shears will be undertaken using Oasys ALP or similar, but will also be checked using Oasys FREW or similar to allow for the interaction effects between the row

of piles. Consideration will be given in the design to the out of balance earth pressures acting on the abutments.

Non-linear analysis will be used for pile design and/or any part of the design where the non-linear behaviour of soil needs to be considered.

At the serviceability limit state, verification of the stress levels and deflections and crack widths in concrete will be carried out as specified in BS EN 1992-1-1 and BS EN 1992-2. Action effects will be evaluated using elastic global analysis and

allowing for the effects of shear lag, shrinkage and creep.

Elements of the reinforced earth wall will be designed by the manufacturer/supplier.

The design of reinforced earth / soil structures will be carried out to BS EN 1997-

1:2004 using the approach of BS 8006-1:2010 which is compliant with the Eurocode. Internal wall stability will be checked by use of section 6.6 of BS8006 and the appropriate method will be selected based on the material of the

reinforcement element and external stability to section 6.5 of BS8006 taking into account the recommendations of BS6031:2009.

The facing elements are designed as slabs with loads from the reinforcing strips being applied at the facing connections. For the precast concrete facing

elements, the reinforcing steel is derived in accordance with BS EN 1992-1.1:2004 and the relevant National Annex.

Analysis of piles for the reinforced earth wall to determine bending moments and

shears will be undertaken using Oasys ALP or similar. Earth pressures from the retained fill to the rear of the reinforced wall from the remainder of the embankment will also be accounted for in the analysis of the reinforced earth

load transfer piles.




Page 21

5.2 Description and diagram of idealised structure to be used for analysis

The substructure and foundations will be analysed as a portal frame and will be

modelled as 3 dimensional space frame model assuming a linear dispersion of forces and moments with the vertical and horizontal loads from the superstructure, carried on bored piles. See Appendix E for the diagram of the

idealised structure.

The model will consist of longitudinal and transverse beam elements representing composite beam sections and transverse slab sections respectively. Abutment walls will be modelled as grillages as part of the above mentioned model.

For the transient construction stage, the deck will be analysed as simply supported with beam sections loaded with the weight of the permanent formwork and wet concrete.

The internal and external stability of the walls will be checked. Internal stability

will be checked using the recommendations of BS EN 1997-1:2004 Geotechnical Design – General Rules, and BS EN 14475:2006 Execution of special geotechnical works - Reinforced fill, using a two-part wedge failure mechanism.

External stability checks will be carried out as recommended by the codes.

5.3 Assumptions intended for calculation of structural element stiffness

Analysis methods detailed within ‘Bridge Deck Behaviour – 2nd Edition – 1991’

by E.C. Hambly will be adopted to determine longitudinal and transverse grillage member stiffness properties. Cracked section properties will be used for the deck slab in the hogging regions.

Element properties for abutments and foundations will be based on uncracked

concrete properties.

5.4 Proposed range of soil parameters to be used in the design of earth retaining elements

Values between ka and k0 will be chosen to give the worst possible loading

combination for the design of a particular structural element where the soil pressure is active.

If required, values of k*, in accordance with PD6694-1, between k0 and kp will be chosen to give the worse possible loading combination for the design of a

particular structural element where the soil pressure is passive.

Values will be based on φ’ = 38o for 6N/6P backfill and ka and k0 conditions.




Page 22

6 Geotechnical Conditions

6.1 Acceptance of recommendations of the Geotechnical Design Report to be used in the design and reasons for any proposed changes

The scheme is currently in the preliminary design stage and is supported by a Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) (Key Stage3) issued as Draft in March 2016.

The GDR (Key Stage 3), in the context of preliminary design presents the proposed design methodologies for the geotechnical elements of the structures on the scheme. The GDR will be updated and further developed during Key

Stage 6 and will provide final detail on the design of geotechnical elements.

In this AIP a Form C (Highway Structure Summary Form) has been included. This provides a summary of the anticipated ground conditions. It is proposed that the Form C will be updated (if required) and presented as part of the detailed

design GDR (Key Stage 6) rather than requiring a reissue of this AIP.

6.2 Summary of design for highway structure in the Geotechnical Design Report

The Form C for this structure is included in Appendix C of this document which

provides a summary of the geotechnical design.

6.3 Differential settlement to be allowed for in the design of the structure

The amount of differential settlement between supports under working load conditions that the bridge will be designed to accommodate shall be 10 mm.

Reinforced earth retaining walls provide limited articulation at each facing panel interface to allow for some differential settlement along the length of the wall. Due to the embankment being piled, the walls will be designed for 10 mm differential

settlement. Where reinforced earth retaining walls interface with a piled embankment and surcharged embankment, full wall height continuous joints between panels will be provided at the transition to allow for movement.

6.4 If the Geotechnical Design Report is not yet available, state when the results are expected and list the sources of information used to justify the preliminary choice of foundations

The Geotechnical Design Report (Key Stage 3) was issued as Draft in March

2016 and it will be updated during Key Stage 6 as the designs are developed.

The GDR (Key Stage 3) is based on the Ground Investigation Report (GIR) as issued in February 2016. The GIR sets out the available information in terms of

ground investigation for the Scheme. Data referred to and summarised in the GIR includes borehole logs, trial pit records, the results of in situ and laboratory testing and details of groundwater encountered. This information has been used




Page 23

to prepare the Form C included in this AIP which summarises the preliminary foundation choice.




Page 24

7 Check

7.1 Proposed Category and Design Supervision Level

Category 2 to BD2/12. Design Supervision level DSL2.

7.2 If Category 3, name of proposed Independent Checker

N/A

7.3 Erection proposals or temporary works for which Types S and P Proposals will be required, listing structural parts of the permanent structure affected with reasons

All erection procedures and temporary works are to be approved by the M4CaN Project Manager and by Network Rail Asset Protection Manager.

http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030255732




Page 25

8 Drawings and Documents

8.1 List of drawings (including numbers) and documents accompanying the submission

Title Drawing No.

Imperial Park National Grid Substation

PDD_31140L_LAY_002_C

SBR-0650 Duffryn Railway Underbridge General Arrangement

M4CaN-DJV-SBR-Z2_-0650-DR-CB-0001

M4 Bridge Cross Section Feasibility Drawing

W1007B-TTS-SKE-EOH-430002

























Page 26

9 The Above is Submitted for Acceptance

Signed: _____________________________

Name: Robert Wheatley _______________

Design Team Leader

Engineering Qualifications BEng CEng FICE _______________

For and on behalf of

Name of organisation DJV

Date: _____________________________




Page 27

10 The Above is Agreed Subject to the Amendments and Conditions Shown Below

Signed: _____________________________

Name: _____________________________

Position held: _____________________________

Engineering Qualifications: _____________________________

TAA

Date: _____________________________




Page 28

Appendices




Page 29

Appendix A – List of the Relevant Documents from the TAS

TECHNICAL APPROVAL SCHEDULE “TAS” (August 2014) SCHEDULE OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DESIGN OR ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES (All documents are taken to include revisions current at date of this TAS)

A.1.1 BRITISH STANDARDS

BS 4449:2005+A2:2009 Steel for the reinforcement of concrete

BS 5896:2012 Specification for high tensile steel wire and strand for the prestressing of concrete

BS 5930: 1999+ A2:2010

Site Investigations [Amendment No. 1 December 2007 and 2 Aug 2010]. Partially replaced by BS EN ISO 22475-1:2006, BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002, BS EN ISO 14689-1:2003, BS EN 1997-2:2007, BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004+A1:2013, BS EN ISO 22476-2:2005+A1:2011, BS EN ISO 22476-3:2005+A1:2011, BS EN ISO 22282-1:2012, BS EN ISO 22282-2:2012, BS EN ISO 22282-3:2012, BS EN ISO 22282-4:2012, BS EN ISO 22282-5:2012, BS EN ISO 22282-6:2012, BS EN ISO 22476-1:2012, BS EN ISO 22476-5:2012, BS EN ISO 22476-7:2012, BS EN ISO 22476-4:2012

BS 6031: 2009 Code of practice for earthworks [Corrigendum August 2010]

BS 6779-2:1991 Highway parapets for bridges and other structures. Specification for vehicle containment parapets of concrete construction

BS 7818: 1995 Specification for Pedestrian Restraint Systems in Metal AMD15047, AMD16540

BS 8006-1:2010

Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills

BS 8006-2: 2011 Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils Soil nail design. Corrigenda Sept and Nov 2013

BS 8500-1:2006+A1:2012 Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 – Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier.

BS 8500-2:2006+A1:2012 Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 – Part 2: Specification for constituent materials and concrete.

A.1.2 EUROCODES

Eurocode part Title Amendment / Corrigenda

Eurocode 0 Basis of structural design

BS EN 1990 +A1:2005 Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design +A1:2005

Corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010




Page 30

NA to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 0 Basis of structural design

National Amendment No.1

Eurocode 1 Actions on structures

BS EN 1991-1-1:2002

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Densities, self-weight, imposed load for buildings

Corrigenda December 2004 and March 2009

NA to BS EN 1991-1-1:2002

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Densities, self-weight, imposed load for buildings

-

BS EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General actions - Actions on structures exposed to fire

corrigendum May 2009 and Corrigendum, February 2013

NA to BS EN 1991-1-2:2002

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General actions - Actions on structures exposed to fire

-

BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Snow loads


NA to BS EN 1991-1-3:2003

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Snow loads

Corrigendum No.1

BS EN 1991-1-4:2005

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Wind actions

+A1:2010

Corrigenda July 2009 and January 2010

NA to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 + A1:2010

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Wind actions


BS EN 1991-1-5:2003 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Thermal actions


NA to BS EN 1991-1-5:2003

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Thermal actions

-

BS EN 1991-1-6:2005

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Actions during execution

Corrigenda July 2008, November 2012 and February 2013

NA to BS EN 1991-1-6:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Actions during execution

-

BS EN 1991-1-7:2006

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General Actions. Accidental actions

Corrigendum February 2010

NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-7 : Accidental actions

Corrigendum August 2014

BS EN 1991-2:2003 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Traffic loads on bridges

Corrigenda December 2004 and February 2010

NA to BS EN 1991- UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Corrigendum No.1




Page 31

2:2003 Actions on structures. Traffic loads on bridges

Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 +A1:2014

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures– Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

Corrigendum January 2008, November 2010 and Jan 2014

NA+A2:2014 to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 +A1:2014

UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings


Amended 2014

BS EN 1992-1-2:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules - Structural fire design Corrigendum February 2010.

Corrigendum February 2010.

NA to BS EN 1992-1-2:2004

UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules - Structural fire design

-

BS EN 1992-2:2005

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 2: Concrete bridges – Design and detailing rules

Corrigendum July 2008

NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structure – Part 2: Concrete bridges – Design and detailing rules

-

BS EN 1992-3:2006

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment structures

-

NA to BS EN 1992-3:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structure – Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment structures

-

Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures

BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 +A1: 2014

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

Corrigenda February 2006 and April 2009

NA to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 +A1: 2014

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

National

Amendment 2014

BS EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. General rules - Structural fire design

Corrigendum 16290, Corrigendum 16572 Corrigendum, February 2010

NA to BS EN 1993-1-2:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. General rules - Structural fire design

-

BS EN 1993-1-3:2006

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-3 General rules – Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting

Corrigendum November 2009




Page 32

NA to BS EN 1993-1-3:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-3 Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting

-

BS EN 1993-1-4:2006

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-4 General rules – Supplementary rules for stainless steels

-

NA to BS EN 1993-1-4:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-4 Supplementary rules for stainless steels

-

BS EN 1993-1-5:2006

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-5 Plated structural elements

Corrigendum April 2009

NA to BS EN 1993-1-5:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-5 Plated structural elements

-

BS EN 1993-1-6:2007

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-6 Strength and stability of shell structures


BS EN 1993-1-7:2007

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-7 Plated structures subject to out of plane loading


BS EN 1993-1-8:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-8 Design of joints

Corrigenda December 2005, September 2006, July 2009 and August 2010

NA to BS EN 1993-1-8:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-8 Design of joints

-

BS EN 1993-1-9:2005

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-9 Fatigue

Corrigenda December 2005, September 2006 and April 2009

NA to BS EN 1993-1-9:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-9 Fatigue

-

BS EN 1993-1-10:2005

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties

Corrigenda December 2005, September 2006 and March 2009

NA to BS EN 1993-1-10:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-10 Material toughness and through thickness properties

-

BS EN 1993-1-11:2006

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-11 Design of structures with tension components


NA to BS EN 1993-1-11:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-11 Design of structures with tension components

-




Page 33

BS EN 1993-1-12:2007

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-12 Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S 700


NA to BS EN 1993-1-12:2007

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-12 Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S 700

-

BS EN 1993-2:2006

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 2 Steel bridges


NA + A1:2012 to BS EN 1993-2:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 2 Steel bridges

+ A1:2012

BS EN 1993-5:2007

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 5 Piling

Corrigendum May 2009

NA + A1:2012 to BS EN 1993-5:2007

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 5 Piling

+ A1:2012

BS EN 1993-6:2007 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Crane supporting structures


NA to BS EN 1993-6:2007

UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Crane supporting structures

-

Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete structures

BS EN 1994-1-1:2004

Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings


NA to BS EN 1994-1-1:2004

UK National Annex to Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

-

BS EN 1994-1-2: 2005+A1:2014

Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. General rules - Structural fire design.

Corrigendum February 2010. Amendment, April 2014. Corrigendum, August 2014

NA to BS EN 1994-1-2: 2005+A1:2014

UK National Annex Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. General rules - Structural fire design.

-

BS EN 1994-2:2005

Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 2 General rules and rules for bridges


NA to BS EN 1994-2:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 2 General rules and rules for bridges

-

Eurocode 5 Design of timber structures




Page 34

BS EN 1995-1-1:2004 + A1:2008

Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 1-1 General – common rules and rules for buildings

+ A1:2008

Corrigendum June 2006

NA to BS EN 1995-1-1:2004 + A2:2014

UK National Annex to Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 1-1 General – common rules and rules for buildings

+ A2:2014

National Amendment No. 2

BS EN 1995-2:2004

Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 2 Bridges

-

NA to BS EN 1995-2:2004

UK National Annex to Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 2 Bridges

-

Eurocode 6 Design of masonry structures

BS EN 1996-1-1:2005 +A1: 2012

Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1 General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures

Corrigenda February 2006 and July 2009

+A1: 2012

NA to BS EN 1996-1-1:2005 +A1: 2012

UK National Annex to Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1 General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures

+A1: 2012

BS EN 1996-1-2:2005 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures. General rules - Structural fire design


NA to BS EN 1996-1-2:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures. General rules - Structural fire design

-

BS EN 1996-2:2006

Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 2 Design considerations, selection of materials and execution of masonry

Corrigendum September 2009

NA to BS EN 1996-2:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 2 Design considerations, selection of materials and execution of masonry

Corrigendum No.1

BS EN 1996-3:2006

Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 3 Simplified calculation methods for unreinforced masonry structures

Corrigendum October 2009

NA BS EN 1996-3:2006

UK National Annex to Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 3 Simplified calculation methods for unreinforced masonry structures

+ A1:2014

Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design

BS EN 1997-1:2004 + A1: 2013

Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1 General rules


+ A1: 2013




Page 35

NA to BS EN 1997-1:2004 + A1: 2013

UK National Annex to Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1 General rules

Corrigendum No.1

+ A1: 2013

BS EN 1997-2:2007

Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 2 Ground investigation and testing

Corrigendum June 2010

NA to BS EN 1997-2:2007

UK National Annex to Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 2 Ground investigation and testing

-

Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance

BS EN 1998-1:2004 + A1:2013

Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

Corrigendum June 2009, January 2011 and March 2013

NA to BS EN 1998-1:2004

UK National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

-

BS EN 1998-2:2005+A2:2011

Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2 Bridges

Corrigenda February 2010 and February 2012

NA to BS EN 1998-2:2005

UK National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2 Bridges

-

BS EN 1998-5:2004

Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 5 Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects

-

NA to BS EN 1998-5:2004

UK National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 5 Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects

-

Eurocode 9 Design of aluminium structures

BS EN 1999-1-1:2007 + A1:2009

Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures– Part 1-1 General structural rules

+ A1:2009

NA to BS EN 1999-1-1:2007 + A2:2013

UK National Annex to Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-1 General structural rules

+ A2:2013

Corrigendum March 2014

BS EN 1999-1-3:2007 + A1:2011

Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-3 Structures susceptible to fatigue

+ A1:2011

NA to BS EN 1999-1-3:2007 + A1:2011

UK National Annex to Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-3 Structures susceptible to fatigue

+ A1:2011




Page 36

BS EN 1999-1-4:2007 +A1:2011

Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-4 Cold formed structural sheeting

+ A1:2011

Corrigendum November 2009

NA to BS EN 1999-1-4:2007

UK National Annex to Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-4 Cold formed structural sheeting

-

A.2 BSI PUBLISHED DOCUMENT

For guidance only unless clauses are otherwise specified in IAN 124/14(W) Annex B.

PD 6688-1-1:2011 Recommendations for the design of structures to BS EN 1991-1-1

PD 6688-1-4:2009 Background paper to the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4

PD 6688-1-7:2009 + A1: 2014

Recommendations for the design of structures to BS EN 1991-1-7

PD 6688-2:2011 Recommendations for the design of structures to BS EN 1991-2

PD 6687-1:2010

Background paper to the UK National Annexes to BS EN 1992-1 and BS EN 1992-3

PD 6687-2:2008 Recommendations for the design of structures to BS EN 1992-2:2005



PD 6695-2:2008 + A1:2012 Incorporating Corrigendum No.1

Recommendation for the design of bridges to BS EN 1993

PD 6696-2:2007 + A1:2012

Background paper to BS EN 1994-2 and the UK National Annex to BS EN 1994-2

PD 6694-1:2011 Recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic loading to BS EN 1997-1

PD 6698:2009

Recommendations for the design of structures for earthquake resistance to BS EN 1998

PD 6703:2009

Structural bearings – Guidance on the use of structural bearings

PD 6705-2:2010 + A1:2013

Recommendations for the execution of steel bridges to BS EN 1090-2

PD 6705-3:2009 Recommendations on the execution of aluminium structures to BS EN 1090-3

PD 6702-1:2009 Structural use of aluminium. Recommendations for the design of aluminium structures to BS EN 1999

A.3 EXECUTION STANDARDS REFERENCED IN BRITISH STANDARDS OR EUROCODES

BS EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures - Part 1: Requirements for conformity assessment of structural components




Page 37

BS EN 1090-2:2008+A1:2011

Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures – Part 2: Technical requirements for the execution of steel structures

BS EN 1090-3:2008

Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures – Part 3: Technical requirements for aluminium structures

BS EN 13670:2009 Execution of concrete structures

A.4 THE MANUAL CONTRACT DOCUMENT FOR HIGHWAY WORKS (MCHW)

MCHW Volume 1: December 2014 Specification for Highway Works

MCHW Volume 2: December 2014 Notes for guidance on the Specification for Highway Works

MCHW Volume 3: November 2008 Highway Construction Details

A.5 THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB)

A.5.1 ADVICE NOTES – BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES (BA SERIES)

BA 26/94 Expansion Joints for Use in Highway Bridge Decks Nov 1994 2.3.7

BA 28/92 Evaluation of Maintenance Costs in Comparing Alternative Designs for Highway Structures

Aug 1992 1.2.2

BA 41/98 The Design and Appearance of Bridges Feb 1998 1.3.11

BA 47/99 Waterproofing and Surfacing of Concrete Bridge Decks Aug 1999 2.3.5

BA 67/96 Enclosure of Bridges Aug 1996 2.2.8

BA 68/97 Crib Retaining Walls Feb 1997 2.1.4

BA 82/00 Formation of Continuity Joints in Bridge Decks Nov 2000 2.3.7

BA 85/04 Coatings for Concrete Highway Structures & Ancillary Structures

May 2004 2.4.3

BA 92/07 Use of recycled concrete aggregates in structural concrete May 2007 2.3.9

A.5.2 BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, STANDARDS (BD SERIES)

BD 2/12 Technical Approval of Highway Structures May 2012 1.1.1

BD 7/01 Weathering Steel for Highway Structures Nov 2001 2.3.8

BD 10/97 Design of Highway Structures in Areas of Mining Subsidence

May 1997 1.3.14

BD 12/01 Design of Corrugated Steel Buried Structures with Spans Greater than 0.9 metres and up to 8.0 metres

Nov 2001 2.2.6

BD 29/04 Design Criteria for Footbridges Aug 2004 2.2.8

BD 33/94 Expansion Joints for Use in Highway Bridge Decks Nov 1994 2.3.6

BD 35/14 Quality Assurance Scheme for Paints and Similar Protective Coatings

Aug 2014 2.4.1




Page 38

BD 36/92 Evaluation of Maintenance Costs in Comparing Alternative Designs for Highway Structures

Aug 1992 1.2.1

BD 43/03 The Impregnation of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Highway Structures using Hydrophobic Pore-Lining Impregnants

Feb 2003 2.4.2

BD 45/93 Identification Marking of Highway Structures Aug 1993 3.1.1

BD 47/99 Waterproofing and Surfacing of Concrete Bridge Decks Aug 1999 2.3.4

BD 51/14 Portal and Cantilever Sign / Signal Gantries May 2014 2.2.4

BD 62/07 As Built, Operational & Maintenance Records for Highway Structures

Feb 2007 3.2.1

BD 65/14 Design Criteria for Collision Protector Beams Dec 2014 2.2.5

BD 67/96 Enclosures of Bridges Aug 1996 2.2.7

BD 68/97 Crib Retaining Walls Feb 1997 2.1.3

BD 78/99 Design of Road Tunnels Aug 1999 2.2.9

BD 82/00 Design of Buried Rigid Pipes Aug 2000 2.2.10

BD 90/05 Design Of FRP Bridges and Highway Structures May 2005 1.3.17

BD 94/07 Design of Minor Structures Feb 2007 2.2.1

A.5.3 BRIDGES, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA (BE SERIES)

A.5.4 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND CONTROL, STANDARDS (TD SERIES)

TD 19/06 Requirements for Road Restraint Systems [correction 1 Feb 2008]

Aug 2006 2.2.8

TD 27/05 Cross Sections and Headroom Feb 2005 6.1.2

A.5.5 HIGHWAYS, ADVICE NOTES (HA SERIES)

HA 66/95 Environmental Barriers Technical Requirements Sep 1995 10.5.2

A.5.6 HIGHWAYS, STANDARDS (HD SERIES)

HD 45/09 Road Drainage and the Water Environment Nov 2009 11.3.10

A.6 INTERIM ADVICE NOTES (IAN)

WO1A.1 (IAN 1) TD 37/93 Scheme Assessment Reporting Jan 1996

WO1A.3 (IAN 3) BA 50/93 Post Tensioned Concrete Bridges Apr 1997

WO1A.4 (IAN 4) BD 44/95 The Assessment of Concrete Highway Bridges and Structures

Oct 1996

IAN 41 European Cement Standards Mar 2002

IAN 45 Structures Management Information Systems (SMIS) Phase IV, V and VI Fixing Structures Defects and System Integration

Nov 2002

IAN 47 Post Tensioned Grouted Duct Concrete Bridges Sep 2003

IAN 48 Measures to Minimise the Risk of Sulphate Attack (Including Thaumasite) - New Construction and Structures Under Construction

Sep 2003




Page 39

IAN 49 Use of Warning Signs for New Asphalt Road Surfaces Apr 2004

IAN 53 Concrete Half-Joint Deck Structures May 2004

IAN 56 Maintenance of Traffic Signs with Dew Resistant Coatings Jan 2005

IAN 64/05 Driver Information Signs at Road Works May 2005

IAN 70/06 (W) Implementation of New Reinforcement Standards (BS 4449:2005, BS 4482:2005, BS 4483:2005 & BS 8666:2005)

Jan 2006

IAN 71 Marker Posts on Lay-By Segregation Islands Sep 2007

IAN 73/06 Design of Pavement Foundations Nov 2009

IAN 83/06 (W) Principal & General Inspection of Sign/Signal Gantries, & Gantries with Low Handrails or Open Mesh Flooring

Aug 2006

IAN 85/07 (W) Design of Passively Safe Portal Signal Gantries Jan 2008

IAN 86/07 (W) Amendments to Design Requirements for Portal & Cantilever Sign/Signal Gantries

Jan 2008

IAN 95/07 (W) Implementation of New Concrete Standards May 2007

IAN 96/07 (W) Guidance on Implementing Results of Research on Bridge Deck Waterproofing

Jul 2007

IAN 97/07 (W) Assessment & Upgrading of Existing Parapets Jan 2009

IAN 105/08 (W) Implementation of Construction (Design Management) Regulations 2007 & The Withdrawal of SD 10/05 & SD11/05

Jan 2008

IAN 110/08 (W) Assessment of Implications (Of Highways Plans & Projects) on European Sites (Including Appropriate Assessment)

Dec 2008

IAN 116/08 (W) Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Bats Sep 2009

IAN 124/14 (W) Use of Eurocodes for the Design of Highway Structures May 2014

IAN 154/14 (W) Revision of SHW Clause 903, Clause 921 and Clause 942 Aug 2014

IAN 156/14 (W) Revision of Aggregate Specification for Pavement Surfacing Aug 2014

IAN 157/14 (W) Thin Surface Course Systems - Installation and Maintenance Aug 2014

IAN 177/14 (W) Introduction of the Construction Products Regulation (EU) 305_2011

Aug 2014

A.7 RAILWAY SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD DOCUMENTS

GC/GN5612 Issue 1 Dec 2014 Guidance on Loading Requirements for the Design of Railway Structures

GC/RT5212 Issue 1 Feb 2003 Requirements for defining and maintaining clearances [plus amendment AM002]

GM/RT2149 Issue 3 Feb 2003 Requirements for defining and maintaining the size of railway vehicles [plus amendments AM001,AM002 and AM003]

GO/RT3413 Issue 1 Aug 2008 Provision of Information and Signs for Access on the Railway [Supersedes GCRT5203 Iss 3]

NR/L3/CIV/020 Issue 1 Jun 2011 Design of Bridges [Replaces RT/CE/S/007 Issue 1]




Page 40

NR/L3/CIV/140 Various Issues

Various dates

Model clauses for specifying civil engineering work (Various Sections, on different topics)

NR/L3/CIV/151 Issue 6 March 2012

Engineering Assurance of Standard Designs & Details for Building & Civil Engineering Works

NR/GN/CIV/025 Issue 3 Jun 2006 Structural assessment of underbridges

NR/L2/CIV/003 Issue 4 June 2012

Engineering Assurance of Building and Civil Engineering Works

NR/L2/TRK/2049 Issue 12 Mar 2010 Track design handbook

NR/L2/TRK/2102 Issue 6 Mar 2010 Track construction standards

A.8 MISCELLANEOUS

BRE Special Digest 1: 2005:Third Edition Concrete in aggressive ground.

CHE Memorandum 227/08 The Impregnation of Reinforced and Concrete Highway

Structures using Hydrophobic Pore Lining Impregnants

CIRIA C543 Bridge Detailing Guide

CIRIA C580 Embedded Retaining Walls – Guidance for Economic

Design

CIRIA C660 Early-age Thermal Crack Control in Concrete

CIRIA C686 Safe Access for Maintenance and Repair




Page 41

Appendix B – Drawings

M4 CORRIDOR AROUND NEWPORT

D1

GRD

FIRST ISSUE

P01 MJW RNW RNW09/09/15

SBR-0650 DUFFRYN RAILWAY UNDERBRIDGE

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

AS SHOWN

M4CaN - DJV - SBR -

Z2_0650 - DR - CB - 0001

PLANScale 1:1000

LOCATION PLANScale 1:5000

EXTENT OF PILED EMBANKMENT

LEGEND

NETWORK RAIL LAND BOUNDARY

(MP 161.50)

(MP 162)

GREEN LANE

(MP 161.50)

SWM2

MJW GRL

MJW GRL

UNDERBRIDGEDUFFRYN RAILWAY SBR - 0650

M4 MAINLINE

RNW

RNW P03

12/12/16

P03

INCORPORATING WG COMMENTSP02 MJW GRL GRL07/07/16

FOR COSTING

12/12/16 12/12/16

12/12/16

145250

63000

24182

25000

* See note xx

7

4

55

8

8

BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND RAIL/OLE FOUNDATIONS.

9. DIMENSIONS LABELLED "MIN" ARE MINIMUM AGREED CLEARANCES

OUTSIDE FACE OF OLE GANTRY POST.

8. MAX HORIZONTAL OFFSET FROM RUNNING EDGE OF RAIL TO

RAIL.

7. MAX VERTICAL HEIGHT OF OLE GANTRY ABOVE TOP OF HIGHEST

FEASIBILITY DRAWING"

W1008B-TTS-SKE-EOH-430002 REV P02 "M4 BRIDGE CROSS SECTION

6. BRIDGE CLEARANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NETWORK RAIL SKETCH

NEAREST RAIL.

5. MIN LATERAL CLEARANCE SHOWN FROM RUNNING EDGE OF

BRIDGE CROSS SECTION FEASIBILITY DRAWING"

NETWORK RAIL SKETCH W1008B-TTS-SKE-EOH-430002 REV P02 "M4

TOP OF HIGHEST RAIL LEVEL = 7.746m AOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH

4. MIN VERTICAL CLEARANCE SHOWN FROM TOP OF HIGHEST RAIL.

3. OVERHEAD LINE ELECTRIFICATION GANTRIES SHOWN INDICITAVELY

ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED, DO NOT SCALE.2.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.1.

GENERAL NOTES:

ALLUVIUM AND 10MM VERTICAL MOVEMENT.

LEVEL, 20MM LATERAL MOVEMENT AT THE UNDERSIDE OF THE

ACCOMMODATE UP TO 50MM LATERAL MOVEMENT AT GROUND

OPPOSITE SIDES. THE OLE FOUNDATIONS ARE TO BE DESIGNED TO

ABUTMENTS BUT MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY SYMMETRICAL BETWEEN

THE MOVEMENT WILL BE PREDOMINANTLY PERPENDICULAR TO THE

WILL IMPOSE GROUND MOVEMENT AT THE OLE PILD FOUNDATIONS.

MOVEMENT OF THE BRIDGE DURING AND POST CONSTRUCTION 11.

OLE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORTS.

10. DIMENSIONS LABELLED "MAX" ARE MAXIMUM AGREED POSITIONS OF INFORMATION

SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

(Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log).

detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks

In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work

Construction

services not identified on plans.

Construction adjacent to and over an electrified railway risk of buried

Maintenance / Cleaning

railway and OLE.

Access to bridge span & abutments via Network Rail land, adjacent to

Use

Refer to Network Rail Operational Procedures

Decommissioning / Demolition

attached to soffit.

Prestressed concrete bridge beams overhead line electrification equipment Issued for PLI

12/12/16

Date

Scale

Drawing Title

Project TitleDrawing Status

DO N

OT S

CA

LE

Date Date DateClient Original Size

Suitability

Millim

etres

100

10

0

A1

Drawing Number Revision

Location Type Role Number

Project Originator Volume

Designed / Drawn Checked Approved Authorised

Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd

Project Team

Trwydded yr Arolwg Ordnans 100021874.

© Hawlfraint a hawliau cronfa ddata'r Goron 2015. Rhif

Survey 100021874. Welsh Government.

© Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance

DrainMP 162

MP 161.75

PLAN

M4 E/B

M4 W/B

SBR-0650 BRIDGE STRUCTURE

UP MAIN

UP RELIEF

DOWN MAIN

DOWN RELIEF

2

2

3

3

1

1

EXTENT OF PILED EMBANKMENT TBC

EXTENT OF PILED EMBANKMENT TBC

20 º REINFORCED SOIL WING WALL 2

REINFORCED SOIL WING WALL 1



TOE DRAIN BACK OF WALL DRAIN

TOE DRAIN

TOE DRAIN

TOE DRAIN BACK OF WALL DRAIN

(APPROX 18m LONG)*

HIGH CONTAINMENT TRANSITION

NORMAL CONTAINMENT TO VERY (APPROX 18m LONG)*


NORMAL CONTAINMENT TO VERY

(APPROX 18m LONG)*



EXISTING BRIDGE ABUTMENT

APPROX LOCATION OF

EXISTING CULVERT

APPROX LOCATION OF

(APPROX 18m LONG)*



PARAPET *

EXTENT OF NORMAL CONTAINMENT

CONTAINMENT PARAPET *

EXTENT OF VERY HIGH

PARAPET *



EXTENT OF NORMAL


EXTENT OF VERY HIGH

PARAPET *


SUBSTATIONRAIL TRACKSIDE PROPOSED NETWORK

PEDESTRIAN PARAPETS TO BE 1800 HIGH (MIN)

ALL VEHICLE PARAPETS TO BE 1500 HIGH (MIN)

* TO BE CONFIRMED BY RRRAP

CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ21

BORED CAST INSITU PILES

CJ WALL 3

REINFORCED SOIL

AT APPROX 20m CENTRES CONSTRUCTION JONTS

145250 REINFORCED SOIL WALL

EMBANKMENT FOUNDED ON PILES

PILED EMBANKMENT LOAD TRANSFER PLATFORM

207850 ABUTMENT WALL

1SCALE 1:500

ELEVATION

CJ

ABUTMENT WALL.

CAST INSITU CONCRETE EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

BARRIER

CONCRETE STEP

WALL 1

REINFORCED SOIL

SBR-0650

BASE

INCLUDE LIGHTWEIGHT SUB

ROAD CONSTRUCTION TO

CENTRES, C60/75

APPROX 2.0M

CONCRETE W11 AT

PRESTRESSED

103 NO. PRECAST

50mm SURFACE FINISH.

BURDEN, INCLUSIVE OF

CONCRETE OVER

600 LIGHTWEIGHT

PARAPET.

CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN

1800 HIGH (MIN) PRECAST

DECK SLAB

(MIN) STITCHED TO

PARAPET 1500 HIGH

CONTAINMENT VEHICLE

VERY HIGH

PRECAST CONCRETE

1500 HIGH (MIN).

VEHICLE PARAPET PANEL

HIGH CONTAINMENT

PRECAST CONCRETE VERY

UP

RELIEF

DOWN

RELIEF

DOWN

MAIN

UP

MAIN

TRANSFER PLATFORM

PILED EMBANKMENT LOAD 6I/6J

REINFORCED

SOIL BLOCK

21

CL

CL

2.5% 2.5%

21

5000

FINISHED GROUND LEVEL

2SCALE 1:250-

SECTION 3SCALE 1:250-

SECTION

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

REINFORCED

SOIL WALL 4EMBANKMENT FOUNDED ON PILES TOE DRAIN TO RETAINING WALL

DEPTH

1800

DOWN

RELIEF

DOWN

MAIN

UP

RELIEF

UP

MAIN

6N

STRUCTURAL

FILL

CLASS 1

EMBANKMENT FILLCLASS 1

EMBANKMENT FILL

6N

STRUCTURAL

FILL

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

FENCE

BOUNDARY

HIGHWAY 21

FINISHED GROUND LEVEL

VERGESQUARE

1500

2.5% 2.5% L

VERGESQUARE

1500

C

21

FENCE

BOUNDARY

HIGHWAY

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHW

BACK OF WALL DRAINAGE LAYER

TRANSFER PLATFORM

PILED EMBANKMENT LOAD

ON PILES

EMBANKMENT FOUNDED

BORED CAST IN-SITU PILES

SHOULDER SQUARE 3300

CARRIAGEWAY SQUARE 11000

RESERVECENTRAL SQUARE 3000

CARRIAGEWAY SQUARE 11000

SHOULDER SQUARE 3300

PRECAST PRESTRESSED W11 BEAM, C60/75

LC

25kV

TROUGH

ROUTE

25kV

TROUGH

ROUTE

5715 MAX*

5300 M

AX*

8770 MIN*

5450 M

IN*

5035 MAX*

8090 MIN*

29910 BETWEEN ABUTMENT FACES

BELOW BRIDGE SOFFIT

NR OLE PORTAL SRT

TROUGH

ROUTE

SRT

TROUGH

ROUTE

PARAPET

CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN


SLAB

PARAPET ON INSITU GROUND

CONTAINMENT VEHICLE

CONCRETE VERY HIGH


SLAB

PARAPET ON INSITU GROUND

CONTAINMENT VEHICLE

CONCRETE VERY HIGH


PLAN

Scale 1:10

00

M4 E/B

M4 W/B

SBR-065

0 BRID

GE

STRUCTU

RE

UP

MAI

N

UP

RELI

EF

DO

WN M

AIN

DO

WN R

ELIEF

2

2

3

3

1

1

EXTENT

OF PI

LED E

MBAN

KMEN

T TBC

EXTENT

OF PI

LED E

MBAN

KMEN

T TBC

20 º

REI

NFO

RCED S

OIL WIN

G W

ALL 2

REI

NFO

RCED S

OIL WIN

G W

ALL 1

REI

NFO

RCED S

OIL WIN

G W

ALL 3

REI

NFO

RCED S

OIL WIN

G W

ALL 4

TOE

DR

AIN

BACK

OF

WALL D

RAI

N

TOE

DR

AIN

TOE

DR

AIN

TOE

DR

AIN

BACK

OF

WALL D

RAI

N

(APP

RO

X 18

m L

ON

G)*

HIG

H C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TRAN

SITI

ON

NO

RM

AL C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TO V

ERY

(APP

RO

X 18

m L

ON

G)*

HIG

H C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TRAN

SITI

ON

NO

RM

AL C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TO V

ERY

(APP

RO

X 18

m L

ON

G)*

HIG

H C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TRAN

SITI

ON

NO

RM

AL C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TO V

ERY

EXISTI

NG B

RID

GE

ABUTM

ENT

APPR

OX

LOC

ATIO

N O

F

EXISTI

NG C

ULVER

T

APPR

OX

LOC

ATIO

N O

F

(APP

RO

X 18

m L

ON

G)*

HIG

H C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TRAN

SITI

ON

NO

RM

AL C

ONTAI

NM

ENT

TO V

ERY

PARAPET *EXTENT OF N

ORMAL CONTAIN

MENT

CONTAINMENT P

ARAPET *

EXTENT OF V

ERY HIGH

PARAPET *EXTENT OF N

ORMAL CONTAIN

MENT

CONTAINMENT P

ARAPET *

EXTENT OF N

ORMAL

CONTAINMENT P

ARAPET *

EXTENT OF V

ERY HIGH

PARAPET *EXTENT O

F NORMAL C

ONTAINMENT

SUBSTATI

ON

RAI

L TR

ACKSI

DE

PROPO

SED N

ETWO

RK

PEDES

TRIA

N P

ARAPETS

TO B

E 18

00 HIG

H (MIN)

ALL V

EHIC

LE P

ARAPETS

TO B

E 15

00 HIG

H (MIN)

* TO B

E C

ONFI

RM

ED B

Y RRR

AP

N.G.C 400KVN.G.C 400KV

N.G.

C

275KV

ELEC O/H H

V 11KV

Sheet Size A3+1 297 x 630

Legend/Notes

Signed

Signed

Signed

Designed DateSigned

Drawn

Checked

Approved

Date

Date

Date

Alternative Reference

Drawing Number Revision

of

Sheet

Rev Date Description of Revisions Drawn Chkd Appr

Status

Contractor(s)

Scale(s) ELR & Mileage

Drawing Title

Project

Route Section

Suitability

0 0 0 0

270270270270

UP RELIEF DOWN MAIN UP MAIN

E.W.1. 4.325 E.W.2. 4.325

E.W.1 E.W.2

DRAWN FACING INCREASING CHAINAGE

48

3

DATUM

11

181

1

143

3

07/04/16P02

4.463C

4.463

0

W27

0

4.500C

4.500

0

W28

0

4.325C

4.325

0

W29

0

4.368C

4.368

0

W30

0

4.86m

4.68m

5.54m

5.36m

4.6

0m

0.1

5m

1.06m 1.94m2.37m

A=1.30m A=1.30m A=1.30m A=1.30m

23.00m

DOWN RELIEF

1.91m 1.55m 1.22m

CONST. UNIT PROJECT NUMBER

W1008F

E.W. R.C.A.Tx. B.T./R.C.

LOCATION 2

SYSTEM

X1 9 8 4 9

T.L.D.

CANT

SLUE

LIFT/LOWER (+/-) (mm)

(mm)

(mm)

(mm) DO NOT SCALE

High Rail

As Fitted

otherwise stated

in millimetres unless

All dimensions are

RC/EW/BF HT.

CAT./CONT. HT.

CONTACT HT.

ENCUMBRANCE

WIRE RUN NUMBER

(m)

(m)

(m)

(m)

(m)

TAIL/ANCHOR HT.

(PLAN VIEW)

STOVE PIPE POSITIONS

RADIAL LOAD

(PER CONDUCTOR) (kN)

SHS350

SHS350

6106101050 1050

3.15m 3.15m

3.98m3.98m

TROUGHINGS & T

TROUGHINGS & T

TROUGHING25kV TROUGHING

25kV

(MIN.) (MIN.)

FOR IN

FOR

MATI

ON

07/12/15P01(FIRST DRAFT FEASIBILITY DRAWING).FOR INFORMATION

S0

1:100

W1008B-TTS-SKE-EOH-430002

1 1

161m 70c

Preliminary

M4 BRIDGE CROSS SECTION

FEASIBILITY DRAWING

GREAT WESTERN ROUTE

MODERNISATION (GWRM)

P02

0.2

0m

0.2

0m

HRL=7.746m

M.COOK

M.JONES

07/12/15

07/12/15

DESIGN REVIEW.FOR INFORMATION UPDATED FOLLOWING JC

MC

NEW M4 BRIDGE

P02

0.1

5mQ80 BOOM

P02P02

P02

P02

P02

P02

P02

P02

P02

RS9

P02

P02

P02

P02

5.4

5m

P02

SEE NOTES 8 & 9

SEE NOTE 7

M.JONES

M.COOK

COLOUR CONVENTIONS

- EXISTING EQUIPMENTBLACK

- EQUIPMENT TO BE REMOVEDGREEN

- NEW EQUIPMENTRED

NEW POSITION/MODIFIED

- EXISTING EQUIPMENT INBLUE

- BY OTHERS (FUTURE)MAGENTA

P02P02

P02

P02

P02

T 07

W1008F-TTS-DRG-EOH-430106

P02

INSIDE.VERSION OF THIS DRAWING TRIANGLE WITH THE CURRENT A CLOUD ACCOMPANIED BY A REVISION ARE SHOWN WITHIN ALL CHANGES AT THIS VERSION CONTROL

P02

3.46m4.34m3.37m

P02

SEE NOTE 10

ADDITIONAL HEADROOM.10.TSP BRIDGES TEAM CURRENTLY REVIEWING IF A SLIMMER PORTAL BOOM CAN BE USED / DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE 9. TWIN BRIDGE ARM TO BE ATTACHED TO BESPOKE SPS TO POSITION BRIDGE ARMS TO FRONT AND REAR OF PORTAL BOOM.8. 270mm STATIC ELECTRICAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN CONTACT WIRE AND UNDERSIDE OF BOOM.7. WORST CASE HRL MEASURED AT 219.849km (DOWN MAIN).6. TRACK LEVELS TAKEN FROM RILA SURVEY REF. (MODEL REF. 16038-P-2-1_Patchway_Jcn_to_Cardiff - OSGB36). 5. THIS SKETCH IS DRAFT AND FOR INFORMATION ONLY.4. THE OLE ARRANGMENT SHOWN IN THE SKETCH WOULD REQUIRE SPAN LENGTHS OF 13m MAX.3. THIS SKETCH HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO ASSIST NR IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE M4CaN PROJECT.2. THIS SKETCH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OLE DESIGN.1. THIS SKETCH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN LINE WITH PMI NUMBER 6.1/0002 AND TQ W1008F-TTS-QRY-EOH-00031.

NEW STRUCTURE

A B

SWM

849

219

UMDR



C:\PROJECTWISE\M4CAN\ARP_MATT.WRIGHT\DMS07920\M4CAN-DJV-SBR-Z2_0650-RP-CB-0001.DOCX

Page 42

Appendix C – Form C Geotechnical Summary Sheet Form C

Highway Structure Summary Information Sheet

Duffryn Railway Underbridge (SBR-0650)

CHAINAGE

INTERVAL:

6+500 TYPE: Integral Bridge REFERENCES

/COMMENTS

AIP REF

No:

M4CaN-DJV-SBR-

Z2_0650-RP-CB-0001

DESIG

N LIFE:

120 years

RELEVANT EXPLORATORY HOLES

1998 – Norwest Holst – BHD8

2008 – Norwest Holst - SBHD05, SBHD06, SBHD07, SBHD08

2015 – Geotechnical Engineering Ltd. – BH403, BH404

Full references are contained

within the GDR.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC GROUND PROFILE

STRATA DEPTH TO

BASE* (mOD)

STRATA DESCRIPTION

Estuarine Alluvium -1.6

Very soft and soft Alluvium and Peat. Existing ground level is approx.

6.2m AOD

Attached to the Form C is an

indicative exploratory hole

location plan and schematic

geological long section.

The plan, section and ground

profile are based on all the

ground investigation data.

Fluvial Alluvium (Glaciofluvial) -9.0

Dense sand and gravel.

Mercia Mudstone Group Not Proven Very stiff clay (possible grade IVa

weathering)

PREVIOUS GROUND

HISTORY

The bridge is located at a former rail crossing approach

embankment and abutment.

The potentially contaminated land

sites (CL) and impact on the

structure foundations are to be

addressed in the main GDR text

CONTAMINATION

RISK ASSESSMENT

A full risk assessment will be

carried out as part of the

Environmental Statement.

GROUNDWATER The deepest groundwater strikes encountered during drilling

through the Alluvium were as seepages at depths of below

2m bgl.

Groundwater monitoring conducted in BH404 as part of the

2015 Supplementary ground investigation recorded

groundwater level of 1.3m below ground level in an

installation within the Glaciofluvial gravels.

Groundwater monitoring conducted in two boreholes as part

of the 2008 investigation recoded a groundwater level of

between 1.1 to 1.4m below ground level for a response zone

in the Glaciofluvial gravels, and 1.2 to 2.0m below ground

level for a response zone in the Mudstone.

Norwest Holst (2008)

Geotechnical Engineering Ltd.

(2015)

Full references are contained

within the GIR.




Page 43

SPREAD FOUNDATION DESIGN

STRUCTURE

ELEMENT

BASE

(mAOD)

FOUNDING

STRATUM

FOOTING

SIZE (m)

‘ALLOWABLE’

BEARING PRESSURE

(kN/m2)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

PILE DESIGN

PILE TYPE: Bored (cased) or CFA Piled foundations will be required due

to the thickness of soft soils

underlying the abutments.

*Based on DA1-C2

CRITERIA FOR TOE: *4.7m rock socket into Mercia Mudstone

NEG. SKIN FRICTION: In soft Alluvium/Peat 401 kN

STRUCTURE

ELEMENT

TOE

(mAOD)

FOUNDING

STRATUM

LENGTH

(m)

DIAMETER

(m)

*WORKING

(kN)

Abutments -13.8 Mercia Mudstone 20 0.9 3930

SETTLEMENT

STRUCTURE

ELEMENT

BASE

(mAOD)

IMMED’T

E (mm)

TOTAL

(mm)

90%

(Months)

REMAINING

(mm)

.

Abutments -13.8 <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm

DIFFERENTIAL across the structure (mm): <10mm

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

SPECIES 2:1 EXTRACT SOIL WATER OTHER Norwest Holst (2008)

Geotechnical Engineering Ltd. (2015)

Full references are contained within

the GIR.

SO4-/S2-/S: <0.01-0.052 -

CHLORIDE: -

pH: 8.2-9.2

Mg: -

REDOX: -

BRE SD1 CLASSES (DS/ACEC/DC): To be determined during the detailed design

OTHER DESIGN FEATURES (e.g. foundation treatment/hazards)

Pile foundations for the integral bridge to support mainline embankment at crossing location. Main line

embankment is proposed to be supported on a load transfer platform and piles. Reinforced earth walls are

to be used to the rear of the wing walls. The reinforced earth walls are proposed to be supported on a load

transfer platform and piles. It is likely that monitoring of the railway will be required as part of the works

due to the bored pile and potential driven pile installation.

Interface with OLE foundations which are proposed to be installed prior to construction of the M4 CaN

scheme.

NOTES




Page 44

Appendix D – CDM Hazard Log




Page 45

Ref No. Hazard Designer measures taken and

considered to eliminate or reduce risk

Residual risk information to pass onto Contractor

0019

Construction in proximity to Network Rail Overhead Line Electrification - Safety of workforce

Negotiations on going with National Grid with regards to construction.

The residual hazards carry standard construction risks that have been reduced to an acceptable level for an experienced contractor to manage

0020

Construction in proximity to proposed Imperial Park and St Brides Feeder Electricity sub-station

Negotiations on going with Network Rail and National Grid with regards to construction.


0021

Construction in proximity to Network Rail track infrastructure. Specifically impact of piling operations on railway infrastructure.

Driven piles to be avoided. Track monitoring may be required during construction.


0024

Risk of debris from motorway impacting on adjacent proposed Imperial Park and St Brides Feeder Electricity sub-station

Consideration netting to contain any debris from passing traffic. To be confirmed at detailed design stage.

0025

Maintenance operations in proximity of Network Rail Overhead Line Electrification - Safety of work force.

Negotiations on going with Network Rail with regards to operational safety of structure.

0475

Construction in proximity to Network Rail Overhead Line Electrification and other infrastructure - Risk of damage to infrastructure.

Negotiations on going with Network Rail with regards to construction.


0476 Crane collapse during lifting operations

The weight and position of the centroid of gravity of elements to be provided on relevant drawings.


0477 Painting of steel parapets at height and adjacent to live road and rail traffic

Design to use concrete parapets to reduce maintenance requirements.




Page 46

0478

Temporary stability during backfill to abutments / wingwalls / reinforced earth walls. Lateral earth pressure leading to abutment / wingwall / reinforced earth wall collapse

Backfill to the walls to be carried out in accordance with construction sequence, which may allow for some backfilling prior to final connections being made. Reinforced earth panels to be adequately supported during backfilling.


0479

Collapse of excavation causing work force to be buried, crushed or trapped in excavation

Excavations to be kept to a minimum depth by design, temporary works to be designed for stability. Maximum excavation slopes to be provided for stability.


0480

Risk of ground conditions varying from those assumed in design leading to settlement / damage to structure

Proposed geotechnical investigation to confirm assumptions.


0481

Excavation/piling in vicinity of existing buried services, specifically the possible fibre optic cable passing under the railway

Full consultation undertaken with utility companies and Network Rail prior to commencement on site. Contractor to undertake own service enquiries and to clearly, mark, protect or divert. CAT scans to be undertaken prior to any excavations.


0482 Working adjacent to live traffic

M4CaN will be constructed away from the existing M4. Structures affecting local traffic will require traffic management during construction.


0483

Bridge deck props abutments - removal may cause instability of abutments

Risk to be noted on bridge drawings.


0484

Working at height during inspection / maintenance work - Safety of workforce

Use of MEWPs/scaffold for inspection. Railway possessions may be required for some operations.


0485

Working at height leading to falls from height and material falling on to workforce below

Integral construction simplifies working at height. Appropriate construction sequence to be state in the structures design statement and on drawings. Abutments and wingwalls could be designed to allow for backfill to bottom of beam level, prior to placing the beams, to reduce the risk of working at height.





Page 47

0486 Flooding of excavation prior to installation of permanent drainage

Reduce depth of foundations as much as possible. Advise Contractor of risk of ground water so that they can manage the risk to the temporary works. Hazard to be highlighted on construction drawings where necessary.


0487 Temporary instability of abutment walls under load from wet concrete

Temporary works shall be designed to accommodate any foreseeable instability

0488

Risk of unexploded ordnance in region of bridge foundations and embankments

Preliminary Risk Assessment by Bactec - report No. 5750TA 21/11/2014, supplied to M4CaN project team. Further onsite investigation proposed in medium / high risk areas.


0489

Repetitive manual handling of heavy reinforcement during steel fixing operations causing harm to workforce.

Reinforcement to be detailed to avoid excessively heavy bars where practicable. Large diameter bar lengths to be reduced where possible.


0490 Concurrent site activities

Hazard cannot be eliminated at the design stage. To be controlled through site procedures.


0491 Temporary stability of precast U-beams under weight of wet concrete

U/W-beams were selected which are more inherently stable than other precast concrete beams.


0492 Damage to existing Network Rail services

Full consultation to be undertaken with Network Rail prior to commencement on site. Contractor to undertaken own service enquiries and to clearly mark, protect or divert. Safe method of working adjacent to and above Network Rail infrastructure to be agreed with Network Rail.


0493

Piling in area of high ground water table. Large quantities of water are likely to be displaced from the pile bores as rigs are withdrawn. Saturation of piling platform or the railway ballast introduces risk of ground instability and

Temporary works design for foundations for piling rig and crane standing platforms to include drainage sumps and adequate pumps.





Page 48

toppling of piling rigs or cranes.

0494

Railway maintenance operations. Bridge structure is 200m long, provision of safe maintenance access to the railway through the structure

Minimum horizontal clearance from rail to abutment face is to be 4.5m. This will provide sufficient clearance for a safe walking route.

0495

Evacuation of railway staff and passengers during an emergency. Integrity of structure during a fire event.

An emergency plan is to be compiled with a full assessment of evacuation times and likely fire events to protect the structure. Emergency escape signage to be provided through the structure.

0496 Construction adjacent to Great Western Main Line railway

Precast beams proposed to aid speed of construction with minimal risk of fouling railway tracks.


0498

Errors in the fabrication and precasting of beams leading to substandard structure

Precast elements to be inspected prior to casting of deck. Final survey of precast concrete works to be undertaken prior to delivery to site.


0499 Demolition of precast beams causing snapping of prestressed tendons

Beams to be broken out and lifted out rather than demolishing beams. This is to prevent prestressed strands from releasing during demolition. Demolition sequence to be reverse of construction sequence.

0915

Bridge maintenance operations - access to bridge via Network Rail lines/land - safety of workforce.

Liaison with Network Rail to agree clearances such that risk to workforce is minimised.

Network Rail land needs to be accessed to maintain the structure. All access to be coordinated with the Network Rail Asset Protection team and the like.

0916

Construction activities in proximity to and interfacing with existing drainage culvert under the railway.

Culvert to be infilled prior to construction. Culvert portals to be surveyed to ensure they remain clear of proposed piling activities.


1031 Driven pile installation - topple onto railway due to soft soil

Interpreted ground conditions related to desiccated crust to be provided to contractor for design of working platform. Probing of area approaching the crossing required prior to construction of working platform to confirm ground model for crust. Plant




Page 49

movement to be restricted to working platform




Page 50

Appendix E – Idealised Structure Diagrams




Page 51

Figure 3 – Reinforced soil wing wall idealised structure diagram

Springs supports

representing piles

Lateral earth

pressure

Lateral vehicle

surcharge pressure

Vehicle actions

Proposed ground level

Load transfer platform

Global stability failure

surface of soil

Soil reinforcement strips

Moment release

between wall and load

transfer platform




Page 52

Appendix F – Schedule of Eurocode Options and Choices




Page 53

Appendix G – Key meeting minutes with Network Rail


Subject: ABC Electrification: Options Report for Duffryn Rail Overbridge

Date: 30/07/15 – 1 & 2 Gold Tops Newport

Attendees:

Name Position Company

Simon Lewis Interface Manager CVJV

John Wood Design Team Leader Tata Steel

David Paddison Programme Engineering Manager Network Rail

Ian Edwards xxxxxxx Network Rail

1 Introductions & Purpose Notes / Action

Introductions were made with the purpose of the meeting to review the Options Report for the proposed Duffryn Rail bridge to gain a better understanding of the OLE requirements

2 General Information

The issue of buildability in general was raised by Network Rail – close liaison will be required throughout. The meeting arranged for 4th August 15 will go into more detail on design and construction methodology at each structure – Duffryn and Llandevenny underbridges on the South Wales mainline and the Usk Crossing bridge over the Uskmouth spur

The closest sub stations are Llansamlet in Swansea and Filton in Bristol. These are too far away to distribute the 25kV voltage required as the voltage drop would be too big. If voltage drops the time delay increases and a train stops automatically i.e for a drop to 22kV there would be a 19 second delay and hence a train would stop. This identified a need for a sub station between the 2.

Imperial Park S/S was chosen as its position is such that it any track side power loss issues along route from damage / fire etc then the 25kV can be maintained

The location was determined from electrical modelling

3 Questions Raised after review of Report

Section 1.0: Existing Railway Infrastructure 1. Please identify the position of NT1082 in relation to marker

posts so that M4CaN can review sight lines

John Wood will share the design model via Projectwise access so that this can be overlayed with the proposed road

2. On Scheme Plan there are 2 existing bridges identified neither of which have names that are in line with the actual street names – are these the correct Bridge names. These are the correct bridge names that Network Rail use; the local authority may use a different name but NR own the existing bridges however local authority own and maintain the surface

3. On the scheme Plan are the red signals existing and green proposed Red are proposed and green are existing

Section 2.0: Proposed Electrification Design 1. At what location does the wire height begin to reduce due to

the low soffit height at (St Brides Bridge) The point at which the wire begins to reduce is at the Mid Point Anchor (MPA) which initially was situated in the centre of Duffryn Rail bridge – this has subsequently been moved to the East of the proposed bridge. The new position is detailed on the model and will need to be checked against the position of the proposed temporary footbridge.

2. What height will the poles and wire be through the proposed Duffryn Bridge area if the OLE is installed before the bridge Normal height masts are 8.5m with the ATF cable sitting atop the mast; by burying the ATF cable this could reduce the mast height to a minimum 6.5. This will still clash with the proposed Duffryn Bridge and a construction solution must be jointly developed to install bridge beams. Most likely solution will be to install beams around the masts and then transfer wires onto these beams either permanently or temporary (design to be finalised). Buildability to be discussed at future meetings commencing 4

th August 2015

3. What are indicative costs to reduce this height after installed No actual figures were to hand but expected to be major costs as would involve re-design/ interaction with M4CaN and possible delays to M4 scheme programme / increased possessions of main line which can result in fines due to impact on freight.

4. Cantilevers generally installed at 50m centres – is there a location for these to review impact of a temporary bridge Detailed on model to be received from John Wood

5. Are the ATFS cables actually installed – location & depth Ian Edwards is currently in discussion with network rail Swindon regarding this as Swindon are responsible for the power installation. Unclear at the moment if cables and ducts installed, just ducts or nothing. Site visit required to get a quick answer.

6. Has the location of the ATFS cables been considered in relation to proposed M4CaN Awaiting confirmations from Swindon

7. Is the initial proposal for the carrier wire neutral section (4x50m) actually 50m length over 4 tracks or 200m in length over 4 tracks The neutral section is approximately 200m long (roughly 100m either side of the MPA)

JW

8. What effect does the signal gantry have in locating the neutral section Design location of neutral sections has to take into account signal positions because a train cannot stop at a red signal and be in a neutral section otherwise there would be no power to start again. Similarly if a train stops at a signal it has to gain enough momentum to travel through a nearby neutral section.

Section 3.0: M4CaN Proposal 1. Duffryn Rail Bridge is currently not classified as a tunnel but

this is yet to be agreed with Network Rail and may lead to additional constraints in terms of plant required for OLE, further discussions are required on this. Network Rail are classifying the bridge as a tunnel

Section 4.0: Clash of Designs 1. The proposed M4 crosses the rail approximately 33m from

the first non-energised part of the CWNS – is this on the east side of the non-energised section and thus the west side of proposed bridge This is on the west side of the bridge. The initial position of the Mid Point Anchor was under the footprint of the bridge, this determined that the neutral section was 100m west of the MPA and so still under the bridge.

2. What is overall height of an anchor structure – report says 6.0m plus required electrical clearance and an allowance MPA can be 8m in height

3. Please explain paragraph 3 – what effect does signalling arrangements have on the neutral section Refer to section 2 (8) To move a signal is very expensive and involves additional training to drivers & Union involvement as well as actual costs to move them. The signals in this area have recently (within 10 years) been upgraded however the long term plan (within next 15 years) is to de signalise the whole area therefore any spend to relocate signals would not get approval

4. If neutral section moved to the east what is the cost – is it a cabling issue or other factors brought into play Network Rail have looked at moving further east but there are signalling gantries further along east so positioning of neutral section would need to take these into consideration as described above. Cable sizing can be affected due to voltage drops of increasing cable length

5. Why is performance compromised For reduced bridge heights, performance is compromised because the catenary wire is closer to the live wire and more prone to arcing. The catenary wire has a copper wire spliced into it and so produces weak points

6. What are maintenance issues and why are they increased Reduced height increases arcing damage, increased risk of the weak spots failing, increased maintenance checking splices, increased risk of outages

7. What are the Whole Life Costs Costs to maintain above – no figures

Section 5.0: Assumptions

1. Assumption 4 – why have you assumed (St Brides Bridge) will be in place at time of Electrification – are you thinking this could be demolished as part of M4CaN Assumed for access only

Section 6.0: Options Considered

1. What distance is considered a “stand off” to gantries In this situation the stand off is the distance away from a gantry that a train would stop and depends on the type of train running that still allows it to gain momentum through the neutral section

2. What is gradient required to accommodate 4.78m clearance – by achieving this gradient does it clash with “stand off” of the gantries Again in this situation it’s not the gradient rather the position of the neutral section. By having a 4.78 clearance this would move the mid point anchor closer to the gantry signals thus the neutral section would be too close

3. Please clarify in more detail the movement of the CWNS

120m east of proposed M4 and MPA being 120m from east elevation – are these roughly the same position To achieve 5.54m clearance the mid point anchor is moved 120m East of Duffryn Rail Bridge – the neutral section is then 100m either side of this – in effect if travelling east the neutral section starts just after emerging from Duffryn Rail bridge

4. Why does Option 2 mean moving CWNS further than Option 1 – how much further and what is cost Due to proximity of gantries to the west cabling would be further, voltage drops come into play

5. Option 4 – is this still the case – Arthur Flurry systems were changed to a skid less single rod system – are they still unreliable. Explanation of why unreliable what are WLC of maintenance Note: NR issued Campaign Change documents NR/L2/ELP/27009/MOD C61 and NR/L2/ELP/27009/MOD

C76 in Dec 2011 which identified rapid wear of the section insulator skids leading to skids breaking and fouling pantographs and an issue with lever arms through neutral sections which also necessitated change. Are there still ongoing issues with this system? There are still issues where adapting to fit an existing line. As existing lines undulate this undulation puts extra pressure on the Arthur Flurry conductor due to the pantograph movements vertically. This type of system would not get approval from Network Rail governance. Route Asset Manager would say no.

6. Risk table against each Option and evidence of risks being

realised if possible

Will form part of a short presentation that David Paddison will give when Network Rail meet with Welsh Government

7. What is the effect of being stuck in neutral section in terms of cost / disruption Undefinable – negative publicity alone would be huge after expenditure on electrification

8. Table of costs of each Option Table of pro’s and cons can be produced

Section 7.0: Preferred Option 1. Drg W1008F-TTS-DRG-EOH-430106 not attached to report

To be issued along with model

Section 8.0: Staging 1. What is TTC

Twin track cantilever

2. Why do TTC’s need to be higher – can they be reduced – what is required to get these reduced below 5.45 to reduce future works See section 2 (2) above – minimum height would be 6.5m even after burying ATF cable. Liaison required on build solutions

3. What is cost estimate to replace these TTC’s at a later date in order to build structure Can’t replace them to build structure – need to be incorporated into the build and then transferred over onto the structure

4. Last paragraph – if TTC’s are not reduced at this stage to accommodate 5.45 they will need to be replaced and then swapped onto tunnel fixings – not cost effective Further discussions required on buildability

DP JW

4 Other

For a 4.78 clearance bridge arms would be required at 2-3m centres so 60 to 80 required – increased maintenance

For 5.45m clearance tunnel fixings used at 40-50m spacing so only 4-6 required

5 AOB

Martin Bates of Welsh Government will be in touch to arrange a follow up meeting


Subject: Duffryn Bridge and St Brides Feeder Station

Date: 8 December 2015 Longcross Court, Cardiff

Attendees:


Dan Tipper (DT) Electrification Project Manager Network Rail (NR)

David Blakeley (DP) Network Rail(NR)

David Hewings (DH) Head of Energy Network Strategy Network Rail (NR)

Doug Smith (DS) National Grid (NG)

Robbie Griggs (RG) National Grid (NG)

Martin Bates (MB) Project Director Welsh Government (WG)

Barry Woodman (BW) Project Manager Costain Vinci JV (CVJV)

Aled Phillips (AP) Geotechnical Design Leader Atkins Arup Design JV (DJC)

Rob Wheatley (RW) Structures Design Leader Atkins Arup Design JV (DJV)

Ian Wilson (IW) Employer’s Agent Arcadis

1 Duffryn Rail Bridge Notes / Action

1.1 MB said that recently issued cross section drawings show that NR now require the span of the bridge to be increased by some 6m. DT said this is to avoid adverse impact on the piles supporting the OLE portal structure by the subsequent piling for the bridge abutments. It was noted that the increase in span will impact on the depth of the bridge deck and the height of the adjacent retaining wall, adding to costs. RW advised that there would be no change required to the size of the piles (1050mm) or their spacing (approx 2x diameter).

1.2 DT commented that NR have relaxed their normal requirements considerably to enable the 5.45m headroom clearance. This has required design and risk assessment work and the relocation of the neutral section westwards. MB acknowledged this.

1.3 MB asked that AP reviews the pile design and zone of influence dictating the need for the additional clearance and if he has any queries for him to contact NR direct. DT said he should contact Ian Edwards or David Paddison (NR). NR will forward the standards relating to this.

AP

NR

1.4 AP confirmed that the bridge piles would be auger drilled.

1.5 DB said that there should be no need for rail possessions for the work alongside the tracks if the revised clearances as shown are adopted. Possessions would be needed for lifting in the bridge beams but could be avoided if the beams were launched. RW said that lifting is the method Vinci prefer.

1.6 Obtaining track possessions should not be a problem if requested early enough and there is benefit in applying a year early so that they are included in the plan for the following year. It needs to be considered whether weekend or night-time possessions are

CVJV

envisaged.

1.7 NR agreed to issue digital copies of the tabled drawings. NR

1.8 RW agreed to report on his assessment of the structural implications of the increased span by next Friday.

RW

2 St Brides Feeder Station Cables

2.1 AP confirmed that in the vicinity of the feeder station supply cables the proposed motorway embankment will be on driven precast concrete piles.

2.2 RG said he has discussed the proposed supply cables with NG’s contractor and they have decided to drill the cable route deeper than previously proposed. The revised route will give 5.5m minimum clearance beneath the toe of the piles. They have no concerns about the accuracy of their drilling. The actual route of the drilled duct sleeve will also be surveyed and checked accurately when completed. They have no concerns either about vibration during piling as there will be no cable joints and the duct will be specified as heavy duty. It will be possible by agreement to turn off the power when demand is low, such as over a weekend, while the critical piles are driven and take power from a different source.

2.2 RG said that they have their own GI planned in January and February and it was noted that this overlaps with the CVJV GI. He agreed to share the factual information. Additional information on the depth to the mudstone and its variability will give greater certainty of the anticipated depth of pile at refusal.

RG

2.3 RG said that construction access to the Feeder Station would be via the industrial estate and a temporary reen crossing in the farmer’s field rather than Green Lane. DS said that he is arranging a twelve month licence but has the option to extend. It was agreed that this would be useful for the CVJV and MB asked that this be extended. MB also asked for details of the

DS

2.4 MB noted that the Green Lane will be severed by the proposed motorway and this will affect access to the feeder station when operational. RG said that access will occasionally be required by articulated vehicles. MB said that if RG could quickly provide details of the large vehicles that would be used then there may still be opportunity now for the DJV to check that it could be accommodated and whether amendments could be made if not.

RG

2.5 BW advised that a temporary bridge crossing of the railway will be required for the haul road and confirmed that agreement of clearances and arrangements for possessions will be made in good time.

CVJV

2.6 DH drew attention to the need to include in the design of the bridge for measures to avoid the risk of short circuit from the OLE cables causing damage to the structure. This is normally accommodated by fixing an earthed copper strip to the underside of the beams above the cables. This technique would avoid the need for the reinforcement to be bonded.

RW


Subject:

Network Rail Meeting to Review Fire Protection for Duffryn Rail Underbridge

Date:

15 February 2016

Attendees:


Antonio DeCaprio (ADC) Senior Project Engineer Civils Network Rail

Darren Gadd (DG) Project Engineer Civils Network Rail

Rob Wheatley (RNW) Structures Design Coordinator Arup / Atkins DJV

Gareth Ledsham-James (GLJ) Structures Lead Gwent Levels Arup / Atkins DJV

Simon Lewis (SL) Interface Manager Costain / Vinci CJV

1 Introductions & History of Scheme Notes / Action

Introductions were made by all

Apologies were received from Ian Edwards (NR OLE engineer)

ADC gave a brief outline of the structure of Network Rail (NR) and the OLE

ADC & DG report back to the Route Asset Manager (RAM):- Richard Cole is the Asset Protection RAM and Andy Cross is the Structures RAM

2 Scheme Discussion

A) Foundations of Structure

Network Rail’s concern is how the M4caN interfaces with its asset.

The Duffryn Rail underbridge will induce movement in the ground when it is backfilled and this will lead deflection of the OLE piles (approx 25mm) and NR are concerned that this deflection will impact upon the foundations of their OLE structures.

As both sets of piles for the OLE and the M4CaN structure have built in tolerances there is a concern that the Network Rail tolerance may be exceeded with an impact on the M4CaN buildability

RNW suggested that if the movement allowance is controlled on the NR equipment the two tolerances combined would be within the overall NR tolerance

ADC stated that NR do not want the OLE piles to lose plumb however the M4CaN design team want to ensure that all the tolerance is not used up.

The Duffryn Rail structure has some 200 piles (100 each side) whereas the OLE has a much lower figure (possibly 26) and so ideally any solution is best implemented to suit the lower number of piles.

Tata need to be consulted on design of piles – once designed it would be beneficial if the M4CaN design team are allowed to comment. The pile deflection requirements are given on the Duffryn Underbridge drawing (Ref: M4CaN-DJV-SBR-Z2_0650-SK-CB-0021)

B) Parapets

Parapets are a mix of 1.5m and 1.85m high.

1.5m high, very high containment vehicle parapets to be provided along the highway and 1.85m high pedestrian parapets provided along deck / wall edges near OLE.

On the north and south side of the structure (east & west side of rail) there are two “dead” areas which will be tarmacked and free draining. These will have pedestrian parapets at either end. There will be no direct access for vehicles to these areas off the proposed carriageway. NR specifically wanted the “dead” area to be recorded as off limits to maintenance vehicles. This will be added to the AIP.

GLJ

There were some discussions on the actual structure itself and ADC asked if all options had been looked at i.e arch structure, cable stay etc. RNW advised that there were constraints to the west in the form of National Grid power lines so other forms of structure impacted upon these. The current solution was the optimum.

C) Fire Protection

ADC had previously issued the TSi (Technical Specification Information) which details requirements for fire protection in tunnels. Also issued were the guidance notes.

GLJ stated that the M4CaN design team had reviewed the

documents and as far as they were concerned, due to the requirements applying to tunnels over 1km in length, everything had been ruled out apart from

Escape signage

Fire protection

Material requirements

C1) Requirement for Signage

GLJ confirmed the requirements would be complied with for signage however it was unclear whether emergency signs should be lit. Guidance to be checked by ADC

ADC

C2) Requirements for Fire Protection

RNW & GLJ stated the documents had 2 different grades for fire protection with a lower (A=450 deg C) and upper (B=1200 deg C) bracket and it was unclear as to which level the design team should use.

ADC stated that the worst case scenario (ie B) should be used as NR require the tunnel to be robust enough not to fall in and even though this is not in the TSi it comes from the operational point of view. Any risks need to be managed. ADC stated that he would discuss and confirm this with Richard Cole

ADC

There are guidance notes for fire protection to pre stressed beams available from the Concrete Research Centre – ADC to send these over to the design team.

ADC

Pre cast beams will not withstand temperatures of 1200 deg C without protection and GLJ stated that the design team were looking at 3 options

1. Spray system approx. 50mm thick which had been accepted by highways for tunnel temperatures up to 1350deg C. NR would want acceptance criteria and GLJ will check if this system has been used on rail tunnels elsewhere

2. Fire boards bolted on – ADC stated that the OLE would be in place when fixing these and that mechanical fixings would be needed which would also need the same integrity as the boards. ADC also stated that the exposed deck former between the beams would also need to be considered for fire protection particularly as NR would not be undertaking any inspection regime and guarantees of deck integrity would be required if a fire compromised the structure. The risk would be with M4CaN team to get this accepted by Welsh Government over risk that the structure cannot be repaired and open to traffic quickly.

3. Polypropylene fibres within the concrete – if this has been used previously this would be NR preferred option as there

GLJ

would be no delays in acceptance

No Emergency Plan is required as this tunnel is below 1km (from the Guidance Notes to the TSi) however other measures would need to be in place such as a bespoke plan of action which would need to be recorded in an agreed format

C3) Material Requirements

There is a requirement in the TSi with respect to materials used in fire protection and if used before then there is straight acceptance from NR

GRC permanent formwork between beams would be preferred by NR over GRP because it was thought of as having a superior fire resistance.

ADC to send over NR’s material acceptance register so that the design team can be advised of which materials are already accepted by NR

ADC

D) Submissions

ADC stated that Forms 01, 02 and 03 would be required and these generally take 21 days to review, however, GLJ stated that this was not usual for Outside Party bridges, e.g. highway bridges over rail. On other projects, Network Rail have reviewed AIPs produced as part of the highway Technical Approval procedure.

Post Meeting Note – the scope of NR-L2-CIV-003 states that this code only applies where an Outside Party does not have an equivalent procedure. It states, ‘the procedure defined in the Technical Approval of Highway Structures is considered to be equivalent’.

ADC asked if NR could have a draft copy of the AiP GLJ

ADC to check if AIP submitted to Welsh Government would be sufficient to act as the Form 1 and Form 2 for NR.

ADC

ADC stated that a document, possibly in matrix form, would need to be submitted, for the fire protection which covered points raised in the TSi, namely prevention, protection, mitigation and rescue. NR preferred that this is a separate document to the Form 01 and 02. This would log the decisions taken and why.

GLJ

RNW asked if there were any other standards that need to be considered – ADC to advise

ADC

E) Other

Michael Weller & Paul Randall are the scheme PM’s and need to be copied in on correspondence – DG to forward details

DG

Meeting TBA with the RAM discuss next steps ADC

The name of the Contractors Responsible Engineer will be required for Forms and needs to be discussed within the M4CaN team

SL

RNW set out the anticipated timetable. Orders publication March 2016. PLI September 2016 Detailed design start end of 2017 Contractor start on site early 2018

ADC requested the following information Draft AiP Decision matrix Minutes High level programme

CVJV


Subject: M4CaN Duffryn Rail Underbridge

Date: 15/04/2016 – Capital Quarter Cardiff

Attendees:


Richard Cole (RC) Asset Protection Manager Wales Network Rail

Philip Rawlings (PR) Senior Asset Engineer Network Rail

Chris Prosser (CP) Asset Engineer Network Rail

Gareth Ledsham James (GLJ)

Senior Bridge Engineer M4CaN DJV

Simon Lewis (SL) Interface Manager M4CaN CVJV

1 Introductions & History of Scheme Notes / Action

A brief history of scheme was given including interactions already undertaken with Network Rail

2 Interface

RC indicated that this would be treated as an Outside Party structure as abutments were not on NR land but deck within NR airspace

RC stated that they need to ensure that relevant NR requirements have been implemented.

The AIP had been produced by DJV and submitted to Antonio DiCaprio for comment by NR – comments have been returned attached to the meeting invite

GLJ asked if the contents of the AIP were sufficient to get Form 01 acceptance or if further information was required – it was considered that producing a separate Form 01 would be duplicating information

PR will look into this – it was suggested that parts of Form 01 be incorporated into the AIP (e.g. NR sign-off sheets) and then it could be formally accepted – PR to advise

PR

GLJ gave an overview of the bridge structure including reasoning for classification as a tunnel under TSI tunnel requirements. It is a separate structure from the proposed OLE gantry

3 Review of AIP

GLJ then went through the AIP in detail highlighting relevant points and addressing comments where required

GLJ will update the AIP to correct / address comments and will issue again for review by the RAMs.

GLJ

RC will then circulate to all the various relevant RAM’s within NR and seek comments from all – NR have a 28 day turn around on comments – this can then be formally accepted by various RAM disciplines

RC

RC enquired if the proposed structure limited any future increase in track design speeds. Signal sighting distances would be a consideration, however, it was noted that structure is located over straight track so there is less likely to be an issue.

RC

RC enquired as to depth of piles for abutment and under the embankment

SL/GLJ

PR stated that as long as NR requirements were met regarding parapet heights then nothing additional i.e anti-climb was not needed

NR will review internally if there is a need for additional debris netting on the south west parapet to protect the proposed St Brides sub -station.

RC requested the wording “”All future inspections should be under the control of asset protection”” be added to the AIP possibly in section 3.11. Also add a similar statement to clause 7.3 – reference should be to the “Asset Protection Project Manager”.

Sharing of information on future inspections can form part of the Bridge Agreement that will be required in the future

GLJ advised that all drainage ties into the highway drainage

An existing culvert and abutments from an accommodation track overbridge are affected by the scheme – these are NR assets. The treatment of these structures needs to be agreed with NR and undertaken as enabling works prior to the main bridge construction works. The removal of the abutments has been discussed previously between Welsh Government and OLE and it has been agreed verbally that the OLE will remove these abutments

RC stated that if NR is required to take these assets out of use (because they have been made redundant) then there is a statutory process that they need to go through and they can advise on this.

RC

As NR assets, any modifications to these existing structures will need to follow NR procedures and therefore separate Form 1’s, Form 2’s etc will be required for the work on these assets. Where

these documents are required, it was agreed that these should be prepared as separate documents to the Duffryn Railway Underbridge AIP (as this is treated as an Outside Party structure and approved under Highway TA procedures).

CP to send document containing photos of these assets CP

RC stated that there will be a need for numerous discussions regarding these 2 assets and the quicker an agreement can be entered into the better for all. This will allow the design team to access/survey under the protection of the asset protection manager

RC asked if there was any CPO on NR land – RC will discuss with Steven Sprei in NR property team

PR asked about CDM processes on M4CaN and asked whether the project was working under the Common Safety Method. PR to forward documentation about CSM. No additional action except to ensure that NR input on H&S is included in CDM hazard register.

PR

4 Communication

RC stated that he would be the Route point of contact.

A basic outside party agreement needs to be entered into urgently with Welsh Government – SL to set up a meeting

SL

5 Summary of Main Actions

Meeting with RC / Welsh Government to form agreement – RC available dated required

SL

Which parts of Form 01 to include in AIP PR

Update AIP GLJ

Circulate AIP RC

Review requirements for culvert and accommodation bridge PR

Programme of works required so that NR can review resource and cost

SL

Details of culvert and accommodation bridge CP