arcadis consulting unit 3, kew court exeter ex2 5az united
TRANSCRIPT
Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited is a private limited company registered in England & Wales (registered number 02212959).
Registered Office at Manning House, 22 Carlisle Place, London, SW1P 1JA, UK. Part of the Arcadis Group of Companies
along with other entities in the UK.
ARCADIS CONSULTING
(UK) LIMITED
Unit 3, Kew Court
Pynes Hill, Rydon Lane
Exeter
EX2 5AZ
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)1392 374 600
Fax
arcadis.com
By email
David Fish
Town Hall,
Walliscote Grove Road,
Weston-super-Mare,
BS23 1UJ
Our ref: UA008579-01
Date: 03 March 2016
Dear David
Subject: Tutshill Sluice Cycleway Feasibility Assessment
North Somerset Council is investigating options to construct a cycle way along an
existing embankment at Yeo Bank Farm, Kingston Seymour.
This letter report contains a high-level appraisal of the feasibility and relative costs of
three options to construct a new cycle way. The report includes a high level appraisal
with input from the following disciplines- structural, geotechnical, flood risk and ecology.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Hart
Flood Risk Consultant
Email: [email protected]
Direct line: 01392 374627
Enc. 0001-UA008579-01
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 2
Tutshill Sluice Cycleway Feasibility Assessment
Introduction The purpose of this appraisal is to inform a proposal to construct a cycleway and
bridleway along an existing embankment between the Tutshill Sluice and Wick Lane
access points, at Yeo Bank Farm, Kingston Seymour. This will form a section of the
strategic Weston-super-Mare to Clevedon cycle route, which shall be free of main roads
and remove the need for cyclists to negotiate the busy A370 and B3133 roads (which
form part of the current signed cycle route).
The proposed cycleway measures approximately 1km in length. The central national
grid reference is ST 37950 65750. The following sections contains information to form a
feasibility study for the three options to construct a cycleway and bridleway listed below
(Figure 1):
1. Option 1- Widening the embankment on the landward (eastern) side by
importing additional fill.
2. Option 2- Widening the embankment on the landward (eastern) side by using
plastic ‘log piling’, BaFix or gabions.
3. Option 3- Reinstating a cycle track bridge spanning the Congresbury Yeo along
the line of the original railway bridge, using durable lightweight materials.
Additional to Options 1 and 2 are sub-options to construct new cycle track bridges
around the two existing sluice structures on the landward side. The channel of the
Tutshill sluice is approximately 10m wide and the channel of the Sampson Sluice is 15m
wide.
Figure 1- Site Location
Aerial photograph of the site © Google (2016); Image © Infoterra Ltd and Bluesky
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 3
The site is relatively low-lying and flat, and is cut by a number of creeks and drainage
ditches. The surrounding land is currently protected from flooding at times of extreme
tidal events by the Congresbury Yeo tidal embankments. The top level of the
embankment is approx. 8.45m AOD and the toe level approx. 4-5m AOD. The levels of
the existing embankment were recently raised by the Environment Agency to provide a
1 in 75 year (1.33% AEP) standard of protection. The level of the Tutshill Sluice is
8.54mAOD and the level of the Sampson Sluice is 7.55mAOD.
It is likely that the footprint of the new cycleway would largely be confined to the existing
embankment. Option 1 would have a larger footprint than Option 2, as the embankment
requires a 1 in 4 slope to tie the widened section into the surrounding land.
The following sections include a high level appraisal, with assessment of the three
options from a structural, geotechnical, flood risk and ecological perspectives.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 4
Options Option 1 - Embankment Widening / Slope Re-Grading The embankment could be widened by extending the footprint or re-grading the existing
slope. The slope angle / grade of the widened earthwork would depend on the material
imported to the site and aesthetics.
It is assumed that the current earthwork bund is sufficiently impermeable to act as a
flood prevention structure thus the material imported to site to undertake the widening
could be either cohesive or granular in nature. The widening will likely have to be the
same as the current slope angle, 1(V) to 4(H) so that the overall stability is not impaired
although with the use of suitable granular fill, it may be possible to steepen the slope
angle to minimise the volume of fill that will need to be imported. If this is possible this
would limit the additional land-take required. It has been estimated that approximately
5,000m3 of material is required to carry out widening of embankment
A detailed assessment should be undertaken on the stability of the earthwork to
optimise the slope angle and import requirements. It should be note that the widening
option imposes additional load to the ground causing settlement of the existing bund.
This will be a medium term effect occurring probably over a few years and maybe
irregular leaving an uneven final level that will be subject to ponding following heavy
rainfall. It should also be noted that the material imported to undertake the widening
would have to be suitably tested to confirm its properties, and consequent compaction
requirement.
Option 2a – Widening the embankment crest in the same footprint using Log Piles
The use of plastic sheet piles has been widely adopted by associations such as the
National Trust and the Environment Agency as flood prevention methods. They also
being adopted by organising such as Highway England and used for small retaining
walls. There are a number of different types of plastic sheet piles which offer varying
structural integrity but generally they suffer from poor bending ability and thus can only
retain relatively shallow fills (<500mm). The “log pile” (see Figure 2) offers the most in
terms of structural functionality as they are hollow and steel tubes can be inserted
through the centre to enhance their bending ability.
Figure 2: Installed Plastic Log Piles
http://www.liniar.co.uk/plastic-piling/log-pile/
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 5
The “log pile” would generally be used for retained heights no greater than 1.5m but this
would allow the footprint of the earthworks to be significantly smaller than for the
embankment widening / re-grading option. Furthermore the backfill to the plastic piles
will need to be granular material.
A “log pile” wall would be constructed at the crest of the slope thereby limiting the
backfill material required on site (see Figure 3). However further slope stability analysis
would be required to confirm this would not make the slope unstable in the long term (as
fill is being added to the crest of the slope).
Alternatively if the analysis yielded unsatisfactory results it could be positioned at the toe
of the slope which while reducing the land take when compared with a widening / re-
grade option alone, does require greater volumes of fill materials that an option at the
crest of the slope. If widening of the crest is adopted consideration would need to be
given for a handrail.
Figure 3: The use of log piles to widen the crest of the embankment
Standard driving techniques (as developed for steel sheet piles) include impact,
vibratory or hydraulic drivers. It has been known that damage to the heads of the piles
can occur while driving and there is also an issue with driving the piles off-line and
losing verticality. Often specialist plant is used to minimise the stresses on the plastic
piles.
There is some debate in the industry with regards to the design life of plastic sheet piles
most probably due to their limited time in the market place. There is particular concern
as to how they suffer creep movement as they degrade over time. Sources referred to
within the TRL report (Carder et al, 2002) have claimed design life ranging from 35
years to 100 years, however this depends on the loading they are subject to and their
serviceability requirements.
Option 2b – Widening the embankment crest in the same footprint using BaFix
BaFix is a solution offered from Asset International Structured Solutions, and is
generally adopted in rail environments to form walkways next to the railway line. This is
structural system using steel facing grids similar to gabions (Figure 4). This solution
would slightly increase the load at the crest of the slope thus reducing the factor of
safety and as such further slope stability assessment would be required to confirm its
suitability.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 6
Figure 4: BaFix System
www.assetint.co.uk/
The suppliers of BaFix suggest that a 6m long element without further preparation could
be installed in approximately 15 minutes, and is therefore considered reasonably quick
to install. The design life of this structural elements can be guaranteed for 120 years.
Figure 5: The use of BaFix to widen the crest of the embankment
Other solutions such as crib waling or gabion baskets would also be suitable at the crest
of the slope and would typically be very similar to the BaFix solution described above
and have not therefore been described in detail further. All these options would place
additional loading on the existing slope.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 7
Option 3 – Reinstating a foot / cycle track bridge avoiding the sluices
It is proposed that the footbridge follows the former railway bridge alignment over the
Congresbury Yeo tidal estuary (Figure 6).
Figure 6 - Embankment and Proposed Crossing Locations
Aerial photograph of the site © Google (2016); Image © Infoterra Ltd and Bluesky
Starting from Mud Lane north of the Tutshill Sluice the footpath follows the old railway
alignment up to the estuary’s north embankment and then goes east to cross over the
Tutshill Sluice. The path then turns west along the left bank of the Congresbuury Yeo
and re-joins the old railway alignment after crossing the Sampson Sluice. The proposed
footbridge follows the old railway path when crossing the estuary, and as such reduces
the length of the detour on the path by 70%, from around 400m to 125m.
To mitigate the flood risk, it is proposed that the bridge’s superstructure soffit to be
designed above the current top level of the tidal embankments. In order for the
superstructure to extend from top of tidal embankment to top of tidal embankment, the
bridge would have initially required to be approx. 90m in length. Upon review, an
embankment bund could be constructed at the north section with embedded drainage
pipes. This reduces the bridge’s length by 40% resulting in a 55m long structure. See
Figure 7 below for elevation view of the potential solution.
Figure 7- Proposed Vertical Arrangement
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 8
Structural
A structural assessment has been undertaken to assess the footbridge solutions.
The design brief is for a footbridge to be used for cyclists and equestrians. The following
design requirements have been taken into consideration:
• 3.50m wide deck (clearance between parapets’ faces), this is a code requirement
specified in BD 29/04.
• 1.80m handrail height for the parapet (to accommodate the equestrian traffic)
• Anti-skid surface for the deck (suitable for equestrians).
• Live Loads: UDL=5kN/m2 (for pedestrians) and PL=8.12kN (for equestrians).
• Minimum headroom of 2.7m with dismount provision or 3.7m mounted (to suit the
equestrians).
The assessment considers the most suitable option is a three span arrangement and
the use of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials for the whole superstructure
reduces the self-weight, which typically represents 60% of its overall load using
conventional material, on the foundations in comparison with single span and the use of
steel for the main structural elements.
Incorporating the decking within the “I” beam height in a U-frame configuration, reduces
the overall depth of superstructure. Furthermore, smaller span lengths results in smaller
“I” beam section sizes which improves aesthetics aspect of the bridge. Steel may be the
most suitable material when taking into account the conventional materials but the
substantial benefit with FRP materials is beginning to be recognised by the industry,
especially in footbridge design. These materials can match and even exceed steel’s
versatility for structural adequacy, pre-fabrication and on site constructability. Given the
possible access constraints, remoteness of site location, and potential environmental
impact the FRP option is the most favourable (Figure 8).
Figure 8 - Proposed “I” FRP girders option
While a relatively new material, a number of footbridges have been constructed using
FRP materials, replacing conventional material such as steel and concrete. FRP is a
very versatile material which can potentially open up options to clients where aesthetics
are an important part of design.
For this reason, the FRP option is recommended for concept design stage.
In comparison with traditional bridge superstructure materials, FRP is seen as
innovative option due to its lightweight nature whilst still achieving the same level of
performance as conventional materials. The initial building cost might be higher for this
type of material but the whole life cost is considered to be substantially less. The
materials do not corrode (particularly important in a saline environment where steel will
have a limited life) or require regular maintenance, such as painting, and inspection
costs are drastically reduced when compared with the conventional options. The
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 9
properties of FRP materials will increase the sustainability, safety and cost benefits of
the structure. The capital costs for the FRP option have been estimated to be £636,525
and with maintenance costs over a 120 year period the total whole life costs are
£786,525.
For further details regarding options for the bridge design and the drawing specifications
refer to the technical report enclosed (4000-UA008579-UU41-01).
Additional to Options 1 and 2 is a sub-option to construct a new cycle track and
equestrian bridges around the sluice structures on the landward side. To bypass the
Tutshill sluice the bridge would need to span approximately 10m and to bypass the
Sampson Sluice the bridge would need to span 15m. Assuming the deck of the both
cycle track bridges are 3.5m wide (code requirement specified in BD 29/04) an
indicative cost for the Tutshill bridge is £60k and the indicative cost for the Sampson
bridge is £90k.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 10
Geotechnical
The ground conditions have been assessed from the Congresbury Yeo Tidal Banks –
Ground Investigation Report – (Royal Haskoning DHV, March 2015) and from the
Ground Investigation No. AC0711 Factual Report – Congresbury Yeo (CJ Associates,
December 2014).
Records from British Geological Survey (BGS) confirm the site is predominantly Tidal
Flat Deposits comprising SILT and CLAY. The ground conditions comprise up to 4m of
firm cohesive embankment material, overlying circa. 20m of soft to firm silty CLAY with
bands of PEAT, overlying stiff gravelly CLAY. Gravel is of MUDSTONE. The ground
condition of the nearby Tutshill Sluice footbridge are as follow:
Table 1- Ground Conditions
The following geotechnical testing has been undertaken during the previous
investigation comprising;
• Moisture Content
• Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index
• Particle Size Distribution
• Sedimentation by Hydrometer
• BRE SD1
• Total Organic Content
• Dry Density
• One Dimensional Consolidation Properties
• Triaxial tests ‘Quick Undrained’.
• In addition Geo-Environmental Testing was also undertaken.
The Geotechnical testing showed that in areas the Tidal Flat Deposits are particularly
soft in nature (<10kPa). The existing embankment prior to the heightening was
assessed as having an undrained strength of 40kPa and the new material used in the
heightening works an undrained strength of 60kPa. The coefficient of volume
compressibility (mv) for the underlying material ranged from 0.41 to 0.55 m2/MN
indicating a significantly compressive material.
The existing earthwork has already been heightened to comply with the new EA flood
levels. The widening has been undertaken using cohesive material and it is assumed to
have been compacted to the earthwork specification issued (HE Earthwork
Specification). The earthwork is underlain by soft CLAY and SILT with undrained
strengths less than 10kPa. The historic boreholes also show over 2m thickness of peat,
however this was at depth and is assessed as unlikely to have a significant effect on
these fairly shallow works. The coefficient of volume compressibility values, for the
shallow Tidal Flat deposits suggest that settlement will occur across the earthwork even
with small additional loads. This would have to be carefully assessed at the detailed
design stage and the risk managed through construction. It is understood that
settlement plates have been installed to monitor the performance of the earthwork
(installed at 200m centres).
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 11
As part of this high level assessment of options it is assumed that the flood bund is fit for
purpose (i.e. is impermeable) and that the slopes are currently stable (i.e. are not
suffering slope stability problems). The solutions available include re-grading or the use
of shallow retaining structures such as plastic piles or earth retaining structure such as
BaFix, crib walling or gabion baskets.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 12
Flood Risk
Based on a desk based assessment a summary of the flooding issues at the proposed
site are discussed in Table 2.
Table 2- Flood Risk
Flooding issues
Source of flooding
Flood risk Comments
Further Assessment
Required Low Medium High
Rivers �
Small parcels of the site are located in high risk Flood Zone 3 of the Congresbury Yeo. The site could be at risk of flooding in an extreme flood. Options involve construction on the banks and in the channel of the Congresbury Yeo and Oldbridge River.
Yes- Initial Assessment below.
Sea �
The site is located in Flood Zone 3 and is at high risk of flooding from the tidal Severn Estuary.
Yes- Initial Assessment below.
Surface water �
Environment Agency mapping indicates the site is at Very Low risk of flooding from surface water. The site is drained by network of land drains (rhynes). It is considered that the principal risk is from tidal and fluvial sources.
No
Groundwater �
The site is underlain by a Secondary B Aquifer, predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater (Mercia Mudstone). Borehole testing indicated groundwater is stuck at approximately 9m below ground level.
No
Artificial sources �
The site is surrounded by a complex pumped drainage system (rhynes). However, it is considered the principal risk is from tidal and fluvial sources.
No
The high level assessment undertaken indicates that the principal flood risk at the site is
considered to be from tidal and fluvial sources and this is discussed further in the
sections below.
The existing embankment is located in high risk Flood Zone 3 and the site is at risk of
tidal flooding from the Severn Estuary. Mapping undertaken for the North Somerset
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and the Environment Agency’s (EA) online
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 13
flood mapping indicates the embankment is within tidal Flood Zone 3a (at risk during the
1 in 200 year (0.5% AEP) return period flood event) and the primary risk to the site is
tidal flooding from the Severn Estuary (Figure 9).
Figure 9- Flood Mapping
Source- North Somerset SFRA (Royal Haskoning, 2008)
The existing Congresbury Yeo tidal embankment is an EA flood defence asset. It forms
part of a wider defence system which protects the low lying Somerset levels from
frequent tidal flooding. The EA completed works to the Congresbury Yeo tidal banks in
2015 to raise the height of the bank to approx. 8.45m AOD (1 in 75 year (1.33% AEP)
standard of protection).
Mapping contained within the SFRA indicates there is a small parcel of land around the
Tutshill sluice structure within fluvial flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) of the
Congresbury Yeo. This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in
times of flood. It is defined as land which would flood with an annual probability of 1 in
20 (5%) or greater in any year (Figure 10).
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 14
Figure 10- Mapped Fluvial Flood Zone
Source- North Somerset SFRA (Royal Haskoning, 2008)
The table below summarises the flood risk appraisal for the various options to construct
a cycle way along an existing embankment between the Tutshill Sluice and Wick Lane
access points.
Table 3- Flood Risk Appraisal
Option Flood Risk Mitigation and Opportunities 1. Widening the embankment on the landward side
• Works required to the flood defence asset (embankment).
• All construction works located in the tidal floodplain. Largest footprint in the floodplain of the options considered.
• The embankment is located in fluvial Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) in the vicinity of the Tutshill Sluice.
• Floodplain compensation likely be required for works in fluvial Flood Zone 3b.
• Ecological improvements could be incorporated into compensation works.
• Flood defence consent required.
• Flood Risk Assessment required.
2. Widening the embankment on the landward side by using plastic ‘log piling’, BaFix or gabions
• Works required to the flood defence asset (embankment).
• All construction works located in the tidal floodplain. Use of ‘log piling’ or BaFix results in the works having less footprint in the floodplain compared to Option 1.
• Floodplain compensation likely to be required for works in fluvial Flood Zone 3b.
• Ecological improvements could be incorporated into compensation works.
• Flood defence consent required.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 15
Option Flood Risk Mitigation and Opportunities
• The embankment is located in fluvial Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) in the vicinity of the Tutshill sluice.
• Flood Risk Assessment required.
3. Reinstating a foot / cycle track bridge
• Works within the channel and banks of the Congresbury Yeo.
• Principal flood risk is from tidal flooding.
• Location of the bridge minimises work to the embankment in the fluvial floodplain of the Congresbury Yeo.
• Hydraulic modelling may be required to determine impact of the structure on the tidal channel.
• The proposed embankment required robust drainage measures and the impact on the drainage system will require assessment.
• Assessment of tidal flood levels required to set the level of the bridge structure.
• MMO license required for work below tidal MHW.
• Flood defence consent required.
• Flood Risk Assessment required.
Sub-option to construct a new cycle track bridges around both sluice structures on the landward side.
• Works on the banks of the Congresbury Yeo at Tutshill Sluice and Oldbridge River at the Sampson Sluice.
• Works located in fluvial Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) in the vicinity of the Tutshill sluice.
• Floodplain compensation likely to be required for works in fluvial Flood Zone 3b.
• Ecological improvements could be incorporated into compensation works.
• Assessment of fluvial flood levels required to set the level of the bridge structure.
• Flood defence consent required.
• Flood Risk Assessment required.
To summarise all options are located within the tidal floodplain of the Severn Estuary
(Flood Zone 3). Options 1 and 2 could involve work to the existing embankment on the
landward side of the Tutshill Sluice, which is located within the fluvial functional
floodplain of the Congresbury Yeo. Works located within the functional floodplain, if
permitted by the EA, would require floodplain compensation to compensate for water
displaced by widening and earthworks within the floodplain.
A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required to assess all options under
consideration. An indicative cost for a Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (not including
hydraulic modelling) is £2,500. Hydraulic modelling may be required to assess the
impact of the bridge options on the banks and channel of the Congresbury Yeo and
Oldbridge River. It is recommended that the need for hydraulic modelling is established
with the Environment Agency to define the scope of the FRA prior to any assessment
work being undertaken.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 16
Ecology
The tidal channel of the Congresbury Yeo (downstream of the sluice structure) is within
the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). Due to the sensitivity of the environment surrounding the sluice and
embankment the following section recommends the tasks required to allow a full
ecological assessment of the options.
To assess the impacts of the options it is recommend that a Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (PEA) is undertaken at each option location, which will involve a desk study
and a walkover field survey of the proposed construction footprint. The walkover field
survey would include the following:
• Phase 1 Habitat survey of the option to identify habitats present. Option 3 lies within
the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) – the walkover would
additionally assess if the habitats have affinities to those for which the SAC is
designated;
• Identification and mapping of any invasive species of plants, such as Japanese
Knotweed, where present;
• Assessment/identification of the possible presence of protected species or species
of conservation concern, such as great crested newts, reptiles, birds, dormice and
bats or habitats suitable for such species.
A PEA report would be prepared following the site visit identifying any constraints,
mitigation requirements and enhancement opportunities to the proposed cycleway. In
order to fully assess the impact of cycleway proposals on protected species, further
surveys may be necessary dependent on the option chosen and the outcome of the
desk study exercise. For example, if data indicates that populations of
waterfowl/waders use habitats in proximity to the options, then further targeted bird
surveys may be required and/or a Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) may be
required on account of potential impacts to Special Protection Area (SPA) birds/SAC
habitats and species. Similarly if data indicates that great crested newts are present in
the local area (which sounds possible based on what the farmer suggested with regards
to newt fencing for works associated with the EA flood alleviation bund), further surveys
for great crested newts might be necessary. We would be able to advise on the need
for such surveys once we have received the data from Somerset Environmental
Records Centre (SERC), Wetland Bird Survey (WEBS), British Trust for Ornithology
(BTO) and any recommendations for further surveys and impact assessments would be
included within the report.
As part of the desk study we would contact SERC for information relating to protected
species and non-statutory designated sites within 1km. In addition and based on the
proximity of the site to the Severn Estuary SPA, we would request data from
WEBS/BTO on waterfowl and waders, the populations of which are an internationally
designated feature of the SPA. A web-based search to obtain supplementary
information regarding statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance
would also be undertaken.
The Wick St Lawrence Cycle Route - Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species
Ecological Appraisal Report dated April 2010 identified the potential for disturbance to
various protected species (otter, badger) and natural habitats and ecosystems in
breeding seasons during both the construction and operational phases of the cycleway.
An accurate planning of the construction phase will help to minimise the disturbance.
Fencing and pollution control methods should be in place prior to the commencement of
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 17
works. The estimated costs associated with the tasks described above are contained
within the table below.
Table 4- Ecology Task Estimates
Task Fees (excl.
VAT)
Desk study covering all Options (including direct SERC and WEBS costs*) £1,180
Field survey (per Option) £375
PEA report (per Option) £1,500
TOTAL per Option £3,055
*We estimate that direct costs for the provision of SERC and WEBS/BTO data would be £880
(excl. VAT)
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 18
Conclusions and Recommendations
The costs provided are for indicative purposes only and detailed costing is required
before the costs can be confirmed for the options proposed. The findings of the initial
appraisal are concluded in Table 5 below. Please note the embankment costings have
been produced using the Environment Agency Unit Cost Database, which gives a range
of between £39/m3 and £122/m3 with a mean of £94/ m3 for embankment fill. Therefore
there is considerable uncertainty to cost at this stage. Bridge and plastic piling costs
have been estimated with the assistance of suppliers.
Table 5- Appraisal Summary Table
Option Indicative
Capital Cost
Comments
1. Widening the
embankment on the
landward side by
importing additional fill.
£730k (£2,920 per
metre of widening – including
subsidiary bridges but
not including land costs)
The embankment slope will likely have to be the same as the current slope angle, 1(V) to 4(H) so that the overall stability is not impaired. The footprint widening option imposes additional load to the ground likely to cause settlement of the existing bund. This will be a medium term effect occurring probably over a few years and maybe irregular leaving an uneven final level that will be subject to ponding following heavy rainfall. Good drainage and firm foundations will be required to ensure the path remains passable in all weather conditions, although use of more granular material for the widened section should help this. Option located in high risk tidal Flood Zone 3. Largest footprint in the floodplain for the options considered. Works to the embankment in the vicinity of the Tutshill Sluice are at high risk of fluvial flooding from the Congresbury Yeo. Flood Risk Assessment is required to assess the impact of the option on flood risk to the works and to third parties. Works to the landward side of the bund are not within the SSSI or SAC. However, a PEA will be required to assess the impacts at the location of the option.
2. Widening the
embankment on the
landward side by using
plastic ‘log piling’,
BaFix or gabions.
£515k (£2,060 per
metre of widening– including
subsidiary bridges but
not including land costs)
A “log pile” wall or BaFix system could be constructed at the crest of the slope thereby limiting the backfill material required on site. Alternatively if the slope stability analysis yielded unsatisfactory results the piling or other retaining structure could be positioned at the toe of the slope. This would reduce landtake when compared with a footprint widening option alone, but would cost more as it would require more material to be imported. This would place the cost at approximately £650k. Good drainage and firm foundations will be required to ensure the path remains passable in all weather conditions. Option located in high risk tidal Flood Zone 3. Works to the embankment in the vicinity of the Tutshill Sluice are at high risk of fluvial flooding from the
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 19
Option Indicative
Capital Cost
Comments
Congresbury Yeo. A Flood Risk Assessment is required to assess the impact of the option on flood risk to the works and to third parties. Works to the landward side of the bund are not within the SSSI or SAC. However, a PEA will be required to assess the impacts at the location of the option. Environment Agency approval would be required to embed piles or gabions within their flood defence embankment, as there is a risk this could impair the integrity of the embankment.
3. Reinstating a foot /
cycle track bridge
spanning the river
along the line of the
original railway bridge,
using durable
lightweight materials.
£735k (including
40m of new embankment, not including land costs)
The proposed footbridge reduces the length of the detour on the path by 70%, from around 400m to 125m. It also eliminates two ‘pinch points’ at the sluice crossings where conflict between cycle path users and farm animals could occur. The bridge option is £220k more expensive when compared to the embankment widening using piling (including the cost sub option for two bridges around the existing sluice structures). It is recommended that an embankment bund is constructed at the north end with embedded drainage pipes. This reduces the bridge’s length by 40% resulting in a 55m long structure. The assessment considers the most suitable option is a three span arrangement and the use of FRP materials for the whole superstructure. Option located in high risk tidal Flood Zone 3. Works located within the channel and banks of the Congresbury Yeo and the principal flood risk is from tidal flooding. The location of the bridge minimises work to the embankment in the fluvial floodplain of the Congresbury Yeo. A Flood Risk Assessment is required to assess the impact of the option on flood risk to the works and to third parties. Works are located within the SAC and SSSI and there is the potential for high impact on the wildlife population. Impacts to the designated sites will require detailed assessment, appropriate mitigation and input from key stakeholders. A PEA will be required to assess the impacts at the location of the option. Although the construction cost is higher than the embankment crest widening option there is less potential for long-term impact on the flood defence embankment as the bridge will reduce usage of the flood embankment and avoid additional loading affecting the embankment through settlement. Using FRP gives a long, durable life and avoids corrosion.
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 20
Option Indicative
Capital Cost
Comments
Sub-option to
construct new cycle
track bridges around
both sluice structures
on the landward side.
£150k
(Estimated cost for the Tutshill Sluice bridge is £60k and Sampson Sluice bridge is £90k)
Option located in high risk tidal Flood Zone 3. Works on the banks of the Congresbury Yeo at Tutshill Sluice and Oldbridge River at the Sampson Sluice. Works located in fluvial Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) in the vicinity of the Tutshill sluice. Works to the landward side of the bund are not within the SSSI or SAC. However, a PEA will be required to assess the impacts at the location of the option. This cost is included within the Option 1 and 2 totals above.
Following the initial assessment it is considered the main site constraints are:
• Soft ground conditions – The nearest borehole identified approximately 20m of
soft ground consisting of soft to firm silty sandy gravelly clay and very loose silty
sand interbedded with soft sandy clayey silt.
• High risk of flooding – The site is located in tidal Flood Zone 3. According to the
Environment Agency’s Flood Map from Planning the area is assessed as having a
1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year.
An area around the Tutshill Sluice is located in the fluvial functional floodplain of the
Congresbury Yeo (1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year).
• Environmental impact – The tidal channel of the Congresbury Yeo (downstream of
the sluice structure) is within the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation
(SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There is the potential for
disturbance of natural habitats and ecosystems in breeding seasons.
Findings
• The lowest cost option is to widen the embankment using plastic piling or a similar
method to retain the wider crest section within the existing embankment footprint.
However, there is considerable uncertainty in the costs of such a construction and
this option carries the highest risk of affecting integrity of the existing flood defence.
• The option to reinstate a bridge on the alignment of the original railway bridge has
the highest capital cost but this is marginal compared with the embankment
widening without piling (or similar), and is expected to have a lower maintenance
cost. It would also produce the least impact on the existing flood defence and it
would enable cycle path users to have a separate, dedicated route.
The recommendations arising from the initial assessment are listed below:
• It is recommended that further works are undertaken to determine the ground
conditions at the substructure location of the proposed bridges (river bed for the
piers and estuary’s embankments for the abutments) and the suitability of the new
embankment that significantly reduces the length of the Option 3 bridge. A site
investigation survey needs to be carried out to determine location of the old railway
bridge’s foundations to mitigate risk of clashes between the new and old
substructures.
• A topographic survey of the river bed and embankments is required to determine the
superstructure’s soffit level and the height of the substructures. The survey is also
required to determine exactly how the proposed new embankment will impact the
\\hc-ukr-gd-fs-11\GD_Proj\UA008579 - Tutshill Cycle Bridge\F-Reports\UA008579-01-Tutshill Cycle Bridge- Feasibility
Letter_03.03.16.docx 21
mean high water level and the overall flood related risks. Since the proposed
embankment will include robust drainage measures, increasing risk of flooding is
unlikely, but needs to be confirmed by specialist study. Alternative options such as
an additional span or a series of arches can be explored at the Concept Design
stage.
• Whilst the relative impacts of floodplain loss in the context of the wider environment
are likely to be very small, a FRA is recommended to determine the current and
anticipated flood levels at the location of all options and the impact of the widened
embankment bund on the wider floodplain. Further discussions with the
Environment Agency should be undertaken to determine the mitigation requirements
for all options.
• An in depth analysis will be required to confirm the suitability, the final structural
configuration and elements’ dimensions of all three options listed and the sub
options. This analysis should be carried out in conjunction with the FRA.
• Further ground investigation is required as follows: CPTs every 40m along the route
to a depth of 10m (approximately 25 CPTs). These can then be correlated against
the existing CPTs and the geotechnical laboratory testing already undertaken at the
site.
• A new topographic survey capturing the work undertaken in heightening of the
earthwork will be required to determine the footprint for widening and the slope
angles / grades of the widened earthwork, alternatively the retained heights of the
wall if chosen as the preferred option.
• Information from the monitoring undertaken by Team Van Oord would be useful in
assessing the likely effect of widening the earthwork.
• It is recommended that a PEA report is prepared to identify any ecological
constraints, mitigation requirements and enhancement opportunities to the proposed
cycleway.
References
• Carder, DR, Darley, P,Barker, KJ, 2002. Structural Use of Plastic Sheet Piling in
Highway Applications (TRL 533).
• CJ Associates, December 2014. Ground Investigation No. AC0711 Factual Report –
Congresbury Yeo.
• Royal Haskoning DHV, 2008. North Somerset Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
(SFRA).
• Royal Haskoning DHV, March 2015. Congresbury Yeo Tidal Banks – Ground
Investigation Report.
TUTSHILL FOOTBRIDGE OPTIONS
Feasibility Study Report DOC. REF: 4000-UA008579-UU41-01– Feasibility Study Report
FEBRUARY 2016
CONTACTS
JON ROYDS Associate Technical Director
dd +44 (0)1483 803 121 df +44 (0)1483 803 000 m +44 (0)789 425 1475 e [email protected]
Arcadis. The Surrey Research Park 10 Medawar Road Guildford GU2 7AR United Kingdom
Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited is a private limited company registered in England & Wales (registered number 02212959). Registered Office at Manning House, 22 Carlisle Place, London, SW1P 1JA, UK. Part of the Arcadis Group of Companies along with other entities in the UK. Copyright © 2015 Arcadis. All rights reserved. arcadis.com
TUTSHILL FOOTBRIDGE OPTIONS Feasibility Study Report
Author Oliver Wells
Checker Razvan Capra
Approver Jon Royds
Report No 4000-UA008579-UU41-01
Date FEBRUARY 2016
VERSION CONTROL Version Date Author Changes
01 09/02/2016 Oliver Wells First issue
02 18/02/20016 Razvan Capra EA flood risk works information amended
This report dated 05 February 2016 has been prepared for North Somerset Council (the “Client”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment dated 05 January 2016 (the “Appointment”) between the Client and (“Arcadis”) for the purposes specified in the Appointment. For avoidance of doubt, no other person(s) may use or rely upon this report or its contents, and Arcadis accepts no responsibility for any such use or reliance thereon by any other third party.
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................. 4
Site location ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Ground conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Environmental conditions................................................................................................................................ 5
3 OPTION EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 6
3.1 Span arrangement ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Materials ................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Footbridge options ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Option 1 – Truss ................................................................................................................................. 8
3.3.2 Option 2 – Arch Bridge ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.3 Option 3 - Cable Stayed Bridge .......................................................................................................... 9
3.3.4 Option 4 – Steel “I” girders .................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.5 Option 5 – FRP Bridge ........................................................................................................................ 9
4 COST ESTIMATES ................................................................................................. 12
5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Option 1, 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................................. 14
5.2 Option 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 14
5.3 Option 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 14
6 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................ 16
7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 17
APPENDICES
General Arrangement
Options Matrix
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Arcadis has been commissioned by North Somerset Council to undertake a feasibility study for a footbridge as part of the Tutshill Crossing Scheme.
This reports identifies the options for a shared cycle/ equestrian footbridge crossing the Congresbury Yeo tidal estuary on a flood plain west of the Tutshill Sluice, North Somerset.
The bridge forms part of the Weston to Clevedon Cycle Route – Tutshill Crossing Scheme. It is proposed that the footbridge follows the former railway bridge alignment over the Congresbury Yeo tidal estuary. The proposed arrangement reduces the total length of the footpath that crosses the estuary by 70%, from 400m to 125m.
The distance between the tidal embankments opening is approximately 90m in length. Upon review, an embankment bund is recommended at the north section, with embedded drainage pipes, to reduce the total length of the bridge to 55m.
In relation to the localised land use, access and ground conditions, the most suitable proposal is a 3 span FRP (Fibre Reinforced Polymer) bridge with an overall length of 55m, adopting spread foundations for the abutments and piers. When compared with conventional building materials (timber, steel, concrete), the use of FRP materials for the whole superstructure significantly reduces the loading on the substructure mitigating the risks associated with the site’s soft ground conditions.
The current code requires a 3.50m clear width between parapets to accommodate the pedestrians, cyclists and equestrian traffic. The height for the parapet shall be 1.8m and an anti-skid surface is adopted to suit equestrian use. The provision of a 600mm high solid infill panel, measured from deck level, as advised by the British Horse Society is considered appropriate.
The most important site constraints are:
• Soft ground conditions – nearest borehole identified approximately 20m of soft ground consisting of soft to firm silty sandy gravelly clay and very loose silty sand interbedded with soft sandy clayey silt.
• High risk of flooding – the site is located in a Flood Zone 3 area. According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Map from Planning the area is assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%), or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year.
• Environmental impact – potential for disturbance of natural habitats and ecosystems in breeding seasons.
The high risk of flooding can be mitigated by detailing the bridge soffit above the top of tidal embankments. Adopting the Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials for the superstructure, reduces the loadings on the substructure, mitigating the soft ground condition issue. The high strength-to-weight ratio, high corrosion resistance and the benefits of lightweight FRP materials over conventional ones reduce the environmental impact during construction as it requires lighter plant for transporting and erection. It also reduces maintenance cost over the life of the structure. The structure can be prefabricated and delivered on site for assemble therefore reducing the construction time and cost. Detailed planning of the construction phase would ensure minimum disturbance of natural habitats and ecosystems. A railway bridge was constructed in the 1880’s which passed over the River Yeo. The steel lattice bridge had 7 spans and was 240ft (73m) long, supported on cast iron piers. It should be noted that soon after completion of construction, two of the piers sank and the bridge needed repairs. It retained a sagging appearance and the bridge was removed in 1943.
1
Figure 1 – The now demolished River Yeo Railway Bridge (River Yeo Bridge)
The bridge’s metal supporting columns still exist but are on private land. Consideration of removing these unsightly columns can be, subjected to public consultation, factored in to the project.
Figure 2 – Cast Iron Piles left in ground from the demolished River Yeo Railway Bridge (River Yeo Bridge)
2
Figure 3 – General view of proposed FRP bridge
The use of FRP materials can potentially replicate the shape of the previous bridge superstructure. The former span arrangement can also be maintained. Replicating the aesthetic of the original bridge structure could restore some cultural heritage within the area for locals.
Further works It is advised that further works are undertaken to determine the ground conditions at the substructure location of the future bridge (river bed for the piers and estuary’s embankments for the abutments) and the suitability of the new embankment that significantly reduces the bridge’s length. A site investigation survey needs to be carried out to determine the old bridge’s foundations locations to mitigate risk of clashes between the new and old substructures. A flood study is recommended to determine the current and anticipated 1:100 flood level and the impact of embankment bund. A topographic survey of the river bed and embankments needs to be undertaken to determine the superstructure’s soffit level and the height of the substructures. The survey is also required to determine exactly how the proposed new embankment will impact the mean high water level and the overall flood related risks. Since the proposed embankment will include robust drainage measures, increase risk of flooding is unlikely, but needs to be confirmed by specialist study and further discussions with the Environment Agency should be undertaken. Alternative options such as an additional span or a series of arches can be explored at the Concept Design stage. An in depth analysis will be required to confirm the suitability of Option 3, the final structural configuration and elements’ dimensions. This analysis must be carried out in conjunction with the flood safety improvement study that is currently being developed by a third party.
3
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site location The site is located north of Wick St Lawrence, North Somerset, approximately 1mile from the coast. The surrounding area predominantly comprises marsh land, largely below the level of mean high water springs. The land is protected from flooding by tidal earth embankments. The bridge is proposed to span across the Congresbury Yeo tidal estuary west of the Tutshill Sluice, spanning between the embankments.#
Figure 4 – Location map
The top level of the embankment is approx. 8-8.5m AOD and the toe level approx. 4-5m AOD.
Ground conditions Records from British Geological Survey (BGS) confirm the site is predominantly Tidal Flat Deposits comprising SILT and CLAY. However these boreholes are some way from the line of the bridge foundations. The ground conditions comprise up to 4m of firm cohesive embankment material, overlying circa. 20m of soft to firm silty CLAY with bands of PEAT, overlying stiff gravelly CLAY. Gravel is of MUDSTONE.
The ground condition of the nearby Tutshill Sluice footbridge are as follow:
Depth Ground Conditions SPT N Cu Phi mv 0 – 1.8m Made Ground: soft to firm silty sandy gravelly CLAY 12 40kPa - -
1.8 – 13.2m Soft to firm silty sandy CLAY with bands of Peat - 10kPa - 0.41–0.88
13.2 – 21.2m Very loose silty SAND interbedded with soft sandy clayey SILT 2, 2, 4, 7 - 30◦ -
21.2 – 22.4m Firm reddish brown sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is of MUDSTONE. >50 150kPa - -
The above ground conditions have been assessed from the Congresbury Yeo Tidal Banks – Ground Investigation Report – Royal Haskoning DHV (March 2015) and from the Ground Investigation No. AC0711 Factual Report – Congresbury Yeo (CJ Associates) dated December 2014.
Tutshill Sluice
Sampson Sluice
Proposed Footbridge location
4
Environmental conditions The bridge is to be located in an area with a high risk of flooding, primarily from the sea. The risk associated with the flooding can be mitigated by designing the bridge’s superstructure above the current top level of the tidal embankments and considering the necessity for bridge piers.
The Wick St Lawrence Cycle Route - Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Ecological Appraisal Report dated April 2010 identified the potential for disturbance to various protected species (otter, badger) and natural habitats and ecosystems in breeding seasons during both the construction and operational phases of the cycleway. An accurate planning of the construction phase will help to minimise the disturbance. Fencing and pollution control methods should be in place prior to the commencement of works. This report concluded that the structure will have a low overall environmental impact.
5
3 OPTION EVALUATION The design brief is for a footbridge to be used for cyclists and equestrians. The following design requirements are taken into consideration for all the options:
• 3.50m wide deck (clearance between parapets’ faces), this is a code requirement specified in BD 29/04. • 1.80m handrail height for the parapet (to accommodate the equestrian traffic) • Anti-skid surface for the deck (suitable for equestrians) • Live Loads: UDL=5kN/m2 (for pedestrians) and PL=8.12kN (for equestrians) • Minimum headroom of 2.7m with dismount provision or 3.7m mounted (to suit the equestrians). Starting from Mud Lane the footpath follows the old railway alignment up to the estuary’s north embankment and then goes west to cross over the Tutshill Sluice. The path re-joins the old railway alignment after crossing the Sampson Sluice. The proposed footbridge follows the old railway path when crossing the estuary, as such reduces the length of the detour by 70%, from around 400m to 125m.
Figure 5 – Proposed alignment
It has been assumed that the tidal estuary is not navigable. The overhead vertical clearance does not accommodate the passing of vessels. The superstructure’s soffit level is determined by the mean high water level and allowing for debris carried by flood waters.
To mitigate the flood risk, it is proposed that the bridge’s superstructure soffit to be designed above the current top level of the tidal embankments. In order for the superstructure to extend from top of tidal embankment to top of tidal embankment, the bridge would have initially required to be approx. 90m in length. Upon review, an embankment bund could be constructed at the north section with embedded drainage pipes. This reduces the bridge’s length by 40% resulting in a 55m long structure. See Figure 6 below for elevation view of potential solution.
Figure 6 – Proposed vertical arrangement
Proposed crossing, L=125m
Existing crossing, L=400m
6
The following site constraints have been identified:
• Soft ground to a depth of 20m – 2m below ground level in BH4, closest to bridge location (according to BH log sheet, Ground Investigation No. AC0711 Factual Report – Congresbury Yeo (CJ Associates) dated December 2014).
• High risk of flooding. • Environmental issues during construction – potential for disturbance of natural habitats and ecosystems,
particularly breeding season. • Buildability issues – access to and from rural site. Construction methodology need to be considered in the
planning and design stages. • Importing of fill for section of embankment – no suitable site won material likely to be available.
3.1 Span arrangement Various span arrangements can be adopted for the 55m long structure. When considering the site’s constrains, suitable span arrangements are analysed as follows:
• Single span – this type of arrangement requires a greater self-weight of the superstructure. The loads from the superstructure are concentrated and transmitted to only two supports. Because of the soft ground conditions this option will require substantial piled foundations at the two abutments. To reduce the loads on the substructure, a truss or a bowstring arch can be adopted for the superstructure. The single span arrangement does provide a clear cross section for unhindered flow of the river.
• Two spans – this arrangement reduces the total self-weight of the superstructure and redistributes the loads onto two abutments and one pier. The two spans can be simply or continuously supported. Multiple structure types can be designed to accommodate this option. A more appealing architectural design can be achieved by considering a single pier cable stayed bridge.
• Three spans – the most efficient use of material to reduce the self-weight of the structure can be achieved by adopting the continuously supported 3 spans arrangement. The main risk associated with this option is that the structure is sensitive to different settlements of the supports. The risk can be mitigated by using piled foundations.
• Multiple spans – increasing the number of spans reduces the superstructure’s self-weight, the loads on each substructure, and further mitigates the risks associated with the soft ground conditions. By adopting a simple supported span arrangement, the effects of differential settlement are eliminated. The increased number of substructures will impact the construction costs. The works required to construct the all the substructures will have a greater environmental impact and restrictions to water flow.
3.2 Materials Together with the span arrangement, the chosen structural material has a great influence on the overall sustainability of the design. Both conventional and new materials have been analysed as follows: • Concrete – A concrete superstructure will have a negative impact on the soft ground conditions risks due
to its inherently greater self-weight. The use of concrete should be limited to the substructure. The piers and abutments are likely to be formed of reinforced concrete founded on top of reinforced concrete piles and pile caps or pad foundations. Reinforced concrete is inherently robust and durable.
• Steel – this represents one of the most sustainable options for the superstructure’s main structural elements when referring to the site’s constrains. Steel provides a lighter superstructure when compared with concrete and all the analysed span arrangements can be adopted. Steel requires corrosion protection in the form of a paint system, requiring maintenance after about 20years. To further increase the structure’s sustainability, the use of weathering steel should be considered, to remove the need for painting and to reduce maintenance. The use of steel should be limited to the main structural elements and lighter materials should be adopted for the decking and parapets.
7
• Timber – this material is suitable for use as the main structural elements of the superstructure only when choosing a multiple span arrangement (5 spans or more). Timber can also be used for the decking or parapet elements to further reduce the overall weight of the structure. An option is to use steel for the superstructure’s main structural elements together with a timber deck and parapet.
• Fibre reinforced polymer – this material is light weight and has increased corrosion resistance properties. This option reduces the self-weight of the superstructure to a minimum and reduces the maintenance costs as well. FRP material has been used in the decks and superstructure members of bridges since the mid1970s. It is envisaged that FRP would form the entire bridge superstructure including deck and parapets. However due to the variety of structural properties available from FRP, testing should be recommended as part of the design stage to ensure a robust and durable form of construction is achieved.
3.3 Footbridge options Footbridge options have been devised from a suitability matrix considering; structural arrangement, material, and form of construction. A summary of the conclusions of the five possible options are indicated below:
Option No. of Spans Type Girder Decking Parapet Foundation
1 1 Truss Steel FRP FRP Concrete, piled
2 1 Arch Steel FRP FRP Concrete, piled
3 2 Cable stayed Steel FRP FRP Concrete, piled
4 3 “I” girders Steel FRP FRP Concrete, piled
5 3 Through U-Frame / “I” girders FRP FRP FRP Concrete, spread / piled
3.3.1 Option 1 – Truss This option consists of a single span of 55m length. It is proposed that the main structural elements are of steel construction with the decking and parapet made out of lightweight materials such as aluminium or FRP.
For this configuration the girders are constructed from circular hollow steel sections. A suitable decking surface is applied to minimise echoing when equestrians cross the bridge. The single span arrangement lends itself to the use of piles, offering better design efficiency. A possible configuration is indicated in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7 – Proposed truss configuration
3.3.2 Option 2 – Arch Bridge The superstructure consists of a bowstring arch bridge with steel box girders for the main structural elements and a lightweight decking solution. Piles is recommended to accommodate the vertical loads of the superstructure. A possible configuration is indicated in Figure 8.
8
Figure 8 – Proposed arch configuration
3.3.3 Option 3 - Cable Stayed Bridge The substructure consists of an “A” shape pier and two abutments to support both ends of the superstructure. The distribution of spans needs to be reviewed to ensure best design efficiency against site constraints. This arrangement will help reduce the dead load of the whole structure. The decking elements are proposed to be constructed from FRP or aluminium. The main pier is a piled foundation whilst the end abutments are spread footings. A possible configuration is indicated in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9 – Proposed cable stayed configuration
3.3.4 Option 4 – Steel “I” girders A 3 span arrangement has been proposed in order to spread the loading across more foundations. The superstructure’s main girders are designed as steel “I” girders, spanning continuously over intermediate supports. This results in a more efficient use of the material that reduces the self-weight of the structure. For the decking, the same lightweight materials are proposed. The abutments can be spread footings and piles for intermediate piers. A possible configuration is indicated in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10 – Proposed “I” steel girders option
3.3.5 Option 5 – FRP Bridge For this option, the conventional materials used for the main structural elements are replaced by FRP materials. This option is an extension of Option 4 where FRP is used for the main girders instead of steel. This reduces the self-weight of the main structural elements by 75%. As the spans are simply supported,
9
differential settlements of the foundation locations can be tolerated. Spread footings can be used for all substructures therefore simplifying design and reducing the cost and time of construction. A possible configuration is indicated in Figure 11 below.
Figure 11 – Proposed “I” FRP girders option
While a relatively new material, a number of footbridges have been constructed using FRP materials, replacing conventional material such as steel and concrete. FRP is a very versatile material which can potentially open up options to client where aesthetic is an important part of design.
A footbridge was recently unveiled at Dawlish station on the Great Western railway constructed entirely of FRP. The bridge resembles the old steel structure that needed to be replaced in a manner sympathetic to the original. The 17.5m span bridge is lightweight and resistant to the salt water environment.
Figure 12: Dawlish station new FRP footbridge (rail.co.uk)
Another modern design example is the GFRP Lleida Pedestrian Bridge in Lleida, Spain. The structure is a tied-arch 38 m long and 6.2 m rise. The bridge crosses the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed rail link and it was fabricated in three months and erected by crane in just three hours.
Figure 13: Lleida Pedestrian Bridge in Lleida, Spain (en.wikipedia.org)
10
In 2014, a composite pedestrian bridge was opened in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. It connects Nijmegen to Ooypoort, a nature reserve located on the banks of the Waal River. The bridge’s structure consists purely of glass fibre-reinforced polyester and the bridge has a single span of 56m. The bridge is designed in such a way that it can be partly submerged in case of high water, without any damage to the structure.
Figure 14: Ooypoort composite pedestrian bridge crossing the Waal River in Nijmegen, the Netherlands (en.wikipedia.org)
11
4 COST ESTIMATES The estimates are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Options’ cost estimates
Table 1 gives an indicative price for the analysed design options suggested in this report. This is an approximation of the construction and maintenance costs, and will need to be considered further should the bridge enter a detailed design phase. Actual values could deviate by up to +/- 40%
Item Item Detail
Item Price (£)
Opt
ion
1 Tr
uss
Opt
ion
2 A
rch
Opt
ion
3 C
able
st
ayed
Opt
ion
4 St
eel I
gi
rder
s
Opt
ion
5 FR
P
1. General Contractor Prelims £5000 p/w for 10 weeks 50000 50000 50000 50000 30000
Consultant Fees Design Fees, Supervision, Project Management 20000 20000 30000 15000 40000
2. Superstructure Truss Steel circular sections 110000 - - - -
Arch Box girders, transverse I girders - 120000 - - -
Cable stayed Main steel girders, cable system - - 140000 - -
Steel I girders I steel girders, transverse I girders - - - 90000 -
FRP girders Main I girders, transverse stiffeners - - - - 290000
Decking 41000 41000 41000 41000 41000 Parapet 66000 66000 66000 66000 66000 3. Substructure Spread Foundation Concrete - - - 13750 11000 Piled Foundations Concrete 71500 71500 77000 55000 27500 Elevations Concrete 27500 27500 49500 27500 11000 4. Embankment Construction Import fill, construct embankment
Import and compact fill for embankment bund 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000
Install drainage Install drainage 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000
Sub-Total 423000 433000 493250 395250 553500 Contingency, inflation and risk (15%) 63450 64950 73987.5 59287.5 83025
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 486,450 497,950 567,238 454,538 636,525 5. Maintenance Inspections assumed 120 years 48000 51600 60000 48000 30000 Maintenance and repairs assumed 120 years 456000 504000 504000 456000 120000
TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS 504000 555600 564000 504000 150000
TOTAL COSTS 990,450 1,053,550 1,131,238 958,538 786,525
12
The price does not include: detailed design of the bridge, design meetings, walkovers, and surveys. A whole life cost exercise for the maintenance activities has not been undertaken.
Due to the assumed construction and maintenance prices used to develop the cost estimates it is advised that a better reference system should be used when comparing the Total Costs of the options. In Table 2 the total costs value is compared with the one for Option 5 (reference value).
Table 2 – Cost estimate ratios
Table 2 shows Option 4 to be the solution to take forward if considering the construction costs only. When taking into account the overall costs associated with each option, the low maintenance works required for Option 5 make this option the most suitable one. The use of FRP materials has a great influence on reducing the substructure’s costs and represents the best solution to mitigate the risks associated with the site’s ground conditions. The impact of the high superstructure’s construction costs for Option 5 is reduced when considering the inspection and maintenance costs for the whole life of the structure. The FRP superstructure will require minimum maintenance.
The risks that were previous identified have an important impact on the final prices’ values that were used to determine the costs for each option. We would recommend that more accurate cost estimates are undertaken based upon the further design development of the preferred options to be taken forward.
Cost estimates ratios
Item Price (£)
Opt
ion
1 Tr
uss
Opt
ion
2 A
rch
Opt
ion
3 C
able
st
ayed
Opt
ion
4 St
eel I
gi
rder
s
Opt
ion
5 FR
P
Construction costs 0.76 0.78 0.89 0.71 1.00 Maintenance costs 3.36 3.70 3.76 3.36 1.00
TOTAL COSTS 1.26 1.34 1.44 1.22 1.00
13
5 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Option 1, 2 and 3 These options propose to cross the tidal estuary using a single 55m span for the truss and arch configurations and a two span arrangement for the cable stayed one. The main advantage of these configurations is that the river is not constricted by piers and a more appealing architectural design can be achieved.
The site’s ground conditions do not favour this span arrangements, mainly due to the high dead weight that need to be accommodated by the substructures. A longer span requires the use of more construction material therefore increases the self-weight. The weight from the superstructure is equally shared on two supports for the truss and arch configurations, resulting in higher design loads on the abutment compared to the other options. As for the cable stayed configuration, the pier’s foundation attracts a greater proportion of the load resulting in bigger foundation for the central pier.
The proposed configurations can be achieved most suitably using piled foundations for the substructure. An option study for ground improvement could be investigated. The use of piles or ground improvement works increases the construction costs. When compared with the other options, the materials and construction costs required for the main structural elements are likely to be significantly higher.
Another constraint that has a great impact for this option is the limited site access for the heavy plant and components to form the final structure. The use of heavy cranes with suitable reach is required and the ground condition might not be suitable, particularly the soft terrain between the two embankments.
The inspection and maintenance costs are high when taking into account the structure’s whole life cycle. It is recommended that this option is discounted due to the high construction and maintenance costs and due to the site constrains that will have increased construction risk.
5.2 Option 4 A 3 span option reduces the self-weight applied onto the foundations compared with the single span options. The spans take the form of 16m for the end-spans and 23m for the mid-span to make a better use of the materials by balancing the loads on the main girders. The continuous beam configuration is sensitive to the differential settlement of the supports. This can be mitigated by adopting piles for the piers and spread footings for the abutments (lower reactions’ values at the ends of the bridge). The superstructure can bear directly on two piles that are extended to act as piers – mimicking the supports of the original rail bridge.
Although the general perception is that steel “I” girders do not have the same architectural value as an arch bridge or a cable stayed one, the structure blends in to the surroundings and is not visually intrusive to the area’s landscape. The required depth of the main girders is relatively small and the possibility of installing the parapet directly on girder’s top flange keeps the overall depth of the superstructure low. The architectural aspect is highly improved making the bridge more visually pleasing.
The site access requirements do not pose as greater constraint as compared with Options 1 to 3. By adopting slimmer and lighter structural elements, the plant and equipment required for construction can all be reduced. The current access is likely to be suitable for a haul route.
The whole life cost is considered to be less than Options 1 to 3 by having to inspect and maintain a simpler and smaller structure (smaller elements, smaller area to inspect or paint). It is recommended that this option is to be developed further in the concept design stage.
5.3 Option 5 This option derives from Option 4 but uses FRP instead of steel. It further reduces the superstructure self-weight by 75% compared to other options. This weight reduction makes a three equally long, simply supported spans arrangement most suitable. The simply support structure is more robust to differential settlement between supports. This configuration allows the use of spread footings for both abutments and all intermediate supports.
14
The use of FRP for bridge design is becoming increasingly popular due to the many advantageous properties it exhibits. As previously indicated, successful example such as the Dawlish Footbridge in UK and Lleida Pedestrian Bridge in Spain, have been constructed across the world as a result. The process from concept design to construction will have to be a joint effort between Client, bridge designers, FRP materials specialists and manufactures. As a requirement, the structure, or parts of the structure (main structural elements) will have to be tested to ensure the design is in accordance with the bridge’s real behaviour. This will increase the construction costs.
In comparison with traditional bridge superstructure materials, FRP is seen as innovative option due to its lightweight nature whilst still achieving the same level of performance as conventional materials. The initial building cost might be higher for this type of material but the whole life cost is considered to be substantially less. The materials do not corrode or require regular maintenance, such as painting, and inspection costs are drastically reduced when compared with the conventional options. The properties of FRP materials will increase the sustainability, safety and cost benefits of the structure.
It is recommended that this option is to be taken forward in the concept design stage.
15
6 RECOMMENDATIONS Following the analysis of the suitability matrix of the options, a risk/impact analysis has been carried out to determine the most sustainable, cost efficient & safe option. The results are presented in Appendix B.
Option 5 has been selected as the most suitable for a number of reasons. A three span arrangement and the use of FRP materials for the whole superstructure reduces the self-weight, which typically represents 60% of its overall load using conventional construction material, on the foundations in comparison with single span (Option 1 and 2) and the use of steel for the main structural elements (Option 4).
Incorporating the decking within the “I” beam height in a U-frame configuration, reduces the overall depth of superstructure. Furthermore, smaller span lengths results in smaller “I” beam section sizes which improves aesthetics aspect of the bridge. Steel may be the most suitable material when taking into account the conventional materials but the substantial benefit with FRP materials is beginning to be recognised by the industry, especially in footbridge design. These materials can match and even exceed steel’s versatility for structural adequacy, pre-fabrication and on site constructability. Given the possible access restraints, remoteness of site location, and potential environmental impact Option 5 is the most favourable.
For this reason, Option 5 is recommended for concept design stage.
Option 4 also presents a suitable solution, when considering a more conventional approach. This option implies a shorter pre-construction stage and reduces the construction costs compared to Option 5. The sustainability of Option 4 is further increased by adopting the weathering steel for the superstructure’s main structural elements and by using FRP materials for the decking and the parapet.
It is recommended to consider Option 4 for further design stages should a more conventional solution is to be adopted.
Figure 14 – General view
Figure 15 – View of the deck
16
7 REFERENCES rail.co.uk. (n.d.). Retrieved from UK’s First Grade II Listed Plastic Station Footbridge :
http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/new-plastic-station-footbridge/ River Yeo Bridge. (n.d.). Retrieved from Weston Clevedon & Portishead Railway:
http://www.wcpr.org.uk/Yeo%20bridge.html en.wikipedia.org (n.d.) Retrieved from GFRP Lleida Pedestrian Bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFRP_Lleida_Pedestrian_Bridge
17
General Arrangement
Options Matrix and Risk/Impact analysis
Tutshill Footbridge Feasibility Matrix
Suitability 0-1 = unsuitable
2-3 = could work
4-5 = suitable
Topic Description / Issues
Superstructure
Comments
Tim
ber
Stee
l
Con
cret
e
FRP
Ground Conditions
Embankment Material
(Up to 4m thick) Firm slightly sandy CLAY with occasional cobble sized pockets of stiff CLAY. Cu = 60kPa.
3 3 1 5
Soft ground until approx. depth of 21m. Superstructure needs to be lightweight, to reduce loading / settlement carried to foundations.
Cutting Material (Superficial Deposits)
(Approx. 20m thick) Soft to firm silty sandy CLAY with bands of PEAT. Cu = 10 - 40kPa.
Cutting Material (Bedrock)
MUDSTONE or stiff gravelly CLAY of Mudstone. N > 50
Span Options
Single Span Eliminate need for intermediate foundations 0 3 1 3 Not possible for timber unless offset cable
stay used
2 spans Reduces loads on bridge / foundations 1 3 2 4
3 spans (18.3m) Reduces loads on bridge / foundations 2 4 3 5
Topic Description / Issues
Superstructure
Comments
Tim
ber
Stee
l
Con
cret
e
FRP
5-6 spans (9-11m)
Reduces loads on bridge / foundations further 5 5 4 5 Concrete least suitable due to option for
lighter materials
Superstructure Loading
Pedestrian / Equestrian UDL = 5kN/m2, Point Load = 8.12kN 5 5 5 5 Suitable superstructures can be
designed
Foundations
Spread Foundations
Soft clay - settlement likely, make lightweight 3 3 1 5
If foundations supports in embankment layer, reasonable strength of soil achievable (Cu up to 60kPa) Piled
Foundations
Soft clay exhibited to 20m + depth. For heavyweight structures, piles into mudstone layer
5 5 5 5
TOTAL 24 31 22 37
Tutshill Footbridge Risk/Impact Matrix
Topic Description / Issues
Option
Comments
Trus
s
Arc
h
Cab
le
stay
ed
Stee
l I
gird
ers
FRP
Ground Conditions
Differential settlement
Soft ground conditions are likely to produce unequal settlements for the foundations
1 1 2 3 1 The simple supported span arrangement is the most suitable when considering this risk
Plant and equipment bearing
Soft ground conditions might not be able to accommodate large plant and equipment
4 4 4 2 1 Reduced structural element weights will require lighter plant and equipment
Substructure
Loading from the superstructure
Large substructures due to concentrated loads on fewer elements
4 4 4 2 1 FRP will result in the most light structure
Requirement of piles Increases the costs, important lengths 5 5 5 5 3 Only Option 3 might not require piles for
the footings
Substructure self-weight Increases the load on the footings 4 4 5 3 2
The loads from the superstructure and the structural configuration have an important impact on the substructures dimensions
Risk/Impact 4-5 = high
3-2 = medium
1 = low
Topic Description / Issues
Option
Comments
Trus
s
Arc
h
Cab
le
stay
ed
Stee
l I
gird
ers
FRP
Construction and maintenance costs
Design costs A more complex structure will have greater design costs 3 4 4 3 5 FRP materials require specialist
consultants
Testing and checking the design
The newly developed materials require more investigations
1 2 2 1 4
FRP materials require more testing than other conventional materials. The manufacturer will be involved in the design process
Construction costs
The complexity of the design affects these costs by means of plant, access, transportation, man-hours
3 4 5 3 3
Although FRP is more expensive than other materials, the costs related with the work (transport, erecting) on site are lower
Access to area 4 4 4 3 2 This will be overcome in any situation, however FRP might be the most viable due to the option for transporting sections Access onto flood plain 4 4 4 3 2
Maintenance and inspection costs
A more complex structure implies greater inspection and maintenance costs.
3 4 5 3 1 FRP materials are the most cost efficient when regarding the maintenance costs
TOTAL 36 40 44 31 25
Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited
The Surrey Research Park 10 Medawar Road Guildford GU2 7AR United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)1483 803 000
arcadis.com