civl446 - report - april4 [ready for printing].pdf

7/27/2019 CIVL446 - Report - April4 [Ready for Printing].pdf

1/72

CIVL446 DETAILED

DESIGN REPORTBrandon Paxton

Derek Rempel

Navid Shakibi

D t Mi


2/72

CIVIL446 Engineering Design and Analysis II

CIVL446 DETAILED DESIGN REPORT

Group #15

Members:

Brandon Paxton 44770089

Derek Rempel 35255090

Navid Shakibi 56175086

Dernanto Mirwan 70846084Curtis Saunders 92191071

Matthew Ridley 36007102

April 5, 2012


3/72


Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 5

2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 DESIGN PROJECT AND COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2 DISCIPLINES &DESIGN SCOPE...................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Structures ............................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Construction Management .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .. 7

2.3 DESIGN GOALS ............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1 Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.2 Structures ............................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.3 Construction Management .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .. 7

3. TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 NEW DUNSMUIRON-RAMP ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Design Scope ............. .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ......... 8

3.1.2 Design Objectives ......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ...... 8

3.1.3 Design Overview .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ....... 8

3.1.4 Theory and Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Current Traffic Characteristics and Patterns ...................................................................................... 14

3.3 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ............................................................................................................................. 16

3.3.1 Analysis and Past Studies ................ ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ..... 17

3.3.2 During Construction .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ......... 18

3.4 POST CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 20

4. STRUCTURES .................................................................................................................................................. 21

4.1 DESIGN SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 21

4.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 21

4.3 DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 SELECTION OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 22

4.4.1 Glulam Arches ..................................................................................................................................... 22

4.4.2 Precast Segmental Concrete Box Girders ............ ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ..... 23


4/72


4.5.3 Design Summary .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ..... 33

5. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 34

5.1 DESIGN SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 345.2 COST ESTIMATE .......................................................................................................................................... 34

5.3 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE......................................................................................................................... 36

5.4 CRANE LOADING ........................................................................................................................................ 38

5.5 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS &BYLAW RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 41

6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 44

6.1 DIRECT PROJECT COSTS.............................................................................................................................. 446.2 USERBENEFITS........................................................................................................................................... 44

6.3 NEGATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................... 45

6.4 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 46

7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 47

7.1 DESIGN GOALS &ACHIEVEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 47

7.1.1 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 477.1.2 Structures ............................................................................................................................................. 47

7.1.3 Construction Management .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... 48

7.2 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................... 48

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................. 49

List of Tables

Table 1: Design Goals & Achievements ........................................................................................................................ 5

Table 2: Critical Stations for Design ........................................................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Glulam Arch Performance Summary ............................................................................................................ 22

Table 4: Precast Box Girder Performance Summary ................................................................................................... 23

Table 5: Composite Steel Girders Performance Summary .......................................................................................... 24

Table 6: Design Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 7: Summary of Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................ 35

Table 8: Summary of Construction Sequence ............................................................................................................. 38

Table 9: Crane Comparison ......................................................................................................................................... 38

T bl 10 120 T K M d l 100 GMT Lifti Ch t 40


5/72


Table 14: Structural Design Achievements ................................................................................................................. 47

Table 15: Construction Management Design Achievements ....................................................................................... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1: Areas of Focus for Detailed Design ............................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: MoT Figure 340.A: Spiral Curve Geometry ................................................................................................ 10

Figure 3: Horizontal Geometry .................................................................................................................................... 11Figure 4: Finalized Horizontal Alignment ................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 5: Road Cross Section ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 6: Finalized Vertical Alignment Layout ........................................................................................................... 14

Figure 7: Local Vehicular Travel Patterns Using Dunsmuir Viaduct .......................................................................... 16

Figure 8: Local Vehicular Travel Patterns Using Georgia Viaduct ............................................................................. 16

Figure 9: Post-Construction Traffic Flow .................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 10: Design Scope General Area (Top) and Typical Span (Bottom) ................................................................. 21

Figure 11: a) Elevation and b) Plan View of Loading ................................................................................................. 25

Figure 12: Rear Elevation ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 13: Design Girder Loading ............................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 14: SAP2000 Load Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 15: Slab Section and Structural Idealization..................................................................................................... 27

Figure 16: Slab Design a) Top View b) Section View ................................................................................................ 28

Figure 17: Typical Girder ............................................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 18: Elevation View of Pier Arms ..................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 19: Elevation View of Pier ............................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 20: N-M Interaction Diagram ........................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 21: Sample Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 34

Figure 22: Major Construction Phases......................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 23: Construction Sequence Example ................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 24: Crane Stability Free-Body Diagram ........................................................................................................... 40

Fi 25 G d k th t ff t d b th t ti 45
http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318729http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318729http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318730http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318730http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318731http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318731http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318732http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318732http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318734http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318734http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318735http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318735http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318736http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318736http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318738http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318738http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318738http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318736http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318735http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318734http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318732http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318731http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318730http://c/Users/Brandon/Dropbox/CIVL445%20-%20Group%2015/CIVL%20446/Report/CIVL446%20-%20Report%20-%20April4.docx%23_Toc321318729


6/72


1. Executive Summary

The conceptual design for the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts completed by group 13 has beenused as the baseline for the extent of this design project. The Georgia viaduct is to be completely

demolished, connecting to Pacific Blvd at Abbott St; the Dunsmuir viaduct to be partially

removed, with a new onramp from Expo Blvd at Carrall St. The remaining parts of Dunsmuir

viaduct are to be converted to green space for pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic currently entering

onto the Dunsmuir viaduct from the east will follow an alternate route through Prior St to Expo

Blvd. The design goals and achievements are described in Table 1below.

Table 1: Design Goals & Achievements

Design Objective Methods Achieved

Transportation

Dunsmuir On-ramp Location Placed to minimize land disturbance and cost

On-ramp Roadway Geometry Designed following TAC and MoT guidelines

Minimize Impacts on Traffic

Flow

Traffic planning during construction

Traffic planning after construction

Structures

Speed of Construction Precast deck slab allows for prefabrication

Tilt-up concrete piers limits the need for formwork

Minimize Structural Depth Composite girders reduces girder depth

Headed shear reinforcing reduces slab depth

Durability Post-tensioning reduces cracking

Precast concrete less vulnerable to deterioration

Construction M anagement

Detailed Cost Estimate RS Means data used to estimate construction related

activities

Construction Schedule

Microsoft Project used to produce Gantt Chart for

project activities Gantt Chart used to determine critical path

Crane Selection and Loading Choose an appropriate method of lifting the major

loads identified through the duration of the project.

Worksafe BC & Workers Compensation Act used to


7/72


8/72


2.2.2 Structures

Structural engineering considerations include the design of the new Dunsmuir on-ramp.

Design included conceptual layout, gravity load design, and seismic design. Variousstructural systems were compared.

2.2.3 Cons truc tion Managemen t

Construction management aspects include detailed cost estimate, construction sequencing,

material removal methods, noise & particulate matter considerations, safety planning, and

a crane loading plan.

2.3 Design Goals

2.3.1 Transportation

The primary goals in transportation aspect of this project that were identified at the outset

of the project include:

New on-ramp location to be determined and designed

Modified traffic pattern to maintain traffic flow to/from the downtown core Minimizing traffic disturbance or impact on the traffic flowdue to construction

process or the changes in traffic patterns.

2.3.2 Structures

Three primary design goals were identified at the outset of the project:

Speed of constructionto reduce economic losses due to down time

Minimizing structural depthdue to limited clearances of existing structures

Durabilitythe bridge code (CSA S6) specifies a minimum service life of 75 years


The main design goals were identified at the onset of the project:

Detailed cost estimate for construction related activities

Construction sequencing and critical path determination Crane selection and loading considerations

Safety considerations & bylaw research


9/72


10/72


Spirals which follows before and after a curve allow for smooth and comfortable driving.

The length of spiral (Ls) required is calculated by the following equation:

Four checks must be met when designing the spiral length Ls:

Comfort

Relative slope

Aesthetics

TAC Criterion

The comfort check minimizes the change in centripetal acceleration and the Ls can be

calculated as follows:

The relative slope check is to ensure that the development of superelevation takes place

mainly in the spiral section of the total spiral-curve section and the Ls is calculated as

follows:

Where w = the total pavement width (2x3.6m + 3x0.3m +1.0m = ~9.1m)

Where v = design speed (13.89m/s)C = the max comfort value (0.6m/s3)

R = the curve radius (100m)The equation yields Ls = 44.65m

Where R = radius of the curveA = the s iral arameter

Where V = the design speed (50km/hr)e = the maximum rate of superelevation (4%)

f = the max lateral friction TAC Table 2.1.2.1 (0.16)

The equation yields Rmin = 98.43mRmin = 100m


11/72


12/72


The ramp curve geometry has been drafted and stations calculated using AutoCAD Civil

3D 2012 while conforming to the above parameters. Stations and angles for construction

layout are summarized in a calculation output table shown below in Figure 3. The ramp

consists of two curves and corresponding spirals; the first spiral leading into the first curve

had to be omitted due to alignment constraints.

Figure 3: Horizontal Geometry

A draft of the finalized horizontal on ramp layout is shown below in Figure 4. The on-ramp

allows for two vehicle lanes travelling westbound along with a pedestrian walkway. Two

lanes travelling westbound along Expo Blvd will be permitted to merge onto the Dunsmuir

on ramp. The outside lane travelling west must make the merge onto the ramp or turn right

onto Carrall St, while the other merge lane will be permitted to either continue along Expoor merge onto the on-ramp.

Fi 4 Fi li d H i t l Ali t


13/72


3.60m wide with a 1.2m right of way for pedestrians as can be seen in the Figure 5below.

Gutters on either side of the road are to be 0.03m and the concrete barrier will have an

allowable 0.03m placement area.

Figure 5: Road Cross Section

3.1.4.3 Superelevation

Superelevation has been utilized for the ramp to make it a more comfortable ride. Criteria

for the superelevation were followed from TAC figure 2.1.2.8 with a max superelevation to

be 4%.

3.1.4.4 Vertical Alignment

The vertical alignment of the Dunsmuir on-ramp has been allotted to ensure proper

elevation clearances. Clearance points of concern are the areas where the ramp crossesover Expo Blvd at the Abbott Street intersection, the Skytrain track and where the ramp

connects to the existing Dunsmuir viaduct which are outlined in Table 2below. A 5.0m

clearance over roadways is specified by MoT and through observation of current Skytrain

track clearances; a 4.00m clearance has been used as a baseline requirement.

Table 2: Critical Stations for Design

Critical Stations (m) Elevation Required (m) Comments0+065.610 5.00* Ramp Starts to swing above Expo Blvd

0+110.530 5.00* 1st cross point over Abbott St

0+130.000 11.62* Ramp Starts to swing above Skytrain at this station

0+145.140 11.62* Directly over middle of Skytrain track

0+166 630 11 62* R f ll Sk t i t k


14/72


Following MoT design guidelines, a parabolic curve has been used for the vertical design

along with a maximum allowable grade of 10%. A sag curve exists at the start point of the

ramp, a crest curve over the Skytrain track, and a sag curve where the ramp joins with

Dunsmuir viaduct; between the curves are sections of continuous grade. The extent of

curvature of sag and crest curves are controlled by a factor K. These K factors ensure a

curvature which allows for a safe stopping sight distance and or comfort for the driver.

Based on a design speed of 50km/hr the appropriate K values are outlined below.

Minimum K crest = 7 (TAC Table 2.1.3.2)

Minimum K sag = 4 allowable at intersections/adequate lighting (TAC Table 2.1.3.4)

Having previously completing the horizontal alignment and noting the stations of special

concern along the alignment, the vertical alignment can be begin. The K factor is

calculated from the following equation:

Vertical stationing is in accordance with the horizontal station. For the areas with curvature

the following equation is used to calculate the elevation (y) along the curve:

Figure 6 below shows the final vertical alignment of the Dunsmuir on-ramp; note the

vertical scale is being exaggerated and overall is not to scale. The minimum Skytrain track

clearance proved to be the governing parameter of this design. Because of that, the on-

ramp actually must be elevated upwards of 1m above the existing viaduct at one point and

then gently meet grade as the ramp is further aligned with the viaduct. To have the on-ramp

connect flush with viaduct when the two first meet would require the other ramp option

starting 65m before Carrall St which would relax the governing Skytrain track clearances

as vertical elevations can be easier achieved by that point. Roadway grading will have to

be done at the Carrall St intersection to incorporate the approach of the ne on ramp

Where EBVCS = Elevation at start of curve

X = horizontal distance from start of curve station BVCS

a = slope change constant =

g1 = grade of incoming tangentg2 = grade of outgoing tangent

Where L = horizontal length of vertical curve (BVCSEVCS station)

A = the algebraic difference between grade 1 and grade 2


15/72


Figure 6: Finalized Vertical Alignment Layout

3.1.4.5 LimitationsThe drafting for the on-ramp alignment has followed only an orthophoto of the area and is

therefore not completely accurate. Roadway boundaries and existing structures have been

limited to drafting following the orthophoto and exact placement of those features cannot

be known without a professional survey team. Another limitation being that existing

topographic data and elevations pertaining to the existing Dunsmuir viaduct and Skytrain

track could not be obtained and were therefore estimated by the best of our ability. A

request for such data was made to the City of Vancouver but could not be released. For the

educational purpose of this project using just the orthophoto will have to be good enough.

3.2 Transportation Plan Review

Transportation plans and viaducts studies and data collected from existing transportation

reports and observations were reviewed to get a better overview and understanding of the

traffic characteristics and patterns of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts as well as the

surrounding streets and regions. This information were acquired and reviewed in depth to

understand further and anticipate the impacts of transportation plan changes caused by the

proposed new Georgia off-ramp and Expo on-ramp as a solution to the old Georgia and

Dunsmuir viaduct problem. A summary is provided below.


16/72


The Georgia viaduct currently has 3 vehicular lanes with traffic directed from East

Vancouver/Chinatown to Vancouver downtown core.

The Dunsmuir viaduct has 2 vehicular lanes and 1 lane dedicated for cyclists and

pedestrians and the traffic is directed the opposite way from the Georgia viaduct.

Expo Boulevard is currently a one-way street with traffic directed to Vancouver

downtown area. It has 3 active vehicular lanes with 1 side lane for cyclists/parking.

Pacific Boulevard has the same characteristic with the Expo Boulevard except that the

traffic is directed to Vancouver Eastside.

Currently, there are no transit services on the viaducts as well as on Expo and Pacific

Boulevard. However, the Expo Skytrain Line runs adjacent to the viaducts. Based on the

current study of the viaducts by Halcrow Consulting Inc., there are approximately 160

heavy trucks (including trucks with three or more axels) and 800 light trucks (including

cube van with two axles) that are using the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts daily.

Additionally, the number of light trucks has found to remain relatively constant since 1996

and the number of heavy trucks dropping by approximately 50% (Halcrow Consulting Inc.,

2011).

The approximate numbers of daily vehicular traffic are summarized below (Halcrow

Consulting Inc., 2011):

Expo Boulevard:

Dunsmuir Viaduct:

Georgia Viaduct:

Pacific Boulevard:

12,300 Vehicles

19,000 Vehicles

24,000 Vehicles

13,000 Vehicles

The following maps (Figure 7 & Figure 8) summarize the local vehicular travel patterns

using both viaducts during morning and afternoon peak periods. (Halcrow Consulting Inc.,

2011)


17/72


Figure 7: Local Vehicular Travel Patterns Using Dunsmuir Viaduct

Figure 8: Local Vehicular Travel Patterns Using Georgia Viaduct

3 3 T t ti Pl


18/72


observed traffic patterns were utilized to determine the best traffic planning to better serve the

City of Vancouvers transportation system.

3.3.1 An alysis and Past Studies

Past case studies regarding transportation and/or urban impacts from freeway/viaduct

removal were collected to be used as comparison and basic understanding on analyzing

Vancouvers Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts. While Vancouvers Georgia and Dunsmuir

viaduct case is unique, it can learn important lessons from other past freeway removal

projects. Some examples of the lessons that Vancouver can learn and apply are as follows:

Absorbing the spillover traffic by distributing it over a network. Vancouvers

viaducts capacities are properly utilized most of the time while the surrounding streets

and networks are under-utilized. By removing the viaducts and properly plan the

transportation network in the region, it might not only achieve its goal of connecting

the downtown core to Vancouver eastside, but might also improve the traffic system in

that region.

Removal of an urban freeway or viaducts will change travel patterns significantly.

However, traffic will eventually find alternate routes and select the most convenientmode for their travel. Although removing Vancouvers viaducts may seems to be

posing many transportation problems for the future, past experiences from various

cities in the world proves that people and traffic will adjust and adapt to the new

system and will even create a better vibrant community without the freeway/viaducts.

Based on the recent case study by the City of Seattle for the Alaskan Way viaducts

removal, it was found that various cities also are or has experienced similar challenges withviaducts or highway. Two cases (San Franciscos Embarcadero Freeway and Seouls

Cheonggye Expressway) with the most similarity were chosen as model cities for this

project and the summary of the key findings are provided below.

Embarcadero Freeway

The Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, California shows similarity with Vancouvers

Georgia and Dunsmuir viaduct in its function as a major route for industrial vehicle.

Besides, this freeway is also located along the downtown waterfront of San Francisco and

was a barrier to the waterfront region, which is now a tourist destination after the freeway

is removed. This is a similar problem created by Vancouvers viaducts, the viaducts

created barrier between downtown core and downtown eastside as well as acting as a

barrier to the beautiful side of False Creek region in Vancouver


19/72


their own unique problems and characteristics. Nevertheless, this example of Embarcadero

Freeway offers few potential insights that might be useful (City of Seattle, 2008):

The freeway removal does not appear to have negative impact on the economies of

nearby region or neighborhood. Instead, the net economic impact of the freeways

removal for both the immediate region and system or city as a whole appears to have

been positive.

It was only after the removal of the freeway that San Franciscos waterfront emerged

to be one of the most attractive destinations for locals and tourists.

Cheonggye Expressway

Cheonggye Expressway is similar to Vancouvers Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts in terms

of location, the importance of the structure to the city as well as the impacts it created

when removed. The expressway was adjacent to the central business district of Seoul and

primarily served as a bypass for regional traffic, which is really similar to the function of

Vancouvers viaducts. Besides, the expressway and the roads were removed and the stream

underneath the expressway was restored. This replacement of expressway restored open

spaces access as well as water, and as proven by this model, the removal of the expresswayimproved the quality of-life of the city residents, workers and visitors.

As compared and analyzed using two model cities mentioned above, the summary of some

the impacts may be created by removing the viaducts are:

Improve the net economic benefits in the immediate regions and the city as a whole.

Improve traffic flow, as drivers will adjust to the changes and utilize the surrounding

roads and will thus improve the traffic network.

Improve the sustainability of City of Vancouver by creating open spaces and access to

False Creek area that may be improved to be tourist destination.

3.3.2 During Cons truc tion

Traffic flow during construction of the Expo on-ramp and Georgia on-ramp needs to be

carefully planned and maintained to avoid significant traffic disturbance andinconveniences. Routes and traffic are planned based on observation on traffic volumes

data acquired from studies done by Halcrow Consulting Inc. for the viaducts. The

transportation plan or traffic re-routing during construction are provided below.


20/72


Stage 1: Pre-Construction Activities

No road closures, signs will be posted to inform the public about future traffic

changes.

Stage 2: Georgia Viaduct Demolition

Georgia viaduct will be closed permanently days before demolition, this is so the

traffic will be used to the changes in traffic pattern before demolition; traffic from

Georgia St. heading eastbound will be rerouted to Cambie St. and/or adjacent streets.

During the whole process of demolition and construction, a portion of the Abbott St.

that is in between of the viaduct will be closed.

Quebec St., Expo Blvd., Main St. and Prior St. will be closed accordingly when the

demolition stage reaches the area near the mentioned streets. The mentioned streets

will be opened again once the demolition process is done.

Stage 3: Dunsmuir Viaduct Demolition

Dunsmuir Viaduct will be closed permanently before demolition. Traffic heading

westbound to downtown area will be possible using the adjacent streets such as Pender

St. and Hasting Street.

As only some portion of the Dunsmuir Viaduct will be demolished/removed, only the

immediate adjacent streets (Prior St., Main St. Quebec St. and Expo Blvd.) will be

temporarily closed.

Stage 4: Expo On-ramp Construction

During the course of the columns and entry-ramp construction, Expo Boulevard willbe serving as 1-lane street. Parking lanes will be removed and parking will be

prohibited at all times along Expo Boulevard until the finish of construction.

Transition will start at Expo Blvd. (After Quebec St.) from 3 lanes to 2 lanes and

eventually 1 lane at the intersection of Carrall St. and Expo Boulevard.

Expo Boulevard will serve as 3-lanes street again after Abbott St.

Traffic from Union St heading to Expo Blvd. will be prohibited.

A portion of Carrall St. between Keefer St. and Pacific Blvd. will be temporarilyclosed during the course of construction and traffic will only be allowed for

construction vehicles.

During the placement of the ramp sections, Expo Boulevard will be temporarily closed

and traffic heading to Expo Blvd. from Quebec St. will be directed to north side of


21/72


3.4 Post Construction

A short summary of the traffic patterns after construction is provided below:

Expo/Dunsmuir and Georgia rampThe new Expo/Dunsmuir on-ramp will be located just after Carrall St. with traffic heading

one-way westbound. There will be vehicular 2 lanes on the ramp with 1 lane for

pedestrian/cyclist (Refer to section 2.1.5) Oncoming traffic will be directed up to

Dunsmuir St. The new Georgia off-ramp will drop down just before Abbott St. and the

design details of the ramp is not covered in this report. The ramp will have 2 vehicular

lanes and 1 pedestrian lane. The traffic on this ramp is directed eastbound and will merge

with the intersection at Abbott St. and Pacific Blvd. Traffic at Abbott St. at this intersectionwill be one-way southbound.

Carrall Street and Expo Boulevard

There will be some changes to the traffic patterns on Carrall St. in the area. Traffic at

Carrall St. and Pacific Blvd. will merge with left-turn only option. Traffic going

northbound on the Carrall St. at the intersection Expo Blvd. will only have a through-only

traffic (no turns allowed at this intersection). And traffic going southbound on Carrall St.and Expo Blvd. will have a separate lane for entry to the new on-ramp to Dunsmuir St.The

parking lanes on Expo Boulevard after Carrall Street will be removed and parking before

Carrall St. will be allowed only from 10 PM 6 AM every day. The most extreme right

lanes of Expo Blvd. will have an on-ramp only option, the middle one will have an option

of going straight off to the on-ramp, and the most left lane will only have a through-only

option.


22/72


4. Structures

4.1 Design Scope

The focus for structural design was the new Dunsmuir on ramp. This includes the bridge deck,

the substructure, and the piers. A general structural layout is provided for the entire new ramp

(SSK-1Appendix B). Detailed calculations and design sketches were prepared for elements of

a typical span (SSK-1/SSK-2). The figures below summarize the design scope.

Figure 10: Design Scope General Area (Top) and Typical Span (Bottom)

4.2 Design Objectives

The design objective was to provide a structure to support the new elevated roadway, spanning

over the streets below. Key considerations for the design included:

Speed of construction (to minimize disruption & economic losses)

Structural depth (to fit into the available clearances)

Durability (proven performance in a similar exposure)

4 3 D i St d d

General layout for entire ramp structure

Typical Span Detailed Design Calculations


23/72


4.4 Selection of Structural System

Selection of the structural system was regarded as the single most important factor in producing

a successful design and, therefore, a significant effort was made in identifying and selecting asystem. The following structural systems were evaluated on the basis of the aforementioned

objectives:

Glulam Arches

Precast Segmental Concrete Box Girders

Composite Steel Girders with Precast Deck

Ultimately, the structural system chosen was Composite Steel Girders with a Precast Deck.Sections 4.4.1 to 4.4.3 summarize the expected performance and the selection rationale.

4.4.1 Glulam Arc hes

In accordance with B.C.s WoodFirst Act, designers and developers are to consider using

timber as the primary structural material for all publicly funded project. Because of the

limited allowable structural depth (4.0m at one point due to the skytrain), a glulam arch

superstructure was considered the most feasible timber system. Similar bridges in theNetherlands (Jett, 2011) and Austria (Unterwieser, 2007) were used as case studies in

assessing performance. Table 3 summarizes the performance:

Table 3: Glulam Arch Performance Summary

Objective Meets Reqs? Comments/References

Constructability Glulam elements are relatively light and could be

lifted into place with readily available cranes, or

the entire structure could be prebuilt and

transported to the site (see Photo 1)

Structural Depth With an arched superstructure, the depth belowthe deck could easily be limited to


24/72


4.4.2 Precast Segmen tal Conc rete Bo x Girders

Precast, post-tensioned segmental concrete box girders, similar to those employed in the

Canada Line, are currently a popular structural system. Table 4 outlines their performance:

Table 4: Precast Box Girder Performance Summary


Constructability The precast segments can be quickly assembled

The use of an overhead erection girder reduces

obstruction to the streets below

StructuralDepth

The minimum practical depth of a box girder is

1.8m (6ft) to allow adequate space for formworkand inspection inside the box

Durability Precast & post-tensioned concrete has commonlybeen used in similar environmental exposure

Photo 1Sneek Bridge, NetherlandsPhoto Credit: http://www.contemporist.com/2009/02/03/

akkerwinde-bridge-by-oak-architects/

Photo 2Mur River Bridge, Austria


25/72


4.4.3 Composite Steel Girders with Precast Deck

Composite Steel Girder Bridges are a traditional structural form that is still in common use.

However, such bridges typically employ cast in place decks and, as such, require formworkand curing time. As speed of construction is expected to govern the economy of the

design, the use of precast and post-tensioned deck segments was considered.

Table 5 summarizes the performance:

Table 5: Composite Steel Girders Performance Summary


Constructability The steel girders could easily be lifted into place

by readily available cranes

The precast deck segments could be quickly

assembled

Blockouts provided for shear studs (seePhoto 6)

Structural Depth Structural depth can be reduced in selecting thesteel girder

Durability The precast & post-tensioned deck offers good

durability

Similar bridges have commonly been used in

similar exposures


26/72


4.5 Analysis & Design

Having selected Composite Steel Girders with a Precast Deckas the structural system, detailed

analysis and design was performed. The structure was designed for both vertical and lateral

loading.

4.5.1 Gravity Load Design

4.5.1.1 Load Effects

CSA S6 specifies several load effects for ULS, including Dead, Live, and Ice (accretion).

The governing load case for gravity load design was found to be:

The live load represents one or more 625kN trucks (or a portion thereof for smallercomponents) of a given length and wheelbase. Figure 11 and Figure 12below depict the

CL-625 Truck.

Because new Dunsmuir ramp is to be 9.9m wide, it classifies as having two design lanes

(per CSA S6-06) and is thus subject to two simultaneous CL-625kN trucks; however, a

modification factor of 0.9 applies when both design lanes are loaded. Finally, a dynamic

load allowance of 25% in added to the full weight of the truck (up to 50% is added forsmall components such as deck joints under single wheel loads). Thus the total live load

tributary to a single girder was taken as:

D*D + L*L, where:D = 1.11.5 (depending on material and function)

L = 1.7D = 9.5kPa (Structure self-weight + allowance for other components)L = CL-625 Truck Loadin as described below

a)

CIVIL446 E i i D i d A l i II


27/72


This load was distributed as shown in Figure 13, added to the dead loads, and then

multiplied by the appropriate load factors. Using this information, a moving load analysis

for a single girder was performed in SAP2000 (see Figure 14). This required only a very

simple model, while fully capturing the influence of the moving load and allowing for

quick assessment of design changes.

The results of these analyses were then used for design of the deck slab; the composite

girders, and the pier supports as described in sections 4.5.1.2 to 4.5.2.2.

2*(625kN/2)*0.9*1.25 = 703kN

Dynamic Load AllowanceMulti-lane modifier

Half to each girder

Two Trucks

= Truck #1 + Truck #2

Single Design Girder

Single Design Girder

Figure 13: Design Girder Loading Figure 14: SAP2000 Load Analysis


28/72



29/72


One-way shear resistance was found to govern the slab design, because the span is so short.

Punching shear and moment resistances were also calculated but did not govern; therefore,

moment resistance and punching shear calculations are not shown. In order to determine

the shear resistance, it was necessary to determine the effective width of the slab resistingthe point loads. The effective width was calculated as 1580mm (Westergaard).

Resistances were calculated in accordance with CSA A23.3-04. See the referenced code

clauses and commentary for calculation background information.

Figure 16 shows the final design of the deck slab. Note the longitudinal bonded post

tensioning and the headed shear reinforcing. The headed shear reinforcing was required

due to the insufficient shear resistance of the concrete slab alone. The longitudinal P/T

strands are required to tie the segments together, but are not used in strength calculations.

One-Way Shear Check:

Vr = Vc + Vs [CSA A23.3 Cl. 11] Cl 11.3.6.2 dv=0.9*d

Vc = c***(fc)*bw*dv = (.65)*(1)*(.21)*(50MPa)*(1580mm)(150mm) = 229kNVs = s*Avs*Fyv*dv/s = (.85)*(3*127mm

2)*(345MPa)*(150mm)/(75mm) = 223kN

Vr = 229kN + 223kN = 452kN > 430kN OK!

A A

Section A-A

Shear Stud Blockouts to

provide composite action

Longitudinal BondedPost Tensioning

(One er Tooth)

Head ShearReinforcing



30/72


4.5.1.3 Composite Girder Design

The composite girders are comprised of: the structural steel wide flange section; the

concrete deck slab, and the steel shear studs. The typical girders span approximately 32m

between concrete piers (recall Figure 10). Figure 17 shows a detail section for a typical

girder. It should be noted that the W690x548 section selected is a much stockier section

than would normally be used; this is because of the limited allowable structural depth (see

Section 3.1.4.4) and the need to provide a large area of steel.

Factored load effects (listed below) were determined based on the moving load analysis

performed in SAP2000. The values were also validated using simple hand calculations.

The strength design was performed in accordance with CSA S16-09, using a formatted

spreadsheet (See Appendix B), which helped to optimize the design. Resistances were

calculated for the moment, vertical shear (of the web), and horizontal shear (of the shear

studs). The final design parameters and resistances were determined as follows:

200mm Concrete

Deck Slab

Typical Girder

10mm Stiffeners @ Points

to Prevent Web Crippling

L76x76 x13 Bracing @

Points for Stability

2-25mm Nelson

Studs Each BlockoutLow Shrinkage

Concrete Encasing

Factored Load Effects:

Mf= 8849kNm

Vf= 1163kN

Final Design Parameters & Resistances:

fc = 50MPa

Shear Transfer = 40% (Min for Strength)

Stud Spacing = 2-25mm @ 1200o/c

Mr = 9108kNm > 8849kN OK!

Vr,v = 4402kN > 1162kN OK!

Vr,h = 8916kN > 8807kN OK!

Figure 17: Typical Girder



31/72

g g g y

4.5.1.4 Pier Arm Design

The pier arms are to be constructed of reinforced concrete, and have a tapered section to

more efficiently meet moment and shear demands, while reduced dead loads. The

reduction in dead load is particularly beneficial in reducing the rotational mass of the pier

arms under seismic loading. Figure 18 shows an elevation of the pier arms:

Based on the load analysis in SAP2000, the factored load

transmitted by a typical girder is 2278kN. The outer girders

transmit half this load (1139kN) because they have half the

tributary area. Thus the factored load effects are:

Resistances were calculated per CSA A23.3 as follows:

10-45M To for M-

10-20M Skin

Reinf. For

Crack Control

Nominal Reinf. for

Bar Support and

Creep Control

Tapered Section to

Reduce Dead LoadsPier Reinforcing

(See Section 3.5.2)

20M Stirrups

@ 600o/c

Pf/2Pf Pf Pf Pf

Pf/2

Critical Section for

Shear (35)

Critical Section forFlexure


Mf= 1139kN*(3.6m)+2278kN*(1.8m) = 8200kNm

Vf= 1139kN + 2278kN = 3417kN

Final Design Parameters & Resistances:

fc = 50MPa 10-45M 400MPa Steel

Mr = s*As*fy*(d-a/2) = (.85)*(15000)*(400)*(2247-167/2) = 11,034kNm > 8849kN OK!

Figure 18: Elevation View of Pier Arms



32/72

4.5.2 Lateral Load Design

4.5.2.1 Load Effects

CSA S6 specifies several lateral loads including wind, collision, and earthquake loads.

Earthquake loading was found to govern, given Vancouvers high seismic hazard. The

governing load combination was as follows:

Earthquake loading per CSA S6 is based on a peak ground acceleration with a 10% in 50-

Years probability of exceedance (475 year event). This is similar to past editions of the

National Building Code (eg. NBCC 1995). The specified base shear for the structure is as

follows:

4.5.2.2 Pier Column Design

The pier column is to be constructed of reinforced concrete and have a rectangular section;

the strong axis is set perpendicular to the roadway, since the piers must act solely as

cantilevered columns in this direction. Figure 19 (next page) shows an elevation of the

pier. For the aforementioned load combination, the factored load effects are as follows:

D*D + 1.0*E, where:D = 0.8 or 1.25 (whichever produces the more critical effect)D = 9.5kPa (Structure self-weight + allowance for other components)

E = Specified Earthquake Lateral Load (a base shear, as described below)

Code Specified Base Shear:V = 2.5*A*I *W/R

A = 0.2g (CSA S6-06 Zonal Acceleration for Vancouver)

I = 1.5 (Importance Factor for Emergency Response Routes)

W = 1.25*D = 1.25*(9.5kPa)*(9.9m*32m) = 3762kN

R = 2.0 (Ductility Factor for a Single Column)


Nf= W = 3762kNkN

Vf= 1410kN

Mf= (1410kN)*(12m) = 16,920kNm



33/72

Figure 19: Elevation View of Pier

The column section was designed and detailed to resist the aforementioned seismic

loading. Of particular note, are the closely space ties at the top and bottom of the column

Seismic Load V = 1410kN

(Applied in Either Direction)

Base Overturning Moment = 16,920kNm

(Based on Max. Design Height = 12m)

Equivalent Static

Seismic Force



34/72

4.5.2.3 Foundation Design

Because the geotechnical discipline was not selected for detailed design, foundation design

was not in the design scope. However, it should be noted that due to the significant

vertical and lateral loads, that deep foundations such as piles would likely be required.

4.5.3 Design Summary

The following is a summary of the structural design and rationale.

Table 6: Design Summary

Design Item Description Rationale/Comments

Structural

System

Composite Girders with Precast

Segmental Deck Slab

This system best met the 3 primary

design objectives: Constructability,Structural Depth, and Durability

Gravity

Load

Gov. Load Case: D*D + L*LD = 9.5kPa

L = CL-625kN Moving Trucks

Moving load analysis performed for

typical girder. Various load patterns

considered

Nf=3762kN, Mf=16920kNm OK!

Figure 20: N-M Interaction Diagram



35/72

5. Construction Management

The following sections describe the detailed design for the construction management discipline.

5.1 Design Scope

The design scope for the Construction Management portion of the project included cost

estimating, construction sequencing, crane loading considerations, safety resources, and bylaw

research. These items were completed under the scope that they would include the construction

of the Dunsmuir on-ramp and Georgia off-ramp as well as the demolition of the whole Georgia

Viaduct and part of the Dunsmuir Viaduct. Concrete works were the focus of the cost estimate

and construction sequencing and items such as project overhead or soil remediation were notincluded.

5.2 Cost Estimate

A cost estimate was prepared using data from RS Means (Waier, 2009). A sample cost estimate

is shown in Figure 21 which outlines the costs for the removal of steel guardrails, the removal of

the viaduct concrete, and the ground remediation following demolition. The full cost estimate is

found in Appendix C.

Construction Activity Crew

Daily

Output Base Unit Days

Cost of Crew

per Day Labour Cost

Remove steel guardrails B-80A 30.5 m per day 24.60 $758.40 $18,655

Grind/chip away at centre of spans Two B-9 7.08 m3 per day 211.89 $3,678.50 $779,430

Remove Piers Two B-9 8.50 m3 per day 94.17 $4,414.20 $415,696

Remediate ground where piers were loca ted

and where equipment damaged land B-37 929 m2

per day 0.11 $1,592.40 $171

Labour

Ma te ri al s Ba se U ni t Amo un t

Cost per

Unit

Materials

Cost Equipment Rental Time

Equipment

Cost RS Means Ref Notes/Totals

m 750 $0.00 $0

Crane enabled flat-bed truck,

grinder, steel cutter 5 weeks $5,978 02 41 13.33-0800

m3 1500 $0.00 $0

Crane, Air compressor, 2 Breakers,

2 50' Ai r Hos es , Wa te r Mis ter 4 3 we eks $405,766 02 41 19.16-1050

Assuming avg 0.3 m thick

freespans

m3 800 $0.00 $0

Crane, Air compressor, 2 Breakers,

2 50' Ai r Hos es , Wa te r Mis ter 1 9 we eks $216,408 02 41 19.16-1050

Fill m2 100 $2.69 $269 1 tandem roller, 5 ton 1 day $11 31 23 23.17-0500

Assume average 4" depth

improvements

Materials Equipment



36/72

was the most important aspect of determining costs and durations for each activity. For the steel

guardrail, Google Earth was used to measure the length of the guardrail on the Georgia Viaduct.

For span grinding/chipping, section 02 41 19.16-1050 was used. The average depth was assumed

to be 0.3 m and the area to be removed was measured using Google Earth. Specific equipment

needs were taken from the RS Means data and judgment was applied to determine whether or not

the specific data set matched the viaduct removal project. It was assumed that the crews working

on the viaduct demolition could work 1.5 times faster than what was suggested in RS Means, so

that data was adjusted accordingly.

A list of cost items considered is as follows: Public information campaign to notify travelers of

road closures, equipment storage area ground improvement, hauling, equipment procurement,

ground improvement where heavy machinery will operate, removal of lamp-posts and electrical

circuitry, removal of steel guardrails, grinding/chipping away at center spans of viaduct,

removing piers of viaduct, remediating ground where piers were located, tree removal, re-

grading of soils, layout surveys, abutment footing construction, abutment engineered fill

placement, abutment wall construction, pier footing formwork, pier footing rebar, pier footing

concrete, pier column formwork, pier column rebar, pier column concrete, tilt-up column

activities, steel beam placement, concrete connection pour, shear stud blockout placement, deck

placement, utility placement, and commissioning.

These data were tabulated in 7 sections corresponding to overall portions of the project. A

summary of component costs is given in Table 7.Table 7: Summary of Cost Estimate

Labour Materials Equipment Total

Pre-Construction Activities $30,242 $24,672 $16,973 $71,887

Georgia Viaduct Demolition Pt 1 $1,237,546 $24,748 $637,495 $1,899,789

Dunsmuir On-Ramp Const. $255,142 $2,083,387 $161,148 $2,499,677

Dunsmuir Viaduct Partial Demo. $1,561,189 $27,169 $823,357 $2,411,715

Dunsmuir Greenway Chg-Ovr Not in Scope



37/72

The data obtained from RS Means was generic data that covered average costs across North

America. Therefore, it had to be changed to represent Vancouver in 2013. To change from the

North America average to the Vancouver average, the costs were multiplied by a factor of

110.5/100. To change from 2009 to 2013, an average yearly inflation factor was calculated byexamining construction cost index increases from 1993 to 2009. This factor was determined to

be 1.039, and the 2013 cost was calculated using a factor of 1.0394. Following these changes, the

total construction cost was estimated as $17,181,206.

5.3 Construction Sequence

Following the detailed cost estimate, a construction sequence was put together. The activities

corresponded to the activities in the cost estimate, and the calculated durations from the costestimate were used. Microsoft Project was used as a tool to put the activities into a logical order.

The project was assumed to start in November of 2012 with pre-construction activities and then

in January 2013 for actual demolition and construction.

There were six major divisions in the sequence, illustrated in Figure 22below.

1. Pre-construction activities

2. Georgia Viaduct demolition,3. Dunsmuir Viaduct demolition

4. Dunsmuir on-ramp construction

5. Georgia off-ramp construction

6. Dunsmuir Greenway change-over*

5

6

3

4

1 Various Locations



38/72

*Note: The greenway was not considered part of the scope, but it was noted as a part of the

construction sequence.

It was important to understand finish start relationships in the determination of the project

critical path. The Georgia Viaduct demolition was split into two phases to better take advantageof co-existing construction activities. Part 1 of this demolition is used as an example for this

report (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Construction Sequence Example

The beginning of the demolition was preceded by the closure of the viaduct itself as well as

Griffiths Way below the structure. Once the streets were closed, physical work could begin on

ground improvement for machinery to operate on. This involved hauling materials to and from

the site, so these activities overlap. The removal of steel guardrails could only start once the

electrical circuitry and lamp-posts were removed, so it had a finish-start relationship. The same

concept applied for the grinding/chipping away of the concrete mid-spans and pier removal

respectively. Finally, the ground could be remediated where the piers had been removed. Using

duration data from the detailed cost estimate and the path logically determined, a length of 335

days was found for this portion of the project.

The same process was followed for the other 5 project sections and an overall project length of

891 days resulted (note that these are work days and could be changed to include weekends if the

project needs to be fast-tracked). A summary of the section dates follows in

Critical Path (partial)



39/72

Table 8: Summary of Construction Sequence

Start Date Finish Date

Pre-Construction Activities 1 November 2012 1 January 2013

Georgia Viaduct Demolition Part 1 2 January 2013 16 April 2014

Dunsmuir On-Ramp Construction 2 January 2013 25 July 2013

Dunsmuir Viaduct Partial Demolition 25 July 2013 26 March 2015

Dunsmuir Greenway Change-Over 25 July 2013 12 December 2013

Georgia Off-Ramp Construction 16 April 2014 19 March 2015

Georgia Viaduct Demolition Part 2 16 April 2014 1 April 2016

The critical path of the project was determined using Microsoft Project and included all of the

activities involved in pre-construction and both Georgia Viaduct demolition parts.

5.4 Crane Loading

Note: The evaluation and analyses from this section have been adapted fromCranes & Derricks

(Shapiro, 2000) to suit the viaducts redevelopment project requirements.

The construction of all major infrastructure projects requires that material and components be

physically moved during demolition, staging, and final assembly. For this reason, equipment

must be chosen to efficiently lift, translate, hold, and lower many different magnitudes and types

of loads. Conventional lifting equipment readily available in the Vancouver area includes tower

jib cranes, overhead gantry cranes, and mobile cranes. Each of these types has operational

advantages and disadvantages based on the required task as illustrated in Table 9.

Table 9: Crane Comparison

Crane Type Mobility Lifting Capacity Space Required

Tower/Jib Low High Low

Overhead Gantry Moderate Very High High

Mobile High Moderate Low



40/72

Investigating the specific project needs shows the major loads as follows:

Demolition components and rubble

On-ramp pre-cast concrete tilt-up piers

On-ramp steel girders

On-ramp pre-cast concrete slab decking

Construction materials & equipment

Selection of a suitable crane must first begin with an investigation of the expected loads during

construction. In particular, the current load scenario must always be pre-determined prior to

performing the actual lift; this will ensure the crane is not underpowered and prevent equipment

damage or injury. For this reason, the careful engineer will investigate the maximum expected

load case and then specify the appropriate crane.

By examining the list of major loads, it can be seen that not only do the loads vary in size and

shape, but also the site location where they will be required. For example, demolition of the

Georgia Viaduct takes place over a distance of approximately 1.0 km. In addition the heaviest

load (concrete slab decking) is expected to be:

Finally, it must be noted that the aerial maps and site visit conducted by our group on February

29th, 2012 indicated that there is very limited space to work and stage materials.At the recommendation of Darryl Matson, P. Eng, the VP of Buckland & Taylor Ltd., the

appropriate crane was selected from the Burnaby-based GWIL Crane Service Company. Initially

a tower crane with lattice boom was contemplated; however, the mobility and functionality, in

addition to the simple site set-up made the mobile truck-based crane the best choice. The lifting

charts from the 120-Ton Krupp Model 100GMT specify the acceptable load limits under specific

configurations. Table 10 is an excerpt from the full lifting chart and gives the maximum load

rating in 1000s of lbs. In addition the specified loads are reduced to less than 85% of the tippingload. It is also important to note that these capacities reflect the mobile crane with the outriggers

fully extended.

Where = uni t area slab weight, l=segment l ength and w=roadway width.



41/72

Table 10: 120-Ton Krupp Model 100 GMT: Lifting Chart

In summary, the 120-Ton Krupp Model 100 GMT is a suitable crane for lifting the 320kN

concrete deck to a maximum height of 77 feet, given:

A minimum 65-ton rated hook is used;

The outriggers are fully extended (247 span)

No excessive lateral loads are applied

These constraints can easily be managed during the construction project and will not

significantly alter the crane performance.

84,000lb (374kN) @ 30ft. Radius

(Maximum hook height of 77 ft.)


42/72


43/72


ddi i ifi Ci f b l h d i l h i b l


44/72

In addition, specific City of Vancouver bylaws were researched. In particular, the noise bylaw

regulation will apply to the construction project.

Noise Bylaw (No. 6555) (City of Vancouver, 2010)

Construction on private property must be carried out between 7:30 am and 8 pm on any

weekday that is not a holiday, and between 10 am to 8 pm on any Saturday that is not a

holiday. Construction is not permitted on Sundays.

Street construction must be carried out between 7 am and 8 pm on any weekday or

Saturday, and between 10 am and 8 pm on any Sunday or holiday.

The collection of refuse must only occur:- outside the downtown area from 7 am to 8 pm on any weekday, or from 10 am to

8 pm on any Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.

- within the downtown area from 6 am to 12 midnight on any weekday, or from 10

am to 12 midnight on any Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.

Each of the aforementioned standards will be followed during the construction project.


6 E i A l i


45/72

6. Economic Analysis

6.1 Direct Project Costs

Our cost estimate is $17,000,000 (see section 5.2) equating to approximately 20% of the totalexpected cost (~$100M). Thus, to make a just comparison in the cost-benefit analysis, the

benefits and negative impacts will be scaled to 20% of their total calculated value.

6.2 User Benefits

Property value increase

Property values along False Creek using VanMap from the City of Vancouver (City of

Vancouver, 2011).

88 Pacific Blvd $400,000 Concord Pacific 412,000 ft2

10 Pacific Blvd $13,000,000 Next to Concord Pacific 103,000 ft2

750 Pacific Blvd $9,000,000 Plaza of Nations 624,000 ft2

The value of the land will significantly increase with the removal of the viaduct. The value couldpossibly increase by $30,000,000 based on neighboring property values per square foot.

Tour ism & commerce benefi ts of marketplace and sur rounding area

Assuming the foreshore area could be developed into an active small business market and

cultural hub, the potential exists to encourage tourism of a similar nature to Granville Island. The

development at Granville Island has been incredibly successful, generating approximately $130million in economic activity value each year (CMHC, 2012). The foreshore and parking lots

south of the existing Georgia viaduct represent an area of 22 acres, roughly 58% of the size of

Granville Island (38 acres). Following the reasoning that a similar proposal was created in the

foreshore area it would thus have the potential of generating upwards of 1500 jobs and $75

million in economic value annually. However, this figure should be reduced significantly to

reflect reduced productivity compared to Granville Island. Therefore, a value of $50,000,000 was

used for the expected tourism benefit over the lifespan of the area.

Opening ci ty owned properti es to sell

A primary motivation for removing the viaducts is the potential revenue generated through the

l f i d l d A i l 10 f i d l d i b l h



46/72

6.3 Negative Impacts

Road closures

The economic impacts of road closures during construction is an important consideration in the

cost benefit analysis. Road closures create economic losses by delaying shipping, reducing local

commerce, and increasing road user travel time. Based on a survey of recent estimates, the

economic losses associated with a road closure can be expected to range between $100,000 and

$500,000 per month; since there is no city transit currently using the viaducts, and limited local

commerce, the economic losses can be expected to fall in the lower range. Assuming losses of

$200,000/month and a total downtime (for all roads collectively at any given time) of 15%, thecost of the 39-month project is estimated at approximately $1.2M.

Park space reduction duri ng construction

From an economical point of view, parks stimulate development and investment, increase land

values and enhance tourist attraction. Destruction of green spaces whether temporary or

permanent - imposes a negative benefit to the project which has to be taken in account ineconomic viability studies. Figure 25 shows the areas that will be either destroyed or inaccessible

during construction in this project. The total area of these green spaces is about 14000 square

meters (150000 square foot). The economic loss in terms of green space in Vancouver area is

estimated to be around 20 dollars per square meter per year. That is, $1,400,000 economic loss

over the length of the construction project (3 years).


47/72


7 Conclusion


48/72

7. Conclusion

7.1 Design Goals & Achievements

The following section summarizes how each time achieved its design goals.

7.1.1 Transportation

Table 13: Transportation Design Achievements

Design GoalMet

Objectives?Methods Achieved

Dunsmuir On-ramp

Location Placed to minimize land disturbance and costOn-ramp Roadway

Geometry Designed following TAC and MoT guidelines

Minimize Impacts on

Traffic Flow Traffic planning during construction

Traffic planning after construction

7.1.2 StructuresStructural designers met the design objectives through careful selection of structural

system, and creative design solutions. The table below outlines the achievements.

Table 14: Structural Design Achievements

Design GoalMet

Objectives?Methods Achieved

Speed of Construction Precast deck slab allows for prefabrication

Tilt-up concrete piers limits the need for

formwork

Minimize Structural

Depth Composite girders reduces girder depth

Headed shear reinforcing reduces slab depth

Durability Post-tensioning reduces cracking Precast concrete less vulnerable to deterioration




49/72


Table 15: Construction Management Design Achievements

Design Goal MetObjectives?

Methods Achieved

Detailed Cost

Estimate RS Means data used to estimate construction

related activities

Construction

Sequencing

Microsoft Project used to produce Gantt Chart for

project activities

Gantt Chart used to determine critical path

Crane Selectionand Loading

Chose an appropriate method of lifting usingmobile cranes. (Krupp GMT100)

Safety

Considerations

& Bylaw

Research

Worksafe BC used to outline key safety

considerations

City of Vancouver Bylaws researched to determine

construction methods

7.2 Closure

Coalition Engineering (Group 15) has completed its scope of services for the Vancouver

Viaducts Redevelopment project. We trust that this report meets the requirements set forth for

CIVL 446. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the design

team, as noted below.

Sincerely,

Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Curtis Saunders (92191071)

Derek Rempel (35255090)

Dernanto Mirwan (70846084)

Navid Shakibi (56175086)Matthew Ridley (36007102)


8. Bibliography


50/72

8. Bibliography

City of Seattle. (2008). Case Studies of Freeway Removal. Seattle: City of Seattle.

City of Vancouver. (2010, May 5). Sound Smart. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from City ofVancouver: http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/projects/soundsmart/bylaws.htm

City of Vancouver. (2011, August 8). VanMap. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from City ofVancouver: http://vanmapp.vancouver.ca/pubvanmap_net/default.aspx

CMHC. (2012). Granville Island. Retrieved from Canada Mortgage Housing Corp.:http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/about/about_001.cfm

Halcrow Consulting Inc. (2011). Vancouver Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaduct Study. Vancouver:

City of Vancouver.

Jett. (2011, November 19). Sneek Bridge. Retrieved February 24, 2012, from Arch Daily:http://www.archdaily.com/184653/sneek-bridge-achterbosch-architectuur-with-onix/

Shapiro. (2000). Cranes and Derricks (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Unterwieser. (2007). From the Fabrication to the maintenance - a report of hte history of theMur River Wooden Bridge in Styria/Austria. Graz University of Technology. Graz,

Austria: 5th International Conference of Arch Bridges.Waier, P. R. (2009).RS Means Building Construction Cost Data.

Westergaard. (n.d.). Effective Width. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from StructuralPedia:http://structuralpedia.com/index.php?title=Effective_Width


51/72

APPENDIX A:

TRANSPORTATIONDISCIPLINE

CONTENTS:

VERTICALALIGNMENT CALCULATIONS (5PAGES)

Vertical Alignment Calculations For Dunsmuir Viaduct On-Ramp

CIVL 446 Design Project


52/72

CIVL 446 Design Project

Designer: Matt Ridley

January - April 2012

Critical Elevations for Design:m ft

ramp start 0 0

skytrain track 7.620 25

viaduct 12.497 41

Critical Stations for Design:

Station X (m)Required

Elev. (m)

0+065.610 5.00*


53/72

76 0.1 8.100 77 7.700 6.728

77 0.1 8.200 78 7.800 6.828

78 0 1 8 300 79 7 900 6 928


54/72

78 0.1 8.300 79 7.900 6.928

79 0.1 8.400 80 8.000 7.028

80 0.1 8.500 81 8.100 7.128

81 0.1 8.600 82 8.200 7.228

82 0.1 8.700 83 8.300 7.328

83 0.1 8.800 84 8.400 7.428

84 0.1 8.900 85 8.500 7.528

85 0.1 9.000 86 8.600 7.628

86 0.1 9.100 87 8.700 7.728

87 0.1 9.200 88 8.800 7.828

88 0.1 9.300 89 8.900 7.928

89 0.1 9.400 90 9.000 8.028

90 0.1 9.500 91 9.100 8.128

91 0.1 9.600 92 9.200 8.228

92 0.1 9.700 93 9.300 8.328

93 0.1 9.800 94 9.400 8.428

94 0.1 9.900 95 9.500 8.528

95 0.1 10.000 96.51 9.651 8.679

96 0.1 10.100 97 9.700 8.728

97 0.1 10.200 98 9.800 8.828

98 0.1 10.300 99 9.900 8.928

99 0.1 10.400 100 10.000 9.028

100 0.1 10.500 101 10.100 9.128

101 0.1 10.600 102 10.200 9.228102 0.1 10.700 103 10.300 9.328

103 0.1 10.800 104 10.400 9.428

104 0.1 10.953 105 10.500 9.528

105 0.1 11.000 106 10.600 9.628

106 0.1 11.100 107.46 10.746 BVCS 9.774

107 0.1 11.200 108 10.800 9.828

108 0.1 11.300 109 10.898 Vertical Curve Parameters 9.926

109 0.1 11.400 110 10.995 g1: 0.1 10.023

110.53 0.1 11.500 111 11.091 a: -0.00071 10.119

111 0.1 11.600 112 11.185 g2: -0.0499 10.213112 0.1 11.700 113 11.278 A: 0.1499 10.306

113 0.1 11.800 114 11.369 k: 7 10.397

114 0.1 11.900 115 11.459 10.487

115 0.1 12.000 116 11.548 10.576

116 0.1 12.100 117 11.635 10.663

117 0.1 12.200 118 11.721 10.749

118 0.1 12.300 119 11.805 10.833

119 0.1 12.400 120 11.888 10.916

120 0.1 12.500 121 11.969 10.997

121 0.1 12.600 122 12.049 11.077122 0.1 12.700 123 12.128 11.156

123 0.1 12.800 124 12.205 11.233

124 0.1 12.900 125 12.280 11.308

125 0.1 13.000 126 12.354 11.382

skytrain

131 0.1 13.600 132 12.770 4.178 11.620 7.620 11.798

132 0.1 13.700 133 12.834 4.242 11.620 7.620 11.862

133 0 1 13 800 134 12 897 4 305 11 620 7 620 11 925


55/72

133 0.1 13.800 134 12.897 4.305 11.620 7.620 11.925

134 0.1 13.900 135 12.958 4.366 11.620 7.620 11.986

135 0.1 14.000 136 13.018 4.426 11.620 7.620 12.046

136 0.1 14.100 137 13.077 4.485 11.620 7.620 12.105

137 0.1 14.200 138 13.134 4.542 11.620 7.620 12.162

138 0.1 14.300 139 13.189 4.597 11.620 7.620 12.217

139 0.1 14.414 140 13.244 4.652 11.620 7.620 12.272

140 0.1 14.500 141 13.296 4.704 11.620 7.620 12.324

141 0.1 14.600 142 13.348 4.756 11.620 7.620 12.376

142 0.1 14.700 143 13.398 4.806 11.620 7.620 12.426

143 0.1 14.800 144 13.446 4.854 11.620 7.620 12.474

144 0.1 14.900 145 13.493 4.901 11.620 7.620 12.521

145.14 0.1 15.000 146 13.539 4.947 11.620 7.620 12.567

146 0.1 15.100 147 13.583 4.991 11.620 7.620 12.611

147 0.1 15.200 148 13.626 5.034 11.620 7.620 12.654

148 0.1 15.300 149 13.667 5.075 11.620 7.620 12.695

149 0.1 15.400 150 13.707 5.115 11.620 7.620 12.735

150 0.1 15.500 151 13.746 5.154 11.620 7.620 12.774

151 0.1 15.600 152 13.783 5.191 11.620 7.620 12.811

152 0.1 15.700 153 13.819 5.227 11.620 7.620 12.847

153 0.1 15.800 154 13.853 5.261 11.620 7.620 12.881

154 0.1 15.900 155 13.886 5.294 11.620 7.620 12.914

155 0.1 16.000 156 13.917 5.325 11.620 7.620 12.945

156 0.1 16.100 157 13.947 5.355 11.620 7.620 12.975157 0.1 16.200 158 13.976 5.384 11.620 7.620 13.004

158 0.1 16.300 159 14.003 5.411 11.620 7.620 13.031

159 0.1 16.400 160 14.028 5.436 11.620 7.620 13.056

160 0.1 16.563 161 14.052 5.460 11.620 7.620 13.080

161 0.1 16.600 162 14.075 5.483 11.620 7.620 13.103

162 0.1 16.700 163 14.097 5.505 11.620 7.620 13.125

163 0.1 16.800 164 14.117 5.525 11.620 7.620 13.145

164 0.1 16.900 165 14.135 5.543 11.620 7.620 13.163

165 0.1 17.000 166 14.152 5.560 11.620 7.620 13.180

166.63 0.1 17.100 167 14.168 13.196167 0.1 17.200 168 14.182 13.210

168 0.1 17.300 169 14.195 13.223

169 0.1 17.400 170 14.206 13.234

170 0.1 17.500 171 14.216 13.244

171 0.1 17.600 172 14.225 13.253

172 0.1 17.754 173 14.232 13.260

173 0.1 17.800 174 14.237 13.265

174 0.1 17.900 175 14.242 13.270

175 0.1 18.000 176 14.244 13.272

176 0.1 18.100 177 14.246 13.274177 0.1 18.200 178 14.246 13.274

178.54 0.1 18.300 179 14.244viaduct

road (m)

viaduct

bottom (m)13.272

179 0.1 18.400 180 14.241 12.497 11.297 13.269

191 0.1 19.600 192 14.095 12.497 11.297 13.123

192 0.1 19.700 193 14.074 12.497 11.297 13.102

193 0.1 19.810 194 14.051 12.497 11.297 13.079


56/72

193 0.1 19.810 194 14.051 12.497 11.297 13.079

194 0.1 19.900 195 14.026 12.497 11.297 13.054

195 0.1 20.000 196 14.000 12.497 11.297 13.028

196 0.1 20.100 197 13.973 12.497 11.297 13.001

197 0.1 20.200 198 13.945 12.497 11.297 12.973

198 0.1 20.300 199 13.915 12.497 11.297 12.943

199.1 0.1 20.400 200 13.883 12.497 11.297 12.911

200 0.1 20.500 201 13.850 12.497 11.297 12.878

201 0.1 20.600 202 13.816 12.497 11.297 12.844

202 0.1 20.700 203 13.780 12.497 11.297 12.808

203 0.1 20.800 204 13.743 12.497 11.297 12.771

204 0.1 20.900 205 13.704 12.497 11.297 12.732

205 0.1 21.000 206 13.664 12.497 11.297 12.692

206 0.1 21.100 207 13.623 12.497 11.297 12.651

207 0.1 21.200 208 13.580 12.497 11.297 12.608

208 0.1 21.300 209 13.535 12.497 11.297 12.563

209 0.1 21.400 210 13.490 12.497 11.297 12.518

210 0.1 21.500 211 13.442 12.497 11.297 12.470

211 0.1 21.600 212.39 13.374 EVCS 12.497 11.297 12.402

212 0.1 21.700 213 13.344 12.497 11.297 12.372

213 0.1 21.800 214 13.294 12.497 11.297 12.322

214 0.1 21.900 215 13.244 12.497 11.297 12.272

215 0.1 22.000 216 13.194 12.497 11.297 12.222

216 0.1 22.100 217 13.144 12.497 11.297 12.172217 0.1 22.200 218 13.095 12.497 11.297 12.123

218 0.1 22.300 219 13.045 12.497 11.297 12.073

219 0.1 22.400 220 12.995 12.497 11.297 12.023

220 0.1 22.500 220.02 12.994 BVCS 12.497 11.297 12.022

221 0.1 22.600 221 12.946 12.497 11.297 11.974

222 0.1 22.700 222 12.900 Vertical Curve Parameters 12.497 11.297 11.928

223 0.1 22.800 223 12.856 g1:

civl446 - report - april4 [ready for printing].pdf

Documents