project slides (english)

Escuela Politécnica

Superior de Alicante

Grado en

Ingeniería Civil

Universidad

de Alicante Julio 2015

Student: Juan Marín AznarTutor: D. Mauricio Úbeda

CONNECTION BETWEEN N-332 ROAD

WITH THE NEW ‘CIUDAD DE LA LUZ’

BOULEVARD IN ALICANTE (Spain)Original title: Proyecto de conexión

de la N-332 con el nuevo

acceso a Alicante por ciudad de la luz

C O N T E N T S

Proyecto de conexión



1 CURRENT SITUATION

2 ALTERNATIVES

3 ALTERNATIVE ADOPTED

4 EJECUTION

5 BUDGET

CURRENT

SITUATION1

Al sur de Alicante

Al norte de Urbanova

Al este del PI de Aguamarga




10%1.1 Location 1.2 Geothecnics 1.3 Geometry

11.1 Location 1.2 Geothecnics 1.3 Geometry

Urbanova beach Proyecto de conexión



NIndustrial State

Airport ALC Studios “ciudad de la luz”

desalination

plant

SCHEME

OAMI

13%

CURRENT

SITUATION

11.2 Geothecnics 1.3 Geometry 1.4 Existing services

GROUND investigation

At the track

At the structure




Borehole

3 SPT

N30 = Rechazo1,4 m

N15 = 384 m

6 mN30 = 25

7,92 mN30 = Rechazo

1 unaffected

sample

3 samples

Silty Clay Loam

17%

CURRENT

SITUATION

1

At the surface

Until pressure bulb




LAB.

Grain size

measurement

4,5 m

7,92 m

Plasticity index

Liquid Limit

Dray Density

Pressure limit

Qu =165 kPa

Ds =1,93 g/cm3

20%

GROUND investigation

Silty Clay Loam

1.2 Geothecnics 1.3 Geometry 1.4 Existing servicesCURRENT

SITUATION

11.3 Geometry 1.4 Existing services




High velocity

Not enough hard shoulder

Prohibited changes

Not enough sensibility to the

urban area

N

23%

CURRENT

SITUATION

11.4 Existing services 1.5 Urban planning




Drainage network

Telecom

Actual Road

Traffic Lights

Streetlights

N

27%

CURRENT

SITUATION

11.5 Urban planning (present)




No urbanizable

Primary equipment

Grey

Blue

Industrial state Lilac

Secondary equipment Blue

Secondary equipment Green

Roads Yellow

Future urban scheme

Sea Skye blue

30%

N

CURRENT

SITUATION




Railway baypass in Torrellano

End of ‘vía parque’ boulevar

Coastal walk

Bike path

11.5 Urban planning (future)33%

CURRENT

SITUATION

ALTERNATIVES22.1 Alternatives 2.2 Chosen alternative




ALTERNATIVES CRITERIONS

Improve road

safety

A

New dual

carriageway

B

New underpass

C

THECNICAL

BUDGET

SUSTANABILITY

URBAN

INTEGRATION

+

37%

22.2 Chosen alternative




BOULEVARIMPROVING ROAD SAFETY

SETBACK CURRENT ROAD

SUSTAINABILITY

ACCESIBILITY

Dual carriageway

Reduce road accidents

Coastal walk

Transition to urban area

Improve landscape

Improve acces to current

properties

Take advantage of the

land use

OBJECTIVES:

Cycle path

Pedestrian

2 Roundabouts

New Dual

carriageway

Bike underpass

40%ALTERNATIVES




ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED33.1 Traffic study 3.2 Track and road safety 3.3 Road surface

A

B

C

D

Avd Elche

N-340

N-332

C. Urbanova

N

Avd Elche

N-340

N-332

Urbanova

2017 Rush HourLorries

28.516

8.368

15.957

10.269

7,5%

9,9%

10,4%

16,8%

9,81%

9,81%

4,69%

4,69%

A

B

C

D

Traffic capacity: Council

and traffic department

In equivalent vehicles

Rush Hour factor

43%




3N

Calculations of roundabout capacity

Qe = F – f·Qc

Traffic Intensity

Traffic delay

Gemetry parameter

Geometry delay

D 67%

B 28% 12 s

29 s

47%

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED3.1 Traffic study 3.2 Track and road safety 3.3 Road surface




33.2 Track and road safety 3.3 Road surface 3.4 Drainage

STUDY OF DETERMINANTS

SUSTAINABILITY - SOIL - RIGHT OF WAY

DRAINAGE - AFFECTED SERVICES- DESALINATION PLANT

GEOMETRY

v = 80 Km/h

STRAIGHT ALIGNMENTS

VELOCITY

Lmax = 178,573 m Lmin = 50,370 m

CURVE ALIGNMENTS Rmax = 510,000 m Rmin = 270,000 m

SLOPE Imax = 2,48% Imin = 0,6% m

VERTICAL ALIGNMENTS KVmax = 6102,00 KVmin = 3785,00

BANKING Roundabout: 2% external

N

50%

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

CROSS SECTION




LINE 3,5 m

PEDESTRIAN PATH 4,5 m

BIKE PATH 2 m

SAFETY 0,8 m

HARD SHOULDER 0,5 m

CENTRAL RESERVATION 4,5 m

3

N

Safety Kerb

DUAL CARRIAGEWAY

Slope 2%

53%3.2 Track and road safety 3.3 Road surface 3.4 Drainage

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

CROSS SECTION




LINE 4 m

PEDESTRIAN PATH 4,5 m

CYCLE PATH 2 m

SAFETY 0,8 m

HARD SHOULDER 0,5 m

3

N

NORTH RADIOUS 43,7 m

SOUTH RADIOUS 33,8 m

*Measuring from hard shoulder line

ROUNDABOUT

57%

Safety Kerb

Slope 2%

3.2 Track and road safety 3.3 Road surface 3.4 DrainageALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

33.3 Road surface 3.4 Drainage 3.5 STREETLIGHTS




AMOUNT OF INFORMATION

TRAFFIC LORRY CATEGORY

E1 or E2

Low

External line

Dual carriageway: T1

Other roads: T22

Tmin > 6ª y 28ª < Tmax < 32º

TRAFFIC

FACTORES PREVIOS

EMBANKMENT

WEATHER

END OF THE PROJECT

+ 3 cm to main layer

2017

ZP1

ZT3 P < 600 mm

60%

Spanish Standard: 3.1 IC

Regional Standard: Firmes CV

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

3




CALCULATION

METHODOLOGY

ROAD SURFACES ALTERNATIVESStudying together:

EMBANKMENT + ROAD SURFACE + MAINTENANCE

ROAD

SURFACE

CHOSEN

EMBANKMENT

S –EST 1

E1

E2

S. Adecuado

S. Seleccionado

S –EST 1

S. Adecuado

S. Seleccionado

ROAD

SURFACE

T1

T22

T1

T22

121

122

2211

2212

2221

2222

STUDYING

TOHETHER

271,20 €/m

253,68 €/m

63%3.3 Road surface 3.4 Drainage 3.5 STREETLIGHTS

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

3




ROAD

SURFACE

CHOSEN

TRÁFICO T1

BBTM 11 AF 3 cm

Ac 22 bin S 7 cm

AC 32 base G 11 cmDotación 1,5 kg/m2

C60B3 CUR Riego curado

SUELO CEMENTO 28 cm

S-EST 2 30 cm

BETUN PM 45/80-65 para rodadura. Suelo tolerable

BETUN 50/70 resto de capas.

Dotación 0,8 kg/m2

Dotación 1 kg/m2

C60BP3 ADH

C60BF4 IMP

C60B3 ADH

C60B3 CUR

Riego adherencia

Riego Adherencia

Riego imprimacion

Riego curado

TRÁFICO T22

BBTM 11 AF 3 cm

Ac 22 bin S 5 cm

AC 32 base G 7 cm Dotación 1,5 kg/m2

C60B3 CUR Riego curado

SUELO CEMENTO 28 cm

S-EST 2 25 cm

BETUN 50/70 todas las capas Suelo tolerable

Riego adherencia

Riego Adherencia

Riego imprimacion

Riego curado

C60BF4 IMP

C60B3 CUR

Dotación 0,8 kg/m2

Dotación 1 kg/m2

C60BP3 ADH

C60B3 ADH

67%

SPANISH STANDARD:

3.1 IC

3.3 Road surface 3.4 Drainage 3.5 STREETLIGHTSALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

CATCHMENT

SUPERFICIAL

DRAINAGE

PROJECT

Natural

(Brown Basin)

Tormos Street(Red Basin)

Current Drainage

Q25 = 0,077 m3/s

Q100 = 0,474 m3/s

33.4 Drainage 3.5 Streetlight 3.6 Bike Underpass

Q25 = 0,286 m3/s

Q100 = 0,400 m3/s

DOUBLE

NETWORK

(Main Road)

EXISTING

NETWORK

(Other roads)




800 mm

1200 mm

Drain Tube

(40x75 cm) 7 y 15

1200 mm

70%

N

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

33.5 StreetLights 3.6 Bike Underpass 3.7 Gardering




73%

N

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED




33.6 Bike Underpass 3.7 Gardering 3.8 Traffic signs

GEOMETRY (4x3)

0,5 mCANTO ZAPATA Y LOSA

0,4 mHASTIAL

0,4 mDINTEL

42,21 mLONGITUD MARCO

2,5 mLONGITUD ALETAS

PARÁMETROS MECÁNICOS

HA-30/B/20/IIIaCEMENT

B 500 SDSTEEL

77%

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

33.7 Gardering 3.8 Traffic signals

LAGUNARIA PATERSONNI

Pedestrian path

WASHINGOTNIA

Central reservation

OLEA EUROPEA

Roundabouts




LAVANDULA OFFICINALIS

PINUS PINEA

Roundabouts

Big spaces

80%

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

33.8 Traffic signals




HORIZONTAL TRAFFIC SIGNS

VERTICAL TRAFFIC SIGNS

CARRIL BICI:

Banda sonora 20 cm

0,8 m en rojo

Captafaros

Hito flexible

CALZADA

Discontinua: 10 cm

Continua: 15 cm

Cebreados

Hito flexible

SIGNAL REFLECTANCESeñales contenido fijo: RA3

Paneles: RA3-ZB

Spanish Standard 8.1 IC

Spanish Standard 8.2 IC

Tramo interurbano - glorieta

BALIZAMIENTO

83%

ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTED

EJECUTION 44.1 Mov tierras 4.2 TRAFFIC DIVERSION




-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

DES

MO

NTE

-TE

RR

AP

LEN

(M3

)

PK

SOIL MOVEMENT

Coronación: 10.409 ,00 m3

EMBANKMENTS

Núcleo y

cimiento: 12.069,40 m3

CUTTING

Volumen: 48.007,40 m3

Excedente:

Suelo-cem: 928,98 m3

T. vegetal: 796,80 m3

S-EST 2: 3.315,52 m3

87%

44.2 TRAFFIC DIVERSION 4.3 Expropriation




PHASE 1

Demolition current buildings

PHASE 2

Northen Roundabout: South part

Main Road. North part

PHASE 3

Northen Roundabout.

Access

Sourthen Roundabout.

90%EJECUTION




44.4 Expropriation

93%

2% 5%

No urbanizable Edificado No edificado

77%

8% 15%

Expropiacion Servidumbre Temporal

6 €/m2 RURAL

14 €/m2 URBAN

93%

N

EJECUTION

BUDGET55.1 Budget 5.2 Plan de obra




4.410.806,70 €PEM

GG (17 %) = 573.404,87 €PRESUPUESTO

BASE DE

LICITACIÓNBI (6 %) = 264648,40 €

PRESUPUESTO

TOTALIVA (21 %) = 1.102.260,59 €

BASE

IMPONIBLE

5.248.859,97 €

6.351.120,56 €

97%

55.2 Construction management100%

PHASE 3 (example)

WEEK 1




WEEK 2

WEEK 3

WEEK 4

WEEK 5

WEEK 6

Previous works

Demolitions

Soil movement

Drainage

Road surface

StreetLight

Traffic Signals

BUDGET

GRATITUDES

Mauricio UbedaTo my tutor:

Ignacio FerreiroProfessors:

Juan Carlos Sánchez

Carlos GarcíaEngineers:

Fernando Espinal

Vicente PonsodaEngineer and friend:

Friends and familyand




THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

project slides (english)

Documents