Highway
Engineering A
School of the Built Environment,
Engineering and Computing
Coursework Part 2 Brief
Level 5
Semester 2
(20 Credits)
Introduction
This part of the coursework (part 2) is based on the highway infrastructure relating to
a new housing development in Leeds. The site is situated on the urban fringes of
Whinmoor, approximately 7km north-east of Leeds City centre and a walk of 1.4 miles
to the local centre of Seacroft. The site is off the A64 York Road from which the primary
access into the site will be taken. The site is triangular in shape and has an overall
area of approximately 16 hectares. Location plans and an aerial photo showing the
site boundary have been added to My Beckett in the Coursework folder.
The Grimes dyke watercourse (river) runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The
site itself is predominantly former agricultural land associated with the now demolished
Grimes Dyke farm. The topography is undulating and generally falls away towards
Grimes Dyke along the eastern boundary.
The development
A developer has been given planning permission for a development of approximately
400 houses on former agricultural land in the area within the site boundary shown. The
proposed vehicular access to the site is to be taken from the A64 York Road via a
single junction along the site frontage. To start building the new houses, an access
road is required into the site for construction traffic.
Existing conditions
The current speed limit of the A64 York Road is 40mph in the vicinity of the site and
there are existing speed cameras along this stretch of road. Grimes dyke watercourse
crosses the A64 York Road under an existing masonry arch bridge which has recently
be refurbished by Leeds City Council.
Current Situation
Leeds City Council has commissioned a designer to design a junction and an access
road into the site. The designer has produced a scheme option incorporating a signalcontrolled junction where the access road meets the A64 York road. A general
arrangement drawing of this option has been added to My Beckett.
To provide additional capacity for traffic generated from the development site, it is
required to provide 2 lanes in the outbound direction (towards York) for at least 150m
at the approach to your proposed junction with the development access and this lane
is to continue for at least 75m beyond the junction. A right-turn lane into the
development is also required in the inbound direction (towards Leeds from York).
These proposals are reflected in the Designer’s general arrangement drawing.
Coursework Objectives
Use route location principles to assess and propose the optimum location for
the site access.
Consider the factors that affect the capacity of a road.
Appraise types of junctions, highlighting their relative merits for different site
conditions.
Propose and design a horizontal alignment for an access road into the
development considering route location principles and the required
infrastructure provision.
Design a corresponding vertical alignment for the route identified.
Information available (In the coursework folder in My Beckett)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Designer’s General Arrangement Drawing (In My Beckett)
A topographical survey drawing of the site in dwg. Format (In the My Beckett)
A plan and aerial photo showing the site boundary (In My Beckett)
Predicted traffic flow information at the junction of the new access road and
the main A64 (In My Beckett)
5. Desktop study (In My Beckett)
Your tasks
1. With reference to the Designer’s outline drawing (HDC/716406A/011/01),
discuss the factors you believe have been considered in the location of the
access road shown.
(10 marks)
2. Discuss the factors which affect the capacity of a road such as the main A64
York Road between chainages 0 and 300.
(10 Marks)
3. Identify what other junction types could have been used at this location.
Compare and contrast these with the signal-controlled junction chosen by the
Designer. You may use a table to present your answer.
(10 marks)
Killian Ngong, the module lecturer has argued that a roundabout would have
been a better option for this development access.
4. Using route location principles, and the scaled plan provided, sketch a
suitable alignment for your proposed access road into the development site
incorporating a roundabout at the junction. This should extend for a minimum
of 150m into the development and include a turning facility within the
development site for construction vehicles.
(15 Marks)
5. Draw a suitable horizontal alignment showing the main road and your access
road including the roundabout option. The drawing should show the alignment
150m either side of your junction. Use different colours to show the
carriageway, footway and verge areas. You should also label the lane widths
and key dimensions, as well as show clearly your proposals for dealing with
the existing bridge and the river.
(25 Marks)
6. Using the spot levels on the topographical survey drawing, design a suitable
vertical alignment of the access road and the realigned main road. Produce a
typical cross-section of the access road and two further cross sections on the
main road either side of your proposed junction.
(15 Marks)
7. Using the method prescribed by TRRL LR1132, the structural design of
bituminous roads, design a suitable pavement for your road and produce a
detailed cross-section given the following additional information:
AADF at opening =F0= 900 cv/d (assumed each way)
Growth rate = 2%
Design life = 40 years
Opening in 2020
Sub-grade CBR = 5%
Foundation Class 3
(15 Marks)
Submission details
The submission will consist of two sections namely:
a) A short report
Addressing the issues in 1 to 3.
b) Drawings.
Drawings for 4-6 above
Drawings
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Each drawing should be enclosed in a border and have a north point and
chainages where applicable.
In the bottom right-hand corner of the drawing there should be a Title
block, about 12.5cm by 6cm. This should contain:
Project title
Drawing number
Name of author
Scale
Date
No curves should be drawn free hand.
Drawings should be suitably folded, with the title box showing, and
included in the report.
Deadline
The deadline for submission of this work is Thursday 29 April 2021, at 3.00PM, on
the ‘Assignments’ Folder in My Beckett.
Feedback
General feedback will be provided at the lecture session on 6th May 2021 after the
submission of the work. More detailed individual feedback will be given on the
report that will be handed back to each student within a 4-week timeline. Take
time to read and understand your feedback and contact the lecturer at the earliest
opportunity for further clarification if necessary.
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
EXERCISE PHOTO
SITE NBOUDARY
GRIMES DYKE TRAFFIC FLOWS
Project:
Grimes Dyke Development
File name:
Summary of peak hour traffic flows (pcu)
Phase Diagram
E
F
H
G
B
I
A
L
Traffic Phase
(Movement)
A
B
C
D
E
F
J
D
M
Predicted Peak hour Traffic
demand
AM PEAK
PM PEAK
713
1167
60
173
1119
759
19
35
264
107
51
24
*Blue arrows represent pedestrian demand.
K
Saturation
flow
1951
1951
1965
1965
1965
1965
C
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
6
Appendices
© Mouchel 2011
16
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix A – Photographs
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Photograph 5 – View looking east
Photograph 6 – View looking east
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Photograph 6 – View on north parapet
Photograph 7 – View on north parapet
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Photograph 8 – View on north elevation
Photograph 9 – View on north east corner of headwall / parapet
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Photograph 10 – View on north headwall / parapet looking west
Photograph 11 – View on north headwall / parapet looking west and
showing drainage pipe
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Photograph 12 – View on drainage outfall
Photograph 13 – View on gulley
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix B – As Built Record Drawing
© Mouchel 2011
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix C – BCI Form(s)
© Mouchel 2011
PRINCIPAL BRIDGE INSPECTION
Grimes Dike
Bridge Name:
Span
1
of
LCC
Easting
436423
Northing
Inspector
A.Davison
Deck elements
A64
3
Length
May 10, 2011
437079
BCS ave
2.00
Element Description
S
.Ex.
Primary deck element (Table 2)
3
B
2
3
Secondary deck Transverse beams
element/s
Element from Table 3
4
Half joints
5
Tie beam/rod
6
Parapet beam or cantilever
7
Deck bracing
8
Foundations
9
Abutments (incl arch springing)
1
2
1
A
B
A
1
A
3
D
3
1
1
2
C
A
A
C
2
C
3
3
3
C
C
C
10 Spandrel wall / head wall
m
2
36
Area
m
3.00
BCS crit
Def
W
P
Map
1
of
0
/ 0
1
for this bridge
Target
0
Bridge Type Code:
Primary deck element form
12.05 m
Width
1
No
L0189
Road No:
Date
Load-bearing
Substructure
Bridge number
1
Owner:
Set
Form
Cost
Table 2
Solid spandrel arch
Primary deck element material
Table 4
Stone
Secondary deck element form
Table 3
No element (no transverse beams)
Secondary deck element material Table 4
No material
Comments / remarks
No significant defects.
11 Pier / Column
12 Cross head / capping beam
13 Bearings
14 Bearing shelf / plinth
Durability elements
15 Superstructure drainage
No significant defects. Evidence of draining as designed.
16 Substructure drainage
17 Waterproofing
18 Movement / expansion joints
19 Finishes: deck elements
20 Finishes: substructure elements
Safety
elements
21 Finishes: parapets/safety fences
22 Access / walkways / gantries
23 Handrail / parapets / safety fences
24 Carriageway surfacing
25 Footway / verge / footbridge surfacing
Other bridge elements
26 Invert / river bed
No significant defects.
No significant defects. Topsoil exposed but grass growing.
27 Aprons
28 Fenders / cutwaters / collision prot'n
29 River training works
30 Revetment / batter paving
31 Wing walls
32 Retaining walls
33 Embankments
Ancillary
elements
34 Machinery
35 Approach rails / barriers / walls
36 Signs
37 Lighting
38 Services
39
40
41
S - severity, Ex - extent, Def - defect
W - work required, P - work priority
Inspection
date
May 10, 2011
1 of 2 pages
01
L
20
P
MULTIPLE DEFECTS
Element
No.
Defect 1
S
.Ex.
Def
Defect 2
S
.Ex. Def
Defect 3
S
.Ex.
Comments
Def
INSPECTOR'S COMMENTS
Note: This BCI is based on 2009 LCC GI. Only items affected by recent works have been re-scored. Items re-scored
shown yellow.
No significant defects were observed to the remedial works at the structure.
- Newly installed drainage appeared to functioning as intended.
- Mortared joints were well pointed.
- The embankment displays a similar profile to previous arrangement.
- Topsoil to the verge is exposed at this early stage, however there is evidence of grass growth starting.
Name
A.Davison
Signed
Name
P Matson
Signed
May 10, 2011
A Davison
Date
ENGINEER'S COMMENTS
Repairs have been well effected. Existing cirumferential crack in driving 'poor' BCI crit.
Ref. No
P Matson
WORK REQUIRED
Suggested Remedial Work
None in relation to the works
Date work processed
Name
Signed
2 of 2 pages
May 22, 2011
Date
Priority
Estimated
Cost
Action/Work
ordered
Bridge Condition Indicators
Summary sheet
Bridge No
Grimes Dike
May 10, 2011
A.Davison
L0189
Date of inspection
Inspector
Whole Bridge Summary
BCS crit
BCS ave
BCI crit
BCI ave
3.00
2.00
58.00 %
80.90 %
Individual span / element summaries
Form
Span
1 of
1 of
1
1
2
36.15 m
14
3.00
2.00
58.00 %
80.90 %
Deck area
No. of elements
BCS crit
BCS ave
BCI crit
BCI ave
Form
Span
0 of
0 of
0
1
1
Middle Span (Eastbound Carriageway)
Deck area
No. of elements
BCS crit
BCS ave
BCI crit
BCI ave
2
0m
0
0.00
0.00
0.00 %
0.00 %
Form
Span
North Span (Railway)
Deck area
No. of elements
BCS crit
BCS ave
BCI crit
BCI ave
0 of
0 of
1
1
2
0m
0
0.00
0.00
0.00 %
0.00 %
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix D – Substanti
Certificate
© Mouchel 2011
al Completion
CONTRACT NO. 3381
Leeds
CITY COUNCIL
Engineering Services
The Leonardo Building
2 Rossington Street
Leeds LS2 8HB
CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
I hereby certify that the Works carried out by C R Reynolds Construction LTD
Of
Gibson Lane, Melton, North Ferriby, East Yorkshire, HU14 3HH
in connection with Grimes Dike Strengthening, A64, Whinmoor
were substantially completed on the 20 th day of April 2011 in accordance with the
Contract
AND A BOND WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT
LIST OF OUTSTANDING/REMEDIAL WORKS TO FOLLOW
ay.\ Kcnneci
Spectin4Officer
kc
LCC/CON/4
Rev April 06 bp
.(,.AQ
Position
Engineer to the Contract
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix E – Construction Compliance
Certificate
© Mouchel 2011
CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE
1.
Name of Project: Grimes Dike Headwall Repairs 2011
Name of Structure: Grimes Dike Bridge
Structure Ref No.: L0189
Name of Structure
Grimes Dike Bridge
Structure Ref No
L0189
We certify that Grimes Dike Headwall Repairs 2011:
i.
has been constructed, and commissioned in accordance with:
a.
BD 30/87; BD 37/01; BD 86/07.
b.
The Construction Drawings listed within the Design and Check Certificate dated 24 th
December 2010
c.
ii.
The Specification referred to in the
Tender is the 'Specification for Highway Works',
published by HMSO as Volume 1 of the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Wor
ks.
The construction of the works has been accurately translated into AsConstructed drawings. The
unique numbers of these drawings and schedules are:
760461/01/AB – L0189 Grimes Dike Headwall Repairs 2011
CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE
2.
Name of Project: Grimes Dike Headwall Repairs 2011
Name of Structure: Grimes Dike Bridge
Structure Ref No.: L0189
We certify reasonable professional skill and care has been used in examining the construction of
Grimes Dike Headwall Repairs 2011 and that:
i.
has been constructed, and commissioned in accordance with:
a.
BD 3087; BD 37/01; BD 8607,
b.
Design and Check Certificate dated 24 m December 2010
c.
ii.
Works carried out under LCC Term Maintenance Contract.
The Specification referred to in the Tender is the 'Specification for Highway Works',
published by HMSO as Volume 1 of the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works
The construction of the works has been accurately translated into As Constructed drawings
scheduled in 1.ii.
760461/01/AB L0189 Grimes Dike Headwall Repairs 2011
Signed
Name
Woodhe d
Position Held
Portfolio Manager
Name of Organisation
Mouchel
Date
31.5-(l
The certificate is accepted by the TAA.
Signed
Name
Position Held
Engineering Qualifications
TM
Date
CLUctN1
CA
iS D.CrES MANACA-EgC-- 60c\
LEeb
1/4 cJE
S
2/0612_cAt.
Ca; uN.,6-A
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix
Approval
© Mouchel 2011
F – Environment Agency
Environment
4:10 Agency
creating a better place
FAO Ms Carolyn Walton
Leeds City Council
Highways, Selectapost 6
Ring Road, Middleton
Leeds
LS10 4AX
Our ref:
Your ref:
RD/C.9005
Date:
17 February 2011
t-t#G
,-;
Dear Sir/Madam
APPLICATION FOR WORKS IN RIVERS CONSENT
HEADWALL AT GRIMES DIKE BRIDGE
I am pleased to enclose the Agency's formal consent in respect of the above
permanent and temporary works, which should be completed in accordance with the
enclosed Pollution Prevention Guidelines for works likely to affect watercourses.
The construction of the works described in this consent must be completed within
three years from the date of issue of this consent. Works not completed within this
time and/or any additional works will require an additional consent.
I would be grateful if you could advise me, at least 7 days prior to commencement of
works, of the date when works are to commence in order that any inspections can be
arranged as necessary. The date of completion should also be advised. The
enclosed Notification of Commencement and Completion of Works forms should be
completed and returned as appropriate, in the enclosed prepaid envelopes.
Please send us photographs showing the site before any work commences and
after works have been completed. I have enclosed a pre-paid envelope for your
convenience, alternatively, they can be sent to me by e mail
sam.watsonenvironment- agency.clov.uk
It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure their operations do not cause or
exacerbate flooding problems and/ or erosion problems for others as a result of this
application.
Heavy or prolonged rainfall may cause flooding which could result in damage or
inundation of the works. Therefore, the applicant is advised to monitor the weather
conditions closely and act accordingly.
The applicant should also consider the use of straw bales in the watercourse during
the works, to help prevent silt pollution.
Coverdale House, Aviator Court, Amy Johnson Way, Clifton Moor, York, North Yorkshire, Y030 4GZ.
Customer services line: 08708 506 506
Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
morn;
In the event of your proposal involving the keeping, treating or disposal of controlled
waste, the National Customer Contact Team (tel 08708 506506) should be contacted
for specialist guidance. Any contractor involved in the transportation of controlled
waste must be registered with the Environment Agency as a Carrier of Controlled
Waste.
Applicant should ensure that downstream flows are maintained at all times during
works.
Copies of this letter and the consent wiH be sent to any agent we are aware of as
acting for you in relation to this matter.
Should you wish to clarify any of the above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully
V\j,„
SAM WATSON
Development & Flood Risk Officer (Consents)
CC Mr Philip Matson
Direct dial 01904 822559
Direct fax 01904 822649
Direct e-mail sam.watson@environment-agency.gov.uk
ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
Flood Defence Consent
Land Drainage Act 1991
Leeds City Council
Highways, Selectapost 6
Ring Road, Middleton
Leeds
LS10 4AX
Temporary and
Permanent Consent
applying to
Grimes Dike Bridge
Whinmoor
Consent number
RD/C.9005
Coverdale House, Aviator Court, Amy Johnson Way, Clifton Moor, York, North Yorkshire, Y030
4GZ.
Customer services line: 08708 506 506
Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Flood Defence Consent
Contents
Introduction
Contraventions
Other information
iii
iii
iii
Flood Defence Consent
1
Conditions
2
Environment Agency Consent SE 365 371
page ii of iv
APPENDIX 1
DESK TOP STUDY
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL City Development Department
STAGE 1 GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY REPORT
Report for site: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS JUNCTION, GRIMES DIKE, WHINMOOR
Ref: 716406
SOURCES OF
INFORMATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Published geological map (Sheet SE33NE, Scale 1:10000, Dated 1991).
Available historical maps (See Figure 3).
Coal Authority Coal Mining Development Referral Area and LCC Mining archive.
LCC Geotechnical Archive/British Geological Survey Geoindex: A copy of the
available information is given in Appendix 1; a plan indicating the locations of the
investigation boreholes is presented as Figure 6.
BR211 publication – Radon (2007).
BGS Technical Report WA/92/01 ‘Leeds a geological basis for land-use planning.’
Leeds City Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and Environment
Agency flood Risk data.
Environment Agency Aquifer Dataset and Groundwater Vulnerability map 1997.
Site Observations from preliminary inspection (06/01/12); a photographic record is
presented as Appendix 3.
Mouchel Report for Leeds City Council, Acceptance Inspection Report for Grimes
Dike Wall Repair (see Appendix 2).
SITE LOCATION
OS Grid Ref: E436420 N437100.
Site location plan; see Fig 1.
DEVELOPMENT
INTENTION
Proposed access junction (Section 278 Agreement) for large residential development on
north-west side of existing A64 York Road. The proposed junction is situated over a
culverted watercourse (Grimes Dike; a tributary of Cock Beck) which was subject to some
recent repair works by Leeds City Council in March/April 2011; see Appendix 2. The culvert
has a span of approximately 2.5m and an internal height of approximately 1.6m.
The site is situated within a shallow valley feature therefore to accommodate the proposed
junction arrangements a significant volume of fill is required (up to 5.5m maximum) for
embankment construction. Due to the undulating adjacent topography significant cut is also
required on the west side of the proposed junction (approximately 1.4m maximum).
The proposed junction will also require extension of the existing culvert and realignment of
Grimes Dike to the north of its present location. It is understood that the culvert extension
will broadly follow its existing alignment beneath the highway and a new channel will be
constructed at the toe of the new highway embankment. The precise details of this
realignment and culvert extension have not yet been finalised.
PURPOSES AND
AIMS OF STUDY
To establish the likely ground conditions and potential contamination at the site from
geotechnical and former land use aspects.
Conclusions are given at the end of the report.
The site falls outside the Coal Authority Coal Mining Referral Zone and therefore does not
require a Coal Mining Risk Assessment.
SUMMARY
SITE HISTORY
The available historical maps (1854 to 2008) were examined and salient features relative to
the proposed development are summarised on Figure 3.
The present highway arrangements and subject site area have remained largely unchanged
since 1854 however the Mouchel Report on the recent Grimes Dike Bridge repair works
indicates that the highway has been widened in the past. This report also states there is
evidence that the road level has also been raised significantly over time. Modifications of
this scale are not apparent on the historical maps but site observations appear to confirm
these statements.
Report prepared by: R Barson
Date: 26/01/12
Page 1 of 6
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL City Development Department
STAGE 1 GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY REPORT
Report for site: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS JUNCTION, GRIMES DIKE, WHINMOOR
Ref: 716406
SUMMARY
SITE HISTORY
(continued)
The only significant development that has taken place within the subject site area (i.e. the
footprint of the proposed junction works) is the construction of access tracks to the former
Grimes Dike Farm and Willow Garth Farm and Cottage; these were established sometime
before 1854 (the earliest available map).
In the immediate locality a number of wells and pumps were shown along with a former tank
(1893 map only; location not precisely known). Additionally a number of former buildings are
shown within the locality of the junction however none were present within its footprint. All
buildings within the locality were demolished between 1987 and 2002.
To the south of the existing A64 an area of historical tipping is shown on the maps dated
between 1968 and 1978. The aerial extent of this tipped material is not precisely known and
it appears to have been placed over two former well locations; one of these is shown on
later maps to be a spring.
SITE
OBSERVATIONS
Notes on site inspection January 2012; see Fig 7 (Appendix 3), which also shows directions
of any ground surface falls. A photographic record of notable features is presented as
Appendix 3; Plates 1 to 26 inclusive.
Approximate heights of features stated below were determined from on site measurements
and from existing profiles provided by LCC HD&C; these do not appear to be accurate
however, particularly between approximate Chainage 130m and 200m. A detailed
topographical survey was unavailable; the available topographical information is believed to
have been provided by the developer (Persimmon Homes).
The underlying landform beneath the subject site area is a shallow valley focused along the
line of the present Grimes Dike watercourse and the general landform gently declines
towards the south-east.
The existing highway is generally carried on embankment throughout its length attaining a
maximum height of approximately 6m on the south-eastern side of the existing culvert.
Highway drainage was observed to outfall directly into Grimes Dike on the north-west side
of the highway via recently constructed 150mm diameter HDPE pipe work (see Plates 3 and
20).
Grimes Dike was observed to be a minor watercourse attaining a maximum width and depth
of approximately 2m and 1m respectively (see Plates 21, 22 and 24). The water quality is
expected to be medium to low and a high proportion of suspended sediment was observed
during the site inspection (recent rainfall). Numerous outcrops of sandstone and siltstone
bedrock were exposed within the stream bed.
There appears to be significant cut to accommodate the former access track to Willow Garth
Farm alongside the north-western side of the existing highway and to the south-west of the
culvert and an approximately 1.5m high retaining wall is present at this location (see Plates
2 and 19). A small exposure of weathered siltstone bedrock was observed within this cut
feature (see Plate 26).
The former access track to Grimes Dike Farm is also visible, surfaced with rough tarmac
(see Plates 10 and 11).
An existing slope is present along the line of the proposed site access road; this is
estimated to attain a maximum height of approximately 4.5m (see Plates 14, 16 and 17).
Report prepared by: R Barson
Date: 26/01/12
Page 2 of 6
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL City Development Department
STAGE 1 GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY REPORT
Report for site: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS JUNCTION, GRIMES DIKE, WHINMOOR
Ref: 716406
SITE
OBSERVATIONS
(continued)
A manhole inspection cover was observed during the site inspection to the north of the
proposed access road; this is expected to be related to drainage from the former farm
buildings and appears to outfall to Grimes Dike (see Plates 3 and 13). The proposed access
road and junction will cover over this feature with a significant thickness of fill (up to 4m?)
therefore its function/condition needs establishing prior to development.
GEOLOGY
Geological features are summarised on Figure 4. The geological map indicates the local
underlying strata to be the Carboniferous Lower Coal Measures, typically undifferentiated
sandstone, mudstone, and siltstone. The Elland Flags are shown to outcrop to the west but
may be present within the subject site area. The dip of the strata is shown to be between 3
and 8 degrees to the south and south-west. The map shows the site is unaffected by
faulting.
No coal seams are shown to outcrop within the locality and none are present within
influencing distance of the surface.
The geological map shows superficial deposits overlying the bedrock in the locality of the
site comprising head, glacial till, made ground and landscaped ground. Minor alluvial
deposits are suspected to be present, closely associated with the line of the Grimes Dike
watercourse.
Head (solifluction) deposits at least 2m thick are shown approximately 30m north-east of the
subject site area. Head deposits typically comprise highly variable soft to firm sandy clay of
low to intermediate plasticity with sandstone gravel, cobbles and boulders. These deposits
are typically highly compressible with variable rates of consolidation settlement and
generally low shear strengths.
Glacial till deposits are shown to the north, west and east of the site but not within the
subject site area itself.
Minor alluvial deposits (to approximately 2m) are suspected and may be present as a
narrow tract associated with the line of Grimes Dike. These can be extremely variable but
are expected to be present as soft to firm silts and clays.
Madeground deposits are shown on the south-eastern side of the existing A64 York Road,
to the east of the proposed junction, and also between 60m and 110m to the west/northwest beyond the location of the former Grimes Dike Farm buildings. The area of
madeground shown to the west of the former Grimes Dike Farm is indicated to be an area
of landfill by the BGS Technical Report but no further details are available.
Landscaped ground is shown 15m south, 65m to the north-east, and 65m to the west of the
subject site area. An archive borehole record (BGS Ref: SE33NE/1205) indicates the
landscaped ground to the south of the site area to be at least 6.5m in thickness comprising
soft to firm sandy gravely clay with mixed demolition rubble, ash and boulders.
The archive investigations available comprise 5 no. cable percussive boreholes carried out
to the south of the site area to depths of between 3.15m and 8.27m. These are indicated to
have been carried out as part of the A64 Stage II ground investigation in October/November
1975 and generally encountered topsoil and residual soil to depths of between 0.2m and
1.5m overlying sandstone and mudstone bedrock. The exception was Borehole 5 which
found 6.5m of madeground overlying 0.05m of topsoil and 1.45m of clay over weathered
sandstone.
The archive borehole records are presented in Appendix 1; a plan showing the locations of
these boreholes is presented as Figure 6.
Report prepared by: R Barson
Date: 26/01/12
Page 3 of 6
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL City Development Department
STAGE 1 GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY REPORT
Report for site: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS JUNCTION, GRIMES DIKE, WHINMOOR
Ref: 716406
GROUNDWATER
The underlying rocks are classified as a secondary aquifer of variable permeability, with the
soils having low leaching potential.
There is an existing watercourse, Grimes Dike, within the subject site area which runs
approximately north to south. The watercourse is carried in culvert beneath the highway
(approximately 2.5m wide and 1.6m high). According to EA and SFRA data the site area is
not at risk of flooding.
Slight groundwater seepages were recorded in four of the five archive boreholes at depths
of between 0.45m to 3.4m bgl (90.32m to 100.31m AOD).
Historical issues and springs in the locality also suggest relatively shallow groundwater
levels.
QUARRYING
No quarrying is indicated by the historical or geological maps within the site area.
CONTAMINATION
The area of madeground shown on the geological map to the west of the former Grimes
Dike Farm is indicated to be an area of landfill but no further details are available. This
represents a possible off site source of contamination.
Other possible sources of off site contamination include the historical tank shown on the
1893 map (precise location not accurately known) and the madeground and landscaping
deposits shown on the south-eastern side of the existing highway.
It is considered unlikely that any of these potential sources of contamination will impact on
the proposed junction construction works.
Landfill Gas: The suspected landfill site adjacent to Grimes Dike Farm along with the
madeground and landscaped ground deposits all pose a risk of landfill gas migration
however this is not relevant to the proposed development.
GASES
Ground Gas: No potential.
Radon: The site falls within an area where radon protection may be necessary for new
buildings however this is not relevant to the proposed development.
SOAKAWAY
DRAINAGE
There is indicated to be sandstone bedrock within the locality therefore soakaway drainage
may be feasible however if a high groundwater level is present this may preclude their use.
A site investigation including soakaway tests (if appropriate) will be necessary to determine
the feasibility of utilising soakaway drainage.
It may be possible with consent from the EA and Leeds City Council Flood Risk
Management to dispose of surface waters generated by the proposed highway junction
works direct into the adjacent watercourse (Grimes Dike); however this will require careful
assessment of volumes generated by the development and their potential downstream
impact.
The proposed highway levels for the access road into the site appear to form a low point at
approximately Chainage 17m. The proposed access road then rises into the area of the
proposed residential development; therefore potentially any drainage system may be
accepting run off from a much larger area than the extent of the proposed junction works.
This will need to be carefully considered in any potential surface water drainage
arrangements.
Report prepared by: R Barson
Date: 26/01/12
Page 4 of 6
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL City Development Department
STAGE 1 GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY REPORT
Report for site: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS JUNCTION, GRIMES DIKE, WHINMOOR
Ref: 716406
CONCLUSIONS
RELATED TO
INTENDED
DEVELOPMENT
Summary of findings
No significant development has taken place since 1854 within the footprint of the proposed
junction. The existing highway is suspected to have been widened and its levels have been
raised at some time in the past. The existing (now overgrown) access tracks to the former
Willow Garth and Grimes Dike Farms were constructed at grade or in minor cut; these were
established before publication of the earliest maps (1854).
The existing highway is predominantly carried on embankment throughout the site area; this
varies in height from less than 0.5m to approximately 6m maximum. An existing watercourse
is present beneath the highway in a culvert; approximately 2.5m wide and 1.6m in height.
Grimes Dike is a minor tributary of Cock Beck and the site is not at risk of flooding.
The site area is underlain by Carboniferous Lower Coal Measures strata including the Elland
Flags; evidence of shallow sandstone and siltstone bedrock was observed during the site
inspection. A narrow tract of alluvial deposits may be found in close proximity with the present
course of Grimes Dike.
Groundwater levels are expected to be shallow, particularly adjacent to the existing
watercourse. The underlying rocks are classified as a secondary aquifer of variable
permeability, with the soils having low leaching potential.
No quarrying or coal mining is expected to have taken place within or beneath the site area in
the past.
Possible sources of landfill and radon gas have been identified; however these are not of
concern to the proposed development.
Sources of potential contamination have been identified however it is unlikely these will
impact on the proposed development.
Soakaway drainage appears to be feasible for the proposed development however shallow
groundwater (if present) may preclude their use. The existing highway drainage appears to
discharge into Grimes Dike therefore, subject to agreement with Leeds City Council Flood
Risk Management, it may be possible to extend these arrangements to the proposed junction.
It should be noted however that the proposed access road climbs into the development area
and therefore the proposed junction drainage must be capable of accepting these potential
(off site) additional flows as it is situated at the lowest point of the proposed estate road.
Ground Investigation Proposals
A ground investigation by hand and machine excavated trial pits should be carried out to
establish the ground conditions throughout the site area. Additionally cable percussive
boreholes are recommended within the highway adjacent to the culvert to confirm the existing
embankment construction and underlying strata.
The ground investigation should include an assessment of the following.
a) Madeground profile (if present) beneath the site area.
b) The ground bearing characteristics in the area of the proposed culvert extension for
foundation design.
c) The existing embankment construction and underlying ground conditions.
d) Ground conditions for the area of the proposed Grimes Dike realignment and stability of
proposed adjacent slopes (proposed cut channel at toe of new highway embankment).
e) Groundwater regime throughout the site area.
Report prepared by: R Barson
Date: 26/01/12
Page 5 of 6
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL City Development Department
STAGE 1 GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY REPORT
Report for site: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS JUNCTION, GRIMES DIKE, WHINMOOR
Ref: 716406
CONCLUSIONS
RELATED TO
INTENDED
DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
Ground Investigation Proposals (continued)
f)
Properties of subgrade for carriageway design throughout the footprint of the proposed
junction.
g) Material re-use assessment for areas of proposed cut.
h) Soakaway tests (if appropriate).
The locations of proposed exploratory holes is presented as Figure 6.
A detailed topographical survey is also required, as a minimum this should include:
1. Site levels at 5m centres for aerial extent of proposed junction plus 20m in all
directions. Survey should be widened to 50m beyond footprint of proposed junction
on its north side to accommodate possible adjustments for the Grimes Dike
realignment;
2. Levels at the base of the retaining wall on the south-eastern side of the existing
highway including culvert and base of watercourse levels for the extents of the
scheme;
3. Detailed topographic profiles at approximately 50m centres along existing highway
and at 25m centres along the length of the proposed access road into the
development area; and
4. Establish invert (streambed) levels for the existing watercourse throughout the site
area and at least 50m upstream.
It should be noted that the site area is densely overgrown and significant vegetation
clearance will be necessary to facilitate the topographical survey, particularly for the profiles.
Attachments:
Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
Fig 5
Fig 6
Fig 7
Site Location plan;
General Arrangements and Proposed Construction;
Historical Features Plan;
Geological Features Plan;
Aerial Photograph (2009);
Ground Investigation Scoping; and
Photographic Record Plan (see Appendix 3)
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Available Ground Investigation Information;
Mouchel Report for Repair Work to Grimes Dike Culvert (July 2011);
Photographic Record (Plates 1 to 26 inclusive); and
Drawings
Notes:
1. This study does of itself not necessarily fulfil the requirements of a Phase 1
Contamination Report as required by LCC Planning Dept.
2. Any contamination investigations should comply with current LCC Planning
Department guidelines and might require additional investigation to that indicated
above.
3. If ground investigation is required, the client should provide with their instruction all
information where applicable on any known private services and a full inventory of
any storage tanks present within the site, both surface and underground.
Report prepared by: R Barson
Date: 26/01/12
Page 6 of 6
GEOTECHNICAL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
Proposed Section 278 Works at Grimes Dike, Whinmoor, Leeds (A64 York Road)
Site Location Plan
THE SITE
This map is based upon Ordnanc e Survey material with
the permission of Ordnance Surv ey on behalf of the
Controller of Her Majesty 's Stationery Office Crown
copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to pros ec ution or civil proc eedings.
Leeds City Counc il 100019567 (2007)
Ü
KEY:
Scheme No. 716406
= THE SITE
SCALE: 1:24,000
DATE: 26 January 2012
FIG: 1
Proposed Section 278 Works at Grimes Dike, Whinmoor, Leeds (A64 York Road)
GEOTECHNICAL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
General Arrangements and Proposed Construction
Note: no detailed topographical information available;
all dimensions should be considered approximate
Fill =
BGS Ref: SE33NE1205
> = Archive borehole location (BGS Reference; see Appendix 1)
> = Cable percussive boreholes (2 no.)
S = Proposed hand excavated trial pits in verge; to positively locate STATS
S = Proposed machine excavated trial pits to establish ground conditions, sample strata and in-situ testing
Scheme No. 716406
SCALE: 1:1,250
DATE: 26 January 2012
FIG: 6
APPENDIX 1
AVAILABLE GROUND INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
(from BGS; see Figure 6 for exploratory hole location plan)
Page 1 I Borehole SE33NE1204 I Borehole Logs
503 IAC\ \9,o4
3cd5so \ '51010
STLG= II
BORE,OLE No.
AND LOCATION
Borehole 4.
31.10.75.
Sholl and
Lugar.
Main route
400 m.
Offsot 17 N7
99.6512 A.O.D.
DEPTH
From
G.L.
To
0.35
0.35
1.70
1.70
3.15
SNAKES
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Black TOPSOIL, becoming vcry sandy,
.rith tr.:a roots.
Complztel y wootharod thinly
laminated light brown modium-grainedi
SZDSTONE, with thin laminatio ns of
brown and groy millstone.
'later added to assist baring from
1.25 m
Highly woothored thinly laminated
liatt grey and brown medium-grainod
&.NDSTOBE, rith thin laminations of
brown mudstono.
Water added. to assist boring.
0.45
0.45•
0.90
0.45
1.25
1.25
1.70
1.70
(ILO=
T RIAX.
2.05
2.052.50
2.70
3.15
3.15
Test and Resuit
Depth
In
11
8.7
37
20
a
DD
13
58
' 11
1784
73
Cu
37
ga
(results possihly
affected by added
water).
7.3
11
BO
9.1
130
END OF BOREHOLE
Cased. (150 mm) to 1.50 m.
Very slight rater entry at 0.45 a.
No standing vitt= in borehole on
completion.
Chisel used from 0.35 m.
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/90183/images/10108567.html
05/01/2012
Page 1 I Borehole SE33NE1205 I Borehole Logs
19-°
A.64 ST-Ct 11
601MHOLENa
ANK)LOCANON
'
Boreholo 4A.
4:5.11.75.
Sholl and
Auger.
Main route
385 m.
Offset 15 m SE
103.51m A.O.D.
SWISS
DEPTH
From
C.L
sc, 91 °
s 65crip
Soll. DESCRWNON
6.50
?CSC.. GROUND comprising soft to
firm brown and grey sandy silty
CLZ, with some grave/.
Proquont pockets or layers of
MUDSTONZ, 31V12 AND S.,NDSTONE
fragments, also BRICK HARDCORE
and AMIS. Clay ratrix
occasionally becoming stiff.
Chiselled boulder or oonoreto
block 5.35 to 5.80 a.
Toe and tea
Domh
To
G.T., 0.45
(100mm
TR1LX)
0.45
0.45 0.90
1.10 1.55
(100=
RIAX.)
25
1551
96
m
DD
Cu
7
fill
24
m
23
°N
11
19
1730
100
a
AD
Cu
gu
FL
LL
TT
so,s
2
Mv
0.7
0.212
0.160
27-54
54-10 7
,07-215
0.092
215-429
1.55 - m
m
2.00
2.05 - m
N
2.50
3.40 - m
3-40 - n
9
28
61
0.01
cv
1r:7
15.6
11.1
10.4
32
30
31
lo
32
28
1523
25
1
25
46
0.02
Cy'
1 Dv
0.450 1.2
0.310 1.6
0.210 1.6
DD
3.85
(1000m ou
MAX. OU
FS
LL
SOT S
IT
27-54
54-107
107-215
6.50 6.55
6.55
8.00
215-429
3.85
3.85 4.30
4.30 5.35
5-35 5.80
6.10 6.55
6.55
TOPSOIL.
6.55 Soft becoming firm grey and
7.00
brown sandy silty CLAY with some
sandstone fragments.
7-55
0.120
n
m
N
n
1.7
23
23
7
32
m
N
24
11
Et
36
N
41
24.
15
m
26
n
a
Continuoi/...
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/90184/images/10108568.html
05/01/2012
Page 21 Borehole SE33NE12051 Borehole Logs
4-€.55-r-WAl2og c,AArcA
a
.64 MI= IT
smotEs
DEPTH
BOIEWLENa
AN/Out:00N
hom
901 DESCRIPTION
Teu •d Rea:
Nigh
To
7.55—
. Borehole 44
22
1698
114
in
DD
MO
(100 ma Cu
Continuad.
.
TAM.)
•
8.00
.
8.27
Highly to moderately weathored
grey and brown laminated SLYDSTONB
with laminations of andstone.
8.27
ETD) og BOREHOLE.
Cased (150 am) to 3.20 a.
Very slight water entry at 3.20 a.
Borehole to 4.30 m oased to 3.20 sa
left overnight, no standing water
8.00
8.00—
8.27
5
plu
VI,
LL
24
m
m
li
25
18
150/265ma
44
'
•
He standingyater on a)mpletion of
'borehole.
.
•
.
•
•
,
•
•
'
.
,
•
.
•
•
N,
http.//scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/90184/images/10108569.html
05/01/2012
Page 1 I Borehole SE33NE1206 I Borehole Logs
•
BORLAOLENc.
ANDLOCATION
'
Borcholo 5.
6.11.75.
Shall and
Luger.
Main routo
445 II
Offsot 10 m SE
96.78m A.O.D.
5a 2;3
\ ° (62.
ST,...= II
"ScUtS \ S1 C, ° •
SAMPLES
DEPTH
SOIL DESCRIPTION
From
To
G.L.
0.20
Dark brown TOPSOIL.
0.20
1.30
Completely to highly weathored
thinly laminated orange to brown
modium grainod weak mioacaous
SLNDSTOND, with thin laminations
of clay or mudstonc. Laminations 1
to 5 mm thick, noar horizontal.
Deok
0.40
0.45
m
m
26
0.45 0.90
m
N
9.9
53
1.00 1.30
(100 mm
m
DD
Cu
Para.)
1.30
1.30
1.75
1.30 Highly woathorod thinly leminatod
light brown and groy medium grained 1.75
SLNDSTONE, with thin laminations of
clay or mudstone.
1.75
2.00
Moderately woathcrod grey and
brown thinly laminated silty
=STONE.
•
2.00
3.25
3.25
Moderately weathered light brown
and uoy thinly lamin n t -T.
micaceous SLNDSTONE, with thin
laminations of mudstone.
Test and RewIt
1
20
17
1598
33
Ou.
25
m
11
m
N
10
60
14
1801
117
17
1.75 2,00
100 mm
RILX)
DD
Cu
gu
2.00
m
2.00 2.15
m
N
9.8
76/150mm
2.80 3.25
m
N
154/275vm
11
14
11
END OF BOREHOLE.
Casod (150 mm) to 3.00 m.
Very slight vator entry at 3.25 m
No standing wItor on oomplotion
of boroholo.
.
Water added to assist boring
from about 1.0 m.
,
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi scans/boreholes/90185/images/10108570.html
05/01/2012
Page 1 I Borehole SE33NEI207 I Borehole Logs
—.64 ST_C-2 II
BOREHOLE No.
ANDLOCATION
Boroholo 6.
6:7.11.75.
Shell and
:.ugor.
;tin route
480 m.
Offset 35m El
93.72m ....O.D.
sa-2,5 1-R. \çkl
\-51t.50
SAMM1S
DEPTH
SOL DESCRIPTION
From
To
C.L.
0.25
Dark groy TOPSOIL.
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.45
045
1.10
1.10
340
Firm groy silty clayey SOB—SOIL.
Pima grey and brown silty 01...Y
with rootlets.
Firm gray and brown laminated
silty CL:a (Completoly woatherod
NOWTONI)
Highly wcathored grey and brown
laminatod =STONE with thin bands
of micaccous sandstono. Laninatio
near horizontal.
3.40
Too and Result
Depth
0.30
0.35
a
m
31
28
045 —
0.90
m
25
9
1.10 —
1.55
100rn
TB.I.a.)
m
DD
Cu
Ou
23
1623
20
8
m
a
N
m
14
13
52
13
100
1.55
Booming loss weathered with depth 1.60 2.05
2.95 —
3 .40
END OP BOMOIE
Cased (150 mm) to 1.50 m.
Vory slight wator entrios at
2.05 n and 3.40 m.
Borehole to 2.05 m, cased to
1.50 m, loft overnight, no
standing wator a.m.
No standing wator on complotion o
Borehole.
N
N
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/90186/ima g es/10 1 08 571.html 05/01/2012
Page 1 I Borehole SE33NEI208 I Borehole Logs
s.33
I \ R°2
AC
A.64 STLG2II
&NEHMEN°.
ANDLOCATION
Boroholo 7.
11.11.75.
. Shell and
Augor.
Hain routo
500 n.
Offset 20 n N7
97.36n A.O.D.
DEPTH
SO1 DESOUPDON
3(0 16 °
SAMPLES
From
To
G.L.
0.15
TOPSOIL.
0.15
0.40
Stiff brown and gray silty CL ..a 0.15 with sandstone fragments.
0.45
(100nn
TR=.)
0.40
1.50
D.01
1.85
1.85
3.30
•
3.30
Thm wid 10.1A
n
DD
Cu
gu
PL
LL
Conpletoly to highly weathered grey 0 .45
la
and brown thinly laninated silty
0.50 , n
MUDSTONE.
0.95
N
1.00 - n
1.50
DD
(100nn Cu
TRLO) OU
1490
1.90
T>1°?)()
Highly to noderatoly woathortd
dark grey shaloy =STONE.
Slightly-woathored dark grey
abaloy MUDSTONE, with occasional
bands of light grey fino-grained
SANDSTOM. Water added to assist
boring and chisel used.
n
1.50 - n
1.85
DD
(100min Cu
Taux.) gu
PL
LL
1.85
n
1.85 - n
1.90
N .
2.10- N
2.18
3.22 - N
19
1431
92
25
24
.
49
21
19
24
18
1760
63
19
17
16
1721
49
19
27
42
18
7.5
4Z/35mn
80/75.mn
84/75cm
3.30
MID OF BOREHOLE
Cased (150 nu) to 1.5 m.
No standing water on conplotion of
boreholo.
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_ scans/boreholes/90187/images/10108572.html
05/01/2012
APPENDIX 2
MOUCHEL REPORT FOR REPAIR WORK TO GRIMES DIKE CULVERT
(JULY 2011)
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Acceptance Inspection
Report
Grimes Dike Wall Repair
Leeds CC Structure Number L0189
July 2011
Produced for
Leeds City Council
Design Services
Selectapost 6
Ring Road
Middleton
Leeds
LS10 4AX
Prepared by
Mouchel
93 Water Lane
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS11 5QN
T 0113 203 5600
F 0113 203 5601
© Mouchel 2011
i
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Document Control Sheet
Project Title
Grimes Dike Strengthening
Report Title
Acceptance Inspection Report
Bridge Ref
L0189
Revision
1.0
Reference
1032382-001-001
Status
Final
Control Date
May 2011
Record of Issue
Rev.
Author
Date
Check
Date
Authorised
Date
0.1
Philip Matson
17/6/11
Jon Kenney
17/6/11
JR
Woodhead
17/6/11
1.0
Philip Matson
26/7/11
Philip Matson
26/7/11
JR
Woodhead
26/7/11
Distribution
Organisation
Contact
Copies
Leeds City Council
Client Team
Collaborator
© Mouchel 2011
ii
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Contents
Document Control Sheet .............................................................................................. ii
Contents......................................................................................................................... 2
1
2
Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4
1.1
Grimes Dike Bridge .................................................................................... 4
1.2
Location Plan.............................................................................................. 5
1.3
Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 6
1.4
General Photographs ................................................................................. 7
Structure Information .......................................................................................... 9
2.1
3
4
5
Repairs................................................................................................................ 10
3.1
Background Information ........................................................................... 10
3.2
Liaisons with Internal and External Bodies............................................... 10
3.3
Repairs ..................................................................................................... 10
3.4
Contractual Issues.................................................................................... 11
3.5
Safety Issues ............................................................................................ 11
3.6
CDM ......................................................................................................... 12
3.7
Project Close Out ..................................................................................... 12
Acceptance Inspection...................................................................................... 13
4.1
Acceptance Inspection ............................................................................. 13
4.2
Bridge Condition Index - BCI .................................................................... 13
Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................... 14
5.1
6
Structure Data Sheet .................................................................................. 9
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 14
Appendices ........................................................................................................ 16
Appendix A – Photographs
Appendix B – As Built Record Drawing
Appendix C – BCI Form(s)
Appendix D – Substantial Completion Certificate
© Mouchel 2011
2
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Appendix E – Construction Compliance Certificate
Appendix F – Environment Agency Approval
Appendix G – Leeds City Council Approval
© Mouchel 2011
3
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
1
Introduction
1.1
Grimes Dike Bridge
Grimes Dike Bridge is a single span masonry arch carrying the A64 York Road over
Grimes Dike and is located east of Whinmoor, at OS grid reference SE3645 3710.
Viewing from below it is clear the re are two distinct arch sections indicating the
bridge was widened some time in the past. Similarly there is evidence the road level
has been raised signif icantly over time fro m the appearance of the north elevation.
The structure has a clear span of 2.52m in th e north elevation and 2.30m in the
south. The headroom measured from the invert to the cro wn of the ar ch increase
from 1.58m in the north to 1.66m in the south. Both the no rth and south elevation
project out a maximum of 1.22m from the outer face of the parapet.
The upstream elevation can be a ccessed via a track th at runs adjacent to th e
northeast retaining wall. Access to the downstream elevat ion is best achieved by
passing through the structure.
The bridge has a southeast to northwest orientation,
with the northwest and
southeast elevations being referred to as the north and south elevations respectively.
Grimes Dike water course flows from north to south.
In Oct 2010 the bridge was assessed at 0 tonn es limited by the north headwall an d
spandrel.
The wall was asse ssed qualitatively as failing due
to excessive
deformation/deterioration observed in the Inspection for Assessment. The movement
was monitored on a reg ular basis for signs of deterioration , and during March/April
2011 repairs were effected by CR Reynolds Ltd. (one of L eeds City Council’s ter m
Maintenance contractors).
Subsequent to the repa irs, an Acce ptance Inspection was carried out by Mouchel.
This document constitutes the Acceptance Inspection for the repairs.
© Mouchel 2011
4
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
1.2
Location Plan
L0189
Grimes Dyke
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of HMSO. Licence No AL54700X
Based on a scale of 1 : 50,000 approx.
© Mouchel 2011
5
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
1.3
Site Plan
L0189
Grimes Dike
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of HMSO. Licence No AL54700X
Based on a scale of 1 : 2,500 approx.
© Mouchel 2011
6
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
1.4
General Photographs
Photograph 1 - North elevation prior to repair
Photograph 2 - North elevation after repair
© Mouchel 2011
7
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Photograph 4 – View looking east prior to the repair
Photograph 3 – View looking east after to repair
© Mouchel 2011
8
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
2
Structure Information
2.1
Structure Data Sheet
Extracted from the 2009 PI
1.
Structure Name :
Grimes Dike Bridge
2.
LCC Structure No :
L0189
3.
National Grid Reference :
SE 3645 3710
4.
Brief Description Of Structure :
Single span masonry arch
5.
Structure Owner :
Leeds City Council
6.
Year Of Construction :
Not known
Year Accepted Into Network:
Not known
Road Carried :
A64 York Road
Spanning Across :
Grimes Dike
8.
Number Of Spans/Span
Dimensions :
Single 2.30m minimum span
9.
Square Or Skew Bridge :
Square
7.
10. Overall Length of Structure :
2.52m (north) / 2.30m (south)
11. Overall Width of Structure :
12.050m
12. Minimum Headroom :
1.58m
13. Minimum Height Of Parapets
Above Back Of Footway :
0.80m
14. Design Highway Loading :
Not known
15. Details Of Existing Services
Relevant To Maintenance :
Refer to as built record drawing for services
in the vicinity of the works
16. Date Of Previous Principal
Inspection :
2009
© Mouchel 2011
9
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
3
Repairs
3.1
Background Information
For some t ime the no rth headwall had exhib ited signs of movement, including
bulging and cracking t o the headwall and a longitudina l crack to the adjacent
carriageway surfacing*. The movement was monitored on a regular basis for signs of
deterioration. Following the assessment the bridge was classified as substandard.
BD 79 Interim Measures were put in place comprising monitoring.
*Refer to th e 2009 Mo uchel Principal Inspection Report, 2010 General Inspectio n
and subsequent Monitoring Reports for details of the
historical condition of t he
structure.
Leeds City Council subsequently instructed Mouchel to prepare a repair scheme to
repair the elements of t he structure damaged through movement. It should be noted
that the brief did not include for repairs to the cir cumferential crack present towards
the north end of the arch.
No calculations were carried out to support the design. Rather, it was a ‘like for li ke’
replacement, empirical and based on the guid ance given in various standards an d
engineering judgement. The design was certified 24th December 2010
3.2
Liaisons with Internal and External Bodies
Environment Agency (EA) Approval was gra nted to allo w the installation of th e
surface water drainage outfall. T he EA approval document in appen ded to this
document.
Detailed negotiations and discussions were held with the Statutory Und ertakers prior
to commencing the works and BT was present on site at the beginning of the works.
The A64 is particular ly busy durin g peak t imes and displays a tidal flow of traffic
movement – busier into Leeds on the morning; busier out of Leeds on the evening.
Discussions were held with LCC Network Management in advance of the works and
it was agreed that the works could b e carried out under a single lane closure, under
24/7 traffic light control, with the traffic lights manned during peak periods.
A mail drop was carried out to local residents and Councillor’s were
advance of the works.
3.3
contacted in
Repairs
Repairs were carried out during March and April 2011 by CR Re ynolds – a Leeds
City Council Term Cont ractor, under the supervision of Mouchel. Richard King of
Leeds City Council assisted with contractual issues.
© Mouchel 2011
10
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
The contract made good the bulgin g masonry and brought the headwall into a good ,
durable condition. Refer to the as-built record drawing in the appendices of this
report, for exact details of the repairs.
In more detail:
The carriageway was saw-cut approximately 100 to 150mm to the rea r of the crack,
for a length of approximately 17.50 m. The surfacing was planed/excavated and th e
existing verge material was carefully e xcavated in phases to expose the (numerous)
statutory undertakers’ a pparatus. The apparatus was supp orted during the works.
The apparatus found is shown on the as-built
record drawing. Note – 4 number
asbestos coated BT ducts were iden tified – their presence has been identified in an
email to Leeds City Council.
The affected section of masonry headwall and parapet was carefully dismantled for
an approximate length of 10.3m to a pre-determined level.
Two replacement gullies were installed. These were con nected to a 150mm di a.
PVC corrugated drainage pipe which was routed through the headwall and down
beside the eastern buttress, and connected to a masonry outfall. Th e outfall wa s
constructed such that the drainage could discharge directly into the beck.
The headwall was reconstructed and no-fines concrete was installed to its rear.
The parapet was then re-constructe d (in two lifts) and fill (a ggregate and acceptable
fill) was installed to the rear of the wall. The fill to the carriageway (no-fines concrete)
was also installed at this stage.
New kerbs were installed and the carriageway surfacing and road ma rkings were
reinstated.
3.4
Contractual Issues
Under the T erm Maintenance Contract the defe cts liability period extends until 20
April 2012.
th
A retention was not deducted from the payment.
3.5
Safety Issues
Four asbestos cement coated BT ducts were identified towards the b ottom of th e
excavation. The sequence of events upon discovering the ducts was:
Asbestos identified on site;
Instructed contractor to work away from ducts until further notice;
© Mouchel 2011
11
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
Notified Charlie Parkinson (CDMC):
Notified LCC Asbestos Unit - David Surtees who commented:
‘based upon your description I have presumed that the pipes in
question are of an asbestos cement manufacture and therefore the
risk to exposure from asbestos fibres is low and with them being
coated this risk is even lower.
As long as the advice given, detailed below, is strictly adhered to there
should be very minimum risk of asbestos fibres entering the atmosphere.’
3.6
No mechanical cutting or excavating equipment to be used in
proximity of the pipes (careful hand digging only)
Ensure pipes are not knocked/damaged/stressed in any way
Pipes can be wrapped in polythene or the like as an extra
precaution.
CDM
The scheme was not notifiable due t o the estimated number of man hours / length o f
time works required to complete the works. For information: only projects which last
longer than 30 days or involve more than 500 person days of work a re known a s
'notifiable' projects under the CDM 2007 Regulations.
3.7
Project Close Out
All relevant documentation require d to close out this proj ect has bee n, or will be
supplied to Leeds City Council in the not to o distant fu ture. Various document s
pertinent to close-out are appended to this report.
© Mouchel 2011
12
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
4
Acceptance Inspection
4.1
Acceptance Inspection
The repair works were supervised by Mouchel. Th
Substantially Complete on the 20th April 2011.
e works were certified
Prior to the inspection, the following terms of reference were agreed with Leeds City
Council:
Inspection to be to the standard of a PI (i.e. touching distance);
Inspection only look at the elements affected by the works;
Report to have sufficient intro for context but d oesn't need to have the entire
history;
Recommendations for alterations to the BCI s core to reflect improve ments in
condition.
The inspection was carried out by Jon K enney and Andrew Davison of Mouchel on
the 10th May 2011.The weather was dry and fine at the time of the inspection. Th e
inspectors found that works carried out under this contract were well executed and
suitable for acceptance and that there were no repairs that required remedial works.
Photos taken during inspection are included in the appendices of this report.
4.2
Bridge Condition Index - BCI
Subsequent to the repairs, a revised BCI score was generated. This is b ased on the
2010 LCC General Inspection BCI, with only t he relevant items re-scored to reflect
the repairs. It is appended to the report. BCI scores:
BCIcrit is 58% (3) indicating that part of the stru cture is in a poor condition. This is
consequent to the circumferential crack towards the north end of the structure;
BCIave is 80.90% (2) indicating that the structure is in a fair condition overall but one
or more of the functions may be significantly affected.
As mentioned above, the BCI crit is consequent to the circu mferential crack toward s
the north end of the st ructure. It is possible th at the repair works (albeit the crack
wasn’t repaired) could minimise/mitigate further progression of the cir cumferential
cracking. This should be noted when considering any future repair schemes and it is
recommended that con sideration should be given to the consequence of the crack
on the structure prior to carrying out any future repair works.
© Mouchel 2011
13
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1
Conclusions and Recommendations
Works carried out un der this contract were well executed and
acceptance. No remedial works are required to these repairs.
suitable for
There is no requirement to continu e with the monitoring regime, set in place to
monitor the bulging section of wall. Remove from Substandard Structur es List. The
Revised Substandard Structure Summary Sheet will be prepared by Mouchel in due
course.
It is recommended that an Asbestos Management Plan is produced for the bridge.
It is recom mended that the presen ce of a larg e number of stats (som e fibre optic,
some asbestos cement coated) is specifically noted on BMX.
It is recom mended that a comme nt should b e placed o n BMX to t he effect of –
‘consideration should be given to the consequence of the circumferential crack on
the structure prior to carrying out any future repair works. I.e. is the crack sufficiently
poor that it requires repair?’
It is recommended th at General and Principal Inspections are carried out as
recommended in BD63 – i.e. at two and six yearly intervals.
The Health and Safety File is currently being prepared and will
separately to this document.
be submitted
A defects liability inspection is required at the end of the defects liability period. This
should be scheduled appropriately in BMX and carried out by Mouchel.
Mouchel to prepare and submit any outstanding Project Closeout Documentation in
due course.
LCC to commission Structural Review in the light of the repair works.
Certify the bridge for HB capacity.
LCC to investigate the de-trunking of the route.
© Mouchel 2011
14
Acceptance Inspection Report
L0189 Grimes Dike – 1.0 Final
The following works are shown as outstanding on BMX:
This inspection did not encompass all parts of t he structure and was limited to the
repairs only. Therefore, the validity of the above repairs ca nnot be confirmed. It is
understood that Leeds City Council is to carry out a Prin
cipal Inspection of the
structure in 2011-12, and it is recommended that the list of outstanding works is
reviewed and updated.
© Mouchel 2011
15
Purchase answer to see full
attachment