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