VOL.

1 MAIN REPORT
WEDNESDAY 17th OCT GROUP 24

PROJECT GROUP
Construction Engineering Group Members
Rui Lai (791831)
Junli Liu (801149)
Princes Hwy Overpass
Ziqiu Li (879986)
Yiling Zhang (808705)

MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Table of Contents
1. Preliminary Concept Work ......................................................................................................................... - 1 -
1.1 Bridge Deck Width ............................................................................................................................... - 1 -
1.2 Bridge Loading ..................................................................................................................................... - 2 -
1.3 Alignment ............................................................................................................................................. - 2 -
1.4 References........................................................................................................................................... - 3 -
2. Earthworks ................................................................................................................................................ - 4 -
2.1 Total Compacted Volume of Embankment ........................................................................................... - 4 -
2.2 Material Haulage Rate and Working Hours .......................................................................................... - 6 -
2.3 Effect of Lag at the Beginning and End of the Project .......................................................................... - 7 -
2.4 Earthwork Delivery Cost Estimate. ....................................................................................................... - 7 -
2.5. Cost Saving Methods (Bonus) ............................................................................................................. - 8 -
3. Piling Construction Option Analysis ......................................................................................................... - 10 -
3.1 Estimation of Load on the Pier ........................................................................................................... - 10 -
3.2 Pile Foundation Assessment .............................................................................................................. - 10 -
3.3 Plan View of Pile Foundations ............................................................................................................ - 11 -
4. Structure Costing and System Selection .................................................................................................. - 12 -
4.1 Typical Foundation Costing ................................................................................................................ - 12 -
4.2 Foundation Selection ......................................................................................................................... - 13 -
4.3 References......................................................................................................................................... - 14 -
5. Construction Methods .............................................................................................................................. - 15 -
5.1 Super T Erection ................................................................................................................................ - 15 -
5.1.1 Crane Selection ........................................................................................................................... - 15 -
5.1.2 Plan View of Crane Set-up........................................................................................................... - 15 -
5.1.3 Additional Information Relating to Crane Selection ...................................................................... - 15 -
5.2 Overall Construction Process ............................................................................................................. - 16 -
6. Final Longitudinal Section ........................................................................................................................ - 19 -
7. Bridge Total Costing ................................................................................................................................ - 20 -
7.1 References......................................................................................................................................... - 20 -
1. Preliminary Concept Work
General assumptions:
(1) The open top Super-T’s instead of closed top Super-T’s are used for construction.
(2) The overall length required for the elevated bridge is approximately 56 m according to distance
measurement by Google Earth, hence two T4 Super-T’s (span of 30 m) are connected that give a total
length of 60 m for the elevated bridge.
(3) The density of deck and crosshead is 24.5 kN/m3.
(4) The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is over 1500 for the C class roads (e.g. C111).

1.1 Bridge Deck Width

The design width of pedestrian path is 2 m (minimum 1.8 m) and the width of fencing is set as 0.1 m (Part 6A -
Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths, 2012). The width of traffic lane shall be determined to be 3.5 m when AADT is
over 1500 (Part 3: Geometric Design (2016), 2017). Two barrier kerbs with bridge railing above are located at
both edges of traffic lanes, and each barrier kerb has a width of 0.5 m (Part 3: Geometric Design (2016),
2017). One semi-mountable kerb is placed back to the barrier kerb and towards pedestrian lane, and it has a
width of 0.4 m (Part 3: Geometric Design (2016), 2017). To ensure the surface drainage, the road crossfall
shall be designed to be 3% (Part 3: Geometric Design, 2018).
The total with of bridge is: 3.5 × 2 + 2 + 0.1 + 0.5 × 2 + 0.4 = 10.5 m.

OPEN FLANGE T4

Figure 1 Cross-sectional view of bridge

-1-
1.2 Bridge Loading
The information of design load on the bridge is summarized as below.

Table 1 Limit state load and serviceability load acting on the bridge

Dead Load (kN/m)

Limit State Serviceability
Live Load
Deck Self- Super-T Self- Design Load Design Load
(kN/m) SDL
weight weight (kN/m) (kN/m)

151.2 41.16 70.93 10 373.90 228.43

1.3 Alignment
Assumption for the plan view alignment:
(1) Based on the Height Clearance Under Structures, the clearance of Princes Highway around Geelong
can be assumed to be 5.3m (Vicroads,2007).
(2) According to the Maximum speed of Vicroads (2018), the maximum speed of courtyard road
(C111&C135) is 100km/h.
(3) The depth at the intersection of Princes Highway is assumed as 6.96m, including 5.3m of clearance,
1.5m of Super T- beam T4 Type, 0.16 m of Deck depth.
(4) The grade of the embankment is assumed to be 5%.
(5) According to the street view from Google Earth, the cross-section of the bridge has been elevated.
(6) According to the Road Planning and Design Manual (2002), for the speed of 100km/h, the minimum
radius crest vertical curve should be 5200.
(7) Based on Guide to Road Design Part 3(2016), the maximum radius required for the horizontal curve is
500mm for 100 km/h vehicle speed.

Figure 2 Plan view alignment of the bridge

-2-
1.4 References
Austroads. (2016). Guide to road design- Part 3 geometric design. Retrieved from:
https://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AGRD03-10

Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2002) Road planning and design manual-Vertical alignment. Retrieved from:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=23&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwixxdX3ybbdAhU
UQN4KHX8SAjAQFjAWegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.tmr.qld.gov.au%2F-%2Fmedia%2Fbusind%2Ftechstdpubs%2F
Road-planning-and-design%2FRoad-planning-and-design-manual%2FCurrent-
document%2FRPDM_Chapter12.pdf%3Fla%3Den&usg=AOvVaw1N0eiKdVraV-WZFar5eqcL

Highway Bridges - Super-Tee's. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Precast Concrete Association Guide to Super Tee's:
https://www.nationalprecast.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Products-Super-Tees.pdf

Part 3: Geometric Design (2016). (2017, January). Retrieved from VicRoads Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design.

Part 3: Geometric Design. (2018, August). Retrieved from Road Planning and Design Manual Edition 2: Volume 3 - Supplement to
Austroads Guide to Road Design.

Part 5: Road Management. (2015). Retrieved from Traffic and Road Use Management: Volume 1 - Guide to Traffic Management.

Part 6A - Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths. (2012, December). Retrieved from VicRoads Supplement to the Austroads Guide to Road
Design.

Vicroads. (2018). Speed limit regulation. Retrieved from: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-

of-road-rules/speed-limits

Vicroads. (2007). Height clearance under structure for permit vehicles. Retrieved from: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-
and-industry/heavy-vehicle-industry/heavy-vehicle-road-safety/height-clearance-on-roads

-3-
2. Earthworks
2.1 Total Compacted Volume of Embankment
Assumptions:
 The soil materials on borrow site is well graded sand at optimum moisture content.
 The loss to in-situ volume factor is 1.25.
 The embankment to in-situ volume factor is 0.9.
 The road base thickness will be 300mm, which is not included in our embankment volume estimate.
 The embankment has a side grade of 2:1.
The width of the bridge is 10.5m. Because the embankment will have a road base, the maximum height of the
embankment at two sides of the bridge is 6.659m measured by AutoCAD (Figure 3). The road grade is 5 % at
two side of the bridge. The calculation of volume of embankment is based on the sections divided by previous
road grade. The embankment work consists of two main section, section 1 is the south side of the bridge,
section 2 is the north side of the bridge. The following figures show the principle of dividing the main section 1.

Figure 3.The sections of embankment on south side of the bridge

Figure 4. The front view of the south embankment

-4-
Figure 5. Sections of the north embankment

Figure 6. Front view of the north embankment

Figure 7 Section locations on plan view

-5-
The volume of each section can be calculated. For example, Section 1.3.1 is a triangular pyramid, the volume
of section 1.3.1 can be calculated based on equation as follow. The dimensions of each section are given in
Appendix Table B.1.
𝐻1.3.1 × 𝑊1.3.1 ÷ 2 × 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ1.3.1 333.23 × 666.46/2 × 12449.1
𝑉= = × 109 = 0.46 𝑚3
3 3
Based on the sections, the total compacted volume of the embankment can be estimated.
Table 2 Volume of each section of the embankment

Section 1 Volume of section Section 2 Volume of section

Total
(South side) (m3) (North side) (m3)
1.1.1 21.7 2.1.1 1416.5 -
1.1.2 645.1 2.1.2. 5422.3 -
1.1.3 2516.4 2.1.3 63.6 -
1.1.4 1076.1 2.2.1 or 2.3.1 822.1 -
1.2.1 or 1.3.1 0.46 2.2.2 or 2.3.2 1538.2 -
1.2.2 or 1.3.2 79.1 2.2.3 or 2.3.3 1.7 -
1.2.3 or 1.3.3 996.5 - - -
1.2.4or 1.3.4 639.76 - - -
Total 7631.16 - 11626.4 19257.56

Therefore, the total compacted volume of embankment is 19257.56 m3.

The soil volume required from borrow site is
19257.56 ÷ 0.9 = 21397.3 m3
The loose soil volume is
21397.3 × 1.25 = 26746.6m3

2.2 Material Haulage Rate and Working Hours

The equipment used in earthwork are selected based on the volume of embankment and the site condition on
the level crossing on Princess Highway. The summary of earthwork methodology is shown in Appendix B.1,
and the working hours are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Information of material haulage

Excavate sand Transport sand Compact sand

Load sand to
Earthwork steps and stockpile to embankment Spread sand to designed
trucks
sand soil density
Material
haulage hour 271 LCM/hr 191.25 LCM/hr 70.9 LCM/hr N/A 616.95 LCM/hr
(LCM/hr)
Total working
160 160 400 66 32
hours
Working hours
80 80 80 33 32
per machine
Working hours
16 16 16 8 8
per day
Working days 5 5 5 4 4

-6-
2.3 Effect of Lag at the Beginning and End of the Project
The lag should be considered when deciding the project constriction time. Some unexpected events might
happen at the beginning such as extreme weather and delays about machines rental which could cause 1 day
of delay. In addition, the compactor or graders could be broken down at the end of the project, which could
cause delay. If the compactor has problems, renting another compactor is necessary which could cause 1-day
delay because the machine should be ordered a day in advance. These events can result in longer
construction period and extra cost, and the closure period of highway should be increased. The float has been
considered in the critical path during determine the working hours and equipment selection.
Figure 8 shows Gannt chart the project period without considering the lags at the beginning and end of the
project. Because we assume the weekends are no-working day, which allow there are 6 days delay in total
within two weeks. Figure 9 shows the project with considering the unexpected events, which presented that the
embankment project will not be constructed over 2 weeks due to the float.

Figure 8 The Gannt Chart diagram without lags

Figure 9 The Gannt Chart diagram with lags

2.4 Earthwork Delivery Cost Estimate.

According to Alliance Trading Rates provided in the task briefing (URL: http://tradealliance.net.au/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/PRICE-LIST-FEB-2012.pdf, all the relevant equipment cost ratings are summarized
in Table 4.
Table 4 Earthwork Equipment Costing Summary

Item Number Cost Rate Working period Cost

Bulldozer (D7R)* 2 $245/hour for wet rate 16 × 5 = 80 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $39200
2 $93/hour for dry rate 8 × 5 = 40 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $7440
Loader (924F)* 2 $38.55/hour for wet rate 16 × 5 = 80 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $6168
2 $300/day for dry rate 5 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 $3000
Truck (769D)* 5 $200/hour for wet rate 16 × 5 = 80 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $80000
5 $600/day for dry rate 5 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 $15000
Grader (24H)* 2 $280/hour for wet rate 8 × 4 = 32 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $17920
2 $600/day for dry rate 4 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 $4800
2 $400/week for TPS 1 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘 $400
Compactor (825G)* 1 $240/hour for wet rate 8 × 4 = 32 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $7680
1 $600/day for dry rate 4 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 $2400
Water Cart (12000L)* 1 $90/hour for wet rate 8 × 4 = 32 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $2880
1 $600/day for dry rate 4 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 $2400
Total Cost $188648

-7-
*Assuming that bulldozer D7R has the similar wet cost rate with CAT D8L.
*Assuming that Loader 924F has the similar dry cost rate with 4720 Compact Tractor.
*Truck 769D has the similar loading capacity with CAT 740, so assuming that they have similar cost rate.
*Assuming that Grader 24H has the double wet rate of CAT 12H and the same daily dry rate. The cost rate
includes GPS unit and base station.
*Assuming that compactor 825G has the similar daily dry rate with grader.
*Assuming that the working time and dry rate of Water Cart are the same as grader and compactor.
The transport costing of all equipment is calculated and summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Float costing summary

Item Number Self-weight Cost Rate Cost

Bulldozer (D7R) 2 18.23t $1978.4
Loader (924F) 2 9.1t $1248
Truck (769D) 5 71.4t $6232
$260 PLUS
Grader (24H) 2 18.4t $1992
$40/tonne—one way
Compactor (825G) 1 31.74t $3059.2
Water Cart $3168
1 33.1t
(12000L)
Total Cost $17677.6

Therefore, the total cost of earthwork is estimated as:

$188648 + $17677.6 = $206325.6
Considering 10% GST, 20% of margin and 10% of contingency, the total cost of earthwork will be
$206325.6 × (1 + 10% + 20% + 5%) = $278539.6
The total compacted volume of embankment is 19257.56 CM, so
$278539.6
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = = $14.46/𝐶𝑀
19257.56

2.5. Cost Saving Methods (Bonus)

a). It is noted that using TPS Millimetre System instead of GPS system could save cost for the client, the
saving amount is:
$50 × 32 × 2 = $3200
$3200 − $400 = $2800
Therefore, $2800 total cost is saved by utilizing TPS instead of GPS.

b). It is significant that using truck 769D instead of tipper truck could save cost for the client. The load capacity
of truck 769D is 23 CM, so 5 pieces of 10 CM tipper and 5 pieces of 18CM tipper could be used if truck 769D is
not used in this construction.
The saving amount is:
$99 × 80 × 5 + $150 × 80 × 5 = $99600
$99600 − $80000 = $19600
Therefore, $19600 total cost is saved by utilizing truck 769D instead of tippers.

-8-
c). In this construction, the transport cost of each equipment is higher than the site stock cost conducted by dry
cost rate. The saving amount is:

$1978.4 × 5 + $1248 × 5 + $6232 × 5 + $1992 × 4 + $3059.2 × 4 + $3168 × 4 = $80168.8

$17677.6 + $7440 + $3000 + $15000 + $4800 + $2400 + $2400 = $52717.6
$80168.8 − $52717.6 = $27451.2
Therefore, $27451.2 total cost is saved by keeping the equipment on the site stock instead of transporting
them every day.

d). There is another option that replaces bulldozers and loaders to excavators, which use 330B excavators
with 1.4m3 bucket. This option could save cost about $59034.4 for the client. The details of selection of
excavator and cost estimate are provided in Appendix B.3.

-9-
3. Piling Construction Option Analysis
Assumptions
(1) The density of crosshead, pier columns, pile cap and piles are as constant as 24.5 kN/m3.
(2) The width of pile cap is 1.6m, and the pile cap is at least 300mm wider than the outmost piles and pier
extents.
(3) The plan dimension of pile cap is constant for all three types of piles.
(4) For precast driven piles, PDA (dynamic test) is performed and 20% of piles are tested which meet the
accepted criteria. The precast driven piles are fully reinforced.
(5) For CFA Piles and bored piles, 20% and 50% are assumed to be tested and meet specified acceptance
criteria.
(6) For CFA piles, the contribution of sands to the shaft resistance is excluded.
(7) For CFA piles, the piles are assumed to be partially reinforced.
(8) For CFA piles, they are installed with full and real time monitoring.
(9) For driven, CFA and bored piles, the group efficiency is 100%.
(10) For Bored rock socketed piles, the piles are assumed to be fully reinforced with 8 N36 bars.

3.1 Estimation of Load on the Pier

Table 6 Summary of estimating load on the pier

Load from Bridge (kN) Concrete Weight in the Pier (kN) Design Load for the Pier (kN)
Pier Total Ultimate Limit
Dead Load Live Load Crosshead Pile Cap Serviceability
Columns Weight State
3663.40 4536 421.46 201.10 358.95 973.67 12377.9 7820.12

3.2 Pile Foundation Assessment

Table 7 Summary of pile foundation assessment

350mm Square Precast 600mm CFA 900mm Bored

Pile Dimension Average Length (m) 16 23 25
Serviceability 7820.12
Design Load (kN)
Limit State 12377.9
Serviceability Capacity (kN) 1800 1696.5 14090
Design No. of Piles 5 5 2*
Φg N.A. 0.75
Factored Geotechnical Strength (kN) N.A. 5517 129813.3
Ultimate Limit
Factored Structural Strength (kN) 2850.3 3396 14333.33
State Design
Critical Design Strength (kN) 2850.3 3396 14333.33
No. of Piles 5 4 2*
Design No. of Piles (Critical) 5 5 2
Length (m) 9.157
Pile Cap
Width (m) 1.6
Dimension
Height (m) 1
Center-to-center Spacing of Piles (m) 2.052 1.989 7.657
*: For bored piles, the minimum requirement of number is not less than two piles per pier.

- 10 -
3.3 Plan View of Pile Foundations

- 11 -
4. Structure Costing and System Selection
Assumptions:
(1) The density of reinforced concrete is 2450 kg/m3, and the density of steel bar is 7850 kg/m3.
(2) The density of concrete is assumed to be the same with reinforced concrete for simplicity.
(3) The number of precast joints is two times the number of piles.
(4) For CFA piles, 6N28 bars extending 20 meters are installed.
(5) For bored piles, 6N32 bars with full depth are installed.
(6) A CFA rig can install 3 CFA piles per day and take 1 day to set up and 1 day to pack up per footing
(7) A boring rig can install 1 bored pile per day and it takes 1 day to set up and 1 day to pack up per footing

4.1 Typical Foundation Costing

Table 8 Cost estimation of precast pile foundation and pier
Precast pile foundation and pier
5 piles × 16m × 350mm Lin m of pile 80 Lin m
WBS Work Item Unit Rate Quantity Sum Cost/m
1 Establish/demobilize piling rig item 5000 2 10000 125.0
2 Supply piles
Purchase of piles lin m 50 80 4000 50.0
Precast joints joint 100 10 1000 12.5
3 Deliver piles to site tonne 20 24.01 480.2 6.0
4 Drive piles lin m 40 80 3200 40.0
5 PDA test piles test 750 1 750 9.4
6 Installation and fabrication
Pile cap per m3 700 14.65 10255 128.2
Pier columns per m3 900 8.2 7380 92.3
Cross head per m3 900 17.2 15480 193.5
Total $52,545.2 $656.8 $656.82
20% Margin 10509.0 131.4
5% Contingency 2627.3 32.8
Sell $65,681.5 $821.0 $821.02

Table 9 Cost estimation of CFA pile foundation and pier

CFA pile foundation and pier
5 piles × 23m × 600mm Lin m of pile 115 Lin m
WBS Work Item Unit Rate Quantity Sum Cost/m
1 Establish/demobilize piling rig item 7000 2 14000 121.7
Establish/demobilize crane item 5000 2 10000 87.0
2 Materials
Concrete cu meter 300 32.13 9639 83.8
Rio 6N28/20m tonne 600 2.9 1740 15.1
3 Plant and labour per day 9000 4 36000 313.0
4 Integrity test per pile 1500 1 1500 13.0
5 Dynamic test per pile 8000 1 8000 69.6
6 Installation and fabrication
Pile cap per m3 700 14.65 10255 89.2
Pier columns per m3 900 8.2 7380 64.2
Cross head per m3 900 17.2 15480 134.6
Total $113,994 $991.3 $991.3
20% Margin 22798.8 198.3
5% Contingency 5699.7 49.6
Sell $142,492.5 $1239.1 $1239.1

- 12 -
 Table 10 Cost estimation of bored pile foundation and pier

Bored pile foundation and pier

2 piles × 25m × 900mm Lin m of pile 50 Lin m
WBS Work Item Unit Rate Quantity Sum Cost/m
1 Establish/demobilize piling rig item 10000 2 20000 400.0
Establish/demobilize crane item 5000 2 10000 200.0
2 Materials
Concrete cu meter 250 31.56 7890 157.8
Rio 6N32/full depth tonne 500 1.58 790 15.8
3 Transportation
Concrete cu meter 50 31.56 1578 31.6
Steel tonne 100 1.58 158 3.2
4 Plant and labour per day 8500 4 34000 680
5 Integrity test per pile 1500 1 1500 30.0
6 Dynamic test per pile 12000 1 12000 240.0
7 Installation and fabrication
Pile cap per m3 700 14.65 10255 205.1
Pier columns per m3 900 8.2 7380 147.6
Cross head per m3 900 17.2 15480 309.6
Total $121,031 $2420.6 $2420.6
20% Margin 24206.2 484.1
5% Contingency 6051.6 121.0
Sell $151,288.8 $3025.8 $3025.8

4.2 Foundation Selection

The performance of mini multi-criteria assessment (MCA) with its marking criteria is shown as below.
Table 11 Marking criteria for MCA

Description Score
Much better +4
better +3
Moderately better +2
Little better +1
No change (base case) 0
Little worse -1
Moderately worse -2
worse -3
Much worse -4

Table 12 Results of mini MCA

Impact Weight Precast Piles CFA Piles Bored Piles

Cost 40% 0 -2 -4
Construction Time 20% 0 -2 -4
Noise and Vibration 5% 0 3 4
Spoil Disposal Impacts 10% 0 -3 -4
Construction Complexity
25% 0 -1 0
and Risk
Weighted Score 0 -1.6 -2.6

The justification for scores can be found in Appendix D.3.

- 13 -
According to Table 12, the driven piles get the highest score, which means comparing with CFA pile and bored
pile, driven pile is the most realistic option for the foundation. Considering the environment influence, although
the driven pile will product some noise and vibration for the sounding infrastructures, the location of
construction site is in the suburbs and no other infrastructure is located near the site. Hence, the influence of
construction noise and vibration can be reasonably minimized. Regarding the economic impact by the three
kinds of piles, the driven pile is the most suitable choice for the engineering site due to the lowest cost. Since
the construction site is long way from the city and residents living area, the social influence is quite limited.
Furthermore, the construction time of driven pile is the least one than others, which means the road closure
period will be the least. For the residents, the social influence of driven pile is less than CFA pile and bored
pile. Hence, based on the environmental, economic and social consideration, driven piles are the most
suitable foundations for the engineering firm.

4.3 References
CN. (2010). Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Types of Piles. Retrieved from
http://constructionnotes.blogspot.com/2010/10/advantages-and-disadvantages-of.html Ground
Designing Buildings Wiki. (2018, Sep 25). Driven piles. Retrieved from https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Driven_piles
Engineering Ltd. (2017, April 12). Bored Piles and Their Advantage In The Construction Of A Vertical Building. Retrieved August 29,
2018, from https://medium.com/@groundengineeringltd/bored-piles-and-their-advantage-in-the-constructionof-a-vertical-
building-7db534321ce0

- 14 -
5. Construction Methods
5.1 Super T Erection
5.1.1 Crane Selection
Considering that there is sand/aggregate/rock terrain of the site, all terrain crane should be used for this
construction. The relevant calculations and assessment are presented in Appendices. The selections for crane
setup 1 and crane setup 2 are AC350-6 (HA 257,300 lb.) and AC500-1 (352,800 lb.) respectively. The URL for
these two options are:
https://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/Terex_Demag_AC_350-6.pdf
https://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/AC-500-1.pdf

5.1.2 Plan View of Crane Set-up

Figure 10 Plan view of crane set-up

5.1.3 Additional Information Relating to Crane Selection

Table 13 Additional Information Relating to first selected crane AC350-6 (HA 257,300 lb.)

Requirement Information Comments

Adding the additional mass, the total lift weight is
a. Additional mass that needs to be added
3.02 3.02+43.38=46.4t<50.55t. Hence, the loading
to the lift (t)
capacity could satisfy the total demand.
Assessment and justification are shown in
b. Crane boom extension (ft.) 118.8
Appendices.
Within the design range of lift radius of the
c. Lift minimum and maximum radius (m) 8, 18
selected crane. The radius of AC350-6 (HA

- 15 -
 257,300 lb.) is between 3.05m and 58.56m with
capacity more than 50.55t.
Assessment and justification are shown in
d. Counterweight required (lb.) 257300
Appendices.
Outrigger is only required for the long boom
e. Outrigger requirements No
combination without derrick-counterweight.
It includes the whole self-weight 129t (284400
lb.), counterweight 116.71t (257300 lb.), lifting
f. GVM of the crane with the critical lift (t) 293.01
total mass 46.4t and mass of driver & fuel
(assuming 0.9t).

Table 14 Additional Information Relating to second selected crane AC500-1 (352,800lb.)

Requirement Information Comments

Adding the additional mass, the total lift weight is
a. Additional mass that needs to be added
3.79 3.79+43.38=47.17t<50.21t. Hence, the loading
to the lift (t)
capacity could satisfy the total demand.
Assessment and justification are shown in
b. Crane boom extension (ft.) 124.3
Appendices.
Within the design range of lift radius of the
selected crane. The radius of AC500-1 (352,800
c. Lift minimum and maximum radius (m) 16, 26
lb.) is between 3.05m and 51.85m with capacity
more than 50.21t.
Assessment and justification are shown in
d. Counterweight required (lb.) 352800
Appendices.
Outrigger is only required for the long boom
e. Outrigger requirements No
combination without derrick-counterweight.
It includes the whole self-weight 96.16t (212000
lb.), counterweight 160.03t (352800 lb.), lifting
f. GVM of the crane with the critical lift (t) 304.26
total mass 47.17t and mass of driver & fuel
(assuming 0.9t).

5.2 Overall Construction Process

The overall construction steps are introduced below:
Step 1: Piles installation
Install eleven (6 for abutments on two sides and 5 for central pier) 16-meter precast piles (350mm×350mm)
with spacing of 30m along the design bridge spans. Meanwhile, transport the soil from borrowed site to
construction site and dump the soil on the construction area.

Step 2: Pile cap, abutment and pier columns installation & embankment layers spread and compact
Use two cranes to lift and install three 1m thick pile caps on top of the precast piles, then install 3.8m long pier
columns on top of the pile caps. Simultaneously, dump the transported soil, use graders to spread and use the
compactor to compact 5 times each single soil layer (each layer thickness=250mm). At the same time, use
water cart to provide water for the compacted soil to maintain the moisture content as demand. In addition,
start to build the retaining wall with appropriate anchors behind the pier columns.

Step 3: Cross head installation & embankment layers grade and compact
Use two cranes to lift and install three 1.5m thick cross head on top of the pier columns. Continue to dump,
spread and compact each single soil layer (each layer thickness=250mm) and use water cart to provide water
for the compacted soil to maintain the moisture content as demand.

- 16 -
Step 4: Super T Beam installation & Embankment layers grade and compact
Use two cranes to lift and install 10 super T4 beams (each beam span=30m) for two bridges spans.
Meanwhile, continue to dump, spread and compact each single soil layer (each layer thickness=250mm) and
use water cart to provide water for the compacted soil to maintain the moisture content as demand.

Step 5: Retaining walls finish & embankment work finish

Finish the bridge build-up and anchoraged retaining walls. Finish the embankment soil work. Prepare for deck
reinforce and pour.

Step 6: Concrete deck and expansion joints installation & road base construction
Deck reinforcing and deck concreting on top of the super T beams. After that, smooth the deck surface and
install expansion joints between two spans of concrete deck. Finish the bridge construction. Conduct
shotcreting onto the surface of abutments for the purpose of aesthetics.

The six-step sketches illustrating the overall construction processes are shown in the next page.

- 17 -
 5.2 Overall Construction Process

Embankment
Cross Head Thickness of each
layer: 250mm

10003800 1500
16000

Precast Pile 350x350mm

Pile Cap
Abutment &
Precast Pile 350x350mm
Pier Columns

16000
121000 30000 30000 245000

Step 1

121000 30000 30000 245000

Step 4
Abutment &
Pier Columns Embankment
T4 Beam

10003800 1500 1500

Thickness of each Embankment
10003800

layer: 250mm Thickness of each

layer: 250mm

Pile Cap Cross Head

Precast Pile 350x350mm Abutment &
Pier Columns
Pile Cap
Precast Pile 350x350mm
16000

16000
121000 30000 30000 245000

121000 30000 30000 245000

Step 2
Step 5

Embankment

160
Concrete Deck
Thickness: 160mm Thickness of each

10003800 1500 1500

T4 Beam
layer: 250mm

Embankment Cross Head

Cross Head Thickness of each Abutment &
layer: 250mm Pier Columns
10003800

Abutment & Pile Cap

Pier Columns
Precast Pile 350x350mm
Pile Cap
Precast Pile 350x350mm

16000
16000

121000 30000 30000 245000

121000 30000 30000 245000 Step 6

overview
the construction
of process for the overpass

Step 3

Time: Group Number: 24 Note:

Overview of the Construction Process 17/10/2018 Group Member:
1) To show the detail information of the pile and abutment, the size of them are scaled 5 times than the actual.
for the Overpass 2) The cranes are used to show the process, they are conceptual sketches.
Junli Liu; Rui Lai; Ziqiu Li; Yiling Zhang
Unit: 1:2500 Company: University of Melbourne
 151000 30000 30000 245000

AHD 171m
Radii 5200m Radii 5200m
Super-T T4
Radii 25000m Embankment
Radii 25000m
AHD 168m Thickness of each layer is 250mm

AHD 158m Compacted Sand

AHD 148m 28500 28500

Sand

Extremely Weathered Basalt

Moderately Weathered Basalt 1:1500@A3
Total Cross section view of the bridge

Concrete Deck B A
T-beam T4 30000 Thickness: 160mm 30000

1500

1500
1500 1500

1200
28200 28200 9557 9557
900 Cross Head Abutment
28500 28500 6157 6157
3800

3800

3800
350 1200 1200 Shotcrete
350 27800 Pier Columns 27800 300 300
1000

1500
Pile Cap

1000

1000
9157 9157
Precast Pile 350x350mm
2051.75 350 350 4453.5 4453.5 350

350 350
16000

B A
B-B Cross section view of pier A-A Cross section view of abutment
Detail Cross section view of the Bridge

1:300@A3
LIST OF STATEMENT AND ASSUMPTION

1. Baesd on the height clearance under structures, the clearance of Princes Highway is assumed to be 5.3m (Vicroads,2007).
2. According to the Mamimum speed of Vicroad, the maximum speed of countryard road (C111&C135) is 100km/h.
3. The depth at the intersection of C111 and Princes Highway is assumed as 6.96m, including 5.3m of clearance, 1.5m of Super T- beam T4 Type, 0.16 m of Deck depth.
4. The grade of bridge is assumed to be 5%.
5. According to the street view from Google Earth, the cross-section of the bridge has been elevated.
6. According to the Road Planning and Design Manual (2002), for the speed 100km/h, the minimum radius crest vertical curve is 5200.

Final Longitudinal Section Junli Liu Ziqiu Li Yiling Zhang Rui Lai Group 24 Melbourne School of Enginering
7. Bridge Total Costing
Assumption:
 The bridge total cost includes the cost of embankment soil material
 The embankment material is imported from other site.
 The load distributed to each abutment is half the load acting on central pier, so for simplicity the number
of piles supporting the abutments is assumed to be half the pile numbers for central pier (5/2=2.5,
round up to 3). Hence the total number of piles sums up to 5+3+3=11.
Table 15 Total cost estimation of bridge

1.Pile Cost
Precast pile foundation and pier
11 piles × 16m × 350mm Lin m of pile 176
WBS Work Item Unit Rate Quantity Sum Cost/m
Establish/demobilize piling rig item 5000 2 10000 56.8
Supply piles
Purchase of piles lin m 50 176 8800 50
Precast joints joint 100 22 2200 12.5
Deliver piles to site tonne 20 52.822 1056.4 6.0
Drive piles lin m 40 176 7040 40
PDA test piles test 750 3 2250 12.8
Installation and fabrication
Pile cap per m3 700 43.95 30765 174.8
Pier columns per m3 900 24.6 22140 125.8
Cross head per m3 900 51.6 46440 263.9
Total 130691.4 742.6
2. Super T
Super T fabrication per tonne 1000 433.8 433800 2464.8
Super T erection and installation per member 7000 10 70000 397.7
Crane setup for each location per setup 12000 2 24000 136.4
Total 527800 2998.9
3.Earthworks
Earthwork equipment rental cost 188648
Equipment transport cost 17677.6
Road embankment using material per m3 74.072 26746.6 1981174.2
for fill
Total 2187499.7
Total $2,845,991.2
20% Margin 569198.2
5% Contingency 142299.6
Sell $3,557,489.0
Total bridge cost without considering embankment material $1,081,021.2

7.1 References
Aqenta Consulting Pty Ltd. (2013). Sportsmans creek new bridge – Cost estimate report. Retrieved from:
https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/northern-nsw/sportsmans-creek/sportsmans-creek-appendix-m.pdf

- 20 -
 VOL.2 APPENDICES
WEDNESDAY 17th OCT GROUP 24

PROJECT GROUP
Construction Engineering Group Members
Rui Lai (791831)
Junli Liu (801149)
Princes Hwy Overpass
Ziqiu Li (879986)
Yiling Zhang (808705)

MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Table of Contents
A. Preliminary Concept Work ......................................................................................................................... - 1 -
A.1 Calculation of Bridge Loading .............................................................................................................. - 1 -
B. Earthworks ................................................................................................................................................ - 2 -
B.1 Summary of Earthworks Methodology ................................................................................................. - 2 -
B.2 Estimation of Embankment Volume ..................................................................................................... - 4 -
B.3 Bonus Deliverables .............................................................................................................................. - 4 -
B.4 References .......................................................................................................................................... - 5 -
C. Piling Construction Option Analysis ........................................................................................................... - 6 -
C.1 Estimation of Load on the Pier ............................................................................................................. - 6 -
C.1.1 Total Dead and Live Load from Bridge Load Estimation ................................................................ - 6 -
C.1.2 Mass of Concrete in a Standard Pier ............................................................................................. - 6 -
C.1.3 Limit State and Serviceability Load for the Pier ............................................................................. - 7 -
C.2 Pile Foundation Assessment ............................................................................................................... - 7 -
C.2.1 Square Precast Piles..................................................................................................................... - 7 -
C.2.2 CFA Piles ...................................................................................................................................... - 8 -
C.2.3 Bored Rock Socketed Piles ......................................................................................................... - 10 -
C.3 References ........................................................................................................................................ - 14 -
D. Structure Costing and System Selection ................................................................................................. - 15 -
D.1 Cost Guidelines ................................................................................................................................. - 15 -
D.2 Typical Foundation Costing ............................................................................................................... - 15 -
D.2.1 Square Precast Piles................................................................................................................... - 15 -
D.2.2 CFA Piles .................................................................................................................................... - 16 -
D.2.3 Bored Rock Socketed Piles ......................................................................................................... - 17 -
D.3 Foundation Selection ......................................................................................................................... - 18 -
D.4 References ........................................................................................................................................ - 19 -
E. Construction Methods ............................................................................................................................. - 20 -
E.1 Super T Erection – Crane Selection ................................................................................................... - 20 -
E.1.1 Selection for Crane Setup 1 ........................................................................................................ - 21 -
E.1.2 Selection for Crane Setup 2 ........................................................................................................ - 23 -
F. Final Longitudinal Section ....................................................................................................................... - 25 -
A. Preliminary Concept Work
A.1 Calculation of Bridge Loading
The bridge is designed to have 2 spans with each span of 30 m, hence the total length of bridge is
30 × 2 = 60 𝑚
The live load is calculated by linear interpolation as suggested by Geoff Taplin, therefore
60 − 25
𝐿𝐿 = 20 − × (20 − 8) = 14.4 𝑘𝑃𝑎
100 − 25
The width of bridge is 10.5 m, so the live load is expressed alternatively as
𝑸 = 14.4 × 10.5 = 𝟏𝟓𝟏. 𝟐 𝒌𝑵⁄𝒎
The self-weight of deck is given by
24.5 × 10.5 × 0.16 = 41.16 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

According to National Precast Concrete Association guide to Super Tee’s, for the open top T4 girder with the
top flange width of 2.1 m, the mass is 1.446 T/m (Highway Bridges - Super-Tee's).
Hence the self-weight of one T4 girder is
1.446 × 9.81 = 14.19 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
The number of girders supporting the deck in the cross-section is 10.5/2.1 = 5.
There are five such girders in a row, so in the design the total self-weight of precast super T girder is given by
14.19 × 5 = 70.93 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
The extra service load (superimposed dead load) is
1 × 10.5 = 10.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
The total dead load is the sum of deck self-weight, super T girder self-weight and extra service load, that is
𝑮 = 41.16 + 70.93 + 10.5 = 𝟏𝟐𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 𝒌𝑵⁄𝒎

The limit design load is

1.2𝐺 + 1.5𝑄 = 1.2 × 122.59 + 1.5 × 151.2 = 𝟑𝟕𝟑. 𝟗𝟎 𝒌𝑵⁄𝒎
The serviceability design load is
1.0𝐺 + 0.7𝑄 = 1.0 × 122.59 + 0.7 × 151.2 = 𝟐𝟐𝟖. 𝟒𝟑 𝒌𝑵⁄𝒎

-1-
B. Earthworks
B.1 Summary of Earthworks Methodology
Earthworks steps Excavate and Stockpile sand Load sand to trucks Transport sand to embankment soil Spread sand Compact sand to designed density

Earthworks step The bulldozers stockpile the soil to the north Loaders load the sand materials to Trucks deliver sand from borrow site to Graders spread the sand on Compactor compacts the spread sand
side of the borrow site haul trucks embankment site construction site. to required density on embankment
site.

Equipment D7R bulldozer with universal blade 924F (no teeth) 769D Articulated Truck 24H Motor Grader 825 G Soil compactor
Page 1-11 Page 12-2 page9-2 page 3-4 Page 11-12

Assumption for  The average dozing distance =45m  Loader cycle time= 0.4  Heaped ratio for sand=2:1, the max  Assume 5 passes  Assume 4 passes per layer @
production according to google map (Figure B.1) minutes capacity is 24.2 cm.  Grader operator driving 6.5 km/h
 6.7% grade according to google  Capacity =1.7 cm for general  Space for 2 loaders to fill the truck forward in 2nd gear  The thickness of a layer is
earth(Figure B.1) purpose based on page 12-12  Truck empty time=1min  Blade width is 4.08m 250mm
 Operator is average  100% bucket fill factor  The average distance from borrow site to  The thickness of one layer is
 Material is loose stockpile construction site is 6870 meters (Refer to 250mm
 Use slot dozing technique. Figure B.2).  The grade speed is 5km/hr
 Job efficiency is 50 min/hr  Assume 2% grade based on google earth
 Assume the sand weight is 1900 kg/lcm  Top speed is 75 km/h
 Good visibility  Loaded travel time is 2.4 minutes for
distance of 2200m
 Empty travel time is 1.9 minutes for
distance of 2200m
Raw rate of production According to page 1-50, the uncorrected 1.7*(60/0.4) =255 CM/hr Loaded travel time: 6780/2200*2.4=7.5 min (136+223.7)/1000 According to page 11-16, the
(m3/hr) maximum production is 375 Lm3/hr Empty travel time: 6780/2200*2.2= 5.94 min km/pass*(23.82/4.08) production is 914 cm/hr.
Time to load the truck: 24.2/1.7*0.53=4 min passes*(6.659/0.25) layer*5
Total cycle time: =3.254 cycles /hour passes/layer/5km/hr
Production for one loader: 3.254*24.2=78.8 =44hours
cm/hour
Reduction Factors  Average operator=0.75  Average operator=0.75  Time cost on fuelling: 0.9  Time cost on fuelling: 0.9  Operator efficiency factor
 Loss stockpile=1.2  Bucket fill factor=1.0  Average operator=0.75 =0.75
 Slot dozing=1.2  Turing time=0.9
 Job efficiency=0.83
 6.7% grade downhill=1.12
 Weight correction=(1370/1900)=0.72
Factored equipment Production=375*0.75*1.2*1.2*0.83*1.12*0.72 255*0.75*1= 191.25 CM/hr 0.9*78.8=70.9 cm/hr 44/0.9/0.75=66 hours 914*0.75*0.9=616.95 cm/hr
output (m3/hr) = 271 Lm3/hr

Decimal and rounded Decimal number of bulldozer: Decimal number of loader: Decimal number of truck: 26747/5/16/70.9= 4.7 Decimal number of graders: Decimal number of compactors:
number of pieces of 26747÷271/5/16=1.2 Rounded number: 2 26747/5/16/191.25=1.75 Rounded number: 5 66/8/4=1.83 19257.6/8/4/616.95=0.97
equipment Rounded number: 2
Rounded number:2 Rounded number:1

-2-
 Figure B.1 Dozing distance and grade

Figure B.2 Truck route from the borrow site to the construction site

-3-
B.2 Estimation of Embankment Volume

Table B.1 Estimation of each sectional volume of embankment

Section of Section 1: Embankment on south side of the Section 2: Embankment on North

embankment A1 Highway side of the A1 Highway
subsection 1.1.1 & 1.1.2 & 1.2.3 & 1.1.4 & 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3
1.2.1 & 1.2.2 & 1.1.3 & 1.2.3 & &2.2.1 &2.2.2 & &2.2.3
1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 & 2.3.1 2.3.2 &2.3.3
Height of
333.23 2241.23 5825 6659.98 6659.98 5527.47 429.78
embankment (mm)
longitudinal length
12449.06 47729.30 59423.11 16417.17 22138.34 173370.50 28215.61
of the section (mm)
Width of the
666.46 4482.46 11650 13319.96 13319.96 11054.94 859.56
section (mm)
Volume of main
21.78 645.11 2516.43 1076.08 1416.50 5422.26 63.7
road (m3)
Volume of one side
0.46 79.08 966.58 639.75 822.07 1538.18 1.73
slope ( m3)
Total volume of 19257.56
- - - - - -
embankment ( m3)

B.3 Bonus Deliverables

Option 2 for earthwork methodology.
The excavator can be used in excavating and transporting the sand to the trucks in replacement of the
bulldozers and loaders.
This job has to move 26746.6m3 of sand material in articulated trucks which will be loaded by an excavator.
The excavator is selected to be 330B excavator with1.4 m3 bucket.
Assume these excavators will work 16 hours/day and estimates a 50 mini work hour (83% job efficiency).
Based on page 4-148 in the Handbook, the total cycle time is 0.27 min.
The raw rate of production:
60/0.27*1.4=311 Lm3/hr
Further considering the 83% job efficiency, the excavator’s capability will have to be
311*0.83=258.2 Lm3/ 50 min hr.
Therefore, the decimal and rounded number can be calculated as follow.
Decimal number of excavators:
26746.6/258.2/16/5=1.3
The total working hours for 2 330B excavators are
26746.6/258.2=103.5 hours
Two 330B excavators are required for working 16hours for 5 days.
Assume the 330B excavator has the similar wet cost as 30T Komatsu excavator, and assume they have
similar dry cost as graders.
According to Alliance trading rates provided in the task briefing.
The wet cost rate for 330B is $140/hour, the dry cost is $600/day.

-4-
Therefore, the total cost of hiring 2 excavators running 104 hours is
140* 104+600*5=$17560
The transporting cost can be estimated as follow.
32.42t*2*$40/t+$260*2=$3113.6
The total cost for operating excavators is $20673.6.
The initial option in work package 2 will spend $59034.4 on bulldozers and loaders.
Compared to initial option with hiring bulldozers and loaders, selecting330B excavators can save $38360.8 in
embankment construction works.

B.4 References
Catrepillar Inc. (1998). Caterpillar performance handbook edition 35. Retrieved from:
http://nheri.ucsd.edu/facilities/docs/Performance_Handbook_416C.pdf

-5-
C. Piling Construction Option Analysis
C.1 Estimation of Load on the Pier
C.1.1 Total Dead and Live Load from Bridge Load Estimation
The dead load and live load based on previous bridge design are given by 𝐺 = 122.59 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 and 𝑄 =
151.2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚, respectively.
For simplicity, the central piers may be assumed to undertake half load of each span, which is 15 + 15 =30 m.
The load is evenly distributed to these two pier columns below the crosshead. For a typical pier, the total dead
load is
𝐺𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒 = 122.59 × 30 − 70.93 × 0.2 = 3663.40 𝑘𝑁
and the total live load is
𝑄𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒 = 151.2 × 30 = 4536 𝑘𝑁

C.1.2 Mass of Concrete in a Standard Pier

According to Figure 2&3 in Task 4 Briefing, the crosshead has a width of 1.2 m and a height of 1.5 m
respectively. The length of crosshead is worked out as per Figure 3 of Task 4 Briefing which is
2100 757
10500 − ( − ) × 2 + 200 × 2 = 9557 𝑚𝑚 (9.557 𝑚)
2 2
Hence the total volume of crosshead is
1.2 × 1.5 × 9.557 = 17.20 𝑚3
The self-weight of the crosshead is
17.20 × 24.5 = 421.46 𝑘𝑁
Regarding the two pier columns, each column has a 1.2 × 0.9 m cross section. The clearance to the bottom of
Super T’s is set as 5.3 m, and the height of crosshead is 1.5 m. Hence the height of each pier column is
5.3 − 1.5 = 3.8 𝑚
Hence the volume of each pier column is
3.8 × 1.2 × 0.9 = 4.104 𝑚3
The total weight of two pier columns is
2 × 4.014 × 24.5 = 201.10 𝑘𝑁

As for the pile cap, the width is assumed as 1.6 m, and the thickness of pile cap is given by 1 m. The length of
pile cap is
9.557 − (0.5 − 0.3) × 2 = 9.157𝑚
The Hence the estimated volume is
9.157 × 1.6 × 1 = 14.65 𝑚3
The weight of pile cap is
24.5 × 14.65 = 358.95 𝑘𝑁
Therefore, the total concrete weight in a standard pier is
𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 + 𝑊𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 + 𝑊𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝 = 421.46 + 201.10 + 358.95 = 981.51 𝑘𝑁

-6-
C.1.3 Limit State and Serviceability Load for the Pier
The limit state design load is
1.2𝐺𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 1.5𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 1.2 × (3663.4 + 981.51) + 1.5 × 4536 = 12377.9 𝑘𝑁
and the serviceability design load is
1.0𝐺𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 0.7𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 1.0 × (3663.4 + 981.51) + 0.7 × 4536 = 7820.12 𝑘𝑁

C.2 Pile Foundation Assessment

C.2.1 Square Precast Piles
(a) Number of piles based on serviceability
The design serviceability load is 7820.12 kN, and the serviceability capacity of each pile is 1.8 MN (1800 kN),
hence the number of piles needed is
7820.12⁄1800 = 4.34 ≈ 5
Therefore 5 piles are needed to meet serviceability load requirement.

(b) Number of piles based on structural limit

The design structural strength of each pile is given by
𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 𝑘𝛷𝑠 𝑅𝑢𝑠 = 𝑘𝛷𝑠 (𝛼2 𝑓𝑐′ (𝐴𝑔 − 𝐴𝑠 ) + 𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 )
Where
𝑘 = 1 since at least 5% of piles are integrity tested
𝛷𝑠 = 0.6 as suggested by task briefing
𝑓𝑐′ = 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎 as suggested by task briefing
𝑓𝑦 = 500 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝛼2 = 1 − 0.003𝑓𝑐′ = 1 − 0.003 × 40 = 0.88 > 0.85, 𝛼2 = 0.85.
𝐴𝑔 = 350 × 350 = 122500𝑚𝑚2

For the pile size of 350 × 350mm, the bar size should be 20 mm with a cover of 40 mm (Precast Reinforced
20 2
Concrete Pile Design Information, 2012). Hence assume 4N20 bars for the concrete pile, 𝐴𝑠 = 4 × 𝜋 × ( 2 ) =
1256.6 𝑚𝑚2.
Therefore,
𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 1 × 0.6 × [0.85 × 40 × (122500 − 1256.6) + 500 × 1256.6] = 2850.3 𝑘𝑁
The design limit state load is 12368.49 kN, and the factored structural strength of each pile is 2850.3 kN,
hence the number of piles needed is
12377.9⁄2850.3 = 4.34 ≈ 5
Therefore 5 piles are needed for resisting limit state load.
Take critical design number is taken as 5 since the number of piles needed for both SLS and ULS is 5.

-7-
(d) Estimation of plan dimension of pile cap
As per task briefing, the minimum centre-to-centre spacing of piles is three times diameter of piles, and the
minimum clearance to the outer most piles is 300 mm. The pile length is 9.157 m, so the spacing between piles
is
9.157 − 0.3 × 2 − 0.35
= 2.05 𝑚
5−1
For precast piles, the minimum spacing is 3 × 350 = 1050 𝑚𝑚 (1.05𝑚), which is smaller than 2.05 m. Hence
the actual pile spacing meets the design spacing requirement.
As for the width which is 1.6 m, the clearance to the pile cap edge is (1.6 − 0.35)⁄2 = 0.625𝑚 > 0.3𝑚, Hence it
satisfies the clearance requirement.
The plan dimension of pile cap is finally set up as 9.157 × 1.6 m constantly.

C.2.2 CFA Piles

(a) Number of piles based on serviceability
For a 23-meter CFA pile (diameter 0.6m) which has a socketed depth of 1 m into the extremely weathered
basalt, the shaft contact area is
𝜋𝐷𝐿 = 𝜋 × 0.6 × 1 = 1.885 𝑚2
The UCS is 4 MPa for extremely weathered basalt, hence
𝑈𝐿𝑆𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.45 × √4 × 1.885 = 1.6965 𝑀𝑁 (1696.5 𝑘𝑁)
The serviceability load is 7820.12 kN, so the number of piles needed shall be estimated by
7820.12
= 4.61 ≈ 5
1696.5
Check if serviceability load is less than ULS shaft friction capacity.
Total shaft friction capacity is
1696.5 × 5 = 8482.5 𝑘𝑁 > 7820.12 𝑘𝑁
Hence it satisfies the criteria. This means 5 CFA piles are needed for serviceability load case.

(b) Estimation of Φg
According to section 4.3.1 of AS 2159,
𝛷𝑔 = 𝛷𝑔𝑏 + (𝛷𝑡𝑓 − 𝛷𝑔𝑏 )𝐾 > 𝛷𝑔𝑏

Table C.1 Estimation of Φgb for CFA piles (AS 2159 Piling - Design and Installation, 2009)
Individual
Weighting Risk
Risk factor Comments
factor (wi) Rating
(IRR)
Site
Geological complexity of The soil layers are generally parallel to each other, and
2 2
site basically are well defined
Extent of ground Limited borehole investigation, though the boreholes are not
2 4
investigation shallow
Amount and quality of SPT and laboratory index test are utilized for estimating the
2 5
geotechnical data soil and rock property

-8-
 Design
Experience with similar The geotechnical engineer (student) may be assumed to have
foundations in similar 1 4 extreme limited experience with similar foundations in similar
geological conditions geological conditions (Geelong).
Method of assessment of
The assessment of geotechnical properties is mainly based on
geotechnical parameters of 2 3
conventional laboratory test
design
The design method is based on published standards, including
Design method adopted 1 2
AS 2159 and AS 3600
Method of utilizing results
Dynamic test is used, and the data obtained is not calibrated by
of in situ test data and 2 4
static loading test
installation data
Installation
The geotechnical engineer (student) may not engage in the
Level of construction
2 3 installation process, and conventional construction procedures
control
will be adopted for constructing CFA piles
Level of performance
monitoring of the Dynamic test rather than static test is implemented for
0.5 4
supported structure during performance monitoring
and after construction
Sum of wi*IRR 50
Sum of w 14.5 Assume low redundancy system, 3 < ARR < 3.5
ARR 3.45 Φgb = 0.48
Φgb 0.48

For dynamic load testing of performed piles, 𝛷𝑡𝑓 = 0.75. Also, the value of K is given by
1.13𝑝 1.33 × 20
𝐾= = = 1.14 ≥ 1
𝑝 + 3.3 20 + 3.3
Hence 𝛷𝑔 is given by
𝛷𝑔 = 0.48 + (0.75 − 0.48) × 1 = 0.75 > 0.48

(c) Factored geotechnical strength of pile

For UCS of 4MPa, shaft resistance is 0.45 × √4 = 0.9 𝑀𝑃𝑎, and base resistance is 5 × 4 = 20 𝑀𝑃𝑎.
The shaft contact area is 1.885 m2, and base area is 𝜋𝐷 2 ⁄4 = 𝜋 × 0.62 ⁄4 = 0.283 𝑚2 .
Hence the total unfactored geotechnical strength is
𝑅𝑑,𝑢𝑔 = 0.9 × 1.885 + 0.283 × 20 = 7.356 𝑀𝑁 (7356 𝑘𝑁)
The factored geotechnical strength is
𝑅𝑑,𝑔 = 𝛷𝑔 𝑅𝑑,𝑢𝑔 = 0.75 × 7356 = 5517 𝑘𝑁

(d) Factored structural strength of pile

For partially unreinforced CFA pile, the unfactored structural strength is
𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 0.5𝑘𝑓𝑐′ 𝛷𝑠 𝐴𝑔
Where
𝐴𝑔 = 0.283 𝑚2 for the gross area

-9-
𝑓𝑐′ = 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎 as suggested by task briefing
𝑘 = 1 for cases where CFA piles are installed with full and real time monitoring as per Table 5.3.2 of AS2159
𝛷𝑠 = 0.6 as per Table 2.2.3 of AS3600
Therefore
𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 0.5 × 1 × 40 × 0.6 × 0.283 × 106 = 3396 𝑘𝑁

(e) Number of piles based on ultimate limit state

Since 𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 3396 𝑘𝑁, and 𝑅𝑑,𝑔 = 5517 𝑘𝑁, 𝑅𝑑,𝑠 < 𝑅𝑑,𝑔 . Therefore, CFA piles fail by structural failure mode,
and 𝑅𝑑,𝑠 is selected to be the design strength for ultimate limit state. Since group efficiency is 100%, the
ultimate capacity of piles acting in a group is the same as the sum of ultimate capacity from individual CFA
piles.
The ultimate limit state load is 12377.9 kN, so the number of piles needed is
12377.9⁄3396 = 3.64 ≈ 4
Therefore, 4 CFA piles are needed for resisting ultimate limit state load.

(f) Plan Dimension of Pile Cap

The plan dimension of pile cap is 9.157 × 1.6 m. The number of piles needed in serviceability case is more
than that in limit state case, hence take pile number as 5.
The center-to-center spacing of CFA piles is given by
9.157 − 0.3 × 2 − 0.6
= 1.989 𝑚
4
The minimum spacing of CFA piles shall be
3𝐷 = 3 × 0.6 = 1.8 𝑚 < 1.989 𝑚
Hence it satisfies the minimum spacing requirement.
In the other direction, the clearance to the pile cap edge is
1.6 − 0.6
= 0.5 𝑚 > 0.3𝑚
2
Hence it satisfies the minimum clearance requirement.

C.2.3 Bored Rock Socketed Piles

(a) Number of piles based on serviceability
For a 25-meter bored rock socketed pile (diameter 0.9m) which has a socketed depth of 2 m into the Extremely
Weathered basalt and 1m into the Moderately Weathered Basalt, the shaft contact area to the EW basalt is
𝜋𝐷𝐿 = 𝜋 × 0.9 × 2 = 5.65 𝑚2
The shaft contact area to the MW basalt is:
𝜋𝐷𝐿 = 𝜋 × 0.9 × 1 = 2.83 𝑚2
The UCS (EW Basalt) is 4 MPa, hence
𝑈𝐿𝑆𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝐸𝑀 = 0.45 × √4 × 5.65 = 5.085 𝑀𝑁 (5085 𝑘𝑁)
The UCS is 50 MPa for Moderately Weathered Basalt, hence:

- 10 -
 𝑈𝐿𝑆𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝑀𝑊 = 0.45 × √50 × 2.83 = 9.005 𝑀𝑁 (9005 𝑘𝑁)
The total shaft friction is:
𝑈𝐿𝑆𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑈𝐿𝑆𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝐸𝑀 +𝑈𝐿𝑆𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝐸𝑀 = 5.085 + 9.005 = 14.090𝑀𝑁
The serviceability load is 7820.12 kN, so the number of piles needed shall be estimated by
7820.12
= 0.555 ≈ 1
14090
However, the minimum requirement of piles is not less than two piles per pier. Thus, the number of piles shall
be at least 2.
Total shaft friction capacity is
14090 × 2 = 28180 𝑘𝑁 > 7820.12 𝑘𝑁
Hence, the shaft friction capacity is larger than the requirement. This means 2 bored rock socketed piles are
satisfied for serviceability load case.

(b) Estimation of Φg
According to section 4.3.1 of AS 2159,
𝛷𝑔 = 𝛷𝑔𝑏 + (𝛷𝑡𝑓 − 𝛷𝑔𝑏 )𝐾 > 𝛷𝑔𝑏

Table C.2 Estimation of Φgb for bored piles (AS 2159 Piling - Design and Installation, 2009)
Individual
Weighting Risk
Risk factor Comments
factor (wi) Rating
(IRR)
Site
Geological complexity of The soil layers are generally parallel to each other, and
2 2
site basically are well defined
Extent of ground Due to only 2 piles needed, limited borehole investigation. The
2 4
investigation diameter of pile is 900 mm, which is not shallow.
Amount and quality of Dynamic test, and laboratory integrity test are utilized for
2 5
geotechnical data estimating the soil and rock property
Design
The location of construction site is far away from city, not
Experience with similar
much buildings near the site. Extreme limited experience with
foundations in similar 1 5
similar foundations in similar geological conditions can be
geological conditions
found by the geotechnical engineer.
Method of assessment of
The assessment of geotechnical properties is mainly based on
geotechnical parameters of 2 3
conventional laboratory test
design
The design method is based on published standards, including
Design method adopted 1 2
AS 2159 and AS 3600
Method of utilizing results
Dynamic test is used, and the data obtained is not calibrated by
of in situ test data and 2 4
static loading test
installation data
Installation
The geotechnical engineer (student) may not engage in the
Level of construction
2 3 installation process, and conventional construction procedures
control
will be adopted for constructing bored piles

- 11 -
 Level of performance
monitoring of the Dynamic test rather than static test is implemented for
0.5 4
supported structure during performance monitoring
and after construction
Sum of wi*IRR 51
Sum of w 14.5 Assume low redundancy system, 3.5< ARR < 4.0
ARR 3.52 Φgb = 0.45
Φgb 0.45

For dynamic load testing of performed piles, 𝛷𝑡𝑓 = 0.75.

Assumed 50% of piles (one pile) is tested, the value of p can be assumed to be 50.
Also, due to dynamic loading test, the value of K is given by
1.13𝑝 1.13 × 50
𝐾= = = 1.06 ≥ 1
𝑝 + 3.3 50 + 3.3
Hence 𝛷𝑔 is given by
𝛷𝑔 = 0.45 + (0.75 − 0.45) × 1 = 0.75 > 0.48
𝛷𝑔 = 0.75

(c) Factored geotechnical strength of pile

The shaft resistance is calculated before, and for the MW basalt, the shaft resistance is: 0.45 × √4 = 0.9𝑀𝑃𝑎
For the EW Basalt, the shaft resistance is: 0.45 × √50 = 4.08 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The base resistance is: 5 × 50 = 250 𝑀𝑃𝑎.
The shaft contact area to the EW basalt is
𝜋𝐷𝐿 = 𝜋 × 0.9 × 2 = 5.65 𝑚2
The shaft contact area to the MW basalt is:
𝜋𝐷𝐿 = 𝜋 × 0.9 × 1 = 2.83 𝑚2
And, base area is 𝜋𝐷 2 ⁄4 = 𝜋 × 0.92 ⁄4 = 0.636 𝑚2 .

Hence the total unfactored geotechnical strength is

𝑅𝑑,𝑢𝑔 = 0.9 × 5.65 + 3.18 × 2.83 + 0.636 × 250 = 173.0844 𝑀𝑁 (173084.4 𝑘𝑁)
The factored geotechnical strength is
𝑅𝑑,𝑔 = 𝛷𝑔 𝑅𝑑,𝑢𝑔 = 0.75 × 173084.4 = 129813.3𝑘𝑁 = 129.8MN

(d) Factored Structural Strength of Pile

For fully reinforced bored pile, the unfactored structural strength can be calculated based on the AS3600 and
AS2159:
𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 𝑘𝛷𝑠 𝑅𝑢𝑠
𝑅𝑢𝑠 = 𝑁𝑢𝑜 = 𝛼2 𝑓𝑐′ (𝐴𝑔 − 𝐴𝑠𝑐 ) + 𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠𝑐

- 12 -
Where
𝐴𝑔 = 0.636 𝑚2 for the gross area
𝑓𝑐′ = 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎 as suggested by task briefing
𝑓𝑦 = 500𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑘 = 1 for cases where bored piles are installed with regular on-site testing of drilling fluid as per Table 5.3.2 of
AS2159
𝛷𝑠 = 0.6 for concrete in compression as shown in Table 2.2.3 of AS3600
𝛼2 = 0.85 based on AS3600
𝐴𝑠𝑐 is the compressive bars’ area.
8 N36 bars are used for the bored piles, the area of compression bars can be assumed to be half of total bars’
area.
362
𝐴𝑠𝑐 = 4 × 𝜋 × = 4071.50 𝑚𝑚2
4
Therefore:
𝑅𝑢𝑠 = 𝑁𝑢𝑜 = 0.85 × 40 × (636000 − 4071.50) + 4071.50 × 500 = 23888.88𝑘𝑁
𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 0.6 × 1 × 23888.88 = 14333.33 𝑘𝑁 = 14.33𝑀𝑁

(e) Number of Piles Based on Ultimate limit State

Since 𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 14.33 𝑀𝑁, and 𝑅𝑑,𝑔 = 129.8 𝑀𝑁, 𝑅𝑑,𝑠 < 𝑅𝑑,𝑔 . Therefore, bored piles fail by structural failure mode,
and 𝑅𝑑,𝑠 is selected to be the design strength for ultimate limit state. Since group efficiency is 100%, the
ultimate capacity of piles acting in a group is the same as the sum of ultimate capacity from individual CFA
piles.
The ultimate limit state load is 12377.9 kN, so the number of piles needed is
12377.9⁄14333.33 = 0.86 ≈ 1
However, the minimum requirement of piles is not less than two piles per pier. The number of piles shall be at
least 2.

(f) Plan Dimension of Pile Cap

The plan dimension of pile cap is 9.157 × 1.6 m. The number of piles needed in serviceability case is same
with that in limit state case, which number of piles is 2.
The center-to-center spacing of bored piles is given by
9.157 − 0.3 × 2 − 0.9
= 7.657𝑚
1
The minimum spacing of bored piles shall be
3𝐷 = 3 × 0.9 = 2.7 𝑚 < 7.657 𝑚
Hence it satisfies the minimum spacing requirement.
In the other direction, the clearance to the pile cap edge is
1.6 − 0.9
= 0.35 𝑚 > 0.3𝑚
2
Hence it satisfies the minimum clearance requirement.

- 13 -
C.3 References
AS 2159 Piling - Design and Installation. (2009). Sydney: Standards Australia.

Precast Reinforced Concrete Pile Design Information. (2012, March). Retrieved from NSW transport Roads & Maritime Services:
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/documents/standard-drawings/b100.pdf

- 14 -
D. Structure Costing and System Selection
D.1 Cost Guidelines

Table D.1 Cost factors for 350mm precast piles

Table D.2 Cost factors for 600mm CFA piles

Table D.3 Cost factors for 900mm rock socketed piles

D.2 Typical Foundation Costing

This section provides insight of cost estimation for three different pile foundation options.
D.2.1 Square Precast Piles
No. of 350mm square precast pile is: 5
Average length of pile is: 16m
Total linear meter of piles is: 16 × 5 = 80𝑚

No. of rig for installing precast pile is: 1

Cost of establishing and demolishing piling rig is: 5000 × 2 = $10000
Cost of purchasing piles is: 50 × 80 = $4000
No. of precast joints is: 5 × 2 = 10
Cost of precast joints is: 100 × 10 = $1000
- 15 -
Volume per pile is: 0.35 × 0.35 × 16 = 1.96 𝑚3
Total weight of piles is: 1.96 × 2450 × 5 × 0.001 = 24.01 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠
Cost of delivering piles is: 20 × 24.01 = $480.2
Cost of driving piles is: 40 × 80 = $3200
No. of piles undergoing PDA test is: 5 × 20% = 1
Cost of PDA test is: 750 × 1 = $750
Volume of pile cap is: 9.157 × 1.6 × 1 = 14.65𝑚2
Cost of pile cap: 700 × 14.65 = $10255
Volume of pile columns is: 2 × 3.8 × 1.2 × 0.9 = 8.2𝑚2
Cost of pile columns is: 900 × 8.2 = $7380
Volume of crosshead is: 9.557 × 1.2 × 1.5 = 17.2𝑚2
Cost of crosshead is: 900 × 17.2 = $15480

Total direct cost is: 10000 + 4000 + 1000 + 480.2 + 3200 + 750 + 10255 + 7380 + 15480 = $52545.2
Cost due to margin is: 52545.2 × 20% = $10509.0
Cost due to contingency is: 52545.2 × 5% = $2627.3
Total cost is: 52545.2 + 10509.0 + 2627.3 = $65681.5 ($821.0⁄𝑚)

D.2.2 CFA Piles

No. of 600mm CFA pile is: 5
Average length of pile is: 23m
Total linear meter of piles is: 23 × 5 = 115𝑚

No. of rig for installing CFA pile is: 1

Cost of establishing and demolishing piling rig is: 7000 × 2 = $14000
No. of cranes needed is: 1
Cost of establishing and demolishing crane is: 5000 × 2 = $10000
Volume per pile is: 𝜋 × (0.62 ⁄4) × 23 = 6.5 𝑚3
Volume per steel bar is: 𝜋 × (0.0282⁄4) × 20 = 0.0123 𝑚3
Total volume of piles is: 6.5 × 5 = 32.5 𝑚3
Total volume of steel bar is: 5 × 6 × 0.0123 = 0.37 𝑚3
Total volume for concrete is: 32.5 − 0.37 = 32.13 𝑚3
Cost of concrete is: 300 × 32.13 = $9639
Total weight of steel bar is:7850 × 0.37 × 0.001 = 2.9 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠
Cost of steel bars is: 600 × 2.9 = $1740
If CFA rig can install 3 CFA piles per day, then it will take 2 days to finish installation. Combined with 1-day set-
up and 1-day pack-up per footing, the total duration sums up to 4 days.

- 16 -
Cost of plant and labour is: 9000 × 4 = $36000
No. of piles undergoing test is: 5 × 20% = 1
Cost of integrity test is: 1500 × 1 = $1500
Cost of dynamic test is: 8000 × 1 = $8000
Identical pier is constructed for CFA pile foundation, hence
Cost of pile cap: $10255
Cost of pile columns is: $7380
Cost of crosshead is: $15480

Total cost is: 14000 + 10000 + 9693 + 1740 + 36000 + 1500 + 8000 + 10255 + 7380 + 15480 = $113994
Cost due to margin is: 113994 × 20% = $22798.8
Cost due to contingency is: 113994 × 5% = $5699.7
Total cost is: 113994 + 22798.8 + 5699.7 = $142492.5 ($1239.1⁄𝑚)

D.2.3 Bored Rock Socketed Piles

No. of 900mm bored pile is: 2
Average length of pile is: 25m
Total linear meter of piles is: 25 × 2 = 50𝑚

No. of rig for installing bored pile is: 1

Cost of establishing and demolishing piling rig is: 10000 × 2 = $20000
No. of cranes needed is: 1
Cost of establishing and demolishing crane is: 5000 × 2 = $10000
Volume per pile is: 𝜋 × (0.92 ⁄4) × 25 = 15.9 𝑚3
Volume per steel bar is: 𝜋 × (0.0322⁄4) × 25 = 0.0201 𝑚3
Total volume of piles is: 15.9 × 2 = 31.8 𝑚3
Total volume of steel bar is: 2 × 6 × 0.0201 = 0.24 𝑚3
Total volume for concrete is: 31.8 − 0.24 = 31.56 𝑚3
Cost of concrete is: 250 × 31.56 = $7890
Total weight of steel bar is: 7850 × 0.201 × 0.001 = 1.58 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠
Cost of steel bars is: 500 × 1.58 = $790
Cost of transporting concrete is: 50 × 31.56 = $1578
Cost of transporting steel bas is: 100 × 1.58 = $158

If boring rig can install 1 bored pile per day, then it will take 2 days to finish installation. Combined with 1-day
set-up and 1-day pack-up for each pile per footing, the total duration sums up to 4 days.
Cost of plant and labour is: 8500 × 4 = $34000

- 17 -
No. of piles undergoing test is: 2 × 50% = 1
Cost of integrity test is: 1500 × 1 = $1500
Cost of dynamic test is: 12000 × 1 = $12000
Identical pier is constructed for CFA pile foundation, hence
Cost of pile cap: $10255
Cost of pile columns is: $7380
Cost of crosshead is: $15480

Total cost is: 20000 + 10000 + 7890 + 790 + 1578 + 158 + 34000 + 1500 + 12000 + 10255 + 7380 +
15480 = $121031
Cost due to margin is: 121031 × 20% = $24206.2
Cost due to contingency is: 121031 × 5% = $6051.6
Total cost is: 121031 + 24206.2 + 6051.6 = $151288.8 ($3025.8⁄𝑚)

D.3 Foundation Selection

The justification of scores allocated to each pile foundation in terms of each assessment criteria, such as
construction time and spoil disposal impacts, is summarized as follows.

Table D.4 Justifications for scores of assessment criteria

Impact Weight Precast Piles CFA Piles Bored Piles
The total cost of precast pile The total cost of CFA piles is The total cost of bored piles
is $65681.5. $142492.5. is $152057.1.
According to the cost before, For the CFA piles, the cost is For the bored piles, the cost
the cost of precast piles is two times more than precast is higher than the other to
the least one among the piles. However, comparing foundation types. Hence, the
Cost 40% three different types, which is with the bored piles, the cost score should be the least
only half of the CFA piles. will be reduced by about among the three type.
10000. Comparing with the
precast piles, the score of the
CFA piles should be less
than half of the precast piles.

For the driven pile, precast CFA pile is one common type Bored piles need to use a
pile can be built in the of non-displacement pile, and drive auger to create a void
industry and the inspections an auger will be used to and use a temporary steel
and tests can be done before create a hollow. Then, casing to prevent cave-in,
installation, which will concrete will be pumped into and then, a reinforcement
decrease the construction the hollow, and reinforcement cage is put into the hollow
Construction
20% time. Furthermore, no waiting cage will be inserted into slowly. Finally, more time will
Time
time are required for the concrete. Comparing with be needed to wait the
driven pile. bored pile, CFA pile will concrete achieve enough
provide lower construction strength. Hence, the total
time because concrete will be construction time of bored
pumped before the cage. pile is the highest, compared
with other two piles.

- 18 -
 For the driven pile, a hammer The construction of CFA pile Considering the construction
is used to force the pile into is inserting a hollow stemmed method of bored pile
soil, much noise and auger into the soil like a mentioned before, almost no
vibration will be made during corkscrew, which will not vibration will be made during
this process. According to provide much noise and the installation and the
Noise and CN (2010), precast pile will vibration. construction noise is also
5% make more noise and low.
Vibration According to the Ground
vibration than other two pile
engineering (2017),
types. The vibration of the
comparing with the Driven
precast piles may lead to the
piles, CFA piles provide less
movement of the sounding
vibration and noise during
structures’ foundations.
the installation.

As an example of CFA pile is a non- As a type of non-

displacement piles, Driven displacement pile, the displacement pile, bored
piles do not need to remove volume of the soil is piles need to remove the soil,
much soils, which means the theoretical equal to the which volumes should be
effect of spoil disposal is volume of piles. That means, more than the pile volume.
little. with the same volume of piles The reason is that bored
Spoil
with driven pile, the volume piles need more area to put
Disposal 10%
of soil removed by CFA pile steels to support the hollow
Impacts
will be much more than the to precast the failure of the
driven pile. hollow than the CFA piles.
Due to more soil removed,
the spoil disposal impact of
the bored pile will be larger
than CFA piles.

Based on Designing Comparing with the bored For the bored pile, the load
Buildings Wiki (2018), the piles, the construction of CFA testing is difficult to be
driven piles need to be pile is not so complex due to performed, which means the
controlled carefully. no casing needed. However, strength of pile is hard to be
Comparing with CFA pile and the load test also hard to be ensured. The construction
Construction bored pile, driven piles are performed. The arrangement steps show high level of
Complexity 25% hard to be controlled in the and installation need to be complexity and the casing
and Risk same level. Furthermore, supervised and controlled. need to be controlled and
piles may be damaged Without well control of the arranged carefully. If the
during the installation. If the pile, the pile may have lateral casing is not designed
pile was damaged during the displacement, which may thoroughly, the hollow will
installation, the building may lead to the collapse of fail, and more excavation will
collapse. building. be needed.

D.4 References
CN. (2010). Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Types of Piles. Retrieved from
http://constructionnotes.blogspot.com/2010/10/advantages-and-disadvantages-of.html Ground
Designing Buildings Wiki. (2018, Sep 25). Driven piles. Retrieved from https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Driven_piles
Engineering Ltd. (2017, April 12). Bored Piles And Their Advantage In The Construction Of A Vertical Building. Retrieved August 29,
2018, from https://medium.com/@groundengineeringltd/bored-piles-and-their-advantage-in-the-constructionof-a-vertical-
building-7db534321ce0

- 19 -
E. Construction Methods
E.1 Super T Erection – Crane Selection
As shown in design cross section drawing, the width of bridge is 10.5m, the span is 30m for each super T
beam section, and the flange width is 2100mm.
Therefore, the number of super T beams required for covering the width of the bridge can be calculated by
10.5
=5
2.1
The mass of each super T beam is:
1.446 × 30 = 43.38𝑡
Assuming that the capacity rate of the crane should be 5-10 times of the weight of each super T beam, so the
capacity range is
5 × 43.38 = 216.9𝑡 ~ 10 × 43.38 = 433.8𝑡
Therefore, based on the sand terrain site and crane chart, all terrain crane AC350-6 with maximum capacity
400t is initially selected for 1st crane and AC500-1 with maximum capacity 600t is initially selected for 2nd
crane. URL is attached below:
https://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/Terex_Demag_AC_350-6.pdf
https://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/AC-500-1.pdf

In order to check whether the selected crane could satisfy the requirement of lifting the potential loading, there
are several assumptions listed in Table E.1.
Table E.1 Several assumptions of crane setting
Height from boom top to the top of triangle (m) 5
Angle of triangle (o) 45o
Crosshead above super T beam (m) 2

Assuming that the hook lock is set as 5m (16.4ft) which is larger than the values for all types of AC350-6 and
AC500-1, and the values are presented in Table E.2.
Table E.2 Hook lock values of AC350-6 & AC500-1.

- 20 -
Therefore, the graphic information is provided in Figure E.1 (unit: mm).

Figure E.1 Graphic information of crane setting (unit: mm)

Therefore, the height from boom top to the bottom of super T beam is:
5 + 14.5 + 2 + 1.5 = 23𝑚
Based on Work Package 1, the clearance height of the bridge (under super T beam) is assumed as 5.3m,
which means that the total height required to lift is:
5.3 + 23 = 28.3𝑚

E.1.1 Selection for Crane Setup 1

According to the position of crane setup 1, the required radius should be more than 18m. Therefore, AC350-6
(HA 257,300 lb.) is selected and shown in Figure E.2 and Figure E.3.

- 21 -
 Figure E.2 Boom length, radius and lifting height of AC350-6 (HA 257,300 lb.)

Figure E.3 Crane loading chart of AC350-6 (HA 257,300 lb.)

According to the loading chart shown above, the capacity of AC350-6 (HA 257,300 lb.) with 18m (59ft) radius is
50.55t>43.38t. Hence, AC350-6 could satisfy the loading requirement.

The additional mass of AC350-6 is calculated and summarized in Table E.3.

- 22 -
 Table E.3 The additional mass of AC350-6
Component Mass (t) Justification
Assuming that the density of steel is 7800 kg/m3, and spreader bar is
Spreader Bar 1.97 hollow section (I.D=100mm and O.D=150mm), the total volume is
0.253m3, so total mass is 1.97t
According to the specification of AC350-6, when loading is around
Hook Block 1.05
45.4t, the weight of hook block is 2320 lb. (=1.05t)
Total 3.02 -

E.1.2 Selection for Crane Setup 2

According to the position of crane setup 2, the required radius should be more than 26m. Therefore, AC500-1
(352,800 lb.) is selected and shown in Figure E.4 and Figure E.5.

Figure E.4 Boom length, radius and lifting height of AC500-1 (352,800lb.)

Figure E.5 Crane loading chart of AC500-1 (352,800 lb.)

- 23 -
According to the loading chart shown above, the capacity of AC500-1 (352,800 lb.) with 26m (85ft) radius is
50.21t>43.38t. Hence, AC500-1 could satisfy the loading requirement.

The additional mass of AC500-1 is calculated and summarized in Table E.4.

Table E.4 The additional mass of AC500-1
Component Mass (t) Justification
Assuming that the density of steel is 7800 kg/m3, and spreader bar is
Spreader Bar 1.97 hollow section (I.D=100mm and O.D=150mm), the total volume is
0.253m3, so total mass is 1.97t
According to the specification of AC500-1, when loading is around 84t,
Hook Block 1.82
the weight of hook block is 4000 lb. (=1.82t)
Total 3.79 -

- 24 -
F. Final Longitudinal Section

Figure F.1 Elevation Profile from Google Earth

- 25 -