Final Project

1
STUDY OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OF THE
BYPASS OF THE CV-560 NATIONAL ROAD AROUND THE TOWNS ALCANTARA
DE JUCAR, CÁRCER AND COTES (VALENCIA PROVINCE).
Polytechnic University of Valencia JUNE 2016
CIVIL ENGINEERING - MASTER’S DEGREE PROJECT -
Author: Laura Ramirez
Tutor: Francisco J. Camacho

2
INDEX
1. LOCATION
2. CURRENT SITUATION
3. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
4.1. GEOLOGY AND GEOTHECNIC
4.2. HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
4.3. TRAFFIC STUDY
5. STUDY OF SOLUTIONS
6. DESCRIPTION SOLUTION ADOPTED
6.1. LAYOUT OF THE ROAD
6.2. PAVEMENT
6.3. DRAINAGE
6.4. STRUCTURES
6.5. BUDGET

3
1. LOCATION
VLC
N
CÁRCER
ALCÁNTARA
COTES
N

4
2. CURRENT SITUATION
 High traffic of heavy vehicles.
 Insufficient cross sections.
 A lot of access to the main road.
 Parking adjacent to the main road.
 Problems with air and noise pollution.
 Conflicts with vulnerable users.
 Deterioration of the urban road.

5
3. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
 Study different routes for the realization of the Bypass in populations of Alcantara
de Jucar, Carcer and Cotes.
 The project proposed four possible routes.
 Making a multi-criteria study.
- Economic.
- Road safety.
- Environmental impact.
 Development of the solution adopted at the level of Basic Project.
Factors Studied

6
4.1. GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNIC
 Informative reports of the General
Plans of Urban Planning of the towns.
 Maps Geological Institute and
Spanish Mining.
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
North region
South region
River Sellent
Region Type of Soil * Fill Slope *Cut Slope
NORTH Silt 2H : 1V 2H : 1V
SOUTH Sand 3H : 2V 3H : 2V
RIVER SELLENT Alluvial Soil 2H : 1V 2V : 1V
 Standards and bibliography of soil
mechanics.
* Resistant terrain features
(ф particle internal friction, c particle cohesion)

7
4.2. HYDROLOGY STUDY
 Return
Period
 Obtaining water flows for the transverse and longitudinal flow, using the formulas
proposed in the design standards.
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
T (Return Period) Cv Yt Pt (mm) Pd =Xt (mm)
25 0,51 2,068 95 196,46
100 0,51 2,815 95 267,425
Rainfall
Standard 5.2.IC (Surface Drainage)
(Patricova)
Values: (Cv, Pt)
 Pd: Fixed annual maximum
daily precipitation.
Maximum daily rainfall of Spain Peninsular
Transverse drainage T = 100 years
Longitudinal drainage T = 25 years
 Threshold Runoff
THRESHOLD RUNOFF (mm) SOIL GRUPO
Land uses Slope A B C D
Row crop < 3% 20 14 11 8
Forest mass media ˃ 3% - 34 22 16

8
4.3. TRAFFIC STUDY
Listings of traffic count
 Delegation of Valencia of its road network (Book of traffic gauging 2013).
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
 Starting data
 Manual traffic count: Wednesday September 23, 2014, (7:00 to 9:00 and 18:00 to 20:00).
ADT (vh/d) Heavy veh. /d % Heavy vehicle
Average 6859 393 5,73

9
4.3. TRAFFIC STUDY
- S festive: holidays
- D’ sept: day
- L sept: month
 Obtaining ADT
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
Manual traffic count
Intensity (week day, September, 2 hours)
Factors
ADT (veh./d.) = I (week day, sept, 2h.) x L sept x D’ sept x S festive
ADT (vehicle/day)
Search for a gauging traffic with features similar
ADT (CV-560) 6068
ADT (Heavy) (CV-560) 555
ADT (Bypass) 857
ADT (Heavy) (Bypass) 141

10
4.3. TRAFFIC STUDY
State official newsletter; Order FOM / 3317/2010
 Traffic prognose
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
ADT (Bypass) 2016 = 857 veh/d
ADT (Heavy) (2018) = 83 heavy veh/day
ADT (Heavy) (2016)= 79 heavy veh/day
Standard 6.1-IC «Pavement Sections»
 Estimation of heavy traffic
 ADT commissioning year (2018) ADT Bypass (2018) = 902 veh/day
 ADT horizon year (2038) ADT Bypass (2038) = 1200 veh/day
T32 category of
heavy traffic

11
4.3. TRAFFIC STUDY
4. PREVIOUS STUDIES
“Highway Capacity Manual 2010"
Results:
Horizon year
(2038)
TYPE OF ROAD % FREE SPEED % WAITING TIME SERVICE LEVEL
CV-560 horizon year (without bypass) Class III 66.23% - E
CV-560 horizon year (with Bypass) Class III 71.23% - D
Bypass horizon year Class II - 43.42 B
 Service Level
Road class types = f (speed wing waiting drivers traveling)

12
Protected Land
 Characteristics of the area of action
Protected Land

13
 Alternatives
 Characteristics of the area of action

14
 North Alternatives
Norte 2 Norte 1
Cyan → residential developable land Purple → developable land for industrial use
N

15
 South Alternatives
Sur 1
Sur 2
Sur 2
Sur 1
N
Cyan → residential developable land Purple → developable land for industrial use

16
 Design Aspects
Multi-criteria analysis
1) 3 factors are discussed
- Economic → Importance (4)
- Road Safety → Importance (5)
- Environmental Impact → Importance (4)
2) Each factor = f (Attributes)
- External Assessment (weight): 1 to 5
- Internal Rating: 1 to 3
A n = [Σ (Attribute (weight) i * Inter Rating j) ]* Factor (Importance)
The analysis is performed for each alternative, the alternative to be chosen for the design of the
Bypass will have the lowest value:
A n = Alternative j = (1 a 3) i = (1 a 5)

17
 Survey 9 individuals
 Each factor and attributes: rating 1 to 5
- 1 assumes the lower weight, unimportant
- 5 maximum value of weights, very important
 Bounded Media
 Rating factors and Attributes
(Objective minimize subjectivity)
ROAD SAFETY FACTOR 5
Road Visibility 4
Density and Danger of
Access
4
Connection 3
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT FACTOR 4
Flooding 4
Service Level 4
Developable land for industrial and
Residential use
3
Industrial buildings and Important
Buildings
4
Livestocks routes 1
Protected Terrain 3
ECONOMIC FACTOR 4
Earthworks 4
Expropriations 4
Road Structure works 2
Road Length 3

18
 ECONOMYC FACTOR
 Earthworks. Control of volumes of earth to mobilize, trying to get the volume of fill
soil and cut soil be minimum.
Earthworks Expropriated surface
 Expropiations. Minimize land to expropriate.
 Road Structure works. Try to make the least number of structures.
 Road Length. Design of the road trying to minimize the length thereof.

19
North Alternatives
NORTH 1 NORTH 2 SOUTH 1 SOUTH 2
C = Volume soil cut (m3) 57023 88613 45551 54452
F = Volume soil fill (m3) 6644 2813 45451 46199
Soil compensation C-F → 0 (m3) 50379 85800 101 8253
 ECONOMYC FACTOR
Expropiated surface (m2) 78715.116 90847.63 97917.17 116863.506
nº Structures Bridge Bridge
Bridge + box culvert
drain + 2 overpass
Bridge + 3 box culvert
drain + 2 overpass
Road length (m) 2423 3523 3640 3676
South Alternatives

20
 ROAD SAFETY FACTOR
 Road Visibility Sight Distance ≥ Stopping Sight Distance
→ It has been calculated for each section between two roundabouts and flow direction.
Good (SV (i) – SSD (i)) min. > 100 m
Medium 70 ≤ (SV (i) - SSD (i)) min. ≤ 100 m
Bad 70 < (SV (i) - SSD (i)) min.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 (i ) = K.P
Visibility Diagram. North 1 (A7 to Cotes)
Visibility = (Sight Visibility (i) – Stopping Sight Distance (i)) min.
Alternatives A7 to Cotes Cotes to A7
NORTH 1 94.39 110.78
NORTH 2 71.94 95.89
SOUTH 1 88.38 81.12
SOUTH 2 69.65 63.49
Sight Distance
Stopping Sight Distance
(m)

21
 Dangerousness of Access
Design Parameters
in Roundabouts
T intersections and cross
Conflict Points Accident risk Punctuation
3 or less low 1
4 to 6 medium 2
7 or more high 3
Type of roundabout Accident risk Punctuation
Type 1 meets the 3 parameters low 1
Type 2 meets 2 parameters low 1
Type 3 meets 1 or no parameters medium 2
Separation between branches/
Uniforms Access / Entry angle 90 °.
Trajectories occupying the same
Space / Diverge / Converge.
Conflicts Points
Roundabout
North 1. Access CV-558
North 1. Access Cárcer

22
 Dangerousness of Access
Alternatives Dangerousness
NORTH 1 3
NORTH 2 5
SOUTH 1 7
SOUTH 2 7
Good: Dangerousness ≤ 5
Medium: 5 < Dangerousness ≤ 8
Bad: 8 > Dangerousness
Alternatives nº access Length DA = (nº acc./leng.)*1000
NORTH 1 2 2423 0.83
NORTH 2 3 3523 0.85
SOUTH 1 4 3640 1.10
SOUTH 2 5 3676 1.09
 Density of Access

23
 Connection
Access Priority
Bypass
Conflict Points Priority Punctuation
Type 1 Intersection (T), Bypass main branch 1
Type 2 Roundabout 2
Type 3 Intersection (T), Bypass secondary branch 3
Type of roundabout Accident risk Punctuation
Type 1 meets the 3 parameters low 1
Type 2 meets 2 parameters low 1
Type 3 meets 1 or no parameters medium 2
Design of hits on the Bypass
Alternatives Start Connection End Connection
NORTH 1 5 3
NORTE 2 5 4
SUR 1 3 4
SUR 2 4 4
Conflict Points Accident risk Punctuation
3 or less low 1
4 to 6 medium 2
7 or more high 3
Roundabout T intersections and cross
Punctuation
Type 3: Bad 5
Type 2: Medium 4
Type 1: Good 3

24
 ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
 Protected Land, and Livestock routes.
Interested affect as little as possible
protected land surface, and try to affect
to livestock routes the least possible.
Impact on the environment

25
 Buildings, and land for developable
use. The road must pass through areas
where it is useful, trying to pass near areas
where there are housing and industrial
buildings.
Funciontality

26
 Flood risk. Road design should avoid
areas at risk of flooding.
Funciontality

27
 Service Level. Interest to have good
Service Level with high Service Level
we avoid major traffic jams.
Alternatives Type of Road % WAITING TIME
NORTH 1 Class II 43.58
NORTH 2 Class II 43.65
SOUTH 1 Class II 43.42
SOUTH 2 Class II 43.15
Service Level = f (% WC). to High % WT worst values
FINAL RESULTS
ALTERNATIVES
ECONOMIC
FACTOR
ROAD SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
TOTAL
functionality Impact on the environment
NORTH 1 84 140 148 40 412
NORTH 2 112 185 148 28 473
SOUTH 1 108 165 60 20 353
SOUTH 2 116 220 60 24 420
Alternative South 1.
Funciontality
At the end of the process, the best alternative has the lower value of the total

28
6.1. LAYOUT
 DESIGN Standard 3.1. (Highway Instruction) + Software AUTODESK CIVIL 3D
 SPEED PROJECT 60 km/h

29
 TYPE OF ROAD - Conventional single carriageway road.
- Without access to adjacent properties.
Length 3640 meters
STRAIGHT (A7 to Cotes)
Straight 1 389 m
Straight 2 394 m
Straight 3 431 m
Straight 4 272 m
Straight 5 631 m
Straight 6 364 m
Straight 7 346 m
RADIOS CURVES (A7 to Cotes)
R1 160 m
R2 140 m
R3 150 m
R4 170 m
R5 160 m
Transition curves → Clothoids
 LAYOUT ROAD
 CROSSFALL
 GRADIENT ROAD
- Relief type: Plain.
- Interurban environment.
6.1. LAYOUT
- All sections of the sloping road meet between minimum and maximum
specified in the instruction.
- Pumping 2% in straight sections and curved sections 7% in.

30
 ROUNDABOUT
Design → Recommendations on roundabouts published by the Generalitat Valenciana.
Branch Radio → (R = 15 m. R = 30 m.)
Pumping → Roundabouts are projected onto a flat platform and are designed with a pumping 2%.
 INTERSECTIONS
Redirecting Branches South 1. Redirections Branches
- Entry angles (72º-108º)
- Straight section length L ≥ 20m
6.1. LAYOUT

31
6.2. PAVEMENT
Bitumen. B60/70
Thickness Layer Material to be used
3 cm Surface course Hot asphalt mix batch type BBTM 11B
5 cm Interlayer AC -22-bin-S
7 cm Base course AC -22-base-G
35 cm Sub-Base Artificial gravel type ZA-25 (Extended in 2 layers)
 PAVEMENT Standard 6.1-IC «Pavement Sections»  Heavy traffic T32
 Tolerable soil
 Concourse E2
Bypass Pavement. Central Axis
Input data
 SECTIONS TYPE
- Road (2 lane of 3,50 m.)
- Hard shoulders (2 x 1,50 m.)
- Roadsides (2 x 0,50 m.)
Central Axis
- Road (2 lane of 4,00 m.)
- Hard shoulders (2 x 0,50 m.)
- Roadsides (1 x 0,50 m.)
Roundabout

32
 DRAINAGE BASIN CROSS
6.3. DRAINAGE
Basins Transverse Plane
T=100 years Q design (m3/S)
Ravine Pilars 1 60.79
Ravine Pilars 2 50.96
Ravine Abrasit 1 37.74
Ravine Abrasit 2 7.97
Transverse Flow Basins (T = 100 years)
SOUTH 1 Base (m) Height (m)
BCD Pilars 1 8.0 2.0
BCD Pilars 2 8.0 2.0
BCD Abrasit 1 6.0 2.0
BCD Abrasit 2 2.0 1.5
Q design ≤ Q Mannig-Strickler
≤
Cross Drainage Structures

33
6.3. DRAINAGE
 DRAINAGE BASIN LONGITUDINAL
Longitudinal Flow Basins (T = 25 years)
BASIN
Q design
(m3/s)
BASIN
Q design
(m3/s)
C-01 0.31 C-15 0.60
C-02 0.46 C-16 0.50
C-03 0.35 C-17 0.30
C-04 0.35 C-18 0.18
C-05 0.33 C-19 0.69
C-06 0.18 C-20 0.45
C-07 0.22 C-21 0.12
C-08 0.22 C-22 0.19
C-09 0.22 C-23 0.29
C-10 0.27 C-24 0.66
C-11 0.15 C-25 0.58
C-12 0.22 C-26 0.43
C-13 0.09 C-27 0.09
C-14 0.31 C-28 0.07
 RIVER FLOWS SELLENT
Q river (m3/s)
T = 100 years 880
T = 500 years 1500
"Summary Report of the Flood Hazard Mapping
in the Ribera del Júcar April 2002 '.
- B1 = 0,5 m.
- B2 = 1,50 m.
-T izq. = T der. = 1
Drainage ditches
(In areas of remove)
Q design ≤ Q Mannig-Strickler
≤
Drainage ditche
(In areas of slope)

34
6.4. STRUCTURE
ELEMENTO A SALVAR P.K TYPE LENGTH
RAVINE PILARS (1) (0+330) – (0+342) Box Culvert Drain 2 x 4m
CANAL ESCALONA (1) (0+534) – (0+544) Overpass 1 x 10m
RAVINE PILARS (2) (1+156) – (1+166) Box Culvert Drain 2 x 4m
RAVINE ABRSIT (1) (1+988) – (1+996) Box Culvert Drain 2 x 3m
RAVINE ABRASIT (2) (2+249) – (2+252) Box Culvert Drain 2m
RIIVER SELLENT (2+355) – (2+550)
Singular Arch Bridge
Bridge Beams
1 x 80m
1 x 115m
CANAL ESCALONA (2) (3+353) – (3+368) Overpass 1 x 12m

35
6.4. STRUCTURE
 DESIGN STRUCTURES – "Course Design of Bridges" by Salvador Monleón Cremades.
– "Collection of small works by passing" the Ministry of Public Works.
– Bibliography and project information with similar characteristics.
– Catalogs of prefabricated frames.
 OVERPASS OVER CANAL (ACEQUIA ESCALONA) Bridge-beams of concrete
Length beams (m) separation between beams (m) Depth beam T (m) Compression top slab thickness (m)
Overpass Canal 1 10 9 separate beams each 1.20 0.6 0.05
Overpass Canal 2 12 9 separate beams each 1.20 0.7 0.05
Cross Section. Overpass Canal 1
- Cantilever wall: RC-35 - Steel bars: B-500 SD
Cross Section. Overpass Canal 1

36
6.4. STRUCTURE
Modules Hc (m) Vg (m) L (m) Tl (m) Tg (m)
BCD Pilars 1 2 4 2 12 0.30 0.25
BCD Pilars 2 2 4 2 10 0.30 0.25
BCD Abrasit 1 2 3 2 12 0.30 0.20
BCD Abrasit 2 1 2 1.5 13 0.30 0.18
Tl: Thick lintels, Tg: Thickness gables, Hc: Horizontal clearance, Vg: Vertica gauge, L: Length
Box Culvert Drain. Ravine Pilars 1
 BOX CULVERT DRAIN
- Reinforced concrete: RC-35
- Steel bars: B-500-SD
- Steel mesh: B-500-T

37
 BRIDGE OF RIVER SELLENT
6.4. STRUCTURE
1) Bridge arch, cable-stayed bottom board (composed of two parallel arcs).
Bridge over the River Sellent
80 m. 115 m.
2) Bridge prestressed concrete beams (5 x 20,0m + 1 x 15.0m).

38
6.5. BUDGET
Duration Works 18 months
CHAPTERS RESUM Euros %
Chapter 1 DEMOLITIONS AND EARTHWORKS 694.982,26 € 13%
Chapter 2 ROAD PAVEMENTS 1.054.951,29 € 20%
Chapter 3 DRAINAGE 246.217,15 € 5%
Chapter 4 STRUCTURES 2.545.579,17 € 49%
Chapter 5 ROAD SIGN 135.510,33 € 3%
Chapter 6 SERVICE REPLACEMENT 4.576,54 € 0%
Chapter 7 FINAL WORKS 71.999,73 € 1%
Chapter 8 WASTE MANAGEMENT 91.628,72 € 2%
Chapter 9 SECURITY AND HEALTH 400.000,00 € 8%
COST OF THE MATERIAL EXECUTION 5.245.445,19 € 100%
13% Overhead Costs 681.907,87 €
6% Industrial Benefit 314.726,71 €
TOTAL O.C + I.B 996.634,59 €
6.242.079,78 €
21% IVA 1.310.836,75 €
FINAL COST FOR THE GOVERNMENT ADM 7.552.916,53 €
 FINAL COST FOR THE GOVERNMENT ADM

Final Project

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Final Project (20)

Final Project

Editor's Notes