YORKSHIRE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP

Evening Meeting
The Geotechnics of the Selby Bypass
Hugo Wood (High-Point Rendel)
Dr Martin Pedley (Cementation)
Keith Sleightholme (Skanska)

Outline of Presentation
Hugo Wood
History and background to scheme
Description of scheme and ground conditions
Summary of geotechnical challenges and solutions adopted
for design of embankments, cutting and bridge foundations
Martin Pedley
Discussion of design approach for piles to supported
embankments

Keith Sleightholme
Construction and Environmental Issues

Scheme History
1929
1938
1950-70s

1980s
1991-95
1997-98

Bypass first proposed for Selby

Scheme entered roads programme of Ministry
of Transport
Numerous routes considered and scheme
entered and removed from various roads
programmes
Scheme resurrected and NYCC appointed
design agent for the Highways Agency
Public Enquiries into line orders and CPO
Roads review announced that the A63 Selby
Bypass would be part of targeted programme
of investment

Scheme Benefits
The A63, A19 and A1041 all converge on the centre of
the market town and the existing single carriageway
through Selby carries 20,000 vehicles per day
After Construction of the bypass:

40% reduction in traffic flows through town

Estimated 250 fewer accidents over next 30 years
Release sites for development currently constrained
by existing congestion

Background to current scheme

Tenders invited Autumn 2000
Design and Build contract
Quality submission covering technical issues, safety,
public liaison and traffic management
Financial submission opened only after consideration
of quality submission
Contract awarded Summer 2001
Contractor: Skanska Construction UK
Designer: High-Point Rendel
Construction cost approximately 44M

Details of Scheme
10km single carriageway highway, from Thorpe
Willoughby in the west to Barlby in the east
Road passes over Selby Canal, Selby-Doncaster and
Selby-Hull railway lines and the River Ouse
Roundabouts at each end of the scheme and at
junctions with the A19 and A1041
Main construction started in January 2002
Road due to open Spring 2004.

Plan of Alignment

Vertical Alignment

Ground Conditions

Main Geotechnical Challenges

Poor ground conditions

High embankments (>9m)
Rigid settlement criteria
Existing services
Integral bridge design for high skew bridges
Integral bridge foundations
Swing bridge foundations

Embankment Stability
Stability of embankments:
Side slopes 1V:2H fixed by land take constraints
High embankments
Low undrained shear strength of foundations
(Su as low as 20kN/m2)
Development of excess pore water pressures,
including potential for pore pressure spread in
laminated clays

Geotechnical Solutions (Stability)

Lightweight PFA fill used for high embankments
(g = 15kN/m3)
Limits imposed in Specification on rate of
construction of high embankments
Basal reinforcement
Monitoring

Basal Reinforcement

Monitoring

Monitoring Results
Excess PWP vs Time Ch 5460
100

15

90
12

Excess PWP (kPa)

70
60

50
40

30
20

10
0
0
21-09-02 28-09-02 05-10-02 12-10-02 19-10-02 26-10-02 02-11-02 09-11-02 16-11-02 23-11-02 30-11-02
Date

Embankment Construction (mOD)

80

PNP2
PNP3
PNP4
Embankment Construction

Monitoring Results
PWP Ratio (excess PWP:s'v) Ch 5460
1.0

15.0

0.9
12.0

0.7

PWP Ratio

0.6

9.0

0.5
0.4

6.0

0.3
0.2

3.0

0.1
0.0
0.0
21-09-02 28-09-02 05-10-02 12-10-02 19-10-02 26-10-02 02-11-02 09-11-02 16-11-02 23-11-02 30-11-02
Date

Embankment Construction (mOD)

0.8

PNP2
PNP3
PNP4
Embankment Construction

Embankment Settlement
Settlement Criteria (measured at the end of the 5
year maintenance period relative to design levels):
Maximum allowable settlement 75mm
Maximum differential settlement gradient 1 in 500
(along the carriageway)
Maximum differential settlement 25mm (across the
carriageway)
Settlement:
Greater than 1m for embankments on alluvium
Up to 250mm for embankments on laminated clay
Time for 95% consolidation up to 100 weeks

Temporary Surcharge

A19 Barlby Roundabout

Low height embankment (1-3m)

2m of peat and organic clay in foundation soils
up to 400mm of settlement anticipated
Surcharge and drainage solution adopted
Band drains at 2.7m c/c installed on a triangular grid

Band Drain Locations

Typical Section through Band Drains

Design Options for Ouse Flood Plain

COMPARISON OF PILE SUPPORTED AND UNSUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ACROSS OUSE FLOOD PLAIN
Issue

Pile Supported Embankment

Unsupported Embankment

PRO CON

PRO

CON

Overall settlement (post construction)

Negligible

Significant (up to 2m).

Impacts on structures adjacent to
embankment (including existing drainage network etc.) as well as
structures associated with the embankment (culverts, toe drainage
etc.). Settlement (absolute and differential) cannot be accurately
predicted at this stage and even as a result of monitoring during
construction long term behaviour may not be defined sufficiently
well.

Differential settlement (long.)

Negligible

Potentially unacceptable within unsupported embankment if ground

conditions vary locally (e.g. buried channels), Will require treatment
between piled sections adjacent to bridge structures and main
unsupported embankment.

Differential settlement (lat.)

Negligible

Difficult to accurately calculate, potentially unacceptable,

Stability

Basal reinforcement required to prevent

lateral spreading (loading on piles) to
BS8006, but conservative design and failure
is very unlikely. Reinforcement required to
span between piles.

Significant reinforcement required to prevent lateral spreading, and

foundation extrusion, particularly given the requirement to steepen
the sideslopes to allow placement of surcharge. Difficult to
efficiently design without the results of a trial embankment. Staged
construction may still be required to prevent excessive movement
of foundation soils.

Instrumentation

Minimal required

Significant instrumentation required, to be regularly monitored and

results interpreted to determine progress of construction/contingent
measures etc.

Programme

Little uncertainty, shorter programme

Longer programme, unknown at start of construction, greater

uncertainty in meeting overall deadline

Cost

Greater cost (but little uncertainty)

Probably lesser estimated cost (but greater uncertainty and

potentially greater long term costs)

Pile Supported Embankments

Typical Plan of Pile Locations

Reinforcement Layout

Protection of Existing Services

Earthworks
Use of waste products from other industries (PFA and
minestone)
Testing of materials prior to construction to confirm
appropriate design parameters
Detailed testing regime during construction to confirm
properties of materials

Cutting

Overall 700m long, up to 13m maximum depth

Sherwood Sandstone
Variable weathering profile
Landscaping of cutting important consideration
Horseshoe Bridge taking bridleway across cutting

Plan of Cutting

Typical Section through Cutting

General Arrangement - Horseshoe Bridge

General Arrangement - Oakney Bridge

Integral Bridges

All Highway Bridges <60m and <30 skew to be

integral with their abutments
Thermal cycling of bridge decks leads to the
development of high earth pressures on abutment
BA 42/96 provides derivation of design earth
pressure coefficient k*

Earth Pressures on Integral Abutments

Fig 3.1 from BA 42/96

Design Approach for Integral Bridges

Full 3 dimensional frame analysis model of bridge

and foundations
Piles modelled with springs defined as secant p-y
curves for lateral load resistance of soil
p-y mutipliers applied to spring stiffnesses to model
interaction of pile rows

Frame Model for Integral Bridges

Foundations to Integral Bridges

General Arrangement - William Jessop Bridge

Supported Bankseat Abutment

Reinforced Soil Wingwalls

Designed to BS 8006 (as implemented by BD 70/97
for Highway Structures) on coherent gravity method
1.8mx2m pre-cast concrete panels with galvanised
steel reinforcing strips
Standardisation of panel types to minimise variety of
panels to be constructed

Reinforced Soil Wingwalls

Panel Layout

River Ouse Swing Bridge

Ouse Bridge Foundations

Summary of Geotechnical Challenges

Poor ground conditions on eastern half of alignment
High embankment construction leading to concerns
over settlement and stability of embankments
Integral bridge form adopted for high skew bridges
Differential settlement between bridge structures and
embankments
Complex loading on swing bridge foundations

Summary of Geotechnical Solutions

Different forms of embankment construction including
surcharging, pile supported embankments, basal
reinforcement and drainage
Monitoring of embankment stability and settlement
Supported foundations to integral bridges
Arrangement of vertical and raked tubular steel piles
to swing bridge foundation.