View
221
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
37
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.3 CONSIDERATION OF PIER OPTIONS
It is important to achieve a well proportioned structure whereby the various sub-components contribute to the overall composition of the bridge. Due to the height of the structure, the piers form a principal element as these will be highly visible. Therefore a high quality urban design outcome for these components is important.
Various pier options were investigated based on the afore-mentioned superstructure and deck geometry. The intention of these pier options investigation is to determine key design principles that assist in formulating design guidelines to be adopted in the final design. Hence a variety of pier treatments were evaluated against a base case in the form of a single blade pier with a curved termination or leading edge.
The preferred design, Option 1a is based on a ‘V’ shape when seen in a cross-sectional elevation. The leading edges are curved to create a more fluid character sympathetic to the maritime setting. A strong vertical reveal has been introduced to articulate the overall mass of the element and create a more sculptural form. The form language responds well to the function of the pier, expressing the movement of forces and its tapered shape minimises its footprint at the waterline and allows for a variety of pier heights.
A number of variants of this scheme were developed and are illustrated overleaf. These include a scheme without the heavy central reveal, a scheme devoid of rounded leading edges and a taper to the outer edges; and a scheme devoid of rounded edges and a taper to the centre.
Other schemes include:
• Option 2, also a ‘V’ shape with a central base • Option 3 based on two piers joined at the base • Option 4, an asymmetric design to express the curvature of the
horizontal alignment • Option 5 considered an arched arrangement • Option 6 that investigated a headstock solution. All piers have been designed with the intent to appear as close to vertical elements when seen in front elevation. This is to limit potential issues with of maritime traffic envelopes and clearances whilst retaining a consistent pier shape throughout.
A single blade pier with curved termination Option 1a - Preferred FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017
Option 1b
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Option 1c
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Option 1d
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
38
39
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Option 2
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Option 3
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Option 4
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017
Option 5
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
Option 6
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP
The following key design principles are considered important in the resolution of the pier:
• Keep pier shapes unified and simple • Introduce curved edges to soften the pier’s appearance • Articulate the mass of the piers through the introduction of reveals and
shadowlines • Taper pier in cross-sectional elevation to minimise its mass • Retain a slender proportion (width of pier) in front elevation • Express the movement of forces in the pier.
40
41
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.0 PREFERRED OPTION
6.1 THE BRIDGE
A preferred option has been identified during a Value Management Workshop with the objective of selecting a preferred horizontal alignment. The workshop included stakeholder representatives including Council as well as Roads and Maritime and design team representatives.
From the three options presented, the Western Option was selected by the workshop participants as providing the best outcomes within the project’s constraints.
The design team has refined this option by eliminating some of the afore-mentioned undesirable outcomes. Key modifications include:
• Reduction of the radius to 600M to achieve a continuos radius up to the western abutment and avoiding the introduction of a separate superstructure typology across Clyde Street
• Refinement of the radius to situate the northern abutment as close as possible to the existing Princes Highway and mitigating the extent of impacts to skyline trees on top of the escarpment will be considered as part of the design development.
Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017
Princes H
ighway
Mcleads Creek
N
300 301
325
L 1.310
Phone 8837 0455
MCW4A2 PH
350
North Street
L 85.846
375 387.156 TS
Mcle
ads C
reek
400
427.156 SC
425
L 40.000
450 North Street
L 82.205 R 350.000
475
Mcl
eads
Cre
ek
500
Clyd
e St
reet
509.362 CS
525
Clyd
e St
reet
L 40.000
550 549.362 SC
575
Clyd
e St
reet
600
EU
W
625
N
EU
EU
W
EU
EU
W S
W ?P
EU
EU OU
T T
T T
T T
T OU
EU
T
TZ
650
W S
?P
EU
T
T
W OU EU
OU
EU
W
T
S
?P W OU
T
T
TZ
EU
EU
T OU
EU W
T
T
S
?P W OU
TZ
EU
EU
675
EU
W S
T
T
OU T
?P W
EU
OU EU
TZ
T
T
T OU
EU
W S
?P
W EU
EU
OU
T
OU
T
W
T
TZ
OU
EU
W S
EU
?P
OU
700
EU
T
W
EU
T
OU
T
EU
W
?P
TZ
S
EU
T
OU
W EU OU
T
T T
EU
W
?P
S
EU
T
OU
TZ
W OU EU
T
EU
W S
?P
EU
T
OU
W
TZ
EU OU
T
EU
T
Clyd
e Ri
ver
W S
EU
W
?P
OU
T
EU OU
T
TZ
EU
T
W S
EU
?P
OU
T
W OU
T
EU
EU
?P
OU
TZ
750
T
S W
EU
T
W EU OU
T
EU
W
T
?P
OU
TZ
S
EU
W OU
T
EU
EU
T
T
L 452.007 R 599.995
S W
EU
?P
OU
Clyd
e Ri
ver
W OU
EU
T
TZ
775
EU
T
T
?P
S W
OU
EU
EU
T W OU
TZ
EU
T
T
?P
S
EU
W
OU
EU
W OU T EU
T
TZ
EU
S W
T
?P
OU
EU
T
800
W OU EU T
S
W
?P
TZ
T
EU
OU
EU
W EU OU T
T
T ?P
EU
EU
S
W
OU
TZ
W OU T
T
EU ?P
EU
EU
S
W
T
OU
825TZ
W OU
T
EU T
EU
?P
T
EU
S
W
OU T
W
TZ
OU EU T
EU
?P
T
OU
EU
S
W
T
W EU OU
T
EU
?P
TZ
T
OU
850
S
W
EU
T
W EU OU
T
EU
S
W
OU
T
?P
TZ
T
W EU OU
OU
T
S
W
?P
T
T
TZ
W OU
T
?P
W
OU
EU
T
S
875
T
W
TZ
OU
OU
EU
T
?P
T
S
T
W OU
OU
EU
TZ
T
T
S
OU
W OU EU
TT
900
TZ
W OU
T
EU
OU
TZ
Wha
rf R
oad
Princes Highway
OU
950
925
TZ TZ
TZ TZ
975
T T T
1000
L 59.304
1001.369 CT
T
N
T T
Phone 8837 0455
1025
T T
1050
T
Phone 8837 0455
1060.673 TC
T
1075
ne
Wra
y St
reet
Pho
37 0455
88
Old Punt Road
1100
L 176.098
R -600.000
1125
1150
Phone 8837 0455
1175 1200
Phone 8837 045
1225
Pent
hous
e Plac
e
5
Lord Place
L 36.791
1236.771 CT
1250
Old Punt Road
1274
Peni
nsul
a D
rive
King
s Hig
hway
King
s Hig
hway
Princes Highway
Phone 8837 045
DATUM R.L. -20.0
DESIGN LEVELS
EXISTING LEVELS
STATION
316.
608
2.71
7 2.
717
320.
000
2.70
6 2.
711
333.
217
2.64
5 2.
673
340.
000
2.65
0 2.
649
360.
000
2.55
2 2.
579
371.
691
2.50
2 2.
538
380.
000
2.45
9 2.
538
387.
156
2.45
4 2.
584
400.
000
2.44
1 2.
773
403.
791
2.44
2 2.
855
420.
000
2.47
9 3.
342
427.
156
2.49
9 3.
626
435.
891
2.52
8 4.
031
440.
000
2.52
9 4.
236
460.
000
2.50
7 5.
236
480.
000
2.38
0 6.
236
500.
000
2.16
2 7.
236
509.
362
2.17
9 7.
705
520.
000
2.16
6 8.
236
540.
000
2.18
5 9.
236
547.
511
549.
362
2.23
52.
239
9.61
29.
704
560.
000
2.12
4 10
.221
580.
000
2.12
8 11
.135
600.
000
1.78
0 11
.972
620.
000
1.77
2 12
.731
640.
000
13.4
14
660.
000
14.0
20
680.
000
-5.3
73
14.5
49
700.
000
-6.8
92
15.0
01
720.
000
-7.3
25
15.3
76
740.
000
-7.8
60
15.6
74
760.
000
-8.3
51
15.8
95
780.
000
-8.8
61
16.0
39
794.
511
-9.2
03
16.0
96
800.
000
-9.3
09
16.1
07
820.
000
-9.4
69
16.0
97
840.
000
-9.9
79
16.0
10
860.
000
-7.7
95
15.8
47
880.
000
-5.9
07
15.6
07
900.
000
-5.1
57
15.2
89
920.
000
14.8
95
940.
000
2.00
6 14
.424
960.
000
2.02
6 13
.876
980.
000
2.08
3 13
.251
1000
.000
5.
529
12.5
4910
01.3
69
6.17
4 12
.498
1020
.000
11
.292
11
.770
1040
.000
13
.236
10
.915
1041
.511
13
.240
10
.847
1053
.005
13
.492
10
.330
1060
.000
13
.267
10
.035
1060
.673
13
.241
10
.009
1080
.000
12
.106
9.
419
1098
.005
11
.100
9.
148
1100
.000
10
.864
9.
135
1120
.000
11
.552
9.
185
1140
.000
10
.171
9.
568
1143
.005
9.
776
9.65
5
1160
.000
1160
.087
9.
912
9.91
6 10
.165
10.1
67
1180
.000
10
.573
10
.654
1200
.000
10
.896
10
.922
T=40.0 T=40.0 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
R=350.000 R=599.995 R=-600.000
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
-0.0
%30
0.00
0 2.
723
2.73
4
k=100.0 38.5L k=12.0 111.6L k=52.0 33.217L 64.200L 494.000L
-0.3% 5.0%
316.
608
2.73
1m
403.
791
2.42
6m
794.
511
21.9
62m
-4.5
%
11.5
L
k=12.0 17.1L k=18.0 90.000L 108.000L
3.0%
1098
.005
8.30
5m
1214
.087
10
.974
10
.977
1214
.087
11.7
87m
1220
.000
10
.960
10
.967
1236
.771
10
.913
10
.834
1240
.000
10
.896
10
.791
1260
.000
10
.557
10
.392
1268
.087
10
.343
10
.167
-3.0
%
1273
.562
10
.171
10
.003
5.5L
725LONGITUDINAL SECTION ALONG - MCW4A2 PH
250m
Figure 6.1 Plan illustrating the Eastern Option with a straight alignment. Source: Aurecon
42
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
TZ TZ
T OU
T
T OU
T
T T T T OU T
T
OU T
OU
T
OU
T T
T T
T T T
OU
T T T T T
T OU T
T T
OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU
W OU EU
T T
OU T OU
T T
T OU
T
?P T T
S
W ?P OU EU W
?P OU EU ?P
W
T T
W
T
S
T
T
T
T
EU ?P OU
?P
T
OU
T
T
?P W
T
EU OU ?P W OU EU ?P
?P
T
W
OU EU
W
?P
T
T OU
T
T OU T
T
?P
EU T
OU T OU
W
OU T ?P
?P
W
?P ?P
W
?P
?P
T
OU T
T T
OU T
OU T
T
T ?P T
EU
?P ?P
T
W
OU
T
T
T T T
T
EU T
T ?P
?P OU EU EU OU OU T W EU EU T W OU EU ?P W T EU OU OU W W OU T T OU W
T EU ?P W
T EU T T
OU OU EU W EU ?P W OU OU EU
T T
T W ?P EU OU T
OU T T
W EU OU ?P W OU ?P EU
T T W OU W ?P
EU EU OU
T W EU OU T W
T T
W W
Figure 6.2 Elevation and plan. Scale 1:800. Source: Aurecon
OU OU OU
T W OUEU T T T OUEU OUEU W OUEU W OUEU T T OUW EU T T WOU W W T T TT T T T
W
43
Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017
ISSUE DATE AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION PREP CHECK
HIGHWAY No 1 EUROBODALLA SHIRE COINCIL
BRIDGE OVER CLYDE RIVER AT BATEMANS BAY
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OPTION 1 - SHEET C PREPARED BY
Figure 6.3 Cross section and preliminary details of the drainage system. Source: Aurecon
44
45
BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Lighting
Light poles are proposed to be positioned along the traffic barrier between the shared use path and the vehicular traffic lanes. This will avoid the need for corbels along the parapet fascia, ensuring a neat design resolution. The spacing of the light poles are proposed to reflect the rhythm of the structure and these elements should be kept as low as possible to visually mitigate their presence. If required, the shared use path lighting could be complimented by either LED lighting fixtures integrated into the handrail or the traffic barrier.
Figure 6.4 Concept for bridge lighting
Recommended