Innovative Bridge Pier Solution To Reduce Risks Associated with

Construction Adjacent to Railway

Palasanthiran Balendran1, Kriangkrai Khampa2, Ken O’Neill3, Nathan Roberts4 and Michael Snow5
1
Project Manager, Roads and Maritime Services
2
Senior Bridge Engineer, Aurecon
3
Technical Director, Aurecon
4
Senior Bridge Engineer, Aurecon
5
Associate, Aurecon

Abstract: Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales (NSW) is currently undertaking an $84 million
project to upgrade the Pacific Highway and Wyong Road Intersection at Tuggerah on the NSW Central
Coast. The project involves conversion of an existing roundabout to a signalised intersection and
duplication of an existing bridge over the Main Northern rail line connecting Sydney and Newcastle. The
project also includes approximately 1km of retaining structures (up to 11m high), modifications to the
existing rail overbridge and relocation of above and underground utilities. A key challenge for the project
was designing the 45 degree skew, four span Super-T bridge and substructure to be installed adjacent to
rail within a designated number of track possessions. The bridge design was driven by a number of
constraints, the foremost being the proximity of the central pier to existing rail, direct current overhead
wiring (OHW) and high voltage (HV) rail aerial feeder lines.
The project team worked with various stakeholders to develop a hybrid cast in-situ / precast concrete
central pier to expedite construction and to reduce safety risks associated with working in such close
proximity to rail. Application of digital engineering during the design delivery proved extremely beneficial,
helping address complex geometry issues and providing a means to clearly communicate project
constraints and risks to all stakeholders. Use of digital engineering included 3D modelling, 3D
visualizations and construction animations.
The project is currently under construction with works on the new bridge nearing completion. This paper
focuses on how the risks associated with bridge construction adjacent to rail were addressed during the
design.

Keywords: Rail Overbridge, Precast Concrete, Constructability, Safety in Design, Digital Engineering.

1. Introduction
Wyong Road is an existing urban arterial road connecting the NSW Central Coast suburbs of Tuggerah
and The Entrance with the M1 Motorway and Sydney and Newcastle beyond. In doing so, Wyong Road
accommodates significant numbers of commuter vehicles travelling during morning and evening peaks.
Wyong Road runs in an east west direction and connects with the Pacific Highway (a major north-south
arterial road) at an existing roundabout intersection near Tuggerah Railway Station. The existing
intersection is currently at capacity, resulting in congestion, a high crash rate and casualty crash rate.
Wyong Road crosses the existing Main Northern rail line between Sydney and Newcastle via an existing
rail overbridge located to the east of the intersection.
Roads and Maritime Services is currently undertaking an $84 million project to replace the Pacific
Highway and Wyong Road roundabout with a signalised intersection. The project will improve safety, ease
congestion and improve travel times for approximately 55,000 vehicles which currently use the
intersection daily. In addition the project scope also includes:
• Widening of the existing intersection approaches to accommodate extra lanes for approximately
500m on the Pacific Highway and 900m on Wyong Road.
• Construction of approximately one kilometre of retaining walls up to 11m high to accommodate
the widening works. Retaining structures comprise cast in-situ concrete L shaped retaining walls,
reinforced soil retaining walls, piled retaining walls and sandstone block retaining walls.
• Construction of a new rail overbridge over the Main Northern rail line to accommodate eastbound
movements along Wyong Road. The existing rail overbridge on Wyong Road is to be re-
configured to accommodate westbound traffic movements.
• Extension of an existing pedestrian underpass due to the widening works.
 • Relocation of above and underground utilities and services including 1500V Direct Current (DC)
OHW lines, 11 kilovolt (kV) and 66kV rail authority overhead lines and 33kV electrical authority
overhead lines.
Figure 1, below, illustrates the existing and proposed road configurations. Proposed structures are also
identified on the right hand side.

Figure 1. Pacific Highway / Wyong Road Intersection Upgrade, existing configuration (left) and
proposed project improvements (right).
Aurecon was engaged by Roads and Maritime Services to undertake the detailed design for the project.
Together, both client and designer worked closely to address stakeholder requirements and deliver the
detail design. Jacobs had undertaken the concept design and were also responsible for the detailed
design of OHW and HV overhead line relocation. The project is currently under construction with Seymour
Whyte Group engaged as the main works contractor. The project is scheduled for completion in early
2019.
The design of the new bridge was driven by a number of constraints and associated risks. This paper
focuses on how the risks were addressed through the development of an innovative, hybrid in-situ /
precast concrete bridge pier.

2. Site Constraints and Risks

2.1 Constraints
Being a duplication of an existing bridge over rail in a brownfield site, the proposed bridge design was
affected by a number of constraints. These are outlined as follows.
2.1.1 Main Northern Rail Line
The existing bridge crosses the Main Northern rail corridor between Sydney and Newcastle. The corridor
comprises Up and Down Main lines providing metropolitan and long distance passenger services and
freight services. The corridor is owned by RailCorp, a NSW government state-owned corporation.
Operation and maintenance functions for the corridor are managed by Sydney Trains. Standards
governing NSW rail assets are managed and administered by the Asset Standards Authority (ASA), a
division of Transport for NSW.
Both tracks are straight at the bridge location. The distance between existing tracks is 3725mm. In
addition to accommodating the existing tracks, the design needed to include provision for future Up and
Down relief lines.
2.1.2 Existing Bridge
The existing bridge spanning arrangement, horizontal and vertical alignment resulted in geometrical
constraints that drove the design of the new structure. The existing bridge was constructed in the mid
1980’s and comprises a four span continuous steel girder superstructure with a composite deck. The
substructure for the existing bridge consists of reinforced concrete blade piers and spill through abutments
on driven concrete piles. Roads and Maritime Services NSW are the asset owner for the existing bridge.
The existing bridge has a skew of 45 degrees and is on a vertical crest curve. Earth embankments form
the approaches to the existing bridge. The existing bridge has an overall length of 86 metres with three
piers between the abutments. Pier 2 of the existing bridge has a minimum distance of 3485mm from the
nearest rail centreline. A minimum vertical clearance of 6720mm is achieved for the existing bridge.
2.1.3 Overhead Services
A number of overhead services pass above and beneath the existing and proposed Wyong Road
overbridges. These include:
• A 66kV Sydney Trains HV line located on the western side of the rail corridor. The 66kV line
crosses above the existing overbridge in close proximity to the western bridge abutment.
• An 11kV Sydney Trains HV line located immediately to the east of the Main Northern rail Down
Main. The 11kV line crosses above the existing overbridge in close proximity to Pier 2 (the closest
pier to the rail line).
• 1500 DC OHW for the Up and Down Main lines pass beneath the existing Wyong Road
overbridge.
• A 33kV Ausgrid HV line located on the eastern side of the rail corridor. The 33kV line crosses
Wyong Road in close proximity to the existing overbridge eastern abutment.
Poles and stanchions for all lines were required to be relocated to allow for the new bridge and
approaches.
2.1.4 Existing Waterway
Tuggerah Creek is a small non tidal waterway which crosses beneath the existing Main Northern rail line
on the southern side of the existing Wyong Road overbridge. The Main Northern rail line crosses
Tuggerah Creek via a small ballast topped underbridge. East of the Main Northern rail line, the creek
deviates to a northerly direction, passing beneath span 3 of the existing overbridge.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the constraints as outlined above.
Figure 2. Existing Wyong Road Overbridge viewed from southern side showing existing rail
underbridge and overhead services.

Figure 3. Existing and Proposed Wyong Road Overbridges viewed from northern side showing
spanning configuration.
2.2 Risks
The constraints outlined above resulted in a number of risks affecting the design, construction and
operation of the proposed bridge. Project risks were identified formally during the initial Risk Management
Workshop and subsequent combined Risk Management and Constructability Review Workshop. These
workshops included review and updating of risks (including safety) associated with the project and
formulation of risk management strategies for the major risks identified. This work served as a starting
point for a Safety in Design (SiD) process that followed a Construction Hazard Assessment Implication
Review (CHAIR) approach. This process expanded on the previous work by reviewing and updating the
risks in a larger workshop environment with a greater number of stakeholders. Items with risk levels of
high or above were then reviewed in further detail and design mitigations proposed where applicable.
A summary of key project risks identified are outlined below.
2.2.1 Design Risks
The proposed bridge design selected during the concept phase, was non-compliant with the requirements
of the appropriate Australian and Rail Authority (ASA) standards. These included ESC 320 – Overbridges
and Footbridges (1) and ESC 215 – Transit Space (2). The preferred option selected at concept stage
comprised a four span Super-T girder bridge matching the spanning arrangement of the existing bridge.
This resulted in three piers within the rail corridor. Ultimately this was the same option that was developed
through the detail design stage to construction. Key factors in selecting this configuration included value
for money, reduced maintenance and urban design.
Due to the non-compliance with Australian and Rail Authority Standards, concessions were required to be
sought from the relevant rail authority standards body, in this case ASA. This was identified during the
concept phase, however the concessions had not been granted during this stage. In particular the
following standards and clauses needed to be addressed.
• Clause 8.1 of RailCorp standard ESC 320 – Overbridges and Footbridges (1) (now superseded)
and the requirements of clause 11.3 of AS5100.1-2004 Bridge Design Part 1 (3): Scope and
general principles. Both clauses require new structures over railway lines be designed with a clear
span between abutments. Non-compliance with ESC 320 triggered the requirement for a
concession from ASA.
• In accordance with Clause 6.1.1 of RailCorp standard ESC 215 – Transit Space (2), the minimum
horizontal dimension between the face of the structure closest to the track and the track centreline
shall be 3500 mm for piers between tracks and 4300 mm for bridge substructures (except
between tracks). The proposed design had clearances of less than 3500mm between Pier 2 and
the centerline of the Up Main line.
Not having these concessions granted prior to commencement of detailed design resulted in project risks
associated with potential re-design work should the concession fail to be granted.
2.2.2 Construction Risks
Construction risks associated with the bridge were driven by the proximity of bridge Pier 2 to the existing
Main Northern rail line, OHW, 11kV and 66kV aerial lines. Key risks included:
• Piling adjacent to tracks causing lateral movement of tracks.
• Incursion of workers, materials or construction equipment into the kinematic envelope and as a
result being struck by a train.
• Collapse of formwork onto track, taking out OHW and possibly being struck by a train.
• Contact with OHW or HV overheads during pier construction.
• Contact with OHW or HV lines during girder erection.
• Collapse of unrestrained girders onto track.
• Construction of bridge span 2 over rail and possible dropping of equipment onto track / OHW.
The above risks were addressed so far as reasonably practicable during the design development.
2.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Risks
As with construction risks, operation and maintenance risks were driven by the proximity of the bridge
piers to rail and electrical lines. Risks include:
• Train collision with existing or new bridge, resulting in bridge collapse.
• Maintenance access for replacement of bridge bearings in close proximity to rail.
3. Design Development
Risks identified during workshops in the early stages of the detailed design were mitigated so far as
reasonably practicable during the detailed design process. This required re-visiting the options
assessment for the bridge form and undertaking a quantitative risk assessment to validate the proposed
bridge type and to support the concessions. Concurrently, the constructability of the bridge pier in close
proximity to the Up Main was investigated and design detailing options considered to reduce risks. In
addition strengthening and protection measures were proposed for the existing overbridge.
3.1 Concessions and Re-evaluation of Options
To justify the selection of the proposed bridge option and to support the concession requests, a further
options study was undertaken. A total of six options were identified in an additional options study and
three of these were identified for further investigation via a quantitative risk assessment. The quantitative
risk assessment was undertaken by Tactix with involvement from the project team. Options considered in
the risk assessment were as follows:
1) A four span Super-T bridge. This was the preferred option proposed during the concept design.
This option duplicated the existing bridge using standard medium span bridge practices. This
option had a total length of 86m and spanning arrangement matching the existing bridge.
2) A three span continuous steel trough girder bridge. This option had a total length of 106m with a
mid-span of approximately 60m. The change in spanning configuration resulted in the pier
adjacent to the operating lines being removed, however this option would still need a concession
as piers would be located within the rail corridor.
3) A single span truss option was also considered as this would be the only conforming option with
no piers within the rail corridor.
The quantitative risk assessment identified that Option 1 resulted in no significant increase in overall risk
when compared with Option 2. Costing of both options also identified that Option 2 would cost in excess of
$15 million more than Option 1. On this basis it was recommended that Option 1 be adopted with
appropriate design measures to reduce construction and operation risks so far as reasonably practicable,
in particular with regards to Pier 2. The options assessment, quantitative risk assessment and costing
supported the adoption of Option 1 and consequently the concession requests were granted by ASA.
3.2 Summary of Preferred Option
Approval of the concessions as outlined above confirmed the preferred option for completion of detail
design. A summary the preferred bridge is given below.
The bridge has a total length of 86m with spans comprising 15.2m, 29.3m, 26.9m and 15.6m. The
superstructure is comprised of ten 1200 deep Super-T girders per span with a variable thickness deck
slab to achieve the tight vertical curve and cross falls. The bridge has a skew of 45 degrees to match the
existing bridge. This exceeds the Roads and Maritime Services limit for Super-T bridges, however
approval had been granted in order to match the existing bridge. Lessons learnt from the Pacific Highway
Upgrade at Banora Point (4) were applied to avoid cracking at the deck acute corners. Fingerplate
expansion joints were adopted at each abutment to accommodate movements due to the high skew. The
bridge supports a total of three trafficable lanes, a cycle lane and a shared path.
The bridge foundation consists of 900mm diameter bored cast in-place piles founded in rock. The piles
are oriented in a single line to minimise the pile cap / blade pier size. Due to the high skew a wider pier
head was adopted to accommodate girder bearing layout. Pier 3 has been designed to have a shorter
base length to avoid works in the existing watercourse. A cantilever is provided on the northern side of
Pier 3 to support the two northernmost girders.
A mix of spill-through type abutments and reinforced soil walls were used with a reinforced concrete
abutment headstock supported on bored cast in-situ place piles. The abutment designs are integrated with
the reinforced soil retaining walls that run along the northern side of the bridge approaches. These walls
wrap around the front of the abutment to control the spill of the batter slope from extending beyond the
line of the wall.
To mitigate risks associated with collision, the existing bridge piers were assessed and strengthened and
deflection walls provided as required for the new and existing bridge piers.
Figure 4 below illustrates the existing and proposed bridges. Key design features that addressed the risks
outlined in Section 2.2 above are discussed further in the subsequent sections.
Figure 4. Revit model illustrating existing and proposed Wyong Road Overbridges
3.3 Piling
The proximity of Pier 2 to the Up Main line, OHW and 11kV overhead line, meant that all piling works for
this pier would need to be undertaken during track possessions. Both conventional bored pile and
continuous flight auger (CFA) pile options were considered for the bridge piers. Due to the pile length,
conventional bored piles were adopted.
The existing ground conditions at the site comprise loose to medium dense sands over residual material
and rock. The proximity of the creek also results in a high water table. Consequently in order to mitigate
the risk of excavation collapse due to poor ground conditions in the upper layers (and potential track
movement), permanent pile casings were proposed. In addition the possibility of a temporary sheet pile
wall in order to retain the Up Main ballast shoulder was identified.
3.4 Design of Pier 2
One of the highest risks on the project was construction of Pier 2 in close proximity to the existing Up
Main. A series of options for construction of Pier 2 were considered and workshopped with Roads and
Maritime Services and Sydney Trains. These options are outlined below in Table 1.
Table 1. Options Assessment for Pier 2 Construction.
Option Description Discussion

1 Construct cast in-situ pier with full height
shutter supported on the non-track side of
the Up Main
2 Construct pier using precast concrete
match-cast shells with infill concrete to
stitch the pier segments to the piles and
using horizontal post-tensioning to stitch
the segments together laterally
3 Construct the lower 4m section of the pier
using cast in-situ construction and the
upper section of the pier using precast
segments post tensioned to the lower
portion.
This option was not recommended due to the risks associated with
erecting an 8m high shutter adjacent to the rail line and the potential
conflict with the overhead wiring if there was a failure of the temporary
works system.
Due to the potential rail impact loading issues for precast construction
and the complex nature of construction for the long blade pier, precast
concrete construction was not recommended. A rigorous analysis to
confirm the structural feasibility of this type of construction to resist rail
impact loading would be required. It was also anticipated that utilising
precast concrete with a single row of piles may not be structurally
feasible.
The lower section of the pier would be constructed from reinforced
concrete to better share the rail impact loads across the piled
foundation and to provide a foundation for the upper pier segments.
The lower section of the pier would extend to 2.5m above the track
level to meet the rail impact provisions within AS5100.2-2004 (2).

4 Construct pier using cast in-situ
construction in two lifts. Each lift would be
approximately 4m high and be undertaken
using two separate formwork set-ups. This
option would include the construction of
the upper level 1800mm pier head
widening as in-situ concrete.
5 Construct 1200mm wide pier using cast in-
situ construction in two lifts to the
underside of the pier head. Complete the
1800mm wide pier head using precast
concrete which is stressed down to the top
of the pier.
This option would require additional cranage to install the upper pier
sections which would need to be undertaken during a track
possession. However use of precast concrete upper pier segments
avoids the risks associated with Option 1 which include working beside
live rail at heights under As Traffic Permits (ATP) conditions.
The advantage of this construction is that the lower concrete pour
provides a foundation for the upper concrete pour shuttering. The pier
remains in a simple form that is not overly complex to construct. A
significant amount of work would need to be undertaken under ATP
conditions or scheduled night time possessions.
Although the shuttering can be designed for the temporary loads, there
are safety risks associated with erecting formwork adjacent to the
tracks above the OHW level.
Similar advantages to Option 4 although a new trade and activity is
added to track possession works. This does however eliminate the
potential hazards associated with forming up the 1800mm wide pier
head which would temporarily encroach into the 3000mm clearance
limit for temporary structures.

Based on the workshop discussions with relevant stakeholders, Option 3 was adopted. This option
consists of constructing the first 4m height of the pier with cast in-situ formed concrete and extending the
pier using precast concrete segments that are installed during a scheduled track possession. There were
significant safety benefits in constructing the pier using this method, primarily the elimination of all
formwork above a height of 4m, thus reducing the potential for safety or operational incidents affecting the
OHW or the tracks. In addition it was proposed to construct the lower in-situ section of the pier ATP
behind the trackside shutter which would double as an isolation screen. The trackside shutter would be
installed during a possession. A series of staging sketches were developed to outline the anticipated
construction sequence. Figure 5 below shows a simplified version of the track possession staging sketch
for installation of the Pier 2 precast segments.

Figure 5. Construction staging sketch showing installation of Pier 2 precast segments.

Figure 6 below shows a 3D view of the existing and proposed bridge piers at Pier 2. The precast
segments forming the upper section of Pier 2 can be clearly seen.
Figure 6. 3D view of Pier 2 for new and existing bridges.
A total of 59, 40mm diameter stress bars were cast into the lower in-situ portion of the concrete works.
Ten precast concrete pier elements measuring approximately 3.0m long by 3.88m high by 1.8m wide and
weighing up to 34 tonnes were then erected over the stress bars during a possession. Once in position
the post tensioning was stressed and the ducts and joints grouted. The precast piers contain horizontal
and transverse shear keys in order to transfer lateral loads between adjacent elements and to the lower
in-situ concrete section. The design of the stress bars and shear keys was governed by the rail collision
load case.
Adoption of precast pier segments for the upper section of Pier 2 de-risked the project significantly as it
avoided formed reinforced concrete work at a high level adjacent to OHW and the Up Main. Use of
precast meant that these elements could be constructed off site in a controlled environment and erected
during a possession when the OHW and rail vehicle risks were not present.
3D Revit modelling was carried out in order to gain a solid appreciation of the pier geometry. The 11kV
overhead line was required to be isolated and dropped temporarily for installation of the Pier 2 precast
segments.
3.5 Superstructure Works
The staging sketches produced during the detailed design were used to facilitate approval from the
relevant rail authorities for construction over rail. The staging proposal identified measures to mitigate
risks including:
• Erection of edge girders with underslung temporary access platforms for construction of the in-situ
concrete deck.
• Installation of temporary screens between girders to allow construction of in-situ concrete end
diaphragms adjacent to rail.
• Appropriate temporary bracing of Super-T girders until in-situ deck is poured.
• Use of precast concrete barriers.
Seymour Whyte have put these measures and others in place in place to mitigate risks associated with
construction adjacent to over live rail.
4. Stakeholder Engagement
The project required liaison with a large number of stakeholders to ensure concerns were addressed and
to gain the appropriate approvals. With regard to constructability and risk issues, the project team took a
proactive approach, undertaking a number of site meetings between Aurecon, Roads and Maritime
Services and Sydney Trains to assess constructability of options. Specialist input was sought with civil,
piling and cranage contractors attending these meetings to provide input and feedback. This included
considering production rates for assessing the extent of works (particularly piling) achievable during track
possessions.
As outlined above, the bridge was modelled in three dimensions using Revit to gain full appreciation of the
complex geometry associated with the vertical curve, high skew and rail clearances. The Revit model was
used to create a 3D real time interactive visualisation for the whole project. This enabled stakeholders to
explore and interrogate a virtual environment showing the completed project. In addition to this, an
animation of the proposed construction sequence was also created. Both of these tools proved extremely
useful in briefing and working through issues with stakeholders, in particular various groups within the rail
authority.
5. Progress to Date
Completion of the new bridge is
anticipated to occur in mid-2017,
after which traffic will be switched
and the existing bridge will be re-
configured and strengthened. By
late 2016 all piers were complete
and girders installed with deck
concreting and finishing works
remaining. The use of the hybrid in-
situ / precast construction for Pier 2
proved a success with all ten
segments being installed in a
single day shift. Figure 7 below
shows the pier during construction.

Figure 7. Pier 2 during

construction.
6. Lessons Learnt
The construction of the new Wyong Road Overbridge is progressing well with works adjacent to the rail at
Pier 2 having been completed successfully. However, with hindsight it is always possible to identify
lessons learnt and room for future improvement. Lessons learnt for this project included:
• Any departure from standards should be addressed with a concession request to the appropriate
authority during the concept design stage. Seeking approval of the concessions for this project
from the rail authority caused uncertainty and delays during the early stages of detailed design.
• Use of 3D modelling is extremely beneficial for assessing complex geometry and clearances.
However where appropriate this should extend to modelling of major cast in items and assessing
precast fit-up during construction. Some minor issues were encountered on this project that could
have been identified and addressed were this level of detail adopted.
• The size, weight and geometry of precast elements should be considered carefully for transport
and handling. Efficiencies were identified during construction and the segment sizes were revised
to improve transport and handling.

7. Conclusions
Risks associated with bridge construction in close proximity to rail are significant and not an uncommon
issue. For this project, adoption of a hybrid in-situ / precast concrete pier, significantly reduced the risks
associated with construction close to rail, resulting in a safe and economical solution. This has been
successfully tested on site with the pier erection works completed in one day shift.
Use of digital engineering including 3D modelling, 3D visualizations and construction animations proved
successful for this project and helped to address detailing of complex geometry issues and to clearly
communicate project constraints and risks to all stakeholders.
8. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Roads and Maritime Services NSW for granting
permission to publish this paper.

9. References

Engineering Standard ESC 320 Overbridges and Footbridges, Version 2.2. RailCorp, Sydney,
2010.
Engineering Standard ESC 215 Transit Space, Version 4.9. RailCorp, Sydney, 2013.
Australian Standard AS5100-2004: Bridge Design. Standards Australia, Sydney, 2004.
Deck, A., Silva, R. and Canceri, J., “Design and Construction of High Skew Super-T Bridges”,
Proceedings 8th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia. pp 241-257.