Preliminary Report:

Crash Wall Protection at

Ontario St and Greenlane (Mile XX.X USRC s/d)
Town of Beamsville

Prepared For: Greenlane Joint Venture Inc.

c/o Peter DeSantis Sr.
13 Windward Dr., Suite 501
Grimsby, ON L3M 0J4

Prepared By: Jablonsky, Ast & Partners

400-3 Concorde Gate
Toronto, Ontario
M3C-3N7

Date: May 25, 2021

Job No.:20116
 Ref # 11123

Table of Contents:
Scope and Context

Crash Abatement Systems

Empirical Crash Wall Design

Train Derailment Impact Criteria

Analysis of Proposed Crash Wall

Conclusions

Appendices

Appendix A- Edited “Submission Guidelines for Crash Walls” July 2014 -AECOM

Appendix B- Crash Wall Layout and Extent

Appendix C- Cross Sections

Appendix D- Tables and Miscellaneous Sketches

 Ref # 210XX

Scope and Context:

This report has been prepared to establish the various parameters involved when it
comes to providing a crash wall to protect a proposed residential building from the
detrimental consequences of an accidental derailment of trains traveling immediately
adjacent to the property.

The proposed development consists of a 10-storey residential building with one

mechanical level on Green Lane sitting just south of the high traffic CN Rail main line.
The centerline of the currently most northerly track is approximately 19 M to the north of
the proposed crash barrier (see Site Plan drawing SP-1). The tower is well set back from
the centreline of the most southerly rail, about 50 meters. The top of the train track at the
west end is at an elevation of 90.67 M and at about 90.70 M at the east end. The final
finished grade elevation at the crash wall will be about 89.0 M at the west end and at
88.50 at the east end. CN Rail will not permit any significant permanent structure on its
property. It is our understanding that in lieu of providing an earthen berm, a crash wall is
an acceptable option.

Crash Abatement Systems:

Based on past reviews of the literature on the subject of crash walls, we can report the
following.
Although rare, a train derailment will result in a very massive moving object traveling
offline and potentially colliding with a stationary object directly in its path. When these
stationary objects are occupied buildings, they must be protected by constructing an
earthen berm in front of the building or by constructing an expendable crash wall structure.
These structures generally take the form of a reinforced concrete crash wall. The
rationale is to provide a replaceable protective barrier that will minimize structural damage
to the adjacent building. There are a number of important points associated with the
design and construction of crash walls.

The construction costs of these walls are invariably high. The consequences of a train
derailment are complex and not of an entirely predictable nature. Furthermore, there does
not appear to be one single clearly defined approach to design of these protective
structures.

We have found that there are presently several approaches regarding the design of these
crash barriers among them a full dynamic approach utilizing impact theory whereby the
momentum of a moving body at impact is equated to an impulse. This method, although
the most realistic, has one major drawback and it is the difficulty in accurately establishing
the incremental time span of the impact. A second problem with it is that this type of
analysis generally assumes linear elastic behavior which is not strictly correct.

3
 Ref # 210XX
A more standard, generally acceptable, approach is one which equates the momentum
of a moving body to the work done or energy absorbed in reducing the momentum of that
moving body to zero. This is the method we have chosen to employ. We have received
guidelines from AECOM Consultants in which information is provided with respect to train
mass and direction at impact and to this point as well as estimated velocity. As well
recommendations are made with respect to how much energy is absorbed through plastic
deformation of the locomotives and rail cars.

Empirical Crash Wall Design:

There are several traditional crash barrier systems and they come in various
configurations. They all appear effective when it comes to providing crash protection to
an adjacent building structure. We are rather fortunate that or building is not tight to the
crash barrier and so can use a portion of the soil behind the barrier to absorb a part of
the impact

Wherever and whenever possible the preferred solution to a crash barrier system is to
separate the crash wall from the structure to be protected and provide earth backfill
behind the crash wall. This earth is a very effective, economical means of absorbing the
energy of a moving train.

Wherever and whenever possible it is advisable to avoid connecting the crash barrier
back close to the structure it is intended to protect. It is best to provide a significant gap
between the crash wall and the adjacent structure, which in our case we are well able to
do.

Often the most cost-effective crash barrier system consists of a continuous cantilevered
or continuous counter-fort type reinforced concrete wall. These walls demonstrate a
superior ability at engaging a substantial length of wall to resist the impact and at re-
directing the train impact. As illustrated in Figure 1.

The commonly recommended height of a crash wall is one that is sufficiently high to not
have the train roll over it or have parts, for example the roof of the boxcar, travel over it
on impact. In the absence more detailed information this height should be, at minimum,
at least 6 feet (1.83M) high and preferably at least 6 feet (1.83M) above the point at which
the train impacts the crash barrier or about 9 feet (2.73M). We propose using a wall 7'-0”
(2.135 meters) high.

Interestingly, based on observed past train derailment events, it can in some

circumstances be preferable to construct the crash wall as close as possible to the tracks.
This minimizes the amount of potential damage to the wall during impact by corralling the
derailed train, however in our case this is not viable.

It is generally acknowledged that when the very low probability, high impact force event
occurs the crash barrier will sustain significant damage to the point that it will be rendered

4
 Ref # 210XX

Train Derailment Impact Criteria:

Aecon Consultants has published a guideline which we have marked up to reflect the
conditions relevant to our site on Greenlane site. This is presented in Appendix A

Analysis of Proposed Crash Wall:

Reference Appendix “A”

This portion of the report deals with numerous conditions and a methodology associated
with the determination of the appropriate equivalent static derailed train impact forces.
Our approach has been to use Method 2, an energy balance approach. We have assumed
that the governing load condition is of the multi-car, freight train - glancing blow impact.
For our situation Case 2 and 4 can be eliminated by virtue of the distance from the
centerline of the nearest track to the crash wall being, at the minimum, about 19 meters.

The recommended impact angle is given as 3.5 degrees. This method of determining the
impact force takes into consideration the braking effect the soil has on the speed of the
derailed train as it burrows into the soil. It also accounts for the increase in the train speed
should it move down an embankment, as is our case.

On Page 2, equation (3) is used to establish the net train impact velocity taking into
account the incline of the slope that the derailed train travels down and the slowing effect
that the soil imposes on the derailed train. Solving this equation allows us to estimate the
net speed at which the train will impact the wall at an angle perpendicular to the face of
the crash wall.

Preliminary Conclusions:
This report recommends that where it is not practical to use an earthen berm a crash
barrier can be used instead. Based on criteria provided to us by AECOM Consultants this
crash barrier can be a minimum of 450 mm wide.

May 25, 2021

Report Prepared By: Robert Asman P.Eng.

5
 Appendix A
(AECOM CRASH WALL DESIGN GUIDELINES)

6
 Submission Guidelines for Crash Walls

WILL A STANDARD YES NO CRASH WALL NO REPORT

SETBACK AND BERM WILL BE PROVIDED REQUIRED
BE PROVIDED?
CRITERIA
RAILWAY

NO

CRASH WALL WILL

BE REQUIRED

DOES FREIGHT
TRAIN TRACK SPEED
YES EXCEED 50MPH OR NO
PASSENGER TRAIN
TRACK SPEED
EXCEED 70 MPH?

ONLY METHOD 2 METHOD 1 CAN BE USED

CAN BE USED (IF ENERGY BALANCE APPROACH IS USED)
METHOD 2 CAN BE USED

DESIGN WALL USING AN ENERGY BALANCE APPROACH

CONSIDERING COLLISION BY GLANCING BLOW AND
SINGLE CAR ROTATION TO DETERMINE THE DESIGN
NO WILL METHOD 1
LOAD. FOUR LOAD CASES NEED TO BE CONSIDERED:
BE USED?
1) FREIGHT TRAIN LOAD CASE 1- GLANCING BLOW
2) FREIGHT TRAIN LOAD CASE 2- SINGLE CAR IMPACT
3) PASSENGER TRAIN LOAD CASE 3- GLANCING BLOW
4) PASSENGER TRAIN LOAD CASE 4- SINGLE CAR IMPACT YES
AECOM REVIEW SCOPE

YES DESIGN WALL FOR A POINT LOAD

OF 600 KIPS (2700KN) APPLIED 6
IS THE FEET (1.8M) ABOVE TOP OF RAIL
NO FOR WALLS UP TO 25 FEET (7.6M)
IS THE TRAIN A NO DISTANCE FROM
PASSENGER THE TRACK FROM CENTERLINE OF TRACK OR
TRAIN CENTERLINE 6FEET (1.8M) ABOVE THE
<11.5 M? GROUNDLINE FOR WALLS
FARTHER THAN 25 FEET(7.6M)
FROM CENTERLINE OF TRACK
YES
YES

IS THE
YES CONSIDER ALL 4 CONSIDER LOAD
DISTANCE FROM
THE TRACK LOAD CASES CASE 1 ONLY
CENTERLINE
<13 M?

NO PROVIDE WALL DESIGN

IS THE BASED ON ANALYSIS BUT
DISTANCE FROM YES WALL THICKNESS NOT TO
CONSIDER LOAD
THE TRACK BE LESS THAN 18"(450mm)
CASE 3 ONLY
CENTERLINE PROVIDE HORIZONTAL AND
>7.6 M? VERTICAL CONTINUITY
REINFORCING

NO

PROVIDE WALL DESIGN

BASED ON ANALYSIS BUT
WALL THICKNESS NOT TO STUDY
BE LESS THAN 2'-6"(760mm) COMPLETE
PROVIDE HORIZONTAL AND
VERTICAL CONTINUITY
REINFORCING

FLOW CHART PREPARED BY JABLONSKY,AST AND PARTNERS

BASED ON JULY 29,2014 GUIDELINES PREPARED BY AECOM ISSUED OCTOBER 29, 2019
 -1-

Submission Guidelines for Crash Walls

Crash walls may be required for the protection of overhead structures, and in some cases the Railway
may consider a crash wall as an alternative to an earthen berm for the protection of structures or
facilities adjacent to the track. When proposing or designing such a structure, the following components
should be in the submission. Where there is a discrepancy between the requirements here and those
provided by the client Railway or AREMA, the more stringent shall govern.

1. Covering Letter

 Summary of items enclosed,

 Location and date of previous, approved, similar designs by this designer, if any,

 Where the crash wall is proposed as an alternative to an earthen berm: alternative

materials / configurations considered and benefits of this design,

 A Location or Key Plan. This will be used to identify the mileage and subdivision, the
classification of the rail line, and the maximum speed for freight and passenger rail
traffic, all obtained from AECOM Canada for CP and CN-owned corridors or from GO
Transit for GO-owned corridors.

 Name, phone, fax and e-mail address of your contact.

2. Geotechnical Report - (2 copies)

 Soil properties used in design, and how determined,

 Borehole logs including location plan, if required to support these properties,

 Narrative report describing soil and ground water conditions, if required as above.

3. Design of Crash Walls

 One of the following methods may be chosen, or an alternative design load may be
selected and if it can be justified by the engineer responsible for the design. The simplified
approach of Method 1 may be used in most cases. Method 2 may be used to optimize the
design, or where factors such as distance from the track to the wall, track speeds, side
slopes along the track, consequences of collision or others may justify a different load.

 Method 1: The wall may be designed for a minimum point load of 600 kip (2700 kN)
applied horizontally and normal to the face at any point along the wall

o The point load shall be applied at a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the top of rail for
walls up to 25 feet (7.6 m) from the centerline of track, or a height of 6 feet (1.8 m)
above the groundline for walls farther than 25 feet (7.6 m) from the centerline of
track.
May 25, 2021

140729 CWguide Rev 2

Revised July 29, 2014
Reproduced From Report Issued by AECOM July 2014

-2-
o This method may be applied where track speeds do not exceed 50 mph (80
km/hr) for freight or 70 mph (112 km/hr) for passenger trains; where speeds exceed
these limits, Method 2 shall be used.

 Method 2: an energy balance approach considering collision by glancing blow and single
car rotation may be used to determine the design load. The following four cases must be
considered:

 Freight Train Load Case 1 - Glancing Blow: nine cars weighing 143 tons (129 700 kg)
each, impacting the wall at an angle, . The angle of impact will be a function of track
curvature, and for tangent track may be taken as 3.5 degrees.

 Freight Train Load Case 2 - Single Car Impact: single car weighing 143 tons (129 700
kg) impacting the wall as it undergoes rotation about its center. The angle of rotation at
impact is:

( ) [1]

where is the distance from the crash wall to the centerline of track in m. The
closest existing or future track is to be used. Where is greater than 8.5 m, this
load case need not be considered.
Based on the site plan included with this report (SP-1) it can be seen that the minimum distance from the center
line of the rail track to the proposed crash wall is about 19 meters. Therefore this load case does not apply
 Passenger Train Load Case 3 - Glancing Blow: eight cars weighing 74 tons (67120 kg)
each impacting the wall at an angle, . The angle of impact will be a function of track
curvature, and for tangent track may be taken as 3.5 degrees.

 Passenger Train Load Case 4 - Single Car Impact: single car weighing 74 tons (67120
kg) impacting the wall as it undergoes rotation about its center. The angle of rotation at
impact is:

( ) [2]

Where is greater than 13 m, this load case need not be considered.

Based on the site plan included with this report (SP-1) it can be seen that the minimum distance from the center
line of the rail track to the proposed crash wall is about 19 meters. Therefore this load case does not apply
 The analysis should reflect the specified track speeds for passenger and/or freight
trains applicable within the subject corridor.

 To assist in designing the structure for the above load cases, use:

o For the glancing blow load cases, the speed of derailed equipment impacting the
May 25, 2021 wall is reduced from the track speed, , to

√ ( ) [m/s] vG = ( )
40.22 +2 x(-2.37) x 19.0 -1.625 = 16.3
0.061
[3]
(M/sec)

This equation indicates that for a freight train, by the time the train has traveled the distance from the track center line to the
face of the crash wall the train has come to a complete stop due to the burrowing of the train into the soil.
Where is the distance from the crash wall to the centerline of track in m.

is the track speed in m/s v0 = 50 mph =22.4 m/sec Freight Train

v0 =90 mph = 40.2 m/sec Passenger Train
is the angle of impact θg = 3.50 Sin(θg) = 0.061

140729 CWguide Rev 2 {NOTE: vG for freight train = 22.42 +(2 x (-2.37) x 285) = sqrt of Neg number}
Revised July 29, 2014
 -3-

is the acceleration in m/s, calculated as = -9.8(.25 + G) = -2.37 (M/sec2)

is the grade in decimal unit of the groundline in the direction of travel

defined by the angle of impact relative to the centerline of track;
calculated as . G = 88.0 - 90.50 = -0.008
⁄ (19/ 0.061)
o For the single car load cases, the speed of derailed equipment impacting the wall is

[ ] [4]
√

As per Page 2 since dCL = 19 meters, (> 8.5) this load case does not apply

[ ] [5]
√
As per Page 2 since dCL = 19 meters, (> 13M) this load case does not apply

Where is the angle of impact, in radians, defined in [1] and [2].

 For energy dissipation, assume:

o Contact with the wall stops all movement in the direction perpendicular to the
wall, but not along its length

o Plastic deformation of individual car due to direct impact is 1 foot (.3048 m)

maximum,

o Total compression of linkages and equipment of the 8 or 9 car consist is 10 feet

(3.048 m) maximum,

o Deflection of wall is considered negligible in equations [6] to [9]. Where the

designer wishes to include it, those equations may be modified.

o In lieu of more rigorous analysis, these energy balance equations may be used
to determine the design load perpendicular to the wall. The design load acts
along the given length of wall.

 For the glancing blow load cases ( dg = 3.048 x sin 3.5 o = 0.186M )

1
/2 x( 8x67,120KG) x (16.3x .061)2 = 1427 KN
[6]
0.186
{Note K.E. = 0.265 x 106 N-M}
And the load is considered to act along the length in m:
θg = 3.50 Cos(θg) = 0.998
lG = 3.048 = 3.054 (M) [7]
0.998

Where is the mass of the derailed cars in kg.

May 25, 2021
is the impact speed in m/s, defined in [3]

is the angle of impact

140729 CWguide Rev 2

Revised July 29, 2014
 -4-

is the deformation of the consist in the direction of the

applied force, and , in m

 For the single car impact

[8]
As per Page 2 since dCL = 19 meters, this load case does not apply

And the load is considered to act along the length in m:

[9]

Where is the mass of the derailed cars in kg.

is the impact speed in m/s, defined in [4] or [5]

is the angle of rotation at impact defined in [1] or [2]

is the deformation of the consist in the direction of the

applied force, and , in m

Where the influence areas of two sequential cars in an accordion style

of derailment overlap, the wall must be designed for the simultaneous
impact of both cars.

 Regardless of the method selected, the following guidelines must be followed:

o The minimum thickness for walls up to 25 feet (7.6 m) from the centerline of
track shall be 2’-6” (.760 m); minimum thickness for walls farther than 25 feet
(7.6 m) from the centerline of track shall be 18 inches (.45 m).
The Crash wall needs to be a minimum 450 mm thick.
o Crash walls less than 12 feet (3.6 m) from the centerline of track shall be a
minimum of 12 feet (3.6 m) above the top of rail. Crash walls between 12 feet
(3.6 m) and 25 feet (7.6 m) from the centerline of track shall be a minimum of 7
feet (2.135 m) above the top of rail. Crash walls greater than 25 feet (7.6 m)
from the centerline of track shall be a minimum of 7 feet (2.135 m) above the
adjacent groundline.
The Crash wall needs to be a minimum of 2.135 meters above grade.
o The face of the crash wall shall be smooth and continuous, and shall extend a
minimum of 6 inches (0.15 m) beyond the face of the structure (such as a
building column or bridge pier) parallel to the track.

o The design must incorporate horizontal and vertical continuity to distribute the
loads from the derailed train.

o
May 25, 2021 The wall must be of solid, heavy construction, and separate precast blocks or
stones will not be permitted.

140729 CWguide Rev 2

Revised July 29, 2014
 -5-

4. Drawings - (2 hard copies as well as .pdf format)

 Site plan clearly showing property line, location of wall structure, centerline and elevation of
nearest rail track,

 Layout and structural details of proposed structure, including all material notes and specs
and construction procedures/phasing. All drawings signed and sealed by a professional
engineer registered in the province having jurisdiction at the project location.

 Extent and treatment of any temporary excavations on railway property.

5. Cheque

 A cheque payable to AECOM will be required for the cost of this review. Please contact
AECOM for current pricing. Cost will take into consideration number of submissions,
site visits, meetings, and alternative or unusually complex designs.

6. Post-Construction Certificate - (1 copy)

 Engineer’s certificate of completion describing actual construction, and certifying that

the structure was built as per approved drawings,

 Copy of as-built drawings, as part of the engineer’s certification of completion.

Access to Railway Operating Rights-of-Way

Permits MUST be obtained before entering into any Railway Operating right-of-way.

Some or all of the following may also be required: - proper railway flagging protection, cable locates,
liability insurance, release of liability, safety training.

AECOM Canada Ltd. will provide guidance as to the proper process to be followed in this regard. Fees
will be established based on the nature and extent of the work being proposed.

Communication for Submissions

All correspondence during the review process should be directed to AECOM Canada Ltd.

Upon completion of our review, a confidential report on our findings will be made to the railway
company, who will subsequently contact the applicant.

The applicant will be notified when the report has been submitted to the railway.

140729 CWguide Rev 2

Revised July 29, 2014
 -6-

Liability and Responsibility

The review will be undertaken with the understanding that neither the railway nor AECOM Canada Ltd.
shall have any responsibility nor liability whatsoever for the design or adequacy of the crash wall,
notwithstanding that any plans or specifications may have been reviewed by the railway nor AECOM
Canada Ltd. No such review shall be deemed to limit the applicant’s full responsibility for the design and
construction adequacy of the works.

AECOM Canada Ltd.

Mississauga, Ont.

July 2005 Revised July 29, 2014

140729 CWguide Rev 2

Revised July 29, 2014
 Appendix B
(Plans)

Crash Wall Layout and Extent:

It is the opinion of this office that the extent of the crash wall can be limited to the portion
of the property as illustrated in plan drawing SP-1 and which is part of this
Appendix.

7
 X
SK-1
19 m

ST
ONTARIO

C. N.
52 m

2750

LAN
2050

160 m

DS
5800

ST
7
3029

6700

2750
5
30M LINE 5800 7.8

5800
R=
25
5800
2750

2750
11508
1m

6700
84 m

49 m
11
2750
RAMP ST
5797

10574 3 DN
8 STOREY
84 m
STREET

PORTION 104 SURFACE SPACES 23

2750
6700

6696

5
3037
5 DROP OFF LOADING BF BF BF BF 15

R=
5800

5800

1
2750 2750 2750

0.

5800
3400

ENTRY

0
3400 2750
EXH

2750
.0
10
R=

6700
17

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
2750

GARBAGE
8 STOREY
10 STOREYS

5800
PORTION
370 UNITS

R=

19 m
1
0.
0
5500
5500
INT ST
6700 BERM
5285

4545

4545

3.0M ROAD WIDENING MAIN

ENTRY

GREENLANE 30M LINE

DRAWING
SITE PLAN
TITLE

SP1
1 SITE PLAN JAP
JABLONSKY,AST &PTNS
400-3 CONCORD GATE
SCALE: 1:500 May 25, 2021 Toronto, ON M3C3N7
WWW.ASTINT.ON.CA
416-447-7405

DWG. No. SP-1

C:\Users\Robert.ASTINT\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\1MNK3CIN\21500 SP1 2021-05-13.dwg
Appendix C
(Cross Sections)

8
 (MM)

(MM)

(M)
For Details See SK-2

(M)
(MM) (M)

May 25, 2021

SECTION LOOKING EAST ALONG EXISTING TRACK

D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\2019-BARRIER-WALL-1.dwg
 (MM)
(MM)

(MM)
(MM)
(MM)

May 25, 2021

(MM)

D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\2019-BARRIER-WALL-1.dwg
 Appendix D
(Tables and Miscellaneous Sketches)

9
 (MM)
(MM)

(MM)

(MM)
(MM)
(MM)

(MM)

May 25, 2021

D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\2019-BARRIER-WALL-1.dwg
spSlab v5.50 © StructurePoint 05-26-2021, 08:29:55 AM
Licensed to: Jablonsky Ast & Partners, License ID: 72641-1072353-4-26654-27B0B
D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb Page 1

oooooo o o
oo oo oo oo
ooooo oooooo oo oo ooooo oo
oo o oo oo oo oo o oo oo
oo oo oo ooo oo oooooo oooooo
ooooo oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oooooo oo oo oo oo oo oo
o oo oo oo oo oo o oo oo oo oo
ooooo oo oooooo ooo ooooo o ooooo (TM)

=================================================================================================
spSlab v5.50 (TM)
A Computer Program for Analysis, Design, and Investigation of
Reinforced Concrete Beams, One-way and Two-way Slab Systems
Copyright © 2003-2018, STRUCTUREPOINT, LLC
All rights reserved
=================================================================================================

Licensee stated above acknowledges that STRUCTUREPOINT (SP) is not and cannot
be responsible for either the accuracy or adequacy of the material supplied as input
for processing by the spSlab computer program. Furthermore, STRUCTUREPOINT neither makes
any warranty expressed nor implied with respect to the correctness of the output prepared
by the spSlab program. Although STRUCTUREPOINT has endeavored to produce spSlab error free the
program is not and cannot be certified infallible. The final and only responsibility for
analysis, design and engineering documents is the licensee's. Accordingly,
STRUCTUREPOINT disclaims all responsibility in contract, negligence or other tort for any
analysis, design or engineering documents prepared in connection with the use of the spSlab
program.

==================================================================================================================
[1] INPUT ECHO
==================================================================================================================

General Information
===================
File name: D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb
Project: GreenLane Crash Wall
Frame:
Engineer: Robert Asman
Code: CSA A23.3-14
Reinforcement Database: CSA G30.18
Mode: Design
Number of supports = 2 + Left cantilever + Right cantilever
Floor System: One-Way/Beam

Live load pattern ratio = 0%

Deflections are based on cracked section properties.
In negative moment regions, Ig and Mcr DO NOT include flange/slab contribution (if available)
Long-term deflections are calculated for load duration of 60 months.
0% of live load is sustained.
Compression reinforcement calculations NOT selected.
Default incremental rebar design selected.
Combined M-V-T reinforcement design NOT selected.
Moment redistribution NOT selected.
Effective flange width calculations selected.
Rigid beam-column joint NOT selected.
Torsion analysis and design NOT selected.

Material Properties
===================
Slabs|Beams Columns
------------ ------------
wc = 2400 2400 kg/m3
f'c = 40 35 MPa
Ec = 29602 28165 MPa
fr = 1.8974 3.5497 MPa
Precast concrete construction is not selected.

fy = 400 MPa, Bars are not epoxy-coated

fyt = 400 MPa
Es = 200000 MPa

Reinforcement Database
======================
Units: Db (mm), Ab (mm^2), Wb (kg/m)
Size Db Ab Wb Size Db Ab Wb
---- -------- -------- --------
#10 11 100 1
---- -------- -------- --------
#15 16 200 2
May 25, 2021
#20 20 300 2 #25 25 500 4
#30 30 700 5 #35 36 1000 8
#45 44 1500 12 #55 56 2500 20

Span Data
=========
spSlab v5.50 © StructurePoint 05-26-2021, 08:29:55 AM
Licensed to: Jablonsky Ast & Partners, License ID: 72641-1072353-4-26654-27B0B
D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb Page 2

Slabs
-----
Units: L1, wL, wR (m); t, bEff, Hmin (mm)
Span Loc L1 t wL wR bEff Hmin
---- ---- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
1 Int 1.200 300 3.000 3.000 6000 115 LC
2 Int 2.700 300 3.000 3.000 6000 125
3 Int 2.600 450 3.000 3.000 6000 245 RC

Support Data
============
Columns
-------
Units: c1a, c2a, c1b, c2b (mm); Ha, Hb (m)
Supp c1a c2a Ha c1b c2b Hb Red%
---- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----
1 0 0 0.000 100 2000 6.000 0
2 0 0 0.000 300 2000 6.000 100

Boundary Conditions
-------------------
Units: Kz (kN/mm); Kry (kN-mm/rad)
Supp Spring Kz Spring Kry Far End A Far End B
---- ------------ ------------ --------- ---------
1 0 0 Fixed Fixed
2 0 0 Fixed Fixed

Load Data
=========
Load Cases and Combinations
---------------------------
Case Live Soil
Type LIVE DEAD
---- -------- --------
U1 1.500 0.000
U2 1.500 0.000
U3 1.500 0.000
U4 1.500 0.000
U5 1.500 0.000
U6 1.500 0.000
U7 1.500 0.000
U8 1.500 0.000
U9 1.000 0.000
U10 1.000 0.000
U11 0.500 0.000
U12 0.500 0.000
U13 0.500 0.000
U14 0.500 0.000
U15 0.500 0.000
U16 0.500 0.000

Line Loads
----------
Units: Wa, Wb (kN/m), La, Lb (m)
Case/Patt Span Wa La Wb Lb
--------- ---- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Live 2 403.00 0.000 76.00 2.700

Point Forces
------------
Units: Wa (kN), La (m)
Case/Patt Span Wa La
--------- ---- ------------ ------------
Live 3 980.00 2.600

Reinforcement Criteria
======================
Slabs and Ribs
--------------
_____Top bars___ __Bottom bars___
Min Max Min Max
------- ------- ------- -------
Bar Size #20 #35 #20 #35
Bar spacing 30 450 30 450 mm
Reinf ratio 0.20 5.00 0.20 5.00 %
Cover 40 40 mm
There is NOT more than 300 mm of concrete below top bars.

Beams
-----
_____Top bars___ __Bottom bars___ ____Stirrups____
Min Max Min Max Min Max
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Bar Size #20 #35 #20 #35 #10 #20
Bar spacing 30 450 30 450 150 450 mm
Reinf ratio 0.20 5.00 0.20 5.00 %
Cover 40 40 mm
spSlab v5.50 © StructurePoint 05-26-2021, 08:29:55 AM
Licensed to: Jablonsky Ast & Partners, License ID: 72641-1072353-4-26654-27B0B
D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb Page 3

Layer dist. 30 30 mm
No. of legs 2 6
Side cover 40 mm
1st Stirrup 75 mm
There is NOT more than 300 mm of concrete below top bars.
 1600.0
1470.00 1470.00
Shear Diagram - kN

-612.40 Vc= 0.2x0.65x 401/2x 6000x420/1000 = 2072 KN >1470

-1600.0 -1582.36

-4000.0
-3822.00
-3260.92
Moment Diagram - kNm

4000.0

LEGEND:
Envelope

spSlab v5.50. Licensed to: Jablonsky Ast & Partners. License ID: 72641-1072353-4-26654-27B0B

File: D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb

Project: GreenLane Crash Wall

Frame:

Engineer: Robert Asman

Code: CSA A23.3-14

May 25, 2021
Date: 05/26/21

Time: 08:24:20
spSlab v5.50 © StructurePoint 05-26-2021, 08:31:40 AM
Licensed to: Jablonsky Ast & Partners, License ID: 72641-1072353-4-26654-27B0B
D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb Page 1

oooooo o o
oo oo oo oo
ooooo oooooo oo oo ooooo oo
oo o oo oo oo oo o oo oo
oo oo oo ooo oo oooooo oooooo
ooooo oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oooooo oo oo oo oo oo oo
o oo oo oo oo oo o oo oo oo oo
ooooo oo oooooo ooo ooooo o ooooo (TM)

=================================================================================================
spSlab v5.50 (TM)
A Computer Program for Analysis, Design, and Investigation of
Reinforced Concrete Beams, One-way and Two-way Slab Systems
Copyright © 2003-2018, STRUCTUREPOINT, LLC
All rights reserved
=================================================================================================

Licensee stated above acknowledges that STRUCTUREPOINT (SP) is not and cannot
be responsible for either the accuracy or adequacy of the material supplied as input
for processing by the spSlab computer program. Furthermore, STRUCTUREPOINT neither makes
any warranty expressed nor implied with respect to the correctness of the output prepared
by the spSlab program. Although STRUCTUREPOINT has endeavored to produce spSlab error free the
program is not and cannot be certified infallible. The final and only responsibility for
analysis, design and engineering documents is the licensee's. Accordingly,
STRUCTUREPOINT disclaims all responsibility in contract, negligence or other tort for any
analysis, design or engineering documents prepared in connection with the use of the spSlab
program.

==================================================================================================================
[2] DESIGN RESULTS
==================================================================================================================

Top Reinforcement
=================
Units: Width (m), Mmax (kNm), Xmax (m), As (mm^2), Sp (mm)
Span Zone Width Mmax Xmax AsMin AsMax AsReq SpProv Bars
---- ------- -------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------
1 Left 6.00 0.00 0.000 3600 49647 0 353 17-#25 *3 *5
Midspan 6.00 0.00 0.575 3600 49647 0 353 17-#25 *3 *5
Right 6.00 0.00 1.150 3600 49647 0 77 78-#25 *3 *5

2 Left 6.00 801.15 0.925 3600 49647 10092 77 78-#25

Midspan 6.00 1731.35 1.675 3600 49647 23720 77 78-#25
Right 6.00 3024.72 2.550 3600 49647 49770 37 > MAX *2

3 Left 6.00 3601.50 0.150 5400 79749 29721 100 60-#25

Midspan 6.00 2340.97 1.008 5400 79749 18516 100 60-#25
Right 6.00 1260.53 1.743 5400 79749 9653 100 60-#25

NOTES:
*2 - Reinforcement exceeds maximum allowable value.
*3 - Design governed by minimum reinforcement.
*5 - Number of bars governed by maximum allowable spacing.

Top Bar Details

===============
Units: Length (m)
_____________Left______________ ___Continuous__ _____________Right_____________
Span Bars Length Bars Length Bars Length Bars Length Bars Length
---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 --- --- 17-#25 1.20 31-#25 0.43 30-#25 0.35

2 --- --- 78-#25 2.70 ------------ ERROR ------------

3 --- --- 60-#25 2.60 --- ---

Top Bar Development Lengths

===========================
Units: Length (mm)
_____________Left______________ ___Continuous__ _____________Right_____________
Span Bars Length Bars DevLen Bars DevLen Bars DevLen Bars DevLen
---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 --- --- 17-#25 300.00 31-#25 300.00 30-#25 300.00

2 --- --- 78-#25 430.23 42-#25 902.73 42-#25 902.73

3 --- --- 60-#25 425.65 --- ---

May 25, 2021
Bottom Reinforcement
====================
Units: Width (m), Mmax (kNm), Xmax (m), As (mm^2), Sp (mm)
Span Width Mmax Xmax AsMin AsMax AsReq SpProv Bars
---- -------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------
spSlab v5.50 © StructurePoint 05-26-2021, 08:31:40 AM
Licensed to: Jablonsky Ast & Partners, License ID: 72641-1072353-4-26654-27B0B
D:\Projects\Crash-Walls\Greenlane\REPORT-DATA\spSlab2.slb Page 2

1 6.00 0.00 0.600 0 50219 0 0 ---

2 6.00 0.00 1.350 0 50219 0 0 ---

3 6.00 0.00 1.300 0 80321 0 0 ---

Bottom Bar Details

==================
Units: Start (m), Length (m)
_______Long Bars_______ ______Short Bars_______
Span Bars Start Length Bars Start Length
---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 --- ---

2 --- ---

3 --- ---

Bottom Bar Development Lengths

==============================
Units: DevLen (mm)
___Long Bars___ __Short Bars___
Span Bars DevLen Bars DevLen
---- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 --- ---

2 --- ---

3 --- ---

Flexural Capacity
=================
Units: x (m), As (mm^2), PhiMn, Mu (kNm)
_______________________Top___________________ ____________________Bottom___________________
Span x AsTop PhiMn- Mu- Comb Pat Status AsBot PhiMn+ Mu+ Comb Pat Status
---- ------- ----- --------- --------- ---- ---- --------- ----- --------- --------- ---- ---- ---------
1 0.000 8500 -681.10 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.402 8500 -681.10 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.600 8500 -681.10 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.747 8500 -681.10 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.770 8500 -681.10 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.848 12483 -976.97 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.071 35145 -2376.96 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.148 39000 -2567.17 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.150 39000 -2567.17 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.200 39000 -2567.17 0.00 U1 All --- 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK

2 0.000 39000 -2567.17 0.00 U1 All --- 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK

0.050 39000 -2567.17 -31.37 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.925 39000 -2567.17 -801.15 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.350 39000 -2567.17 -1303.17 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.675 39000 -2567.17 -1731.35 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
2.256 39000 -2567.17 -2571.69 U1 All *EXCEEDED 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
2.550 39000 -2567.17 -3024.72 U1 All *EXCEEDED 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
2.700 39000 -2567.17 -3260.92 U1 All --- 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK

3 0.000 30000 -3631.38 -3822.00 U1 All --- 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK

0.075 30000 -3631.38 -3711.75 U1 All --- 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
0.150 30000 -3631.38 -3601.50 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.008 30000 -3631.38 -2340.97 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.300 30000 -3631.38 -1911.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
1.743 30000 -3631.38 -1260.53 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK
2.600 30000 -3631.38 0.00 U1 All OK 0 0.00 0.00 U1 All OK

Slab Shear Capacity

===================
Units: b, dv (mm), Xu (m), PhiVc, Vu(kN)
Span b dv Beta Vratio PhiVc Vu Xu
---- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ ------------ ------------
1 6000 223 0.210 1.000 1153.34 0.00 0.00
2 6000 218 0.210 1.000 1128.86 1527.84 2.33 *EXCEEDED
3 6000 358 0.169 1.000 1494.52 1470.00 0.51

Material Takeoff
================
Reinforcement in the Direction of Analysis
------------------------------------------
Top Bars: 1612.7 kg <=> 248.11 kg/m <=> 41.352 kg/m^2
Bottom Bars: 0.0 kg <=> 0.00 kg/m <=> 0.000 kg/m^2
Stirrups: 0.0 kg <=> 0.00 kg/m <=> 0.000 kg/m^2
Total Steel: 1612.7 kg <=> 248.11 kg/m <=> 41.352 kg/m^2
Concrete: 14.0 m^3 <=> 2.16 m^3/m <=> 0.360 m^3/m^2