|back to menu|
3.5.3 Site organisation
Site organisation drawing and report notes are mainly a guideline for a possible settling of the yard: it should not be taken as a constraint, and any different settling of the yard, that could optimise the performing of the works, may be proposed and performed by the Company that is in charge for the rehabilitation works of the bridge. Anything that concern the site organisation has been defined by PCU TA trough sketches that have been drawn in final layout by General Engineering.
Anyhow, limit of the yard should be protected by fencing in order that access is reserved to workers and supervisors only; moreover an access to the site by visitors, (e.g. local authorities and press), should be guaranteed trough separated and protected paths, (as it has been required by PCU TA). Gates should be provided as well, to allow a secure closing of the yard during the non working time.
Main access to the site for workers, construction materials and for working machinery, may be the one located south west by the main city road; this because works should not interfere with another adjacent yard that will be ongoing for the rehabilitation of the towers and annexed buildings. Only during final stages, for the bridge rehabilitation works, it will be possible to get trough the narrow streets leading to the bridge (Onescukova and Kujundziluk streets), as required by PCU TA.
Position of the crane, and related working range, may be considered only as a proposal, and should be evaluated mostly by the Company in charge of the works depending also on available facilities and on other technical evaluations.
General Engineering about this matter underlines the fact that a crane of 60 metres operative range may be not suitable for all the foreseen works, also because the assembling phase of the voussoirs requires a more accurate lifting system that do not have wide swinging. Concerning this matter, in design drawing (GE-03), also another proposal has been showed in a sketch: a travelling crane over lattice girders may run all over the area of the bridge length, and a direct access to its base may be fixed (similar approaches have been followed also in other bridge yards).
The yard might have its headquarters and facilities on the west side of the main town road, while all the other yard operative sectors may be located towards the river shore on platforms high enough to avoid river waters.
Nevertheless all the above mentioned hypothetical proposals should be technically verified for what concern their feasibility and their efficiency, evaluating also that no risk is taken due to the wild regime of river waters. General Engineering is absolutely not responsible of any configuration of the settling of the yard, of any provisional work and of any consequences due to river floods over the site.
Another matter that should be carefully evaluated, by the Company that is in charge of the rehabilitation works, is that north to the bridge location there is a footbridge that may be of impediment or constraint for the rehabilitation works either of the bridge, either of the abutment walls: plinths and tie cables have been placed by the north side, working as foundation structures of the gangway which actually is located about 8 metres north and parallel to the former bridge axe. For the above mentioned reason no portion of that area has been proposed in the site organisation drawings, where settling is foreseen to be only by the south side.
CREDITS:Intellectual property of this report and of the design drawings is owned by General Engineering s.r.l.
author of the text: arch. Manfredo Romeo – other contributes have been mentioned in related paragraphs
© - General Engineering Workgroup -
Final Design Report
|back to menu|
|GENERAL ENGINEERING - P.zzale Donatello 4 - 50132 Firenze - Italy - ph. +39 055 2345256 - fax. +39 055 2476074|