SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:21 Page 32
Paper
Newmarket Viaduct deconstruction
Jon Varndell, BEng (Hons), CEng, MICE
Design Manager – NGA Newmarket Alliance, URS – Principal Engineer
Peter Lipscombe, NZCE, BE (Hons), PhD, MIPENZ, CPEng
Structure Design Manager – NGA Newmarket Alliance, URS – Principal Engineer
Ian Billings, BE (Hons), FIPENZ, CPEng
Senior Bridge Advisor – NGA Newmarket Alliance, Beca – Technical Director
Keywords: Newmarket Viaduct, Auckland, New Zealand, Viaducts, Replacing, Motorways,Temporary works,
Segments, Strengthening, Risk management
Received: 03/11: Modified: 04/11; Accepted: 05/11
© Jon Varndell, Peter Lipscombe & Ian Billings
Synopsis
The Newmarket Viaduct was completed in 1966 and has played a
vital role in the Auckland motorway network for the last 45 years.
The viaduct carries more than 160 000 vehicles per day over
several key arterial roads and the North Auckland railway line.
The structure comprises two parallel, balanced cantilever bridges
connected at each pier with a post-tensioned portal frame.
Increased traffic volumes and the limitations of the live load,
differential temperature and seismic performance of the structure
created the need to replace the old six lane viaduct. This paper
describes how the viaduct is being replaced in stages while
keeping the motorway operational throughout. Implemented under
an alliance framework, the benefits of the integrated client, design
and construction team are discussed. The complex and
unprecedented challenges of deconstructing this post tensioned
viaduct in stages whilst it remains in service are described in detail.
1 Aerial photograph taken in December 2010 showing the old
southbound viaduct at commencement of deconstruction
1 2
2 Key construction stages
Stage 1 – Construct the new southbound viaduct, parallel to, and slightly overlapping with, the old southbound viaduct
Stage 2 – Commission the new southbound viaduct and then deconstruct the old southbound structure
Stage 3 – Construct the new northbound viaduct in the gap left by the deconstruction
Stage 4 – Commission the new northbound viaduct and then deconstruct the old northbound structure
32 The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011
Introduction
The Newmarket Viaduct was constructed in the 1960s and forms
a vital link in Auckland’s motorway network. The dual three lane
viaduct now carries over 160 000 vehicles per day and is part of
the busiest section of road in New Zealand. The viaduct is 690m
long and comprises 16 spans up to 23m high passing over a busy
urban retail area and the North Auckland Railway line (Fig 1).
The viaduct consists of two post-tensioned, cast in-situ box
girders transversely connected at each pier. Constructed by the
balanced cantilever method, it was one of the earliest bridges built
using this method in New Zealand. Deficiencies in the design,
related to differential temperature effects, were identified during
construction when large (up to 4mm wide) cracks were observed
in the soffit slab. Mitigation measures were put in place and
subsequent research carried out on the viaduct was also used for
the development of the differential temperature design rules for
bridges.
The combined effects of substantial traffic volume growth and
the vital role the viaduct plays in the security of the motorway
network, led to the decision for the viaduct to be replaced. The
new viaduct will provide additional lanes and improved seismic
resistance, edge protection and vehicle load capacity. The key
challenge was that the old viaduct had to be deconstructed and
replaced with no impact on the peak motorway traffic capacity
throughout construction.
The essential link between the design and construction/
deconstruction methodology, coupled with the uncertainties about
the old viaduct, and the management of significant risks, resulted
in the project being implemented as an alliance; a virtual
organisation comprising the owner (the NZ Transport Agency)
three contractors and four design firms.
This paper describes the project’s unprecedented challenges
and methods used to deconstruct the old viaduct while keeping
the motorway fully operational, and summarises the key mitigation
measures put in place to manage the risks.
Staging of the works
The project involves an on-line replacement of the old viaduct; with
the centre line of the viaduct being shifted by just 13m to the east.
This was to avoid major motorway realignment and land purchase,
and minimise disruption to the community. A detailed staging
scheme was developed to enable the motorway to remain in full
service throughout the project. The 4 key construction stages are
illustrated in Fig.2.
The extremely tight clearances to the motorway traffic,
combined with the height of the viaduct above ground level,
required meticulous planning of each construction and
deconstruction activity.
3 4
SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:21 Page 33
3 The old viaduct – 690m long structure comprised 16 spans ranging
from 33.5m to 61m
The old viaduct description
The old viaduct consisted of two parallel post-tensioned concrete
box girder structures; each carrying three lanes of motorway traffic
at a height above ground level varying from 8m to 23m. The 690m
long structure comprised 16 spans ranging from 33.5m to 61m as
indicated in Fig 3.
The site geology is complex and variable. Most of the viaduct
was founded on one of two basaltic lava flows that originated from
volcanic cones on each side of the valley the viaduct crosses. The
two flows do not quite meet and thus three piers between the lava
flows were supported on piled foundations, which extended down
to the Waitemata sandstone. Extensive sand/cement grouting,
applied under pressure, was undertaken to fill fractures in the
basalt for the shallow pad foundations.
Each box girder was supported on a single, reinforced, hollow
box column, founded on spread footings or piled foundations.
Each column had a pin connection at the base formed using a
0.9m × 0.4m × 0.3m concrete block set into both the pad/pile cap
and the pier base. A transverse, post-tensioned pier cap
diaphragm beam between the tops of each column pair, linked the
north and southbound bridges to form a pin base portal in the
transverse direction (see Fig 4).
The twin cell box girders were continuous in the longitudinal
direction between the bridge’s six movement joints. These were
provided with longitudinally guided ‘Radialube’ (sliding plate)
bearings. The longitudinal cantilever and continuity post-tensioning
tendons were located within the three webs of each box girder.
Transverse prestressing was also used in the box girder top and
bottom flanges to reduce their thickness.
The viaduct was designed by the Ministry of Works between
1962 and 1963, and construction was completed in 1966. As was
the practice at the time, no explicit allowance was incorporated in
the design for differential temperature effects.
The box girders were constructed in 3m long segments with no
reinforcement steel across the transverse joints between
segments. In addition, the boxes were lightly reinforced and had
thin flanges, with a 150mm deck slab and 125mm bottom slab
(see Fig 5). The thin deck slab limited the traffic load carrying
capacity of the viaduct.
4 Old viaduct cross section
Soon after opening, gaps up to 4mm wide were observed in the
bottom slab at a number of transverse joints and cracking was
evident at other locations in the box webs and transverse pier
diaphragms. The subsequent major investigation identified that the
design standards of the time did not adequately address
differential temperature effects, which were subsequently found to
be significant. There was insufficient reserve of prestress to absorb
the differential temperature effects.
The bridge was closed to heavy vehicles until substantial
longitudinal external post-tensioning was installed inside the box
girders (in the form of Macalloy bars) to strengthen the structure.
The differential temperature gradient was also reduced by the use
of a light-coloured dacite chip in the bridge surfacing; reducing the
gradient by 5.5°C. These measures were completed by the late
1960s and proved to be reasonably successful although ongoing
problems were experienced with some of the deck slab transverse
joints ‘working’ under wheel loads and cracks opening by up to
0.3mm in the bottom slab.
In 2002 an investigation was commissioned into widening the
viaduct and bringing it up to current standards. Extensive
inspection and assessment studies were conducted and a number
of deficiencies identified. These included substandard edge
barriers, limited traffic load capacity, due to the thin deck slabs,
and seismic vulnerabilities in the piercaps and movement joints
that could lead to potential collapse of part or the entire viaduct
during a relatively low return period (200 year) seismic event. A
widening and strengthening design was developed but it indicated
this would be costly and that risks inherent in the lightly reinforced
and poorly detailed structure would remain. In early 2006 the New
Zealand Transport Agency made the decision to replace the
viaduct rather than widen and strengthen it.
Deconstruction philosophy
The deconstruction philosophy was specifically developed to
address the huge challenges presented by the site constraints so
that the viaduct could be deconstructed safely in a controlled
manner.
The old viaduct, with its pinned base piers, firstly had to be
stabilised before it could be separated longitudinally into two
halves. The temporary works required to secure the longitudinal
and transverse stability of the viaduct, after cutting the post-
tensioned pier cap beams that connected the two halves, were
extensive. As the northbound viaduct continued to carry traffic for
a year after being cut free, the design of the temporary works was
treated with the same rigour and authorisation process as would
be applied to permanent works.
Once the pier caps had been cut and the viaducts separated
into two structures, stabilised by the temporary works, the first
viaduct was deconstructed using the reverse balanced cantilever
method. This involved deconstructing the viaduct in the opposite
sequence to which it had been constructed. Firstly, the mid-span
closure segment was removed to create a free balanced cantilever.
Then segments were removed, one at a time from both ends of
5 Old viaduct box girder during construction (circa 1965)
The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011 33
SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:21 Page 34
6 New southbound viaduct next to the old viaduct, showing transverse
stabilisation
the cantilevers using a 140m long, 810t, overhead gantry that was
also used for the new viaduct construction. The deconstruction
progressed back to the pier table, at which point the pier table and
pier column were demolished either by hydraulic crushers attached
to a hydraulic excavator on the ground or cut into small sections
and removed by crane. The viaduct was thus dismantled in the
reverse sequence to which it had been built, however, a key
difference was that the prestressing tendons could not be
progressively destressed because they had been grouted at the
time of the original construction. The inability to destress the
tendons resulted in a stress distribution within the partially
deconstructed works quite different from that experienced during
the original construction. Analysis and control of these built-up
stresses is discussed in the next section.
Deconstruction analysis
A stage-by-stage deconstruction analysis was undertaken to
calculate the expected forces in the viaduct at each stage of the
deconstruction process. This included modelling the reactions
from the 810t overhead gantry used for the deconstruction
process, in its various configurations. The gantry was supported
directly over the piers and therefore did not impart loads into the
superstructure. However, the effects of the gantry weight on the
foundations and temporary works were significantly larger than any
previously applied loads to the structure, requiring strengthening of
some of the foundations. The effects of wind and seismic loads
from the gantry were also very significant and had to be modelled
for each stage of the deconstruction.
Analysis of the deconstruction sequence was performed using
three separate computer models and the results combined using a
suite of spreadsheets. The first of the models was a 2-D time-
dependant model that calculated the stress state in the viaduct
allowing for prestressing, creep, shrinkage and dead load effects.
This model was developed after an extensive assessment of the
original structure data (including interviewing members of the
original construction teams). The second model was a 2-D beam
element model used to calculate wind, seismic and gantry load
effects on the viaduct and temporary works. The third model was a
grillage model used to assess segment removal and live load
actions on the superstructure.
The primary load cases considered in the deconstruction were
basically the same as those that would be considered for
construction of a new viaduct.
The primary loadings included:
– dead load (including the gantry weight);
– specialist construction equipment (e.g. diamond wire cutters);
– construction live load (typically 0.5kPa);
– accidental release of a segment (derived from AASHTO1);
– in-service wind loads (based on 15m/s wind speed);
– out-of-service wind loads (1000 year return period);
– earthquake loads (500 year return period);
– temperature effects;
34 The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011
7 Longitudinal props and shield beam
– traffic live load.
The Ultimate Limit State load combinations considered were
consistent with those derived from the Bridge Manual2 and
AASHTO.
In general, checks on section capacity were undertaken at the
Ultimate Limit State only. Serviceability Limit State capacity checks
were undertaken in a few cases but only to determine suitable
limits for alert/alarm values used in monitoring the works. When
analysis showed that elements of the viaduct were overstressed,
the deconstruction methodology was revised to try and reduce the
loads. If this was not possible, then strengthening was designed.
Capacity checks were made on the assumption that the tendons
were either fully bonded (as intended in the original construction) or
unbonded (as might happen with poor grouting practice). In cases
where tendon grouting was critical, the more adverse condition
was assumed to exist unless intrusive investigation was
undertaken to prove the quality of the grout.
Temporary works
Pier brackets
As previously noted, deconstruction required cutting the portal
frames that supported both superstructures at every pier location
(see Fig 6). This required cutting the piercap beam and severing
the post tensioning (comprising six tendons, each with 12 × 0.5in.
strands) thus compromising the transverse stability of the structure
and the support of the outer webs of the box girders.
While properly grouted tendons do re-anchor and therefore not
all of the strength is lost it was considered this should not be relied
upon for the fundamental vertical support of the box girder webs –
structural steel pier brackets were installed to support the load
(see Fig 6). In addition to supporting vertical loads, the pier
brackets also provided anchorage for the gantry holding down
bars and connection points for the transverse props. The brackets,
each weighing 7t, supported a load of up to 620t. They were
clamped to the pier with sufficient force to resist the load by
friction. Friction was enhanced by roughening the surface of the
concrete column, using weld beads on the steel contact plate, and
60MPa low-shrinkage grout between the two surfaces. Scaled
trials were undertaken to verify the friction force that could be
resisted. The coefficient of friction used in design was 0.91, this is
the lower bound residual value after 2mm slip from a series of 16
tests.
At some highly loaded piers a reinforced concrete corbel was
also added beneath the pier bracket.
Transverse stabilisation
Transverse stability of the cut portal frame was maintained by
transverse props. These comprised twin 762mm OD × 6.4mm WT
tubes diagonally propping the northbound viaduct and a 457mm
OD × 12.7mm WT tube supporting the southbound. This
configuration allowed the southbound viaduct to be deconstructed
SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:22 Page 35

gantry and probably the adjacent viaducts. For the longitudinal

props a shield beam (see Fig 7) was designed to protect the props
by absorbing energy from accidental release of a box girder
segment above. The shield beam was supported by the vertical
props located approximately 9m from the pier. The vertical props
acted in both tension and compression. While supporting the
shield beam, these primarily resisted the out-of-balance load
effects from removal of box girder segments No. 4 to 8. The pier
itself was strong enough to resist the out-of-balance actions during
removal of box girder segments No.1 to 3.
The four main elements of the temporary works described
previously are shown in Fig 8. These totalled 55t of steelwork at
each pier. Where possible, the temporary works were re-used
along the viaduct as deconstruction progressed. In this way only
six full sets were required for deconstruction of 28 piers.

8 Temporary steelwork required for pier stability during deconstruction
to foundation level prior to deconstructing the northbound.
Longitudinal stabilisation
Similar to the transverse direction, longitudinal props were required
in the longitudinal direction to maintain stability when the mid-span
closure segments were removed (see Fig 7). The longitudinal props
comprised 610mm OD × 9.5mm WT steel tubes connected at the
upper end to the pier column, and at the lower end to a specially
constructed reinforced concrete foundation. The foundations
required four, 90t ground anchors to provide the necessary uplift
resistance when the prop went into tension.
Protection of the longitudinal and transverse props from damage
was a paramount consideration since loss of these had the
potential to destabilise the pier with consequential loss of the pier,
Deconstruction methodology
The typical deconstruction sequence involved removal of the
midspan closure segments, followed by successive removal of the
cantilever segments.
Midspan closure segment removal
Removal of the closure segment at the mid-span location involved
changing the structural system from a continuous structure, with
its locked-in forces, to a statically determinate one. In the process
of making the first cut, bending moment and shear was released
and redistributed into the newly created free cantilever. There were
significant locked in forces from the original construction together
with prestress losses, creep and shrinkage that had occurred since
that time. These locked-in forces had to be released in a controlled
manner to avoid a dynamic load release. This was achieved by
staged cutting and hydraulic jack unloading to decompress the
locked-in forces. Figs 9.1 to 9.4 show the procedure in more
detail. Fig 10 shows the closure segment removal system in use,

9.1 9.2

9.3 9.4

Fig 9.1 A 200mm diameter hole (300mm deep) was cored in the top of each web and a jack was installed in the hole. The jacks
were pressurised to a force equivalent to the estimated force in the top flange of the box girder. A steel beam was
prestressed to the deck above each of the three webs to control any shear movement between the cantilever tips
Fig 9.2 The bottom slab of the box girder was cut, followed by the top slab. The diamond wire saw used for cutting made an 11mm
wide cut; wide enough to release the locked-in displacements in subsequent stages. Each web was then cut from the
bottom of the box girder up to the continuity tendons and from just above the continuity tendons up to the underside of the
jacks. At this point the bending moment across the cut line was carried by a couple between the jacks and the continuity
tendons, and the shear was carried by the small remaining area of concrete surrounding the continuity tendons
Fig 9.3 The horizontal jacks in the top of the webs were slowly and uniformly unloaded to release the bending moment in the
section. The midspan deflected downwards as forces redistributed. This displacement was typically 25mm. The jacks under
the steel beams were preloaded to a force equivalent to the estimated shear across the cut line. Then the continuity
tendons were cut; outer webs first, followed by the central web. The jacks under the steel beams were slowly and uniformly
unloaded to release the shear force across the cut line
Fig 9.4 A second cut was made to isolate the closure segment. The closure segment was then lowered to the ground on strand
jacks. In a few locations it was removed by crane or gantry where the ground underneath was not suitable

The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011 35

SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:23 Page 36
10 Closure segment being lowered to the ground on strand jacks
11 Gantry typically used to deconstruct the free cantilevers
with the closure segment being lowered to the ground.
The magnitude of the locked-in forces was estimated to be quite
large with a significant degree of uncertainty. Furthermore
temperature difference between the top and bottom flanges
produced very large bending moments in the box girder that
changed throughout the day. To manage these effects the critical
activities involved with releasing the locked-in forces were
undertaken when the temperature difference between the top and
bottom flanges was less than 2°C. This typically meant the works
were undertaken between midnight and 9.00am.
Cantilever segments removal
Removal of segments from each cantilever was undertaken with
the overhead gantry. To minimise the dynamic effects that would
result from a sudden release of forces, the hanger bars between
the gantry and the segment were pre-stressed with a force
equivalent to the weight of the segment prior to cutting. The
specified cut sequence was: outer webs then central web – from
the bottom up.
To minimise the out-of-balance effects, the segment on the
opposing free cantilever was also stressed up to the gantry in
preparation for its removal.
In the process of cutting along the segment construction joint,
there was a risk of disrupting the cantilever anchorage in the
segment adjacent to the construction joint. If the anchor head had
been damaged, and if the cantilever tendon was poorly grouted,
the segment adjacent to the one being removed could have been
accidentally released. To mitigate this risk, the segment adjacent to
the one being cut was also suspended passively from the gantry
on hangers.
Fig 11 shows how the gantry was typically used to deconstruct
the free cantilevers. This method was used to deconstruct down to
the ±1 segments. Due to the very short pier table, and the large
reaction force from the gantry on the pier table, it was necessary to
leave the ±1 segments on the pier while the gantry launched
forward to the next pier. The ±1 segments were then removed with
the rear of the gantry while it was supported on the lighter rear
36 The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011
12 Box girder segment fitted with delamination restraints around the top
web/flange junction
support leg.
A primary advantage of using the overhead gantry was that it
simplified segment removal in areas where access from the ground
was difficult. Segments could be lowered to the ground at places
that suited site constraints. Typically, each segment was lowered
on to a waiting transporter and carted away for recycling, at a site
remote from the viaduct. Scrap steel was sold to a local steel mill
and the recovered aggregate is destined for use on an upcoming
Transport Agency project.
Strengthening works
Parts of the viaduct had to be strengthened so that it could be
deconstructed safely. This ironic situation arose for three reasons:
firstly to compensate for defects in the original box girder; secondly
to compensate for the weight of the gantry; and thirdly because of
the build up of stresses that could not be released due to the cut
tendons redeveloping their bond. These elements are discussed
below.
Additional post-tensioning
Additional external post-tensioning had to be installed to ensure
segments joints remained closed at the quarter span points of the
spans adjacent to intermediate deck joints. There were six
locations where this was required. Analysis showed that
excessively large cracks would have opened at these locations
and as a result the shear capacity could have been compromised
if the external post-tensioning was not installed.
Substructure strengthening
The load path down the columns and into the foundations passed
through the high strength (55MPa) concrete hinge block (plan
dimensions 916 × 406mm) at the base of every column. Around
the hinge block there was a 25mm gap to ensure the connection
behaved as a true hinge. At 810t the heavy gantry introduced
loads into the substructure up to 40% larger than they had
previously experienced with traffic loads. There was concern that
the lightly reinforced pad foundations may fail in a brittle manner
SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:23 Page 37
under these loads. To reduce this risk and achieve a better load
distribution across the foundation, the 25mm gap surrounding the
hinge was grouted with cement grout resulting in a continuous
connection. For the piers with piles, the additional bending
moment introduced by the continuity would have overstressed the
foundations and the gap was grouted only over part of the column
footprint to minimise moment transfer.
Even with these measures, the piers either side of Broadway
(the longest span) required the foundation pads to be strengthened
to safely carry the gantry loads. This was achieved with a
composite concrete overlay, 800mm deep, over the original pad
foundation.
Strengthening to resist excessive prestress
As segments were successively removed from the free cantilever,
stresses built up in the remaining structure. This was because the
post-tensioned tendons (cantilever tendons and continuity
tendons) that originally supported the whole superstructure could
not be progressively destressed as parts of the superstructure
were removed. Left unchecked, this could have resulted in a
longitudinal shear failure between the web and the deck slab of the
box girder and delamination of the group of cantilever tendons at
the top of the web. Both scenarios had the potential for an
uncontrolled collapse of the superstructure during deconstruction.
The solution adopted comprised the installation of continuous
concrete strips over and under the web-deck junction. These were
then prestressed to the box girder, both vertically through the deck
and horizontally through the webs (Fig 12). The concrete strips
generally extended over the first one to three segments each side
of a pier and ensured the superstructure remained stable should
shear failure occur. They also effectively confined the grouped
tendons and prevented delamination failure.
Risk management
Effective risk management was a critical factor in the successful
deconstruction of the viaduct. A comprehensive risk management
system based on the proprietary Active Risk Management system,
was used to identify, assess, control and monitor risk. Initially the
system was used to establish a risk contingency sum for
incorporation into the target outturn cost. During the detailed
design and construction phase more detail was added, particularly
as new information came to light. Detailed response (mitigation)
plans were developed and assigned to appropriate single owners
throughout the alliance team. Over 80 risks were identified and
300 response plans developed. This is where the ‘active’ nature of
the system came to the fore; as owners were automatically sent
reminders to close out their risk mitigations on time.
A project review panel was established to review and challenge
the robustness of the project team’s identification and mitigation of
risk. The panel comprised senior managers from the alliance
participants who were not directly involved in the delivery of the
project. The panel visited the project every 3 months.
The key risks and mitigation measures addressed for the
deconstruction are summarised below.
Existing structure condition
It was essential for the existing condition of the viaduct to be
understood sufficiently so that the assumptions made in the
deconstruction analysis and temporary works design were based
on an acceptable level of residual risk.
As-constructed details
A detailed review was carried out of previous papers written about
the viaduct3, inspection records and structural assessment
reviews. A full set of as-built drawings (in Imperial units) was
obtained and the information, including the individual tendon
profiles, was digitised into a 3D CAD model. Contact was made
with the original Resident Engineer and Construction Manager,
with both interviewed to gain a better understanding of issues that
occurred during the viaduct’s design and construction.
On-site checks were undertaken to confirm the dimension of key
elements and cores were taken to test concrete and reinforcement
properties. The daily and long term movement of the viaduct
superstructure, expansion joints and piers was monitored using
surveying prisms mounted on the structure with a total station
collecting data automatically over a 24h period. The results were
then back-analysed to confirm the findings from the structural
analysis.
Existing post-tensioning
Three critical aspects of the post-tensioning had to be verified;
their precise location, competency of grouting and strand
condition. Ground penetrating radar surveys were used to initially
identify the tendon locations. These were confirmed at key
locations by drilling 25mm diameter holes to expose the tendon
ducts. The duct sheath and grouting were removed using a hand
chisel to expose the tendon strands and an endoscope was used
to inspect and record the grout and tendon condition. The tendons
were generally found to be in very good condition and well
grouted. It was particularly important not to cut through the
cantilever tendon anchorages either side of the closure segments
and in these cases separate enlarged intrusions were made to
expose the anchor heads.
Ground conditions
There was a real risk of pier settlement during the deconstruction
due to:
– the use of the gantry resulted in the maximum pier load being up
to 40% greater than the viaduct had experienced in its 45 year
history;
– the underlying basalt had required extensive grouting during the
original construction to make it perform as a massive block. To
mitigate this risk the ground conditions were investigated with
extensive drilling and the critical pier foundations were proof
loaded in advance by stressing of the deconstruction ground
anchors (by up to 800t) to represent the loading from the gantry.
A fundamental change was also made to the deconstruction
sequence and gantry operation to reduce the maximum load on
the piers.
Trials to validate critical deconstruction activities
Validation trials were carried out for critical elements that were
either unprecedented or where the consequences of failure were
significant. Testing of scaled down pier bracket/pier interface pads
confirmed the design friction parameters and factor of safety. The
first midspan cut and segment removal were reprogrammed to the
southern end of the viaduct – where the viaduct was closest to the
ground – with temporary back-up propping located under the cut
location to confirm the performance of the cutting method. This
initial trial also included testing of the delamination restraints to
confirm their effectiveness.
Temporary works performance
A rigorous programme of monitoring was employed to check the
forces and performance of the temporary works. Strain gauges
measured the forces in the longitudinal, diagonal and vertical
props. The ground anchors were re-stressed to compensate for
foundation settlements and the jacks on the pier brackets were
checked regularly to verify that they retained the specified force.
Vehicle impact with partially deconstructed viaduct or gantry
The extreme threat for the deconstruction was the risk of a major
vehicle impact with either the partially deconstructed works or the
gantry. Speed restrictions, backed up by speed monitoring,
enforcement cameras and extensive communications, were
employed to reduce traffic speeds from the original 100kph to
70kph. Test Level 4 (TL4) barriers were installed to provide a high
level of containment. The maximum risk exposure occurred once a
midspan cut had been made and the full balanced cantilever could
be impacted at its tip. To mitigate this risk the cantilever was tied
back to the new viaduct box using unstressed prestressing
strands.
The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011 37
SE17 paper_Newmarket Viaduct deconstr_Layout 3 02/09/2011 11:23 Page 38

Deconstruction process control

The analysis and design for the deconstruction was very
prescriptive. Each step of the deconstruction process had to be
carried out strictly in accordance with the plan so that the
assumptions made in the design were complied with. A detailed Eurocode Manuals
deconstruction specification and staging drawings clearly defined
the process. The specification included the detailed monitoring
requirements such as, prop forces, superstructure deflections,
available to buy
differential temperature, and crack width measurement. Alert and
alarm values were specified for each monitoring metric and at each
stage of the deconstruction.
Integration of the design and deconstruction teams in one
project office was a key factor in ensuring the requirements were
translated into workable method statements. An overarching
process control plan, with strict hold points and sign-off protocols,
was used to control the progress of each step of the
deconstruction. This combination of an integrated team and strict
adherence to the deconstruction plan ensured the inherent risks
were managed effectively.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge support and contribution of the
New Zealand Transport Agency in the success of this project, as
well as the project participants – Leighton, Fulton Hogan, VSL,
URS, Beca, Tonkin & Taylor and Boffa Miskell.

References
1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 4th edition 2007
2 Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual, 2nd edition with amendments up to Please visit http://shop.istructe.org or
and including June 2005. Published by New Zealand Transport Agency
call 020 7235 4535 to purchase your
3 Built, J. W., Smith, A. W., McKinnell, P. B.: ‘The Newmarket Viaduct’; New
ow
Zealand Engineering; 20/12, December 1965, p493-511
copy now!
y n
Bu

A short guide to embodied

carbon in building structures
Climate change is widely accepted as one of the greatest
challenges facing the world today. Since the signing of the
Kyoto Protocol in 1997, governments and world leaders
have committed to reducing the output of carbon dioxide
and greenhouse gases in massive amounts, having a
profound effect on most industries and in the development
of technology to meet this aim.

A short guide to Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

provides essential guidance to structural engineers about
how they can reduce the carbon footprint of structures,
Member’s price: £10 focusing mainly on embodied energy and carbon associated
Non-members price: £25 directly with the structure.

Please visit http://shop.istructe.org/or tel: +44(0)20 7235 4535 to purchase your copy now!
Registered Charity with the Charity Commission for England and Wales No. 233392 and in Scotland No. SC038263

38 The Structural Engineer 89 (17) 6 September 2011