(Word Count 4,817 without figures)
BNSF Memphis Intermodal Facility
Trent Hudak, Director of Engineering
BNSF Railway Company
4515 Kansas Ave., Kansas City, KS 66106
Phone 913.551.4435 Fax 913.551.4077
Ross Thomas, Manager of Engineering
BNSF Railway Company
4515 Kansas Ave., Kansas City, KS 66106
Phone 913.551.4410 Fax 913.551.4077
John White, P.E., Civil Engineer
Hanson Professional Services Inc. Hanson-Wilson Inc.
1001 East 101st Terrace, Suite 250
Kansas City, MO 64131
Phone 816.941.2178, ext. 7120 Fax 816.943.4029
Scott Lesovsky P.E., Resident Engineer
Hanson Professional Services Inc. Hanson-Wilson Inc.
1001 East 101st Terrace, Suite 250
Kansas City, MO 64131
Phone 816.941.2178, ext. 7128 Fax 816.943.4029
© AREMA 2009 ®
ABSTRACT Design of the BNSF Memphis Intermodal Facility expansion began in 2005, adding 185-
acres and incorporating innovative European technology. This enabled BNSF to initially
double the facility capacity with the ability to increase to over one million lifts annually
in the future.
To accomplish the increase, five 260-foot overhead production cranes and three 169-foot
ground stacking cranes - nearly nine stories tall - are being used. A new state-of-the-art
automated gate system (AGS), using high resolution cameras and automated kiosks to
check containers into and out of the facility, also increases efficiency. The AGS system
allows automatic processing and inspecting of the trucks, containers, chassis, trailers and
drivers. There are six 7,500-foot-long intermodal tracks that are accessible by the
production cranes.
Good environmental stewardship was an objective of the project. The new crane
technology at the site reduces the carbon footprint of this facility compared to similar-
sized facilities by using electrically-powered cranes instead of typical diesel-powered
gantry cranes. Also, concrete foundations and asphalt were recycled in an effort to reuse
resources available on site.
Strict compliance with state erosion control guidelines posed several challenges. Eleven
temporary sediment basins pre-treated storm water prior to its being discharged into three
permanent detention ponds during construction.
A 3,332-foot retaining wall minimized excavation quantities to 1,700,000 cy and reduced
earthwork waste from 1,000,000 cy to 450,000 cy while retaining valuable space for
parking.
© AREMA 2009 ®
Other notes of interest included coordinating among seven prime contractors, acquiring
31 permits, obtaining 39 parcels of land, relocating three major industries, modifying a
major state route, designing and constructing a 3-span 104-foot x 570-foot arch structure
under the proposed facility, and constructing six buildings.
1. INTRODUCTION
With the accelerated growth of intermodal traffic in early 2001, BNSF Railway
Company identified the Memphis area as a prime location for expansion and
development of a new intermodal facility. BNSF reviewed multiple options from
expansion of the existing facility, to moving the facility to other sites within the
Memphis area. The preferred option was to expand the existing facility into the
property located west of the existing yard. This area consisted of mixed use
industrial parcels, bounded by the existing BNSF mainline track on the east side
and major roadways on the north, west and south sides (Figure 1).
2. PLANNING AND OPTIONS
2.1 Growth Projections
From 2001 to 2003 volume at Memphis increased 73%. Plans were made to
expand the existing facility in the short term with a long term goal of providing
facility capacity to accommodate one million lifts annually.
© AREMA 2009 ®
2.2 Site Location
Several locations for a new facility in the Memphis area were looked at and
evaluated based on accessibility, availability, functionality, efficiencies and cost.
The existing facility was chosen over the other sites because it offered the best
location for the existing customer base while meeting the other criteria listed above.
2.3 Crane Selection
The new facility design started out as a typical intermodal facility that would utilize
multiple rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes over single tracks. It was apparent that
this type of design would greatly increase the space needed to reach a design
capacity of one million lifts per year. Wide-span cranes had already been under
evaluation by BNSF and presented a solution to meet the capacity criteria within
the proposed site. This concept allowed a much narrower footprint for the number
of tracks needed to accommodate the desired capacity. The wide-span cranes also
could be used for stacking containers, thus reducing the space required to
accommodate a given number of containers (stacking vs. parking). This concept
utilized a space two-thirds the size of an RTG concept and still provided the desired
one million lifts per year capacity.
3. DESIGN
3.1 Yard layout
The footprint of the proposed intermodal facility expansion was constrained both
horizontally and vertically by the mainline track grade on the east, the existing
© AREMA 2009 ®
Highway 78 (Lamar Avenue) on the west, the Perkins Street overpass on the north
and the Shelby Drive at-grade crossing on the south (Figure 1). The initial layout
included the incorporation of a 3,332-ft.-long retaining wall (Figure 2) separating
crane loading/unloading operations from trailer parking to reduce earthwork waste.
As design continued and further communication occurred with interested crane
manufacturers, a wide-span crane was selected, consolidating the unloading
operations over eight tracks (six current and 2 future) at 20-ft. track centers (Figure
3). The wide-span crane also increases the efficiency of the facility because the
cranes operate at a higher speed than typical RTGs. The layout of the yard
incorporated previous parking lot expansions (21 acres of additional parking was
completed in 2004) at the midpoint of the proposed facility. Multiple bid packages
were awarded in phases to reduce impacts to the existing intermodal operation and
to commence construction while simultaneously acquiring property.
One of the first challenges for the proposed layout of the yard was Johns Creek.
The creek flowed across the south end of the proposed facility, crossing under a
previously constructed truck bridge (2002 expansion project), through future
parking expansion area and running transversely across the proposed tracks and
crane rail foundations. The final design to cross Johns Creek incorporated a three-
cell arch structure with a 31 ft.-6 in. span and 10 ft.-10 in. rise. The total length of
the structure was 570 ft., with an overall width of 104 ft. The arches were designed
to accommodate the loading of the wide span crane live loads and Cooper E-80
railroad live loading.
© AREMA 2009 ®
Public funding sources were identified through the City of Memphis’ Economic
Development Department for work that met their specific drainage improvement
requirements. A drainage improvement project on the south end of the new facility,
known as Lateral B, met the requirements. The existing drainage structure
consisted of two 13 ft.-6 in. by 9 ft. double-arch structural-plate pipes and was
extended 370 ft. to provide an access point from the existing intermodal facility to
the proposed facility. This provided the space needed for the track lead off the
main line into the new facility. It also met a funding requirement that the City of
Memphis had to bid and monitor construction. The City was able to separately
manage this remote portion of the project with minimal impacts on other
construction activities.
3.2 Crane rail foundation design
Three foundation designs were evaluated. They included a spread footing with a
stem wall, a spread footing, and a concrete tie system. The initial concept of the
crane rail foundations used a spread footing with a stem wall. This concept,
initially supplied by the crane manufacturers, was modified to a rail-mounted
spread footing, eliminating the stem wall due to reduced requirements for frost
depth. Consideration was given to using a special 6 ft. concrete tie with a single
crane rail fastened in the center of the tie, but this approach was ultimately
discarded due to the expected higher maintenance cost of a tie structure compared
with a fixed concrete footing structure.
© AREMA 2009 ®
3.3 Automated Gate System
The Automated Gate System (AGS) provided proven efficiencies in other BNSF
intermodal facilities. These efficiencies included the elimination of manual
inspections at the checkpoint by utilizing high-resolution video cameras at both
inbound and outbound portals to provide detailed photos of the inbound
truck/container, which are reviewed by a gate technician before the vehicle enters or
departs the facility. This reduces the time for each inspection from three to four
minutes per unit to less than 90 seconds for inbound and less than 60 seconds for
outbound inspections. The AGS photos are stored electronically to defend against
possible future damage claims. The system also utilizes truck driver biometrics to
provide added security for the site. With a limitation of inbound queuing length off
of Highway 78, and projected inbound traffic of over 700,000 vehicles per year, an
efficient system was required to reduce impact on the state route. Reducing the
time spent in line for queuing has the added benefit of reducing emissions due to
truck idling. Current configurations include eight inbound lanes and seven outbound
lanes, with room to expand in the future for a second inbound and outbound portal,
and three additional lanes for both the inbound and outbound gates.
3.4 Wheel-changing crane
A first of its kind, the wheel-changing crane (WCC) (Figure 4) was custom built
specifically for this site. The purpose of the WCC is to change bad-order wheels on
a car without having to switch the car onto another track. The WCC can efficiently
change out a wheel set on any of three tracks while driving over the center track.
© AREMA 2009 ®
The WCC also provides the ability to perform minor on-track repair of cars. The
crane, traveling on 10 ft. wide concrete strips, allowed the track centers to be
reduced to 20 ft., further minimizing the footprint of the rail side of the facility.
3.5 Power Distribution
This project proved to be unique in that the wide-span cranes are powered entirely
by electricity. The demand for electricity, along with the critical nature of continual
operations, required the use of redundant power supplies. Two substations were
placed in the yard, located a sufficient distance from each other so that in the event
of a natural disaster or human error the probability of both substations being
damaged simultaneously is minimal. The substations are fed by separate electrical
circuits from the power company and contain automatic switching, with either
substation able to carry the entire load of the facility. Electrical power is fed into the
yard at 23,000V and stepped down to 12,470V for distribution through the yard.
All buildings and telecommunication systems, including the AGS, have backup
generator power in the event of total power loss.
3.6 Site Lighting
The lighting supplier, in coordination with the design engineer, provided the layout
for the high-mast lighting network. Their lighting method proved to be an
economical system compared with conventional poles with lowering rings. The
design uses 1500W metal halide lamps. In addition the lighting supplier provides
10 years of maintenance for the lights as part of the purchase price. Thirty-six high-
© AREMA 2009 ®
mast poles light the entire new facility and mainline track. The wide-span cranes
provide supplemental lighting to the track unloading and container stacking areas,
since no poles could be placed within the footprint of the area where the wide span
cranes operate. Half of the poles in the new facility also accommodate video
cameras and telecommunication equipment that support the inventory management
system.
3.7 North Lead
The layout of the facility required that any switching take place on the north end of
the new yard to avoid switching across a heavily congested city street (Shelby
Drive) on the south end. This required the addition of a new 8,000-ft. lead track
called the North Lead. Work included using soil nail walls at two highway
overpasses to allow the removal of the header banks as needed to place the lead
track between the bridge abutment and the first pier. A through-plate-girder
railroad bridge was also constructed over a major city street. This new lead allows
switching of the new facility without interference with main line traffic.
4 PLANNING AND DESIGN CHALLENGES
4.1 Property Acquisition
Part of the challenge with expanding the existing site included relocation of several
existing businesses, over 30 property acquisitions, three city street vacations and the
vacation of a portion of a former state highway. Each parcel acquired had its own
unique challenges. The owners of an existing 12-story grain elevator had to
© AREMA 2009 ®
construct a new elevator off-site before demolition of the existing elevator could
commence. Numerous small businesses were accommodated in their relocation
efforts prior to the demolition of those facilities. Several property owners were
allowed to salvage their own buildings as part of the acquisition process. The
acquisition of property was coordinated with the construction process and was
designed to proceed from the south end of the facility to the north. This allowed
construction and property acquisition to occur simultaneously.
4.2 Environmental and Permitting
Environmental assessments and permitting activities were initiated before or during
the early stages of design so that construction could proceed on schedule.
The site includes several streams that were required to be bridged or enclosed in
culverts. These water bodies are regulated as waters of the United States and the
State of Tennessee. The stream impacts required permits from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers Memphis District (USACE) and the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Environmental
assessments included wetland delineations, endangered species habitat assessments,
and cultural resources investigations. Permits issued for the project included two
individual permits and five nationwide permits, as well as corresponding TDEC
Aquatic Resource Alteration Permits (ARAPs).
Mitigation measures required by the USACE and TDEC permits included three
payments to the Tennessee Stream Mitigation Program, riparian corridor tree
plantings along Johns Creek, and bank stabilization.
© AREMA 2009 ®
Land-disturbing activities require coverage under storm-water discharge permits for
construction activities and development and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Due to the size and phasing schedule of the
Memphis Intermodal Facility project, TDEC agreed to cover the construction under
nine separate storm-water permits. This proved to be a benefit to the project.
TDEC rules limit the amount of land that can be disturbed at any one time to
50 acres, which would have seriously impaired the construction schedule.
However, with the limit applied to each storm water permit issued, the large-scale
earthmoving project could proceed.
The SWPPP requires design and implementation of best management practices
(BMPs) to prevent erosion and control sediment runoff. A variety of BMPs were
utilized based on the specific needs of each area, including design and construction
of 11 temporary sediment basins (varied in capacity between 0.78 ac-ft and 4.85 ac-
ft), sediment traps, silt fence, rock check dams, fiber filter tubes, flocculent
application, applied liquid soil stabilization products, broadcast seeding, and
hydraulically-applied seed/mulch materials. TDEC-certified construction observers
conduct twice-weekly inspections of the project.
In addition to these site development permits, certain facilities and equipment
required environmental permits and pollution-prevention design criteria. The
facility includes several diesel generators for emergency power generation. Air
emissions estimates were prepared and concurrence was obtained from Shelby
County that the generators were exempt from air-permitting requirements. Oil-
filled transformers were designed with containment sumps and oil-retention
© AREMA 2009 ®
manholes to prevent discharges of oil spills. Fuel and oil tanks and the intermodal
equipment maintenance area were designed with multiple layers of containment to
prevent discharges of oil spills.
5 CONSTRUCTION
5.1 Past Projects
The construction of the Memphis Intermodal Facility started as a series of smaller
projects going back to 2001, with all of these projects eventually being incorporated
into the final effort. The first project involved a truck bridge crossing Johns creek.
The truck bridge connected a leased parking lot with existing parking while
allowing the hostler traffic to remain on-site. In 2003, the original 3,000-ft. strip
tracks were lengthened to 7,000 ft. and 20 acres of additional parking was added.
In 2005 and 2006 21 acres of additional parking was added west of the main line,
which required a main-line track underpass for access to the existing yard. These
parking lots allowed the existing facility to expand and the underpass allowed
hostler traffic to travel safely between the intermodal facility to the east of the main
line and the parking to the west of the main line. All of these projects have been
incorporated into the final yard layout in some manner.
5.2 Demolition
Demolition started in September of 2006 and was completed in November of 2008
and consisted of 44 structures located throughout the site and removal of 252,000
sq. yards of asphalt and concrete. The structures ranged from 126 sq. ft. to 190,000
© AREMA 2009 ®
sq. ft. The most notable structure was the demolition of a 12-story grain elevator.
The grain elevator was demolished by crane and wrecking ball and demolition was
successfully accomplished next to the BNSF main line without interruption to train
traffic (Figure 5). All the concrete and asphalt accumulated by the demolition was
transported to two locations onsite and crushed to provide 78,000 cy of reclaimed
aggregate base for the project.
5.3 Grading and Drainage
The grading and drainage began in April 2007 and was completed in February
2009.
Facts on the grading and drainage project:
• 1.7 million cy of dirt moved with tractors and pans and dump trucks
• 34,000 ft. of reinforced concrete pipe installed with sizes ranging from 18 inches
to 72 inches in diameter
• 50,800 ft. of under drain
• 34,000 ft. of electrical and telecommunication duct bank
• 3,332 ft. soldier pile retaining wall consisting of 1,447 - 2 ft. x 8 ft. panels and
391 piles ranging from 10 ft. to 46 ft. in length (Figure 4).
• 21,000 ft. of silt fence
All areas under pavement were stabilized to a depth of 9 inches with cement at 9%
by weight. This equated to over 15,500 tons of cement used for stabilization
efforts.
© AREMA 2009 ®
Due to Memphis’ wet climate and the 21% average soil moisture content at the site,
18,200 tons of lime was used to dry and treat the soil to keep the project on
schedule.
5.4 Arches
Construction of the arches began in December of 2006 and finished in January of
2008. The project included a three-span 104 ft. by 570 ft.-long arch structure
constructed at the southern end of the facility (Figure 6). This enabled Johns Creek
to be covered to provide an additional 700 ft. of strip tracks and crane rail
foundations. Bridge 496.0, immediately downstream from the new arch structure,
required an additional 33-ft. span on both ends of the existing three-span bridge
while raising the existing structure almost two ft. This was done to add capacity to
the structure and to reduce erosion at the abutments due to the discharging flow at
the arches.
Facts on the arch project:
• 11,000 cy of concrete were used in the floor slab and walls
• 198 precast arch units
• 11,500 lineal ft. of piling driven
5.5 Paving
Notice to proceed on the paving package was given in April of 2008 and paving
was completed in June of 2009. The work included over 456,000 square yards
© AREMA 2009 ®
(255,000 tons) of asphalt paving ranging from 4 to 12 inches thick. In addition,
37,000 square yards of 18- to 21.5-inch-thick Portland cement concrete pavement
was placed to accommodate the wheel-changing crane. The contractor placed
concrete through the winter months to keep the project on schedule. The asphalt
paving took a break in January and February due to temperature constraints but
ramped back up in March to involve as many as three crews to recover the lost
production from the winter months and get back on schedule.
5.6 Crane Rail Foundations and Crane Rail
The bid package for this portion of the project consisted of forming and casting the
concrete for the crane rail foundation and the installation of the crane rail on to the
foundation. The crane rail construction started in April 2008 and was completed in
June 2009. The four crane foundations were each over 7,500 ft. long, varying from
7 ft. to 9 ft. 6 in. wide and from 2 ft. 6 in. to 2 ft. 9 in. thick. Variations on the
width and thickness depended on which leg of the crane was being supported and
which type of crane, either production or stacking.
Facts on crane rail construction:
• 24,000 cy of structural concrete
• 2,580 tons of reinforcing steel
• 10,800 sole rail plates grouted
• 21,600 anchor bolts
• 52 expansion joints
• 450 GPS transponders
© AREMA 2009 ®
The contractor chose to construct the foundations utilizing a slip-form method,
which greatly increased production over conventional cast-in-place concrete
utilizing reusable forms. In order to keep up with the required production rates and
to provide a consistent concrete mix the contractor installed a portable concrete
batch plant onsite.
Crane manufacturer guidelines required the rail to be installed within a tolerance of
10 mm, both vertically (cross level) and horizontally (gage). In order to meet the
specification on both cross level and gage the contractor established a high-
precision base line meeting first order of accuracy. Each base plate supporting the
rail was shot for elevation a minimum of nine times to establish the correct
elevation prior to placing grout for final alignment. The contractor then proceeded
with lining the rail, again using the baseline to establish the correct line (gage).
5.7 Cranes
The first two production cranes arrived on the site in June of 2008. Parts for the
cranes arrived from all over the world. The majority of the structural steel was
shipped from overseas to the Port of Houston. The parts for the two cranes were
transloaded onto 24 railcars for shipping to Memphis. Once in Memphis they were
unloaded in the existing intermodal yard and using extendable trailers moved to the
erection site in a 30-hour around-the-clock operation. The crane erection team
spent the next 60 days preparing the cranes for erection. The cranes were then
stood up over a span of seven days using two, 500-ton cranes. Once erected two
© AREMA 2009 ®
additional cranes were scheduled to arrive and the cycle was repeated until all eight
cranes were on site (Figure 7).
5.8 Track Construction
Material for the track structure began arriving on site in July 2008. Switches were
welded in place in August and the leads were constructed in the fall of 2008. All
eleven turnouts are No. 11 self-guarded frogs and use solar-powered switch stands
to reduce the risk of back injuries while lining the switch. The track construction
included over 51,000 track ft. of 136-lb. continuously welded rail (CWR) for six
unloading tracks and one bad-order track. The tangent portions of the unloading
tracks used second-hand rail on second-hand concrete ties. Sliding point derails
were installed at the clearance points and are also solar-powered. A modular
precast-concrete platform grade-crossing type system was selected for use at each
end of the yard across all six tracks to allow access for the wheel-changing crane.
6 CONSTRUCTION CHALLENGES
6.1 Phasing
The greatest challenge during construction involved phasing and multiple
contractors with specific projects on site at the same time. Each portion of the
project was issued in a separate bid package and separate contract beginning in
early 2007 to the last package in mid-2008. In the height of construction there were
as many as 16 separate projects and contractors on site, which with all of the
subcontractors proved to be a logistical challenge. In the middle of 2008 there were
© AREMA 2009 ®
in excess of 200 people per day working on site. Given all the different work
activities going on, the contractors worked well and safely together towards final
completion. Job briefings were held with multiple contractors at the beginning of
each work day. Each contractor was aware of the others’ work for the day, which
made coordination much easier. Contractors also held individual job briefings as
the work progressed during the day. Weekly progress meetings were attended by
all contractor superintendents. Safety items were discussed openly and safety
information was passed between contractors, which contributed to a safer work
environment. The weekly meetings were used to coordinate and schedule future
work to avoid any issues and delays among work groups.
6.2 TLM Construction
BNSF’s Track Laying Machine (TLM) was used to construct approximately 95% of
the track. The biggest challenge with laying the track was that the TLM needed to
work within a 10 ft. slot, with an 18 in. concrete wheel-changing slab or a crane rail
foundation on either side. This left about four inches on either side of the track
loader pulling the machine to navigate through the track slot. Rail had to be
positioned on the concrete pavement, which is considerably higher than normal for
the TLM process. Adjustments were made to position the rail on the concrete and
to keep the ties from dropping farther than normal. Everything ran smoothly, with
production running from ¾ to 1 mile of track per day.
© AREMA 2009 ®
6.3 Slip-Form Pouring Crane Rails
The crane-rail foundation contractor chose to slip form these foundations due to the
aggressive schedule. Given the amount of reinforcing steel within the foundations
and the fact that the foundations are 2 ft. 6 in. tall, with about half of that distance
below grade, this was a challenging operation. The contractor constructed a
concrete form on both sides of the foundation location, about one foot wide by three
to four ft deep, by using a trencher to remove the material and then back filling the
slot with concrete. The soil was excavated between the new forms to about four
inches below the bottom elevation of the crane rail foundation and a mud seal was
cast to provide a dry bottom that allowed the reinforcing steel to be installed
without significant weather delays (See Figures 8, 9). The contractor poured the
bottom portion with a slightly higher slump to ensure the concrete consolidated
around the reinforcing steel and the slip form portion with a lower slump. This
process was coordinated tightly to make sure a cold joint did not develop. The
contractor managed this effort with little difficulty. This type of value engineering
contributed toward the project staying within budget.
6.4 Utility Relocations
Relocation of utilities provided quite a challenge. The final layout required
relocation of a major city water main, four sanitary sewer mains, overhead power
distribution lines, phone lines, gas mains, and cable lines. Each utility had to
remain in service until it was time to cut over to the new relocated utility, which
required planning weeks in advance of the cutover dates. The largest and most
© AREMA 2009 ®
complicated relocation involved five major natural gas distribution lines and a
transfer station. The five gas lines ranged in size from 26 inches in diameter to 42
inches in diameter and had to be relocated and lowered across the new yard. The
gas company suggested, and BNSF approved, directionally boring the new lines
under the proposed facility and the existing BNSF main line, as opposed to a
traditional trenching-and-shoring method. The bore for each line was over 1200 ft.
long. Pulling the new lines back through the bore, which required tremendous
effort by their contractor, was accomplished without incident. The new lines are
now more than 30 ft below the surface of the new yard.
7 Conclusion
The facility was completed in June of 2009 with the AGS being the first portion of
the facility to go into service (See Figure 10). The cranes were to be completed in
August with plans to begin loading and unloading operations in September. Utility
relocations were a major obstacle in progressing the schedule, as many different
work activities had to be adjusted to accommodate the utilities until relocation was
completed. Due to the large number of contractors, working side-by-side,
tremendous time and effort was required by all to manage their respective work
schedules effectively and efficiently to meet the project schedule. Looking back, it
would have been beneficial had property acquisitions and utility relocations been
able to start earlier in the project. Construction time and complexities could have
been reduced significantly had negotiations with land owners and utility companies
been able to start earlier. If an earlier start on these items had been possible, the
© AREMA 2009 ®
entire project could have been combined into fewer construction packages, or even
one package, eliminating multiple contracts and the inherent coordination
challenges.
Acknowledgments
Hanson-Wilson, Inc.
BNSF – Engineering, BNSF – Telecommunications, BNSF – Marketing
Ames Construction, Burnsville, MN
Chris Hill Construction Company, Memphis, TN
APAC Tennessee, Memphis, TN
Kinley Construction Company, Arlington, TX
Haines Electric Co. Inc., Memphis, TN
Tri-state Armature & Electric Works, Inc, Memphis, TN
Nascent, Charlotte, NC
Konecranes, Finland
Texas Gas
Memphis Light, Gas, and Water
City of Memphis
Tennessee Department of Transportation
AT&T
© AREMA 2009 ®
FIGURES
Figure – 1 Site Location
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 2 Retaining Wall
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 3 Site Cross Section
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 4 Wheel Changing Crane
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 5 Elevator Demolition
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 6 Arches
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 7 Cranes
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure – 8 Crane Rail Foundation Slip Forming
Figure – 9 Crane Rail Slip Form Paving Detail
© AREMA 2009 ®
Figure 10 - Site Aerial from June 2009
© AREMA 2009 ®
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location
Figure 2 – Retaining Wall
Figure 3 – Site Cross Section
Figure 4 – Wheel Changing Crane
Figure 5 – Elevator Demolition
Figure 6 – Arches
Figure 7 – Cranes
Figure 8 – Crane Rail Foundation Slip Forming
Figure 9 – Crane Rail Slip Form Paving Detail
Figure 10 – Site Aerial from June 2009
© AREMA 2009 ®
Top Related