Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This report shows that the integrity of Metro North project is wanting in terms
of safety and cost.
Report download on
Cormac Rabbitt
www.darganproject.com 1st December 2009
1. Executive Summary & Recommendation
1.1 Executive Summary
Modern tunnelling technology is capable of far more than the current Metro North pro‐
Contents posals allow for. Tunnel technology, over the past decade, has improved construction
safety and minimised cost by preferring larger single tunnels build by earth pressure tun‐
nel boring machines over multiple hand built tunnels.
When Metro North was developed, there was no capital constraint ‐ neither on the State
nor on private contractors’ bankers. This has since changed utterly. This submission
1. Executive Summary & Recommendation
shows that Metro North capital costs could be reduced by in excess of €180m.
1.1 Summary
This submission shows that replacing Metro North’s open excavation multiple tunnels, of
1.2 Recommendation which there are over 45, with what is now considered a medium size single 12m diameter
tunnel provides; a significantly safer, cheaper and more sustainable solution.
2. Metro Operation Compared to Metro North’s multiple tunnels, it is apparent that a single tunnel is:
2.1 Safety Safer; for patron evacuation, access by rescue services and ongoing infrastructure
2.2 Service Areas maintenance and operation;
Cheaper; because it is less complex to construct, has less geotechnical and pro‐
1
2. Metro Operation
2.1 Safety
This section outlines how a single continuous tunnel, 12m in diameter, fa‐
cilitates significant patron and operator safety benefits that are not possi‐
1 ble with the RPA’s Metro North proposal.
Features of a single tunnel that facilitate safe evacuation of patrons, be‐
2 North Bound tween stations, can be seen in figure 1. The figure shows four patron fire
safety zones, where independent air flows can be maintained to help, in
the event of a fire or breakdown, safe patron evacuation and, most impor‐
tantly, to allow access by rescue services.
The four patron fire safety zones embrace the ability to include between
stations at frequent intervals:
a) stairs connecting decks (shown in the figure);
b) multiple fire doors along and between passageways (not shown in
the figure); and
c) multiple fire prevention equipment and room for new and updated
equipment as they become available.
3 Barcelona’s Line 9*, 12m diameter, metro tunnel has two decks similar to
4 the single tunnel proposed in this report. Features of Line 9 are illustrated
South Bound in Figures 4, and 6 to 9.
Figure 4 also illustrates between twin tunnels; fire safety cross‐passages
and vertical ventilation shafts as proposed for Metro North, ‐ which com‐
pared to a single large tunnel’s features outlined above, can be seen to be
more difficult and less safe:
d) to evacuate in the event of a fire or breakdown;
e) to provide coordinated independent air flow through multiple ver‐
tical shafts;
f) importantly, to allow access by rescue services; and
g) to hand‐build, seal, maintain, etc.
Figure 1. Four patron fire safety emergency areas Conclusion.
Provision of a single tunnel facilitates provision of significant patron and
Cross‐section: between stations
operator safety benefits that cannot be provided with the RPA’s proposal.
* Barcelona Line 9
Paper to Engineers Ireland: International Best Practice in Metro Related Tunnel Projects, by Ing. Nicola Della Valle Tunnelconsult SCP,
www.iei.ie/media/engineersireland/community/whitepapers/International%20Best%20Practice%20in%20Metro%20Related%20Tunnel%20Projects.pdf
3
2. Metro Operation ...continued
2.2 Service Areas
This section outlines how a single continuous tunnel could enhance metro
operation, that is not possible with the RPA’s Metro North proposal, by
providing twelve service areas as shown figure 2.
North Bound The single tunnel offers an operator the space, between stations, to pro‐
vide a safer and enhanced service at lower cost, by, for instance, facilitat‐
ing access to ongoing line maintenance, servicing broken‐down trains, and
allowing access to rail infrastructure such as power supply, parking trains,
fire hydrants, etc.
In addition, a single tunnel provides room to facilitate auxiliary works such
2 as crossovers between tracks through openings in the top floor slab (v fig‐
ures 9 to 11). The openings do not affect the fire air zone safety require‐
5 6
1 3 4 ments or the tunnel diameter.
A single tunnel offers flexibility to provide crossovers where required at a
relatively low cost which is in stark comparison to twin tunnels where
crossovers are relatively inflexible and costly.
Conclusion.
Provision of a single tunnel allows an operator to offer a safer and better
8 South Bound level of patron service at reduced cost that cannot be provided with the
7 12 RPA’s proposal.
11
9 10
Figure 2. Twelve service areas for ventilation,
communications, power supply…
Cross‐section: between stations
4
3. Development of Large Tunnels
3.1 Development of large tunnel boring machines (TBMs)
Figure 3: Development of Large TBMs In 1987 the Japanese made a major step in TBM size, see figure 3, when they
designed and built a 14m. diameter slurry machine for the construction of the
Konda River Tunnel in Tokyo, which was excavated through sands and gravels.
TBM Size
The 2km long tunnel was advanced consistently at 5m/day. This project was the
Ranking 16.8m
USA forerunner of the ambitious Trans Tokyo Bay Tunnel constructed between 1995
2009
and 1999, where eight 14m. diameter machines were used to construct the
15km miles of twin tunnels for the channel crossing section of the project.
Large 15.2m
In 1998 a marginally larger 14.2m. diameter slurry machine was used for the
construction of the 3rd Elbe tunnel in Hamburg, Germany. This 2.56km long
13.7m tunnel was driven through sands, glacial drift material, silt, gravel and boulders
Metres
with only 7m. of ground material separating the crown of the tunnel from the
Elbe river bed. While peak production rates of up to 49m/week were achieved,
Medium
Ireland 12.2m the overall average was nearer to half this rate.
The mid‐1990s also saw the introduction of a wider range of conditioning mate‐
rials and the use of foams. These allowed earth pressure boring machines (EPB)
10.7m to handle coarser materials such as sands and gravels, thus further enhancing
their capability. However, the maximum diameter of the EPBs was then limited
by torque requirement as diameter increased.
9.1m
Since 2000 there has been a continuation of the development of larger and
Small more powerful TBMs. A significant technical development has been the intro‐
duction of ever larger and more powerful torque machines and processes. Di‐
7.6m ameters and tunnel depths are increasing. Tunnels are getting longer and con‐
struction schedules ever more demanding.
In 2006 Madrid introduced the first 15.2m. diameter machines for the construc‐
6.1m
tion of its M30 Ring Road. The minimum cover to a tunnel crown at one of its
structures was 6.5m. Madrid’s particular machines made unprecedented strides
with the tunnel advance rate averaging 15m/day.
Shanghai introduced 15.4m. diameter machines in 2008, the largest in the
Dublin Port Tunnel TBM, 12m. Diameter world, to excavate two 7.5km parallel tunnels under the Yangtze River and op‐
(regarded now as medium size tunnel — as large TBM erated at a pressure of 6.5 bar. The TBMs averaged 13m/day and completed
cross‐sectional areas are now 60 to 90% greater) their tasks in 20 months.
Seattle has chosen a 16.5m. diameter for its 2.7km Alaskan Way replacement
road tunnel which is due to commence construction in 2011.
Conclusion.
Over the past decade it is apparent that tunnel construction technology has im‐
proved safety and minimised cost by preferring sophisticated large single tun‐
nels over multiple smaller tunnels. The 12m. diameter TBM proposed in this re‐
port now could only be regarded as a medium‐size as its’ cross‐sectional area is
53% that the current largest TBM.
5
4. Construction Issues
6
4. Construction Issues ...continued
8
4. Construction Issues ...continued
Barcelona Metro Line 9 Tunnel — Diameter 12m. Note:
Single TBM
Entry/Exit
at
Albert Park
could be similar
...with
a smaller
footprint
than the
RPA’s twin
tunnels
would have
RPA’s complex design of over 45 + separate tunnels, of various sizes, join together, with each join having a
different cross‐section…… could better be accommodated within a single tunnel as shown in figures 1, 2 & 4 to 11.
Multiple air Multiple hand built
Multiple TBM tunnel segments Oval Station tunnels
vent Tunnels between stations. (TBMs have to
be re‐launched at each stations.)
Multiple hand built station Multiple hand built
cross‐passage tunnels cross‐passage tunnels
Figure 4. Illustration: multiple of complex joined tunnel segments
9
4. Construction Issues ...continued
Figure 5: O’Connell Street Station
Extracted from RPA’s EIS
Compounds
Base map
extracted from
RPA’s EIS
C C
Temporary
Bailey Bridge Section B — B
A
Section C — C
Westmoreland St.
.
nn ell St B
O’Co B
Three large hand built tunnels & A
twelve hand built cross‐passage tunnels
Section A — A
A l te r n at i v e
A l te r n at i v e
D
One large machine built tunnel, which can be built safer, at
lower cost and in a much faster time & with Reduced Compound Areas
Section D — D
10 D
Figure 6. Example of how O’Connell St. Station could look Figure 7. Example: Existing Barcelona Line 9 tunnel has 12m. external diameter
Aston
Eden
Quay
Quay
Loo
king
Nor
th
Figure 8. Confirmation 2.9m
that a DART sized car
Barcelona
could operate in Line 9
a Barcelona Line 9
size 12m. ED tunnel
Features
Tunnel cross‐section of 12 meter external diameter:
Platforms inside the tunnel;
One track above the other, separated by an
intermediate slab;
Dart Car Allows for future lengthening of platforms;
Extract From Irish Rail: 8520 Suitable for construction in the high density urban areas.
EMU
11
Auxiliary type works: Figure 11: Train parking
Interconnections between tracks
The connection between the upper and lower level could be provided to
facilitate intermediate terminals, partial services, etc. The foregoing requires
an opening of the slab with a slope (circa 4 %) . The tunnel diameter is not affected.
Figure 9: Barcelona Line 9 single level swop
Figure 9. Design flexibility. Interconnections between tracks and train parking
Fire
escape
door
Cross‐over
2.2m Fire
Doors
Figure 10: Possible double level swop
Going
Cross‐over Up
Going
Down
Section A A
Section A A: Ramps
2.2m Fire
Doors
Note: Four distinct air zone areas for patron fire safety and services
could be maintained throughout the crossover (at mid‐point)
Section A A
12