Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site.
1 2
Executive summary ......................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 Purpose of report ..................................................................................... 3 Engineering design development ............................................................ 4 System design and engineering assumptions ......................................... 6 Health and safety considerations............................................................. 6 System requirements ............................................................................... 6 Engineering geology .............................................................................. 13 Tunnel engineering and construction requirements ............................... 18 CSO engineering and construction requirements .................................. 28 Introduction ............................................................................................ 33 Main tunnel engineering options preparation ...................................... 33 Main tunnel engineering options assessment ..................................... 47 CSO connection options ........................................................................ 56 Connection tunnel drive options ......................................................... 62
System design and engineering requirements.............................................. 6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
The following appendices can be found in the accompanying document Engineering options report Abbey Mills route Appendices: Appendix A Assumptions register Appendix B Drawings Appendix C Time chainage Appendix D Geology
List of figures
Page number
Figure 3.1 Routes considered................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.2 Typical CSO interception arrangements .................................................. 11 Figure 4.1 Main tunnel site types .............................................................................. 34 Figure 4.2 Main tunnel site zones for all three routes ............................................... 35 Figure 4.3 Main tunnel site zones for the Abbey Mills route ..................................... 35 Figure 5.1 Type A CSO connection .......................................................................... 57 Figure 5.2 Type B CSO connection .......................................................................... 58 Figure 5.3 Type C CSO connection .......................................................................... 59 Figure 5.4 Type D CSO connection .......................................................................... 60 Figure 5.5 Type E CSO connection .......................................................................... 61
List of tables
Page number
Table 3.1 Control of CSOs.......................................................................................... 7 Table 3.2 Geology of London Basin ......................................................................... 14 Table 3.3 Chalk aquifer groundwater levels 2008 and imposed pressure at tunnel invert (east of Shad)....................................................................... 18 Table 4.1 Grouping of shortlisted main tunnel sites for the Abbey Mills route post-phase one consultation ..................................................................... 36 Table 4.2 Drive options consideration of practical drive lengths ............................ 40 Table 4.3 Initial provisional main tunnel drive options .............................................. 41 Table 4.4 Interim main tunnel drive options .............................................................. 45 Table 4.5 Interim list of main tunnel drive options..................................................... 46 Table 4.6 Programme assumptions for comparison of options ................................. 53 Table 4.7 Summary of construction durations for main tunnel drive options ............ 54 Table 4.8 Final list of main tunnel drive options ........................................................ 55 Table 5.1 Frogmore Connection Tunnel drive options ........................................... 63 Table 5.2 Greenwich Connection Tunnel initial drive options ................................ 64 Table 5.3 Greenwich Connection Tunnel final drive options .................................. 65 Table 5.4 North East Storm Relief Type A CSO connection tunnel drive options matrix ........................................................................................................ 65
ii
List of abbreviations
AOD ATD CSO Defra EA EU EPB GWT m/s m3/s NESR OD Ofwat PLA PS SMP SR STW TBM
above Ordnance Datum above tunnel datum combined sewer overflow Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs Environment Agency European Union earth pressure balance groundwater table metres per second cubic metres per second North East Storm Relief Ordnance Datum (mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall) Water Services Regulatory Authority Port of London Authority pumping station System master plan storm relief sewage treatment works tunnel boring machine
iii
iv
1 Executive summary
1
1.1.1
Executive summary
This report has been prepared for Thames Water as part of the process to support the creation of the preferred list of main tunnel sites and preferred scheme for phase two consultation. It is specific to the Thames Tunnel project, but takes cognisance of the Lee Tunnel project. The need for an engineering options report, and the process that it is part of, is outlined in the Site selection methodology paper. It is intended that this report is read as a technical document and, as such, the content has been kept brief with the understanding that the reader has technical familiarity with the subject matter. The report begins by defining the overall engineering requirements that are to be considered as part of the development of engineering options. These are largely summarised without providing any in-depth justification; the main aim of the report being the identification of tunnel drive options. Three main tunnel routes between west London and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW) were identified as part of the design development and the Abbey Mills route was chosen as the preferred route for phase one consultation. The Report on phase one consultation reports on the feedback from this consultation phase and concludes that after consultation, the Abbey Mills route remains the preferred route. Therefore, only the Abbey Mills route is taken forward for further evaluation in this report. The second part of the report presents a methodology for determining possible options to construct the main tunnel on the Abbey Mills route. This is based on engineering requirements and the list of shortlisted main tunnel sites provided by the site selection process, which identifies sites potentially suitable for use as either main tunnel drive, intermediate or reception sites to facilitate the construction of the main tunnel and its subsequent operation. Drive options for the connection tunnels that bring together two or more CSOs in association with the shortlisted CSO sites are also considered in this report. To build the scheme it is necessary to drive a tunnel, or series of tunnels, connecting a number of main tunnel sites. Possible permutations of tunnel drive scenarios (drive options) for the presented sites are established in a systematic manner to permit evaluation. The relative desirability of the feasible drive options are then examined in terms of engineering factors. These and the other discipline factors, such as planning, environment, community and property, will ultimately be used in conjunction with the site suitability reports to determine preferred sites and the preferred scheme, by being addressed in subsequent workshops and presented in the Phase two scheme development report. This report shows that appropriate engineering options are available to drive the main tunnel. These are presented as a schedule of feasible main tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage in the site selection methodology process.
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
Page 1
1 Executive summary 1.1.9 Finally, engineering factors that will be used to provide content for consultations and for determining the preferred sites and associated drive options for the main tunnel are also presented. These are the factors that will be used in the Phase two scheme development report to examine the advantages and disadvantages, including engineering risk, programme and cost.
Page 2
2 Introduction
2 2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
This report identifies and refines possible main tunnel drive options for the Abbey Mills route, giving consideration to the overall location and grouping of the main tunnel sites that have been shortlisted for site suitability assessment. The establishment of preferred sites, and hence preferred scheme will be being addressed in subsequent workshops and presented in the Phase two scheme development report. Stage 1 of the site selection process, from identification of the long list to the preferred list of sites for phase one consultation, was carried out in 2009 and 2010. As part of that process, the Engineering options report (100-RG-ENG-00000-900006 Spring 2010) was prepared which considered the drive options associated with the shortlisted sites for three different tunnel routes: The River Thames route, the Rotherhithe route and the Abbey Mills route. The shortlisted sites and three tunnel routes were consulted on at phase one consultation (September 2010 to January 2011) by presenting the preferred sites and preferred route along with the other sites and other routes that had been discounted. The phase one consultation feedback has been collated into the Report on phase one consultation. Analysis of the consultation feedback received concluded that the Abbey Mills route remains the preferred route. As a consequence of consultation feedback and a number of emerging factors, a series of site selection back-checks were carried out, which led to a number of site changes and therefore opened up new drive options. This Engineering options report Abbey Mills route therefore considers the latest short list of sites, which includes amendments resulting from the recent site selection back-checks, for the Abbey Mills route only. The findings of this Engineering options report Abbey Mills route will help inform the next stage of preferred scheme selection process that will be presented in the Phase two scheme development report.
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
Page 3
2 Introduction 2.1.7 The Engineering options report Abbey Mills route is divided into two parts:
2.1.10
2.1.11
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
Page 4
2 Introduction 2.2.4 Design development activities have included: a. engineering designs and studies of various components of the scheme, and identification of possible feasible tunnel routes b. system master planning to define the sewage system operation changes and facilities needed to control and limit overflows from the scheme c. 2.2.5 construction, transportation and river navigational logistics studies d. field investigations, including ground investigations and surveys. This Engineering options report Abbey Mills route draws on the relevant aspects of these studies and investigations, as well as the results from the site selection shortlisting process.
Page 5
3 3.1
3.1.1
System design and engineering requirements System design and engineering assumptions
The assumptions made for the preparation of this report are identified and listed in an assumptions register in Appendix A (which can be found in the accompanying document, Engineering options report Abbey Mills route Appendices). These assumptions and further requirements are discussed in the following sections.
3.2
3.2.1
3.3
3.3.1
System requirements
The need and hence the overarching requirements for the Thames Tunnel project is described in the Needs Report, 100-RG-PNC-00000-900007. The Needs Report provides the legal and regulatory context and the need for a solution to meet the regulatory drivers. The concept of the Thames Tunnel project is to: a. control discharges from 34 CSOs b. store the CSO discharges c. transfer CSO discharges for treatment.
3.3.2
3.3.3
The engineering requirements to be taken forward in assessing engineering tunnel route and alignment options are summarised and briefly discussed in the following sections. Design development is ongoing so it is noted that the implications of any future changes would need to be further assessed and reviewed. This section of the report focuses on system requirements relevant to the selection of sites and tunnel engineering alignments.
3.3.4
3.3.6
Page 6
3 System design and engineering requirements Table 3.1 Control of CSOs CSO ref CS01X CS02X Combined sewer overflow Acton Storm Relief Stamford Brook Storm Relief Method of overflow control Interception Control measures at other CSOs indirectly controls this CSO Interception and pumping station operation changes at Hammersmith Pumping Station indirectly controls this CSO Interception and pumping station operation changes Interception Interception Interception
CS03X
North West Storm Relief Hammersmith Pumping Station West Putney Storm Relief Putney Bridge Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Rd Jews Row Wandle Valley Storm Relief Jews Row Falconbrook Storm Relief Falconbrook Pumping Station Lots Road Pumping Station Church Street Queen Street Smith Street Main Line Smith Street Storm Relief Ranelagh Western Pumping Station Heathwall Pumping Station South West Storm Relief Kings Scholars Pond Clapham Storm Relief Brixton Storm Relief
CS04X CS05X CS06X CS07A CS07B CS08A CS08B CS09X CS10X CS11X CS12X CS13A CS13B CS14X CS15X CS16X CS17X CS18X CS19X CS20X
Modifications already in place so CSO is indirectly controlled** Interception Interception Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh CSO Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh CSO Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh CSO Interception and additional sewer connection relief* Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh and Regent Street CSOs Interception Interception Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh and Regent Street CSOs Interception Interception
Page 7
3 System design and engineering requirements CSO ref CS21X CS22X CS23X Combined sewer overflow Grosvenor Ditch Regent Street Northumberland Street Method of overflow control Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Interception and additional sewer connection relief* Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Interception and additional sewer connection relief* Pumping station modifications** Interception Local modifications** Interception Interception Interception and pumping station operation changes Pumping station operation changes at Greenwich Pumping Station and improvements at Crossness STW
CS24X
Savoy Street
CS25X
Norfolk Street
Essex Street Fleet Main Shad Thames Pumping Station North East Storm Relief Holloway Storm Relief Earl Pumping Station Deptford Storm Relief Greenwich Pumping Station Charlton Storm Relief
* Interceptions at Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs include connections into the northern Low Level Sewer No.1. ** Planned to be controlled via interception at phase one consultation stage
Page 8
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.3.7 Further elements that the scheme should provide as a minimum are listed below: a. The westerly start point of the scheme should connect to the Acton Storm Relief CSO. b. The easterly end point of the tunnel is to connect to the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills pumping station (this is only associated with the Abbey Mills route). c. Relieving flows in the northern Low Level Sewer No.1 at the Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSO sites, gives sufficient control to reduce local CSO spills so that direct interception is no longer required on the Northumberland Street, Church Street, Smith Street, Kings Scholars Pond, Grosvenor Ditch, Savoy Street, Norfolk Street and Essex Street sewers.
d. A system that ensures the health and safety of operatives, public and other third parties. This includes providing, during both the construction and operational phases, a hydraulically safe and robust system without the risk of flooding or adverse transient conditions; secure and resilient facilities, appropriate levels of ventilation and air treatment, and safe methods and facilities for access and egress into and from the main and connection tunnels.
3.3.10
3.3.11
Page 9
Page 10
3.3.15
3.3.16
Page 11
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.3.17 Large tunnel systems are potentially prone to hydraulic pressure effects, due to the generation of transient (temporary surge flow) conditions. Control features therefore need to be incorporated into the tunnel design and mode of operation to manage these transient pressure effects.
d. The main tunnel shafts and on-line CSO drop shafts shall be provided with large access openings to permit inspection plant to be lowered into/removed from the tunnel and emergency access/egress to be effected. CSO and main tunnel sites are to be selected to ensure space for two mobile cranes to service the shafts. e. The provision of permanent air management facilities, including ventilation and monitoring of the exhaust air quality, along with air treatment facilities (odour control). f. The provision of control gates to isolate the tunnel system and prevent flow from entering. These gates would be controlled from a central control room to permit overview of the system from a single point. They would also be used to isolate the tunnel from inflows during the maintenance inspections, currently envisaged to be every ten years.
g. Integrating the operating regime for the tunnel with the operating regimes at pumping stations, particularly Abbey Mills and Greenwich, along with Beckton STW and Crossness STW. h. Fixed ladders and access ways would not be provided to the bottom of shafts or the main tunnel due to the likelihood of damage during surge
Page 12
3 System design and engineering requirements events and corrosion, as has occurred on other projects. Specific arrangements would be developed for safe access to undertake inspection and maintenance of the CSO drop shafts, connection tunnel and main tunnel structures. Fixed ladder access would be provided to subsurface MEICA equipment, odour control or other equipment requiring routine inspection and maintenance. 3.3.19 When considering the main tunnel shaft spacing for the completed system, and based on the experience from other major CSO systems, it is assumed maintenance and inspection teams would travel through the main tunnel by inspection vehicle supported by a backup standby vehicle. This reduces the transit time and permits a wider range of equipment to be carried with relative ease, and would facilitate access to the internal circumference of the tunnel for inspection. Vehicular access is practicable for this system, given the main tunnel diameter and that the system would be dry when inspection is undertaken, with all penstocks controlling flow into the system locked off securely. Access to the connection tunnels would also be required during inspection. The length of the connection tunnels is highly variable depending on location, and varies from 16m up to 4,600m. Provision for emergency egress would be made at the drop shafts, by the provision of suitable access openings and space for cranes to operate a man-rider. The connection tunnel to Greenwich PS would be inspected using a similar inspection vehicle as used for the main tunnel.
3.3.20
3.4
3.4.1
The route geology has been established using the British Geological Survey (BGS) Lithoframe50 model, from which geological long sections have been prepared. This has been supplemented by project specific site investigations, including a seismic refraction survey, ground and over water boreholes and field and laboratory testing, as well as the installation of piezometers to establish water levels. The geological long section, derived from the model, is provided for the Abbey Mills main tunnel route in Appendix D of the Engineering options report Abbey Mills route Appendices. The basic geological descriptions within in the London Basin geological sequence are given in Table 3.2.
3.4.2
3.4.3
Page 13
3 System design and engineering requirements Table 3.2 Geology of London Basin Brief description of formation Soft clays, silts, sands and gravels. May contain peat. Medium to dense sand and flint and chert gravel occasional cobbles and boulders. Very stiff, fissured silty locally fine to medium sandy clay. Swanscombe member: Sandy clay to clayey sand (< 2m) with some fine to medium black rounded gravel. Blackheath member: Dense to very dense flint gravel (with occasional cobbles) in silty or clayey, glauconitic, fine to medium sand matrix. Oldhaven member: Very dense clayey sand with gravel and shells often cemented as limestone. Stiff, dark grey to black clay with locally abundant shell debris and strong limestone beds (100 to 200mm thick). Very stiff to hard, multicoloured (light blue grey mottled red, orange, brown and purple), locally sandy clay. Gravel, glauconitic and organic sand, silt and clay. 10 20 Approximate range of thickness (m) 05
Era Recent
Group
Formation
0 10
Tertiary
Thames
London Clay
>100
Harwich
0 10
Lambeth Group
Woolwich
Reading
Upnor
57
Page 14
Era
Group
Formation
Very dense silty to very silty Thanet Sand Formation sand. The lowest ~0.5m (incl. Bullhead Bed at sometimes consists of fine, base <~0.5m) medium and coarse, angular flint gravel. Cretaceous Chalk Seaford* Homogeneous chalk with with nodular flint horizons (>100mm thick).
10 15
circa 40
Notes:
Heterogeneous nodular Lewes* chalk with nodular flint circa 50 horizons and marl seams. *Limited to those formations of the White Chalk subgroup expected within the Thames Tunnel project. (Upper and Middle Chalk are now known collectively as White Chalk.) The distribution of strata along the route is largely controlled by the London Basin Syncline, which plunges gently eastwards. Thus, beneath a cover of made ground and recent deposits, the succession of tertiary deposits is gradually exposed west to east along the river until the Chalk occurs at outcrop around Greenwich. The anticipated geology at the proposed main tunnel invert is as follows: a. London Clay Formation western end of the tunnel to just west of Albert Bridge (Harwich at the base approximately between Cremorne Wharf and Albert Bridge). b. Lambeth Group Starts to enter tunnel invert just east of Albert Bridge, forming lower third of the face by Chelsea Bridge, forming full-face by Tideway Walk. Tunnel continues in full-face Lambeth to just east of London Bridge. c. Thanet Sand Formation Within invert and lower third of face between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge, becoming full-face to just east of London Bridge to just west of Tower Bridge.
3.4.4
3.4.5
d. White Chalk subgroup Downstream from just east of Tower Bridge. 3.4.6 Faulting at London Bridge is expected to repeat the sequence, and mixedface conditions in the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation are expected from Chelsea Bridge through to Tower Bridge, with only a short section wholly in Thanet Sand Formation, close to Tower Bridge. Various structural geological models provide different interpretations of the structural setting across the London Basin, but they all generally indicate regular faulted block groundmass in the Chalk and NW by SE trending faults cutting the basic eastwest main synclinal form.
3.4.7
Page 15
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.4.8 The dominant structural geological features are: a. The Hammersmith Reach Fault Zone, a series of north-northwest south-southeast trending faults beneath and adjacent to the east side of Hammersmith Bridge. A 5m displacement to the east is noted. b. The Putney Bridge Fault, a series of southeast northwest trending faults on the syncline with axis to the west of Putney Bridge, with vertical displacement of top of Lambeth Group strata on the eastern hanging wall of approximately 2m. c. The Chelsea Embankment (Albert Bridge) Fault Zone, a series of north south and south-southwest north-northeast trending faults between Battersea and Chelsea bridges, intersecting the tunnel alignment at near to perpendicular. Up to 5m vertical displacement of strata has been noted over this zone, resulting in uplift of the top of Lambeth Group deposits on the east side of Albert Bridge.
d. The Lambeth Anticline, north-northwest south-southeast trending faulted anticline between Vauxhall and Lambeth Bridges, intersecting the tunnel alignment at an oblique angle with a difference in strata level of approximately 5m. e. The London Bridge Fault Graben, southeast northwest trending graben-type feature arranged between Cannon Street and Tower Bridges, with known vertical displacement in excess of 10m. f. The Greenwich Fault Zone, southwest northeast trending. This feature was investigated in detail during the Lee Tunnel ground investigation (2008) and up to 20m downthrow is anticipated to the northwest in a series of stepped faults. The fault runs generally parallel with the main syncline, southwest northeast from Greenwich to Beckton, crossing the River Thames downstream of the Thames Barrier, and is in close proximity to the Greenwich PS.
3.4.9
Other structural features include the North Greenwich Syncline (now more generally known as the Plaistow Graben), Millwall Anticline and Beckton Anticline, all of which have a NE SW trend, contrary to main basin axis. There is a risk of scour hollows that are located on previous drainage channels formed by the River Thames, often found at the confluence with the existing tributaries, eg, at the Fleet, Lee and Wandle. The features usually contain a variety of granular deposits and/or disturbed natural materials and are localised and steep-sided. The scour hollow in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel is the only scour hollow known to penetrate into the Chalk; elsewhere, the hollows only affect the tertiary deposits and, more particularly, the London Clay. Basal depths are normally 5m to 20m below ground level, exceptionally 33m at Battersea Power Station and Hungerford Bridge. Of the known scour hollows, only the hollow at Hungerford Bridge is close to the main tunnel. This feature attains a base level of 72mATD in London Clay near the south bank, equivalent to only 10m above the tunnel crown. Such features may, however, have implications for the shallower connection tunnels in other locations.
3.4.10
3.4.11
3.4.12
Page 16
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.4.13 Known scour hollow locations affect the following potential main tunnel and CSO sites: a. S68WH (Battersea Power Station base 72mATD) b. S94WH (Heathwall base 80mATD) c. 3.4.14 C22XA (Regents base 90mATD) d. C27XA (Fleet base 90mATD). The likely presence of flints within the Chalk may cause excessive wear to the tunnel boring machine (TBM), causing frequent interventions for inspection and maintenance, so an important part of the current ground investigations comprises the investigation of the Chalk structure, Chalk permeability and characteristics of any flint band features. A number of flint bands are present within the Chalk. Within the Seaford Chalk, two well-defined flint bands used as marker horizons, but not necessarily the thickest seams, are the Bedwells Columnar and Seven Sisters. The Bedwells typically comprise a discontinuous layer of very large, irregular flints, up to approximately 500mm high by 300mm in diameter, and on previous projects have been found to have a compressive strength of 600mPa. The Seven Sisters is a continuous band, with flints between 100mm and 150mm thick. The selection of the appropriate TBM is important in this respect and a slurry machine is preferred for the section of the route in Chalk. A slurry TBM was used successfully on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Thames crossing next to the QE2 Bridge. An advantage is the ability to deal with water-bearing fissures in the Chalk.
3.4.15
3.4.16
Hydrogeology
3.4.17 The major aquifer of the London Basin lies in the Chalk, the aquifer being wholly unconfined to the east but confined to the west below the tertiary strata and the London Clay Formation in particular. The Chalk aquifer is generally in hydraulic continuity with the overlying Thanet Sand Formation and sometimes also the base of the Lambeth Group, particularly the gravel part of the Lower Mottled Beds and the Upnor Formation. The EA refers to this combined aquifer as the Chalk-Basal Sands aquifer. Local aquicludes can exist in the overlying Lambeth Group, in particular the Woolwich Formation Laminated Beds, leading to perched groundwater tables. Historical records of engineering schemes have described these perched features as retaining hydrostatic pressures of up to 40m, which may result in high inflows at tunnel levels and particularly in shafts during construction. The Harwich Formation (Blackheath Member) is also known to contain high groundwater levels in places, which cause problems during tunnel construction. A minor regional aquifer lies within the floodplain and river terrace deposits and because of the connection to the Thames, this aquifer is generally tidal, with an average level of 100mATD (0mAOD) +/- 2.5m.
3.4.18
3.4.19
3.4.20
Page 17
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.4.21 Regional monitoring of the Chalk aquifer is reported by the EA and specific monitoring data is available over the years 2000 to 2008. These indicate a depressed groundwater table in central London at 60mATD, with groundwater levels close to Blackfriars Bridge at 62mATD (refer to the groundwater level contour plan of the London Basin in Appendix D). However, the latest ground investigations undertaken by the project indicate that groundwater levels in the Chalk from Rotherhithe to Charlton are 10m higher than the reported EA levels. Groundwater pressure in the Chalk would have an important bearing on tunnelling and especially the construction of junctions between the main tunnel and the connection tunnels. Table 3.3 shows the 2008 levels in the Chalk aquifer eastwards from Tower Bridge, using the data obtained from the EA. Table 3.3 Chalk aquifer groundwater levels 2008 and imposed pressure at tunnel invert (east of Shad) Tunnel section Approx tunnel invert mATD Approx GWT level 2008 mATD Tower Bridge 50 72 NESR 45 78 Abbey Mills 40 92
3.4.22
Approx GWT pressure bar 2.5 3.5 4.0 Note: * Highest levels indicated in Lee Tunnel and Thames Tunnel project monitoring holes. 3.4.23 Short-term effects of pumping can still have a demonstrable impact on the regional contours. For example, levels decreased significantly due to abstractions in supply wells at Battersea/Brixton commencing in 2002, the groundwater level being drawn down some 18m local to the wells, by 10m in central London near Fleet and by approximately 6m respectively in the vicinity of Tower Bridge and the Battersea Power Station area. The EA reports that the groundwater feeding the Chalk aquifer from the southeast interacts with the River Thames from Greenwich to Woolwich as it flows northwest to Stratford, then west to central London. In the Greenwich to Woolwich area, there is potential for/evidence of saline intrusion within the aquifer.
3.4.24
3.5
3.5.1
The British Tunnelling Societys and the Association of British Insurers Joint Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK recommendations should be adopted for all significant tunnelling projects in the UK, including the Thames Tunnel. The objective of the code is to promote and secure best practice for the minimisation and management of risks associated with tunnelling works and to set out best practices that should be adopted. At the core of the code is an obligation that owners, designers and contractors should have processes in place to identify and manage risks throughout the life of the project.
Page 18
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.2 The project has a risk management plan and procedures in place to manage and control risks and comply with the requirements of the Joint Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK. Refer also to Health and safety engineering risk considerations in Section 4.
3.5.4
3.5.6
3.5.7
3.5.8
Page 19
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.9 The alignment would be designed to minimise the impact on third-party structures. A programme of work is underway to quantify the impacts on third-party infrastructure including bridges, tunnels, buildings and utilities. Horizontal tunnel alignments 3.5.10 3.5.11 The alignment options are identified and compared in Section 4 of this report. These must all satisfy the hydraulic flow regime requirements. The minimum horizontal radius for the main tunnel is 600m for practicable construction purposes, but is reduced to 500m when constrained. Smaller diameter, segmental lined, connection tunnels are typically of a minimum radius of 300m, although techniques can be employed to achieve lower radii. In order to minimise the effect of tunnelling on third-party infrastructure, the tunnel should, so far as is practicable: a. pass under the centre of the mid-deck span of bridges to maximise the clearance to the bridge foundations b. avoid interfaces with sensitive existing structures, such as the original Thames Tunnel (Brunels Thames Tunnel, now carrying the Overground railway line) and the Rotherhithe road tunnel c. 3.5.13 avoid passing beneath tall buildings on deep piles d. maximise clearance to third-party infrastructure. The alignment of CSO connection tunnels would generally be based on the location of the main tunnel and its shafts, along with hydraulic considerations. Tunnel lining 3.5.14 The lining for the main tunnel is assumed to comprise a reinforced concrete, tapered, segmental primary lining ring, approximately 350mm thick, and a 300mm-thick concrete secondary lining 1 to provide the required finished tunnel internal diameter. The connection tunnels are also assumed to have a secondary lining for the purposes of this report. Shaft sizes 3.5.15 The main tunnel drive shafts are anticipated to be between 25m and 30m internal diameter, with depths ranging from about 30m in west London to 65m in east London. Shafts of 25m diameter are considered to be the minimum size required to both ensure that a TBM can be launched and that all equipment required for safe construction of the tunnel can be accommodated. Shafts of 30m diameter may be required to accommodate multiple hydraulic drop structures or for use as double drive shafts.
3.5.12
The decision about whether secondary lining is required has not be made at the time of writing this report, but this report has been based on the assumption that it is required, as that represents the worst case for programme considerations.
Page 20
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.16 3.5.17 The intermediate shafts and reception shafts for the main tunnel are assumed to have an internal diameter of between 15m and 25m. The internal diameter of CSO shafts range from 6m to 24m to suit the hydraulic requirements, although at some locations, it may be advantageous to connect the CSO connection culvert directly into a main tunnel shaft.
3.5.19
3.5.20
3.5.23
Page 21
3 System design and engineering requirements construction is the most likely method of construction due to the higher vertical accuracy of the method. A secant piled wall method could also be used. In general, the diaphragm wall type of construction requires a larger working area than other methods of shaft construction. A diaphragm wall shaft is a reinforced concrete lined shaft, comprising individually installed, abutting vertical concrete wall panels, constructed in the ground using specialist plant, prior to the excavation of the ground within the centre of the shaft. Ground treatment and control of groundwater 3.5.24 For all methods of shaft construction, the control of groundwater would be required to enable both safe excavation and sinking of the shaft and base slab construction. In some locations, ground treatment may be required to improve the natural state of the ground in advance of shaft construction or tunnelling. The term ground treatment covers a variety of techniques to strengthen or stabilise the ground, including: a. injection of chemical or cementitious grouts to form blocks that can be excavated without collapse. The method used would be dependent on the ground encountered. b. ground freezing, where injection pipes circulate brine or liquid nitrogen to freeze the groundwater and produce a stable block that can be excavated. Ground freezing is costly and takes a long time to implement. c. compressed air, where a section of tunnel at the face has the air pressure increased, using air locks and compressors. The air pressure is increased to resist the inflow of groundwater. This technique has several health and safety implications and, with the 8.8m-high face of the main tunnel and the potentially high compressed air pressures required means it is unlikely to be appropriate. The 7.2m internal diameter main tunnel has an approximate external diameter of 8.8m based on a 350mm primary lining thickness, a 300mm secondary lining thickness and an assumed 150mm overcut.
3.5.25
d. dewatering to control the inflow of groundwater into shafts and tunnel excavations, thus ensuring excavation stability. This can take the form of either regional (widespread) or localised dewatering methods, depending on the purpose and the extent of pressure reduction required. These methods would include deep borehole wells or localised drains, well points and injector wells.
Page 22
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.27 The main tunnel would be driven from main tunnel drive shafts, which would be equipped to enable the efficient operation of the tunnelling excavation and construction. Reception shafts would be used to remove the TBM from the tunnel at the end of a drive. Given a sufficient size of site, a shaft could be used for both drive and reception purposes. Intermediate shafts can be used to gain access to the main tunnel bore during construction, either to inspect and/or maintain the TBM or to provide access for secondary lining construction (should a secondary lining be required). Location of sites 3.5.30 The required number and distribution of sites for tunnel construction would be informed by the following key considerations: a. The Thames Tunnel Project construction period. b. The TBM types must be appropriate to the geological conditions expected. c. The risk of TBM breakdowns/servicing requirements, and their severity and frequency, increases with the length of the drive.
3.5.28
3.5.29
d. The emergency egress of the construction workforce would become more difficult the longer the length of the drive. 3.5.31 The final decision on the number of TBMs, and hence the number of associated drive sites, would be based on a balance between the type of TBM appropriate to the ground, the available locations of main drive sites, geology, programme, environment, amenity, health and safety, risk, cost and procurement considerations. Construction of CSO connection tunnels would be constructed from main tunnel sites to reduce the space required for CSO sites where possible. Where CSO connection tunnels are driven from main tunnel sites, the CSO sites would comprise smaller reception sites. Excavated material from the CSO connection tunnel could also be handled at the main tunnel sites. Main tunnel site requirements 3.5.33 The Site selection background technical paper provides information on construction activities at main tunnel sites and their size requirements. The sizes are summarised as follows: a. Main tunnel drive sites from which slurry TBMs would be driven need to be approximately 20,000m2, whereas sites hosting an EPB TBM need approximately 18,000m2. If there are site space constraints, it may be possible for an EPB TBM to be driven from a 15,000m2 site, but this may reduce the efficiency of the tunnel operations and increase the risk of delays.
3.5.32
Page 23
3 System design and engineering requirements b. Main tunnel reception or intermediate sites would range from 5,000m2 for sites with shafts constructed into the London Clay to 7,500m2 if deep diaphragm walling is proposed. 3.5.34 The construction activities that follow tunnel excavation are less onerous with respect to site spatial requirements. These would include tunnel secondary lining (if required), shaft lining, buildings and surface works, and mechanical and electrical fit-out works.
Construction logistics
3.5.35 For the purposes of this Engineering options report Abbey Mills route, the following logistical needs have been considered: a. The ability to provide efficient site layouts b. Logistics hubs c. Critical services power d. Transport of materials and equipment e. Main tunnel segment fabrication and supply. Site layouts for logistics 3.5.36 The layouts of individual sites for the logistics purposes would depend on the specific site use and local constraints. The Site selection background technical paper indicates typical layouts for the different types of sites. Logistics hubs 3.5.37 The supply and servicing of the smaller CSO sites could be carried out as satellites to the main tunnel sites. These main tunnel sites may therefore require an allowance for a logistics hub area for facilities to service the satellite sites. This has not been taken into account at this stage of the project and is likely to be contractors responsibility. Critical services power 3.5.38 The temporary power supply requirements for construction sites typically varies from 1.25MVA to 3.5MVA for the smaller CSO sites, and up to 12.5MVA to 17.5MVA for the large main tunnel drive sites serving a single TBM and 25MVA for a double drive site. The number and potential spread of sites for main tunnel drives is such that for the majority of areas, it is likely that insufficient capacity exists, or would be available from existing UK Power Networks at the time construction commences. Therefore, power supply improvement works would be required for main tunnel drive sites and should therefore be planned to accommodate new substation installations Discussions with UK Power Networks have established that it would be prudent to plan for the early procurement of power supplies for the main tunnel drive sites to ensure there is sufficient supply available for the TBMs to meet the project programme.
3.5.39
3.5.40
Page 24
3 System design and engineering requirements Transport of materials and equipment 3.5.41 3.5.42 Construction of the shafts and tunnel works would require a wide variety of materials and equipment to be transported to and from the working sites. Tunnel excavated material would need to be taken away from the drive sites and a variety of materials would need to be delivered, particularly the concrete segments for the main tunnel lining. Other logistical activities would include workforce arrival/departure, equipment deliveries/return, consumables and, for the drive sites, the delivery of the large TBM components. Due to the large volume of materials to be transported, the objectives are to use the river to transport main tunnel excavated material by barge and to enable construction contractors to move other materials by river where practicable and cost-effective. The practicality of rail freight transportation would depend on both the proximity of the main tunnel sites to suitable rail sidings and the local networks capacity for freight movements. It is expected that some deliveries would also need to be transported by road even if barge and/or rail transport facilities were available. Any necessary highway routes would need to be identified as part of the project development. Major deliveries/removals would be subject to specific movement restrictions and conditions imposed by police and traffic authorities. Main tunnel segment fabrication and supply 3.5.46 The supply of tunnel lining segments to the individual drive site locations would depend on their final location and the location of the potential fabrication facility or facilities. This has not been taken into account at this stage of the project and is likely to be the contractors responsibility.
3.5.43
3.5.44
3.5.45
3.5.49
Page 25
3 System design and engineering requirements Quantities and programme requirements 3.5.50 The total quantity of excavated material for all tunnels and shafts is anticipated to be in the region of 1.7million m3 (in situ quantity). This would vary, depending on the tunnel alignment and connections. The in situ volume of excavated material arising (unbulked) per drive at main tunnel drive sites would be approximately 300,000m3 to 500,000m3, assuming a tunnel length of between 5km to 8km. Where two drives are carried out from the same site location, this would increase the storage capacity required if these are to be carried out simultaneously. The tunnelling advance rates dictate the requirements for material removal. For the purposes of preliminary planning, a rate of approximately 1,000m3 to 2,000m3 per day from a site is assumed, depending on TBM type and ground conditions. Marine transport 3.5.54 The feasibility and use of marine transport for the removal of excavated material from potential main tunnel drive sites along the river is dependent on location. Operations in the upper reaches of the River Thames beyond Hammersmith Bridge are considered to be impractical due to the restrictions of bridge height, tidal range, and width of the navigable channel. These would impose constraints on barge movements that would reduce substantially the quantity and rate of material that can be removed, making the viability of solely marine transport in these areas unacceptable. The operations between Putney Bridge and Hammersmith Bridge are considered to be challenging, especially when servicing the peak tunnelling rates. However, sites along this length of the Thames could be accessed and serviced but would require careful planning to mitigate the problems associated with navigational constraints. Downstream of Putney Bridge, there are fewer navigational constraints and, as such, it is possible to reduce the number of barge movements by using larger size barges on the lower reaches of the Thames to the east. Hence, only 350t barges can be used around Putney Bridge, 1,000t barges can be used in the vicinity of Battersea Power Station and 1,500t barges or larger can be used downstream of Tower Bridge. The Abbey Mills Pumping Station site is located on the River Lee, adjacent to the Three Mills Lock. At this location, the river is tidal and only navigable for about four hours on each tide. Downstream from the site, the river is narrow and constrained by physical features, including low bridges. Although not impossible, using the river to transport the materials required to service a main tunnel drive would introduce financial and programme risks that would need to be carefully investigated before a final decision on using the site to drive a main tunnel is made. For the purpose of this options report, driving from Abbey Mills is included as a feasible
3.5.51
3.5.52
3.5.53
3.5.55
3.5.56
3.5.57
3.5.58
Page 26
3 System design and engineering requirements option to be evaluated against other options during subsequent stages of site selection. In-river facilities 3.5.59 Jetty/wharf structures and their location with respect to the navigational channel, together with associated dredging of the river for access purposes, are site specific. Each main tunnel drive site not having substantial jetty or deep water wharf facilities is likely to require a bespoke solution with specific consents from the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the EA. The issues above, with respect to in-river facilities, are more onerous on the upper reaches of the river. Thus, beyond Hammersmith Bridge and to a lesser extent beyond Putney Bridge the scale of facilities for barges is likely to impinge greatly on the existing river and its users, leading to difficulties in obtaining the required consents, feasibility and unacceptable risks to other river users. Particular risks to in-river facilities and barge movements relate to other river users and the need to obtain a marine risk assessment for operations. As such, it is noted that in the upper reaches of the river beyond Putney Bridge, the presence of recreational users, such as rowers and small boats, presents a major hazard and risk to be considered when evaluating sites. Disposal of material 3.5.62 The methods of treatment, transport and disposal are dependent upon the nature and consistency of the excavated material and requirements for final disposal. The overall policy is to favour marine transport of main tunnel excavated material along the River Thames, where practicable and cost-effective. The details of potential disposal site options are not discussed or considered in this report. These would be covered by the project waste management strategy, forming part of the future Environmental Impact Assessment.
3.5.60
3.5.61
3.5.63 3.5.64
3.5.66
Page 27
3.5.69
3.5.70
3.5.71
3.6
3.6.1
The design requirements for CSOs are outlined in Section 3.3 with a list of the controls required for all 34 CSOs, as well as indicating the 18 CSOs requiring interception and three connections to the existing northern Low Level Sewer No.1 (see Table 3.1). The CSO interceptions identified comprise a combination of direct gravity overflows and pumping stations. In each case, the location of the CSO
3.6.2
Page 28
3 System design and engineering requirements interception works would be constrained by the layout of the existing sewer system. 3.6.3 In general, interception of gravity CSOs would be downstream of the last incoming connection to the overflow before the overflow sewer reaches the river, to ensure that the CSO interception is not bypassed during a storm event. For the interception of flows from pumping stations, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with interception pre- and post-pumping. For example, intercepting the flows pre-pumping allows direct gravity interception without reliance on the pumps and therefore provides energy savings, whereas post-pumping interception allows the pumps to be used regularly and therefore reduces the need for special maintenance facilities. If pumps are not used regularly, maintenance procedures are required to periodically start pumps manually to ensure they do not seize up due to infrequent use. In practice, the criterion governing whether pumping station flows are intercepted pre- or post-pumping is likely to be the availability of suitable CSO sites.
3.6.4
3.6.8
3.6.9 3.6.10
Page 29
3 System design and engineering requirements 3.6.11 The existing line of the CSO overflow is to be retained for use as an overflow for the system in the permanent case. An overflow is also required to be maintained during the construction of the interception works to allow construction of the interception chamber and maintain the functionality of the existing sewerage system during a storm event for the duration of the construction period, prior to commissioning of the project. The overflow to the river would be protected by double isolation in the form of two lines of flap gates. These flap gates would either utilise the existing flap gate arrangement (where acceptable) or, in some cases, a new structure and flap gate arrangement. The interception chamber would also be protected against reverse surcharge flows from the drop shaft by means of two lines of flap gates located on the line of the proposed connection culvert. An actuated, motorised penstock would also be positioned within the interception chamber at the junction of the connection culvert. This penstock would remain open during normal operative procedures, but would be closed to prevent flows being diverted through the connection culvert during tunnel maintenance activities. It is envisaged that a control kiosk would be required at each CSO interception site to operate the motorised penstock. This kiosk may also be used to accommodate other control and monitoring equipment and would be sized accordingly. An opening would be required in the roof of the interception chamber to facilitate maintenance access and to allow for repair or replacement of the flap gates and penstock in the future. These openings would be fitted with suitable lockable covers. It is envisaged that the roof of the chamber would be at or below ground level, with the covers to the openings positioned at ground level. CSO connection culverts 3.6.16 The CSO connection culvert would join the interception chamber to the drop shaft. It is the intention to minimise the length of the CSO connection culvert by positioning the chamber and shaft as close together as possible, although this is dependent on the individual constraints at each site. The depth of the connection culvert would typically be determined by the depth of the existing sewer, which in turn sets the depth of the interception chamber. In some cases, it may be required to increase the depth of the connection culvert to minimise impact on third-party assets, particularly if the culvert has to pass under existing structures or utilities. The connection culvert would be sized to accommodate the required controlled or maximum design flow rate. The form of construction of each CSO connection culvert would be controlled by the constraints at each site. Typical forms of construction could include open cut supported by sheet piling or an opencut trench support system, microtunnelling/pipejacking (utilising precast concrete pipe units) and sprayed concrete lining tunnelling connections. Therefore, the connection culvert may be either circular or box-shaped in cross
3.6.12
3.6.13
3.6.14
3.6.15
3.6.17
3.6.18 3.6.19
Page 30
3 System design and engineering requirements section and could comprise precast concrete pipes, precast concrete culvert units, or sprayed or in situ concrete. 3.6.20 There may also be a series of access manholes along the length of the culvert to facilitate the installation, removal, inspection and maintenance of the required flap gates and penstocks. For foreshore interception of CSOs, the interception chamber may be accommodated within the top of the drop shaft and no connection culvert would be required. CSO drop shafts 3.6.22 The purpose of the drop shaft is to allow the intercepted flows from the CSO to be dropped to the level of the main tunnel or, in some cases, to the level of the connection tunnel, with an acceptable amount of air entrainment. Three forms of mechanism have been considered to drop the flows within the drop shaft. These are summarised as follows: Straight drop: Due to energy dissipation, the use of a straight drop is only considered appropriate where the drop in height is less than 10m. The direct drop approach would maintain the flow within a pipe rather than being a waterfall. For the majority of CSOs, the drop in height is greater than 10m and therefore a straight drop would not be used. Cascade drop: Cascade platforms within shafts are used to dissipate energy for drops greater than 10m. The cascade typically includes alternating platforms at approximately 3-6m intervals over the full depth of the shaft, causing the energy to be dissipated in stages as the flows drop to the required level. Due to the regular inspection and maintenance regime required for cascade type drops, and the associated health and safety issues, cascade type drop shafts are not preferred. Vortex drop: Vortex drop tubes can be used for drops greater than 10m. In order to generate the vortex at the top of the drop tube, vortex tubes are envisaged to be in the range of 0.9m to 3m diameter. A vortex drop is a system that accelerates and spins the flow so it adheres to the wall of a tube, which is a proven and robust means of transferring flows from a shallow structure to a deep tunnel. Drop shafts would be sized to accommodate maximum flows, having regard to the mechanism used to drop the flow to tunnel level. Connection tunnel 3.6.27 3.6.28 Connection tunnels take flows either between two drop or from one drop shaft to the main tunnel/main tunnel shaft. Details of the types and methods of CSO connection to the main tunnel are outlined in sections 4.3 and 5.1. Air management 3.6.29 When the system fills with CSO discharges, the air in the tunnels will be displaced, and when the flow is removed from the tunnels, air will need to return. When the tunnels are empty, the design also includes means of
3.6.21
3.6.23
3.6.24
3.6.25
3.6.26
Page 31
3 System design and engineering requirements refreshing the air within the tunnels. Therefore, the interaction of combined sewage inflow and management of air requirements are considered and addressed. 3.6.30 The air management system would involve a combination of air extraction and intake structures, and buildings to house air treatment equipment. The size and configuration of the structures would depend primarily on how air moves through the system and the amount of air to be moved.
3.6.34
Page 32
4 4.1
4.1.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
Shortlisted sites
4.2.3 Potential sites have been identified using the short list, established via the process set out in the Site selection methodology paper. The shortlisted sites fall into two categories: a. Sites potentially suitable as main tunnel sites b. Sites potentially suitable as CSO sites. 4.2.4 The site selection process searched for three types of sites to construct the main tunnel: a. Main tunnel drive sites b. Main tunnel reception sites c. 4.2.5 Main tunnel intermediate sites. The requirements and site area of a main tunnel reception site are similar to those of an intermediate site but not those of a main tunnel drive site. For site selection purposes, a main tunnel reception site was considered in the same way as an intermediate site. Therefore, only two categories of sites needed to be identified in the site selection process, which were: a. drive sites the term used for main tunnel (single or double) drive sites (at the beginning of site selection this category of site was referred to as main shaft sites) b. intermediate sites the term used for both main tunnel intermediate sites and main tunnel reception sites (at the beginning of site selection this was referred to as intermediate shaft sites). 4.2.6 There are a total of 53 main tunnel sites (all potentially suitable as reception or intermediate sites, but not all are suitable as drive sites) and 63 CSO sites identified on the final short list for phase two consultation.
Page 33
4 Main tunnel drive options There were 52 main tunnel sites and 71 CSO sites on the short list for phase one consultation. Main tunnel sites may either be used individually or combined with an adjoining site to provide the required site area.
4.2.8
Page 34
Site zones
4.2.9 To manage the total number of combinations of main tunnel drive site options, the shortlisted sites have been grouped into a limited number of main tunnel site zones. This was based on the geographical proximity of sites. Figure 4.2 shows the zones for all three tunnel routes. Figure 4.2 Main tunnel site zones for all three routes
S11 Abbey Mills S10 Beckton S7 Limehouse S0 Acton S1 Hammersmith S5 Battersea S6 Shad S8 Deptford S4 Lots Road S2 Barn Elms S3 Wandsworth Bridge S9 Charlton
4.2.10
However, as zones S8, S9 and S10 are only associated with the River Thames route and Rotherhithe route, they are not considered further in this report. Figure 4.3 shows the zones associated with the Abbey Mills route. Figure 4.3 Main tunnel site zones for the Abbey Mills route
Page 35
4 Main tunnel drive options 4.2.11 Table 4.1 identifies which zone each of the shortlisted main tunnel sites belongs to for the zones associated with the Abbey Mills route (ie, zones S0 to S7 and S11). These are shown on drawings in Appendix B of the Engineering options report Abbey Mills route Appendices. The specific assessment of the available worksites within each zone is not considered within this report. These factors are examined within the site suitability reports, which include its use as both a temporary worksite and the final permanent works requirements. Table 4.1 provides the potential usage of the shortlisted main tunnel sites.
4.2.12
4.2.13
Table 4.1 Grouping of shortlisted main tunnel sites for the Abbey Mills route post-phase one consultation Site zone Site ID S01EG S02EG S0 S03EG S04EG S1 S2 Site name Acton Storm Tanks Commercial units, Stanley Gardens Acton Park Industrial Estate Industrial units, Allied Way Local authority Ealing Ealing Ealing Ealing Site usage reception reception reception reception
No shortlisted sites S17RD Barn Elms Richmond Wandsworth double drive single drive reception/intermediate reception/intermediate
S18WH Feathers Wharf Fulham Depot, next to Wandsworth Bridge Carnwath Road Riverside
S3
S72HF
Hammersmith reception/intermediate and Fulham Hammersmith single drive and Fulham reception/intermediate double drive single drive reception/intermediate double drive with S92WH single drive reception/intermediate
S87HF S4
Page 36
Site ID
Site name
Site usage spilt double drive with S93WH spilt single drive with S93WH split reception/intermediate with S93WH reception/intermediate spilt double drive with S80WH spilt single drive with S80WH reception/intermediate double drive single drive reception/intermediate double drive single drive reception/intermediate single drive spilt single drive with S80WH reception/intermediate double drive single drive reception/intermediate single drive reception/intermediate single drive reception/intermediate single drive reception/intermediate single drive reception/intermediate split reception/split intermediate reception/intermediate
S72WH
Wandsworth
Wandsworth
Wandsworth
Wandsworth
Wandsworth
Depots, Ponton S95WH Road S54SK S6 S76SK S020T S021T S7 S024T/ S025T S036T Chambers Wharf Shadwell Basin King Edward Memorial Park Heckford Street sites Limehouse Basin Kings Stairs Gardens
Wandsworth
Southwark Southwark Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets
Page 37
4 Main tunnel drive options Site zone Local authority Newham Newham Newham
Site ID S84NM
Site name Abbey Mills Pumping Station Three Mills Green Three Mills Studios
Site usage single drive reception single drive reception single drive reception
S11
S85NM S86NM
Split sites that are too small on their own but could be used in combination with other sites(s) to form a suitable site.
d. CSO site options a number of CSO sites could be available for each CSO drop shaft, and the type of connection may vary according to a number of factors, including proximity of the main tunnel or one of its sites. 4.2.15 A number of drive options exist and are based on the number of TBMs used and the number of main tunnel sites that they can be driven from. This approach differentiates between main tunnel sites from which tunnels can be driven from in either one or both directions. To establish the range of drive options, each drive is considered between two zones, with a drive site within one zone and a reception site within another zone. By combining different zones together, a number of options can be established. By also applying the following two basic constraints, the initial number of drive options can be established: a. Drive lengths (maximum and minimum) b. Site type (potential to be a double drive, single drive or intermediate/reception site). 4.2.17 The determination of main tunnel options in this report considers these zones of sites as a single entity. The individual site options will subsequently be considered and assessed as part of the Phase two scheme development report.
4.2.16
Page 38
c.
The minimum drive length is 3km, because the set-up costs are disproportionate to the tunnelling costs for lengths less than 3km.
Page 39
4 Main tunnel drive options Table 4.2 Drive options consideration of practical drive lengths
Wandsworth Bridge Zone name Abbey Mills Limehouse Barn Elms Battersea
Acton
S0 0 S0
S2 3,954 3954
S3 6,682 6682
S5 11,543 11543
S6 18,981 18981
Shad
S7 20,454 20454
S2
2728
7589
15027
16500
20110
S3
4860
12298
13772
17381
S5
7438
8912
12521
S6
1474
5083
S7
3609
S11 No sites available in the zone S1 (Hammersmith) or zone S4 (Lots Road) Key drive length too short drive length too long drive length potentially acceptable Drive length acceptable Drive length potentially too long from a deep diaphragm wall shaft Drive length too long or too short Potential to be a double or single drive or intermediate/reception site Potential to be a single drive or intermediate/reception site Potential to be an intermediate/reception site
Page 40
Zone
Wandsworth Bridge Abbey Mills Limehouse Barn Elms Battersea
Acton
Drive option W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
S0 r r r r r r
S2 d-r d-d i
S3 d-r i -
S5 d r d d d d d d d d r r
S6
Shad
S7
S11
Western
d r d r d d
The site type for the Zone S5 (Battersea) depends on which eastern drive option is matched with which western drive option. There are no sites available in Zone S1 (Hammersmith) and Zone S4 (Lots Road). Legend: The following nomenclature/legend is used in the table to define the types of site required in the defined zones. Where 'd' denotes drive site, 'r' denotes reception site and 'i' denotes intermediate site. The tunnel is driven from a d drive location to a r reception location and through an 'i' intermediate location.
No site required Single Reception Double Intermediate Reception Drive and Reception Single Drive Double Drive
Eastern
4.2.23
r-r
r-d
d-d
Table 4.3 shows that, based on only considering drive length and site type constraints, there are six drive options for the western zones (S0 Acton to S5 Battersea) which would need to be matched with one of the six drive options for the eastern zones (S6 Shad, S7 Limehouse and S11 Abbey Mills) making 36 different drive options.
Page 41
4.2.26
4.2.28
4.2.29
Page 42
4 Main tunnel drive options b. increased health and safety hazards for work required to maintain the TBM c. increased risk of mechanical TBM failure (seals, bearings and screw conveyor)
d. increased risk of wear on cutting head e. increased risk of excavated material transfer problems due to groundwater content f. 4.2.30 increased risk mitigation cost resulting from above. To reduce the risks associated with tunnelling across the change from Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation to Chalk, it is preferable that the final length of tunnel bored in Chalk at the end of a long EPB drive be kept to a minimum. However, it is considered that for both the drive options from Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S7 Limehouse (E1 and E2) and both the drive options from Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S6 Shad (E3 and E4), the distance in Chalk is not long enough to remove the options from the list of feasible drive options. Similar risks and assumptions would apply to drive options that include driving a tunnel from either zones S6 Shad or S7 Limehouse to Zone S5 Battersea (E5 and E6). Deep diaphragm wall shafts 4.2.32 Sites in zones S5 Battersea, S6 Shad, S7 Limehouse and S11 Abbey Mills require deep diaphragm wall shafts due to the depth to the tunnel. To keep within the six-year construction period programme constraint, the drive length is approximately 8km for tunnels driven from deep diaphragm wall shafts because of the longer period of time required to construct deep shafts by diaphragm wall method. The drive length is potentially too long for the following drive options as their drive lengths are over 8km (see Table 4.2): a. Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S0 Acton (ie, drive options W4, W5 and W6) b. Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S7 Limehouse (ie, drive options E1 and E2) c. 4.2.34 Zone S7 Limehouse to Zone S5 Battersea (ie, drive option E6). The drive lengths are potentially too long, but W4, W5, W6, E1, E2 and E6 drive options will not be removed from the list of feasible options for drive length reasons alone. The 8km constraint is approximate, therefore further programme assessment will be undertaken (see Table 4.7). Access points 4.2.35 Main tunnel drive shafts, and CSO drop shafts that are on line with the main tunnel, would be the designated access points to the tunnel system. As the spacing between such permanent access points shall not exceed 9km, the drive option W4 (Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S0 Acton) needs to consider if an intermediate site is required as the drive length is over 9km.
4.2.31
4.2.33
Page 43
4 Main tunnel drive options 4.2.36 Although this main tunnel drive length is too long without an intermediate site for access purposes, this drive option W4 will not be removed from the list of feasible options in case a CSO drop shaft can be incorporated on-line to provide the required access point instead. Tunnel vertical alignment and gradient 4.2.37 The western drive options involve drives between Zone S5 Battersea and Zone S0 Acton. However, there is a vertical tunnel alignment constraint imposed by the London Ring Main and other existing tunnels in this section of tunnel and therefore the tunnel vertical alignment needs to change along the route. The tunnel vertical alignment change can be accommodated at a shaft in either Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge. Drive options W1 to W3 have either drive shafts or reception shafts in Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge to accommodate the vertical alignment change. Drive options W5 and W6 have an intermediate shaft in Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge to accommodate the vertical alignment change. However, drive option W4 has no shafts in Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge to accommodate the vertical alignment change and therefore has been removed from the list of feasible drive options.
4.2.38
4.2.39
4.2.40
Page 44
4 Main tunnel drive options Table 4.4 Interim main tunnel drive options
Zone
Wandsworth Bridge Abbey Mills Limehouse Barn Elms Battersea
Acton
Drive option W1 W2 W3 W5 W6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Western Eastern
S0 r r r r r
S2 d-r d-d i
S3 d-r i -
S5 d r d d d d d d d r r
S6
Shad
S7
S11
d r d r d d
The site type for the Zone S5 (Battersea) depends on which eastern drive option is matched with which western drive option. There are no sites available in Zone S1 (Hammersmith) and Zone S4 (Lots Road).
4.2.42
Table 4.4 shows that the interim list potentially feasible drive options include five drive options for the western zones (S0 Acton to S5 Battersea) which would need to be matched with one of six drive options for the eastern zones (S5 Battersea to S11 Abbey Mills), making 30 different drive options. The full list of interim drive options is provided in Table 4.5 below.
Page 45
4 Main tunnel drive options Table 4.5 Interim list of main tunnel drive options
Zone
Number of drive sites Wandsworth Bridge Number of reception sites sites Number of intermediate sites Number of TBMs Abbey Mills
Drive option W1/E1 W1/E2 W1/E3 W1/E4 W1/E5 W1/E6 W2/E1 W2/E2 W2/E3 W2/E4 W2/E5 W2/E6 W3/E1 W3/E2 W3/E3 W3/E4 W3/E5 W3/E6 W5/E1 W5/E2 W5/E3 W5/E4 W5/E5 W5/E6 W6/E1 W6/E2 W6/E3 W6/E4 W6/E5 W6/E6
S0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
S2 d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d i i i i i i
S5 d d d d d d r r r r r r d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r
S6 r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r -
S7 r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r
Limehouse
Barn Elms
Battersea
Acton
Shad
S11 d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d
3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4.2.43
Table 4.5 lists the 30 potentially feasible drive options and shows that: a. 18 options use four TBMs and 12 options use three TBMs b. four options use four drives sites and one reception site; 14 options use three drive sites and two reception sites; four options use three drive sites, one intermediate site and one reception site; and eight options use two drive sites, one intermediate site and two reception sites. c. d. All options require a main tunnel reception site in Zone S0 Acton, ie, at one end of the main tunnel. All options require a main tunnel site (drive or reception) in Zone S11 Abbey Mills, ie, at the other end of the main tunnel.
Page 46
4 Main tunnel drive options e. All options require a main tunnel site in Zone S5 Battersea which also happens to be approximately halfway along the main tunnel. f. Not all drive options require a main tunnel site in Zone S2 Barn Elms and not all drive options require a main tunnel site in S3 Wandsworth Bridge. However, a main tunnel site is required in one of these two zones.
g. Not all drive options require a main tunnel site in Zone S6 Shad and not all drive options require a main tunnel site in S7 Limehouse. However, a main tunnel site is required in one of these two zones.
4.3
4.3.1 4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.6
Page 47
4 Main tunnel drive options adverse effects from a long-term inspection and maintenance perspective will be proportional to the number of access shafts provided. There are different numbers of sites depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. Geology 4.3.8 Flints and flint bands cause wear to the TBM cutters and TBM cutterhead face protection coatings, increasing the likelihood and frequency of face interventions to replace worn components. Face interventions involve sending workers in front of the TBM cutterhead and are considered to be risky operations. Although essential and normal for tunnels, the number of face interventions should ideally be minimised in order to reduce the associated construction risks of entering the TBM cutterhead in proximity to unsupported ground and delay. The likelihood and frequency for face intervention for each option is related to the length of tunnel, and is dominated by the length in flint-bearing Chalk formations (notably the Seaford Formation with the Bedwell and Seven Sisters flint bands and, to a lesser extent, the Lewes Formation) and the type and design of the TBM. Designing the cutterhead to incorporate wear indicators and endoscope inspection and allow rear replacement of discs reduces the need to carry out face interventions. High groundwater pressures at the face may increase the programme risk arising from failure of TBM bearings associated with ground being forced under pressure past the seals into the main bearings. It is also more complex to undertake routine inspection and maintenance interventions and may result in longer periods between inspections, increasing the risks of unexpected component failure. There are also increased health and safety hazards associated with face interventions. The risks to tunnelling are therefore proportional to the maximum groundwater pressures likely to be encountered and the length over which they occur. Tunnel face interventions and appropriate face control become more difficult where there are mixed geological conditions at the face and these conditions vary over short distances. The level of these risks is related to the lengths of tunnel in Chalk, where there is little or no cover below the interface with the Thanet Sand Formation, because the Chalk is less stable under these conditions. The risk of delay due to disturbed ground conditions and sudden groundwater ingress increases at geological faults. The major geological structures identified by the site investigation are described in Section 3.4.8. The impacts are likely to be minimal for closed-face tunnelling (provided by both EPB TBM and slurry TBM tunnelling methods). The level of risk for each option is related to the number of likely fault zones along each route. This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options experience essentially the same geology.
4.3.9
4.3.10
4.3.11
4.3.12
Page 48
4 Main tunnel drive options Third-party assets 4.3.13 The excavation of the works, including the deep shafts and main tunnels, will result in ground movements that have the potential to impact adjacent properties and infrastructure. The numbers impacted is directly related to the length of the tunnel. The magnitude of the influence is related to the size of the excavation, ground conditions, depth of the excavation and geometrical relationship to the infrastructure and the method of construction. Potential influence on major infrastructure including bridges and tunnels: The level of risk for each option would depend on how many structures are within the ground movement influence of the tunnels. The presence of unknown obstructions or future planning proposals along the route of the tunnel presents a risk to the delivery of the scheme. The level of this risk is reduced when the tunnel follows the line of the river. This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options encounter essentially the same third-party assets. Site requirements 4.3.17 Risks associated with drive sites may include works in proximity to major utility services or railways, and completion of enabling works such as temporary jetties or cofferdams. The level of this risk is related to the number of worksites required. Servicing of the tunnel drive sites presents risks in terms of establishing transport links to and from the site for materials delivery and for the removal of excavated material. Increased levels of risk would occur where there are no established connections to main roads or existing wharf facilities. Larger sites would offer more flexible worksite arrangements and thus present lower risks. There are different numbers of drive sites, depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. Tunnel alignment 4.3.20 Construction risks associated with tunnelling are proportional to the total length of the tunnel. General tunnelling risks are associated with working at depth in a confined environment, using heavy machinery and handling heavy structural elements. This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options are all essentially of the same length.
4.3.14
4.3.15
4.3.16
4.3.18
4.3.19
4.3.21
Page 49
4 Main tunnel drive options TBM 4.3.22 The potential for unplanned interventions due to mechanical breakdowns or cutterhead/tool wear presents a health, safety and construction risk. This risk is reduced with shorter drive lengths and can be more effectively mitigated where there are opportunities to provide ground treatment from surface locations such as roads, canals or river courses, where there are no buildings or other significant structures. There is a further risk of additional interventions being required where a tunnel drive passes from the Thanet Sand Formation into the Chalk, compared with tunnelling through the geological units above the Thanet Sand Formation. Tunnelling through the Chalk, and especially Chalk containing a high percentage of flint, is likely to increase the frequency and duration of interventions to carry out inspections and maintenance. Mixed-face conditions may cause the TBM to run less efficiently, with more delays and possible breakdowns, and over-excavation resulting in increased ground movements. This risk level would be higher when the tunnel drive follows the interface boundary between two geological strata (either clay/sand or sand/chalk interfaces). There are different numbers of TBM, depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. Constructability 4.3.26 The risks associated with long tunnel drives are discussed in Section 4.2. It would be most preferable to reduce the risks associated with tunnelling across the change from Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation to Chalk, such that the final length of tunnel bored in Chalk at the end of a long EPB drive is kept to a minimum. It is therefore considered that, based on engineering risk, drive options with drives from Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S7 Limehouse are not favoured and, where possible, should be avoided. Failure of construction contractual arrangements is a project risk. Division of the main tunnel drives into more sections would reduce the overall risk to the project. Opportunity for savings may be possible where double drive sites are used. Larger contracting organisations may be able to construct two drives from a single shaft, possibly including omission of a shaft by sharing some of the worksite facilities. There are different constructability issues, depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. CSO connections 4.3.30 The health, safety and construction risks associated with the CSO sites and interception structures is proportional to the number of drop shafts required for each option and the depth of those shafts. Some drop shafts
4.3.23
4.3.24
4.3.25
4.3.27
4.3.28
4.3.29
Page 50
4 Main tunnel drive options are required to be as deep as the main tunnel and it would be desirable to minimise the number of these drop shafts. 4.3.31 Health, safety and construction risks associated with the construction of the connection tunnels are proportional to the length of connection tunnel for each option. Health, safety and construction risks associated with the construction of connections to the main tunnel are proportional to the number of connections. It is inherently less risky, and therefore preferable, to make connections to main tunnel shafts rather than directly to the main tunnel. This is because access for maintenance and inspection to a connection point located in a shaft is more straightforward than a connection point located inside a tunnel. In addition, the construction of a connection directly into the tunnel is more difficult to build and the connection works at a shaft would not interfere with the progress of the main tunnel construction. Options that require junction works in deep, water-bearing ground would carry higher risk. While the relative benefits or adverse effects of each drive option are not examined as part of this report, it is highlighted that the different main tunnel routes do provide different storage volumes and different system performances (ie, different volumes and frequencies of spills to the river). This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all the connections to CSOs are essentially the same for all drive options.
4.3.32
4.3.33
Programme considerations
4.3.34 The overall project programme is based on a construction period of six years, which includes local site M&E testing and commissioning but does not include system-wide testing and commissioning. These construction programme activities follow on from the overall project design, planning and procurement activities. A maximum six-year construction period has been assumed, as required, to construct the project in an efficient manner while enabling the project to completed as early as possible to mitigate European Union fines. A six-year period has been shown to allow TBMs to be matched to the geology (ie, tunnelling production rates are maximised), and to ensure the drive lengths are reasonable (ie, the risk of interventions to repair the face is not excessive) and the size of construction contracts are viable (ie, they can be financed and there are contractors in the market large enough to take on the contracts). Drive options longer than six years use longer drives through variable geology, require larger contracts and put at risk fines from the European Union. The main factors that affect the duration of the construction programme include the following: a. Location of drive shafts the time it takes to construct a shaft to launch a TBM is critical to the duration of the programme. Therefore, deep shafts in more difficult ground where dewatering activities and
4.3.35
4.3.36
Page 51
4 Main tunnel drive options diaphragm wall methods are required would add time to the programme, compared with shallower shafts in more favourable ground. b. Length of drive the duration of a drive is generally proportional to its length, although the average drive rates would reduce for very short drives where the proportion of time taken to establish the full TBM backup is longer. The geological conditions also affect the rate of tunnelling. c. CSO connection works to main tunnel shafts some CSO connections to a drive shaft can only be constructed after completion of the main tunnel drive and this could affect the critical path. At main tunnel reception shafts, there is likely to be more time before the arrival of the TBM to complete any CSO connections.
Page 52
4 Main tunnel drive options 4.3.37 The programme assumptions for the essential construction activities used for the comparison of drive options are provided in Table 4.6. Table 4.6 Programme assumptions for comparison of options
Zones S0 to S4 Key Activity Mobilise shaft site Build and excavate shaft Base slab to shaft Tunnel eye Tunnel worksite setup TBM installation 200m drive for TBM burial and backup installation Zones S5 to S11 Comment Includes dewatering for sites in the east Based on segment, SCL or caisson for zones S0 to S4 and diaphragm wall for zones S5 to S11 Based on permanent base slab of reinforced concrete Based on opening in segment shafts and internal collar arrangement for d'wall shafts Transform the site from shaft construction setup to tunnel construction setup Main body only. Excludes backup which goes in during the slow start 200m slow start based on no backshunt being provided Long average excludes 200m long TBM installation length. 90m/week for EPB TBM when in Lambeth Group/Thanet Sand. 50m/week for EPB TBM when in Chalk. For removal of conveyor and for extraction of CSO TBMs if necessary
100 m/wk
80 m/wk
Tunnel strip out Main tunnel secondary lining Shaft lining Shaft internal structures Local M&E testing and commissioning
4 wks
140 m/wk Based on reinforced in situ lining 10 wks 30 wks 8 wks In situ concrete lining Internal slabs and cover structures Excludes project-wide M&E testing and commissioning
Page 53
4 Main tunnel drive options 4.3.38 Table 4.7 summarises the potential construction durations in weeks for each drive option, based on the assumptions set out in Table 4.6.
Table 4.7 Summary of construction durations for main tunnel drive options
Drive W1/E1 W1/E2 W1/E3 W1/E4 W1/E5 W1/E6 W2/E1 W2/E2 W2/E3 W2/E4 W2/E5 W2/E6
Weeks 321 321 294 294 284 319 321 321 286 286 284 319
Drive W3/E1 W3/E2 W3/E3 W3/E4 W3/E5 W3/E6 W5/E1 W5/E2 W5/E3 W5/E4 W5/E5 W5/E6
Weeks 321 321 286 286 284 319 356 356 330 330 330 330
4.3.40
Cost considerations
4.3.41 The Engineering options report (100-RG-ENG-00000-900006 Spring 2010) included a comparison of costs where relative costs using key quantities of work were considered. Cost differences were reported between the three different tunnel routes and between drive options with different numbers of TBMs. The costs were very similar where the number of TBMs was the same. This report is only concerned with one route, the Abbey Mills route, and therefore relative cost comparison has only been applied to drive options using three or four TBMs. The drive options with only three TBMs would
4.3.42
Page 54
4 Main tunnel drive options cost less than those with four TBMs as there is a saving in the manufacture of one TBM.
Transport considerations
4.3.43 Transport is not considered in this report, but is considered on a site-by-site basis in the site suitability reports.
Energy considerations
4.3.44 It was relevant to take account of energy when considering all three tunnel routes, but it is not a significant factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options would have similar energy characteristics.
Drive option W1/E1 W1/E2 W1/E3 W1/E4 W1/E5 W1/E6 W2/E1 W2/E2 W2/E3 W2/E4 W2/E5 W2/E6 W3/E1 W3/E2 W3/E3 W3/E4 W3/E5 W3/E6
S0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
S2 d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d -
S5 d d d d d d r r r r r r d d d d d d d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r
Limehouse
Barn Elms
Battersea
Acton
Shad
S11 d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d
3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Page 55
5 5.1
5.1.1
d. Type D drop shaft adjacent to main tunnel (no connection tunnel) e. Type E connection culvert to main tunnel shaft connection (or to drop shaft on line of the main tunnel) (no connection tunnel).
Page 56
5.1.3
Page 57
5.1.5
5.1.6
Page 58
5.1.8
SECTION VIEW
Page 59
SECTION VIEW
Page 60
Page 61
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
d. the distance between the CSO interception site and the main tunnel, or main tunnel shaft e. whether two or more CSOs can be connected before connection to the main tunnel f. the local ground conditions in poorer ground conditions, junctions would be more difficult and tunnel-to-shaft connections (Types A, C, D and E) may be preferred over tunnel-to-tunnel connections (Type B)
g. the impact on existing or planned infrastructure h. maximum flow rates for larger flows, the connection tunnel may be too big to connect directly to the main tunnel i. j. the overall number and size of shafts required the cost and programme.
Page 62
5 Connection tunnel drive options Frogmore Connection Tunnel 5.2.4 Table 5.1 below presents the list of Frogmore Connection Tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage of the site selection process for multidisciplinary consideration. Table 5.1 Frogmore Connection Tunnel drive options
Connected directly to the main tunnel CSO Frogmore SR Frogmore SR - Bell Main tunnel Buckhold Road Lane Creek Connection tunnel drive option d r-d r FA r d then d r FB d r-r d FC r d-r d FD Connected to the Zone S3 main tunnel shaft CSO Frogmore SR Frogmore SR - Bell Zone S3 main Buckhold Road Lane Creek tunnel site Connection tunnel drive option d r-d r FE d through r FF d r-r d FG r d then d r FH r d-r d FI r through d FJ Legend: The following nomenclature/legend is used in the table to define the types of site required. Where 'd' denotes drive site, 'r' denotes reception site and 'through' denotes the tunnel drives through a CSO drop shaft (ie, similar to 'i' an intermediate site). Single Sequential double Single drive Intermediate reception drive r d i d then d Double Drive and reception reception r-r r-d Tunnel drive through CSO drop through Consecutive double drive d-d
Greenwich Connection Tunnel 5.2.5 The potentially feasible drive options for the Greenwich Connection Tunnel are presented in Table 5.2 below. All the Greenwich Connection Tunnel drive options connect to the main tunnel via a main tunnel shaft in either Zone S6 Shad or Zone S7 Limehouse. As this is such a long connection
Page 63
5 Connection tunnel drive options tunnel, its drive options need to be considered in conjunction with the main tunnel drive options concerning Zone S6 Shad and Zone S7 Limehouse. The location of zones G1, G2 and G3 are shown on Figure B5 in Appendix B within the Engineering options report Abbey Mills route Appendices. Table 5.2 Greenwich Connection Tunnel initial drive options
Greenwich Connection Tunnel CSO or Zone Main tunnel
Zone G3 Greenwich PS
Deptford SR
Connection tunnel drive option r through n/a GA d through n/a GB r through n/a GC r through d then d GD r through n/a GE (seq) r through n/a GF (con) d through n/a GH r through n/a GI r through d then d GJ
d r r r d after MT d with MT r r r
5.2.6
If the Greenwich Connection Tunnel connects to the main tunnel in Zone S7 Limehouse, its flows would join the main tunnel along with flows from the interception of the North East Storm Relief CSO. The engineering would be complex and challenging as there are both hydraulic and pneumatic (air movement) concerns about introducing too much flow at a single location. Therefore, all the drive options associated with Zone S7 Limehouse are removed from the list of feasible options. It is estimated that it would take at least 350 weeks to drive the connection tunnel to Greenwich PS from the main tunnel site in Zone 6 Shad after the main tunnel from Zone 6 Shad has been driven to the main tunnel site in Zone 11 Abbey Mills, and allow for the reception of the TBM from Zone S5 Battersea to be received at Zone S6 Limehouse. This is 38 weeks more than the six-year construction period and, for this reason, Option GE1 (seq) associated with Zone S6 Shad is removed from the list of feasible options. The programme for the other options will need to be checked in conjunction with preferred main tunnel option during the next stage of evaluation. Table 5.3 presents the final list of Greenwich Connection Tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage of the site selection process for multidisciplinary consideration.
5.2.7
5.2.8
5.2.9
Page 64
Zone G2
Zone G1
Earl PS
5 Connection tunnel drive options Table 5.3 Greenwich Connection Tunnel final drive options
Greenwich Connection Tunnel CSO or Zone Main tunnel
Zone G3 Greenwich PS
Zone S6 Shad
Deptford SR
Connection tunnel drive option r through n/a GA d through n/a GB r through n/a GC r through d then d GD r through n/a GF (con) d through n/a GH r through n/a GI r through d then d GJ
d r r r d with MT r r r
CSO site/Zone CSO site: KEMP (C29XB)/ KEMP Foreshore (C29XA) Connection tunnel drive option d NA r NB Main tunnel site zone: S7 Limehouse r d
Page 65
Zone G2
Zone G1
Earl PS
6
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5
Page 66