Spring 2010

Engineering Options Report

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 Inspectorate’s web site.

100-RG-ENG-00000-900006 | Spring 2010

Engineering Options Report

THAMES TUNNEL

ENGINEERING OPTIONS REPORT
LIST OF CONTENTS

Page Number 1  2  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 2.1  2.2  2.3  3  3.1  3.2  3.3  3.4  3.5  3.6  4  4.1  4.2  4.3  4.4  5  Purpose of report Background to project Engineering design development 1  2  2  3  3  4  4  4  4  11  14  23  27  27  27  43  49  55 

SYSTEM DESIGN AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS System design and engineering assumptions Health and safety considerations System requirements Engineering geology Tunnel engineering and construction requirements CSO engineering and construction requirements

ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT AND COMPARISON OF OPTIONS Introduction Main tunnel engineering – options preparation Main tunnel engineering – options assessment CSO engineering options

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES The following appendices can be found in the accompanying document Engineering Options Report – Appendices (100-RG-ENG-00000-000009): APPENDIX A – ASSUMPTIONS REGISTER APPENDIX B – DRAWINGS APPENDIX C – TIME CHAINAGE APPENDIX D – GEOLOGY

LIST OF FIGURES Page Number Figure 3.1 General layout of the three Thames Tunnel routes being considered ............................ 8  Figure 3.2 Thames Tunnel – CSO connection main system elements............................................. 9  Figure 4.1 Main tunnel shaft zones ................................................................................................. 29  Figure 4.2 Key for matrix of possible drives .................................................................................... 33  Figure 4.3 Main tunnel shaft site types ........................................................................................... 37  Figure 4.4 Drive option example ..................................................................................................... 38  Figure 4.5 Type A CSO connection ................................................................................................ 49  Figure 4.6 Type B CSO connection ................................................................................................ 50  Figure 4.7 Type C CSO connection ................................................................................................ 51  Figure 4.8 Type D CSO connection ................................................................................................ 52  Figure 4.9 Type E CSO connection ................................................................................................ 53 

LIST OF TABLES Page Number Table 3.1 Details of combined sewer outfall ..................................................................................... 5  Table 3.2 Geology of London Basin ................................................................................................ 12  Table 3.3 Chalk aquifer groundwater levels 2008 and imposed pressure at tunnel invert (east of Shad) ................................................................................................................................................ 14  Table 4.1 Grouping of main tunnel drive sites ................................................................................ 29  Table 4.2 Western End drive options – consideration of practical drive lengths ............................ 33  Table 4.3 Eastern end River Thames route drive options – consideration of practical lengths...... 34  Table 4.4 Eastern end Rotherhithe route drive options .................................................................. 35  Table 4.5 Eastern end Abbey Mills (via S8) drive options .............................................................. 36  Table 4.6 Eastern end Abbey Mills route (via S7) drive options ..................................................... 36  Table 4.7 Initial provisional main tunnel drive options matrix.......................................................... 39  Table 4.8 Finalised main tunnel drive options matrix ...................................................................... 41  Table 4.9 Thames Tunnel summary of drive options ...................................................................... 42  Table 4.10 Programme assumptions for comparison of options .................................................... 43  Table 4.11 Summary of construction duration differences for main tunnel drive options ............... 47  Table 4.12 Summary of cost differences for main tunnel drive options .......................................... 48 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AOD ATD CSO Defra EA EU EPB GWT LL1 m/s m /s NESR OD Ofwat
3

above Ordnance Datum above tunnel datum combined sewer overflow Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs Environment Agency European Union earth pressure balance ground water table Low Level Sewer No 1 metres per second cubic metres per second North East Storm Relief Ordnance Datum (mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall) Water Services Regulatory Authority

PLA PS SMP SR STW TBM

Port of London Authority pumping station System Master Plan storm relief sewage treatment works tunnel boring machine

GLOSSARY Term Tunnel boring machine (TBM) Drive or ‘Drive Option’ Slurry Description A machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross section through a variety of ground conditions. A possible tunnelling option for driving a tunnel from one location to another with a TBM. A mixture of bentonite and water to form a dense liquid capable of supporting open excavations such as bored piles and diaphragm walls. Also used in TBMs to support the face and transport the excavated material through a pumped system. One of three overall main tunnel routes considered. The River Thames route terminates at Beckton STW and predominantly follows the River Thames, except for crossing the Greenwich Peninsula. This route is closest to the Option 1c tunnel route presented in the December 2006 Tackling London’s Sewer Overflows reports. This route has also previously been referred to as the ‘baseline option’ and ‘Option 1c-1’. Drive option identifiers associated with this route are generally prefixed with a ‘B’. This main tunnel route is the same as the River Thames route, except that it cuts across the Rotherhithe Peninsula. This route has also previously been referred to as ‘Alternative 1’ and ‘Option 1c-2’. Drive option identifiers associated with this route are generally prefixed with ‘A1’. This main tunnel route terminates at Abbey Mills, using the Lee Tunnel to convey flows to Beckton STW. This route has also previously been referred to as ‘Alternative 2’ and ‘Option 1d’. Drive option identifiers associated with this route are generally prefixed with ‘A2’.

River Thames route

Rotherhithe route

Abbey Mills route

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 shaft sites’ and ‘preferred scheme’. It is specific to the Thames Tunnel Project, but takes cognisance of the Lee Tunnel Project. The need for this report and the process that it is part of is outlined in the Site Selection Methodology Paper, document reference 100-RG-PNC-00000-000025. 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 main tunnel drive options. Three main tunnel routes between west London and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW) are identified as part of the design development and it is these that are taken forward separately for evaluation. The second part of the report presents a methodology for determining possible options to deliver a scheme for the three main tunnel routes. This is based on engineering requirements and the list of shortlisted shaft sites provided by the ‘site selection process’, which identifies sites potentially suitable for use as either main tunnel drive or intermediate/reception shaft sites to facilitate the construction of the main tunnel and its subsequent operation. Drive options for the connection tunnels in association with the shortlisted CSO sites are not considered in this report as they are dependent upon the selection of the main tunnel route and shaft sites. To build the scheme, it is necessary to ‘drive’ a tunnel – or series of tunnels – connecting a number of shaft sites. Possible permutations of tunnel drive scenarios (‘drive options’) for the three tunnel routes and presented sites are established in a systematic manner to permit evaluation. The relative desirability of the feasible drive options for the three routes are then examined in terms of engineering factors, which are separated into engineering risk, programme and cost. 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’, although this will be addressed in subsequent workshops and presented in the Preferred Scheme Report. It is also noted that the relative merits in system performance of the three main tunnel routes are not discussed or considered within this report as these will be addressed separately by the project team. This report shows that appropriate engineering options are available to drive the main tunnel for each of the three main tunnel routes. These are presented as a schedule of feasible main tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage of the ‘site selection methodology’, and therefore the Preferred Scheme Report. Finally, engineering factors that will be used to provide content for consultations and for determining the ‘preferred sites’ and associated drive options for the three main tunnel routes are also presented. These are the factors that will be used in the Preferred Scheme Report to examine the advantages and disadvantages, including engineering risk, programme and cost.

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.1.5

1.1.6

1.1.7

1.1.8

1.1.9

Page 1
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

2 Introduction

2 2.1 2.1.1

INTRODUCTION Purpose of report The Engineering Options Report has been prepared as part of the process for the ‘creation of the preferred list of shaft sites’ and ‘preferred scheme’ as set out in the Thames Tunnel Project’s Site Selection Methodology Paper1. The Site Selection Methodology Paper states that the Engineering Options Report will consider:   how sites work in combination, and options for the main tunnel alignment and combined sewer overflow (CSO) connections2 how options for tunnel alignment and CSO connection points will be refined, having regard to the availability of – and spacing of – suitable shaft sites, as well as to the potential for combined use of sites. Cost considerations associated with engineering options, transport and energy will be reported, balanced and taken into account.3

2.1.2

This report identifies and refines possible main tunnel alignment options, giving consideration to the overall location and grouping of the shaft sites that have been shortlisted for site suitability assessment. Drive and alignment options for the CSO connection tunnels are not included in this report as they depend on the selection of the main tunnel shaft sites, but they will be presented in the Preferred Scheme Report. The establishment of preferred sites, and hence ‘preferred scheme’, will follow on from this report. The findings of this Engineering Options Report will help inform the preferred scheme selection process. The Engineering Options Report is divided into two parts: Part 1: System design and engineering requirements

2.1.3

2.1.4

This part sets out at high level the system, geological, tunnelling and CSO engineering requirements to be considered as part of the development of engineering options, and subsequent selection of both a preferred scheme and an associated preferred list of shaft sites. As such, this will largely state and summarise requirements without providing an in-depth justification for the system and engineering requirements. Part 2: Engineering review and comparison of tunnel options

2.1.5

This part summarises the tunnel options considered and the analysis and refinement of these options. Included in the analysis is consideration of the relationship of the tunnel options to the available groups of shortlisted shaft sites. The report only considers the development of options from an engineering perspective. The considerations dealt with as part of the site suitability reports for each site have not been referred to in the preparation of this Engineering Options Report. In considering main tunnel routes, drive options and shaft sites, this report does not identify preferred tunnel routes, alignments, preferred shaft sites, connection tunnel routes or CSO sites. The selection of the preferred main tunnel route, alignments, connection tunnel alignments, preferred CSO sites and preferred shaft sites are to be assessed at later stages in the process (selection of the preferred sites and preferred scheme). These stages will be carried out by a broader multidisciplinary team and reported in the Preferred Scheme Report. The considerations in this Engineering Options Report, along with site suitability reports, will feed into and inform these stages.

2.1.6

2.1.7

1

Site Selection Methodology Paper, document reference 100-RG-PNC-00000-000025 AA, Thames Tunnel, (21 May 2009) 2 Site Selection Methodology Paper, Section 2.3.27, fourth bullet 3 Site Selection Methodology Paper, Section 2.3.32

Page 2
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

2 Introduction

2.2 2.2.1

Background to project The Thames Tunnel Project is required to intercept flows from CSOs along the River Thames between west London and the Beckton STW in east London. It is needed for compliance with Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban Waste Water Treatment and the avoidance of European Union (EU) fines. The project will benefit London as a whole, and those living, working in and visiting London, by providing a cleaner River Thames. The Site Selection Methodology Paper provides further detail on the background to the project. The Minister of State for Climate Change and the Environment issued a Ministerial statement in March 2007 with reference to sewer overflows to the River Thames. This was followed by a letter from the Minister, Ian Pearson MP, to Thames Water in April 2007, indicating that on the basis of the information supplied, it is the Minister’s view that an Option 1 type approach is needed. Various options were presented in the December 2006 reports, Tackling London’s Sewer Overflows, Thames Tideway Tunnel and Treatment – Option Development, and were also discussed in Defra’s report, Regulatory Impact Assessment – sewage collection and treatment for London (March 2007). The ‘Option 1c’ solution, presented in the above referenced documents, consists of a full-length tunnel along the River Thames to intercept, store and convey to treatment the discharges from 36 ‘Category 1 and 2’ CSOs. The Thames Tunnel Project controls flows from 34 of the 36 CSOs, while the CSO (Abbey Mills) is controlled by the Lee Tunnel Project, and the CSO (Wick Lane) by a standalone project. It is noted that a further 21 ‘Category 3 and 4’ CSO are not to be controlled. Engineering design development Following the Minister’s letter indicating the need for an ‘Option 1 type’ approach, there has been ongoing development of the main tunnel based on the Option 1c solution. The Lee Tunnel has also been consented and the contract for its construction awarded. The Thames Tunnel Project’s site selection process4 recognises that the engineering design will need to proceed in parallel with the site selection process, and that there is an iterative relationship between the two. Design development activities have included:     engineering designs and studies of various components of the scheme, and identification of possible high-level main tunnel routes ’system master planning’ to define the sewage system operation changes and facilities needed to control and limit overflows from the scheme construction, transportation and river navigational logistics studies field investigations, including ground investigations and surveys.

2.2.2

2.2.3

2.2.4 2.3 2.3.1

2.3.2

2.3.3

2.3.4

This Engineering Options Report draws on the relevant aspects of these studies and investigations, as well as the results from the site selection shortlisting process.

4

Site Selection Methodology Paper, Section 1.7.5

Page 3
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

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 – Appendices, reference 100-RG-ENG-00000-000009). These assumptions and further requirements are discussed in the following sections. Health and safety considerations Through risk assessment and management, the Thames Tunnel Project is working in accordance with industry codes and project standards, with the aim to achieve world-class health and safety objectives. The project has a plan and policies in place to ensure compliance with the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007. System requirements Performance objective

3.2 3.2.1

3.3

3.3.1

The need for the project is described in the Site Selection, Background Technical Paper (Ref 100-RG-PNC-00000-000027). Basis for the design and system development General design requirements

3.3.2

The Site Selection, Background Technical Paper states that the main features of the Thames Tunnel Project were proposed to be:    the control of 34 combined sewer overflows within the tidal River Thames the capacity to store the intercepted stormwater flows in a main tunnel the ability to pump-out the tunnel to treatment.

3.3.3

The design development activities have progressed and, at the time of this report, the engineering requirements to be taken forward in assessing engineering tunnel route and alignment options are summarised and briefly discussed in the following sections. These details are the subject of ongoing work. However, for the basis of this report, it is noted that the implications of any possible changes would need to be further assessed and reviewed. To achieve the design performance and functionality requirements, the main tunnel is required to be a 7.2m internal diameter tunnel. This has been assessed to provide a system with acceptable capacity to meet the requirements of the project. This section of the report focuses on system requirements relevant to the selection of sites and tunnel engineering alignments. Developments in design requirements

3.3.4

3.3.5

3.3.6

Developments in the design have updated the scheme requirements such that 21 or 22 CSOs are now required to be directly intercepted, depending on the main tunnel route, while the remaining CSOs are to be controlled by other measures. These measures include three interceptions to the existing northern Low Level Sewer No 1 (LL1). Table 3.1 lists the controls needed for all 34 CSOs, as well as indicating the 21 or 22 CSOs requiring interception, and three additional interceptions to the existing LL1.

3.3.7

Page 4
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Table 3.1 Details of combined sewer outfall
Combined sewer overflow CS01X – Acton Storm Relief (SR) CS02X – Stamford Brook SR CS03X – North West SR CS04X – Hammersmith PS and CS04B – LL1 Brook Green CS05X – West Putney SR CS06X – Putney Bridge CS07A – Frogmore SR – Bell Lane Creek and CS07B – Frogmore SR – Buckhold Rd CS08A – Jews Row Wandle Valley SR and CS08B – Jews Row Falconbrook SR CS09X – Falconbrook PS CS10X – Lots Road PS CS11X – Church Street CS12X – Queen Street CS13B – Smith Street – SR and CS13A – Smith Street – Main Line CS14X – Ranelagh CS15X – Western PS and CS15B – Western PS upstream CS16X – Heathwall PS CS17X – South West SR CS18X – Kings Scholars Pond SR CS19X – Clapham SR CS20X – Brixton SR CS21X – Grosvenor Ditch CS22X – Regent Street CS23X – Northumberland Street CS24X – Savoy Street CS25X – Norfolk Street CS26X – Essex Street CS27X – Fleet Main CS28X – Shad Thames PS CS29X – North East SR CS30X – Holloway SR CS31X – Earl PS CS32X – Deptford SR CS33X – Greenwich PS CS34X – Charlton SR Flow interception CSO flow is to be intercepted No modifications required No modifications required CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted Indirect by action at Ranelagh/Western pumping station Indirect by action at Ranelagh/Western pumping station Indirect by action at Ranelagh/Western pumping station CSO flow and LL1 is to be intercepted Control modifications at Western pumping station CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted Indirect by action at Ranelagh/Western pumping station CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted Indirect by action at Ranelagh/Western pumping station Indirect by action at Northumberland Street CSO flow and LL1 is to be intercepted Indirect by action at Northumberland St/Fleet Main Indirect by action at Northumberland St/Fleet Main Indirect by action at Northumberland St/Fleet Main CSO flow and LL1 is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow is to be intercepted CSO flow to be intercepted*/ indirect by action at Greenwich pumping station**

* Applicable to the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes ** Applicable to the Abbey Mills route

Page 5
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

3.3.8

Further elements that the scheme should provide as a minimum are listed below:   The westerly start point of the scheme should connect to the Acton Storm Relief (SR) CSO. To meet hydraulic capacity and transient (temporary surge flow) requirements, the main tunnel (7.2m diameter) should extend to Hammersmith Pumping Station (PS) in the west. The easterly end point of the tunnel is to connect to the Lee Tunnel. This can be achieved at either Abbey Mills PSs or at Beckton STW. The provision of three connections to the LL1 along the Chelsea and Victoria embankments, where the high flows can be intercepted at new relief weirs. These flows will be diverted to the main tunnel and the operating philosophy of the Western PS will be amended. These measures enable discharges at some other CSOs to be controlled without the need for direct interception. Relieving controlling flows at LL1, as well as the discharging sewers at the CSO sites required for Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs, 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. These benefits rely upon the sites for the interception chambers being at locations that allow the full design functionality to be achieved. 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.

 

3.3.9

At the time of writing, the system operational philosophy is under development. However, at a high level, the operational philosophy will be common to all options. Details of the proposed operation will be developed separately and presented in separate system engineering reports. Main tunnel routes

3.3.10 Design development has identified three tunnel routes: The River Thames route, Rotherhithe route and Abbey Mills route. 3.3.11 The River Thames route largely follows the route of the Thames, while the two other routes provide respectively an alignment that cuts across the Rotherhithe Peninsula and a route that connects to the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills. The latter has become feasible due to an increase in depth of the Lee Tunnel at the Abbey Mills PSs shaft end to avoid difficult geological conditions. This enables a continuous gradient with the Thames Tunnel Project’s main tunnel, satisfying the design constraints for the overall vertical alignment and system hydraulic requirements. 3.3.12 These three routes are displayed in Figure 3.1 and described as follows. River Thames route (connection to Lee Tunnel at Beckton STW) 3.3.13 This route is closest to the route in Option 1c, shown in Defra’s report dated March 2007 entitled Regulatory Impact Assessment – sewage collection and treatment for London, but takes account of over two years of additional development work, including the items stated in the General design requirements section above.

Page 6
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Rotherhithe route 1 (across Rotherhithe Peninsula – connection to Lee Tunnel at Beckton STW) 3.3.14 This is a variation to the River Thames route that cuts across the Rotherhithe Peninsula, reducing the River Thames route main tunnel length by 1.8km by not following a major bend in the river. A longer connection tunnel conveys flow from the North East Storm Relief (NESR) to the main tunnel, and a shorter connection tunnel is needed from Greenwich PS. This route is otherwise the same as the River Thames route, by intercepting the Acton Storm Relief (SR) Sewer at its upstream end by connection tunnel to the main tunnel, and connecting to the overflow shaft at Beckton STW at its downstream end. Abbey Mills route (connection to Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills PSs) 3.3.15 This is different from the River Thames route because it connects the main tunnel to the head of the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills. The main tunnel length would reduce by approximately 9km. The upstream tunnel system would stay the same as the River Thames route over the length from the interception of Acton SR to Rotherhithe, but the route then veers northeast to Abbey Mills. A potential route/corridor for this length of tunnel could follow the Limehouse Cut Canal. CSOs to be intercepted downstream of Rotherhithe would connect back to the main tunnel by connection tunnel, except Charlton SR, where alternative methods of control can be implemented.

Page 7
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Figure 3.1 General layout of the three Thames Tunnel routes being considered

Page 8
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Control and interception of CSO flows 3.3.16 The CSOs to be controlled and intercepted are outlined in the previous section and listed in the assumption register provided in Appendix A. The register also indicates the minimum diameter of the connection tunnels and drop shaft sizes for hydraulic purposes. 3.3.17 The interception of CSO flows and connection to the main tunnel typically comprises four major elements: A CSO interception chamber, connection culvert, drop shaft and connection tunnel, as shown in Figure 3.2 below. A description of the construction elements is provided in the Site Selection, Background Technical Paper and these are discussed further in CSO interception – design and construction in Section 3.6. Figure 3.2 Thames Tunnel – CSO connection main system elements

 
EXISTING OUTFALL

RIVER

Indicative of site clearance and enabling works

BECKTON STW Inlet PS Inlet works

CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER Where CSO comprises a PS the location of the interception may be up or downstream of the CSO PS

CONNECTION CULVERT Open-cut or Tunnelled/Jacked 2 nr Flat gate chambers not shown and would naturally form part of the Interception chamber and Drop Shaft

DROP SHAFT

CONNECTIO TUNNEL

MAIN TUNNEL Drive Shafts (not shown) provide principal operational inspection access

Tunnel hydraulic requirements 3.3.18 The tunnel system is to store and convey flow, with the purpose of reducing CSO discharge. 3.3.19 The internal tunnel diameter has been taken at 7.2m, which is compatible with the Lee Tunnel. 3.3.20 The conveyance of flow is dependent upon the hydraulic grade line (rather than physical tunnel gradient). To permit the hydraulic grade line (and therefore flow) to be contained within the system, the general top-of-structure level at the shafts could be as high as 107.0mATD5. The interception chambers will not generally be subject to these higher levels, due to the protection afforded by a range of flap valves (that prevent flow reversing). 3.3.21 The tunnel system has to be self-cleansing. This can be achieved by either the flow regime (physical gradient) or the provision of flushing water.

This report reflects the information available at the time of writing, when it was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shafts sites would be finished at 107mATD. Subsequent to the preparation of this report, this was changed to 104.5mATD, and this updated information has been used at later stages, such as the Preferred Scheme Report.

5

Page 9
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

3.3.22 A gradient in excess of approximately one in 850 has been found to generate selfcleansing conditions with velocities exceeding 1m/s during event cycles. Based upon international experience, the self-cleansing velocity above this is sufficient to move detritus without further flushing requirements. 3.3.23 The gradient of the connection tunnels is generally in the range of one in 200 to one in 500 in order to achieve flow capacities and maximum peak velocities. The minimum diameter for these tunnels is to be 2m, to reflect the practicality of access for inspection by operatives and to limit peak velocities. 3.3.24 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. These include:    the main tunnel diameter of 7.2m should extend to the Hammersmith PS to avoid over-pressurisation provision of overflows6 to the river at main tunnel shafts balancing the flows that are allowed to enter the tunnels with the volumetric capacity of the tunnels after allowing for rates of build up and evacuation of fluids and gases.

System functional and operational requirements Operation and related safety requirements 3.3.25 In order to ensure safe operations, access, inspection and maintenance of the tunnel, design development has defined the following assumptions and features:  The main tunnel and connection tunnels are to be ‘maintenance free’, such that tunnel entry for inspection and maintenance is only planned to take place approximately every ten years. The ten-year inspection will be a major undertaking in its own right, which will involve elements of design and fabrication to permit entry. The system controlling tunnel filling is to be passive6 where possible to reduce the need for maintenance/access and operational complexity. Main tunnel drive shafts will be the designated access points to the tunnel system. The spacing of the main tunnel drive shafts is controlled by the requirements for maintenance access on the basis that the construction access demands are less onerous, in view of what can be achieved with modern tunnelling techniques. The spacing between permanent access points shall not exceed 9km, and shall be reduced to 5km or less where practicable. However, where main tunnel intermediate shaft access is available, this can be incorporated to improve the overall access conditions and regime. The main tunnel drive shafts shall be provided with large access openings to permit inspection plant to be lowered into the tunnel. CSO and shaft sites are to be selected to ensure space for two cranes to service the shafts. The provision of permanent ventilation and monitoring of the exhaust air quality along with air treatment facilities (odour control). The provision of control gates to isolate the tunnel system and prevent flow from entering. These gates will be controlled from a central control room to permit overview of the system from a single point.

  

 

6 This report reflects the information available at the time of writing, when it was anticipated that inflow would be passively controlled and overflows to the river would be required at main tunnel shafts. Subsequent to the preparation of this report, it was considered that overflows would not be required at all main tunnel shafts.

Page 10
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

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. Due to the presence of pressure/pneumatic transients and the conveyance of foul water, access ancillaries (eg, platforms, steps) shall not be provided as part of the permanent works.

3.3.26 When considering the main tunnel shaft spacing for the completed system, and based upon the experience from other major CSO systems, it is assumed maintenance and inspection teams will travel through the main tunnel by inspection vehicle. This reduces the transit time and permits a wider range of equipment to be carried with relative ease. Vehicular access is practicable for this system, given the main tunnel diameter and that the system will be dry when inspection is undertaken. 3.3.27 Access to the connection tunnels will also be required during inspection. Connection tunnel length is highly variable and site-dependent, ranging from 100m to 2,000m in length. Diameters are in the range of 2m to 5m. Provision for emergency egress will be made at the drop shafts, by the provision of suitable access openings and space for cranes to operate a man-rider. 3.4 Engineering geology Route geology 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 is considered to be adequate for this report. Additionally, preliminary information from ongoing ground investigations has been taken into account for this report7. Geological long sections, derived from the model, are provided for the three main tunnel routes in Appendix D. The basic geological horizons presented in the London Basin are given in Table 3.2.

3.4.2 3.4.3

7

This report reflects the information available at the time of writing. Subsequently, additional information and interpretation of conditions have been available. This updated information has been used at later stages, such as the Preferred Scheme Report.

Page 11
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Table 3.2 Geology of London Basin Era Recent Group Formation Alluvium Floodplain Terrace Kempton Park Terrace Tertiary Thames London Clay 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.

Approximate range of thickness (m) 0- 5

0 - 10 >100

Very stiff, fissured silty clay.

Swanscombe member:
Sandy clay to clayey sand (< 2m) with some fine to medium black rounded gravel.

Blackheath member: Harwich
Dense to very dense flint gravel (with occasional cobbles) in silty or clayey, glauconitic, fine to medium sand matrix.

0 - 10

Oldhaven member:
Very dense clayey sand with gravel and shells - often cemented as limestone.

Lambeth Group

Woolwich Reading Upnor

Highly variable material consisting of gravel, sand, clay, silt, limestone, lignite and calcrete. Gravel, glauconitic and organic sand, silt and clay. Very dense silty to very silty sand. The lowest 0.5m consists of a conglomerate of flint pebbles. Homogeneous chalk with flint bands (>100mm thick). Heterogeneous nodular chalk with flint bands and marl seams.

10 – 20 5–7 10 – 15 circa 40 circa 50

Thanet Sands Formation (incl Bullhead Bed at base 0.5m) Cretaceous Chalk Seaford* Lewes*

Notes: * 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’.)

3.4.4

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:  London Clay Formation – Hammersmith PS/Acton SR to just west of Wandsworth Bridge (Harwich at the base approximately between Wandsworth Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge) Lambeth Group – just east of Wandsworth Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge Thanet Sand Formation – Blackfriars Bridge to just west of Tower Bridge White Chalk subgroup – all routes downstream from just east of Tower Bridge.

3.4.5

   3.4.6

Faulting at London Bridge is expected to repeat the sequence, and mixed face conditions in the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation are expected from Blackfriars Bridge through to Tower Bridge, with only a short section wholly in Thanet Sand Formation, close to Tower Bridge.

Page 12
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

3.4.7

Various structural geological models provide different interpretations of the structural setting across the London Basin, but they all generally indicate regular faulted block topography in the Chalk and NW by SE trending faults cutting the basic east-west main synclinal form. The dominant structural geological features are:  the Greenwich Fault – down throw 20m to 30m to the northwest in a series of stepped faults. The fault runs generally parallel with the main syncline, SW to NE from Greenwich to Beckton, crossing the River Thames downstream of the Thames Barrier. the Greenwich Anticline – sitting to the south of the Greenwich Fault and on a similar trend lifts Chalk to surface outcrop over the eastern section of the routes the London Bridge Fault – down throw 10m to the east.

3.4.8

  3.4.9

Other structural features include the North Greenwich Syncline, Millwall Anticline and Beckton Anticline, all of which have a NE SW trend, contrary to main basin axis.

3.4.10 Scour hollows are located on previous drainage channels formed by the River Thames and are 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. 3.4.11 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 60m at Blackwall Tunnel. 3.4.12 Of the known scour hollows, only the hollow at Hungerford Bridge is close to the Thames Tunnel alignments. This feature attains a base level of 73mATD in London Clay near the south bank, equivalent to only 10m above the tunnel crown. Tunnel alignment should therefore preferably follow a route close to the north bank. Such features may, however, have implications for the shallower connection tunnels in other locations. 3.4.13 Known scour hollow locations affect the following potential shaft and CSO sites:     S68WH (Battersea Power Station base 72mATD) S87WH (Heathwall base 82mATD) C23XA (Regents base 90mATD) C27XA (Fleet base 90mATD).

3.4.14 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. 3.4.15 A number of flint bands are present within the Chalk. However, within the Seaford Chalk, the two principal and well defined flint bands 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 the Seven Sisters is a continuous band, with flints between 100mm and 150mm thick. Both bands represent a significant challenge to tunnelling that will need to be assessed when comparing route and alignment options. Hydrogeology 3.4.16 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 granular strata of the Lambeth Group, particularly any local sand channels and the Upnor Formation. The EA refers to this combined aquifer as the Chalk-Basal Sands aquifer.

Page 13
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

3.4.17 Local aquicludes can exist in the overlying Lambeth Group, leading to perched water tables. Historical records of engineering schemes have described these ‘perched’ features to retain hydrostatic pressures of up to 40m, which may result in high inflows at tunnel levels and particularly in shafts during construction. 3.4.18 The Harwich Formation (Blackheath Member) is also known to contain high groundwater levels in places, which cause problems during tunnel construction. 3.4.19 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. 3.4.20 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 water 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 are showing groundwater levels in the Chalk from Rotherhithe to Charlton 10m higher than the reported EA levels. 3.4.21 Groundwater pressure in the Chalk will have an important bearing on tunnelling. 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 Approx GWT pressure bar Tower Bridge 50 NESR 45 Greenwich 46 Charlton 40 Abbey Mills 40 Beckton 32

72

78

91/100*

100

92m

100

2.5

3.5

4.5/5.5*

6.0

4.0

7.0

* Highest levels indicated in Lee Tunnel and Thames Tunnel Project monitoring holes

3.4.22 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 water 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. 3.4.23 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. 3.5 Tunnel engineering and construction requirements Risk management considerations 3.5.1 The British Tunnelling Society’s 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 14
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

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. General tunnel considerations Tunnel diameters

3.5.3

Tunnels should be sized to suit the hydraulic performance of the system and the storage capacity requirement. This indicates that the main tunnel between its upper western end near Hammersmith PS and Beckton STW needs to be a minimum 7.2m internal diameter throughout its length. Connection tunnels will connect CSOs to the main tunnel via drop shafts. These tunnels should be sized to carry the design flows from the CSOs at gradients to limit maximum flow velocities to 3.5m/s, but not exceeding a maximum gradient of 1:200. The size of the connection tunnels will vary, depending on the flow, from 2m to 5m internal diameter. The minimum tunnel size for safe man access is assumed to be 2m internal diameter. Vertical tunnel alignments

3.5.4

3.5.5

The vertical alignment of the main tunnel should follow an approximate gradient of about one in 850. The overriding criteria controlling the gradient that can be achieved are the hydraulic functional performance, the constraints imposed by existing and proposed third-party infrastructure and the tunnel tie-in connection level at either Beckton STW or Abbey Mills PSs. The main third-party constraints are the Thames Water Lee Valley Water Tunnel near Hammersmith Bridge, and the proposed National Grid ‘Wimbledon to Kensal Green’ tunnel. The vertical distance separating the Lee Valley Water Tunnel and the main tunnel crossing above would be about 5m. Other existing deep level service tunnels, including National Grid’s Beverley Brook tunnel and a number of BT Openreach tunnels also present constraints on the alignment. In addition to these, the planned National Grid ‘Wimbledon to Kensal Green’ tunnel is also noted as requiring co-ordination to ensure that possible interference between these future projects is minimised. The distance between the tunnel and other existing third-party underground tunnels is less critical to the vertical tunnel alignment. The potential connection tunnel connecting Deptford SR and Greenwich PS CSOs to the main tunnel would be restricted vertically by the Jubilee underground line that crosses the Rotherhithe Peninsula. Horizontal tunnel alignments

3.5.6

3.5.7

3.5.8 3.5.9

There are three routes for the main tunnel between west London Hammersmith PS and Beckton STW or Abbey Mills PSs, described in Section 3.3 of this report. These alignment options generally follow the line of the River Thames, particularly to the west of Tower Bridge. There are numerous second order alignment options that are identified and compared in Section 4 of this report. These must all satisfy the hydraulic flow regime requirements.

3.5.10 The minimum horizontal radius for the main tunnel is taken to be 600m for practicable construction purposes. Smaller diameter, segmental lined, connection tunnels are taken to be typically of a minimum radius of 300m, although techniques can be employed to achieve lower radii. 3.5.11 In order to minimise the effect of tunnelling on third-party infrastructure, the tunnel should, so far as practicable:  pass under the centre of the mid-deck span of bridges

Page 15
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

avoid interfaces with sensitive existing structures, such as the original Thames Tunnel (Brunel’s ‘Thames Tunnel’, now carrying the East London underground line) and the Rotherhithe road tunnel avoid passing beneath high-rise buildings on deep piles.

3.5.12 The alignment of CSO connection tunnels will generally be based upon the location of the main tunnel and its shafts, along with hydraulic considerations. Tunnel lining 3.5.13 The primary lining for the main tunnel is assumed to comprise a reinforced concrete, tapered, segmental lining ring, approximately 350mm thick and 7.8m internal diameter. This assumes a 300mm thick concrete secondary lining8 to provide the required finished tunnel of 7.2m internal diameter. The connection tunnels are also assumed to have a secondary lining for the purposes of this report. Shaft sizes 3.5.14 The main tunnel drive shafts are anticipated to be 25m internal diameter, with depths ranging from 40m in west London to 65m or 75m in east London, depending on the main tunnel route. Shafts of 25m 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. 3.5.15 The intermediate shafts and reception shafts for the main tunnel are assumed to have an internal diameter of between 20m and 25m. 3.5.16 The internal diameter of CSO shafts range from 6m to 20m to suit the hydraulic requirements, although at some locations, it may be advantageous to incorporate the CSO connection culvert directly into a main tunnel shaft. Location of main tunnel shafts 3.5.17 The preferred location of main tunnel shafts for construction from solely an engineering viewpoint is influenced by the tunnel drive options and other considerations described in Section 4 of this report. In addition, consideration has been given to the following functional requirements:  Every ten years, the tunnels will be inspected for operational and maintenance purposes. Access to the main tunnel will be via main tunnel shafts. A safe methodology, including equipment, will be developed to reduce, where possible, the need for additional intermediate shafts, simply to provide access between drive shafts. This is the basis of inspection and maintenance access for other large CSO schemes in the world. The main tunnel shafts will incorporate weirs9 to allow spills into the River Thames during full tunnel conditions. As a minimum, there would be an overflow weir at Beckton STW and two between Shad and the Charlton/Woolwich areas, and at least two upstream of Wandsworth. This would need to be subject to further hydraulic modelling.

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. 9 This report reflects the information available at the time of writing, when it was anticipated that overflows to the river would be required at main tunnel shafts. Subsequent to the preparation of this report, it was considered that overflows would not be required at all main tunnel shafts.

8

Page 16
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Tunnelling and shaft construction methods Tunnelling construction methods 3.5.18 The main tunnel has been assumed to have an external excavated diameter of 8.8m to provide for a 7.2m internal diameter after allowing for the primary lining, secondary lining10 and annulus grout thicknesses. 3.5.19 In order to achieve a completion date in 2020, several TBMs will be required. In addition to this, managing construction risk and the suitability of TBM types for the varying ground conditions along the route will also affect the determination of the number of TBMs to be used. 3.5.20 The geology and hydrogeology along each tunnel alignment will influence the selection of the TBM type. Full face TBMs will be required to support the ground during tunnelling to prevent excessive water inflows and excess excavation, and therefore minimise scope for ground settlement. 3.5.21 The types of full face TBMs can be either earth pressure balance (EPB) or slurry/mixshield. However, convertible TBMs, which have been used in the past, can operate as either an EPB or slurry machine but result in additional plant, equipment and impact to programme, to allow for changes to the operational method. For the purpose of this report, it has been assumed that specific machines will be tailored to the ground conditions. These would typically be EPB type TBMs for the main tunnel drives through the Lambeth Group west of the Shad PS area and also the London Clay, and slurry type TBMs for the eastern drives through the Chalk. Shafts construction methods 3.5.22 The geology, hydrogeology, depth and size of shaft will influence the method of shaft construction. Various methods of construction can be used, such as:      segmental lined caisson or underpinned construction sprayed concrete lined reinforced concrete sunk caisson secant piled wall diaphragm wall.

3.5.23 The construction of shafts in the London Clay is likely to be by conventional methods, with segmental lining, sunk either as a caisson or underpinned. Sprayed concrete linings are also possible. 3.5.24 Where the shafts are very deep, constructed through mixed ground conditions and under high groundwater pressures, diaphragm wall type construction is the most likely method of construction. 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 3.5.25 For all methods of shaft construction, the control of groundwater will be required to enable both safe excavation and sinking of the shaft and base slab construction.

10 The decision about whether secondary lining is required has not been 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 17
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

3.5.26 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:   Injection of chemical or cementitious grouts to form blocks that can be excavated without collapse. The method used will be dependent on the ground encountered. 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. 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, is unlikely to be completely successful. Dewatering to control the inflow of water 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 will include deep borehole wells or localised drains, well points and injector wells.

Main tunnel shaft site requirements Main tunnel shaft sites 3.5.27 Three types of shaft site may be needed to construct the main tunnel: drive shafts, reception shafts and intermediate shafts. 3.5.28 The main tunnel will be driven from main drive shafts, which will be equipped to enable the efficient operation of the tunnelling excavation and construction. 3.5.29 Reception shafts will 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. 3.5.30 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 3.5.31 The required number and distribution of sites for tunnel construction will be informed by the following key considerations:     The Thames Tunnel Project is to be operational by 2020. The TBM types must be appropriate to the geological conditions expected. The risk of TBM breakdowns/servicing requirements, and their severity and frequency, increases with the length of the drive. The emergency egress of the construction workforce will become more difficult the longer the length of the drive.

3.5.32 The final decision on the number of TBMs, and hence the number of associated drive shaft sites, will be based on a balance between the type of TBM appropriate to the ground, the available locations of main drive shafts, geology, programme, environment, amenity, health and safety, risk and cost considerations. 3.5.33 Construction of CSO connection tunnels will, where possible, be constructed from main shaft sites to reduce the space required for CSO sites. Where CSO connection tunnels are driven from main tunnel shaft sites, the CSO drop shafts would comprise smaller reception shaft sites. Excavated material from the CSO connection tunnel could also be handled at the main tunnel shaft sites.

Page 18
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Main tunnel drive shaft site requirements 3.5.34 The main tunnel drive shaft sites must provide for the following core and ancillary construction activities for construction of the shaft and main tunnel:         Construction of 25m diameter shaft Delivery of construction materials for shaft and tunnelling materials Storage, treatment and removal of excavated material arising from the shaft excavation and tunnel excavation Material stockyard for tunnel segments and accessories, including loading/unloading areas Craneage and transfer of materials within the worksite and into and out of the tunnel shaft access Grout batching plant River access comprising jetty/wharf facilities for loading/unloading materials for marine transport Workshops to maintain all the mechanical and electrical plant, and large stores for spare parts; stockyard for rails, pipes, grease, foam, cable drums, and temporary works items Power supply installations with possible need for substation Construction offices, welfare facilities and medical facilities Parking for construction traffic Incoming and outgoing goods and material marshalling area Possible logistics hub area to service satellite sites.

    

3.5.35 In order to provide space for both core and ancillary activities, it is anticipated that main tunnel drive shaft sites from which slurry TBMs will be driven will need to be approximately 20,000m2, whereas sites hosting an EPB TBM will need approximately 18,000m2, in line with the material handling requirements. The above areas do not allow for a logistics hub. 3.5.36 The construction activities that follow tunnel excavation are less onerous with respect to site spatial requirements. These will include tunnel secondary lining (if required), shaft lining, buildings and surface works, and mechanical and electrical fit-out works. Main tunnel reception shaft sites and intermediate shaft site requirements 3.5.37 Main tunnel reception shaft sites and intermediate shaft sites are not intended to be used for driving the main tunnel. Apart from providing access and egress points to the tunnel, the core activities to be undertaken from these shafts will be restricted to the construction of the shaft itself, removal (at reception shaft sites) or access to (at intermediate shaft sites) the TBMs, secondary lining (if required) and mechanical and electrical fit-out activities. 3.5.38 It is estimated that the areas required for both reception or intermediate shaft sites will range from 5,000m2 for sites with shafts constructed into the London Clay to 7,500m2, if deep diaphragm walling is proposed for shaft construction into Chalk. Construction logistics 3.5.39 For the purposes of this Engineering Options Report, the following logistical needs have been considered:    The ability to provide efficient site layouts Logistics hubs Critical services: Power and water Page 19
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

 

Transport of materials and equipment Main tunnel segment fabrication and supply.

Site layouts for logistics 3.5.40 The layouts of individual sites for the logistics purposes will depend upon the specific site use and local constraints. The Site Selection Background Technical Paper indicates typical layouts for the different types of sites. Logistics hubs 3.5.41 The supply and servicing of the smaller CSO sites could be carried out as satellites to the main tunnel drive shaft sites. These drive shaft sites may therefore require an allowance for a logistics hub area for facilities to service the satellite sites. Critical services: Power and water 3.5.42 The temporary power supply requirements for construction sites typically varies from 0.5MVA to 2MVA for the smaller CSO sites, and up to 11MVA to 14MVA for the large main drive shaft sites serving a single TBM. 3.5.43 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 will be available from EDF Energy at the time construction commences. Therefore, power supply improvement works would be required. 3.5.44 Discussions with EDF Energy have established that it would be prudent to plan for the early procurement of power supplies for the main drive sites. It is likely that power supply improvement works would be required because it is considered that there will be insufficient capacity to accommodate this project’s requirements. Drive shaft sites should therefore be planned to accommodate new substation installations, for which an area of at least 60m x 20m is required. Transport of materials and equipment 3.5.45 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. 3.5.46 Excavated material will need to be taken away from the drive shaft sites and a wide variety of materials would need to be delivered, particularly the concrete segments for the main tunnel lining. Other logistical activities will include workforce arrival/departure, equipment deliveries/return, consumables and, for the drive shaft sites, the delivery of the large TBM components. 3.5.47 Due to the large volume of materials to be transported in and out of the main tunnel drive shaft sites, marine transport is the preferred option in order to minimise disruption to the surrounding communities. However, barge operation will only be practical in the following circumstances:     Material can easily be conveyed between worksite and river Barge facilities can be provided within the river (jetty/wharfage) Barge movements can satisfy the logistics supply needs Barge operations do not interfere with navigation or with other river users to an unacceptable degree.

3.5.48 The practicality of rail transportation will depend on both the proximity of the main sites to suitable rail sidings and the local network’s capacity for freight movements. 3.5.49 It is expected that some deliveries would be need to be transported by road, even if barge and/or rail transport facilities were available. Any necessary highway routes will need to be

Page 20
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

identified as part of the project development. Major deliveries/removals will be subject to specific movement restrictions and conditions imposed by police and traffic authorities. 3.5.50 For the majority of the CSO sites, it is envisaged that the primary mode of transport will be by road. Main tunnel segment fabrication and supply 3.5.51 The supply of tunnel lining segments to the individual drive shaft site locations will depend upon their final location and the location of the potential fabrication facility or facilities. 3.5.52 It is considered that the supply of these could either be by road or river, while river transport would be preferred where practical and economic. Excavated material handling and disposal Material type and handling 3.5.53 The main excavated material types will be London Clay, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands Formation and Chalk. The overall route geology dictates where these are encountered. 3.5.54 The type of material and TBM choice will dictate the material handling and treatment requirements; the excavated material consistency will vary from relatively dry London Clay to Chalk slurry. 3.5.55 For the purposes of site planning, an allowance has been made for onsite storage of excavated material equating to five days’ production. This allows for issues relating to maintenance, plant breakdown and risks to barge operations on the River Thames. Quantities and programme requirements 3.5.56 The total quantity of excavated material for all tunnels and shafts is anticipated to be in the region of 2.5 to 3 million m3 (in situ quantity). This will vary, depending on the tunnel alignment and connections. 3.5.57 The quantity of excavated material arising per drive at main tunnel drive shaft sites will be approximately 300,000m3 to 500,000m3, assuming a tunnel length of between 5km to 8km. 3.5.58 Where two drives are carried out from the same site location, this will increase the capacity required if these are to be carried out simultaneously. 3.5.59 The tunnelling advance rates dictate the requirements for material removal. For the purposes of preliminary planning, a rate of 2,000m3 to 4,000m3 per day from a site is assumed, depending on TBM type and ground conditions. Marine transport 3.5.60 The feasibility and use of marine transport for the removal of excavated material from potential main tunnel drive shaft sites along the river is dependent on location. 3.5.61 Operations in the upper reaches of the River Thames beyond Hammersmith Bridge are considered to be unworkable, due to the restrictions of bridge height, tidal range and width of the navigable channel. These would impose constraints to barges 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. 3.5.62 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. 3.5.63 Downstream of Putney Bridge, there are fewer navigational constraints and, as such, it is possible to use reduced numbers of 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

Page 21
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

barges can be used in the vicinity of Battersea Power Station and 1,500t barges can be used from Greenwich to Beckton. In-river facilities 3.5.64 Jetty/wharf structures and their location with respect to the navigational channel, together with associated dredging of the river for access purposes, will be site specific. Each main tunnel drive shaft 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. 3.5.65 The above issues, 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. 3.5.66 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 3.5.67 The total quantity of excavated material to be disposed of for the Thames Tunnel Project is in the region of 2.5 to 3 million m3 (in situ quantity). The methods of treatment, transport and disposal are dependent upon the nature and consistency of the excavated material and requirements for final disposal. 3.5.68 The overall policy is to favour marine transport of excavated material along the River Thames, where practicable. 3.5.69 The details of potential disposal sites are not discussed or considered in this report. These will be covered by the project ‘Waste Management Strategy’, forming part of the future Environmental Impact Assessment. CSO connection to the main tunnel 3.5.70 Where the CSO connection tunnels are directly connected to the main tunnel, it has been assumed that the internal diameter will be no greater than 3m and at an angle of about 70 degrees to the main tunnel, unless there are overriding technical considerations, which mean that this cannot be achieved. The limitation on diameter is due to construction constraints and the need to maintain structural stability of the main tunnel lining. 3.5.71 The CSO connections to the main tunnel are to be grouped into five generic options/types. These are outlined in greater detail in Section 4. Connection with Beckton STW or Lee Tunnel 3.5.72 The main tunnel can either connect with the Lee Tunnel at Beckton STW or Abbey Mills PSs, depending on the main tunnel alignment. The details of these connections are outlined below. Beckton STW connection (for the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes) 3.5.73 For the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes, the main tunnel would connect to the Lee Tunnel at the proposed overflow shaft at Beckton STW. The overflow shaft will be completed as part of the Lee Tunnel prior to the Thames Tunnel Project. The connection will need to provide a smooth hydraulic path for flows in both directions, to allow both tunnels to overflow to the River Thames when required, and for the construction of the connection to minimise the effect on the Lee Tunnel operations.

Page 22
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

3.5.74 It is planned that the Lee Tunnel overflow shaft will make provision for the connection by incorporating a tunnel eye in the shaft wall. The Thames Tunnel Project will include a shaft approximately 30m to one side of the Lee Tunnel overflow shaft, either to launch or receive the main tunnel TBM. The two shafts will be connected by a short 7.2m internal diameter tunnel. Abbey Mills connection (for the Abbey Mills route) 3.5.75 For the Abbey Mills route, the main tunnel will connect to the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills. The proposed arrangement is for the main tunnel to connect at or close to the Lee Tunnel ‘Shaft F’ (proposed Lee Tunnel shaft to be located at Abbey Mills PSs). The connection will need to provide a smooth hydraulic confluence to allow flows in both directions, and for the construction of the connection to minimise the effect on the Lee Tunnel operations. 3.5.76 Two connection arrangements are considered feasible, although other arrangements may be considered as the design develops:   The main tunnel connects directly into Shaft F. The Lee Tunnel Shaft F will incorporate a tunnel eye in the shaft wall for the connection. A shaft approximately 50m to one side of the Lee Tunnel Shaft F will be constructed, either to launch or receive the main tunnel TBM. The Lee Tunnel will be enlarged over a short length to form a connection chamber and the Lee Tunnel and the main tunnel will be connected by a short tunnel.

Third-party infrastructure impact 3.5.77 The nature of operations involved in construction of the main tunnel and associated shafts has the potential to cause ground movements that could affect existing third-party infrastructure and buildings. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the main tunnel shaft locations and construction methodologies will be selected so that the impact on third-party infrastructure due to settlement will be avoided or minimised, as far as reasonably practicable. 3.5.78 Searches of historical and other records have revealed wells located within the alignment corridor, some of which are operational abstraction wells. The tunnel alignment will, wherever possible, avoid any adverse affect on these wells. 3.5.79 Searches have revealed, in addition to road and underground rail transport tunnels, a number of existing deep level service tunnels, including National Grid’s Beverley Brook tunnel and a number of BT Openreach tunnels. In addition to these, the planned National Grid ‘Wimbledon to Kensal Green’ tunnel is also noted. The alignment of the main tunnel will avoid these assets, with acceptable clearances. 3.6 CSO engineering and construction requirements General considerations 3.6.1 The design requirements for CSOs are outlined in Developments in design requirements in Section 3.3 with a list of the controls required for all 34 CSOs, as well as indicating the 21 or 22 CSOs requiring interception, depending on the route, and three interceptions to the existing LL1. The CSO interceptions identified comprise a combination of direct gravity overflows and pumping stations. In each case, the location of the CSO interception works will be constrained by the layout of the existing sewer system. In general, interception of gravity CSOs will be downstream of the last incoming connection into 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,

3.6.2

3.6.3

3.6.4

Page 23
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

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 provides maintenance benefits. 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. CSO interception – design and construction 3.6.5 The CSO interceptions typically consist of the following elements:     3.6.6 CSO interception chamber CSO connection culvert CSO drop shaft CSO connection tunnel.

Details of each of these elements are outlined below. CSO interception chambers

3.6.7

The CSO interception chamber will typically be a box-shaped structure and will be positioned on the line of the existing sewer pipe. The purpose of this structure is to intercept the CSO flow and direct it into the connection culvert leading to the drop structure. The size of the interception chamber will be determined to suit the existing sewer and to accommodate the maximum flow requirements for interception. This will be done following a combination of theoretical and physical modelling. The depth of the interception chamber will be determined by the depth of the existing sewer and, although relatively shallow, these can be up to approximately 22m deep, depending on the depth of the existing sewer at the location of interception.

3.6.8

3.6.9

3.6.10 It is envisaged that the interception chambers will be constructed as a reinforced concrete structure. However, the construction methodology for the chamber will be dependent on the depth, ground conditions and other site specific criteria. Generally, sheet piling may be used to provide the excavation for the construction of the chamber. Where the depth of the chamber precludes the use of sheet piling, an alternative method, such as secant piling, may be required. 3.6.11 The existing line of the overflow is to be retained for use as an overflow for the system in the permanent case. An overflow is also to be maintained during the construction of the interception works to enable the function of the existing system to be maintained in a storm event within this period. 3.6.12 For foreshore interception options, it is envisaged that the interception chamber may be incorporated within the top of the drop shaft. 3.6.13 The overflow to the river will be protected by double isolation in the form of two lines of flap gates. These flap gates will either utilise the existing flap gate arrangement (where acceptable) or, in some cases, a new structure and flap gate arrangement. 3.6.14 The interception chamber will 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 will also be positioned within the interception chamber at the junction of the connection culvert. This penstock will remain open during normal operative procedures, but will be closed to prevent flows being diverted through the connection culvert during maintenance activities. 3.6.15 It is envisaged that a control kiosk will 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 will be sized accordingly. 3.6.16 An opening will 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. Page 24
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

These openings will be fitted with suitable lockable covers. It is envisaged that the roof of the chamber will be at or below ground level, with the covers to the openings positioned at ground level. CSO connection culverts 3.6.17 The CSO connection culvert will 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. 3.6.18 The depth of the connection culvert will 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. 3.6.19 The connection culvert will be sized to accommodate the required controlled or maximum design flow rate. 3.6.20 The form of construction of each CSO connection culvert will be controlled by the constraints at each site. Typical forms of construction could include open cut supported by sheet piling, microtunnelling/pipejacking (utilising precast concrete pipe units) and headings. Therefore, the connection culvert may be either circular or box-shaped in cross section and could comprise precast concrete pipes, precast concrete culvert units or in situ concrete. 3.6.21 There may also be a series of access manholes along the length of the culvert to accommodate the required flap gates and to provide maintenance and inspection access. 3.6.22 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 3.6.23 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. Three forms of mechanism have been considered to drop the flows within the drop shaft. These are summarised as follows: 3.6.24 Straight drop: The use of a straight drop is only considered appropriate where the drop in height is less than 10m due to energy dissipation. The direct drop approach will 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 will not be used. 3.6.25 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. 3.6.26 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. 3.6.27 Drop shafts will be sized to accommodate maximum flows, having regard to the mechanism used to drop the flow to tunnel level. The assumptions register in Appendix A provides the assumed minimum sizes. CSO interceptions and connection to main tunnel 3.6.28 For the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes, 22 CSOs will be intercepted and connected to the main tunnel, along with three low level sewer connections as detailed in

Page 25
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

3 System Design and Engineering Requirements

Developments in design requirements in Section 3.3. The only difference for the Abbey Mills route is that there is one less CSO interception. 3.6.29 The sizes of the CSO drop shafts and connection tunnels are provided in the assumptions register in Appendix A. 3.6.30 Details of the types and methods of CSO connection to the main tunnel are outlined in Section 4.3. Construction sites and logistics Site requirements 3.6.31 CSO site requirements will depend on the size of the connection tunnels, diameter depth and type of drop shaft, space requirements for construction activities, access constraints, and whether the drop shaft is to be used as a drive or reception shaft for the connection tunnels. Considerations for in-river sites 3.6.32 In-river (foreshore) sites are considered for a number of locations. In general, these locations are not favoured as an engineering solution due to the added complications of both working in the river and access to sites. Nevertheless, in certain areas, the complication of the connection and availability of suitable sites means that such sites are considered. Transport of materials and equipment 3.6.33 Construction of the CSO works will require a wide variety of materials and equipment to be transported to and from the working sites. These smaller sites could also be managed as satellites to main tunnel drive site locations, negating the need for facilities such as offices, stores and other site facilities. 3.6.34 For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that all transport to and from the CSO sites will be by road, although excavated material could be transported to the nearest main shaft site for removal by marine transport if this is feasible. Where CSO foreshore sites have significant access restrictions, consideration will be given to providing river transport as much as possible instead of road. It is assumed, however, that some road transport will always be required for construction of these sites. Power supply and site services 3.6.35 The temporary service requirements for the CSO sites are less onerous than the main tunnel drive shaft sites. Third-party infrastructure impact 3.6.36 The works at CSO sites have the potential to affect third-party infrastructure and buildings, specifically near-surface services and the river walls forming the River Thames flood defences. Near-surface services will be present at all sites, but the complexity of the existing layouts and the possibility of diversionary routes will vary. The construction works will be designed to avoid or minimise their impact on third-party infrastructure and buildings as far as is practicable.

Page 26
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

4 4.1 4.1.1

ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT AND COMPARISON OF OPTIONS Introduction Section 4 establishes main tunnel drive options and factors that can be used to assess the engineering advantages and disadvantages of these options. It also identifies the five different ways to connect the CSO interceptions to the main tunnel. Main tunnel engineering – options preparation Main tunnel routes

4.2

4.2.1

Three main tunnel routes have been set out in Section 3.3. This section further develops and establishes feasible drive options for the three principal routes and presents them in a format to take forward to the site selection process, and therefore enables the determination of both a preferred route and an associated list of preferred sites. Western and eastern sections of main tunnel

4.2.2

To the west of Tower Bridge, all the proposed routes described above follow the route of the River Thames. The main tunnel drive and CSO options for the western end of the scheme will be considered as a single alignment option. To the east of Tower Bridge, the three routes as described above will be considered separately. Development of main tunnel drive options Introduction to drive options

4.2.3

This report considers issues that affect the selection of main tunnel shaft sites for the three main tunnel routes, both for construction of the main tunnel drive and the CSO connections to the main tunnel. Potential sites have been identified from the shortlist, established via the process set out in the Site Selection Methodology Paper. The shortlisted sites fall into three categories:    Sites potentially suitable as main tunnel drive shaft sites Sites potentially suitable as either main tunnel intermediate or reception shaft sites Sites potentially suitable as CSO drop shaft sites.

4.2.4

4.2.5

There are a total of 52 shaft sites (all potentially suitable as reception or intermediate shaft sites, but not all are suitable as drive shaft sites) and 71 CSO sites identified on the final shortlist. Shaft sites may either be used individually or combined with an adjoining site to provide the required site area. The overall development of options and selection of sites includes consideration of the following: Main tunnel  Main tunnel drive options – for the three main tunnel routes, a number of drive options exists where the number of TBMs, numbers of sites and length of drives would vary. Main tunnel site options – for each drive option, there are a number of sites that could be used where the space, tunnel alignment, and other factors would vary.

4.2.6

 CSO 

CSO connection options – the type of CSO connection would depend on the flow, the geology, the proximity of the main tunnel or one of its shaft sites, and a number of other factors. Page 27

100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc

Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

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 shafts.

4.2.7

This Engineering Options Report develops and describes the first of these, the main tunnel drive options. Site options for the main tunnels will be covered in the Preferred Scheme Report. The CSO connection options are also introduced in a later section of this report and considered as generic types. However, the assessment of these options, along with the CSO site options, will be completed as part of the Preferred Scheme Report. To manage the number of potential main tunnel drive options, shaft sites are considered in zones based on their geographical positions. The available sites are grouped into ten zones along the line of the Thames (zones S1 to S10). A further zone at Abbey Mills is also identified (Zone S11). The location of these groupings is described in the following section.

4.2.8

4.2.9

4.2.10 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 Preferred Scheme Report. Definition of drive options 4.2.11 For each of the main tunnel routes, a number of drive options exist. The drive options are based on the number of TBMs used and the number of shaft sites that they can be driven from. This approach differentiates between shaft sites from which tunnels can be driven in either one or both directions. 4.2.12 To establish the range of drive options, each drive is considered between two site zones, with a drive shaft site within one zone and a reception shaft site within another zone. By combining different lengths of drive between shaft sites, a number of options can be established. By also applying some basic constraining assumptions (eg, maximum and minimum drive lengths, useable site areas, etc), the total number of options is reduced to a reasonable level. 4.2.13 The following sections identify the criteria used to establish the list of drive options for subsequent assessment of cost, programme, risk and operational impacts. Site zones 4.2.14 To manage the total number of combinations of tunnel drive and launch site options, a limited number of drive/reception shaft zones have been identified by grouping the shortlisted sites. This was based on the geographical proximity of sites. 4.2.15 Table 4.1 identifies which shaft zone each of the selected sites belongs to. These zones are shown in Figure 4.1. 4.2.16 The site suitability reports that are being developed in parallel with this report will look at the sites in greater detail. The shortlisted shaft sites used to identify the zones have been established from the site selection process outlined in the Site Selection Methodology Paper. These shaft site locations are also shown in more detailed plans on the alignment drawings in Appendix B. 4.2.17 The specific assessment of the available worksites within each zone is not considered within this report. These factors will be examined within the preferred scheme workshops and Preferred Scheme Report. This will include its use as both a temporary worksite and the final permanent works requirements. 4.2.18 The site selection process searched for three types of shaft sites to construct the main tunnel:   main tunnel drive shaft sites main tunnel reception shaft sites

Page 28
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

main tunnel intermediate shaft sites.

4.2.19 The requirements and site area of a main tunnel reception shaft site are similar to those of an intermediate shaft site but not those of a main tunnel drive shaft site. For site selection purposes, a main tunnel reception shaft site was considered in the same way as an ‘intermediate’ shaft site. Therefore, only two categories of shaft sites needed to be identified in the site selection process, which were:   ‘main shaft sites’ – the term used for main tunnel drive shaft sites ‘intermediate shaft sites’ – the term used for both main tunnel intermediate shaft sites and main tunnel reception shaft sites.

4.2.20 Table 4.1 lists the available shaft sites and their potential usage (‘main’ or ‘intermediate’). ‘Split’ sites are too small on their own and require pairing up with other adjoining sites to provide adequate space for required operation as either a ‘main’ or ‘intermediate’ shaft site.

Figure 4.1 Main tunnel shaft zones

 

Table 4.1 Grouping of main tunnel drive sites Site zone
S1 S33HF S2 S17RD S18WH S69HF S3 S70HF S72HF S76HF S4 S08KC S5 S61WH Foreshore, Cremorne Wharf and Lots Road Pumping Station Battersea Park Kensington & Chelsea Wandsworth Intermediate shaft site Double main, single main or intermediate shaft site Carnwath Road industrial estate, Carnwath Road Fulham Depot, next to Wandsworth Bridge, Townmead Road Former part of Imperial Wharf, Imperial Crescent Hammersmith and Fulham Hammersmith and Fulham Hammersmith and Fulham Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site

Site ID
S13RD

Site name
St Paul's School playing fields Vacant land and Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station, Chancellors Road Barn Elms Land adjacent to solid waste transfer station, The Causeway Hurlingham Wharf and Whiffin Wharf, Carnwath Rd

Local authority
Richmond Hammersmith and Fulham Richmond Wandsworth Hammersmith and Fulham

Site usage
Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site

Page 29
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Site zone

Site ID
S68WH

Site name
Battersea Power Station

Local authority
Wandsworth

Site usage
Split double main, single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main, or spit intermediate shaft site Split double main, split intermediate or intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main or split intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main or split intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Split intermediate shaft site Split intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Double main, single main, split single main or intermediate shaft site Split single main or intermediate shaft site Intermediate shaft site Split single main shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Split main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site

S69WH

Solid waste transfer station, Cringle Street

Wandsworth

S72WH

Concrete plant adjacent to Cringle Wharf, Cringle Street Industrial warehouses, Kirtling Street Warehouses/depot, Cringle Street Tideway Industrial Estate, Tideway Walk Thames Water Heathwall Pumping Station and concrete plant, Nine Elms Lane Warehouses/offices, Post Office Way Open space, Grosvenor Rd Foreshore, Riverwalk House, Vauxhall Bdge King’s Stairs Gardens, Jamaica Road Shadwell Basin King Edward Memorial Park Heckford Street Trading Centre Heckford Street Business Centre Limehouse Basin Open space at Durand’s Wharf, Rotherhithe Street Sir John McDougal Gardens, Westferry Rd Slipway adjacent to Old Bellgate Place, Westferry Road South Dock marina boat yard, Calypso Way Convoys Wharf

Wandsworth

S73WH S74WH S79WH

Wandsworth Wandsworth Wandsworth

S80WH

Wandsworth

S87WH S04WR S11WR S6 S54SK S020T S021T S7 S024T S025T S036T S71SK S065T S070T S8 S74SK S01LM

Wandsworth Westminster Westminster Southwark Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Southwark Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Southwark Lewisham

S02LM S021G S024G S025G S9 S033G S047G S048G

Pepys Park Piper’s Wharf, marine engineer yard, Banning Street Industrial warehouse, Christchurch Way Enderby’s Wharf and offices, Christchurch Way Morden and Primrose Wharves, Peterboat Close Car park adjacent to jetty, East Parkside Vacant land, East Parkside

Lewisham Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich

Page 30
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Site zone

Site ID
S054G S055G S056G S057G S058G S063G

Site name
Vacant land adjacent to Greenwich Yacht Club, West Parkside Vacant land between Peartree Way and Horn Link Way Angerstein Wharf, aggregates plant, Horn Link Way Christie’s Wharf, aggregates plant, Lombard Wall Lombard and Meridian Trading Estate, Bugsby’s Way Industrial area, Lombard Wall

Local authority
Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich Greenwich

Site usage
Intermediate shaft site Split single main or intermediate shaft site Single main, split single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main or split single main shaft site Split double main, split single main shaft site or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main or intermediate shaft site Split double main, split single main, single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site Single main or intermediate shaft site

S064G

Industrial area, Riverside

Greenwich

S060G S085G

Industrial area, Anchor and Hope Lane Industrial area, near Thames Barrier, Herringham Road Riverside Wharf, industrial area, Herringham Road Thames Water Beckton Sewage Treatment Works) Thames Water Abbey Mills Pumping Stations Three Mills Green Three Mills Studios

Greenwich Greenwich

S061G

Greenwich

S10

S82NM S84NM

Newham Newham Newham Newham

S11

S85NM S86NM

Main shaft sites are sites that can be used as main tunnel double or single drive shaft sites. ‘Intermediate shaft sites’ include intermediate (‘drive through’) and reception shaft sites. Split sites are sites that are too small on their own but could be used in combination with other site(s) to form a suitable site.

Drive constraint assumptions 4.2.21 The following engineering judgements have been used as limiting criteria to establish the full list of drive options:  The maximum desirable drive length is 12km from a shaft in London Clay and 6km from a deep diaphragm wall shaft, determined by what is needed to keep within a six-year construction and commissioning period, and to reduce programme risk. The difference between these distances is driven by the longer period of time required to construct very deep shafts by diaphragm wall method, which is considered the appropriate method for deep main shafts in zones S6 to S11. Refer to Shafts construction methods in Section 3.  The minimum economic drive length is 3km, based on tunnelling efficiencies but with the exception of S1 to S2, where S2 represents the only zone available near the western end of the scheme. A main tunnel drive shaft site requires an area of 20,000m2 in Chalk and 18,000m2 elsewhere. Where a drive is proposed in two directions, the equivalent of two drive shaft sites could be required, or a site with an area of 36,000m2 to 40,000m2.

Page 31
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Derivation of the drive options 4.2.22 For each main tunnel route, the length of the main tunnel can be split into a number of drives, each constructed with a separate TBM. Based on the shaft site grouping and the maximum and minimum drive lengths defined above, between three and six TBMs could be used for the main tunnel. 4.2.23 Considering the western end of the scheme from S1 to S5 in isolation, one or two TBMs could be used. For the eastern end, from S5 to S10/S11, where there are three alignment options, two, three or four TBMs could be used. 4.2.24 To establish and schedule out all the possible drive options, the following tables 4.2 to 4.6 have been prepared, based on the three routes. These indicate possible options for joining the zones, with the western end drive options looked at separately from the eastern end drive options. 4.2.25 These tables illustrate a matrix of possible drive scenarios, using the available zones for tunnel drive and tunnel reception. The matrix has been colour-coded, as indicated in the key in Figure 4.2, with coloured squares denoting possible options for driving the tunnel from a zone with an available drive site to a zone with an available reception site. Lines have been drawn on the matrix, indicating the available drive scenarios with approximate overall chainage on the axes and drive lengths in metres indicated in the matrix (chainages and drive lengths are from centre of zone to centre of zone). These are then summarised below the tables as simple line diagrams, outlining the possible drive options to be taken forward at this stage. 4.2.26 For example, Table 4.2 outlines the feasible drive scenarios for the use of the two zones in which drive shaft sites between zones S1 and S5 are available. Hence, in this case, only S2 and S5 have available drive shaft sites, as can be seen from the list of available sites in Table 4.1. Therefore, the matrix of options shows possible drives as arrows from these zones to other zones. 4.2.27 Options using zones 3 and 4 are not considered to be desirable since only ‘intermediate’ shaft locations are available in these zones. To incorporate these sites would both increase the number of shaft locations and also the number of drives. Hence, this would lead to both substantial and unnecessary increases in the overall scope of work and consequential impact to other third parties, without providing any benefit to the project.

Page 32
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Figure 4.2 Key for matrix of possible drives

Key
Eastbound Drive Westbound Drive Drive not used Drive shaft Double drive shaft Drive Site (group of sites) Intermediate/reception only site

Drive length OK Drive length too long from a deep d'wall shaft Drive length too long or too short

Table 4.2 Western End drive options – consideration of practical drive lengths Matrix of possible drives

 

Shaft zone Chainage S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 0 1800 4200 5900 8800

S1 0 S1 1800 4200 5900 8800

S2 1,800 1800 S2 2400 4100 7000

S3 4,200 4200 2400 S3 1700 4600

S4 5,900 5900 4100 1700 S4 2900

S5 8,800 8800 7000 4600 2900 S5

Summary of options

 
length between zones (m) 1 site 2 drives 2 sites 2 drives 1 site 1 drives

S1 1800

S2 2400

S3 1700

S4 2900

S5

Page 33
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Table 4.3 Eastern end River Thames route drive options – consideration of practical lengths Matrix of possible drives

 

Shaft zone Chainage S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 8800 16000 18000 21100 24800 30800

S5 8,800 S5 7200 9200 12300 16000 22000

S6 16,000 7200 S6 2000 5100 8800 14800

S7 18,000 9200 2000 S7 3100 6800 12800

S8 21,100 12300 5100 3100 S8 3700 9700

S9 24,800 16000 8800 6800 3700 S9 6000

S10 30,800 22000 14800 12800 9700 6000 S10

Summary of options

 
length between zones (m) 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives

S5 7200 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

S6 2000 rr

S7 3100

S8 3700

S9 6000

S10

Page 34
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Table 4.4 Eastern end Rotherhithe route drive options Matrix of possible drives

 

Shaft zone Chainage S5 S6 S8 S9 S10 8800 16000 19400 23100 29000

S5 8800 S5 7200 10600 14300 20200

S6 16000 7200 S6 3400 7100 13000

S8 19,400 10600 3400 S8 3700 9600

S9 23,100 14300 7100 3700 S9 5900

S10 29,000 20200 13000 9600 5900 S10

Summary of options

 
length between zones (m) 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 4 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 4 drives 3 sites 3 drives 3 sites 3 drives 3 sites 3 drives 2 sites 3 drives

S5 7200

S6 3400

S8 3700

S9 5900

S10

Page 35
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Table 4.5 Eastern end Abbey Mills (via S8) drive options Matrix of possible drives

 

Shaft zone Chainage S5 S6 S8 S11 8800 16000 19400 24500

S5 8800 S5 7200 10600 15700

S6 16000 7200 S6 3400 8500

S8 19,400 10600 3400 S8 5100

S11 24,500 15700 8500 5100 S11

Summary of options

 
length between zones (m) 3 sites 3 drives 3 sites 3 drives 3 sites 3 drives 2 sites 2 drives 2 sites 2 drives 2 sites 2 drives

S5 7200

S6 3400

S8 5100

S11

Table 4.6 Eastern end Abbey Mills route (via S7) drive options Matrix of possible drives

 

Shaft zone Chainage S5 S6 S7 S11 8800 16500 18500 22000

S5 8800 S5 7700 9700 13200

S6 16500 7700 S6 2000 5500

S7 18,500 9700 2000 S7 3500

S11 22,000 13200 5500 3500 S11

Summary of options

 
length between zones (m) 2 sites 2 drives 2 sites 2 drives 2 sites 2 drives 2 sites 2 drives

S5 7700

S6 2000

S7 3500

S11

Page 36
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Number of drive sites 4.2.28 The number of locations from which the individual drives are launched and received will vary according to directions in which the drives are constructed. For the purpose of identifying drive options, the number of drive shaft sites has also been considered as a subcategory, as there are potential benefits in reducing the number of drive shaft sites by having double drive shaft sites where two TBMs are driven in opposite directions, enabling efficiencies to be gained in the site servicing requirements and logistics. For example, a drive option using four TBMs could be completed from two, three or four drive shaft sites. 4.2.29 Figure 4.3 summarises the possible main tunnel shaft types that can be used for the establishment of feasible drive options. Figure 4.3 Main tunnel shaft site types
r Main tunnel drive shaft site - main tunnel drive in one direction Main tunnel reception shaft site - main tunnel reception in one direction

d-r

Main tunnel drive shaft site - main tunnel drive in one direction - main tunnel reception in other direction

r-r

Main tunnel reception shaft site - main tunnel reception in two directions

i d+d Main tunnel drive shaft site - main tunnel drive in two directions sequentially d r i d-d Main tunnel drive shaft site (double main shaft site) - main tunnel drive in two directions concurrently

Main tunnel intermediate shaft site - main tunnel drive through

drive reception intermediate main tunnel main tunnel drive shaft shaft site setup intermediate or main tunnel reception shaft site setup tunnel drive direction shaft on the main tunnel

Note: any of these main tunnel shaft scenarios could include the drive or reception of CSO connection tunnels

4.2.30 In establishing drive options, it has been shown that no intermediate shaft sites are required to carry out construction of the main tunnel. However, in locations where CSO drop shafts are online of the main tunnel, these locations may also be used to facilitate ‘intermediate shaft’ type activities, although these would not be their primary reason for inclusion and use. Drive options – comprehensive schedule of possible options 4.2.31 From tables 4.2 to 4.6, it is seen that based on the variables of alignment, number of TBM drives and number of drive shaft sites, there are three drive options for the western end of the scheme, 16 options for the eastern end River Thames route, 12 options for the eastern end Rotherhithe route and ten options for the eastern end Abbey Mills route. These 38 drive options are represented in Table 4.7 as an initial provisional schedule of main tunnel drive options. The table identifies shaft site zones across the top, with different drive options presented on each row. Letters and colours are used to identify the shaft site use Page 37
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

in each zone as explained in the legend. The table is split between the western end alignment options for zones 1 to 5 and the eastern end alignment options for the three routes relating to zones 5 to 11. Drive options are to be read as indicated in the example below, with arrows showing the drive direction such that the tunnel is driven from a ‘d’ drive location to a ‘r’ reception location. Figure 4.4 Drive option example
r d-d r-r d

4.2.32 A number of the resulting drive options include double drive sites, where tunnels could be constructed in opposite directions from a particular site. Potentially, zones S5, S8 and S9 all have larger sites, or pairs of sites, that could be used for a double drive.

Page 38
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Table 4.7 Initial provisional main tunnel drive options matrix
Legend: The following nomenclature / legend is used in the table below to define the types of site required in the defined zones, where 'd' denotes drive site and 'r' denotes reception site.
Not Applicable No site required Single Reception Double Reception Single Drive Drive & Reception Double Drive (sequential) Double Drive (concurrent)

r

r-r

d

r- d

d-d

d-d

S1 Hammersmith
Drive Option ID

S2 Barn Elms

S3 Wandsworth Bridge

S4 Lots Road

S5 Battersea

S6 Shad

S7 Limehouse

S8 Deptford

S9 Charlton

S10 Beckton

S11 Abbey Mills

Western End Route

Wa 2-2 Wb 2-1 Wc 1-1

r r r

d-r d-d -

-

-

d-d r-d d-d

Ba1 4-4(1) Ba1 4-4(2) Ba1 4-4(4) Ba1 4-4(5) Ba2 4-4(1) Ba2 4-4(2)

r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d r-r r-r r-r r-d r-r r-r r-r

r-d r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d d-r r-r r-r d-d d-r d-d r-r d-d d-r d-d

r-d r-r r-d d-r r-d r-r d-r d-r d-d r-d d-d r-r d-d r-d d-d r-r

r d d d r d d d r r r d r r r d

River Thames Route

Ba2 4-4(4) Ba2 4-4(5) Bb1 4-3(1) Bb1 4-3(2) Bb1 4-3(8) Bb1 4-3(9) Bb2 4-3(1) Bb2 4-3(2) Bb2 4-3(8) Bb2 4-3(9)

A1a 4-4(1) A1a 4-4(2) A1a 4-4(4) A1a 4-4(5)

r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d r-r r-r r-r

r-d r-d d-r r-r r-r dd d-r dd r-d r-d r-r r-r

r-d r-r d-r d-r dd rd dd r-r r-d r-r d-r dd

r d d d r r r d r d d r

Rotherhithe Route

A1b 4-3(1) A1b 4-3(2) A1b 4-3(8) A1b 4-3(9) A1f 3-3(1) A1f 3-3(3) A1f 3-3(4) A1g 3-2(1)

A2a 3-3(1) A2a 3-3(3) A2a 3-3(4)

r-d r-d r-r r-r r-d r-r r-d r-r

r-d r-r d-r dd

r d d r r d r d

Abbey Mills Route

A2b 3-2(1) A2c 2-2(1) A2c 2-2(2) A2e2-2(1) A2e2-2(2) A2g2-2(1) A2g2-2(2)

r-d r-r

r d

Further development of drive strategies 4.2.33 Further to the initial derivation and drawing up of drive options in Table 4.7 above, an additional review and development has been carried out to ensure that there are no other factors that affect these or preclude their feasibility. This development is outlined in the following sections, from which Table 4.8 has been drawn up, showing the ‘Finalised main tunnel drive options matrix’. Double drive shaft site in Zone S2 4.2.34 Zone S2 contains only one shaft site, S17RD (Barn Elms), which is identified as a possible single drive shaft site (refer to Table 4.1). However, Table 4.7 identifies a drive option

Page 39
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

(option Wb2-1) using a double drive shaft site in this zone. Based on this, the suitability of S17RD as a double drive shaft site needs to be reviewed, considering, in particular, the ability to transport double the quantity of excavated material using river-based barges. 4.2.35 The available water depth and width of the river, coupled with the maximum size of barge able to service this site, makes the possibility of transporting excavated material in the quantities required for a double drive shaft site highly unlikely. There is a limited tidal window available to load and move barges, and this is believed to be insufficient to meet the predicted demands. Therefore, the conclusion is that the river at S17RD is not able to handle the additional traffic and consequently, a drive strategy with two simultaneous drives from this zone is not considered practicably feasible. Sequential drives from Zone S2 4.2.36 While considering the issues mentioned in the section above, an additional drive strategy for the western end of the tunnel is identified. This strategy takes full advantage of the construction time available and allows for a tunnel to be driven, using a TBM driven from a single drive shaft site within Zone S2 towards a reception shaft site in S1, where it would be removed, returned to S2, and then driven to S5. This option is considered to be feasible and replaces option Wb2-1 from Table 4.7 with a new version in Table 4.8. Long tunnel drives through different geological strata 4.2.37 Table 4.7 identifies a number of possible drive strategies that include driving a tunnel from Zone S5 to either Zone S6, S7 or S8. All of these drives would start in London Clay and traverse through the Lambeth Group, the Thanet Sands Formation and into the Chalk. The longest drive options from S5 to S8 would be over 10km long, including over 2km in Chalk. Because the tunnel falls on a constant gradient towards the east, the longer drives would also be deeper and subject to higher groundwater pressure. 4.2.38 As noted in Tunnelling and shaft construction methods in Section 3.5, different types of tunnelling machines are preferred for different ground conditions and since these drives would traverse mainly London Clay, Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands Formation, an EPB machine would most likely be used. However, while this type of machine is most suited to the London Clay and Lambeth Group, which comprise approximately 7.5km of these drives, it is less suitable when used in Chalk. For this reason, a specific risk assessment is necessary to determine the viability of longer drives from S5 to the east, terminating in Chalk. 4.2.39 This risk assessment has identified a number of issues that would make driving into Chalk with an EPB machine much more challenging. These include:  reduced tunnel advance rates. The assumed long average advance rate for an EPB machine in the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands Formation has been taken to be 90m/week. However, it is considered that for this machine in Chalk, the advance rate should be reduced, due to inefficient working and additional maintenance, to 50m/week increased health and safety hazards for work required to maintain the TBM increased risk of mechanical TBM failure (seals, bearings and screw conveyor) increased risk of wear on cutting head increased risk of excavated material transfer problems due to water increased risk mitigation cost resulting from above.

    

4.2.40 For these reasons, and in particular the reduced tunnel advance rate, the longest drives from Zone S5 to S8 are considered highly undesirable and have been removed from the list of feasible drive options. The reduced drive rate means that these options cannot be completed in the overall construction period.

Page 40
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Final drive strategies 4.2.41 Having reviewed the drive options from Table 4.7, a finalised list of drive options is presented in Table 4.8 below. The table identifies site zones across the top, with different drive options presented on each row. Letters and colours are used to identify the type of shaft site used in each zone. Table 4.8 Finalised main tunnel drive options matrix
Legend: The following nomenclature / legend is used in the table below to define the types of site required in the defined zones, where 'd' denotes drive site and 'r' denotes reception site.
Not Applicable No site required Single Reception Double Reception Single Drive Drive & Reception Double Drive (sequential) Double Drive (concurrent)

r

r-r

d

r- d

d-d

d-d

S1 Hammersmith
Drive Option ID

S2 Barn Elms

S3 Wandsworth Bridge

S4 Lots Road

S5 Battersea

S6 Shad

S7 Limehouse

S8 Deptford

S9 Charlton

S10 Beckton

S11 Abbey Mills

Western End Route

Wa 2-2 Wb 2-1 Wc 1-1

r r r

d-r d-d -

-

-

d-d r-d d-d

Ba1 4-4(1) Ba1 4-4(2) Ba1 4-4(4) Ba1 4-4(5) Ba2 4-4(1) Ba2 4-4(2)

r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d r-r r-r r-r r-d r-r r-r r-r

r-d r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d d-r r-r r-r d-d d-r d-d r-r d-d d-r d-d

r-d r-r r-d d-r r-d r-r d-r d-r d-d r-d d-d r-r d-d r-d d-d r-r

r d d d r d d d r r r d r r r d

River Thames Route

Ba2 4-4(4) Ba2 4-4(5) Bb1 4-3(1) Bb1 4-3(2) Bb1 4-3(8) Bb1 4-3(9) Bb2 4-3(1) Bb2 4-3(2) Bb2 4-3(8) Bb2 4-3(9)

A1a 4-4(1) A1a 4-4(2)

r-d r-d r-r r-d r-d r-r r-r r-r

r-d r-d d-r r-r r-r dd d-r dd

r-d r-r d-r d-r dd rd dd r-r

r d d d r r r d

Rotherhithe Route

A1a 4-4(4) A1a 4-4(5) A1b 4-3(1) A1b 4-3(2) A1b 4-3(8) A1b 4-3(9)

A2a 3-3(1) A2a 3-3(3)

r-d r-d r-r r-r r-d r-r r-d r-r

r-d r-r d-r dd

r d d r r d r d

Abbey Mills Route

A2a 3-3(4) A2b 3-2(1) A2c 2-2(1) A2c 2-2(2) A2e2-2(1) A2e2-2(2)

Summary of drive options for initial option assessment 4.2.42 To support the future site selection process, the complete list of drive options can be reduced to consider different numbers of TBMs, numbers of drive shaft sites and locations for the shaft sites only. This summary reduces the number of drive options to ten for the eastern end drives, which covers the use of all possible main tunnel shaft site zones. 4.2.43 For each of these summary options, a representative arrangement of drive directions has been used to form the basis for comparison of the summary options. Table 4.9 identifies the drive options and indicates the assumed arrangement of drive directions in a similar manner to that used for the previous tables, with letters and colours to define the site type but with options indicated vertically.

Page 41
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

4.2.44 Each drive option has been developed to allow an assessment of their relative cost, programme and risk characteristics. The individual drive directions will need to be considered in conjunction with the site selection environmental and sustainability criteria to determine the preferred drive option.

Table 4.9 Thames Tunnel summary of drive options
Western end Route
Western End Drive Options 2 TBMs 1 Drive Site 1 TBM 1 reception site River Thames Route 4 TBMs

Eastern end Routes
Rotherhithe Route 4 TBMs 3 TBMs Abbey Mils Route 2 TBMs 2 Drive sites 2 reception site 2 Drive sites 1 reception site A2b A2c d r r d r r d d r d

2 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

3 Drive sites 2 reception site

3 Drive sites 2 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

3 Drive sites 1 reception site

Shaft Location Name Zone No.

Wa

Wb r d d r

Wc r d

Ba1

Ba2

Bb1

Bb2

A1a

A1b

A2a

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11

Hammersmith Barn elms Wandsworth Bridge Lots road Battersea Shad Limehouse Deptford Charlton Beckton Abbey Mills

r d r d

d r r

d

d r r

d

d r r

d r r

d r r

d r d r d

r r d r d r d

d d r r d

r r d d r r d

d r d r d

d d r r d

d r

d

Alignment drawings for drive options 4.2.45 The alignment drawings for the three routes have been developed using the zones of potential sites. These sites are shown on drawings 100-DA-GEN-00000-007301 to 007304 in Appendix B. Separate plans have been included to show the proposed alignment for the western end of the scheme (common to all three routes) and for the three eastern end alignments (see drawings 100-DA-GEN-00000-007310 and 007305 to 007309 respectively). Each of these alignment drawings shows the range of possible alignments associated with the different available worksites. Construction programme assumptions 4.2.46 In addition to the alignment drawings, time/chainage diagrams have been produced for each of the main drive options as defined in Table 4.9. These diagrams are included in Appendix C and also show a schematic of the tunnel, with main tunnel shafts and CSO connections included. 4.2.47 The development of these diagrams enables the relative durations of the drive options to be determined, based on a set of assumptions for the detailed and essential construction activity elements (see Table 4.10). 4.2.48 The overall project programme is based on a construction and commissioning period of approximately six years. These programme activities follow on from the overall project design, planning and procurement activities.

Page 42
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

2 Drive sites 1 reception site A2e d r r d

1 Drive Site 2 reception sites

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Table 4.10 Programme assumptions for comparison of options
West End (S1 to S5) Key Activity Start of Construction 200m drive for TBM burrial and backup installation Main Tunnel Drive Mobilise shaft Site build and excavate shaft Base slab to shaft Tunnel eye Tunnel worksite set up TBM Installation Tunnel strip out Shaft Lining Shaft Internal Structures Main Tunnel Lining CSO shaft full depth CSO shaft rider depth connection/rider tunnel drives single shift working connection/rider tunnel drives 24hr working Tunnel Junction M&E installation, testing and Commissiong 20 m/wk 100 m/wk 12 wks 20 wks 8 wks 6 wks 2 wks 6 wks 4 wks 10 wks 18 wks 150 m/wk 30 wks 20 wks 40 m/wk 100 m/wk 8 wks 52 wks 20 m/wk 200m slow start based on no backshunt being provided East End (S6 to end) Comment

Duration/rate

80 m/wk Long average excludes 200m long TBM installation length 24 wks 65 wks 8 wks 8 wks 6 wks 6 wks 4 wks 10 wks 18 wks Includes dewatering for east end sites based on Segments, SCL or Casion for west end and D'walls for east end shafts Based on permanent base slab of Reinforced concrete Based on formation of opening in segments for west end or internal collar arrangemetn for d'wall shafts For transfer from Shaft construction Site Main Body only. Excl. backup which goes in during a slow start For removal of conveyor and for extraction of CSO TBMs if necessary insitu concrete lining internal slabs and cover structures.

150 m/wk Based on Fibre reinforced insitu lining 75 wks 25 wks includes mobilisation and baseslab includes mobilisation and baseslab

30 m/wk drives from CSO or intermediate shaft sites 80 m/wk drives from main tunnel drive sites Excludes dewatering/ground treatment Limiting dates for completion of Civils works in 240wks, based on completion before 2020

Other drive options 4.2.49 For the Abbey Mills route, a further drive option had been considered that would have involved driving a full diameter tunnel from S8 back towards S6 or S7, where an intermediate shaft could be used to turn the TBM towards Abbey Mills. This option would have some benefits if a suitable drive site cannot be found at S6, S7 or S11. However, this option requires a drive length that would significantly exceed the assumed required programme durations and is therefore has not considered any further at this stage. 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 Main tunnel engineering – options assessment This section has been prepared to outline and indicate engineering related factors that affect the desirability of the tunnel drive options. All the options presented in Table 4.8 and summarised in Table 4.9 are considered to be feasible in engineering terms. The three main areas for engineering assessment are cost,

Page 43
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

programme and risk (comprising engineering and health and safety risks). Before a preferred drive option can be selected, environmental and sustainability factors pertinent to the various options would also need to be analysed. 4.3.3 Other factors that are specific to the selection of shaft sites for each drive option, including planning, community, environment and property, will also be considered alongside one another in the follow-on process to determine which drive option is selected for the preferred scheme. Health and safety and engineering risk considerations 4.3.4 The following risk criteria are considered relevant to the comparison of drive options. Most of the risk criteria can be considered in terms of health and safety risk and/or engineering construction risk. Health and safety issues Extent of construction works 4.3.5 Overall health and safety risks have been considered in relation to the overall extent of work, and then to reflect the total quantity of man hours worked. Other specific health and safety risks are considered under other hazards and risks detailed below. Inspection and access 4.3.6 The effort required and the risks associated with inspection of the tunnel will be proportional to the length of the tunnel. The relative benefits or adverse effects are therefore proportional to the length of the tunnel. Access and egress from the main tunnel will be via main tunnel shafts and CSO drop shafts directly on the line of the tunnel. The distance between shafts is likely to be between 3km and 9km. The distance between shafts will be minimised so far as practicable but, for the purpose of comparison, the relative benefits or adverse effects from a long-term inspection and maintenance perspective will be proportional to the number of access shafts provided. Geology Flints and flint bands 4.3.8 Flints and flint bands cause wear to the TBM cutters, increasing the likelihood and frequency for face intervention. Although essential and normal for tunnels, the number of face interventions should ideally be minimised in order to reduce the associated construction hazards and delay. The likelihood and frequency for face intervention for each option is related to the length of tunnel in flint-bearing Chalk formations (namely the Seaford Formation with the Bedwell and Seven Sisters flint bands and, to a lesser extent, the Lewes Formation). Groundwater hazards 4.3.9 High water pressures at the face slow the rate of tunnelling progress, increase wear on the TBM components, increase the likelihood and frequency of face interventions, and increase the difficulty and 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. Thanet Sand Formation/Chalk interface 4.3.10 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 Sands Formation.

4.3.7

Page 44
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Major faulting 4.3.11 The risk of delay due to disturbed ground conditions and sudden water ingress increases at geological faults. The only known major fault is the Greenwich Fault, although its impact is likely to be minimal for closed face tunnelling. The level of risk for each option is related to the number of likely fault zones along each route. Third-party assets Buildings and other structures 4.3.12 Potential influence on properties resulting from deep excavations and possible ground movements associated with tunnel excavation: The level of this risk would be proportional to the length of tunnel under buildings and where the tunnel is at a lesser depth. Bridges and tunnels 4.3.13 Potential influence on major infrastructure including bridges and tunnels: The level of risk for each option will depend on how many structures are within the settlement influence of the tunnels. Planning risks 4.3.14 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. Worksite requirements Drive site risks 4.3.15 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. Drive site logistics 4.3.16 Servicing of the tunnel drive shaft 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. Tunnel alignment Tunnel construction hazards 4.3.17 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. TBM and constructability Interventions strategy risk 4.3.18 The potential for unplanned interventions 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. 4.3.19 There is a further risk of additional interventions being required where a tunnel drive passes from the Thanet Sands Formation into the Chalk, compared with tunnelling through the geological units above the Thanet Sands 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.

Page 45
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

4.3.20 The risks associated with long tunnel drives are discussed in Long tunnel drives through different geological strata in Section 4.1. This concludes that the longest possible drives from Zone S5 to S8 are considered undesirable and thus have been removed from the list of feasible drive options. However, while this has reduced the available options to drives between S5 and S6, or S5 and S7, it is considered that, where possible, it would be most preferable to reduce the risks associated with tunnelling across the change from Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands 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 S5 to S7 are not favoured and where possible should be avoided. Main drive procurement risk 4.3.21 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. 4.3.22 Opportunity for savings is possible where double drive shaft 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. Mixed face tunnelling risk 4.3.23 Mixed face conditions may cause the TBM to run less efficiently, with more delays and possible breakdowns. It could also lead to additional 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). CSO connections CSO interception/drop shaft 4.3.24 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 in the east are required to be as deep as the main tunnel and it would be desirable to minimise the number of these drop shafts. CSO connection tunnels 4.3.25 Health, safety and construction risks associated with the construction of the connection tunnels are proportional to the length of connection tunnel for each option. CSO connection difficulty 4.3.26 Health, safety and construction risks associated with the construction of connections to the main tunnel are proportional to the number of connections. Where possible, it is inherently less risky to make connections to main tunnel shafts rather than directly to the main tunnel. Options that require junction works in deep, water-bearing ground will carry higher risk. System performance 4.3.27 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). 4.3.28 The Abbey Mills route drive options do not intercept the Charlton SR CX34X, whereas the River Thames and Rotherhithe route drive options do. 4.3.29 Drive options A2-c and A2-e assume that the inflow from several separate CSOs will be combined in a series of drop shafts and connection tunnels in the Rotherhithe area before being connected to the main tunnel via a main tunnel shaft. This results in large flows entering the tunnel at one or more points, and will require special attention in order to avoid adverse hydraulic effects. It is assumed that a solution can be engineered and is likely to require reconfiguration of the connection tunnels and/or shafts. This will need to be evaluated when reviewing options in the Preferred Scheme Report, but does not negate the feasibility of the options provided in this report.

Page 46
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Programme considerations 4.3.30 All the drive options presented are considered feasible in programme terms, and are illustrated on the indicative time-chainage diagrams in Appendix C. However, minor differences in construction duration between the options exist, which should be considered as a measure of overall programme risk. 4.3.31 The main factors that affect the duration of the construction programme include the following:  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 diaphragm wall methods are required (as would apply to the eastern end of the scheme) will add time to the programme, compared with shallower shafts in more favourable ground (to the western end of the scheme). 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, and varying ground conditions along the drive are likely to require time-consuming modifications to the TBM. 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 would affect the critical path. At intermediate or reception shafts on the main drive, there is likely to be more time before the arrival of the TBM to complete any CSO connections.

4.3.32 Table 4.11 below summarises the potential difference in construction duration in weeks for each drive option, based on the time-chainage diagrams. Negative numbers indicate that the drive is completed earlier than the comparative River Thames route, and positive numbers are longer than the comparative baseline. Table 4.11 Summary of construction duration differences for main tunnel drive options
Eastern end Alignment
River Thames Route 4 TBMs Rotherhithe Route 4 TBMs Abbey Mills Route 3 TBMs 2 TBMs 2 Drive sites 2 reception site 2 Drive sites 1 reception site A2c 10 A2b 5 A2e -10
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

3 Drive sites 2 reception site

3 Drive sites 2 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

3 Drive sites 1 reception site

Option Difference in construction duration (wks)
Notes:

Ba1 * 0

Ba2 0

Bb1 10

Bb2 0

A1a 0

A1b 0

A2a 5

1. Values indicated are approximate to the nearest five weeks. 2. * Indicates baseline for comparison. 3. Western drive options are not considered because they can be completed within the durations for the eastern end works.

Cost considerations 4.3.33 The comparative cost of each drive option is considered in capital cost terms. The indicative cost differences to the River Thames route are given in Table 4.12 below. These figures are based on approximate estimates and would need to be reviewed in more detail when carrying out a comparison.

Page 47
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc

2 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

4.3.34 For the purposes of comparison, only the relative costs have been considered. Therefore, a selected number of unit rates have been determined and applied to the key quantities for each of the drive options to ascertain the relative cost differences. 4.3.35 These include:        unit costs for tunnelling (including primary lining but excluding TBM) unit cost for TBM unit cost for secondary lining unit costs for shafts unit costs for setting up a shaft site (for single or double drives) time related costs for staffing and operating a tunnelling worksite (for single or double drives) relative costs for transport of excavated material by barge from the different shaft zones.

4.3.36 Generally the whole life costs will be proportional to the amount of works to maintain and the capital costs. Therefore, for the purposes of drive option comparison, the whole life costs differences will not be assessed separately.

Table 4.12 Summary of cost differences for main tunnel drive options
Western end Alignment
Western End Drive Options 2 TBMs 1 TBM River Thames Route 4 TBMs

Eastern end Alignment
Rotherhithe Route 4 TBMs Abbey Mills route 3 TBMs 2 TBMs 2 Drive sites 2 reception site 2 Drive sites 1 reception site A2c -275 -25% A2b -175 -16% A2e -275 -25%
Printed 04/11/2010

1 Drive Site 2 reception sites

2 Drive sites 1 reception site

1 Drive Site 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

3 Drive sites 2 reception site

3 Drive sites 2 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Drive sites 1 reception site

3 Drive sites 1 reception site

Option Indicative Cost Difference (£M) % difference

Wa 0 0%

Wb * 0 0%

Wc -25 -2%

Ba1 * 0 0%

Ba2 0 0%

Bb1 0 0%

Bb2 0 0%

A1a -50 -4%

A1b -50 -4%

A2a -175 -16%

Notes: 1. All values indicated are approximate budget figures to the nearest £25m. 2. * Reference baseline for comparison. 3. Costs comparisons are based on engineering construction costs only and exclude other costs, such as property acquisition.

Carbon emissions 4.3.37 An assessment of the carbon emissions has been carried out for the River Thames route. This has indicated that the carbon associated with the construction of the tunnel is about 650ktonnes CO2e. The model for determining the carbon footprint has demonstrated that the quantity of carbon emissions is approximately proportional to the cost. The difference in cost between different options is therefore used as an indicator of relative measure of the carbon emissions. For example, if there is a 10% decrease in cost, this will equate to an equal percentage decrease in carbon emissions.

Page 48
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc

2 Drive sites 1 reception site

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Main tunnel options – results, conclusions and recommendations 4.3.38 The preceding sections have provided a matrix of possible drive solutions for the three main tunnel routes, and have outlined factors that will be used in carrying out the engineering assessment of these options before arriving at the preferred scheme. 4.4 CSO engineering options CSO connection options 4.4.1 For the purpose of this report, five different connection types have been identified for connecting the existing CSO sewers/outfalls and the main tunnel. These types comprise interception chambers, connection culverts, drop shafts and connection tunnels. Connection culverts are expected to be relatively shallow and constructed using cut-and-cover techniques or micro-tunnelling. Type A CSO connection 4.4.2 The Type A connection is shown schematically in Figure 4.5. This type of connection would be used where a connection tunnel is required between the CSO interception point and a main tunnel shaft. The interception point would be on a site remote from the main tunnel shaft site and the two cannot be connected by a connection culvert. An interception chamber would be built around the existing CSO sewer and connected to a drop shaft by a connection culvert. The drop shaft would then be connected to a main tunnel shaft by a connection tunnel. Figure 4.5 Type A CSO connection

Connection culvert

Drop shaft Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Main Tunnel

Connection Tunnel Main Tunnel Shaft SECTION VIEW

Vortex/ direct drop

Page 49
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Type B CSO connection 4.4.3 The Type B connection is shown schematically in Figure 4.6. This type of connection would be used where a connection tunnel is required between the CSO interception point and the main tunnel, and where the main tunnel is located in competent ground, such as London Clay, so that a direct tunnel-to-tunnel connection can be made. In other less favourable ground conditions, depending on the nature of the ground and groundwater, this method may require ground treatment. An interception chamber would be built around the existing CSO sewer and connected to a drop shaft by a connection culvert. The drop shaft would then be connected to the main tunnel directly by a connection tunnel.

Figure 4.6 Type B CSO connection Connection culvert

Drop shaft Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Main Tunnel

Vortex/ direct drop

Connection Tunnel Main Tunnel SECTION VIEW

Page 50
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Type C CSO connection 4.4.4 The Type C connection is shown schematically in Figure 4.7. This type of connection would be used where two or more CSOs are intercepted and brought together before being connected to the main tunnel, either directly or at a main tunnel shaft. An interception chamber would be built around the existing CSO sewer and connected to a drop shaft by a connection culvert. The drop shaft would then be connected to a second drop shaft by a connection tunnel, and then that drop shaft would be connected to the main tunnel by a connection tunnel. In some cases, the connection tunnel would have to be driven from one of the CSO sites, and this has implications for CSO site selection as the site would have to be large enough to support the tunnelling plant setup.

4.4.5

Figure 4.7 Type C CSO connection Second CSO Connection Connection culvert Connection Tunnel Drop shaft Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Drop shaft Connection Tunnel Main Tunnel

Vortex/ direct drop Vortex/direct

Either directly to main or a main tunnel shaft

SECTION VIEW

Page 51
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Type D CSO connection 4.4.6 The Type D connection is shown schematically in Figure 4.8. This type of connection would be used where the drop shaft is located directly adjacent to the main tunnel. An interception chamber would be built around the existing CSO sewer and connected to a drop shaft by a connection culvert. The connection between the drop shaft and the main tunnel could be via a single or multiple cell junction detail, depending upon hydraulic flow requirements and ground conditions. This connection type is easier to construct in poor ground conditions when compared to a Type B.

Figure 4.8 Type D CSO connection Connection culvert Main Tunnel Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Drop shaft

Multiple/single connection junction Vortex drop

SECTION VIEW

Page 52
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

Type E CSO connection 4.4.7 The Type E connection is shown schematically in Figure 4.9. This type of connection would be used where the CSO interception point can be connected directly to a shaft located on the line of the main tunnel. An interception chamber would be built around the existing CSO sewer and connected to a shaft by a connection culvert. The shaft could either be a CSO drop shaft or a main tunnel shaft. If the shaft is a drop shaft, then it would:   be built before the main tunnel and the main tunnel would be driven through the drop shaft need to be large enough to allow the main tunnel to pass through the bottom but is considered to be easier to build in poor ground conditions at depth.

Figure 4.9 Type E CSO connection

Connection culvert Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Main Tunnel

Main Tunnel Shaft or CSO Drop Shaft

Vortex Drop Main Tunnel SECTION VIEW

Comparison of CSO connection types 4.4.8 For the purpose of main tunnel routes, the main tunnel shaft sites have been grouped into several zones, as described above. The CSO connection type used for individual CSOs is, in many cases, highly dependent upon the particular main tunnel shaft site that is selected from within the zones and, for this reason, the detailed comparison of connection types and CSO sites are not considered in this report. These will be dealt with in the Preferred Scheme Report. Additionally, the CSO connections east of Rotherhithe will differ between the three main routes terminating at Beckton or Abbey Mills. Engineering factors to be considered when comparing CSO connection types include:      the main tunnel drive strategy and site selection hydraulic system preferences the location of the CSO interception site and whether it can be connected to a main tunnel shaft by connection culvert the distance between the CSO interception site and the main tunnel, or main tunnel shaft whether two or more CSOs can be connected before connection to the main tunnel Page 53
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

4.4.9

4 Engineering Development and Comparison of Options

the local ground conditions – in poorer ground conditions, junctions would be more difficult and tunnel-to-shaft connections may be preferred over tunnel-to-tunnel connections the impact on existing or planned infrastructure maximum flow rates – for larger flows, the connection tunnel may be too big to connect directly to the main tunnel the overall number and size of shafts required the cost and programme.

   

Conclusion of CSO connection type comparisons 4.4.10 Five different connection types have been identified for connecting the existing CSO sewers/outfalls to the main tunnel. However, the choice is dependent upon the selection of main tunnel routes and alignments, drive options and individual shaft sites. So, as noted in Development of main tunnel drive options in Section 4.1 of this report, further work on CSO connections will be carried out once these main tunnel preferences have been identified. System hydraulic preferences for CSO connections will also be considered at this time. 4.4.11 When the Type C connection is used, one or more CSO flows are brought together in a series of CSO drop shafts. The connection tunnels connecting these drop shafts may have to be driven from one of the CSO sites and this has implications for CSO site selection because the site would have to be large enough to support the necessary tunnelling plant set-up. 4.4.12 When the Type E connection is used, if the shaft is a drop shaft, the CSO drop shaft would need to be large enough to allow the main tunnel to pass through the bottom. This arrangement provides an opportunity to inspect and possibly maintain the main tunnel TBM, and in the permanent situation, a possibility, depending upon location, for additional main tunnel access, ventilation and overflow.

Page 54
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5 5.1.1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report outlines drive options (refer to Table 4.8) that are available for the main tunnel construction. It therefore supports the future site selection process by providing options for evaluation and selection. The review of the engineering criteria affecting the different drive options is discussed and reported in Section 4.2. The results show that there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the routes and for the drive options associated with them. These will be used as a basis for engineering assessment for the Preferred Scheme Report. Before recommendations can be made on the selection of a preferred drive option and individual shaft sites within each zone, engineering evaluations of the drive options and shaft sites will be completed to enable discussion and assessment with all planning, environment, community and property disciplines. Subsequently, these assessments will be considered alongside the issues associated with the use of individual shaft sites before recommendations as to the preferred drive strategy are made, in association with the shaft sites preferred for delivering that strategy. The direction of the individual TBM drives will also be determined based upon the site assessments carried out as part of the Site Suitability Reports. The report has shown that appropriate engineering options are available to drive the main tunnel while meeting the required criteria for each of the three routes, and provides the basis to evaluate and determine ‘preferred shaft sites’ and associated drive options for the three overall main tunnel routes.

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

Page 55
100-RG-ENG-00000-900006-Engineering-Options-Report.doc
Printed 04/11/2010

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful