Summer 2011

Engineering options report
Abbey Mills route

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.

110-RG-PNC-00000-000557 | Summer 2011

Engineering options report
Abbey Mills route

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Thames Tunnel Engineering options report Abbey Mills route
List of contents
Page number

1 2

Executive summary ......................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 Purpose of report ..................................................................................... 3 Engineering design development ............................................................ 4 System design and engineering assumptions ......................................... 6 Health and safety considerations............................................................. 6 System requirements ............................................................................... 6 Engineering geology .............................................................................. 13 Tunnel engineering and construction requirements ............................... 18 CSO engineering and construction requirements .................................. 28 Introduction ............................................................................................ 33 Main tunnel engineering – options preparation ...................................... 33 Main tunnel engineering – options assessment ..................................... 47 CSO connection options ........................................................................ 56 Connection tunnel – drive options ......................................................... 62

3

System design and engineering requirements.............................................. 6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

4

Main tunnel drive options .............................................................................. 33 4.1 4.2 4.3

5

Connection tunnel drive options .................................................................. 56 5.1 5.2

6

Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................ 66

The following appendices can be found in the accompanying document Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route – Appendices: Appendix A – Assumptions register Appendix B – Drawings Appendix C – Time chainage Appendix D – Geology

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

i

List of figures
Page number

Figure 3.1 Routes considered................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.2 Typical CSO interception arrangements .................................................. 11 Figure 4.1 Main tunnel site types .............................................................................. 34 Figure 4.2 Main tunnel site zones for all three routes ............................................... 35 Figure 4.3 Main tunnel site zones for the Abbey Mills route ..................................... 35 Figure 5.1 Type A CSO connection .......................................................................... 57 Figure 5.2 Type B CSO connection .......................................................................... 58 Figure 5.3 Type C CSO connection .......................................................................... 59 Figure 5.4 Type D CSO connection .......................................................................... 60 Figure 5.5 Type E CSO connection .......................................................................... 61

List of tables
Page number

Table 3.1 Control of CSOs.......................................................................................... 7 Table 3.2 Geology of London Basin ......................................................................... 14 Table 3.3 Chalk aquifer groundwater levels 2008 and imposed pressure at tunnel invert (east of Shad)....................................................................... 18 Table 4.1 Grouping of shortlisted main tunnel sites for the Abbey Mills route post-phase one consultation ..................................................................... 36 Table 4.2 Drive options – consideration of practical drive lengths ............................ 40 Table 4.3 Initial provisional main tunnel drive options .............................................. 41 Table 4.4 Interim main tunnel drive options .............................................................. 45 Table 4.5 Interim list of main tunnel drive options..................................................... 46 Table 4.6 Programme assumptions for comparison of options ................................. 53 Table 4.7 Summary of construction durations for main tunnel drive options ............ 54 Table 4.8 Final list of main tunnel drive options ........................................................ 55 Table 5.1 Frogmore Connection Tunnel – drive options ........................................... 63 Table 5.2 Greenwich Connection Tunnel – initial drive options ................................ 64 Table 5.3 Greenwich Connection Tunnel – final drive options .................................. 65 Table 5.4 North East Storm Relief Type A CSO connection tunnel drive options matrix ........................................................................................................ 65

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

ii

List of abbreviations

AOD ATD CSO Defra EA EU EPB GWT m/s m3/s NESR OD Ofwat PLA PS SMP SR STW TBM

above Ordnance Datum above tunnel datum combined sewer overflow Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs Environment Agency European Union earth pressure balance groundwater table metres per second cubic metres per second North East Storm Relief Ordnance Datum (mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall) Water Services Regulatory Authority Port of London Authority pumping station System master plan storm relief sewage treatment works tunnel boring machine

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

iii

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

iv

1 Executive summary

1
1.1.1

Executive summary
This report has been prepared for Thames Water as part of the process to support the ‘creation of the preferred list of main tunnel sites’ and ‘preferred scheme’ for phase two consultation. It is specific to the Thames Tunnel project, but takes cognisance of the Lee Tunnel project. The need for an engineering options report, and the process that it is part of, is outlined in the Site selection methodology paper. It is intended that this report is read as a technical document and, as such, the content has been kept brief with the understanding that the reader has technical familiarity with the subject matter. The report begins by defining the overall engineering requirements that are to be considered as part of the development of engineering options. These are largely summarised without providing any in-depth justification; the main aim of the report being the identification of tunnel drive options. Three main tunnel routes between west London and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW) were identified as part of the design development and the Abbey Mills route was chosen as the preferred route for phase one consultation. The Report on phase one consultation reports on the feedback from this consultation phase and concludes that after consultation, the Abbey Mills route remains the preferred route. Therefore, only the Abbey Mills route is taken forward for further evaluation in this report. The second part of the report presents a methodology for determining possible options to construct the main tunnel on the Abbey Mills route. This is based on engineering requirements and the list of shortlisted main tunnel sites provided by the ‘site selection process’, which identifies sites potentially suitable for use as either main tunnel drive, intermediate or reception sites to facilitate the construction of the main tunnel and its subsequent operation. Drive options for the connection tunnels that bring together two or more CSOs in association with the shortlisted CSO sites are also considered in this report. To build the scheme it is necessary to ‘drive’ a tunnel, or series of tunnels, connecting a number of main tunnel sites. Possible permutations of tunnel drive scenarios (‘drive options’) for the presented sites are established in a systematic manner to permit evaluation. The relative desirability of the feasible drive options are then examined in terms of engineering factors. These and the other discipline factors, such as planning, environment, community and property, will ultimately be used in conjunction with the site suitability reports to determine ‘preferred sites’ and the ‘preferred scheme’, by being addressed in subsequent workshops and presented in the Phase two scheme development report. This report shows that appropriate engineering options are available to drive the main tunnel. These are presented as a schedule of feasible main tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage in the ‘site selection methodology’ process.

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.1.5

1.1.6

1.1.7

1.1.8

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 1

1 Executive summary 1.1.9 Finally, engineering factors that will be used to provide content for consultations and for determining the ‘preferred sites’ and associated drive options for the main tunnel are also presented. These are the factors that will be used in the Phase two scheme development report to examine the advantages and disadvantages, including engineering risk, programme and cost.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 2

2 Introduction

2 2.1
2.1.1

Introduction Purpose of report
The Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route has been prepared as part of the process for the ‘creation of the preferred list of main tunnel sites’ and ‘preferred scheme’ as set out in the Thames Tunnel project’s Site selection methodology paper. The Site selection methodology paper states that the Engineering options report will consider: a. how sites work in combination, and options for the main tunnel alignment and combined sewer overflow (CSO) connections b. how options for tunnel alignment and CSO connection points would be refined, having regard to the availability of – and spacing of – suitable main tunnel 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.

2.1.2

This report identifies and refines possible main tunnel drive options for the Abbey Mills route, giving consideration to the overall location and grouping of the main tunnel sites that have been shortlisted for site suitability assessment. The establishment of preferred sites, and hence ‘preferred scheme’ will be being addressed in subsequent workshops and presented in the Phase two scheme development report. Stage 1 of the site selection process, from identification of the long list to the preferred list of sites for phase one consultation, was carried out in 2009 and 2010. As part of that process, the Engineering options report (100-RG-ENG-00000-900006 Spring 2010) was prepared which considered the drive options associated with the shortlisted sites for three different tunnel routes: The River Thames route, the Rotherhithe route and the Abbey Mills route. The shortlisted sites and three tunnel routes were consulted on at phase one consultation (September 2010 to January 2011) by presenting the preferred sites and preferred route along with the other sites and other routes that had been discounted. The phase one consultation feedback has been collated into the Report on phase one consultation. Analysis of the consultation feedback received concluded that the Abbey Mills route remains the preferred route. As a consequence of consultation feedback and a number of emerging factors, a series of site selection back-checks were carried out, which led to a number of site changes and therefore opened up new drive options. This Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route therefore considers the latest short list of sites, which includes amendments resulting from the recent site selection back-checks, for the Abbey Mills route only. The findings of this Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route will help inform the next stage of preferred scheme selection process that will be presented in the Phase two scheme development report.

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

2.1.6

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 3

2 Introduction 2.1.7 The Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route is divided into two parts:

Part 1: System design and engineering requirements
2.1.8 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 a preferred drive option and its associated preferred list of main tunnel sites for the Abbey Mills route. As such, this will largely state and summarise requirements without providing an in-depth justification for the system and engineering requirements.

Part 2: Main tunnel and connection tunnel drive options
2.1.9 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 sites. The report only considers the development of options from an engineering perspective. The suitability of each site have not been referred to in the preparation of this Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route, but will be presented in the site suitability reports. In considering tunnel drive options, this report does not identify preferred tunnel routes or preferred sites. The selection of the preferred tunnel alignments, preferred CSO sites and preferred main tunnel 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 Phase two scheme development report. The considerations in this Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route, along with site suitability reports, will feed into and inform these stages.

2.1.10

2.1.11

2.2
2.2.1

Engineering design development
The Thames Tunnel project would comprise a main tunnel, running from west to east London, integrated with the existing sewerage system via connection tunnels, to control 34 of the most polluting CSOs. These tunnels would store and transfer the intercepted flows to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW). The Lee Tunnel, a tunnel connecting Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW to control the Abbey Mills Pumping Station CSO, has been consented and construction started in 2010. The Thames Tunnel project’s site selection process 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.

2.2.2

2.2.3

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 4

2 Introduction 2.2.4 Design development activities have included: a. engineering designs and studies of various components of the scheme, and identification of possible feasible tunnel routes b. ‘system master planning’ to define the sewage system operation changes and facilities needed to control and limit overflows from the scheme c. 2.2.5 construction, transportation and river navigational logistics studies d. field investigations, including ground investigations and surveys. This Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route draws on the relevant aspects of these studies and investigations, as well as the results from the site selection shortlisting process.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 5

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 – Abbey Mills route – Appendices). These assumptions and further requirements are discussed in the following sections.

3.2
3.2.1

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 and Management) Regulations 2007.

3.3
3.3.1

System requirements
The need and hence the overarching requirements for the Thames Tunnel project is described in the Needs Report, 100-RG-PNC-00000-900007. The Needs Report provides the legal and regulatory context and the need for a solution to meet the regulatory drivers. The concept of the Thames Tunnel project is to: a. control discharges from 34 CSOs b. store the CSO discharges c. transfer CSO discharges for treatment.

3.3.2

3.3.3

The engineering requirements to be taken forward in assessing engineering tunnel route and alignment options are summarised and briefly discussed in the following sections. Design development is ongoing so it is noted that the implications of any future changes would need to be further assessed and reviewed. This section of the report focuses on system requirements relevant to the selection of sites and tunnel engineering alignments.

3.3.4

Developments in design requirements
3.3.5 Developments in the design have updated the scheme requirements such that 18 CSOs are now required to be directly intercepted while the remaining CSOs are to be controlled by other measures. Table 3.1 lists the control measures proposed for all 34 CSOs.

3.3.6

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 6

3 System design and engineering requirements Table 3.1 Control of CSOs CSO ref CS01X CS02X Combined sewer overflow Acton Storm Relief Stamford Brook Storm Relief Method of overflow control Interception Control measures at other CSOs indirectly controls this CSO Interception and pumping station operation changes at Hammersmith Pumping Station indirectly controls this CSO Interception and pumping station operation changes Interception Interception Interception

CS03X

North West Storm Relief Hammersmith Pumping Station West Putney Storm Relief Putney Bridge Frogmore Storm Relief – Bell Lane Creek Frogmore Storm Relief – Buckhold Rd Jews Row Wandle Valley Storm Relief Jews Row Falconbrook Storm Relief Falconbrook Pumping Station Lots Road Pumping Station Church Street Queen Street Smith Street – Main Line Smith Street – Storm Relief Ranelagh Western Pumping Station Heathwall Pumping Station South West Storm Relief Kings Scholars Pond Clapham Storm Relief Brixton Storm Relief

CS04X CS05X CS06X CS07A CS07B CS08A CS08B CS09X CS10X CS11X CS12X CS13A CS13B CS14X CS15X CS16X CS17X CS18X CS19X CS20X

Modifications already in place so CSO is indirectly controlled** Interception Interception Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh CSO Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh CSO Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh CSO Interception and additional sewer connection relief* Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh and Regent Street CSOs Interception Interception Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh and Regent Street CSOs Interception Interception

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 7

3 System design and engineering requirements CSO ref CS21X CS22X CS23X Combined sewer overflow Grosvenor Ditch Regent Street Northumberland Street Method of overflow control Controlled indirectly by works at Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Interception and additional sewer connection relief* Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Controlled indirectly by works at Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs Interception and additional sewer connection relief* Pumping station modifications** Interception Local modifications** Interception Interception Interception and pumping station operation changes Pumping station operation changes at Greenwich Pumping Station and improvements at Crossness STW

CS24X

Savoy Street

CS25X

Norfolk Street

CS26X CS27X CS28X CS29X CS30X CS31X CS32X CS33X CS34X

Essex Street Fleet Main Shad Thames Pumping Station North East Storm Relief Holloway Storm Relief Earl Pumping Station Deptford Storm Relief Greenwich Pumping Station Charlton Storm Relief

* Interceptions at Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSOs include connections into the northern Low Level Sewer No.1. ** Planned to be controlled via interception at phase one consultation stage

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 8

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.3.7 Further elements that the scheme should provide as a minimum are listed below: a. The westerly start point of the scheme should connect to the Acton Storm Relief CSO. b. The easterly end point of the tunnel is to connect to the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills pumping station (this is only associated with the Abbey Mills route). c. Relieving flows in the northern Low Level Sewer No.1 at the Ranelagh, Regent Street and Fleet Main CSO sites, gives sufficient control to reduce local CSO spills so that direct interception is no longer required on the Northumberland Street, Church Street, Smith Street, Kings Scholars Pond, Grosvenor Ditch, Savoy Street, Norfolk Street and Essex Street sewers.

d. A system that ensures the health and safety of operatives, public and other third parties. This includes providing, during both the construction and operational phases, a hydraulically safe and robust system without the risk of flooding or adverse transient conditions; secure and resilient facilities, appropriate levels of ventilation and air treatment, and safe methods and facilities for access and egress into and from the main and connection tunnels.

Main tunnel routes
3.3.8 3.3.9 Design development identified three tunnel routes: The River Thames route, Rotherhithe route and Abbey Mills route. 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 became feasible due to an increase in depth of the Lee Tunnel shaft at the Abbey Mills PS end to avoid difficult geological conditions on the Lee Tunnel route. This enables a continuous gradient with the Thames Tunnel project’s main tunnel, satisfying the design constraints for the overall vertical tunnel alignment and system hydraulic requirements. The three routes were consulted on at phase one consultation, with the Abbey Mills route presented as the preferred route. Analysis of the consultation feedback received concluded that the Abbey Mills route remains the preferred route. Only the Abbey Mills route is taken forward for further evaluation in this report. The three routes are displayed in Figure 3.1.

3.3.10

3.3.11

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 9

3 System design and engineering requirements Figure 3.1 Routes considered

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 10

3 System design and engineering requirements

Control and interception of CSO flows
3.3.12 3.3.13 The CSOs to be controlled by interception are outlined in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 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 discussed further in Section 3.6. Figure 3.2 Typical CSO interception arrangements

Tunnel hydraulic requirements
3.3.14 The tunnel system is to store and convey flow, with the purpose of reducing CSO discharge. The background for sizing the tunnels is provided in Section 3.5.3. The tunnel system has to be self-cleansing. A gradient in excess of approximately one in 850 has been found to generate self-cleansing conditions, with velocities exceeding 1m/s during event cycles. Based on international experience, the self-cleansing velocity above this is sufficient to move detritus without further flushing requirements. The gradient of the connection tunnels is generally in the range of one in 400 to one in 500 in order to achieve flow capacities while not exceeding maximum peak velocities.

3.3.15

3.3.16

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 11

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.3.17 Large tunnel systems are potentially prone to hydraulic pressure effects, due to the generation of transient (temporary surge flow) conditions. Control features therefore need to be incorporated into the tunnel design and mode of operation to manage these transient pressure effects.

System functional and operational requirements
3.3.18 In order to ensure safe operation, access, inspection and maintenance of the tunnel, design development has been based on the following criteria and features: a. The main tunnel and connection tunnels are to be designed to be generally ‘maintenance free’, and have a design life of 120 years. Tunnel entry for inspection and maintenance is only planned to take place approximately every ten years. b. The ten-year inspection would be a major undertaking in its own right, which would involve extensive planning and temporary works provision to permit entry. c. Main tunnel shafts, and CSO drop shafts that are ‘on line’ with the main tunnel, would be the designated access points to the tunnel system. The spacing of the main tunnel shafts is controlled by the requirements for maintenance access on the basis that the construction access demands would be met by the extensive temporary work facilities associated with the tunnelling. These shafts would allow the installation and removal of specialist inspection and maintenance vehicles during the ten-yearly inspection of the tunnel. At this stage of design development, it is assumed that the spacing between permanent access points should not exceed 9km. Long, large diameter connection tunnels shall have similar access provisions.

d. The main tunnel shafts and ‘on-line’ CSO drop shafts shall be provided with large access openings to permit inspection plant to be lowered into/removed from the tunnel and emergency access/egress to be effected. CSO and main tunnel sites are to be selected to ensure space for two mobile cranes to service the shafts. e. The provision of permanent air management facilities, including ventilation and monitoring of the exhaust air quality, along with air treatment facilities (odour control). f. The provision of control gates to isolate the tunnel system and prevent flow from entering. These gates would be controlled from a central control room to permit overview of the system from a single point. They would also be used to isolate the tunnel from inflows during the maintenance inspections, currently envisaged to be every ten years.

g. Integrating the operating regime for the tunnel with the operating regimes at pumping stations, particularly Abbey Mills and Greenwich, along with Beckton STW and Crossness STW. h. Fixed ladders and access ways would not be provided to the bottom of shafts or the main tunnel due to the likelihood of damage during surge

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 12

3 System design and engineering requirements events and corrosion, as has occurred on other projects. Specific arrangements would be developed for safe access to undertake inspection and maintenance of the CSO drop shafts, connection tunnel and main tunnel structures. Fixed ladder access would be provided to subsurface MEICA equipment, odour control or other equipment requiring routine inspection and maintenance. 3.3.19 When considering the main tunnel shaft spacing for the completed system, and based on the experience from other major CSO systems, it is assumed maintenance and inspection teams would travel through the main tunnel by inspection vehicle supported by a backup standby vehicle. This reduces the transit time and permits a wider range of equipment to be carried with relative ease, and would facilitate access to the internal circumference of the tunnel for inspection. Vehicular access is practicable for this system, given the main tunnel diameter and that the system would be dry when inspection is undertaken, with all penstocks controlling flow into the system locked off securely. Access to the connection tunnels would also be required during inspection. The length of the connection tunnels is highly variable depending on location, and varies from 16m up to 4,600m. Provision for emergency egress would be made at the drop shafts, by the provision of suitable access openings and space for cranes to operate a man-rider. The connection tunnel to Greenwich PS would be inspected using a similar inspection vehicle as used for the main tunnel.

3.3.20

3.4

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 has been supplemented by project specific site investigations, including a seismic refraction survey, ground and over water boreholes and field and laboratory testing, as well as the installation of piezometers to establish water levels. The geological long section, derived from the model, is provided for the Abbey Mills main tunnel route in Appendix D of the Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route – Appendices. The basic geological descriptions within in the London Basin geological sequence are given in Table 3.2.

3.4.2

3.4.3

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 13

3 System design and engineering requirements Table 3.2 Geology of London Basin Brief description of formation Soft clays, silts, sands and gravels. May contain peat. Medium to dense sand and flint and chert gravel occasional cobbles and boulders. Very stiff, fissured silty locally fine to medium sandy clay. Swanscombe member: Sandy clay to clayey sand (< 2m) with some fine to medium black rounded gravel. Blackheath member: Dense to very dense flint gravel (with occasional cobbles) in silty or clayey, glauconitic, fine to medium sand matrix. Oldhaven member: Very dense clayey sand with gravel and shells – often cemented as limestone. Stiff, dark grey to black clay with locally abundant shell debris and strong limestone beds (100 to 200mm thick). Very stiff to hard, multicoloured (light blue grey mottled red, orange, brown and purple), locally sandy clay. Gravel, glauconitic and organic sand, silt and clay. 10 – 20 Approximate range of thickness (m) 0–5

Era Recent

Group

Formation

Alluvium Floodplain Terrace Kempton Park Terrace

0 – 10

Tertiary

Thames

London Clay

>100

Harwich

0 – 10

Lambeth Group

Woolwich

Reading

Upnor

5–7

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 14

3 System design and engineering requirements Approximate range of thickness (m)

Era

Group

Formation

Brief description of formation

Very dense silty to very silty Thanet Sand Formation sand. The lowest ~0.5m (incl. Bullhead Bed at sometimes consists of fine, base <~0.5m) medium and coarse, angular flint gravel. Cretaceous Chalk Seaford* Homogeneous chalk with with nodular flint horizons (>100mm thick).

10 – 15

circa 40

Notes:

Heterogeneous nodular Lewes* chalk with nodular flint circa 50 horizons and marl seams. *Limited to those formations of the ‘White Chalk’ subgroup expected within the Thames Tunnel project. (Upper and Middle Chalk are now known collectively as ‘White Chalk’.) The distribution of strata along the route is largely controlled by the London Basin Syncline, which plunges gently eastwards. Thus, beneath a cover of made ground and recent deposits, the succession of tertiary deposits is gradually exposed west to east along the river until the Chalk occurs at outcrop around Greenwich. The anticipated geology at the proposed main tunnel invert is as follows: a. London Clay Formation – western end of the tunnel to just west of Albert Bridge (Harwich at the base approximately between Cremorne Wharf and Albert Bridge). b. Lambeth Group – Starts to enter tunnel invert just east of Albert Bridge, forming lower third of the face by Chelsea Bridge, forming full-face by Tideway Walk. Tunnel continues in full-face Lambeth to just east of London Bridge. c. Thanet Sand Formation – Within invert and lower third of face between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge, becoming full-face to just east of London Bridge to just west of Tower Bridge.

3.4.4

3.4.5

d. White Chalk subgroup – Downstream from just east of Tower Bridge. 3.4.6 Faulting at London Bridge is expected to repeat the sequence, and mixedface conditions in the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation are expected from Chelsea Bridge through to Tower Bridge, with only a short section wholly in Thanet Sand Formation, close to Tower Bridge. Various structural geological models provide different interpretations of the structural setting across the London Basin, but they all generally indicate regular faulted block groundmass in the Chalk and NW by SE trending faults cutting the basic east–west main synclinal form.

3.4.7

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 15

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.4.8 The dominant structural geological features are: a. The Hammersmith Reach Fault Zone, a series of north-northwest – south-southeast trending faults beneath and adjacent to the east side of Hammersmith Bridge. A 5m displacement to the east is noted. b. The Putney Bridge Fault, a series of southeast – northwest trending faults on the syncline with axis to the west of Putney Bridge, with vertical displacement of top of Lambeth Group strata on the eastern hanging wall of approximately 2m. c. The Chelsea Embankment (Albert Bridge) Fault Zone, a series of north – south and south-southwest – north-northeast trending faults between Battersea and Chelsea bridges, intersecting the tunnel alignment at near to perpendicular. Up to 5m vertical displacement of strata has been noted over this zone, resulting in uplift of the top of Lambeth Group deposits on the east side of Albert Bridge.

d. The Lambeth Anticline, north-northwest – south-southeast trending faulted anticline between Vauxhall and Lambeth Bridges, intersecting the tunnel alignment at an oblique angle with a difference in strata level of approximately 5m. e. The London Bridge Fault Graben, southeast – northwest trending graben-type feature arranged between Cannon Street and Tower Bridges, with known vertical displacement in excess of 10m. f. The Greenwich Fault Zone, southwest – northeast trending. This feature was investigated in detail during the Lee Tunnel ground investigation (2008) and up to 20m downthrow is anticipated to the northwest in a series of stepped faults. The fault runs generally parallel with the main syncline, southwest – northeast from Greenwich to Beckton, crossing the River Thames downstream of the Thames Barrier, and is in close proximity to the Greenwich PS.

3.4.9

Other structural features include the North Greenwich Syncline (now more generally known as the Plaistow Graben), Millwall Anticline and Beckton Anticline, all of which have a NE SW trend, contrary to main basin axis. There is a risk of scour hollows that are located on previous drainage channels formed by the River Thames, often found at the confluence with the existing tributaries, eg, at the Fleet, Lee and Wandle. The features usually contain a variety of granular deposits and/or disturbed natural materials and are localised and steep-sided. The scour hollow in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel is the only scour hollow known to penetrate into the Chalk; elsewhere, the hollows only affect the tertiary deposits and, more particularly, the London Clay. Basal depths are normally 5m to 20m below ground level, exceptionally 33m at Battersea Power Station and Hungerford Bridge. Of the known scour hollows, only the hollow at Hungerford Bridge is close to the main tunnel. This feature attains a base level of 72mATD in London Clay near the south bank, equivalent to only 10m above the tunnel crown. Such features may, however, have implications for the shallower connection tunnels in other locations.

3.4.10

3.4.11

3.4.12

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 16

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.4.13 Known scour hollow locations affect the following potential main tunnel and CSO sites: a. S68WH (Battersea Power Station base 72mATD) b. S94WH (Heathwall base 80mATD) c. 3.4.14 C22XA (Regents base 90mATD) d. C27XA (Fleet base 90mATD). The likely presence of flints within the Chalk may cause excessive wear to the tunnel boring machine (TBM), causing frequent interventions for inspection and maintenance, so an important part of the current ground investigations comprises the investigation of the Chalk structure, Chalk permeability and characteristics of any flint band features. A number of flint bands are present within the Chalk. Within the Seaford Chalk, two well-defined flint bands used as marker horizons, but not necessarily the thickest seams, are the Bedwells Columnar and Seven Sisters. The Bedwells typically comprise a discontinuous layer of very large, irregular flints, up to approximately 500mm high by 300mm in diameter, and on previous projects have been found to have a compressive strength of 600mPa. The Seven Sisters is a continuous band, with flints between 100mm and 150mm thick. The selection of the appropriate TBM is important in this respect and a slurry machine is preferred for the section of the route in Chalk. A slurry TBM was used successfully on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Thames crossing next to the QE2 Bridge. An advantage is the ability to deal with water-bearing fissures in the Chalk.

3.4.15

3.4.16

Hydrogeology
3.4.17 The major aquifer of the London Basin lies in the Chalk, the aquifer being wholly unconfined to the east but confined to the west below the tertiary strata and the London Clay Formation in particular. The Chalk aquifer is generally in hydraulic continuity with the overlying Thanet Sand Formation and sometimes also the base of the Lambeth Group, particularly the gravel part of the Lower Mottled Beds and the Upnor Formation. The EA refers to this combined aquifer as the Chalk-Basal Sands aquifer. Local aquicludes can exist in the overlying Lambeth Group, in particular the Woolwich Formation Laminated Beds, leading to perched groundwater tables. Historical records of engineering schemes have described these ‘perched’ features as retaining hydrostatic pressures of up to 40m, which may result in high inflows at tunnel levels and particularly in shafts during construction. The Harwich Formation (Blackheath Member) is also known to contain high groundwater levels in places, which cause problems during tunnel construction. A minor regional aquifer lies within the floodplain and river terrace deposits and because of the connection to the Thames, this aquifer is generally tidal, with an average level of 100mATD (0mAOD) +/- 2.5m.

3.4.18

3.4.19

3.4.20

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 17

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.4.21 Regional monitoring of the Chalk aquifer is reported by the EA and specific monitoring data is available over the years 2000 to 2008. These indicate a depressed groundwater table in central London at 60mATD, with groundwater levels close to Blackfriars Bridge at 62mATD (refer to the groundwater level contour plan of the London Basin in Appendix D). However, the latest ground investigations undertaken by the project indicate that groundwater levels in the Chalk from Rotherhithe to Charlton are 10m higher than the reported EA levels. Groundwater pressure in the Chalk would have an important bearing on tunnelling and especially the construction of junctions between the main tunnel and the connection tunnels. Table 3.3 shows the 2008 levels in the Chalk aquifer eastwards from Tower Bridge, using the data obtained from the EA. Table 3.3 Chalk aquifer groundwater levels 2008 and imposed pressure at tunnel invert (east of Shad) Tunnel section Approx tunnel invert mATD Approx GWT level 2008 mATD Tower Bridge 50 72 NESR 45 78 Abbey Mills 40 92

3.4.22

Approx GWT pressure bar 2.5 3.5 4.0 Note: * Highest levels indicated in Lee Tunnel and Thames Tunnel project monitoring holes. 3.4.23 Short-term effects of pumping can still have a demonstrable impact on the regional contours. For example, levels decreased significantly due to abstractions in supply wells at Battersea/Brixton commencing in 2002, the groundwater level being drawn down some 18m local to the wells, by 10m in central London near Fleet and by approximately 6m respectively in the vicinity of Tower Bridge and the Battersea Power Station area. The EA reports that the groundwater feeding the Chalk aquifer from the southeast interacts with the River Thames from Greenwich to Woolwich as it flows northwest to Stratford, then west to central London. In the Greenwich to Woolwich area, there is potential for/evidence of saline intrusion within the aquifer.

3.4.24

3.5

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.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 18

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.2 The project has a risk management plan and procedures in place to manage and control risks and comply with the requirements of the Joint Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK. Refer also to Health and safety engineering risk considerations in Section 4.

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 majority of the main tunnel needs to be 7.2m internal diameter, but the most westerly tunnel drive section may be smaller depending on the length: the westerly section between a site in Zone 1 Acton and a site in Zone 2 Barn Elms and Zone 3 Wandsworth Bridge would be 6m and 6.5m respectively. Connection tunnels would connect CSOs to the main tunnel via interception chambers/drop shafts. These tunnels should be sized to carry the design flows from the CSOs at gradients to limit maximum flow velocities to 5m/s. The size of the connection tunnels would vary, depending on the flow, from 2.2m to 5m internal diameter. The minimum tunnel size for safe man access is assumed to be 2.2m internal diameter. Vertical tunnel alignments 3.5.5 The overriding criteria controlling the gradient (vertical tunnel alignment) 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 Abbey Mills PS in order to maintain gravity flow throughout. The main constraints are the Thames Water Ring Main Barnes to Barrow, the Thames Water Lee Valley Water Tunnel near Hammersmith Bridge, the proposed National Grid ‘Wimbledon to Kensal Green’ cable tunnel and the need to connect to the Lee Tunnel Shaft F at Abbey Mills pumping station. The vertical distance separating the Lee Valley Raw Water Tunnel and the main tunnel crossing above is approximately 3m. Other existing deep level service tunnels, including National Grid’s Richmond to Fulham high pressure pipeline 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 Earl PS, Deptford SR and Greenwich PS CSOs to the main tunnel would be restricted vertically by the Jubilee underground line that crosses the Rotherhithe Peninsula and the proposed UKPN cable tunnel New Cross to Wellclose Square Scheme. The tunnels cross 42 tunnels and 72 bridges.

3.5.4

3.5.6

3.5.7

3.5.8

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 19

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.9 The alignment would be designed to minimise the impact on third-party structures. A programme of work is underway to quantify the impacts on third-party infrastructure including bridges, tunnels, buildings and utilities. Horizontal tunnel alignments 3.5.10 3.5.11 The alignment options are identified and compared in Section 4 of this report. These must all satisfy the hydraulic flow regime requirements. The minimum horizontal radius for the main tunnel is 600m for practicable construction purposes, but is reduced to 500m when constrained. Smaller diameter, segmental lined, connection tunnels are typically of a minimum radius of 300m, although techniques can be employed to achieve lower radii. In order to minimise the effect of tunnelling on third-party infrastructure, the tunnel should, so far as is practicable: a. pass under the centre of the mid-deck span of bridges to maximise the clearance to the bridge foundations b. avoid interfaces with sensitive existing structures, such as the original Thames Tunnel (Brunel’s ‘Thames Tunnel’, now carrying the Overground railway line) and the Rotherhithe road tunnel c. 3.5.13 avoid passing beneath tall buildings on deep piles d. maximise clearance to third-party infrastructure. The alignment of CSO connection tunnels would generally be based on the location of the main tunnel and its shafts, along with hydraulic considerations. Tunnel lining 3.5.14 The lining for the main tunnel is assumed to comprise a reinforced concrete, tapered, segmental primary lining ring, approximately 350mm thick, and a 300mm-thick concrete secondary lining 1 to provide the required finished tunnel internal diameter. The connection tunnels are also assumed to have a secondary lining for the purposes of this report. Shaft sizes 3.5.15 The main tunnel drive shafts are anticipated to be between 25m and 30m internal diameter, with depths ranging from about 30m in west London to 65m in east London. Shafts of 25m diameter are considered to be the minimum size required to both ensure that a TBM can be launched and that all equipment required for safe construction of the tunnel can be accommodated. Shafts of 30m diameter may be required to accommodate multiple hydraulic drop structures or for use as double drive shafts.

3.5.12

1

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.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 20

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.16 3.5.17 The intermediate shafts and reception shafts for the main tunnel are assumed to have an internal diameter of between 15m and 25m. The internal diameter of CSO shafts range from 6m to 24m to suit the hydraulic requirements, although at some locations, it may be advantageous to connect the CSO connection culvert directly into a main tunnel shaft.

Tunnelling and shaft construction methods
Tunnelling construction methods 3.5.18 In order to construct the project within the construction period, several TBMs would be required to operate at the same time. In addition to this, managing construction risk and the suitability of TBM types for the varying ground conditions along the route would also affect the determination of the number of TBMs to be used. The geology and hydrogeology along each tunnel alignment would influence the selection of the TBM type. Full-face TBMs would be required to support the ground during tunnelling to prevent excess excavation, groundwater inflow, and to minimise ground movement. Full-face TBMs can be either the earth pressure balance (EPB) or slurry/ mixshield type. 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 would be tailored to the ground conditions. These would typically be EPB type TBMs for the tunnel drives through the London Clay and Lambeth Group west of Tower Bridge, and slurry type TBMs for the eastern drives through the Chalk. Shaft construction methods 3.5.21 The geology, hydrogeology, depth and size of shaft would influence the method of shaft construction. Various methods of construction can be used, such as: a. precast concrete segmental lined caisson or underpinned construction b. sprayed concrete lined c. reinforced concrete sunk caisson d. secant piled wall e. diaphragm wall. 3.5.22 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 may also be used in conjunction with sheet piles for support of any groundwater-bearing superficial deposits. Where the shafts are very deep, constructed through mixed ground conditions and under high groundwater pressures, diaphragm wall type

3.5.19

3.5.20

3.5.23

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 21

3 System design and engineering requirements construction is the most likely method of construction due to the higher vertical accuracy of the method. A secant piled wall method could also be used. In general, the diaphragm wall type of construction requires a larger working area than other methods of shaft construction. A diaphragm wall shaft is a reinforced concrete lined shaft, comprising individually installed, abutting vertical concrete wall panels, constructed in the ground using specialist plant, prior to the excavation of the ground within the centre of the shaft. Ground treatment and control of groundwater 3.5.24 For all methods of shaft construction, the control of groundwater would be required to enable both safe excavation and sinking of the shaft and base slab construction. In some locations, ground treatment may be required to improve the natural state of the ground in advance of shaft construction or tunnelling. The term ‘ground treatment’ covers a variety of techniques to strengthen or stabilise the ground, including: a. injection of chemical or cementitious grouts to form blocks that can be excavated without collapse. The method used would be dependent on the ground encountered. b. ground freezing, where injection pipes circulate brine or liquid nitrogen to freeze the groundwater and produce a stable block that can be excavated. Ground freezing is costly and takes a long time to implement. c. compressed air, where a section of tunnel at the face has the air pressure increased, using air locks and compressors. The air pressure is increased to resist the inflow of groundwater. This technique has several health and safety implications and, with the 8.8m-high face of the main tunnel and the potentially high compressed air pressures required means it is unlikely to be appropriate. The 7.2m internal diameter main tunnel has an approximate external diameter of 8.8m based on a 350mm primary lining thickness, a 300mm secondary lining thickness and an assumed 150mm overcut.

3.5.25

d. dewatering to control the inflow of groundwater into shafts and tunnel excavations, thus ensuring excavation stability. This can take the form of either regional (widespread) or localised dewatering methods, depending on the purpose and the extent of pressure reduction required. These methods would include deep borehole wells or localised drains, well points and injector wells.

Main tunnel site requirements
Main tunnel sites 3.5.26 Three types of main tunnel site may be needed to construct the main tunnel: Drive sites, reception sites and intermediate sites.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 22

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.5.27 The main tunnel would be driven from main tunnel drive shafts, which would be equipped to enable the efficient operation of the tunnelling excavation and construction. Reception shafts would be used to remove the TBM from the tunnel at the end of a drive. Given a sufficient size of site, a shaft could be used for both drive and reception purposes. Intermediate shafts can be used to gain access to the main tunnel bore during construction, either to inspect and/or maintain the TBM or to provide access for secondary lining construction (should a secondary lining be required). Location of sites 3.5.30 The required number and distribution of sites for tunnel construction would be informed by the following key considerations: a. The Thames Tunnel Project construction period. b. The TBM types must be appropriate to the geological conditions expected. c. The risk of TBM breakdowns/servicing requirements, and their severity and frequency, increases with the length of the drive.

3.5.28

3.5.29

d. The emergency egress of the construction workforce would become more difficult the longer the length of the drive. 3.5.31 The final decision on the number of TBMs, and hence the number of associated drive sites, would be based on a balance between the type of TBM appropriate to the ground, the available locations of main drive sites, geology, programme, environment, amenity, health and safety, risk, cost and procurement considerations. Construction of CSO connection tunnels would be constructed from main tunnel sites to reduce the space required for CSO sites where possible. Where CSO connection tunnels are driven from main tunnel sites, the CSO sites would comprise smaller reception sites. Excavated material from the CSO connection tunnel could also be handled at the main tunnel sites. Main tunnel site requirements 3.5.33 The Site selection background technical paper provides information on construction activities at main tunnel sites and their size requirements. The sizes are summarised as follows: a. Main tunnel drive sites from which slurry TBMs would be driven need to be approximately 20,000m2, whereas sites hosting an EPB TBM need approximately 18,000m2. If there are site space constraints, it may be possible for an EPB TBM to be driven from a 15,000m2 site, but this may reduce the efficiency of the tunnel operations and increase the risk of delays.

3.5.32

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 23

3 System design and engineering requirements b. Main tunnel reception or intermediate sites would range from 5,000m2 for sites with shafts constructed into the London Clay to 7,500m2 if deep diaphragm walling is proposed. 3.5.34 The construction activities that follow tunnel excavation are less onerous with respect to site spatial requirements. These would include tunnel secondary lining (if required), shaft lining, buildings and surface works, and mechanical and electrical fit-out works.

Construction logistics
3.5.35 For the purposes of this Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route, the following logistical needs have been considered: a. The ability to provide efficient site layouts b. Logistics hubs c. Critical services – power d. Transport of materials and equipment e. Main tunnel segment fabrication and supply. Site layouts for logistics 3.5.36 The layouts of individual sites for the logistics purposes would depend on the specific site use and local constraints. The Site selection background technical paper indicates typical layouts for the different types of sites. Logistics hubs 3.5.37 The supply and servicing of the smaller CSO sites could be carried out as satellites to the main tunnel sites. These main tunnel sites may therefore require an allowance for a logistics hub area for facilities to service the satellite sites. This has not been taken into account at this stage of the project and is likely to be contractors’ responsibility. Critical services – power 3.5.38 The temporary power supply requirements for construction sites typically varies from 1.25MVA to 3.5MVA for the smaller CSO sites, and up to 12.5MVA to 17.5MVA for the large main tunnel drive sites serving a single TBM and 25MVA for a double drive site. The number and potential spread of sites for main tunnel drives is such that for the majority of areas, it is likely that insufficient capacity exists, or would be available from existing UK Power Networks at the time construction commences. Therefore, power supply improvement works would be required for main tunnel drive sites and should therefore be planned to accommodate new substation installations Discussions with UK Power Networks have established that it would be prudent to plan for the early procurement of power supplies for the main tunnel drive sites to ensure there is sufficient supply available for the TBMs to meet the project programme.

3.5.39

3.5.40

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 24

3 System design and engineering requirements Transport of materials and equipment 3.5.41 3.5.42 Construction of the shafts and tunnel works would require a wide variety of materials and equipment to be transported to and from the working sites. Tunnel excavated material would need to be taken away from the drive sites and a variety of materials would need to be delivered, particularly the concrete segments for the main tunnel lining. Other logistical activities would include workforce arrival/departure, equipment deliveries/return, consumables and, for the drive sites, the delivery of the large TBM components. Due to the large volume of materials to be transported, the objectives are to use the river to transport main tunnel excavated material by barge and to enable construction contractors to move other materials by river where practicable and cost-effective. The practicality of rail freight transportation would depend on both the proximity of the main tunnel sites to suitable rail sidings and the local network’s capacity for freight movements. It is expected that some deliveries would also need to be transported by road even if barge and/or rail transport facilities were available. Any necessary highway routes would need to be identified as part of the project development. Major deliveries/removals would be subject to specific movement restrictions and conditions imposed by police and traffic authorities. Main tunnel segment fabrication and supply 3.5.46 The supply of tunnel lining segments to the individual drive site locations would depend on their final location and the location of the potential fabrication facility or facilities. This has not been taken into account at this stage of the project and is likely to be the contractors’ responsibility.

3.5.43

3.5.44

3.5.45

Excavated material handling and disposal
Material type and handling 3.5.47 3.5.48 The main excavated material types would be London Clay, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand Formation and Chalk. The type of material and TBM choice would dictate the material handling and treatment requirements; the excavated material consistency would vary from relatively dry London Clay to Chalk slurry. 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. If there are site space constraints but good transport links, it may be possible to reduce the allowance to three days’ storage at the risk of delays should this prove insufficient.

3.5.49

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 25

3 System design and engineering requirements Quantities and programme requirements 3.5.50 The total quantity of excavated material for all tunnels and shafts is anticipated to be in the region of 1.7million m3 (in situ quantity). This would vary, depending on the tunnel alignment and connections. The in situ volume of excavated material arising (unbulked) per drive at main tunnel drive sites would be approximately 300,000m3 to 500,000m3, assuming a tunnel length of between 5km to 8km. Where two drives are carried out from the same site location, this would increase the storage capacity required if these are to be carried out simultaneously. The tunnelling advance rates dictate the requirements for material removal. For the purposes of preliminary planning, a rate of approximately 1,000m3 to 2,000m3 per day from a site is assumed, depending on TBM type and ground conditions. Marine transport 3.5.54 The feasibility and use of marine transport for the removal of excavated material from potential main tunnel drive sites along the river is dependent on location. Operations in the upper reaches of the River Thames beyond Hammersmith Bridge are considered to be impractical due to the restrictions of bridge height, tidal range, and width of the navigable channel. These would impose constraints on barge movements that would reduce substantially the quantity and rate of material that can be removed, making the viability of solely marine transport in these areas unacceptable. The operations between Putney Bridge and Hammersmith Bridge are considered to be challenging, especially when servicing the peak tunnelling rates. However, sites along this length of the Thames could be accessed and serviced but would require careful planning to mitigate the problems associated with navigational constraints. Downstream of Putney Bridge, there are fewer navigational constraints and, as such, it is possible to reduce the number of barge movements by using larger size barges on the lower reaches of the Thames to the east. Hence, only 350t barges can be used around Putney Bridge, 1,000t barges can be used in the vicinity of Battersea Power Station and 1,500t barges or larger can be used downstream of Tower Bridge. The Abbey Mills Pumping Station site is located on the River Lee, adjacent to the Three Mills Lock. At this location, the river is tidal and only navigable for about four hours on each tide. Downstream from the site, the river is narrow and constrained by physical features, including low bridges. Although not impossible, using the river to transport the materials required to service a main tunnel drive would introduce financial and programme risks that would need to be carefully investigated before a final decision on using the site to drive a main tunnel is made. For the purpose of this options report, driving from Abbey Mills is included as a feasible

3.5.51

3.5.52

3.5.53

3.5.55

3.5.56

3.5.57

3.5.58

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 26

3 System design and engineering requirements option to be evaluated against other options during subsequent stages of site selection. In-river facilities 3.5.59 Jetty/wharf structures and their location with respect to the navigational channel, together with associated dredging of the river for access purposes, are site specific. Each main tunnel drive site not having substantial jetty or deep water wharf facilities is likely to require a bespoke solution with specific consents from the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the EA. The issues above, with respect to in-river facilities, are more onerous on the upper reaches of the river. Thus, beyond Hammersmith Bridge – and to a lesser extent beyond Putney Bridge – the scale of facilities for barges is likely to impinge greatly on the existing river and its users, leading to difficulties in obtaining the required consents, feasibility and unacceptable risks to other river users. Particular risks to in-river facilities and barge movements relate to other river users and the need to obtain a marine risk assessment for operations. As such, it is noted that in the upper reaches of the river beyond Putney Bridge, the presence of recreational users, such as rowers and small boats, presents a major hazard and risk to be considered when evaluating sites. Disposal of material 3.5.62 The methods of treatment, transport and disposal are dependent upon the nature and consistency of the excavated material and requirements for final disposal. The overall policy is to favour marine transport of main tunnel excavated material along the River Thames, where practicable and cost-effective. The details of potential disposal site options are not discussed or considered in this report. These would be covered by the project ‘waste management strategy’, forming part of the future Environmental Impact Assessment.

3.5.60

3.5.61

3.5.63 3.5.64

CSO connection to the main tunnel
3.5.65 Where the CSO connection tunnels are directly connected to the 7.2m internal diameter main tunnel, it has been assumed that the internal diameter of the connection tunnel would be no greater than 4.5m. The junctions would be axis-to-axis, and have a horizontal angle of about 70 degrees to the main tunnel where practical. Where the internal diameter of the main tunnel is smaller than 7.2m, the connection tunnel diameter would need to be appropriately sized. The limitation on diameter of the connection tunnel is due to both constructability and the design requirement for achieving a stable structural opening. 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.

3.5.66

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 27

3 System design and engineering requirements

Connection with Lee Tunnel
3.5.67 The Thames Tunnel project’s main tunnel would connect to the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills PS. The proposed arrangement is for the main tunnel to connect at the Lee Tunnel ‘Shaft F’ (proposed Lee Tunnel shaft to be located at Abbey Mills PS). The connection would need to provide a smooth hydraulic confluence to combine the flows from both the Abbey Mills CSO and the main tunnel towards Beckton. The design of the connection would need to minimise disruption of the Lee Tunnel operations.

Third-party infrastructure impact
3.5.68 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 should be selected so that the impact on third-party infrastructure due to ground movement would be avoided or minimised, as far as is reasonably practicable. Searches of historical and other records have revealed groundwater abstraction wells located within the alignment corridor, some of which are operational abstraction wells. The tunnel alignment would, wherever possible, avoid any adverse affect on these wells. Searches have revealed, in addition to road and underground rail transport tunnels, a number of existing deep level service tunnels, including National Grid’s Richmond to Fulham high pressure pipeline tunnel and a number of BT Openreach tunnels. In addition to these, the planned National Grid ‘Wimbledon to Kensal Green’ tunnel is also noted along with the proposed UK Power Networks New Cross to Wellclose Square cable tunnel. The alignment of the main tunnel and connection tunnels would avoid these assets, with acceptable clearances. Liaison with third parties has commenced with the objective of obtaining ‘Approval in Principle’ agreements to cross major assets where possible. This includes an assessment of all significant assets, the development of preliminary instrumentation and monitoring plans, and identification of mitigation works where necessary. The scope includes tunnels, bridges, river walls, utilities and existing buildings.

3.5.69

3.5.70

3.5.71

3.6

CSO engineering and construction requirements General considerations

3.6.1

The design requirements for CSOs are outlined in Section 3.3 with a list of the controls required for all 34 CSOs, as well as indicating the 18 CSOs requiring interception and three connections to the existing northern Low Level Sewer No.1 (see Table 3.1). The CSO interceptions identified comprise a combination of direct gravity overflows and pumping stations. In each case, the location of the CSO

3.6.2

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 28

3 System design and engineering requirements interception works would be constrained by the layout of the existing sewer system. 3.6.3 In general, interception of gravity CSOs would be downstream of the last incoming connection to the overflow before the overflow sewer reaches the river, to ensure that the CSO interception is not bypassed during a storm event. For the interception of flows from pumping stations, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with interception pre- and post-pumping. For example, intercepting the flows pre-pumping allows direct gravity interception without reliance on the pumps and therefore provides energy savings, whereas post-pumping interception allows the pumps to be used regularly and therefore reduces the need for special maintenance facilities. If pumps are not used regularly, maintenance procedures are required to periodically start pumps manually to ensure they do not seize up due to infrequent use. In practice, the criterion governing whether pumping station flows are intercepted pre- or post-pumping is likely to be the availability of suitable CSO sites.

3.6.4

CSO interception – design and construction
3.6.5 The CSO interceptions typically consist of the following elements: a. CSO interception chamber b. CSO connection culvert c. 3.6.6 CSO drop shaft d. CSO connection tunnel. Details of each of these elements are outlined below. CSO interception chambers 3.6.7 The CSO interception chamber would typically be a box-shaped structure and would 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 would be determined to suit the existing sewer and to accommodate the maximum flow requirements for interception. This would be done using a combination of calculations and physical modelling. The depth of the interception chamber would be determined by the depth of the existing sewer. It is envisaged that the interception chambers would be constructed as a reinforced concrete structure. However, the construction methodology for the chamber would be dependent on the depth, ground conditions and other site specific criteria. Generally, steel or 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.

3.6.8

3.6.9 3.6.10

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 29

3 System design and engineering requirements 3.6.11 The existing line of the CSO overflow is to be retained for use as an overflow for the system in the permanent case. An overflow is also required to be maintained during the construction of the interception works to allow construction of the interception chamber and maintain the functionality of the existing sewerage system during a storm event for the duration of the construction period, prior to commissioning of the project. The overflow to the river would be protected by double isolation in the form of two lines of flap gates. These flap gates would either utilise the existing flap gate arrangement (where acceptable) or, in some cases, a new structure and flap gate arrangement. The interception chamber would also be protected against reverse surcharge flows from the drop shaft by means of two lines of flap gates located on the line of the proposed connection culvert. An actuated, motorised penstock would also be positioned within the interception chamber at the junction of the connection culvert. This penstock would remain open during normal operative procedures, but would be closed to prevent flows being diverted through the connection culvert during tunnel maintenance activities. It is envisaged that a control kiosk would be required at each CSO interception site to operate the motorised penstock. This kiosk may also be used to accommodate other control and monitoring equipment and would be sized accordingly. An opening would be required in the roof of the interception chamber to facilitate maintenance access and to allow for repair or replacement of the flap gates and penstock in the future. These openings would be fitted with suitable lockable covers. It is envisaged that the roof of the chamber would be at or below ground level, with the covers to the openings positioned at ground level. CSO connection culverts 3.6.16 The CSO connection culvert would join the interception chamber to the drop shaft. It is the intention to minimise the length of the CSO connection culvert by positioning the chamber and shaft as close together as possible, although this is dependent on the individual constraints at each site. The depth of the connection culvert would typically be determined by the depth of the existing sewer, which in turn sets the depth of the interception chamber. In some cases, it may be required to increase the depth of the connection culvert to minimise impact on third-party assets, particularly if the culvert has to pass under existing structures or utilities. The connection culvert would be sized to accommodate the required controlled or maximum design flow rate. The form of construction of each CSO connection culvert would be controlled by the constraints at each site. Typical forms of construction could include open cut supported by sheet piling or an opencut trench support system, microtunnelling/pipejacking (utilising precast concrete pipe units) and sprayed concrete lining tunnelling connections. Therefore, the connection culvert may be either circular or box-shaped in cross

3.6.12

3.6.13

3.6.14

3.6.15

3.6.17

3.6.18 3.6.19

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 30

3 System design and engineering requirements section and could comprise precast concrete pipes, precast concrete culvert units, or sprayed or in situ concrete. 3.6.20 There may also be a series of access manholes along the length of the culvert to facilitate the installation, removal, inspection and maintenance of the required flap gates and penstocks. For foreshore interception of CSOs, the interception chamber may be accommodated within the top of the drop shaft and no connection culvert would be required. CSO drop shafts 3.6.22 The purpose of the drop shaft is to allow the intercepted flows from the CSO to be dropped to the level of the main tunnel or, in some cases, to the level of the connection tunnel, with an acceptable amount of air entrainment. Three forms of mechanism have been considered to drop the flows within the drop shaft. These are summarised as follows: Straight drop: Due to energy dissipation, the use of a straight drop is only considered appropriate where the drop in height is less than 10m. The direct drop approach would maintain the flow within a pipe rather than being a ‘waterfall’. For the majority of CSOs, the drop in height is greater than 10m and therefore a straight drop would not be used. Cascade drop: Cascade platforms within shafts are used to dissipate energy for drops greater than 10m. The cascade typically includes alternating platforms at approximately 3-6m intervals over the full depth of the shaft, causing the energy to be dissipated in stages as the flows drop to the required level. Due to the regular inspection and maintenance regime required for cascade type drops, and the associated health and safety issues, cascade type drop shafts are not preferred. Vortex drop: Vortex drop tubes can be used for drops greater than 10m. In order to generate the vortex at the top of the drop tube, vortex tubes are envisaged to be in the range of 0.9m to 3m diameter. A vortex drop is a system that accelerates and spins the flow so it adheres to the wall of a tube, which is a proven and robust means of transferring flows from a shallow structure to a deep tunnel. Drop shafts would be sized to accommodate maximum flows, having regard to the mechanism used to drop the flow to tunnel level. Connection tunnel 3.6.27 3.6.28 Connection tunnels take flows either between two drop or from one drop shaft to the main tunnel/main tunnel shaft. Details of the types and methods of CSO connection to the main tunnel are outlined in sections 4.3 and 5.1. Air management 3.6.29 When the system fills with CSO discharges, the air in the tunnels will be displaced, and when the flow is removed from the tunnels, air will need to return. When the tunnels are empty, the design also includes means of

3.6.21

3.6.23

3.6.24

3.6.25

3.6.26

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 31

3 System design and engineering requirements refreshing the air within the tunnels. Therefore, the interaction of combined sewage inflow and management of air requirements are considered and addressed. 3.6.30 The air management system would involve a combination of air extraction and intake structures, and buildings to house air treatment equipment. The size and configuration of the structures would depend primarily on how air moves through the system and the amount of air to be moved.

Construction sites and logistics
Site requirements 3.6.31 CSO site requirements would 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 to the main tunnel and availability of suitable sites means that such sites are considered as the only feasible sites available. Transport of materials and equipment 3.6.33 Construction of the CSO works would 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. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that all transport to and from the CSO sites would be by road. Power supply and site services 3.6.35 The temporary service requirements for the CSO sites are less demanding than those required for the main tunnel drive sites.

3.6.34

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 would be present at all sites, but the complexity of the existing layouts and the possibility of diversionary routes would vary. The construction works would be designed to avoid or minimise their impact on third-party infrastructure and buildings as far as is practicable.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 32

4 Main tunnel drive options

4 4.1
4.1.1

Main tunnel drive 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.

4.2
4.2.1

Main tunnel engineering – options preparation
The Abbey Mills main tunnel route is shown in Figure 3.1. This section further develops and establishes feasible drive options and presents them in a format to take forward to the next site selection stage to determine a preferred drive option and an associated list of preferred sites for the Abbey Mills route. This report considers issues that affect the selection of main tunnel sites both for construction of the main tunnel drive and the CSO connections to the main tunnel.

4.2.2

Shortlisted sites
4.2.3 Potential sites have been identified using the short list, established via the process set out in the Site selection methodology paper. The shortlisted sites fall into two categories: a. Sites potentially suitable as main tunnel sites b. Sites potentially suitable as CSO sites. 4.2.4 The site selection process searched for three types of sites to construct the main tunnel: a. Main tunnel drive sites b. Main tunnel reception sites c. 4.2.5 Main tunnel intermediate sites. The requirements and site area of a main tunnel reception site are similar to those of an intermediate site but not those of a main tunnel drive site. For site selection purposes, a main tunnel reception site was considered in the same way as an ‘intermediate’ site. Therefore, only two categories of sites needed to be identified in the site selection process, which were: a. ‘drive sites’ – the term used for main tunnel (single or double) drive sites (at the beginning of site selection this category of site was referred to as ‘main shaft sites’) b. ‘intermediate sites’ – the term used for both main tunnel intermediate sites and main tunnel reception sites (at the beginning of site selection this was referred to as ‘intermediate shaft sites’). 4.2.6 There are a total of 53 main tunnel sites (all potentially suitable as reception or intermediate sites, but not all are suitable as drive sites) and 63 CSO sites identified on the final short list for phase two consultation.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 33

4 Main tunnel drive options There were 52 main tunnel sites and 71 CSO sites on the short list for phase one consultation. Main tunnel sites may either be used individually or combined with an adjoining site to provide the required site area.

Main tunnel sites types
4.2.7 The number of locations from which the individual drives are launched and received would vary according to directions in which the drives are constructed. There are potential benefits in reducing the number of drive sites by having double drive sites where two TBMs are driven in opposite directions, enabling efficiencies to be gained in the site servicing requirements and logistics. Figure 4.1 summarises the possible main tunnel site types that can be used for the establishment of feasible drive options. Figure 4.1 Main tunnel site types

4.2.8

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 34

4 Main tunnel drive options

Site zones
4.2.9 To manage the total number of combinations of main tunnel drive site options, the shortlisted sites have been grouped into a limited number of main tunnel site zones. This was based on the geographical proximity of sites. Figure 4.2 shows the zones for all three tunnel routes. Figure 4.2 Main tunnel site zones for all three routes

S11 – Abbey Mills S10 – Beckton S7 – Limehouse S0 – Acton S1 – Hammersmith S5 – Battersea S6 – Shad S8 – Deptford S4 – Lots Road S2 – Barn Elms S3 – Wandsworth Bridge S9 – Charlton

4.2.10

However, as zones S8, S9 and S10 are only associated with the River Thames route and Rotherhithe route, they are not considered further in this report. Figure 4.3 shows the zones associated with the Abbey Mills route. Figure 4.3 Main tunnel site zones for the Abbey Mills route

S11 – Abbey Mills

S7 – Limehouse S0 – Acton S5 – Battersea S1 – Hammersmith S6 – Shad

S4 – Lots Road S2 – Barn Elms S3 – Wandsworth Bridge

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 35

4 Main tunnel drive options 4.2.11 Table 4.1 identifies which zone each of the shortlisted main tunnel sites belongs to for the zones associated with the Abbey Mills route (ie, zones S0 to S7 and S11). These are shown on drawings in Appendix B of the Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route – Appendices. The specific assessment of the available worksites within each zone is not considered within this report. These factors are examined within the site suitability reports, which include its use as both a temporary worksite and the final permanent works requirements. Table 4.1 provides the potential usage of the shortlisted main tunnel sites.

4.2.12

4.2.13

Table 4.1 Grouping of shortlisted main tunnel sites for the Abbey Mills route post-phase one consultation Site zone Site ID S01EG S02EG S0 S03EG S04EG S1 S2 Site name Acton Storm Tanks Commercial units, Stanley Gardens Acton Park Industrial Estate Industrial units, Allied Way Local authority Ealing Ealing Ealing Ealing Site usage • reception • reception • reception • reception

No shortlisted sites S17RD Barn Elms Richmond Wandsworth • double drive • single drive • reception/intermediate • reception/intermediate

S18WH Feathers Wharf Fulham Depot, next to Wandsworth Bridge Carnwath Road Riverside

S3

S72HF

Hammersmith • reception/intermediate and Fulham Hammersmith • single drive and Fulham • reception/intermediate • double drive • single drive • reception/intermediate • double drive with S92WH • single drive • reception/intermediate

S87HF S4

No shortlisted sites S61WH Battersea Park Wandsworth

S5 Battersea Power S68WH Station Wandsworth

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 36

4 Main tunnel drive options Site zone Local authority

Site ID

Site name

Site usage • spilt double drive with S93WH • spilt single drive with S93WH • split reception/intermediate with S93WH • reception/intermediate • spilt double drive with S80WH • spilt single drive with S80WH • reception/intermediate • double drive • single drive • reception/intermediate • double drive • single drive • reception/intermediate • single drive • spilt single drive with S80WH • reception/intermediate • double drive • single drive • reception/intermediate • single drive • reception/intermediate • single drive • reception/intermediate • single drive • reception/intermediate • single drive • reception/intermediate • split reception/split intermediate • reception/intermediate

S72WH

Kirtling Street with Cringle Street

Wandsworth

S86WH Post Office

Wandsworth

Part of Battersea S92WH Power Station

Wandsworth

S93WH Kirtling Street

Wandsworth

S94WH Post Office Way

Wandsworth

Depots, Ponton S95WH Road S54SK S6 S76SK S020T S021T S7 S024T/ S025T S036T Chambers Wharf Shadwell Basin King Edward Memorial Park Heckford Street sites Limehouse Basin King’s Stairs Gardens

Wandsworth

Southwark Southwark Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 37

4 Main tunnel drive options Site zone Local authority Newham Newham Newham

Site ID S84NM

Site name Abbey Mills Pumping Station Three Mills Green Three Mills Studios

Site usage • single drive • reception • single drive • reception • single drive • reception

S11

S85NM S86NM

Split sites that are too small on their own but could be used in combination with other sites(s) to form a suitable site.

Definition of drive options
4.2.14 The overall development of options and selection of sites includes consideration of the following: a. Main tunnel drive options – a number of drive options exists where the number of TBMs, numbers of sites and length of drives would vary. b. 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. c. 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 sites, and a number of other factors.

d. CSO site options – a number of CSO sites could be available for each CSO drop shaft, and the type of connection may vary according to a number of factors, including proximity of the main tunnel or one of its sites. 4.2.15 A number of drive options exist and are based on the number of TBMs used and the number of main tunnel sites that they can be driven from. This approach differentiates between main tunnel sites from which tunnels can be driven from in either one or both directions. To establish the range of drive options, each drive is considered between two zones, with a drive site within one zone and a reception site within another zone. By combining different zones together, a number of options can be established. By also applying the following two basic constraints, the initial number of drive options can be established: a. Drive lengths (maximum and minimum) b. Site type (potential to be a double drive, single drive or intermediate/reception site). 4.2.17 The determination of main tunnel options in this report considers these zones of sites as a single entity. The individual site options will subsequently be considered and assessed as part of the Phase two scheme development report.

4.2.16

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 38

4 Main tunnel drive options

Drive constraint assumptions
4.2.18 The following considerations were used to establish the initial list of drive options: a. The construction period is assumed to be six years (see Section 4.3.34). b. To keep within the six-year construction period programme constraint and to reduce programme risk: i ii the maximum drive length considered for initial development is 12km however, the maximum drive length is approximately 8km for tunnels driven from deep diaphragm wall shafts, because of the longer period of time required to construct deep shafts by diaphragm wall method.

c.

The minimum drive length is 3km, because the set-up costs are disproportionate to the tunnelling costs for lengths less than 3km.

d. The type of site available in each zone.

Derivation of the drive options
4.2.19 4.2.20 4.2.21 The length of the main tunnel can be split into a number of drives, each constructed with a separate TBM. Starting by considering drive length and site type, Table 4.2 provides a matrix from which the initial possible drive options can be established. The table illustrates a matrix of possible drive scenarios (which zones could be connected together), using the available zones for tunnel drive and tunnel reception. The matrix has been colour-coded, 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 which drive lengths are too short, which are too long and which are potentially acceptable. The matrix also indicates the approximate overall chainage drive lengths in metres (drive lengths are measured from the average chainage of sites within each zone).

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 39

4 Main tunnel drive options Table 4.2 Drive options – consideration of practical drive lengths
Wandsworth Bridge Zone name Abbey Mills Limehouse Barn Elms Battersea

Acton

Zone number Chainage (m)

S0 0 S0

S2 3,954 3954

S3 6,682 6682

S5 11,543 11543

S6 18,981 18981

Shad

S7 20,454 20454

S11 24,064 24064

S2

2728

7589

15027

16500

20110

S3

4860

12298

13772

17381

S5

7438

8912

12521

S6

1474

5083

S7

3609

S11 No sites available in the zone S1 (Hammersmith) or zone S4 (Lots Road) Key drive length too short drive length too long drive length potentially acceptable Drive length acceptable Drive length potentially too long from a deep diaphragm wall shaft Drive length too long or too short Potential to be a double or single drive or intermediate/reception site Potential to be a single drive or intermediate/reception site Potential to be an intermediate/reception site

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 40

4 Main tunnel drive options

Drive options – comprehensive list of initial possible options
4.2.22 The information from the matrix in Table 4.2 has been used to list out the initial provisional main tunnel drive options and these are presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Initial provisional main tunnel drive options

Zone
Wandsworth Bridge Abbey Mills Limehouse Barn Elms Battersea

Acton

Drive option W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

S0 r r r r r r

S2 d-r d-d i

S3 d-r i -

S5 d r d d d d d d d d r r

S6

Shad

S7

S11

Western

r-r r-d d-r -

r-r r-d d-r

d r d r d d

The site type for the Zone S5 (Battersea) depends on which eastern drive option is matched with which western drive option. There are no sites available in Zone S1 (Hammersmith) and Zone S4 (Lots Road). Legend: The following nomenclature/legend is used in the table to define the types of site required in the defined zones. Where 'd' denotes drive site, 'r' denotes reception site and 'i' denotes intermediate site. The tunnel is driven from a ‘d’ drive location to a ‘r’ reception location and through an 'i' intermediate location.
No site required Single Reception Double Intermediate Reception Drive and Reception Single Drive Double Drive

Eastern

4.2.23

r

r-r

i

r-d

d

d-d

Table 4.3 shows that, based on only considering drive length and site type constraints, there are six drive options for the western zones (S0 Acton to S5 Battersea) which would need to be matched with one of the six drive options for the eastern zones (S6 Shad, S7 Limehouse and S11 Abbey Mills) making 36 different drive options.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 41

4 Main tunnel drive options

Drive options - further development
4.2.24 Further to the initial derivation of initial provisional drive options, a further, more detailed review has been carried out to determine what other factors affect or preclude specific options. Double drive site in zone S2 Barn Elms 4.2.25 Zone S2 Barn Elms contains only one site, S17RD (Barn Elms), which is identified as a possible drive site (refer to Table 4.1). Table 4.3 identifies one drive option using a double drive site in this zone (option W2). The suitability of S17RD as a double drive site has been reviewed, considering, in particular, the ability to transport double the quantity of excavated material using river-based barges. 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 site highly unlikely. There is a limited tidal window available to load and move barges, and this may be insufficient to meet the predicted demands. The conclusion is that this double drive option should remain on the list of options and the concerns noted here will be taken into account when the multidisciplinary team compares the drive options to select the preferred drive option for phase two consultation. Long tunnel drives through different geological strata 4.2.27 Table 4.3 shows a number of initial provisional drive options that include driving a tunnel from Zone S5 Battersea to either zones S6 Shad or S7 Limehouse. All of these drives would start in London Clay and traverse through the Lambeth Group, the Thanet Sand Formation and into the Chalk. Because the tunnel falls on a continuous gradient towards the east, the longer drives would also be deeper and subject to higher groundwater pressure. As noted 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 Sand 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 Battersea to the east, terminating in Chalk. This risk assessment has identified a number of consequences associated with driving an EPB machine into Chalk. These include: a. reduced tunnel advance rates. The assumed long average advance rate for an EPB machine in the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand 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

4.2.26

4.2.28

4.2.29

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 42

4 Main tunnel drive options b. increased health and safety hazards for work required to maintain the TBM c. increased risk of mechanical TBM failure (seals, bearings and screw conveyor)

d. increased risk of wear on cutting head e. increased risk of excavated material transfer problems due to groundwater content f. 4.2.30 increased risk mitigation cost resulting from above. To reduce the risks associated with tunnelling across the change from Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation to Chalk, it is preferable that the final length of tunnel bored in Chalk at the end of a long EPB drive be kept to a minimum. However, it is considered that for both the drive options from Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S7 Limehouse (E1 and E2) and both the drive options from Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S6 Shad (E3 and E4), the distance in Chalk is not long enough to remove the options from the list of feasible drive options. Similar risks and assumptions would apply to drive options that include driving a tunnel from either zones S6 Shad or S7 Limehouse to Zone S5 Battersea (E5 and E6). Deep diaphragm wall shafts 4.2.32 Sites in zones S5 Battersea, S6 Shad, S7 Limehouse and S11 Abbey Mills require deep diaphragm wall shafts due to the depth to the tunnel. To keep within the six-year construction period programme constraint, the drive length is approximately 8km for tunnels driven from deep diaphragm wall shafts because of the longer period of time required to construct deep shafts by diaphragm wall method. The drive length is potentially too long for the following drive options as their drive lengths are over 8km (see Table 4.2): a. Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S0 Acton (ie, drive options W4, W5 and W6) b. Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S7 Limehouse (ie, drive options E1 and E2) c. 4.2.34 Zone S7 Limehouse to Zone S5 Battersea (ie, drive option E6). The drive lengths are potentially too long, but W4, W5, W6, E1, E2 and E6 drive options will not be removed from the list of feasible options for drive length reasons alone. The 8km constraint is approximate, therefore further programme assessment will be undertaken (see Table 4.7). Access points 4.2.35 Main tunnel drive shafts, and CSO drop shafts that are ‘on line’ with the main tunnel, would be the designated access points to the tunnel system. As the spacing between such permanent access points shall not exceed 9km, the drive option W4 (Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S0 Acton) needs to consider if an intermediate site is required as the drive length is over 9km.

4.2.31

4.2.33

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 43

4 Main tunnel drive options 4.2.36 Although this main tunnel drive length is too long without an intermediate site for access purposes, this drive option W4 will not be removed from the list of feasible options in case a CSO drop shaft can be incorporated ‘on-line’ to provide the required access point instead. Tunnel vertical alignment and gradient 4.2.37 The western drive options involve drives between Zone S5 Battersea and Zone S0 Acton. However, there is a vertical tunnel alignment constraint imposed by the London Ring Main and other existing tunnels in this section of tunnel and therefore the tunnel vertical alignment needs to change along the route. The tunnel vertical alignment change can be accommodated at a shaft in either Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge. Drive options W1 to W3 have either drive shafts or reception shafts in Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge to accommodate the vertical alignment change. Drive options W5 and W6 have an intermediate shaft in Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge to accommodate the vertical alignment change. However, drive option W4 has no shafts in Zone S2 Barn Elms or Zone S3 Wandsworth Bridge to accommodate the vertical alignment change and therefore has been removed from the list of feasible drive options.

4.2.38

4.2.39

4.2.40

Drive options – interim list of options
4.2.41 Having reviewed the drive options from Table 4.3, an interim list of drive options is presented in Table 4.4 below.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 44

4 Main tunnel drive options Table 4.4 Interim main tunnel drive options
Zone
Wandsworth Bridge Abbey Mills Limehouse Barn Elms Battersea

Acton

Drive option W1 W2 W3 W5 W6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Western Eastern

S0 r r r r r

S2 d-r d-d i

S3 d-r i -

S5 d r d d d d d d d r r

S6

Shad

S7

S11

r-r r-d d-r -

r-r r-d d-r

d r d r d d

The site type for the Zone S5 (Battersea) depends on which eastern drive option is matched with which western drive option. There are no sites available in Zone S1 (Hammersmith) and Zone S4 (Lots Road).

4.2.42

Table 4.4 shows that the interim list potentially feasible drive options include five drive options for the western zones (S0 Acton to S5 Battersea) which would need to be matched with one of six drive options for the eastern zones (S5 Battersea to S11 Abbey Mills), making 30 different drive options. The full list of interim drive options is provided in Table 4.5 below.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 45

4 Main tunnel drive options Table 4.5 Interim list of main tunnel drive options
Zone
Number of drive sites Wandsworth Bridge Number of reception sites sites Number of intermediate sites Number of TBMs Abbey Mills

Drive option W1/E1 W1/E2 W1/E3 W1/E4 W1/E5 W1/E6 W2/E1 W2/E2 W2/E3 W2/E4 W2/E5 W2/E6 W3/E1 W3/E2 W3/E3 W3/E4 W3/E5 W3/E6 W5/E1 W5/E2 W5/E3 W5/E4 W5/E5 W5/E6 W6/E1 W6/E2 W6/E3 W6/E4 W6/E5 W6/E6

S0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r

S2 d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d i i i i i i

S3 d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r i i i i i i -

S5 d d d d d d r r r r r r d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r

S6 r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r -

S7 r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r

Limehouse

Barn Elms

Battersea

Acton

Shad

S11 d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d

3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4.2.43

Table 4.5 lists the 30 potentially feasible drive options and shows that: a. 18 options use four TBMs and 12 options use three TBMs b. four options use four drives sites and one reception site; 14 options use three drive sites and two reception sites; four options use three drive sites, one intermediate site and one reception site; and eight options use two drive sites, one intermediate site and two reception sites. c. d. All options require a main tunnel reception site in Zone S0 Acton, ie, at one end of the main tunnel. All options require a main tunnel site (drive or reception) in Zone S11 Abbey Mills, ie, at the other end of the main tunnel.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 46

4 Main tunnel drive options e. All options require a main tunnel site in Zone S5 Battersea which also happens to be approximately halfway along the main tunnel. f. Not all drive options require a main tunnel site in Zone S2 Barn Elms and not all drive options require a main tunnel site in S3 Wandsworth Bridge. However, a main tunnel site is required in one of these two zones.

g. Not all drive options require a main tunnel site in Zone S6 Shad and not all drive options require a main tunnel site in S7 Limehouse. However, a main tunnel site is required in one of these two zones.

4.3
4.3.1 4.3.2

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 4.5 are considered to be potentially feasible in engineering terms. The areas for engineering assessment are risk (comprising engineering and health and safety risks), programme, cost, transport and energy. Other factors that are specific to each drive option, including planning, community, environment and property, will also be considered alongside one another in the next site selection process to determine which drive option is selected for the preferred scheme for phase two consultation, and recorded in the Phase two scheme development report.

4.3.3

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 – general 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. The effort required and the risks associated with building the tunnel will be broadly proportional to the length of the tunnel. The relative benefits or adverse effects are similarly proportional. The scale of the differences was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) with all drive options having essentially the same tunnel length. Health and safety issues – access 4.3.7 Access and egress from the main tunnel would be via main tunnel shafts and CSO drop shafts directly on the line of the tunnel. Section 4.2.35 has identified which drive options are of concern from an access point perspective. The distance between shafts will be minimised so far as is practicable but, for the purpose of comparison, the relative benefits or

4.3.6

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 47

4 Main tunnel drive options adverse effects from a long-term inspection and maintenance perspective will be proportional to the number of access shafts provided. There are different numbers of sites depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. Geology 4.3.8 Flints and flint bands cause wear to the TBM cutters and TBM cutterhead face protection coatings, increasing the likelihood and frequency of face interventions to replace worn components. Face interventions involve sending workers in front of the TBM cutterhead and are considered to be risky operations. Although essential and normal for tunnels, the number of face interventions should ideally be minimised in order to reduce the associated construction risks of entering the TBM cutterhead in proximity to unsupported ground and delay. The likelihood and frequency for face intervention for each option is related to the length of tunnel, and is dominated by the length in flint-bearing Chalk formations (notably the Seaford Formation with the Bedwell and Seven Sisters flint bands and, to a lesser extent, the Lewes Formation) and the type and design of the TBM. Designing the cutterhead to incorporate wear indicators and endoscope inspection and allow rear replacement of discs reduces the need to carry out face interventions. High groundwater pressures at the face may increase the programme risk arising from failure of TBM bearings associated with ground being forced under pressure past the seals into the main bearings. It is also more complex to undertake routine inspection and maintenance interventions and may result in longer periods between inspections, increasing the risks of unexpected component failure. There are also increased health and safety hazards associated with face interventions. The risks to tunnelling are therefore proportional to the maximum groundwater pressures likely to be encountered and the length over which they occur. Tunnel face interventions and appropriate face control become more difficult where there are mixed geological conditions at the face and these conditions vary over short distances. The level of these risks is related to the lengths of tunnel in Chalk, where there is little or no cover below the interface with the Thanet Sand Formation, because the Chalk is less stable under these conditions. The risk of delay due to disturbed ground conditions and sudden groundwater ingress increases at geological faults. The major geological structures identified by the site investigation are described in Section 3.4.8. The impacts are likely to be minimal for closed-face tunnelling (provided by both EPB TBM and slurry TBM tunnelling methods). The level of risk for each option is related to the number of likely fault zones along each route. This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options experience essentially the same geology.

4.3.9

4.3.10

4.3.11

4.3.12

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 48

4 Main tunnel drive options Third-party assets 4.3.13 The excavation of the works, including the deep shafts and main tunnels, will result in ground movements that have the potential to impact adjacent properties and infrastructure. The numbers impacted is directly related to the length of the tunnel. The magnitude of the influence is related to the size of the excavation, ground conditions, depth of the excavation and geometrical relationship to the infrastructure and the method of construction. Potential influence on major infrastructure including bridges and tunnels: The level of risk for each option would depend on how many structures are within the ground movement influence of the tunnels. The presence of unknown obstructions or future planning proposals along the route of the tunnel presents a risk to the delivery of the scheme. The level of this risk is reduced when the tunnel follows the line of the river. This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options encounter essentially the same third-party assets. Site requirements 4.3.17 Risks associated with drive sites may include works in proximity to major utility services or railways, and completion of enabling works such as temporary jetties or cofferdams. The level of this risk is related to the number of worksites required. Servicing of the tunnel drive sites presents risks in terms of establishing transport links to and from the site for materials delivery and for the removal of excavated material. Increased levels of risk would occur where there are no established connections to main roads or existing wharf facilities. Larger sites would offer more flexible worksite arrangements and thus present lower risks. There are different numbers of drive sites, depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. Tunnel alignment 4.3.20 Construction risks associated with tunnelling are proportional to the total length of the tunnel. General tunnelling risks are associated with working at depth in a confined environment, using heavy machinery and handling heavy structural elements. This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options are all essentially of the same length.

4.3.14

4.3.15

4.3.16

4.3.18

4.3.19

4.3.21

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 49

4 Main tunnel drive options TBM 4.3.22 The potential for unplanned interventions due to mechanical breakdowns or cutterhead/tool wear presents a health, safety and construction risk. This risk is reduced with shorter drive lengths and can be more effectively mitigated where there are opportunities to provide ground treatment from surface locations such as roads, canals or river courses, where there are no buildings or other significant structures. There is a further risk of additional interventions being required where a tunnel drive passes from the Thanet Sand Formation into the Chalk, compared with tunnelling through the geological units above the Thanet Sand Formation. Tunnelling through the Chalk, and especially Chalk containing a high percentage of flint, is likely to increase the frequency and duration of interventions to carry out inspections and maintenance. Mixed-face conditions may cause the TBM to run less efficiently, with more delays and possible breakdowns, and over-excavation resulting in increased ground movements. This risk level would be higher when the tunnel drive follows the interface boundary between two geological strata (either clay/sand or sand/chalk interfaces). There are different numbers of TBM, depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. Constructability 4.3.26 The risks associated with long tunnel drives are discussed in Section 4.2. It would be most preferable to reduce the risks associated with tunnelling across the change from Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation to Chalk, such that the final length of tunnel bored in Chalk at the end of a long EPB drive is kept to a minimum. It is therefore considered that, based on engineering risk, drive options with drives from Zone S5 Battersea to Zone S7 Limehouse are not favoured and, where possible, should be avoided. Failure of construction contractual arrangements is a project risk. Division of the main tunnel drives into more sections would reduce the overall risk to the project. Opportunity for savings may be possible where double drive sites are used. Larger contracting organisations may be able to construct two drives from a single shaft, possibly including omission of a shaft by sharing some of the worksite facilities. There are different constructability issues, depending on the drive options associated with the Abbey Mills route, so this issue will need to be considered. CSO connections 4.3.30 The health, safety and construction risks associated with the CSO sites and interception structures is proportional to the number of drop shafts required for each option and the depth of those shafts. Some drop shafts

4.3.23

4.3.24

4.3.25

4.3.27

4.3.28

4.3.29

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 50

4 Main tunnel drive options are required to be as deep as the main tunnel and it would be desirable to minimise the number of these drop shafts. 4.3.31 Health, safety and construction risks associated with the construction of the connection tunnels are proportional to the length of connection tunnel for each option. Health, safety and construction risks associated with the construction of connections to the main tunnel are proportional to the number of connections. It is inherently less risky, and therefore preferable, to make connections to main tunnel shafts rather than directly to the main tunnel. This is because access for maintenance and inspection to a connection point located in a shaft is more straightforward than a connection point located inside a tunnel. In addition, the construction of a connection directly into the tunnel is more difficult to build and the connection works at a shaft would not interfere with the progress of the main tunnel construction. Options that require junction works in deep, water-bearing ground would carry higher risk. While the relative benefits or adverse effects of each drive option are not examined as part of this report, it is highlighted that the different main tunnel routes do provide different storage volumes and different system performances (ie, different volumes and frequencies of spills to the river). This was relevant when considering all three tunnel routes, but not a factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all the connections to CSOs are essentially the same for all drive options.

4.3.32

4.3.33

Programme considerations
4.3.34 The overall project programme is based on a construction period of six years, which includes local site M&E testing and commissioning but does not include system-wide testing and commissioning. These construction programme activities follow on from the overall project design, planning and procurement activities. A maximum six-year construction period has been assumed, as required, to construct the project in an efficient manner while enabling the project to completed as early as possible to mitigate European Union fines. A six-year period has been shown to allow TBMs to be matched to the geology (ie, tunnelling production rates are maximised), and to ensure the drive lengths are reasonable (ie, the risk of interventions to repair the face is not excessive) and the size of construction contracts are viable (ie, they can be financed and there are contractors in the market large enough to take on the contracts). Drive options longer than six years use longer drives through variable geology, require larger contracts and put at risk fines from the European Union. The main factors that affect the duration of the construction programme include the following: a. Location of drive shafts – the time it takes to construct a shaft to launch a TBM is critical to the duration of the programme. Therefore, deep shafts in more difficult ground where dewatering activities and

4.3.35

4.3.36

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 51

4 Main tunnel drive options diaphragm wall methods are required would add time to the programme, compared with shallower shafts in more favourable ground. b. Length of drive – the duration of a drive is generally proportional to its length, although the average drive rates would reduce for very short drives where the proportion of time taken to establish the full TBM backup is longer. The geological conditions also affect the rate of tunnelling. c. CSO connection works to main tunnel shafts – some CSO connections to a drive shaft can only be constructed after completion of the main tunnel drive and this could affect the critical path. At main tunnel reception shafts, there is likely to be more time before the arrival of the TBM to complete any CSO connections.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 52

4 Main tunnel drive options 4.3.37 The programme assumptions for the essential construction activities used for the comparison of drive options are provided in Table 4.6. Table 4.6 Programme assumptions for comparison of options
Zones S0 to S4 Key Activity Mobilise shaft site Build and excavate shaft Base slab to shaft Tunnel eye Tunnel worksite setup TBM installation 200m drive for TBM burial and backup installation Zones S5 to S11 Comment Includes dewatering for sites in the east Based on segment, SCL or caisson for zones S0 to S4 and diaphragm wall for zones S5 to S11 Based on permanent base slab of reinforced concrete Based on opening in segment shafts and internal collar arrangement for d'wall shafts Transform the site from shaft construction setup to tunnel construction setup Main body only. Excludes backup which goes in during the slow start 200m slow start based on no backshunt being provided Long average excludes 200m long TBM installation length. 90m/week for EPB TBM when in Lambeth Group/Thanet Sand. 50m/week for EPB TBM when in Chalk. For removal of conveyor and for extraction of CSO TBMs if necessary

Duration/rate 20 wks 20 wks 4 wks 10 wks 26 wks 50 wks 6 wks 10 wks

2 wks 12 wks 22 m/wk

2 wks 15 wks 22 m/wk

Main tunnel drive

100 m/wk

80 m/wk

Tunnel strip out Main tunnel secondary lining Shaft lining Shaft internal structures Local M&E testing and commissioning

4 wks 140 m/wk 5 wks 25 wks 8 wks

4 wks

140 m/wk Based on reinforced in situ lining 10 wks 30 wks 8 wks In situ concrete lining Internal slabs and cover structures Excludes project-wide M&E testing and commissioning

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 53

4 Main tunnel drive options 4.3.38 Table 4.7 summarises the potential construction durations in weeks for each drive option, based on the assumptions set out in Table 4.6.

Table 4.7 Summary of construction durations for main tunnel drive options

Drive W1/E1 W1/E2 W1/E3 W1/E4 W1/E5 W1/E6 W2/E1 W2/E2 W2/E3 W2/E4 W2/E5 W2/E6

Weeks 321 321 294 294 284 319 321 321 286 286 284 319

Drive W3/E1 W3/E2 W3/E3 W3/E4 W3/E5 W3/E6 W5/E1 W5/E2 W5/E3 W5/E4 W5/E5 W5/E6

Weeks 321 321 286 286 284 319 356 356 330 330 330 330

Drive W6/E1 W6/E2 W6/E3 W6/E4 W6/E5 W6/E6

Weeks 356 356 330 330 330 330

Drive options with durations over 312 weeks (6 years)
4.3.39 Table 4.7 identifies the duration of the drive options presented in Table 4.5 and highlights which drive options would take longer to construct than six years (312 weeks). The longest options would take 356 weeks, which is significantly longer than that required to meet the programme requirements and, for this reason, all 12 of the W5 and W6 drive options are removed from the list of feasible options. Those options that exceed the six-year period by up to ten weeks are considered to be close enough to be kept on the list of feasible options. For the remaining options, the difference in duration is small enough to conclude that programme risk is not a significant differentiating factor. Time-chainage diagrams have been produced for five representative drive options (W1/E1, W1/E3, W2/E6, W3/E4 and W3/E5). Time-chainage diagrams are only provided for five drive options as all the other drive options have essentially the same overall construction duration as one of these. These diagrams, in Appendix C of the Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route – Appendices, provide more detail to the overall duration given in Table 4.7.

4.3.40

Cost considerations
4.3.41 The Engineering options report (100-RG-ENG-00000-900006 Spring 2010) included a comparison of costs where relative costs using key quantities of work were considered. Cost differences were reported between the three different tunnel routes and between drive options with different numbers of TBMs. The costs were very similar where the number of TBMs was the same. This report is only concerned with one route, the Abbey Mills route, and therefore relative cost comparison has only been applied to drive options using three or four TBMs. The drive options with only three TBMs would

4.3.42

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 54

4 Main tunnel drive options cost less than those with four TBMs as there is a saving in the manufacture of one TBM.

Transport considerations
4.3.43 Transport is not considered in this report, but is considered on a site-by-site basis in the site suitability reports.

Energy considerations
4.3.44 It was relevant to take account of energy when considering all three tunnel routes, but it is not a significant factor to be considered further in this report, which only considers one route (the Abbey Mills route) and therefore all its drive options would have similar energy characteristics.

Drive options – final list
4.3.45 Table 4.8 shows the final list of 18 feasible main tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage of the site selection process for multidisciplinary consideration. Table 4.8 Final list of main tunnel drive options
Zone
Number of drive sites Wandsworth Bridge Number of reception sites sites Number of intermediate sites Number of TBMs Abbey Mills

Drive option W1/E1 W1/E2 W1/E3 W1/E4 W1/E5 W1/E6 W2/E1 W2/E2 W2/E3 W2/E4 W2/E5 W2/E6 W3/E1 W3/E2 W3/E3 W3/E4 W3/E5 W3/E6

S0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r

S2 d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d d-d -

S3 d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r d-r

S5 d d d d d d r r r r r r d d d d d d d d d d r r d d d d r r d d d d r r

S6 r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r -

S7 r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r r-r r-d d-r

Limehouse

Barn Elms

Battersea

Acton

Shad

S11 d r d r d d d r d r d d d r d r d d

3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 55

5 Connection tunnel drive options

5 5.1
5.1.1

Connection tunnel drive options CSO connection options
For the purpose of this report, five different connection types have been identified for connecting the existing CSO sewers/outfalls and the main tunnel, as follows: a. Type A – connection tunnel to main tunnel shaft connection b. Type B – connection tunnel to main tunnel connection c. Type C – two or more CSOs connected by connection tunnels before connection to either main tunnel or main tunnel shaft

d. Type D – drop shaft adjacent to main tunnel (no connection tunnel) e. Type E – connection culvert to main tunnel shaft connection (or to drop shaft on line of the main tunnel) (no connection tunnel).

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 56

5 Connection tunnel drive options

Type A CSO connection
5.1.2 The Type A connection is shown schematically in Figure 5.1. 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 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. In some cases, the connection tunnel may have to be driven from the CSO site, 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. Where possible the connection tunnel would be driven from the main tunnel site. Figure 5.1 Type A CSO connection
Connection culvert

5.1.3

Drop shaft Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Main Tunnel

Connection Tunnel Main Tunnel Shaft SECTION VIEW

Vortex/ direct drop

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 57

5 Connection tunnel drive options

Type B CSO connection
5.1.4 The Type B connection is shown schematically in Figure 5.2. 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. In deep, water-bearing ground such as Chalk, it is preferred to avoid this type of connection. All the other four connection types are easier to construct in poor ground conditions than Type B. 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. In most cases, the connection tunnel would have to be driven from the CSO site, 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. Figure 5.2 Type B CSO connection
Connection culvert

5.1.5

5.1.6

Drop shaft Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Main Tunnel

Vortex/ direct drop

Connection Tunnel Main Tunnel SECTION VIEW

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 58

5 Connection tunnel drive options

Type C CSO connection
5.1.7 The Type C connection is shown schematically in Figure 5.3. 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 set-up. Figure 5.3 Type C CSO connection
Second CSO Connection Connection culvert Connection Tunnel Drop shaft Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Drop shaft Connection Tunnel Main Tunnel

5.1.8

Vortex/ direct drop Vortex/direct

Either directly to main or a main tunnel shaft

SECTION VIEW

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 59

5 Connection tunnel drive options

Type D CSO connection
5.1.9 The Type D connection is shown schematically in Figure 5.4. 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 5.4 Type D CSO connection
Connection culvert Main Tunnel Interception chamber PLAN VIEW Drop shaft

Multiple/single connection junction Vortex drop

SECTION VIEW

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 60

5 Connection tunnel drive options

Type E CSO connection
5.1.10 The Type E connection is shown schematically in Figure 5.5. 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, it would: a. be built before the main tunnel and the main tunnel would be driven through the drop shaft b. 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. This arrangement provides an opportunity to inspect and possibly maintain the main tunnel TBM and in the permanent situation, a possibility, depending on location, for additional main tunnel access, ventilation and overflow. Figure 5.5 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

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 61

5 Connection tunnel drive options

5.2
5.2.1

Connection tunnel – drive options
For the purpose of the main tunnel, the main tunnel shortlisted sites have been grouped into zones. The CSO connection type used for individual CSOs is dependent on the proximity of the main tunnel and main tunnel sites to the CSO sites. For this reason, the selection of the appropriate connection type for most CSO sites is not considered in this report, but dealt with in the Phase Two Scheme Development Report. However, the Type C CSO connection, where two or more CSOs are intercepted and brought together before being connected to the main tunnel, is considered in this report because there may be more than one connection tunnel drive option or it may impact on the main tunnel drive options. Engineering factors to be considered when selecting the CSO connection types for each CSO site include: a. the main tunnel drive strategy and site selection b. hydraulic system preferences c. the location of the CSO interception site and whether it can be connected to a main tunnel shaft by connection culvert

5.2.2

d. the distance between the CSO interception site and the main tunnel, or main tunnel shaft e. whether two or more CSOs can be connected before connection to the main tunnel f. the local ground conditions – in poorer ground conditions, junctions would be more difficult and tunnel-to-shaft connections (Types A, C, D and E) may be preferred over tunnel-to-tunnel connections (Type B)

g. the impact on existing or planned infrastructure h. maximum flow rates – for larger flows, the connection tunnel may be too big to connect directly to the main tunnel i. j. the overall number and size of shafts required the cost and programme.

Type C CSO connection options
5.2.3 There are two examples of a Type C CSO connection associated with the Abbey Mills route: a. The Frogmore Connection Tunnel, which is a connection tunnel bringing together flows from the Frogmore Storm Relief – Bell Lane Creek (CS07A) CSO and Frogmore Storm Relief – Buckhold Road (CS07B) CSO before connection to the main tunnel. b. The Greenwich Connection Tunnel, which is a connection tunnel bringing together flows from the Greenwich Pumping Station (CS33X) CSO, Deptford Storm Relief (CS32X) CSO and Earl Pumping Station (CS31X) CSO before connection to the main tunnel.

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 62

5 Connection tunnel drive options Frogmore Connection Tunnel 5.2.4 Table 5.1 below presents the list of Frogmore Connection Tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage of the site selection process for multidisciplinary consideration. Table 5.1 Frogmore Connection Tunnel – drive options

Connected directly to the main tunnel CSO Frogmore SR Frogmore SR - Bell Main tunnel Buckhold Road Lane Creek Connection tunnel drive option d r-d r FA r d then d r FB d r-r d FC r d-r d FD Connected to the Zone S3 main tunnel shaft CSO Frogmore SR Frogmore SR - Bell Zone S3 main Buckhold Road Lane Creek tunnel site Connection tunnel drive option d r-d r FE d through r FF d r-r d FG r d then d r FH r d-r d FI r through d FJ Legend: The following nomenclature/legend is used in the table to define the types of site required. Where 'd' denotes drive site, 'r' denotes reception site and 'through' denotes the tunnel drives through a CSO drop shaft (ie, similar to 'i' an intermediate site). Single Sequential double Single drive Intermediate reception drive r d i d then d Double Drive and reception reception r-r r-d Tunnel drive through CSO drop through Consecutive double drive d-d

Greenwich Connection Tunnel 5.2.5 The potentially feasible drive options for the Greenwich Connection Tunnel are presented in Table 5.2 below. All the Greenwich Connection Tunnel drive options connect to the main tunnel via a main tunnel shaft in either Zone S6 Shad or Zone S7 Limehouse. As this is such a long connection

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 63

5 Connection tunnel drive options tunnel, its drive options need to be considered in conjunction with the main tunnel drive options concerning Zone S6 Shad and Zone S7 Limehouse. The location of zones G1, G2 and G3 are shown on Figure B5 in Appendix B within the Engineering options report – Abbey Mills route – Appendices. Table 5.2 Greenwich Connection Tunnel – initial drive options
Greenwich Connection Tunnel CSO or Zone Main tunnel

Zone G3 Greenwich PS

Zone S6 Shad or Zone S7 Limehouse

Deptford SR

Connection tunnel drive option r through n/a GA d through n/a GB r through n/a GC r through d then d GD r through n/a GE (seq) r through n/a GF (con) d through n/a GH r through n/a GI r through d then d GJ

n/a n/a d then d n/a n/a n/a n/a d then d n/a

through through through through through through through through through

d r r r d after MT d with MT r r r

Main tunnel r-r d r-r d r-r d r-r d r-d r r-d r d r d r d r

5.2.6

If the Greenwich Connection Tunnel connects to the main tunnel in Zone S7 Limehouse, its flows would join the main tunnel along with flows from the interception of the North East Storm Relief CSO. The engineering would be complex and challenging as there are both hydraulic and pneumatic (air movement) concerns about introducing too much flow at a single location. Therefore, all the drive options associated with Zone S7 Limehouse are removed from the list of feasible options. It is estimated that it would take at least 350 weeks to drive the connection tunnel to Greenwich PS from the main tunnel site in Zone 6 Shad after the main tunnel from Zone 6 Shad has been driven to the main tunnel site in Zone 11 Abbey Mills, and allow for the reception of the TBM from Zone S5 Battersea to be received at Zone S6 Limehouse. This is 38 weeks more than the six-year construction period and, for this reason, Option GE1 (seq) associated with Zone S6 Shad is removed from the list of feasible options. The programme for the other options will need to be checked in conjunction with preferred main tunnel option during the next stage of evaluation. Table 5.3 presents the final list of Greenwich Connection Tunnel drive options to be taken forward to the next stage of the site selection process for multidisciplinary consideration.

5.2.7

5.2.8

5.2.9

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 64

Zone S11 Abbey Mills

Zone G2

Zone G1

Earl PS

5 Connection tunnel drive options Table 5.3 Greenwich Connection Tunnel – final drive options
Greenwich Connection Tunnel CSO or Zone Main tunnel

Zone G3 Greenwich PS

Zone S6 Shad

Deptford SR

Connection tunnel drive option r through n/a GA d through n/a GB r through n/a GC r through d then d GD r through n/a GF (con) d through n/a GH r through n/a GI r through d then d GJ

n/a n/a d then d n/a n/a n/a d then d n/a

through through through through through through through through

d r r r d with MT r r r

Main tunnel r-r d r-r d r-r d r-r d r-d r d r d r d r

North East Storm Relief connection options
5.2.10 The post phase one consultation site selection back-checking associated with North East Storm Relief CSO sites identified two feasible CSO connection types, as follows: a. The King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore (C29XA) and King Edward Memorial Park (C29XB) shortlisted sites could be connected to the main tunnel via a CSO drop shaft constructed on the line of the main tunnel. This would be a Type E CSO connection and no connection tunnel would be required. b. The King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore (C29XA) and King Edward Memorial Park (C29XB) shortlisted sites could be connected to the main tunnel via a connection tunnel, and an intermediate shaft located on one of the main tunnel site Zone S7 Limehouse shortlisted sites. This would be a Type A CSO connection. 5.2.11 Table 5.4 presents the two NESR Connection Tunnel drive options associated with the Type A CSO connection to be taken forward to the next stage of the site selection process for multidisciplinary consideration. Table 5.4 North East Storm Relief Type A CSO connection tunnel drive options matrix

CSO site/Zone CSO site: KEMP (C29XB)/ KEMP Foreshore (C29XA) Connection tunnel drive option d NA r NB Main tunnel site zone: S7 Limehouse r d

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 65

Zone S11 Abbey Mills

Zone G2

Zone G1

Earl PS

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6
6.1.1

Conclusions and recommendations
This report outlines drive options that are available for the main tunnel (refer to Table 4.8); for the connection tunnels where two or more CSOs are intercepted and brought together before being connected to the main tunnel (refer to Table 5.1 and Table 5.3) and for the connection tunnel options where the connection tunnel connects to the main tunnel via a an intermediate shaft on the main tunnel (refer to Table 5.4). It therefore supports the future site selection process by providing options for evaluation and selection. The other four CSO connection types identified for connecting the existing CSO sewers/outfalls to the main tunnel are dependent on the selection of the preferred main tunnel drive option and preferred main tunnel sites. Hence further work on CSO connections will be carried out once these main tunnel preferences have been identified, and system hydraulic preferences for CSO connections will also be considered at this time. The review of the engineering criteria affecting the different main tunnel drive options is discussed and reported in sections 4.2 and 4.3. The results show that there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with the drive options. These will be used as a basis for engineering assessment in the Phase two scheme development report. Before recommendations can be made on the selection of a preferred drive option and individual main tunnel sites within each zone, the drive options will be assessed by planning, environment, community and property as well as engineering disciplines. These assessments will be considered alongside the issues associated with the use of individual main tunnel sites before recommendations as to the preferred drive strategy are made, in association with the main tunnel sites preferred for delivering that strategy. The direction of the individual TBM drives will also be determined based on 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, and provides the basis to evaluate and determine ‘preferred main tunnel sites’ and associated preferred drive option for the main tunnel and two connection tunnels.

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.1.4

6.1.5

Engineering options report Abbey Mills route

Page 66

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful