DOCSLIB.ORG

Design and Construction of Road Tunnels-Part 4

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design and Construction of Road Tunnels-Part 4 Design & Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigation Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC Design and Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigation Five (5) Continuing Education Hours Course #CV7054 Approved Continuing Education for Licensed Professional Engineers EZ-pdh.com Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC 301 Mission Dr. Unit 571 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 800-433-1487 [email protected] Design & Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigation Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC Course Description: The Design and Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigation course satisfies five (5) hours of professional development. The course is designed as a distance learning course that enables the practicing professional engineer to identify and handle many of the hurdles encountered during tunnel construction. Objectives: The primary objective of this course is enable the student to understand the reasons and methods to consider regarding seismic activity in the design process. The concepts of mined/bored tunnel construction engineering. Also, how to monitor the performance of the tunnel construction process, and how to identify, characterize and repair tunnels. Grading: Students must achieve a minimum score of 70% on the online quiz to pass this course. The quiz may be taken as many times as necessary to successful pass and complete the course. A copy of the quiz questions are attached to last pages of this document. Design and Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigations Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 13 - SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................13-1 13.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13-1 13.2 DETERMINATION OF SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................13-1 13.2.1 Earthquake Fundamental ......................................................................................................13-1 13.2.2 Ground Motion Hazard Analysis..........................................................................................13-7 13.2.3 Ground Motion Parameters ................................................................................................13-11 13.3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TUNNEL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE .........................13-14 13.3.1 Seismic Hazard ...................................................................................................................13-14 13.3.2 Geologic Conditions ...........................................................................................................13-15 13.3.3 Tunnel Design, Construction, and Condition .....................................................................13-15 13.4 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE AND SCREENING GUIDELINES OF TUNNELS .............13-16 13.4.1 Screening Guidelines Applicable to All Types of Tunnels ................................................13-16 13.4.2 Additional Screening Guidelines for Bored Tunnels .........................................................13-16 13.4.3 Additional Screening Guidelines for Cut-and-Cover Tunnels ...........................................13-19 13.4.4 Additional Screening Guidelines for Immersed Tubes ......................................................13-21 13.5 SEISMIC EVALUATION PROCEDURES - GROUND SHAKING EFFECTS................13-21 13.5.1 Evaluation of Transverse Ovaling/Racking Response of Tunnel Structures......................13-22 13.5.2 Evaluation of Longitudinal Response of Tunnel Structures...............................................13-41 13.5.2.2 Procedure Accounting for Soil-Structure Interaction Effects ......................................13-43 13.6 SEISMIC EVALUATION PROCEDURES - GROUND FAILURE EFFECTS .................13-45 13.6.1 Evaluation for Fault Rupture..............................................................................................13-45 13.6.2 Evaluation for Landsliding or Liquefaction .......................................................................13-50 i Design and Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigations Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC CHAPTER 14 - TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING ......................................................14-1 14.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14-1 14.2 CONSTRUCTABILITY ........................................................................................................14-2 14.3 CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND SEQUENCING ...........................................................14-3 14.3.1 Construction Staging ............................................................................................................14-3 14.3.2 Construction Sequencing......................................................................................................14-4 14.4 MUCKING AND DISPOSAL ...............................................................................................14-5 14.5 HEALTH & SAFETY ............................................................................................................14-8 14.6 COST DRIVERS AND ELEMENTS ..................................................................................14-11 14.6.1 Physical Costs.....................................................................................................................14-11 14.6.2 Economic Costs ..................................................................................................................14-11 14.6.3 Political Costs .....................................................................................................................14-12 14.7 SCHEDULE .........................................................................................................................14-12 14.8 CLAIMS AVOIDANCE AND DISPUTES RESOLUTION ...............................................14-14 14.8.1 Disputes Resolution............................................................................................................14-15 14.9 RISK MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................14-16 ii Design and Construction of Road Tunnels: Part 4 Obstacles and Mitigations Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC CHAPTER 15 - INSTRUMENTATION ..............................................................................................15-1 15.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................15-1 15.2 GROUND MOVEMENTS – VERTICAL & LATERAL DEFORMATIONS......................15-2 15.2.1 Purpose of Monitoring..........................................................................................................15-2 15.2.2 Equipment, Applications, Limitations..................................................................................15-2 15.3 MONITORING OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ................................................................15-15 15.3.1 Purpose of Monitoring........................................................................................................15-15 15.3.2 Equipment, Applications, Limitations................................................................................15-15 15.4 TUNNEL DEFORMATION ................................................................................................15-25 15.4.1 Purpose of Monitoring........................................................................................................15-25 15.4.2 Equipment, Applications, Limitations................................................................................15-26 15.5 DYNAMIC GROUND MOVEMENT – VIBRATIONS .....................................................15-31 15.5.1 Purpose of Monitoring........................................................................................................15-31 15.5.2 Equipment, Applications, Limitations................................................................................15-31 15.6 GROUNDWATER BEHAVIOR .........................................................................................15-33 15.6.1 Purpose of Monitoring........................................................................................................15-33 15.6.2 Equipment, Applications, Limitations................................................................................15-33 15.7 INSTRUMENTATION MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................15-37 15.7.1 Objectives ...........................................................................................................................15-37 15.7.2 Planning of the Program .....................................................................................................15-38 15.7.3 Guidelines for Selection of Instrument Types, Numbers, Locations .................................15-39 15.7.4 Remote (Automated) versus Manual Monitoring...............................................................15-40 15.7.5 Establishment of Warning/Action Levels ..........................................................................15-40 15.7.6 Division of Responsibility ..................................................................................................15-42 15.7.7 Instrumentation and Monitoring for SEM tunneling ..........................................................15-44 iii Design and Construction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures
    SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures 1. SEEDING When • Bare soil is exposed to erosive forces from wind and or water. Why • A cost effective way to prevent erosion by protecting the soil from raindrop impact, flowing water and wind. • Vegetation binds soil particles together with a dense root system, increasing infiltration thereby reducing runoff volume and velocity. Where • On all disturbed areas except where non-vegetative stabilization measures are being used or where seeding would interfere with agricultural activity. Scheduling • During the recommended temporary and permanent seeding dates outlined below. • Dormant seeding is acceptable. How 1. Site Assessment. Determine site physical characteristics including available sunlight, slope, adjacent topography, local climate, proximity to sensitive areas or natural plant communities, and soil characteristics such as natural drainage class, texture, fertility and pH. 2. Seed Selection. Use seed with acceptable purity and germination tests that are viable for the planned seeding date. Seed that has become wet, moldy or otherwise damaged is unacceptable. Select seed depending on, location and intended purpose. A mixture of native species for permanent cover may provide some advantages because they have coevolved with native wildlife and other plants and typically play an important function in the ecosystem. They are also adapted to the local climate and soil if properly selected for site conditions; can dramatically reduce fertilizer, lime and maintenance requirements; and provide a deeper root structure. When re- vegetating natural areas, introduced species may spread into adjacent natural areas, native species should be used. Noxious or aquatic nuisance species shall not be used (see list below). If seeding is a temporary soil erosion control measure select annual, non-aggressive species such as annual rye, wheat, or oats.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Ground Control Strategies in Underground Construction
    Alternative ground control strategies in underground construction Keynote address to be presented by Evert Hoek at an International Symposium on "PRACTICES AND TRENDS FOR FINANCING AND CONTRACTING TUNNELS AND UNDERGROUND WORKS" to be held in Athens, Greece, on 22-23 March 2012 www.tunnelcontracts2012.com/ Alternative ground control strategies in underground construction Evert Hoek Evert Hoek Consulting Engineer Inc., Canada ABSTRACT Underground works vary from shallow urban tunnels to very deep tunnels and caverns in the world’s great mountain ranges. The problems encountered at and between these extremes are entirely different and require appropriate approaches to site investigation, design and construction. The establishment of reliable financial estimates, construction schedules and contract proposals can only be done once a realistic geological model has been prepared and a clear understanding of the likely behaviour of the rock mass and the groundwater conditions has been established. The conditions that control the behaviour of different kinds of excavations in a variety of geological environments are presented in the context of case histories. The aim is to provide project owners, financial managers, insurance companies and contractors with a road map that may assist them in avoiding some of the pitfalls and in considering some of the alternative strategies in the development of underground projects. 1 INTRODUCTION Tunnels have been built for hundreds of years as part of transportation systems for people, goods, water and services. Until the middle of the last century these tunnels were generally small in size and the builders sought out the most favourable geology and topography in which to build them.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Oregon Seismic Hazard Database: Purpose and Methods
    State of Oregon Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Brad Avy, State Geologist DIGITAL DATA SERIES 2021 OREGON SEISMIC HAZARD DATABASE: PURPOSE AND METHODS By Ian P. Madin1, Jon J. Francyzk1, John M. Bauer2, and Carlie J.M. Azzopardi1 2021 1Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965, Portland, OR 97232 2Principal, Bauer GIS Solutions, Portland, OR 97229 2021 Oregon Seismic Hazard Database: Purpose and Methods DISCLAIMER This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This publication cannot substitute for site-specific investigations by qualified practitioners. Site-specific data may give results that differ from the results shown in the publication. WHAT’S IN THIS PUBLICATION? The Oregon Seismic Hazard Database, release 1 (OSHD-1.0), is the first comprehensive collection of seismic hazard data for Oregon. This publication consists of a geodatabase containing coseismic geohazard maps and quantitative ground shaking and ground deformation maps; a report describing the methods used to prepare the geodatabase, and map plates showing 1) the highest level of shaking (peak ground velocity) expected to occur with a 2% chance in the next 50 years, equivalent to the most severe shaking likely to occur once in 2,475 years; 2) median shaking levels expected from a suite of 30 magnitude 9 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake simulations; and 3) the probability of experiencing shaking of Modified Mercalli Intensity VII, which is the nominal threshold for structural damage to buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Guidelines for Liquefaction Evaluations Using Ground Motions from Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses
    RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATIONS USING GROUND MOTIONS FROM PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES Report to the Oregon Department of Transportation June, 2005 Prepared by Stephen Dickenson Associate Professor Geotechnical Engineering Group Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Oregon State University ODOT Liquefaction Hazard Assessment using Ground Motions from PSHA Page 2 ABSTRACT The assessment of liquefaction hazards for bridge sites requires thorough geotechnical site characterization and credible estimates of the ground motions anticipated for the exposure interval of interest. The ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual specifies that the ground motions used for evaluation of liquefaction hazards must be obtained from probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA). This ground motion data is routinely obtained from the U.S. Geologocal Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping program, through its interactive web site and associated publications. The use of ground motion parameters derived from a PSHA for evaluations of liquefaction susceptibility and ground failure potential requires that the ground motion values that are indicated for the site are correlated to a specific earthquake magnitude. The individual seismic sources that contribute to the cumulative seismic hazard must therefore be accounted for individually. The process of hazard de-aggregation has been applied in PSHA to highlight the relative contributions of the various regional seismic sources to the ground motion parameter of interest. The use of de-aggregation procedures in PSHA is beneficial for liquefaction investigations because the contribution of each magnitude-distance pair on the overall seismic hazard can be readily determined. The difficulty in applying de-aggregated seismic hazard results for liquefaction studies is that the practitioner is confronted with numerous magnitude-distance pairs, each of which may yield different liquefaction hazard results.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Geology and Seismic Hazards
    8 PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT As required by State law, the Public Safety Element addresses the protection of the community from unreasonable risks from natural and manmade haz- ards. This Element provides information about risks in the Eden Area and delineates policies designed to prepare and protect the community as much as possible from the effects of: ♦ Geologic hazards, including earthquakes, ground-shaking, liquefaction and landslides. ♦ Flooding, including dam failures and inundation, tsunamis and seiches. ♦ Wildland fires. ♦ Hazardous materials. This Element also contains information and policies regarding general emer- gency preparedness. Each section includes background information on the particular hazard followed by goals, policies and actions designed to minimize risk for Eden Area residents. The Public Safety Element establishes mechanisms to prepare for and reduce death, injuries and damage to property from public safety hazards like flood- ing, fires and seismic events. Hazards are an unavoidable aspect of life, and the Public Safety Element cannot eliminate risk completely. Instead, the Element contains policies to create an acceptable level of risk. 1. GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Earthquakes and secondary seismic hazards such as ground-shaking, liquefac- tion and landslides are the primary geologic hazards in the Eden Area. This section provides background on the seismic hazards that affect the Eden Area and includes goals, policies and actions to minimize these risks. 8-1 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA EDEN AREA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT A. Background Information As is the case in most of California, the Eden Area is subject to risks from seismic activity. The Eden Area is located in the San Andreas Fault Zone, one of the most seismically-active regions in the United States, which has generated numerous moderate to strong earthquakes in northern California and in the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Bray 2011 Pseudostatic Slope Stability Procedure Paper
    Paper No. Theme Lecture 1 PSEUDOSTATIC SLOPE STABILITY PROCEDURE Jonathan D. BRAY 1 and Thaleia TRAVASAROU2 ABSTRACT Pseudostatic slope stability procedures can be employed in a straightforward manner, and thus, their use in engineering practice is appealing. The magnitude of the seismic coefficient that is applied to the potential sliding mass to represent the destabilizing effect of the earthquake shaking is a critical component of the procedure. It is often selected based on precedence, regulatory design guidance, and engineering judgment. However, the selection of the design value of the seismic coefficient employed in pseudostatic slope stability analysis should be based on the seismic hazard and the amount of seismic displacement that constitutes satisfactory performance for the project. The seismic coefficient should have a rational basis that depends on the seismic hazard and the allowable amount of calculated seismically induced permanent displacement. The recommended pseudostatic slope stability procedure requires that the engineer develops the project-specific allowable level of seismic displacement. The site- dependent seismic demand is characterized by the 5% damped elastic design spectral acceleration at the degraded period of the potential sliding mass as well as other key parameters. The level of uncertainty in the estimates of the seismic demand and displacement can be handled through the use of different percentile estimates of these values. Thus, the engineer can properly incorporate the amount of seismic displacement judged to be allowable and the seismic hazard at the site in the selection of the seismic coefficient. Keywords: Dam; Earthquake; Permanent Displacements; Reliability; Seismic Slope Stability INTRODUCTION Pseudostatic slope stability procedures are often used in engineering practice to evaluate the seismic performance of earth structures and natural slopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Megabang for Megabucks: Driving a Harder Bargain on Megaprojects
    Megabang for megabucks Driving a harder bargain on megaprojects Marion Terrill, Owain Emslie, and Lachlan Fox May 2021 Megabang for megabucks: Driving a harder bargain on megaprojects Grattan Institute Support Grattan Institute Report No. 2021-04, May 2021 Founding members Endowment Supporters This report was written by Marion Terrill, Owain Emslie, and Lachlan The Myer Foundation Fox. Nat Manawadu provided extensive research assistance and made National Australia Bank substantial contributions. Susan McKinnon Foundation We would like to thank numerous government and industry participants Affiliate Partners and officials for their helpful comments and insights. Ecstra Foundation The opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not Origin Energy Foundation necessarily represent the views of Grattan Institute’s founding Susan McKinnon Foundation members, affiliates, individual board members, reference group members, or reviewers. The authors are responsible for any errors or Senior Affiliates omissions. Cuffe Family Foundation Grattan Institute is an independent think tank focused on Australian Maddocks public policy. Our work is independent, practical, and rigorous. We aim Medibank Private to improve policy by engaging with decision makers and the broader The Myer Foundation community. Scanlon Foundation We acknowledge and celebrate the First Nations people on whose Trawalla Foundation traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the Wesfarmers oldest continuous cultures in human history. Westpac For further information on Grattan’s programs, or to join our mailing list, Affiliates please go to: www.grattan.edu.au. You can make a donation to support Allens future Grattan reports here: www.grattan.edu.au/donate. Ashurst This report may be cited as: Terrill, M., Emslie, O., and Fox, L.
    [Show full text]
  • MARTA Tunnel Construction in Decatur, Georgia
    . 4 I lit. 18.5 . a37 no UOT- f SC- UM TM UMTA-MA-06-002 5-77-1 7 7 -2 4 T NO MARTA TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION IN DECATUR GEORGIA— A Case Study of Impacts Peter C. Wolff and Peter H. Scholnick Abt Associates Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge MA 02138 of TR4 A( JULY 1977 FINAL REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE U.S. PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U.S, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION Office of Technology Development and Deployment Office of Rail Technology Washi ngton DC 20591 . NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1 . Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. UMTA-MA-06-0025- 77-14 4. Title and Subti tie 5. Report Date July 1977 iJfYlTfl- MARTA TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION IN DECATUR GEORGIA— A Case Study of Impacts 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing, Organi zation Report No. 7. Authors) DOT-TSC-UMTA-77-24 AAI 77-18 Peter Co Wolff and Peter H. Scholnick 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Abt Associates Inc. UM704/R7706 55 Wheeler Street 11. Contract or Grant No.
    [Show full text]
  • Course Instructions
    Course Instructions NOTE: The following pages contain a preview of the final exam. This final exam is identical to the final exam that you will take online after you purchase the course. After you purchase the course online, you will be taken to a receipt page online which will have the following link: Click Here to Take Online Exam. You will then click on this link to take the final exam. 3 Easy Steps to Complete the Course: 1.) Read the Course PDF Below. 2.) Purchase the Course Online & Take the Final Exam – see note above 3.) Print Out Your Certificate Tunnel Inspection Manual Final Exam 1. This manual provides specific information for the inspection of both highway and rail transit tunnels. a. True b. False 2. As per Figure 2.8, the horseshoe tunnel shape typically exists in: a. clay b. shale c. sandstone conditions d. rock conditions 3. Regarding Ventilation Systems, tunnel ventilation systems can be categorized into ____ main types: a. one. b. five. c. three. d. four. 4. Regarding Inspection Qualifications, the inspection should be accomplished with teams consisting of a minimum of ____ individuals: a. one. b. two. c. three. d. four. 5. As per Table 3-1, the acronym PCLS stands for: a. Precast Concrete Liner Segments. b. Post-tensioned Concrete Liner Segments. c. Polymer Cast Liner Sleeve. d. Post Construction Limed Shotcrete. 6. Considering Inspection of Civil/Structural Elements, the tunnel owner should establish the frequency for up-close inspections of the tunnel structure based on the age and condition of the tunnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Freezing in Naples Underground
    THE ARTIFICIAL GROUND FREEZING TECHNIQUE APPLICATION FOR THE NAPLES UNDERGROUND Giuseppe Colombo a Construction Supervisor of Naples underground, MM c Technicalb Director MM S.p.A., via del Vecchio Polit Abstract e Technicald DirectorStudio Icotekne, di progettazione Vico II S. Nicola Lunardi, all piazza S. Marco 1, The extension of the Naples Technical underground Director between Rocksoil Pia S.p.A., piazza S. Marc Direzionale by using bored tunnelling methods through the Neapo Cassania to unusually high heads of water for projects of th , Pietro Lunardi natural water table. Given the extreme difficulty of injecting the mater problem of waterproofing it during construction was by employing artificial ground freezing (office (AGF) district) metho on Line 1 includes 5 stations. T The main characteristics of this ground treatment a d with the main problems and solutions adopted during , Vittorio Manassero aspects of this experience which constitutes one of Italy, of the application of AGF technology. b , Bruno Cavagna e c S.p.A., Naples, Giovanna e a Dogana 9,ecnico Naples 8, Milan ion azi Sta o led To is type due to the presence of the Milan zza Dante and the o 1, Milan ial surrounding thelitan excavation, yellow tuff, the were subject he stations, driven partly St taz Stazione M zio solved for four of the stations un n Università ic e ds. ip Sta io zione Du e omo re presented in the text along the major the project examples, and theat leastsignificant in S t G ta a z r io iibb n a e Centro lldd i - 1 - 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 2008/05 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley August 2008
    PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Design Evaluation Procedure for Bridge Foundations Undergoing Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Ground Displacement Christian A. Ledezma and Jonathan D. Bray University of California, Berkeley PEER 2008/05 AUGUST 2008 Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Design Evaluation Procedure for Bridge Foundations Undergoing Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Ground Displacement Christian A. Ledezma and Jonathan D. Bray, Ph.D., P.E. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley PEER Report 2008/05 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley August 2008 ABSTRACT Liquefaction-induced lateral ground displacement has caused significant damage to pile foundations during past earthquakes. Ground displacements due to liquefaction can impose large forces on the overlying structure and large bending moments in the laterally displaced piles. Pile foundations, however, can be designed to withstand the displacement and forces induced by lateral ground displacement. Piles may actually “pin” the upper layer of soil that would normally spread atop the liquefied layer below it into the stronger soils below the liquefiable soil layer. This phenomenon is known as the “pile-pinning” effect. Piles have been designed as “pins” across liquefiable layers in a number of projects, and this design methodology was standardized in the U.S. bridge design guidance document MCEER/ATC-49-1. A number of simplifying assumptions were made in developing this design procedure, and several of these assumptions warrant re-evaluation. In this report, some of the key assumptions involved in evaluating the pile-pinning effect are critiqued, and a simplified probabilistic design framework is proposed for evaluating the effects of liquefaction-induced displacement on pile foundations of bridge structures.
    [Show full text]
  • JBT Lecture Paper
    JACKED BOX TUNNELLING Using the Ropkins System TM , a non-intrusive tunnelling technique for constructing new underbridges beneath existing traffic arteries DR DOUGLAS ALLENBY, Chief Tunnelling Engineer, Edmund Nuttall Limited JOHN W T ROPKINS, Managing Director, John Ropkins Limited Lecture presented at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Held at 1 Birdcage Walk, London On Wednesday 17 October 2007 © Institution of Mechanical Engineers 2007 This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the International Copyright Convention. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the copyright owners. Reprographic reproduction is permitted only in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE. Unlicensed multiple copying of the contents of the publication without permission is illegal. Jacked Box Tunnelling using the Ropkins System TM , a non-intrusive tunnelling technique for constructing new underbridges beneath existing traffic arteries Dr Douglas Allenby BSc(Hons) PhD CEng FICE FIMechE FGS, Chief Tunnelling Engineer, Edmund Nuttall Limited John W T Ropkins BSc CEng MICE, Managing Director, John Ropkins Limited The Ropkins System TM is a non-intrusive tunnelling technique that enables engineers to construct underbridges beneath existing traffic arteries in a manner that avoids the cost and inconvenience of traffic disruption associated with traditional construction techniques. The paper outlines a tunnelling system designed to install large open ended rectangular reinforced concrete box structures at shallow depth beneath existing railway and highway infrastructure.
    [Show full text]