DOCSLIB.ORG

Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report Task Order PS-4310-1268-05-01-2 Submitted to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90026 MS 99-22-8 Submitted by: June 7, 2006 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ES 1.0 Executive Summary...................................................................................................... 1 ES 1.1 Project Background.................................................................................................. 1 ES 1.2 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment ............................................................... 1 ES 1.3 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment – Findings ............................................ 3 ES 1.4 Physical Feasibility.................................................................................................... 3 ES 1.4.1 Tunneling Technologies...................................................................................... 4 ES 1.4.2 Physical Characteristics ...................................................................................... 5 ES 1.4.3 Traffic Demand................................................................................................... 5 ES 1.5 Environmental/Social Feasibility............................................................................. 6 ES 1.6Financial Feasibility....................................................................................................... 6 ES 1.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 6 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project History .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 MTA Team .................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 MTA Tunnel Advisory Panel....................................................................................... 3 1.5 MTA Working Group .................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Study Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 4 2.0 Summary of Large Highway Tunnels Domestic and International ......................... 5 2.1 A-86 Tunnel, Malmaison, France................................................................................ 6 2.2 M30 Project Madrid, Spain ......................................................................................... 8 2.3 Mt. Baker Ridge Tunnel, Seattle, Washington........................................................... 9 3.0 Geotechnical Evaluation............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Regional Geology and Tectonics................................................................................ 13 3.2 Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 Stratigraphy and Structure........................................................................................ 15 3.3.1 Crystalline Basement Rock................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Topanga Formation............................................................................................... 15 3.3.3 Monterey/Puente Formation ................................................................................. 21 3.3.4 Unnamed Shale ..................................................................................................... 21 3.3.5 Fernando Formation.............................................................................................. 21 3.3.6 Quaternary Alluvium ............................................................................................ 21 i Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report Table of Contents 3.4 Faults............................................................................................................................ 22 3.4.1 Sierra Madre Fault ................................................................................................ 22 3.4.2 Santa Monica-Hollywood Fault System ............................................................... 22 3.4.3 Raymond Hill Fault............................................................................................... 23 3.4.4 York Boulevard Fault ........................................................................................... 23 3.4.5 Eagle Rock Fault................................................................................................... 23 3.5 Local Seismicity........................................................................................................... 23 3.6 Structure Along Tunnel Study Alignment................................................................ 24 3.7 Site Exploration and Testing in 2006 ........................................................................ 25 3.7.1 Field Exploration for Feasibility Study................................................................. 25 3.7.2 Testing................................................................................................................... 25 3.7.2.1 Soil Properties................................................................................................... 26 3.7.2.2 Rock properties ................................................................................................. 26 3.8 Groundwater ............................................................................................................... 28 3.9 Subsurface Gas............................................................................................................ 29 3.10 Feasibility for Tunneling ............................................................................................ 29 3.11 Additional Exploration and Testing.......................................................................... 30 4.0 Tunneling Technologies.............................................................................................. 31 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 Tunnel Conditions and Requirements ...................................................................... 31 4.2.1 Horizontal Alignment and Controls...................................................................... 31 4.2.2 Vertical Alignment and Controls.......................................................................... 31 4.2.3 Tunnel Cross Sectional Requirements.................................................................. 32 4.2.4 Cross-passages and Shafts .................................................................................... 32 4.2.5 Geologic and Groundwater Conditions ................................................................ 32 4.3 Tunneling Methods ..................................................................................................... 33 4.3.1 Tunnel Boring Machines....................................................................................... 33 4.3.2 Sequential Excavation Methods............................................................................ 38 4.3.3 Fault Crossings...................................................................................................... 41 4.3.4 Undergound Ventilation Buildings and Shafts ..................................................... 42 4.3.5 Hauling of Soil...................................................................................................... 42 4.3.6 Protection of Adjacent Structures ......................................................................... 43 4.3.7 Instrumentation and Monitoring ........................................................................... 44 4.3.8 Summary............................................................................................................... 44 4.4 Tunnel Ventilation ...................................................................................................... 45 4.4.1 Ventilation System Types..................................................................................... 45 4.4.2 Air Cleaning Technology...................................................................................... 46 4.4.3 Tunnel Alternatives............................................................................................... 47 4.4.4 Criteria .................................................................................................................. 47 4.4.5 Analysis Approach................................................................................................ 48 ii Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report Table of Contents 4.4.6 Analysis................................................................................................................. 49 4.4.7 Ventilation Installation.......................................................................................... 50 5.0 Traffic Modeling / Traffic Analysis..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rockwell International Corporation 1049 Camino Dos Rios (P.O
    SC543.J6FR "Mads available under NASA sponsrislP in the interest of early and wide dis­ *ninatf of Earth Resources Survey Program information and without liaoility IDENTIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF jOr my ou mAOthereot." TECTONIC FEATURES FROM ERTS-1 IMAGERY Southwestern North America and The Red Sea Area may be purchased ftohu Oriinal photograPhY EROS D-aa Center Avenue 1thSioux ad Falls. OanOta So, 7 - ' ... +=,+. Monem Abdel-Gawad and Linda Tubbesing -l Science Center, Rockwell International Corporation 1049 Camino Dos Rios (P.O. Box 1085) Thousand Oaks, California 91360 U.S.A. N75-252 3 9 , (E75-10 2 9 1 ) IDENTIFICATION AND FROM INTERPRETATION OF TECTONIC FEATURES AMERICA ERTS-1 IMAGERY: SOUTHWESTERN NORTH Unclas THE RED SEA AREA Final Report, 30 May !AND1972 - 11 Feb. 1975 (Rockwell International G3/43 00291 _ May 5, 1975 , Type III Fihnal Report for Period: May 30, 1972 - February 11, 1975, . ­ Prepared for NASAIGODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER Greenbelt, Maryland 20071 Pwdu. by NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE US Dopa.rm.nt or Commerco Snrnfaield, VA. 22151 N O T I C E THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGN.IZED THAT CER- TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS-BE'ING RE- LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. SC543.16FR IDENTIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF TECTONIC FEATURES FROM ERTS-1 IMAGERY Southwestern North America and The Red Sea Area Monem Abdel-Gawad and Linda Tubbesi'ng Science Center/Rockwell International Corporation 1049 Camino Dos Rios, P.O. Box 1085 Thousand Oaks, California 91360 U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARIES of TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME X Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM June 1980
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Office of Earthquake Studies SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME X Prepared by participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM June 1980 OPEN-FILE REPORT 80-842 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Geological Survey standards and nomenclature Menlo Park, California 1980 CONTENTS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program I. Earthquake Hazards Studies (H) Page Objective 1, Establish an accurate and reliable national earthquake data base.——————————————————• Objective 2. Delineate and evaluate earthquake hazards and risk in the United States on a national scale. ——————————————————————————• 66 Objective 3. Delineate and evaluate earthquake hazards and risk in earthquake-prone urbanized regions in the western United States.——————————————• 77 Objective 4, Delineate and evaluate earthquake hazards and risk in earthquake-prone regions in the eastern United States. ————— —————————— — ———— 139 Objective 5. Improve capability to evaluate earthquake potential and predict character of surface faulting.———————————————— ————————— 171 Objective 6. Improve capability to predict character of damaging ground shaking.———————————————— 245 Objective 7. Improve capability to predict incidence, nature and extent of earthquake-induced ground failures, particularly landsliding and liquefaction.--——— 293 Objective 8. Improve capability to predict earthquake losses.— 310 II. Earthquake Prediction Studies (P) Objective 1. Observe at a reconnaissance
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Fault Slip Rates, Distributed Deformation Rates, and Forecast Of
    1 Long-term fault slip rates, distributed deformation rates, and forecast of seismicity 2 in the western United States from joint fitting of community geologic, geodetic, 3 and stress-direction datasets 4 Peter Bird 5 Department of Earth and Space Sciences 6 University of California 7 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 8 [email protected] 9 Second revision of 2009.07.08 for J. Geophys. Res. (Solid Earth) 10 ABSTRACT. The long-term-average velocity field of the western United States is computed 11 with a kinematic finite-element code. Community datasets include fault traces, geologic offset 12 rates, geodetic velocities, principal stress directions, and Euler poles. There is an irreducible 13 minimum amount of distributed permanent deformation, which accommodates 1/3 of Pacific- 14 North America relative motion in California. Much of this may be due to slip on faults not 15 included in the model. All datasets are fit at a common RMS level of 1.8 datum standard 16 deviations. Experiments with alternate weights, fault sets, and Euler poles define a suite of 17 acceptable community models. In pseudo-prospective tests, fault offset rates are compared to 18 126 additional published rates not used in the computation: 44% are consistent; another 48% 19 have discrepancies under 1 mm/a, and 8% have larger discrepancies. Updated models are then 20 computed. Novel predictions include: dextral slip at 2~3 mm/a in the Brothers fault zone, two 21 alternative solutions for the Mendocino triple junction, slower slip on some trains of the San 22 Andreas fault than in recent hazard models, and clockwise rotation of some domains in the 23 Eastern California shear zone.
    [Show full text]
  • Tunnel: SMART Owner: MMC Corp Berhad-Gamuda Berhad Joint
    Tunnel: SMART Owner: MMC Corp Berhad-Gamuda Berhad Joint Venture 40 year concession. Implementation under close supervision by Government of Malaysia (Drainage and Irrigation Dept of Malaysia and Malaysia Highway Authority) Contractor: MMC Corp Berhad-Gamuda Berhad Joint Venture - Principal Contractor and South drive. Ways and Freytag – North drive Consultant(s): Sepakat Setia Perunding (Sdn) Bhd, Mott MacDonald Construction Dates: 2002-07 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Geology: Karstic Limestone and alluvial material TBM: HK Mix Shield slurry machine, 13.2m dia Project description: Dual purpose highway/ storm water tunnel. 2 level stacked roadway with water carrying invert below. SEM adits connect between road decks and provide safe waiting area. Stairs to connect – no step-free option. Lining OD: 12.83m Liner thickness: 500mm Tunnel: Changjiang Under River Tunnel Project (Yangtze River Tunnel) Owner/ client: Shanghai Changjiang Tunnel & Bridge Construction Development Co. Contractor: Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co. Ltd. (STEC) – TBM assembly Bouygues Consultant(s): Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Design Institute (STEDI) Construction Dates: 2006-10 (bores completed 2008) Location: Shanghai, China Geology: Sand, clay, rubble TBM: HK Mix Shield slurry machine, 15.43m dia, 6.5bar water pressure Project description: Twin highway tunnels. 3 traffic lanes. Invert for safety passage and rescue lane. 7.17km in length. Cross-passages: 800m centres Lining OD: (ID = 13.7m) Liner thickness: Liner arrangement: 9+1, 2m long rings Sources: T&TI 24th Oct 08, Jan 07 p7 Tunnel: Madrid Calle 30 South by-pass tunnels Owner: Madrid Municipality Contractor: Dragados-FCC JV for South tunnel (Mitsubishi machine) Consultant(s): Construction Dates: 2004-07 Location: Madrid, Spain Geology: Peñuela (sandy clay), hard Clay with gypsum levels, surface deposits TBM: 2 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Garlock Fault: an Intracontinental Transform Structure, Southern California
    GREGORY A. DAVIS Department of Geological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007 B. C. BURCHFIEL Department of Geology, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77001 Garlock Fault: An Intracontinental Transform Structure, Southern California ABSTRACT Sierra Nevada. Westward shifting of the north- ern block of the Garlock has probably contrib- The northeast- to east-striking Garlock fault uted to the westward bending or deflection of of southern California is a major strike-slip the San Andreas fault where the two faults fault with a left-lateral displacement of at least meet. 48 to 64 km. It is also an important physio- Many earlier workers have considered that graphic boundary since it separates along its the left-lateral Garlock fault is conjugate to length the Tehachapi-Sierra Nevada and Basin the right-lateral San Andreas fault in a regional and Range provinces of pronounced topogra- strain pattern of north-south shortening and phy to the north from the Mojave Desert east-west extension, the latter expressed in part block of more subdued topography to the as an eastward displacement of the Mojave south. Previous authors have considered the block away from the junction of the San 260-km-long fault to be terminated at its Andreas and Garlock faults. In contrast, we western and eastern ends by the northwest- regard the origin of the Garlock fault as being striking San Andreas and Death Valley fault directly related to the extensional origin of the zones, respectively. Basin and Range province in areas north of the We interpret the Garlock fault as an intra- Garlock.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements
    REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL 9515 HANEY STREET PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM Whittier, California January 20, 2016 Project 4953-15-0302 January 20, 2016 Mr Luis Rojas Rio Hondo Program Management Team c/o Rio Hondo College 3600 Workman Mill Road Whittier, California 90601-1699 Subject: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements Proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus El Rancho Adult School 9515 Haney Street Pico Rivera, California, 90660 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 Dear Mr. Rojas: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho Adult School in Pico Rivera, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 24, 2015, which was authorized by e-mail on December 15, 2015. The scope of our services was planned with Mr. Manuel Jaramillo of DelTerra. We have been furnished with a site plan and a general description of the proposed improvements. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a permit. Correspondence: Amec Foster Wheeler 6001 Rickenbacker Road Los Angeles, California 90040 USA
    [Show full text]
  • City of Monrovia General Plan General Plan Safety Element Safety
    City of Monrovia General Plan Safety Element Adopted June 12, 2002 Resolution No. 2002-40 Safety Element City of Monrovia Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. Seismic Activity ......................................................................................................................... 2 A. Background......................................................................................................................... 2 1. Geologic Setting............................................................................................................ 2 2. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act ............................................................. 2 Major Faults .................................................................................................................. 3 B. Goals, Objectives and Policies - Seismic Activity............................................................... 9 III. Flood Control........................................................................................................................... 11 A. Background....................................................................................................................... 11 1. Setting ......................................................................................................................... 11 2. Mud and Debris Flows ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Research Results Described in the Following Summaries Were Submitted by the Investigators on May 10, 1984 and Cover the 6-Mo
    The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on May 10, 1984 and cover the 6-months period from October 1, 1983 through May 1, 1984. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the three major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Open File Report No. 84-628 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Parts of it were prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. The data and interpretations in these progress reports may be reevaluated by the investigators upon completion of the research. Readers who wish to cite findings described herein should confirm their accuracy with the author. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME XVIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson Thelraa R. Rodriguez CONTENTS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Page I. Recent Tectonics and Earthquake Potential (T) Determine the tectonic framework and earthquake potential of U.S. seismogenic zones with significant hazard potential. Objective T-1. Regional seismic monitoring........................ 1 Objective T-2. Source zone characteristics Identify and map active crustal faults, using geophysical and geological data to interpret the structure and geometry of seismogenic zones.
    [Show full text]
  • Century City Area Fault Investigation Report Volume 1 of 2
    ` WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT Contract No. PS-4350-2000 Century City Area Fault Investigation Report Volume 1 of 2 Prepared for: Prepared by: 777 South Figueroa Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90017 November 30, 2011 (Rev 1) October 14, 2011 Century City Area Fault Investigation Report Revision Log Revision Log Revision # Revision Date Revision 0 October 14, 2011 Original 1 November 30, 2011 References Page 32 – added reference Plate 3 Appendix B – Deleted Boring and Cone Penetrometer Test Locations not excavated. Appendix C-2 – Added Rotary Wash Boring and Cone Penetrometer Test Logs, See Appendix Cover WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT November 30, 2011 (Rev 1) Page i Century City Area Fault Investigation Report Table of Contents Table of Contents Volume 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Supervisor Yaroslavsky’s Motion to Metro Board of Directors .......................................... 5 1.2 Status of Design and Environmental Documents ............................................................... 7 2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Published Literature ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 City of Beverly Hills Urban Water Management Plan
    2010 City of Beverly Hills Urban Water Management Plan August, 2011 This Page Left Blank Intentionally 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Beverly Hills August 2011 Prepared by: CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1130 W. Huntington Drive Unit 12 Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 821-3456 This Page Left Blank Intentionally CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction Section Page 1.1 Purpose and Summary ....................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Coordination.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Format of the Plan............................................................................................................1-2 1.4 Water System History ......................................................................................................1-3 1.5 Service Area.....................................................................................................................1-5 1.6 Climate .............................................................................................................................1-5 1.7 Population ........................................................................................................................1-6 1.8 Water System...................................................................................................................1-6 Section 2: Water Supply Resources Section Page 2.1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Env-2020-6951-E
    PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Proposed Hotel with Subgrade Parking 50415057 North Lankershim Boulevard 11121 Hesby Street North Hollywood, CA for Napa Industries, LLC 5330 Derry Avenue, Suite H Agoura Hills, California 91301 Project 5824 June 24, 2020 www.GeoConceptsInc.com 14428 Hamlin Street, #200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + (818) 994-8895 Office + (818) 994-8599 Fax PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Location and Description .......................................................................................................... 2 Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................. 2 SUMMARY
    [Show full text]
  • SSA 2015 Annual Meeting Announcement Seismological Society of America Technical Sessions 21--23 April 2015 Pasadena, California
    SSA 2015 Annual Meeting Announcement Seismological Society of America Technical Sessions 21--23 April 2015 Pasadena, California IMPORTANT DATES Meeting Pre-Registration Deadline 15 March 2015 Hotel Reservation Cut-Off (gov’t rate) 03 March 2015 Hotel Reservation Cut-Off (regular room) 17 March 2015 Online Registration Cut-Off 10 April 2015 On-site registration 21--23 April 2015 PROGRAM COMMITTEE This 2015 technical program committee is led by co-chairs Press Relations Pablo Ampuero (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Nan Broadbent CA) and Kate Scharer (USGS, Pasadena CA); committee Seismological Society of America members include Domniki Asimaki (Caltech, Mechanical 408-431-9885 and Civil Engineering), Monica Kohler (Caltech, Mechanical [email protected] and Civil Engineering), Nate Onderdonk (CSU Long Beach, Geological Sciences) and Margaret Vinci (Caltech, Office of Earthquake Programs) TECHNICAL PROGRAM Meeting Contacts The SSA 2015 technical program comprises 300 oral and 433 Technical Program Co-Chairs poster presentations and will be presented in 32 sessions over Pablo Ampuero and Kate Scharer 3 days. The session descriptions, detailed program schedule, [email protected] and all abstracts appear on the following pages. Seachable abstracts are at http://www.seismosoc.org/meetings/2014/ Abstract Submissions abstracts/. Joy Troyer Seismological Society of America 510.559.1784 [email protected] LECTURES Registration Sissy Stone President’s Address Seismological Society of America The President’s Address will be presented
    [Show full text]