Transcript Slide 1

Infrastrutture:
Qualità sotto controllo
Il Valore delle Verifiche
Indipendenti
Copenhagen Cityringen Metro Project
Ing. Matteo Buzzetti
Copenhagen Metro Team
CMT Design Coordinator
31-01-2013
Agenda
1. Introduction to Cityringen Project
2. Design Process – Check, Validation & Approval
3. Design Structure
4. Conteco Review Process
5. Special Stations
6. Optimized Construction Sequence
1. Introduction to Cityringen Project
Contract
- Copenhagen Cityringen Project Civil Works (signed on 10 January 2011)
- Design & Build Contract
- Value: approx. 1.500 mln Euro
Joint Venture:
- Salini S.p.A.
- Tecnimont Civil Construction S.p.A.
- Seli
Client: Metroselskabet I/S
Metroselskabet I/S is owned by:
•
Municipality of Copenhagen (approx. 50%)
•
Danish State (approx. 42%)
•
Municipality of Frederiksberg (approx. 8%)
Cityringen shall operate 24 hours/7 days a week with a planned operational headway of approximately
100 sec. during rush hours, in the first years of operation
Cityringen is expected to serve up to 240.000 passengers per day or 72 million passengers per year
Description of the works
•
Two single track tunnels each approximately 16 km in length
•
17 underground Stations
•
3 Construction and Ventilation Shafts
•
1 Ramp and Cut & Cover structure for TBM launch and access to the Control and Maintenance Center
•
M&E Installations
The tunnel construction will be done by means of three methods:
• Approximately 7.6 km of twin tunnel using TBM (tunnel boring
machines) EPB type (Earth Pressure Balance) Type Diameter 5.78 m to
ensure an internal minimum diameter of 4.9 m.
• Variable diameter twin tunnel and caverns using sprayed concrete lining
and steel ribs temporary supports (SCL)
• Cut and Cover Tunnel
The TBM construction shall be primarily through the Copenhagen limestone.
The tunnel depth varies from approximately 15 m to 35 m
2. Process – Check, Validation & Approval
PARTIES INVOLVED IN DESIGN & APPROVAL PROCESS
Metroselskabet (Employer), ISA (Independent Safety Assessor) and SRA (Safety Regulatory
Authority)
Copenhagen Metro Team (CMT) - Contractor
Tecnimont Civil Construction / EKJ (TCC/EKJ) - Designers
Conteco – Independent Verification Body
Design Team Organization
Phase
RESPONSIBILITY
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
DESIGN COORDINATOR
FLOW CHART
Definition of WBS for design and design
package
Design Quality Plan
Design schedule
List of documents
Assessment of laws and regulations
List of Laws and
Regulations
DESIGN PLANNING
DESIGN MANAGER
PROJECT LEADERS
CMT
CONTECO
DESIGN TEAM
Design package
Kick-off meeting
Start up meeting
Working Site Layout
Construction Sequences
Constructability
Risk Assessment
Interface Main Issues (ICDD to be opened and followed up)
Preliminary GIR & Groundwater Conditions
Existing Building / Monitoring
Specific Environmental Issues
Phase
RESPONSIBILITY
FIRST DESIGN ASSESSMENT
AND INPUT TO CONTECO
DESIGN TEAM
FLOW CHART
Preliminary Reports
Sketches
First Design Assessment
Input to Conteco for
Alternative Calculation
DESIGN MANAGER
CONTECO
INDIPENDENT BODY
-
Geotechnical
Parameters
Formwork Drawings
M&E input
Conteco Calculations
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CHECK
DESIGN TEAM
Design package
development
DESIGN MANAGER DESIGN
TEAM
VC1
INTERNAL
VERIFICATION
Periodical design
review
Documents and reports
Document and
reports update if
necessary
Phase
RESPONSIBILITY
FLOW CHART
Distribution to
CMT for review
DESIGN INTERNAL REVIEW
DESIGNER
DOCUMENT CONTROL
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
DESIGN COORDINATOR
INTERFACES ASSESSMENT
CMT CHECK
SAFETY ASSESSMENT
RISK ASSESSMENT
CONTECO
INDIPENDENT BODY
DESIGN COORDINATOR
CONSTRUCTABILITY
ASSESSMENT
VC2/VC3 CHECK
Comments
Transmission to
Designers
Review Sheets Check
and Homogenization
Phase
RESPONSIBILITY
DESIGNER
DOCUMENT CONTROL
DESIGN UPDATE AFTER CMT/CONTECO COMMENTS
DESIGN TEAM
FLOW CHART
Distribution to
Design Leaders
DESIGN UPDATE
V1 CHECK
DESIGN MANAGER
DESIGN MANAGER
DESIGNERS
DOCUMENT CONTROL
ANSWERS TO CMT/CONTECO COMMENTS
Design
Document Package
Approval
Submission to
CMT for issue
Design Certificates
Phase
RESPONSIBILITY
FLOW CHART
DESIGN CHECK AND ISSUE TO MS
CMT/CONTECO
FINAL CHECK
VC2/VC3
INDIPENDENT BODY
CHECK OF UPDATED DOCUMENT AND ANSWERS TO
COMMENTS
DESIGN COORDINATOR
CHECK OF UPDATED DOCUMENT AND ANSWERS TO
COMMENTS
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
VC2/VC3
INDIPENDENT BODY
Design
Document Package
Approval
Check
Certificate by
Conteco
DESIGN ISSUE TO
MS
EXTRENAL REVIEW
CMT
DOCUMENT CONTROL
MS REVIEW
ISA/SRA REVIEW
METROSELSKABET
MEASURING
BUILDING PERMIT
DESIGN COORDINATOR
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
Monitoring status of
design documents
Monthly report
3. Design Structure
Design Packages
Station/Shafts
- Preliminary Design
21 Packages
- Detailed Design
192 Packages (Civil Works only)
Tunnel Stretches
- Preliminary Design
21 Packages
- Detailed Design
21 Packages
Total Number of Design Packages
272
- Average number of revisions considering all the involved actors 4
- Total Number of Design Packages considering 4 Revision
936
Approximate Design Duration ≈ 3 years ≈ 780 working days
Design Packages to be managed per day 1.2
Design Packages to be managed per week 6
4. Conteco Review Process
Verification Scope of Works as per Main Contract Requirements
4. Conteco Review Process
1st Phase – Revision on Internal Submission (Rev. 0.1)
2nd Phase – Documents Update (Rev. 1.0) and Answers to Conteco Remarks by Designers
3rd Phase – Conteco Final Check of Revision 1.0
If the Documents have been correctly updated and the answers to remarks are satisfactory
Conteco issues the Final Verification Report and the Check Certificates
5. Special Stations
Gammel Strand
Marmorkirken
Marmorkirken Station – Tender Design
•
During the Tendering phase of the Project, CMT proposed a concept design of the station which was
modelled on the recently constructed Station Piazza Bologna of Rome Line 3 Metro. The conceptual
design of the station consisted of a narrow station box, providing the space for a concourse area as well
as escalators with a stacked platform solution requiring the tunnels to run one above the other.
Marmorkirken Station – Design Optimization proposed by CMT during the Tender
•
The concept of the stacked solution required a deepening of the station box but limited all works from
course level downwards to be contained within the diaphragm wall retaining structure thus avoiding the
necessity of cavern works or additional ground treatment such as freezing
Marmorkirken Station – Design Optimization proposed by CMT during the Tender
Additional Mitigation Measures to avoid Volume Loss under the Church and the Ancient Buildings
Gammel Strand Station – Tender Design
•
The station is a special station located at Gammel Strand partly below Slotsholmskanalen.
•
Gammel Strand station is classed as a “special” station due to its unique location and layout.
•
All station elements at street level, including the emergency exit stair and ventilation openings are
located close to and along the quay wall. Also the lift is located close to the quay wall behind the main
stair.
•
Due to the station being located partly below the Slotsholmskanalen the station box has been lowered
so that the roof of the technical level, which is equivalent to the normal station roof level, is below the
bottom of the canal.
Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences
Temporary Works – Phase 1
Diversion of navigation within canal / Installation of navigation buoys / Installation of silt curtain
Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences
Temporary Works – Phase 2
Mobilization of pontoon / Placing of drill rigs on pontoon / Installation of micro- piles for temporary bridge deck
Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences
Temporary Works – Phase 3
Installation of precast bridge decking / Concreting of bridge decking /Installation of micro- piles for tie back of bridge
Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences
Temporary Works – Phase 4
Installation of sheet pile wall / Installation of gabions / Backfilling to create job site area
Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences
Permanent Works – Stage 1
Permanent Works – Stage 2
Construction of Guide Walls and DW
Construction of Top Slab
Installation of Strut on DW Head
Excavation within station with the installation of struts at specific levels
Start of Archaeological Excavations
Installation of water proofing membrane and Concreting of Bottom Slab
Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences
Permanent Works – Stage 3
Construction of Inner Lining
& Intermediate Slabs
Completion of Waterproofing
Removal of Backfill within canal and
demolishing of DW above top slab
Reinstatement of quay wall
6. Optimized Construction Sequence
Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 1
Top Slab
Top Slab
Secant Piles
Secant Piles
King Post Piles
Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 2
Excavation
Excavation
1st level of strut
Demolition of King
Post piles
Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 3
Connection to King
Post Piles
Installation of
waterproofing and
connection to
retaining wall
Installation of 2nd Strut
level
Intermediate Slab
Construction
Excavation Resumes
Excavation Resumes
Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 4
2nd Strut Level
3rd Strut Level
Excavation Resumes
Excavation Resumes with
King Post Piles Intact
Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 5
Construction of Slab.
Subsequent placing of
metallic King Post
Construction of Slab in
presence of King Post Piles
Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station – Advantages/Disadvantages
ADVANTAGES OF OPTIMISED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCES
 Excavation methodology remains unchanged from start to end. No requirement to excavated under
intermediate slab with alternative equipment and lower rates of production
 No execution of King Post Piles
 No pre-installation and of waterproofing membrane at intermediate slab level
 No predisposition of connection of intermediate slab to retaining wall and king post piles to permit
excavation to resume below intermediate slab
 Concreting of structure performed in a traditional bottom up method without complications for
waterproofing membrane and coupler connections
 Reduced risk for delays in construction due to simplified construction sequences
 No secondary concreting of bottom slab at location of king post locations with complications in sealing of
waterproofing membrane
DISADVANTAGES OF OPTIMISED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCES
 Additional installation of 1 level of struts
 Installation of scaffolding for the construction of intermediate slab
Thank you for your attention
Special Thanks to
Sergio Notarianni – CMT Technical Director
All CMT Technical Office