1 / 37

Infrastrutture: Qualità sotto controllo Il Valore delle Verifiche Indipendenti

Infrastrutture: Qualità sotto controllo Il Valore delle Verifiche Indipendenti. Ing. Matteo Buzzetti Copenhagen Metro Team CMT Design Coordinator. Copenhagen Cityringen Metro Project. 31-01-2013. Agenda. Introduction to Cityringen Project Design Process – Check, Validation & Approval

iain
Télécharger la présentation

Infrastrutture: Qualità sotto controllo Il Valore delle Verifiche Indipendenti

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Infrastrutture:Qualità sotto controlloIl Valore delle Verifiche Indipendenti Ing. Matteo Buzzetti Copenhagen Metro Team CMT Design Coordinator Copenhagen Cityringen Metro Project 31-01-2013

  2. Agenda • Introduction to Cityringen Project • Design Process – Check, Validation & Approval • Design Structure • Conteco Review Process • Special Stations • Optimized Construction Sequence

  3. 1. Introduction to Cityringen Project

  4. Contract - Copenhagen Cityringen Project Civil Works (signed on 7 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

  5. 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 16 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

  6. 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

  7. Design Team Organization

  8. Phase RESPONSIBILITY FLOW CHART DESIGN PLANNING Design Quality Plan Design schedule List of documents Definition of WBS for design and design package TECHNICAL DIRECTOR DESIGN COORDINATOR List of Laws and Regulations DESIGN MANAGER PROJECT LEADERS Assessment of laws and regulations 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

  9. Phase RESPONSIBILITY FLOW CHART FIRST DESIGN ASSESSMENT AND INPUT TO CONTECO Preliminary Reports Sketches First Design Assessment DESIGN TEAM • Geotechnical • Parameters • Formwork Drawings • M&E input Input to Conteco for Alternative Calculation DESIGN MANAGER Conteco Calculations CONTECO INDIPENDENT BODY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CHECK DESIGN TEAM Design package development Periodical design review Documents and reports VC1 INTERNAL VERIFICATION Document and reports update if necessary DESIGN MANAGER DESIGN TEAM

  10. RESPONSIBILITY FLOW CHART Phase Distribution to CMT for review DESIGNER DOCUMENT CONTROL DESIGN INTERNAL REVIEW INTERFACES ASSESSMENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTABILITY ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL DIRECTOR DESIGN COORDINATOR CMT CHECK CONTECO INDIPENDENT BODY VC2/VC3 CHECK CommentsTransmission to Designers Review Sheets Check and Homogenization DESIGN COORDINATOR

  11. RESPONSIBILITY FLOW CHART Phase DESIGN UPDATE AFTER CMT/CONTECO COMMENTS Distribution to Design Leaders DESIGNER DOCUMENT CONTROL DESIGN UPDATE DESIGN TEAM DESIGN MANAGER V1 CHECK ANSWERS TO CMT/CONTECO COMMENTS Design Document Package Approval Design Certificates DESIGN MANAGER Submission to CMT for issue DESIGNERS DOCUMENT CONTROL

  12. RESPONSIBILITY FLOW CHART Phase CMT/CONTECO FINAL CHECK DESIGN CHECK AND ISSUE TO MS VC2/VC3 INDIPENDENT BODY CHECK OF UPDATED DOCUMENT AND ANSWERS TO COMMENTS CHECK OF UPDATED DOCUMENT AND ANSWERS TO COMMENTS DESIGN COORDINATOR Design Document Package Approval Check Certificate by Conteco TECHNICAL DIRECTOR VC2/VC3 INDIPENDENT BODY DESIGN ISSUE TO MS CMT DOCUMENT CONTROL EXTRENAL REVIEW MS REVIEW ISA/SRA REVIEW METROSELSKABET BUILDING PERMIT MEASURING Monitoring status of design documents Monthly report DESIGN COORDINATOR TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

  13. 3. Design Structure

  14. 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

  15. 4. Conteco Review Process Verification Scope of Works as per Main Contract Requirements

  16. 4. Conteco Review Process 1st Phase – Revision on Internal Submission (Rev. 0.1)

  17. 2nd Phase – Documents Update (Rev. 1.0) and Answers to Conteco Remarks by Designers

  18. 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

  19. 5. Special Stations Gammel Strand Marmorkirken

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. Marmorkirken Station – Design Optimization proposed by CMT during the Tender Additional Mitigation Measures to avoid Volume Loss under the Church and the Ancient Buildings

  23. 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.

  24. Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences • Temporary Works – Phase 1 • Diversion of navigation within canal / Installation of navigation buoys / Installation of silt curtain

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences • Temporary Works – Phase 4 • Installation of sheet pile wall / Installation of gabions / Backfilling to create job site area

  28. Gammel Strand Station – Construction Sequences • Permanent Works – Stage 1 • Construction of Guide Walls and DW • Installation of Strut on DW Head • Start of Archaeological Excavations • Permanent Works – Stage 2 • Construction of Top Slab • Excavation within station with the installation of struts at specific levels • Installation of water proofing membrane and Concreting of Bottom Slab

  29. 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

  30. 6. Optimized Construction Sequence

  31. Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 1 Top Slab Top Slab Secant Piles Secant Piles King Post Piles

  32. Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 2 Excavation Excavation 1st level of strut Demolition of King Post piles

  33. Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 3 Connection to King Post Piles Installation of 2nd Strut level Installation of waterproofing and connection to retaining wall Intermediate Slab Construction Excavation Resumes Excavation Resumes

  34. Optimised Construction Sequence - Typical Station - Phase 4 2nd Strut Level 3rd Strut Level Excavation Resumes Excavation Resumes with King Post Piles Intact

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. Thank you for your attention Special Thanks to Sergio Notarianni – CMT Technical Director All CMT Technical Office

More Related