CIVILS, TUNNELS & EMBANKMENTS XXXX
Martin Reader, sector director of engineering services at Morgan Sindall Professional Services, describes the complex temporary works design that facilitated the completion of East London’s newly opened Pudding Mill Lane DLR station.
P
udding Mill Lane (PML), while not being a Crossrail station, has been a necessary
part of the Crossrail project. It has transformed one of the smallest stations on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) line to the largest, allowing increased capacity following the area’s Olympic-fuelled regeneration and now greater capacity for future events and football matches.
Crossrail’s new alignment and tunnel portal cuts directly through the old PML station, which meant the new station was constructed approximately 50 metres south of its original location.
Morgan Sindall was awarded the C350 Crossrail PML contract in April 2011, the scope of which included the construction of the new station (including the permanent way, station fit-out, railway systems, communications equipment and integration) and controlled removal of the existing one. The scope of the project also included the construction of a 300m long tunnel portal, a 120m long cut and cover approach section, an elevated section of the DLR to provide access to the tunnel portal and a number of other bridge structures.
Crucial to the delivery of this project was the temporary works that were designed by Morgan Sindall Professional Services (MSPS) under an inter-company sub-contract. The Crossrail project also launched the tunnel boring machines (TBMs) from PML that will create the Crossrail tunnel to Stepney Green. Accommodating these machines within the vast excavated box was unique to the project and required innovative structural solutions.
52 | rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 14
The temporary works design consisted of two main elements: the design of the temporary excavation supports and the design of the headwall tunnel eye, which forms the portal for the new tunnel to Stepney Green. The purpose was to mitigate against structural collapse, where the depth of the excavation meant the forces at play were considerable; to manage the poor ground conditions; and to allow for re-use of materials and sustainability.
Headwall tunnel
The headwall tunnel formed the opening for the TBMs to start tunnelling. It was therefore critical that the opening was at the chosen 7.55m and with the supports in place to ensure the TBMs were driven into the ground at an even depth. This was achieved with temporary support systems at precise locations beneath the portal and a temporary structure designed to the exact dimensions to form and support the opening.
Temporary excavation supports
The temporary excavation supports used both walers (horizontal beams that support the width of the excavation) and props, which are used to secure and retain distance between the walers. Also important in the design of the excavation supports was the careful co- ordination with the adjacent project to install and launch the TBM. Practically, this meant allowing enough working space for the TBM to be lowered into the excavation, whilst retaining the full integrity of the designed load and stress capabilities.
Critical to MSPS’ role was determining the required sizes and strengths of the walers, props, lifting eyes and end plates.
The twinned walers employed were some of the largest ever used, at 1,016 x 305 x 487kg/m, with 250mm x 40mm flange plates. The distance between the walers was also a key consideration; they were 4.5 metres apart and meticulous design was required to mitigate against a ‘prop-out’ eventuality, where if a support prop was accidentally removed, the temporary works would have the required strength to prevent structural collapse.
Ground conditions
The ground conditions were the biggest challenge to the project because the water table is notoriously high in London. Solutions to the additional pressures exerted by the water bearing ground were complex, and required a detailed understanding of London’s water table. A dewatering system was utilised to reduce the groundwater by four metres and walls were designed to hold back 7m depth of ground.
Re-use and sustainability
When not possible to use environmentally sustainable materials, the next best practice to improve the sustainability of a project is to choose design structures that can be re- used in their primary application elsewhere in the project. The walers were secured with specifically-designed props to ensure ease and safety of removal, and the length and position
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148