外文文献翻译--铁路隧道的安全.doc

郑州大学工程力学系2010届本科毕业论文（外文文献及翻译）目 录1 外文文献原文 . (1)2 外文文献翻译 . (2)1外文文献原文Safety of long railway tunnelsD. Diamantidis,*, F. Zuccarelli , A. WesthauseraUniversity of Applied Sciences, Regensburg, Prufeningerstr.58, D-93049, Regensburg, GermanybDAppolonia S.p.A., Genova, ItalycBrenner Eisenbahn GmbH, Innsbruck, AustriaReceived 10 March 1999; accepted 6 September 1999AbstractPlanning and designing railway tunnels with an explicit reference to safety issues is becoming of utmost importance since the combination of high speed, mixed goodspassenger traffic and extreme length of the new tunnels under design or concept evaluation, have sensitively modified the inherent safety of the railway tunnel. Although the probability of occurrence of accidental events may still be considered rather low, the possible consequences of such events in long tunnels can be catastrophic, therefore raising the overall risk to levels that may be no more acceptable. The scope of this paper is to illustrate the state-of-practice related to risk analysis of long railway tunnels. First, ambitious tunnel projects are briefly reviewed. The applicable risk-analysis procedures are then described and discussed. The problem of risk appraisal is addressed and quantitative target safety levels are proposed. Safety systems for risk reduction are outlined. q2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords: Railway tunnels; Risk acceptability; Safety systems; Passenger traffic1. IntroductionThe railway is now moving rapidly toward a modern service transportation industry. High Speed Rail (HSR) systems are already operating in many countries such as Japan, England, France, Italy and Germany. A further development of the whole European HSR network is planned. In order to achieve the design velocity up to 300 km/h, a considerable part of the routes is in tunnels with lengths greater than 10 km and in some cases of the order of 50 km. Table 1 illustrates a list of existing long tunnels worldwide. In this European context, the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) aimed at homogenizing the HSR projects also with respect to the safety issues. However, neither the CEC guidelines nor the existing railway regulations and codes directly address to the problem of quantitatively assessing the safety level for railway systems. This is mostly due to the fact that railway transport is considered by railway operators and perceived by the public as a safe mean of transportation. This approach to safety might be applicable to traditional railway systems, which have proven throughout the years their performance; it is, however, not enough to guarantee the safety of railway systems where innovative and particular conditions are present, or of the existing lines that have to be upgraded to new exercise standards. For example, the combination of high-speed transit, high traffic intensity, combined transport of passengers and dangerous goods and extremely long tunnels, might lead to unacceptable safety levels. Therefore, the designer has to choose a railway system configuration together with the preventive and mitigative measures of accidents that minimize the risk and ultimately should verify by means of a risk analysis that the obtained safety level is below a predefined target level. The scope of this paper is to illustrate the state-of-practice related to safe tunnel design and associated risk-analysis aspects of long railway tunnels. First, ambitious tunnel projects are briefly reviewed from the safety point of view. The risk-analysis procedures are then described and discussed. The problem of risk appraisal is addressed and quantitative target safety levels are proposed. Finally, safety systems for risk reduction are illustrated.2. Major tunnel projects and the associated riskBasic design aspects in existing or under design and construction tunnels are briefly summarized in this section. Table 1List of existing long tunnels worldwideName Country Length (km)Underground Daischimisu Japan 22.2Simplon II Italy/Switzerland 19.8Appennino Italy 18.6Rokko Japan 16.2Haruna Japan 15.4Gotthard Switzerland 15.0Nakayama Japan 14.8Lotschberg Switzerland 14.5Hokuriku Japan 13.9Prato Tires Italy 13.5Landrucken Germany 10.8Underwater Seikan Japan 53.9Eurotunnel UK/France 50.0Shin Kanmon Japan 18.7Great Belt Denmark 8.0Severn UK 7.0Mersey UK 4.9Kanmon Japan 3.6The following tunnels are included:(a) the Channel tunnel between England and France;(b) the Seikan tunnel in Japan;(c) the Gotthard tunnel planned in Switzerland;(d) the Brenner tunnel planned between Italy and Austria;(e) the new Mont Cenis-tunnel planned between Franceand Italy;(f) the tunnel under the Great Belt in Denmark.2.1. The Channel tunnelThe tunnel serves rail traffic and links up the terminals near Folkestone in the south of England and Calais in northern France. The tunnel is some 50 km long and comprises of three parallel tubes, which are located some 2545 m beneath the sea bed. The trains travel through the twosingle-track running tunnels, each of which has an internal diameter of 7.30 m. Both running tunnels have a continuous escape way in order to enable passengers and train staff to get out of the tunnel quickly in the event of an emergency (see Fig. 1). Two main cross-links connect the two running tunnels so that trains can switch from one tube to the other during maintenance work; these two main cross-links are located in the 37 km long section under the sea bed. Twosmaller cross-links are to be found in the vicinity of the tunnel portals. The running tunnels are connected at 250 m intervals by means of 2.00 m diameter pressure-relief tunnels. Through these cross-cuts the pressure that builds up in front of a speeding train can be reduced by diverting the air from one running tunnel into the other. A service tunnel with an internal diameter of 4.50 m is located between the two running tunnels. It is, first and foremost, intended as an escape and access facility in the event of an accident in one of the running tunnels. In addition, this service tunnel provides access to the technical centers, which are distributed along it. The service tunnel and the two running tunnels are connected to each other via a 3.30 m diameter cross-cuts set up at 375 m gaps as escape ways 1.The tunnel is used for the following train services: the passenger shuttles for cars and buses; the freight shuttles for lorries as well as; express and goods trains belonging to the national railway companies.The signaling system incorporating automatic train protection is designed to minimize the risk of any type of collision even during single-line operation when maintenance is being carried out. One of the main criteria for the design of the rolling stock was the requirement that, as far as practicable, in the event of fire, a shuttle is able to continue on its journey out of the tunnel so that fire could be tackled in the open. To achieve this a 30 min fire resistance has been specified for the wagons including the fire doors and shutters in the passenger shuttles. The fire accident that occurred in November 1996 showed that the emergency response procedures required further improvement.Fig. 2. Investigated tunnel systems: A and B with service tunnel; D without service tunnel.2.2. The Seikan tunnelThe Seikan tunnel was completed in 1988 and constitutesthe longest tunnel worldwide with a total length of 53.9 km.It is a double-track tunnel with a cross-sectional area of 64 m2. The average traffic is 50 trains per day. The tunnelhas two emergency stations and is thus divided into three sections. The middle section is under water with a length of 23 km and has a service tunnel. By providing the emergency stations with fire fighting systems, fire can be copedwithin the same manner as conventional tunnel fires. In case of fire, the train must be brought to a stop at the nearest emergency station or must be driven out of the tunnel.2.3. The Gotthard Base tunnelThe 57 km long Gotthard Base tunnel is one of the main links for Bahn 2000, the Swiss passenger traffic for the next century, and for the rail corridor of European freight traffic through the Alps 3. The tunnel route is a part of the ZurichLugano line and is intended to carry 150 intercity, passenger and freight trains per day in each direction. Two tracks are needed for these traffic levels and there is a multitude of different tunnel layouts, which can be considered.Possible normal tunnel profiles could consist of:(a) a double-track tunnel with a parallel service tunnel;(b) a pair of single-track tunnel with a service tunnel;(c) three single-track tunnels;(d) a pair of single-track tunnels without a service tunnel,but with frequent interconnections (see Fig. 2).In addition to the traffic tunnels, there is a need for possibly two overtaking stations to allow passenger trains to pass slower freight ones. Natural longitudinal flow in the two tubes will be the basis for the ventilation of the tunnel, which has an overburden of 2000 m or greater, over more than 20 km of itslength. Recently wide-ranging studies have been carried out on the different designs of the Gotthard tunnel. The main parameters that have been thereby investigated are:(a) costs of construction;(b) construction time and method;(c) operational capacity and operability;(d) maintenance;(e) safety for the passengers and the personnel.The performed safety study has shown that the three single-track tunnels and the pair of single-track tunnel with a service tunnel are associated to lower risk and higher operability compared to the double-track tunnel with service tunnel. However the associated costs are higher. Based on the evaluation of comprehensive studies the configuration D has been selected, i.e. a pair of single-track tunnels without service tunnel but with interconnections approximatelyevery 325 m. Such interconnections can be used for maintenance purposes and evacuation purposes in case of accidents.2.4. The Brenner tunnelOne of the most striking bottlenecks in passenger and goods transit between Northern Europe and Italy is the northsouth connection from Munich via the Brenner Pass to Verona. At present, only one-third of the freight volume can be carried by rail, whilst two-third has to be carried by road over the Brenner Pass. Thus, it is of great importance that the modern railway networks, which either exist or are in the process of being created in the countries of the EuropeanCommunity with their high-speed sections, are welded together via long railway tunnels, which can overcome the Alps as a barrier. If one considers that each year until the turn-of-thecentury, an anticipated trans-goods volume of 150 million tonnes has to be carried over the Brenner Pass 800 m above sea-level, it is thus not surprising that the citizens of the surrounding states have called for the removal of this traffic bottleneck against the background of environmental considerations. The Brenner Base tunnel is urgently required. According to the feasibility study, it consists of a railway tunnel of approximately 55 km length, connecting Innsbruck, Austria and Fortezza, Italy. The rail traffic in the tunnel is similar to that in the Gotthard tunnel and will include approximately 340 trains per day, with 80% of goods trains, of which 1015% contain dangerous substances. A final decision regarding the tunnel configuration has not been taken since the project is in the feasibility study phase; however, it appears very likely that two single-track tunnels with frequent interconnections as proposed for the Gotthard tunnel would be selected. A safety study has shown that the risk of the tunnel during operation is acceptable if appropriate safety measures are applied 4.Fig. 3. Configuration system of Mont Cenis tunnel.2.5. The Mont Cenis tunnelImproved transport links through the Alps are needed not only because of threatened capacity bottlenecks but also because of the insufficient quality of the existing railway lines through the mountains. The latter, regarded as a technical marvel in the last century, are circuitous with many curves and thus have little chance of competing with the fast Alpine motorways of the present day. In addition to the planned northsouth main railway lines through the Alps, the delegates to the World congress for Railway Research in Florence discussed the project for a high-speed eastwest rail link taking in Venice, Milan, Turin, Mont Cenis, Lyon and Paris. One section of this project is the line between Montmelian and Turin, catering for mixed passenger and goods traffic, with a base tunnel of 54 km in length beneath Mont dAmbin. The possible traffic capacities are:3040 high-speed trains with a velocity of 220 km/h,80 goods trains of classical design and combined with a velocity of 100120 km/h,5060 car trains with a velocity of 120140 km/h.Thus, two single-lane tunnels have been selected as the system configuration (see Fig. 3) with a clearance profile of 43 m2 each 5. As a result of the topographical conditions and without exceeding a 1.2% gradient for the line, an intermediate point of attack and evacuation point is possible to the north of Modane. Consequently, the project could be executed in the form of two tunnels, each less than 30 km long.2.6. Tunnel under the Great BeltThe tunnel under the Great Belt has a length of ca. 8 km and consists of two single-track tunnels (center distance 25 m) with 30 interconnections every 250 m which serve for evacuation and escape of people in case of an accident 6.2.7. Concluding remarksBased on the aforementioned brief review of existing or planned tunnels, the following conclusions with respect to their design and safety philosophy can be drawn:(a) the design philosophy is somehow different in each of the aforementioned tunnel projects and depends on the national requirements, the tunnel configuration and geometry and the tunnel characteristics (see Table 2);(b) in each case a package of special safety measures is recommended to reduce risk; costbenefit considerations are usually implemented to define the optimum package of safety systems;(c) geometries affecting the escape and rescue capabilities vary significantly from case to case (see Table 2). The basic aspect affecting the tunnel safety is the tunnel configuration. The following tunnel systems are generally considered:(a) one double-track tunnel;(b) one double-track tunnel with service tunnel;(c) two single-track tunnels;(d) two single-track tunnels with service tunnel;(e) three single-track tunnels.Table 2 Comparison of relevant design parameters related to safety in tunnels (TSTT: two single track tunnels; ODTT: one double track tunnel)Tunnel System Length (km) Distance interconnect. (m) Width of escape-way (m) Traffic (train/day) Freight trains (%) Velocity (km/h)Mont Cenis TSTT 54 250 1.20 160180 4450 220Great Belt TSTT 8.0 250 1.20 240 40 100Eurotunnel TSTT 50 375 1.10 110 45 160Seikan ODTT 53.9 6001000 00.6 40 50 240Gotthard TSTT 57 325 0.75 300 80 200Brenner TSTT 55 250 1.60 340 80 250Fig. 4. Relative risk value for tunnel systems compared to the risk of the double track tunnel.Fig. 4 illustrates the relative risk picture for the aforementioned tunnel systems. The values are based on results from several tunnel risk studies. The final choice of the tunnel system depends not only on safety aspects, but also on other criteria such as costs (construction and maintenance costs), geology and local topography conditions, and operability requirements, etc. In general for tunnels with a length greater than 5 km the configuration of two single-track tunnels is recommended because of the better safety and operability conditions.3. Risk analysis basis3.1. Evaluation of accident statisticsAccident statistics and safety in railway transportation have been discussed in the past and special problems such as the transportation of d