Slab Track on the Dutch High Speed Line: Decision making criteria

Transcription

1 Slab Track on the Dutch High Speed Line: Decision making criteria Theo Winter (BAM Rail) Project Director Rheda 2000 vof Bilbao, January

2 Contents of the presentation 1. HSL Zuid Project Description 2. Tendering Phase Strategic Decisions 3. Design, Build, Finance & Maintain (DBFM) Contract 4. Scope of the HSL Zuid (Slabtrack) Project 5. Design & Engineering Specifics of the Dutch Slabtrack 6. Planning, Construction & Logistics Strategies 7. Testing & Commissioning 8. Achieved Results 2

3 3

4 Political choices in the Netherlands in Construction of a new HSL Zuid, as part of the TEN, along a separate line 2. Agreement with Belgium: first operation in 2005! 3. The objective to replace short distance air travel by high speed trains 4. The belief that PPP will bring added value: private enterprises are more able to deliver a train system of exceptional quality in time 4

5 Project description Hoofddorp RAS Rotterdam West RAS Rotterdam Lombardijen Noordelijk Holland Shield-driven Tunnel Groene Hart Zuid Holland Midden Barendrecht Zuid Holland Zuid Breda RAS Brabant Noord Brabant Zuid 5

6 HSL Zuid: The general set-up of the project ProRail Traffic Control Client Belgium ProRail Inframgt. Dutch State NMBS Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat D&C 4000 mio DBFM (30 yrs) 105 mio/yr Concession (15 yrs) Municipalities 148 mio/yr Substructure 6 CONSORTIA Superstructure INFRASPEED Traffic HSA:NS/KLM (Air France) Interfaces Interfaces 6

7 Essential features Noordelijk Holland Largest PPP contract ever awarded by Dutch Government to a Private Party Hoofddorp RAS Shield-driven Tunnel Groene Hart Rotterdam West RAS Rotterdam Lombardijen Zuid Holland Midden Barendrecht Zuid Holland Zuid Breda RAS Brabant Noord Brabant Zuid 7

8 Essential features Hoofddorp RAS Rotterdam West RAS Rotterdam Lombardijen Noordelijk Holland Shield-driven Tunnel Groene Hart Zuid Holland Midden Barendrecht Zuid Holland Zuid Largest PPP contract ever awarded by Dutch Government to a Private Party Design, Build, Finance and Maintain the superstructure of the new 90 km high speed link between Amsterdam and Belgium border, concession term from 2001 to 2031 with a 5 year construction period and a 25 year availability period Breda RAS Brabant Noord Brabant Zuid 8

9 Essential features Hoofddorp RAS Rotterdam West RAS Rotterdam Lombardijen Breda RAS Noordelijk Holland Shield-driven Tunnel Groene Hart Zuid Holland Midden Barendrecht Zuid Holland Zuid Brabant Noord Brabant Zuid Largest PPP contract ever awarded by Dutch Government to a Private Party Design, Build, Finance and Maintain the superstructure of the new 90 km high speed link between Amsterdam and Belgium border, concession term from 2001 to 2031 with a 5 year construction period and a 25 year availability period 3.0 billion performance based revenue, covers investment cost, maintenance cost, cost of amortisation, taxes, insurances, cost of capital, profit and overhead. Initial Funding Requirement of 1.2 billion. Payments based on availability with a minimum of 99%. 9

10 Essential features Hoofddorp RAS Rotterdam West RAS Rotterdam Lombardijen Breda RAS Noordelijk Holland Shield-driven Tunnel Groene Hart Zuid Holland Midden Barendrecht Zuid Holland Zuid Brabant Noord Brabant Zuid Largest PPP contract ever awarded by Dutch Government to a Private Party Design, Build, Finance and Maintain the superstructure of the new 90 km high speed link between Amsterdam and Belgium border, concession term from 2001 to 2031 with a 5 year construction period and a 25 year availability period 3.0 billion performance based revenue, covers investment cost, maintenance cost, cost of amortisation, taxes, insurances, cost of capital, profit and overhead. Initial Funding Requirement of 1.2 billion. Payments based on availability with a minimum of 99%. Contract signed 1 st June 2001 Financial Close 30 th October

11 11

12 The Infraprovider tender process Prequalification procedure in Spring 1999 resulted in 4 consortia: 1. Fastrail : Alstom-Strukton- Volker Wessels Stevin 2. Infraspeed : Royal BAM-Siemens-Fluor- Innisfree-HSBC 3. Zuidrailgroep : Bechtel-Amey-Øve Arup- DuraVermeer-Hyder 4. Speedrail : Balfour Beatty-Adtranz-Ballast Nedam a.o. (withdrew Dec. 1999) 12

13 Early strategic choices; Slabtrack & Rheda In 1999 several options were investigated by Infraspeed with respect to the choice of the track system: Ballasted system (note limited height available) Embedded systems a.o. Balfour Beatty Direct fastening systems a.o. Edilon Slabtrack Systems a.o. Bögl (prefab), Balfour Beatty LVT (Channel Tunnel system), Zublin and Rheda 2000 Conclusion: Rheda 2000 is the most reliable (RAMS), flexible (technically & construction) and bankable (LCC) track system! 13

14 Acceleration of the tender process Final offer combined with a signed up banking financing: FINAL TECHNOLOGY FINAL PRICE TECHNICAL DUE DILIGENCE FINANCIAL DUE DILIGENCE FINAL STRUCTURE FINAL BANKING CONSORTIUM LEGAL DUE DILIGENCE CONTRACTUAL DUE DILIGENCE BAFO OFFER 14

15 15

16 Cashflow during development period Shareholders Fluor Siemens BAM Innisfree HSBC Equity Client the State RIA INFRASPEED bv Loans Banks ING Rabobank KBC KfW Dexia Hypovereinsbank Lump sum EIB EPC Consortium Fluor Siemens BAM CoA Mid 2006 IMC bv Integrated Maintenance Company Development period : to mid

17 Cashflow during availibilty period Shareholders Fluor Siemens BAM Innisfree HSBC 105/yr Dividend Client the State INFRASPEED bv Interest & repayment Banks ING Rabobank KBC KfW Dexia Hypovereinsbank EIB EPC Consortium Fluor Siemens BAM CoA Mid 2006 Maintenance fee IMC bv Integrated Maintenance Company During the Availibility period :

18 DBFM: specific for Infraspeed EPC Consortium Multiple Clients to take into account Design responsibility solely with EPC Compliant with Requirements (as per RIA) System Engineering CENELEC En50126 Verification & Validation (V&V) method Technical Specification of Interoperability (TSI) RAMS issues effecting Life Cycle Costing (LCC) New Technology versus Proven Systems 18

19 IFS Maintenance acceptance Lenders acceptance via ext. assessment IFS internal RAMS Demonstration Requirements Compliance (Matrix) external various apportioned req ments Certificate of Availability (by HABO) HS 7: Safety Case for construction & operation phase via ext. Assessment FS 7: conform EU guideline 96/48 Interoperable via Notified Body 19

20 Development Period: Clients & Influential Parties 2) HABO NOBO ISA INFRASPEED BV 1) TA & Banks EPC Consortium CoA End ) IMBV 20

21 System Engineering Approach Infraspeed HSL Assets Systems Assets Civil Assets Track & Noise BAM (43%) Systems Siemens (46%) Program Management Fluor (11%) Track Traction & Power Distribution Noise & Fencing Signalling Buildings & Miscellaneous Communications System breakdown structure Ancillary Equipment 21

22 V model EN Concept System Definition Risk Analysis System Requirements HSL-Zuid responsibility Substructure TOC Infraspeed Maintenance System Validation Operation & Maintenance System acceptance Renewal Performance Monitoring Apportionment of Requirements INFRASPEED EPC Subsystem Validation Design Construction Static tests System integration Dynamic testing Production Development Period 22

23 Requirements & Validation Client Requirements System Requirements Maintenance Requirements Laws and Standards (including TSI) XRCT External Certification SACE Study Analysis Calculations & Engineering PRST Pre Site Test (= FAT) OSIN On Site Inspection OSTC On Site Testing & Commissioning 23

24 Life Cycle Costs HABO ProRail EPC Consortium Fluor Siemens BAM ISA NOBO TA IMC bv Integrated Maintenance Company 24

25 Many new technologies introduced! ERTMS; balises in the track 25 kv OCS Substation GSM-R mast Man Machine Interface Rheda 2000 NL 25

26 DBFM is the driving factor to innovations! ERTMS-communication Perfect track geometry All systems work together 26

27 27

28 Alignment of HSL-Zuid Sub Structure as taken from Civil Assets Provider 28

29 Alignment of HSL-Zuid Sub Structure as taken from Civil Assets Provider Slab- and Ballasted Track 29

30 Alignment of HSL-Zuid Sub Structure as taken from Civil Assets Provider Slab- and Ballasted Track Noise Attenuation Systems 30

31 Alignment of HSL-Zuid Sub Structure as taken from Civil Assets Provider Slab- and Ballasted Track Noise Attenuation Systems Traction Power Distribution Signalling systems Communication systems Ancillary Equipment 31

32 EPC Consortium Infraspeed BV EPC Consortium Maintenance company Track & Noise (TRK) BAM (43%) Systems (SYS) Siemens (46%) Program Management (PMG) Fluor (11%) Track (TRA) Noise & Fencing (NFE) Buildings & Miscellaneous (BMI) Rheda Track Cat. A Rheda Track Cat. B Joint Venture BAM Civiel & BAM Rail & Pfleiderer Rheda Track Cat. C Rheda Switches Responsible for Engineering, Procurement and Construction of the slab track system for the HSL ZUID Ballast 300 Ballast 160 Ballast 40 Work Breakdown Structure 32

33 Facts Hoofddorp Legend Km E Normal direction of travel Enter / Exit point Mandatory special trackwork B40 A B K Special Trackwork descriptor B40 Ballast 40 Maintenance yard Ballast 160 Track B300 Ballast 300 Track (..,..) Alignment revision and source Breda H Rotterdam D F K B300 Belgium B40 S J L G 33

34 Rheda 2000 vof Subcontractor of BAM HSL Infraprovider vof (BHI) Back to Back contract with BHI 162 km single track (300 km/h) 4 switch complexes (15 switches 1:34,7) 1 high speed turnout (1:39,17) 2 turnouts 1:12 to maintenance yards Laying, welding and grinding long rails Engineering started 03/2002 Trial Track period 05/ /2004 Construction period 09/ /

35 35

36 Survey of existing ballastless track systems Basic type Monolithic/slab construction Direct support Support layer Concrete Asphalt Construction type In-situ concrete with fixed sleepers In-situ concrete with elastically supported sleepers In-situ concrete without sleepers Precast slab segments Continuously embedded rail With sleepers Existing Systems RHEDA 2000 Stedef Shinkansen slab track (J-slab) Edilon ATD RHEDA-BERLIN Sonneville Bögl Embedded Rail Structure GETRAC RHEDA classic SBB IPA Balfour Beatty Züblin Porr 36

37 Evolution of Rheda technology Rheda 2000 TW Rheda 2000 NL Rheda 2000 ESP Rheda 2000 India Rheda 2000 CN 37

38 Modified Bi-Block Sleeper B W60M 38

39 Rail Fastening System Vossloh

40 Rheda 2000 Turnout Sleeper 40

41 Elastic turnout rail fastening ERL 41

42 RHEDA 2000 on embankment (Standard) 42

43 RHEDA 2000 on bridges (Standard) The cams are positioned in joints between the track segments 43

44 RHEDA 2000 in tunnels (Standard) 44

45 45

46 Encountered substructures on the HSL Zuid embankment settlement free plate bridge tunnel 46

47 Encountered substructures on the HSL Zuid embankment settlement free plate bridge tunnel 47

48 System Adaptation for the HSL Zuid (I) More than 70% of the substructure is as a viaduct Variable length of substructures Variable stiffness characteristics of the viaducts Low overall construction height available No in between concrete layer possible Limited room for camplates Limited possibility of connecting to substructure Limited availibility of transferring forces to substructure Smaller width available 48

49 System Adaptation for the HSL Zuid (II) Substructure Design Substructure on piles Substr. Category Cat I Settlement Free Deformation Properties Δh total = 30mm Δh diff. = 2mm Δh/Δl = 1:2000 Special Substructure Cat III Settlement Sensitive Δh total = 50mm Δh diff. = 2mm Δh/Δl = 1:350 Embankment Substructure Cat II Settlement Poor Δh total = 30mm Δh diff. = n.a. Δh/Δl = 1:500 49

50 System Adaptation for the HSL Zuid (III) Flexible Interface 0.5 m 0.3 m Longitudinal Reinforcement 0.13 m 2 x m Free Drilling Zones 50

51 var 3.6m (6 sleepers) 6.5m (10 sleepers) var outer dowel 51

52 System Adaptation for the HSL Zuid (IV) Flexible for any substructure length 52

53 System Adaptation Flexible for any cant Cross Section C = 0-40 mm Cross Section C = mm Cross Section C = mm 53

54 Rheda switches 54

55 Basic Design results Switches WBN / BWG: 1:12 Rheda, movable frog 1:34,7 Rheda movable frog 1:39,17 Rheda, movable frog Transition in stiffness track - switch Stiffness: 52,5 -> 22,5 kn/mm In 8 steps FAKOP Variable track gauge 55

56 Interface with substructure Construction height Separated slabs Connection to substructure Substructure Construction height 56

57 Separated slabs construction height 480 mm construction height 580 mm construction height 480 mm 1:34.7 Sensitive Areas (tongue & frog) 57

58 Connection to substructure 58

59 59

60 Planning, Construction & Logistics strategies DBFM leads to the following clear Mission Statement: 1. Safety 2. Quality 3. Production Rates Excellent Qa/Qc system supports the above 1. Development of the Paperless Quality System 2. True independence of Qc officers (in the field) 3. Relentless testing off and on site Mechanization also supports the above 1. Better working conditions (HSE) 2. Continous higher quality of workmanship 3. Continous higher production rates 60

61 Integrated process Risk Management System Safety Management System Quality Management System Design Procurement Construction Testing & Commissioning Completion & Delivery Maintenance Phases of Project Design Specifications Requirements Verification & Validation Proces RAMS Proces 61

62 Mechanization leads to an industrial process of a continous improving construction with a constant high quality on-site Manual Fully-mechanized I N D U S T R I A L P R O C E S S P R O D U C T I O N up to m1 / shift N O P A P E R W O R K, real time control 62

63 Mechanization pre-requisites Clear Work Breakdown Structure Every sub proces optimised Mechanize using as guidelines 1. Safety 2. Quality 3. Production Rates Use Test Tracks to get beyond the starting points of the learning curves Monitor on a very frequent basis Plan Do Check Act 63

64 Building method Fixing construction method incl. construction speed and man hours Track 1 Work direction Track 2 Number Activity Performance per day 07:00-16:00 14:00-23:00 Concrete worker Rail worker Subcontractor Positioning sleepers Positioning longitudinal rebars Drilling of dowel holes Install fixation of lateral formwork Lay down & fix Intermediate layer Distribute rebars Track 1+2 Distribute sleepers Track m/d 300m/d 300m/d 600m/d 600m/d 900m/d 600m/d Track 1 Work direction Track 2 Number a Activity Disassembly Disassembly Curing and Concreting Final positioning Assembly Assembly Glue construction rails formwork hardening (fine alignment) formwork rebars dowels Performance per day 07:00-16:00 14:00-23:00 Concrete worker Rail worker Subcontractor Assembly lateral formwork (joints) Preliminary positioning (rough alignment) Assembly construction rails 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d 300m/d

65 Learning curve test tracks Production Rate (m/shift) 300 Target reached! Time Start Construction HSL Wigan Schiedam Construction Trial 65

66 Impressions of the project HSL Zuid Drilling of dowel holes Sleeper positioning 66

67 Impressions of the project HSL Zuid Track rough adjustment Track precise adjustment 67

68 Impressions of the project HSL Zuid Track concreting Rail installation 68

69 69

70 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 29 maart 2005 Quality reached (QC-Quotient) ZVP (team 1+2) and Tunnels Sep- 15- Sep- 25- Sep- 5- Okt- 15- Okt- 25- Okt- 4- Nov- 14- Nov- 24- Nov- 4- Dez- 14- Dez- 24- Dez- 3- Jan- 13- Jan- 23- Jan- 2- Feb- 12- Feb- 22- Feb- 4- Mrz- 14- Mrz- 24- Mrz- 3- Apr- 13- Apr- 23- Apr- 3- Mai- 13- Mai- 23- Mai- 2- Jun- 12- Jun- 22- Jun- 2- Jul- 12- Jul- 22- Jul- 1- Aug- 11- Aug- 21- Aug- 31- Aug- 10- Sep- 20- Sep- 30- Sep- 10- Okt- 20- Okt- 30- Oktdate QC Quotient trendlijn Number of findings per Slab (Quality Tendency) 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 5- Sep- 15- Sep- 25- Sep- 5- Okt- 15- Okt- 25- Okt- 4- Nov- 14- Nov- 24- Nov- 4- Dez- 14- Dez- 24- Dez- 3- Jan- 13- Jan- 23- Jan- 2- Feb- 12- Feb- 22- Feb- 4- Mrz- 14- Mrz- 24- Mrz- 3- Apr- 13- Apr- 23- Apr- 3- Mai- 13- Mai- 23- Mai- 2- Jun- 12- Jun- 22- Jun- 2- Jul- 12- Jul- 22- Jul- 1- Aug- 11- Aug- 21- Aug- 31- Aug- 10- Sep- 20- Sep- 30- Sep- 10- Okt- 20- Okt- 30- Okt- Quality figures Fps 0,00 date QC Tendency trendlijn

71 Manhour comparison Manhour comparison inclusive night hours - BAFO, Pre-construction stage & As built Manhours acc. - BAFO Manhours acc. - Pre-construction stage Manhours acc. - As built Proportionate night hours - BAFO Proportionate night hours -Pre-constr. Proportionate night hours - As built wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk Amount of worker per week No night hours - As built Calendar weeks

72 4,6 4,5 4,5 29 maart ,3 2,9 2,8 3,7 4,0 3,6 3,4 3,9 3,6 3,3 2,9 2,8 3,2 3,7 3,4 3,5 3,1 2,9 3,5 3,2 5,5 5,5 4,8 4,8 6,1 7,0 7,7 8,4 8,6 8,6 10,1 11,6 3,2 3,4 2,9 3,2 3,4 2,0 3,0 3,6 4,6 4,7 4,8 4, ,6 8,0 6,7 6,6 6,8 6,2 5,9 8,6 5,9 6,3 6,5 6,9 6,7 6,5 6,3 6,2 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,0 5,9 5,8 5,7 5,6 5,5 5,4 5,3 5,2 5,2 5,1 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,9 4,9 4, wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk wk Manhour learning curve in tunnels Weekly manhour rates in Tunnels Tunnel [manhour/m1] Average Tunnel Manhour per concreted track meter Calendar week

73 73

74 Drop test TNO settlement free piled slabs NOH 700 kg at height of cm 74

75 Intermediate Layer (4 mm Polypropylene Geotextile) tested at Fraunhofer Institute Darmstadt Purpose: 1. Separation superstructure - substructure 2. Minimizing Stress concentrations as required by Anforderungs Katalog Feste Fahrbahn Tests were needed for: - Friction behaviour - Stiffness parameters 75

76 HILTI Dowel Tests (I) 76

77 HILTI Dowel Tests (II) 77

78 Gap Tests at Stevin II Lab TU Delft 78

79 Lateral displacement Bridge Hollandsch Diep Southern Ramp: Vossloh DFF 300 test 79

80 80

81 81

82 82

83 83

84 84

85 First high speed test train on 14 Feb

86 86

87 87

88 88

89 89