Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Clt -
- mw"E
mm"'tFl
m
w - w u
m
] I-I w m w
1 It!r.4
LC mlWt3
- d m
Lm .I:
- *
WTC ?01P qncouver
11
Cc --*--+for-
'-'-S I I in *'- -
By Peter J. Tarkay,PhD
lthough various government bodies 1. Failure of blastingcap multing in the "EminentUdangeris defined as a danger
provlde fundamental regulatlons, detonation ofa charge when a labourer "towering or standing out above other&"
Jaws, and punltlveconsequences drilled into it, detonating the "prominenkHand"outstanding: In other
associated with safety violations, there are unexploded bIming cap and charge, words, an%minentUdangeris significant of
a great number of Issues that remain causing serbus head and emotional consequence, grand,and likely to have a
unaddressed, unregulated, and unresolved, injuries.
major effecLfherefore,annemlnent"
especially In the underground construction 2. Rockslabfalling from an unsupportd
danger would be one that would cause
industry. Over the years, involvement with tunnel crown during tunnel excavatlon
serious Injury andlor death. For example, a
safety Issues in underground construction resultingin the loss of a tunnel labourer's
relatedto personal injuries and wrongful heavywelght suspendedabove a work area
leg.
deaths has required an identiflcatlon of 3. Wrongful death resultlng from a pre-cast or publicthoroughfare, must be considered
basic philosophies to address the concrete segment falling on a tunnel an "emlnentHdanger.Consequently, an
shortcomings in the regulatlons which labourer. "eminent" danger would tequlre a
have not addressed a variety of situations. 4. Wrongful death resultingfrom a false significant design &rt to prevent the
Project design during constructionand ceillng panel falling on a vehicle In a "eminent"danger from manifesting and
throughout the structure's operating life roadway tunnel, causing the death of an placing llfe inJeopardy.Tfieellminatlon of
must specifically address the moral issues automobile passenger. an "ernlnent' danger would requlre a
of p r o t d n g workers engaged in Nearly all of the rases were settled redundancy in deslgn.
constructton in the short term and the without trial, In all probability, because the AnImrnlnenfdangerls inherently
public in the long temThecontext fundamental principlesof"eminentHand Impending, in other words, with Ilttle or no
necessary to address Issues where no 1mmmlnenX"dangerclearly identifled the
obstacle between the existing stabjlky and
speclflc regulatlons exlst must be based on responslbk partlesand the partles reallred
failure. Far example, an'imminent'danger
twoessenttal concepts that will be their tenuous poslUonr
discussed in thls paper. would be a heavyweightover a work area
Slnce safety regulations and laws are
generally designed for the protection in the or heavily travelled route with only a slngla
Introduction workplace and the publlc In general, the eIement preventing a movement from
The cases consideredhereln have been starting perspective is necessarily stability to failure. An qrnminentWdanger
associated with boredtunnel excavatlan, philosophl~~l, We have found that the must be ellmlnated by dedgn,fhlr*can only
shaft construction, blasting, and highway considerationof safety must be based on be done by providing a redundancy which
tunnel safety-When investigatingand the following fundamental principles: would prevent completefailure when one
deallng with safety Issues where no 1. "Erninentwdanger. element falls.
regulationsare found to apply, one has to 2. "Imminent"danger.
resortto fundamental pHlosophies and
simple laglc tacome up wlth the
The American Heritage Dictionary (third -
Case Hlstory BlastlngCap Failures
edltlon) deflned the foregoing terms as Manufacturing problems produced
assignment of the underlyingcause of fabws:
blastingcaps that failed to detonate during
failures and the distributionof . .
- emmbnent (pm". .-n.. n t adj. I.Towering
the normal blastingprocess.fhe problems
responslbllltiesto the respective partlei, or standing out above others; prominent
In effect, regardless of regulations, laws, wlth the blasting caps were demonstrated
2. Of high rank, statlon, or quallty;
and institutions, the responsibility Is noteworthy. 3. Outstanding, as in In the field by the contractor'stests and
ultimately distributed to the project character or performance;distinguished. reparted by swemI contractorsand mines
constructionmanagers, project designers, -ernl*nent-ly adv. (Exhibit1).The manufacturerignoredand
residentengineers, construction - im*ml-nent(tm"...-n.. .nt) adj. About to publicly denied having any problems,
contractoa, and sub-contractors.Care occur: impending.-imuml~nent*ly -
adv. despite internal memoranda
hlstoriesto be considered herein inctude: Imuml*nent~ness n. acknowledging the manufacturing flaw.
--
UNDERGROUNDSAFETY I
Exhlbit 1: Evidence for Blasting Cap Fdures
" - 1 . I - I -
crown slabs resuklng from sub-horizontal roof shleld orwmpomry support installed
- a beddlng planes, Had local geotechnlcal hehlnd the cutterhead. Neither of these
=*=a=zii
conditions been adequately identifled, the methods to eliminate"lmmInentwdanger
mlr&lsm designer could have required Immediate was utllizedbecause the "emlnent" danger
z----51 temporaly support behind the cutterhead had not been identifiedand the means and
in the specifications and prwented the methods had not been designed for this
:a=-"=*
-.---a- injurious fallout. unknown condition.The expert on the case
kT-'c
---. A geotechnical conditlon of high insisted that theTBM manufacturerbe
: - --
s a Ilkellhoodrock slab failure is inherently an removed from the list of defendants and
------.=---
" C
"eminent"danger. The elimination oft he the case was subsequently settled out of
1mmlnent"dangerwould hwe required a court on behalf ofthe plaintiff.
Case History -
Falling Rock Slab from Tunnel Crown
A tunnel in sub-horimnta! sedlmentaty
rack was being excavatedwith a usedTBM
not designed for thespecific geolaglcal
conditions on the projectTheusedTBM
Sika giobally supports tunnels with...
r Shotcrete admixtures and sprayed concrete equlpmenl
I
was designedfor the conditions on a A Precast wncrele admixtures
previous project and had no requirementor A Anchoring and injection reslns
r Mortars, grouts and joint sealants
fadllty for temporav support betweenthe
r Waterproofing membranes and protective coattngs
cutterheadand the end of the primary
conveyor. Rock bolts were being Installed,a
distancehexcess of 10 metres behlnd the ...and a century of experience.
exposure of the rock crown. A slmlar open
TBM design Is illuarated in Exhlblt 2. Need-
less tasay, the tunnel crown slabs were able
ta loosen over a dlstanceof 10 metres. In
this rase,a slab fell on the laburer
instalIing roek bolts behlnd the end of the
primary conveyor. A falllng rock slab
Innovatlon &
resuited in the loss of theindividual's leg. Consistency
-
consideration of"eminentJ'and
"imminent"dangers in the design, I
construction, and adjudication of
personal injury and wrongful death
cases in underground construction.
The 5amc principles may apply to Exhibit 4: Support E/en?enrsotld
FfllseCeilillg Collapse
-
designs dnd construction above ground.
-
rl
&;
#: :- $1
.i;
-4
' - Steel liebacks are
artached to Ihe turlwl
ce:l~ng
~:ICX,; ~
-,I:=
3
A ard
wllhI bolls
:L. I:>..,..
2 .:'::,,i
.-. ! ,.,.; l..i.
r?
>1..:;.7
Y ! ? .I:.',/:-*
J
...releasing four
sections of concrete panels,
each welqhlng three tons, onto
a car, kHHlng one passenger.
have helped make this horizontal directional drllBng, auger boring, and tunnelling.
publication possible. For more Information about Assoclated Engineering, see our webslte at www.ae.ca.
REST
-.. .. -
MlAAGtD
~OMPAH~ES
CanadjanTunnelling Magazine 31