바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

(사)한국터널지하공간학회

ISSN : 2233-8292

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.17 No.3
Citation Share

The study on interval calculation of cross passage in undersea tunnel by quantitative risk assesment method

(사)한국터널지하공간학회 / (사)한국터널지하공간학회, (P)2233-8292; (E)2287-4747
2015, v.17 no.3, pp.249-256




& (2015). The study on interval calculation of cross passage in undersea tunnel by quantitative risk assesment method. (사)한국터널지하공간학회, 17(3), 249-256.
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Quantitative Mokpo-Jeju undersea tunnel is currently on the basis plan for reviewing validation. As for the cross section shape for express boat of 105 km line, sing track two tube is being reviewed as the Euro tunnel equipped with service tunnel. Also, 10 carriage trains have been planned to operate 76 times for one way a day. So, in this study, quantitative risk assessment method is settled, which is intended to review the optimal space between evacuation connection hall of tunnel by quantitative risk analysis method. In addition to this, optimal evacuation connection hall space is calculated by the types of cross section, which are Type 3 (double track single tube), Type 1 (sing track two tube), and Type 2 (separating double track on tube with partition). As a result, cross section of Type 2 is most efficient for securing evacuation safety, and the evacuation connection space is required for 350 m in Type 1, 400 m in Type 2, and 1,500 m in Type3 to satisfy current domestic social risk assessment standard.

keywords
철도터널, 정량적 위험도 평가, 피난연결통로, Railway tunnel, Quantitative risk assesment, Cross passage

Reference

1.

1. Arends, B.J., Jonkman, S.N., Vrijling, J.K. (2005), “Evaluation of tunnel safety: towards an economic safety optimum”, Reliability Eng. & system Safety.

2.

2. IES. (2004), “SIMULEX User Mannual”, UK.

3.

3. John Dalsgaard Sorensen. (2010), “Belastning og sikkerhed”, Denmark.

4.

4. Korea Railroad Research Institute. (2014), “Quantitative risk assessment manual draft”, South Korea.

5.

5. Ministry of Land. (2013), “Railway facilities safety technical standards”, South Korea.

6.

6. NIST. (2010), “Fire dynamics simulator (version 5) technical reference guide”, US.

7.

7. SFPE. (2003), “Emergency movement”, Chapter 3-14.

8.

8. Trbojevic, V.M. (2004), “Risk criteria in EU”, Risk support Limited, London, U.K.

9.

9. Tunnelling and Underground Space Association. (2009), “Ho-Nam railway vehicle fire intensity and quantitative risk assessment(QRA)”, South Korea.

10.

10. Yoo, J.O., Nam, C.H., Jo, H.J., Kim, J.W. (2010), “A study on quantitative risk assessment for railway tunnel fire”, Tunneling Technology, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 307-319.

(사)한국터널지하공간학회

e-Submission OA Policy