Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Konventionell sprängning eller fullortsborrning som tunneldrivningsmetod?
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Industrial Ecology.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Industrial Ecology.
2015 (Swedish)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesisAlternative title
Drill and blast or TBM as tunneling method? (English)
Abstract [sv]

I denna rapport har de två vanligaste tunneldrivningsmetoderna konventionell sprängning och fullortsborrning, TBM undersökts. Konventionell sprängning innebär att små borrhål görs i berget där sprängmedel förs in för att sedan spränga bort materialet. Fullortsborrning innebär å andra sidan att en enda stor borr används vilket gör att tunnelhålet får samma dimension som själva borren. Målen med detta arbete var att ta reda på vilka faktorer som påverkar valet mellan dessa två metoder i Stockholm, att göra en jämförelse mellan metoderna ur ekologisk- och ekonomisk hållbarhetssynpunkt samt att undersöka hur hanteringen och användningen av

det uttagna bergmaterialet för respektive metod ser ut. Med hjälp av kvalitativa intervjuer med tio personer inom tunnelbyggnadsbranschen har dessa mål besvarats. De resultat som framkommit visar att det finns ett flertal faktorer som påverkar valet, några mer än andra. De tyngst vägande är de ekonomiska och erfarenhetsmässiga faktorerna som talar till fördel för konventionell sprängning. Fullortsborrning har dock funnits vara den fördelaktiga metoden ur ett hållbarhetsperspektiv, främst eftersom den ger en mindre påverkan på den omgivande miljön. Hanteringen och användningen av det uttagna bergmaterialet har däremot visat att konventionell sprängning kan vara fördelaktigt eftersom det idag finns en etablerad industri kring just sprängt bergmaterial. Fullortsborrat material är idag inte efterfrågat på grund av dess dåliga kvalitet.

Abstract [en]

In this report, the two most common tunnelling methods are investigated. These are conventional drill and blast and full-face boring, TBM. The drill and blast method is when a small drill is used to make bore holes where the explosives are inserted to blast away the material. Full-face boring is when a single large bore drills a tunnel with the same dimension as the bore head. The objectives of this report were to find out what factors influence the choice between these two methods in Stockholm, to make a comparison between the methods from ecological and economic sustainability point of view and to explore the handling and use of the extracted rock material for each method. By conducting qualitative interviews with ten experts on different aspects of tunnel construction, these objectives have been answered. The results obtained show that there are several factors that influence the choice, some more than others. The predominant aspect is the economic and experiential factors that speak in favour of conventional blasting. Full-face boring, however, has been found to be the advantageous method from an ecological perspective of sustainability, mainly because it has a lower impact on the surrounding environment. Handling and use of the extracted rock material has however proven that conventional drill and blast is the favourable method since there is an established industry around blasted material in Stockholm today. Full-faced drilled material is not in demand today because of its poor quality. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015.
Series
TRITA-IM-KAND 2015, 32
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-171939OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-171939DiVA: diva2:844932
Examiners
Available from: 2015-10-07 Created: 2015-08-10 Last updated: 2015-10-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(699 kB)191 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 699 kBChecksum SHA-512
f254c13dec4e5005c298e20cc0bfc9a9cb5027f09463571050f35c563e596610a509f43fa420f15fd830ce9579452f77bc1c0df918fbb314df1f138012a4abf6
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Industrial Ecology
Geotechnical Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 191 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 211 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf