TRU, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 287: Spm. om der er udarbejdet en risikoanalyse med henblik på en brand i den kommende Femern Bælt-tunnel, og i bekræftende fald bedes den sendt til udvalget, til transportministeren

Transportudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling)
TRU Alm.del
Offentligt

Client

Femern A/S

Document type

Rambøll-Arup-TEC Report

Date

September 2014

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

OPERATIONAL RISK ANALYSES 2014

REVISION 6C

Checked by

Approved by

Description

The operational risk analysis presents the risk level

for the Fehmarn Belt Tunnel in the years 2018 and

2038

Ref

RAT 64233-002

ATR 072-01-20

Disclaimer

The text and drawings presented in this report are developed in the course of

the planning process and should be considered as work in progress and not

representing a final position or determination unless otherwise explicitly

stated.

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

TRU, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 287: Spm. om der er udarbejdet en risikoanalyse med henblik på en brand i den kommende Femern Bælt-tunnel, og i bekræftende fald bedes den sendt til udvalget, til transportministeren

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

REVISION 6C

Revision

Date

Made by

Checked by

Approved by

Description

2014/09/01

Kristina Hoffmann Larsen/Jesper Pedersen/Frederik

Sørensen

Jesper Pedersen/Kristina Hoffmann Larsen/Frederik

Sørensen

Dick Kevelam

Operational Risk Analysis

Ref

RAT 64233-002

ATR RAT73-JRS-141

Disclaimer

The text and drawings presented in this report are developed in the course of

the planning process and should be considered as work in progress and not

representing a final position or determination unless otherwise explicitly

stated.

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

TABLE OF CONTENT

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

3.1

3.2

3.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

9.1

9.2

10.

11.

Introduction and procedure

Introduction

Procedure

Event overview and affected safety targets

Summary

Individual risk

Third party risk

Societal risk (section to be updated autumn 2014)

Risk of disruption

Environmental risk

Maintenance risk

Unauthorized persons on railway premises

“Others”

Safety Targets and risk acceptance criteria

FAT to FWSI conversion factors

Quantified acceptance criteria

Cost of safety targets

Consequence modelling

Population distributions

Fatalities on road and rail

Road

Rail

External events

Multiple simultaneous events

Risk

Ordinary road

Road accidents involving dangerous goods

All road accidents

Fire (road)

Results

–

landsides and enclosed tunnel

Ordinary rail

Fire (rail)

External events

Results

Acceptance criteria

Individual risk

Societal risk

Disruption risk

Total risk cost

Impact of the dangerous goods restrictions on railway

Revisions

Revision 6

Revision 5

Revision 4

Revision 3

Revision 2

Revision 1

Future work

Appendix A

–

Release of dangerous goods

–

general

assumptions

Assumptions

Assessment of impact from explosions

Appendix B

–

Train distribution in tunnel from time

schedule

Appendix C

–

Distributions of train capacity

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.

12.1

12.2

12.3

12.4

12.5

12.6

12.7

12.8

12.9

12.10

12.11

12.12

13.

Appendix D

–

Consequence tables

Road accidents resulting in no fire

Road accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying

ammonia

Road accidents involving dangerous good vehicle carrying

chlorine

Road accidents involving dangerous good vehicle carrying lpg

Road accidents involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying

flammable liquids

Road accidents involving vehicles carrying explosives

Road accidents involving vehicles carrying acids and bases

Fire Road

Train Collision

Train collision involving dangerous goods

Train derailment

Fire rail

References

112

158

174

177

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 Traffic distribution over a day based on Scandlines data

Figure 6-1 FN-curve for the disruption of the road part (one tube only) (2025)

Figure 6-2: FN-curve for the disruption of the rail part (only one rail tube)

Figure 6-3: FN-curve for the simultaneous disruption of road and rail

Figure 6-4 Total risk cost distribution

Figure 9-1: Location of jet fans used in the CFD-modelling of releases in road

part

Figure 9-2: Location of the source to the release of dangerous goods

Figure 9-3 Result from CFD calculations for small release of ammonia

Figure 9-4 Result from CFD calculations for medium release of ammonia

Figure 11-1 Distribution of train capacities

Figure 11-2 Actual distribution of passengers

Figure 11-3 Assumed distribution

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Events distributed on safety targets with references to relevant

sections. *Disruption and repair costs are assessed under fire and

toxic release respectively.

Table 2-1 Individual risk (the number of fatalities and FWSI per billion person

passages) and acceptable risk on road and rail in 2025 and 2045 3

Table 2-2 Societal risk and acceptable risk in 2025 and 2045

Table 2-3 Tunnel disruption in days per year (* does not include simultaneous

disruption)

Table 3-1 Safety targets

Table 3-2 FAT to FWSI conversion factors for rail, ref. [29]

Table 3-3 FAT to FWSI conversion factors for road

Table 3-4 Overview of the risk acceptance criteria

Table 3-5 Cost of fatalities in million Euros in 2025 prices

Table 3-6 Initial cost of an event causing disruption of part of or the entire link

in million Euros in 2025 prices

Table 3-7 Societal cost of disruption of part of or the entire link in million Euros

in 2025 prices

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Table 3-8 Owner loss due to disruption of part of or the entire link in million

Euros in 2025 prices

Table 3-9 Environmental damage in Euros in 2025 prices

Table 4-1 Road tunnel traffic forecast and population

Table 4-2 Traffic distribution on road

Table 4-3 Average number of vehicles and occupants in a queue in 2 tubes in

case of an accident

Table 4-4 Rail tunnel forecast and number of passengers per train

Table 4-5 Fraction of time with different train scenarios

Table 4-6 Distribution of 95% of the expected number of passengers on

railway in both railway tubes

Table 4-7 Distribution of 95% of the expected number of employees on railway

in both railway tubes

Table 4-8 Example scale used for assessing number of fatalities and the

distribution

Table 4-9 Example scale used for assessing the distribution of disruption time

Table 4-10 Example scale used for assessing the repair cost distribution

Table 4-11 Distribution of fatalities in ordinary road accidents on Fehmarnbelt

Fixed Link Tunnel

Table 4-12 Average disruption time for a traffic accident

Table 4-13 Average fatalities as a consequence of dangerous goods accident

resulting in release of ammonia in road tunnel

Table 4-14 Average fatalities as a consequence of dangerous goods accident

resulting in release of chlorine in the road tunnel

Table 4-15 The nine fire scenarios in the road part leading to fatalities

Table 4-16 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes

in enclosed tunnel

Table 4-17 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes

on the land sides

Table 4-18 Fatality percentages for train accidents with fatalities.

Table 4-19 Accident scenarios for rail accidents and corresponding estimated

average number of FWSI for passengers and employees

Table 4-20 Road disruption consequences caused by ordinary rail accidents 24

Table 4-21 Consequences of repair costs for ordinary road and rail

Table 4-22 Estimated FWSI as a consequence of a freight train accident

resulting in release of ammonia in the railway tunnel

Table 4-23 Estimated FWSI as a consequence of a freight train accident

resulting in release of chlorine in the railway tunnel

Table 4-24 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes

in enclosed tunnel

Table 4-25 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes

on the land sides

Table 4-26 Scaled yearly fire frequency

Table 4-27 Vehicle length

Table 5-1 Risk of ordinary road accidents in terms of fatalities, FWSI,

disruption and repair costs

Table 5-2 Risk from accidents involving dangerous goods on road in terms of

fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-3 Risk from all road accidents in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption

and repair costs

Table 5-4 Risk of fires in the enclosed tunnel road part in terms of fatalities,

FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-5 Risk of fires in the road part of the land sides in terms of fatalities,

FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Table 5-6 Risk of fire in the road part of the total scope (landsides and

enclosed tunnel) in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

Table 5-7 Risk of derailments in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

Table 5-8 Risk of collisions between trains in terms of fatalities, FWSI,

disruption and repair costs

Table 5-9 Risk of train-object collisions in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption

and repair costs

Table 5-10 Risk from collisions and derailments involving dangerous goods on

rail in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-11 Risk of fires in the enclosed tunnel rail part in terms of fatalities,

FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-12 Risk of fires in the landsides rail part in terms of fatalities, FWSI,

disruption and repair costs

Table 5-13 Risk of fire in the road part of the total scope (landsides and

enclosed tunnel) in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

Table 5-14 Risk of flooding in terms of yearly average fatalities, FWSI,

disruption and repair costs

Table 5-15 Risk of sunken ship on tunnel in terms of yearly average fatalities,

FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-16 Yearly average risk due to dropped and dragged anchor in terms of

fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-17 Risk due to ship groundings on tunnel roof in terms of fatalities,

FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Table 5-18 Risk of fire in transformer room in terms of fatalities, FWSI,

disruption and repair costs

Table 5-19 Risk of two fires in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

Table 6-1 Risk acceptance criteria

Table 6-2 Individual risk

Table 6-3 Calculated risk in percentages of the acceptance criteria

Table 6-4

Calculated risk for “others” (fatalities per year) and percentages of

the acceptance criteria

Table 6-5 Contributors to fatalities per year on road in 2025

Table 6-6 Contributors to passenger fatalities per year on rail in 2025

Table 6-7 Contributors to employee fatalities per year on rail in 2025

Table 6-8 Contributors to fatalities per year on rail in 2025 for ordinary rail

accidents

Table 6-9 Total number of disruption days for road and the contributing factors

(2025)

Table 6-10 Total number of disruption days for the rail and the contributing

factors (2025)

Table 6-11 Simultaneous disruption times

Table 6-12 Total risk cost in million Euros

Table 6-13 Total costs in million Euros

Table 6-14 Impact of dangerous goods restriction on road users, rail

passengers and employees

Table 7-1 Individual risk in revision 6.

Table 7-2 Risk to individual life safety revision 5

Table 7-3 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for revision 6 and 5

Table 7-4 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for revision 6

and 5

Table 7-5 Traffic data for ORA revision 5 and revision 4

Table 7-6 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in

revision 5 and 4

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Table 7-7 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for revision 5 and 4

Table 7-8 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for revision 5

and 4

Table 7-9 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in

revision 4 and 3

Table 7-10 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for revision 4 and 3

Table 7-11 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for revision 4

and 3

Table 7-12 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in

revision 3 and 2

Table 7-13 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for Revision 3 and 2

Table 7-14 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for Revision 3

and 2

Table 7-15 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in

revision 2 and 1

Table 7-16 Comparison of total costs in million Euros between results in

Revision 2 and 1

Table 7-17 Comparison of disruption risk between results in Revision 1 and 255

Table 7-18 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in

Revision 1 and 0

Table 7-19 Comparison of total costs in million Euros between results in

Revision 1 and 0

Table 7-20 Comparison of disruption risk between results in Revision 1 and 056

Table 7-21 Accident frequency per year for ORA revision 1 and 0 for the

Fehmarnbelt Fixed link

Table 7-22 Fatalities per accident in revision 1 and 0

Table 7-23 Fire frequency per year and vehicle km for ORA revision 1 and 0 for

the Fehmarnbelt Fixed link

Table 7-24 Traffic data for ORA revision 0 and revision 1

Table 9-1 Representative release sizes of ammonia and chlorine and calculated

mass flow rates

Table 9-2 Representative release sizes of LPG and calculated mass flow rates61

Table 9-3 Mass flow rates of ammonia, chlorine and LPG used in the CFD-

modelling

Table 9-4 LC50 for ammonia - Lethal concentration as a function of probability

of fatality at different exposure times

Table 9-5 LC50 for chlorine - Lethal concentration as a function of probability

of fatality at different exposure times

Table 10-1: Expected number of trains per day used in scheduling for the year

2025

Table 10-2: Fraction of different train scenarios

Table 11-1 Persons on passenger trains

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.1

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURE

Introduction

This report presents the operational risk analysis (ORA) for the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link Tunnel.

The ORA combines the frequency estimation (ref. [1]) with the consequence estimation (this

report) to calculate the risk and then compares the risk with the acceptance criteria from ref.

[28].

1.2

Procedure

The operational risk analysis procedure is described in details in the ORA Accident Frequencies

Report ref. [1].

1.3

Event overview and affected safety targets

All background information needed in order to setup risk modelling in the ORA has been

presented in the ORA Accident Frequencies Report, ref. [1] .

In Table 1-1 all the identified events are shown together with the affected safety targets;

fatalities on road, fatalities on rail (both passengers and employees), disruption on road,

disruption on rail and repair cost. The numbers in the table are references to sections in this

report. If there are numbers opposite a given event, it means that the event has an effect on the

relevant safety targets. The consequences are described in more details in the referred sections.

A corresponding table containing references to sections containing descriptions of frequencies for

each of the risk are given in the ORA Accident Frequencies Report (ref. [1]).

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

1/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Initiating events

Fatalities

Road

Fatalities/inju

ries Rail

(both

passengers

and

employees)

Disruption

Road

Disruption

Rail

Repair cost

Ordinary road accidents

Ordinary road

4.3.1.1

traffic accident

Road accident involving DG

Ammonia

4.3.2.1.1

Chlorine

4.3.2.2.1

Corrosives

4.3.2.3.1

Explosives

4.3.2.4.1

Fire

–

road

Car

Bus

HGV (excl. DG)

DGV

Ordinary rail accidents

Train collisions

Train derailment

Train object

collision

Fire

–

rail

Passenger train

Freight train excl.

Rail accidents involving DG

Ammonia

Chlorine

Corrosives

4.4.3.4

Explosives

External events

Flooding

Dropped and

4.5.4

dragged anchor

4.5.5

Grounding ship

Fire in transformer

room

4.5.2

Sunken ship

Multiple

simultaneous

events (fire/toxic

4.6

release and

accident causing

congestion)

4.3.3.1.2

4.3.1.2

4.3.2.1.2

4.3.2.2.2

4.3.2.3.2

4.3.2.4.2

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.4.2.1

4.4.2.2.3

4.3.1.2

4.3.2.1.2

4.3.2.2.2

4.3.2.3.2

4.3.2.4.2

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.3.3.2,

4.3.3.3

4.4.2.3

4.4.5.1,

4.4.5.2

4.4.5.1,

4.4.5.2

4.4.3.1.2

4.4.3.2.2

4.4.3.3.2

4.4.3.4

4.5.1

4.5.4

4.5.5

4.5.3

4.5.2

4.3.2.4.1

4.3.2.4.2

4.3.3.2

4.4.2.2.2

4.4.2.2.1

4.4.2.2.2

4.4.5.1,

4.4.5.2

4.4.5.1,

4.4.5.2

4.4.3.1.2

4.4.3.2.2

4.4.3.3.2

4.4.3.4

4.5.1

4.5.4

4.5.5

4.5.3

4.5.2

4.4.5

4.4.3.1.1

4.4.3.2.1

4.4.3.3.1

4.4.3.4

4.4.5.1

4.4.3.4

4.5.1

4.5.4

4.5.5

4.5.4

4.5.5

4.5.3

4.5.2

Table 1-1 Events distributed on safety targets with references to relevant sections. *Disruption and

repair costs are assessed under fire and toxic release respectively.

The frequency report (ref. [1]) also contains a section with description of how each topic in TSI

SRT (ref. [32]) is handled in the ORA.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

2/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

SUMMARY

This report details the operational risk assessment for the design of the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link

Tunnel. Within this report the following safety targets are considered:



Individual risk to road and rail users (both passengers and employees)

Third party risk

Societal risk

Risk of disruption (including repair cost)

Environmental risk

Risk to maintenance/inspection personnel

For all safety targets the risk is estimated. In all analysed cases the risk is considered acceptable.

2.1

Individual risk

In Table 2-1 the risk figures are presented for the year 2025 and 2045 as well as the

corresponding acceptable risk level. The risks are presented for the following safety targets:



Road users (fatalities)

Rail passengers (FWSI)

Rail employees (FWSI)

Others (FWSI)

2025

Fraction

acceptab

le risk

74.0%

84.2%

8.0%

0.3%

2045

Fractio

n of

accep-

table

risk

75.1%

90.0%

8.2%

0.5%

Road fatalities

Rail - FWSI

–

passengers

Rail - FWSI

–

employees

Individu

al Risk

0.17

2.60∙10

-3

8.81∙10

-4

1.15∙10

-5

Acceptab

le Risk

0.22

0.0031

0.0109

0.0035

Individu

al Risk

0.13

2.78∙10

-3

1.22∙10

-3

1.72∙10

-5

Acceptab

le Risk

0.17

0.00309

0.01486

0.00346

Rail - FWSI – Others

Table 2-1 Individual risk (the number of fatalities and FWSI per billion person passages) and acceptable

risk on road and rail in 2025 and 2045

It is noted that are risk figures are below the acceptance criteria, i.e., the risk is considered

acceptable.

In the estimation of the risk to employees it is seen that the risk only contributes a small part of

the acceptance criteria. In the modelling no risk model for harm to maintenance personal due to

rolling stock has been carried out. Clearly, there must be

“room” for the risk in the acceptance

criteria. With only 8% used, it is assessed that the risk for maintenance personal including FWSIs

due to rolling stock is considered acceptable.

Finally, it is seen that the risk for Others only constitute 0.3% of the acceptance criteria. This is

simply due to the low impact the railway has on the surroundings. Regarding Others it is

underlined that the risk to persons in cars, buses etc. that have been stopped outside the tunnel

due to an accident in a railway tube must to investigated further. They may be at risk if smoke

from a fire or a toxic release is ventilated to this area.

2.2

Third party risk

No third party risks have been identified.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

3/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

In previous versions of the ORA the scope was chosen to be the enclosed tunnel part. In this case

no unauthorized persons are expected to enter the tunnel, as they will have to pass several

physical barriers, and the surveillance system will make sure that persons entering the area

would be seen and possibly stopped. Hence, persons entering the tunnel are persons who

deliberately choose to pass the physical barriers and they are considered similar to train-surfers

etc. who are omitted in a similar way as people committing suicide. However, considering the

free road and railway passages on the landsides there may be a risk that people will cross the

road and railway areas unauthorized, see ref. [33]. These stretches are, however, not different

from any other highway or railway in Denmark/Germany where crossing is not permitted, so

there is no argument for that the risk should be intolerable. Considering the location in the

country-side and that the area is partly closed, the risk is assessed not to be higher than similar

stretches in Denmark/Germany. Due to the above descriptions third party risk is not included in

the analysis.

2.3

Societal risk

(section to be updated autumn 2014)

The societal risk is the sum of the individual risk on road and rail and third party risk. The results

are presented in Table 2.2 in comparison to the acceptance criteria. The societal risk is

considered acceptable in both 2025 and 2045.

Societal Risk

2025

0.18

Acceptable

Risk 2025

1.64

Societal Risk

2045

0.15

Acceptable

Risk 2045

2.70

Fatalities per year

Table 2-2 Societal risk and acceptable risk in 2025 and 2045

2.4

Risk of disruption

The calculated disruption risk for road and rail individually and simultaneously is presented in

Table 2-3 and is considered acceptable. It is conservatively assumed, that the disruption covers

both tubes for road and rail respectively.

2025

Road tunnel disruption (days per year)(road alone*)

Rail tunnel disruption (days per year) (rail alone*)

Simultaneous road and rail disruption (days per year)

0.60

0.13

0.41

2045

0.96

0.15

0.46

Acceptable

Disruption

6.50

0.60

Table 2-3 Tunnel disruption in days per year (* does not include simultaneous disruption)

From Table 2-3 it is seen that it is acceptable to disrupt the railway 0.6 days a year. This

disruption may come from an event disrupting the rail alone or an event giving a simultaneous

disruption.

2.5

Environmental risk

No environmental risks have been identified.

In general all spillage (from e.g. trains/vehicles with dangerous goods) will be collected in the

drainage system from where it will be pumped to vehicles and handled in a proper way.

A scenario where the environment could be affected by e.g. dangerous goods is if the tunnel

collapses (e.g. caused by explosion). In this case some, considering the case, relative small

amount of substances will be able to flow into the sea. However, considering all other

consequences of a tunnel collapse, which will happen extremely rare, this consequence will be

relative low. The tunnel is high safety class and can withstand a very high overpressure.

2.6

Maintenance risk

Railway maintenance personal is included in the acceptance criteria for rail employees, which is a

group of persons defined in relation to the railway system in the CST and NRV’s.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

4/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Persons carrying out maintenance work according to strict procedures. The following hazards that

may occur have been identified:

1) Person(s) injured/killed by electrocution by the overhead catenary system

2) Person(s) injured/killed by falling e.g. on stairs

3) Person(s) injured/killed due to train in motion

(1) Is not different than any other railway section/line in Denmark/Germany with an overhead

catenary system, and the work is carried out under legislation such as the High Voltage

Directive (The National Electrical Code Standard Handbook).

(2) Workers doing maintenance work will walk and use stairs. The risk of falling is of course

present. Stairs will, however, be designed following standard health and safety legislation,

e.g. Consolidation act on the Working Environment

(In Danish: Arbejdsmiljøloven).

(3) Is not covered by the quantitative risk model.

Because no quantitative risk model is carried out for 3),

it is important that there is some “room”

for risk in relation to maintenance personal in the acceptance criteria for employees.

For a detailed list of hazards, see ref. [33].

2.7

Unauthorized persons on railway premises

Unauthorized persons are a group of persons defined in relation to the railway system in the CST

and NRV’s.

Unauthorized persons are persons that deliberately gain access to the railway part of the system

without being authorized. One can imagine the following situations:

On or more persons “surf” on the outside of the train. The person can e.g. get access to this

on a station near the tunnel.

2) Graffiti painters.

3) One or more persons choose to enter the railway area and follow the track in order to walk to

the other side of the tunnel using the railway track.

4) Persons that cross the railway track on the landsides.

The area around the tunnel will have a fence and signs, etc. so no persons will enter the area

without knowing that it is not allowed.

Train surfers (1) and graffiti-painters (2) that deliberately choose to go into the system knowing

very well the danger of the actions they do. Other persons along the track (3) will be similar to

(1) and (2).

A detailed list of hazards can be found in ref. [33].

Considering the location of the tunnel far away from larger cities, it is assessed that the likelihood

of occurrence of the identified hazards are less than in other/similar railway sections/lines in

Denmark/Germany. Hence, the risk for these types of events is considered not worse than the

average safety level in Denmark/Germany.

2.8

“Others”

“Others” is a group of persons defined in relation to the railway system in the CST and NRV’s.

For this railway system the users of

the road part will be considered as “others”.

An explosion in

the railway part is an example of an event, where people in the road part may be affected.

Neighbors are considered to be so far away from the tunnel portals that they will not be affected

by accidents with dangerous goods (toxic gasses or smoke) in the tunnel.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

5/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Cars which are stopped outside the tunnel in case of an accident in the tunnel will be stopped by

barriers approximately 400 m outside the tunnel on the German side and approximately 250 m

outside the tunnel on the Danish side. It is assumed, that procedures will ensure that no people

in the cars will be affected by accidents with dangerous goods (toxic gasses or smoke) in the

tunnel even though a large toxic release inside the tunnel probably can affect people 250 m

outside the tunnel.

This means that only people on the road part of the system will be included in the risk

assessment

of “others”.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

6/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

SAFETY TARGETS AND RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The consequences of each of the selected hazards and accidents are assessed against a number

of key criteria. These are presented and described in detail in ref. [3] and shown in Table 3-1.

Safety target

1. Individual risk to road users

2. Individual risk to rail passengers (NRV1.1)

3. Individual risk to rail employees (NRV 2)

4. Risk to level crossing users (NRV 3)

5. Risk to others (NRV 4)

6. Risk to unauthorised persons on premises (NRV 5)

7. Third party risk

8. Societal risk (composed of 1 to 7)

9. Risk of disruption

10. Environmental risk

Table 3-1 Safety targets

Measure

FAT/Year

FWSI/Year

FAT/Year,

F-N representation

Days/Year

F-N representation

Euro/Year

Related to

Road

Rail

Road and rail

Road and Rail

Furthermore, for all hazards the repair cost has been estimated. However, no risk acceptance

criteria have been setup with respect to cost.

3.1

FAT to FWSI conversion factors

In previous versions of the ORA, the risk has been estimated as a number of fatalities. However,

railway safety targets are measured in terms of Fatalities and Weighted Serious Injuries (FWSI)

per year. The connection between fatalities (FAT), FWSI and serious injuries (SI) can be

estimated on basis of data for accidents, showing a number of fatalities and serious injuries.

The following relation illustrates the connection:

where:

Based on the above relations between FWSI and FAT, a conversion factor can be estimated for

each of the safety targets relating to rail, so that conversion can be summarized in a single

factor:

is defined in ref. [30] and ref. [31] to 0.1, i.e. 10 seriously injured weights as 1 fatality. W

differs for each of the safety targets relating to rail and have been estimated in ref. [29]. The

resulting conversion factors are shown in Table 3-2.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

7/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Safety target

Passengers

Employees

Level crossing users

Unauthorized persons

Other persons

Abbreviation

passenger

employee

level crossing

unauthorized

others

Conversion factor

1.4

1.05

1.04

1.1

Table 3-2 FAT to FWSI conversion factors for rail, ref. [29]

The conversion factors will be used to estimate the number of FWSI based on FAT.

For road users the corresponding W

is found from ref. [5], and the resulting conversion factor is

shown in Table 3-3.

Safety target

Raod users

Table 3-3 FAT to FWSI conversion factors for road

Abbreviation

road

Conversion factor

1.6

3.2

Quantified acceptance criteria

Detailed calculations for establishing quantified acceptance criteria have been presented in ref.

[3]. The results are summarized in Table 3-4.

Risk Acceptance Criteria

Risk to road users (FAT/passage)

Risk to rail passengers (FWSI/year)

Risk to employees (FWSI/year)

Risk to level crossing users (FWSI/year)

Risk to others (FWSI/year)

Risk to unauthorized persons on premises (FWSI/year)

Third party risk (FWSI/year)

Societal risk (FAT/year)

Risk of disruption to road (days/year)

Risk of simultaneous disruption (days/year)

Environmental risk (Euro/year)

Table 3-4 Overview of the risk acceptance criteria

2025

0.223

3.09·10

-3

1.09·10

-2

3.67·10

-3

0.136

1.64

6.5

0.6

2045

0.174

3.09·10

-3

1.49·10

-2

4.98·10

-3

0.185

2.70

6.5

0.6

3.3

Cost of safety targets

According to the latest recommendations from the Danish Ministry of Finance (“Høringsversion af

vejledning til samfundsøkonomisk analyse fra Finansministeriet”) the value of a statistical life

(VSL) is 16 million DKK or approximately 2.1 million Euros in 2007 prices. This corresponds to

2.3 million Euros in 2009 prices.

The value from “Høringsversion af vejledning til samfundsøkonomisk analyse fra

Finansministeriet” is recommended as the preference value to be used for fatalities.

This

corresponds to 2025 and 2045 values in 2025 prices as given in Table 3-5.

2025

3.1

2045

4.3

Cost of one fatality, Million Euro

Table 3-5 Cost of fatalities in million Euros in 2025 prices

The cost of disruption relates to the extra cost for the society and the owners loss due to the

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

8/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

disruption. The societal cost is described by the extra time and distance that the users of the Link

are subject to in case of shorter or larger disruptions.

The basic assumption is that the traffic (both road and rail) will be lead over the route of the

Great Belt Bridge in case of closure of the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link. The traffic is for simplicity

assumed to go through Copenhagen and Hamburg. Possible remedial transport in case of very

long disruptions is disregarded when assessing the cost values.

The calculated disruption costs are calculated based on unit prices for traffic economy issued by

the Danish Ministry of Transport, see ref. [11]. In general there is an initial cost for an event

causing disruption. This “start-up” cost is indicated in

Table 3-6.



Initial start-up

cost Per event (€m)

Road

2025

2045

0.08

0.14

Rail

2025

0.06

2045

0.12

Entire link

2025

2045

0.14

0.26

Table 3-6 Initial cost of an event causing disruption of part of or the entire link in million Euros in 2025

prices

Having an initial cost per disruption implies that longer disruptions are less expensive per day,

than shorter disruptions. In Table 3-7 are indicated the disruption costs for a day, a week, a

month, six months and a year.



Societal disruption

cost Million Euros

Per day

Per week

Per month

Six Months

A year

Road

2025

1.66

11.14

47.45

288.43

576.43

2045

3.13

21.07

89.74

545.815

1,090.23

2025

0.71

4.54

14.31

116.86

171.46

Rail

2045

1.27

8.24

28.47

211.82

342.7

Entire link

2025

2045

2.37

4.4

16.96

30.87

66.79

124.51

439.48

799.43

810.98

1,511.97

Table 3-7 Societal cost of disruption of part of or the entire link in million Euros in 2025 prices

It is seen that closing the entire link is relatively more costly than closing either the road or the

rail individually. This is because some transport originally planned for the closed part, can use the

non-closed part instead e.g. road tunnel users can go by train or freight can be transported by

road instead of rail.

The owners' loss due to disruption is calculated on basis of the expected income for 2025 (1871

million DKK) from ref. [12], and it is extrapolated to 2045 based on ref. [11].

Expected owners loss

2025

in €m (ex VAT)

Per day

Road part

2025

2045

0.560

0.836

Railway part

2025

2045

0.129

0.192

Entire link

2025

2045

0.662

1.060

Table 3-8 Owner loss due to disruption of part of or the entire link in million Euros in 2025 prices

Owners’ loss is assumed to be linearly dependent on time; hence the owners’ loss per week

equals 7 times the loss for one day. In case of disrupting the entire link the owners' loss in 2025

and 2045 has been scaled similarly to the societal costs.

In addition to the owner’s loss the cost of repairing after an accident must be assessed. The costs

are completely dependent on the type of accident, and hence these repair cost considerations are

described in the sections covering the consequences of the different accidents.

Environmental damage is assumed related to clearing and cleanup of an oil spill. The SAFEDOR

values ref. [10] which is also used in the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link Navigational Studies ref. [8] is

recommended used. This will also provide consistency in the assessments. Thus, a cost of 13,100

USD in 2006 prices equal to 9,200 € per spilled tonne of oil will be used. Other spills will

- if

relevant - be related to oil spill prices.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

9/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

A rough extrapolation of this cost of environmental damage is presented in Table 3-9. Please

note that the number in principle only covers the cleanup cost.

2025

13,200

2045

17,900

Clean up cost per tonne , Euros

Table 3-9 Environmental damage in Euros in 2025 prices

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

10/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

CONSEQUENCE MODELLING

The following chapter describes the calculations and assessments carried out in order to assess

the consequences of different events.

In order to assess the consequences of a given event, some issues are important to address,

namely:



Which safety target is affected by the accident?

Road users (fatalities)

Rail users (fatalities)

Disruption



Road part (alone)



Rail part (alone)



Simultaneous disruption of rail and road

Repair costs

Population at the accident site

What is the traffic intensity at the time of the accident (e.g. difference between day

and night)

Rush hour traffic (peak our traffic)

For train accidents, the number of passengers on the train(s) are important

Location - where has the accident occurred?

On the landsides

In the enclosed tunnel

For railway accidents, evacuation procedures will be slightly different in the two

railway tubes

Distance to emergency exits



4.1

Population distributions

In the event of an incident it is important to identify the population at the time of the accident

and this is especially important when there is an ongoing risk to life safety such as a fire or toxic

release. In the following sections the figures for road and railway are presented.

4.1.1

Road

The road tunnel population as defined by ref. [27] is shown in Table 4-1.

Road Traffic

Annual average daily traffic (AADT)

[vehicles/day]

Cars

Cars (professional activities) 30%

Cars (private use) 70%

Lorries

Buses

Average person per vehicle

Cars (professional activities)

Cars (private use)

Lorries

Buses

Average load per lorry in tons

Table 4-1 Road tunnel traffic forecast and population

2025

11723

9819

2946

6873

1751

153

2.4

1.2

2.9

1.0

35.0

15.5

2045

19288

15221

4566

10655

3851

215

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

11/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

These figures for daily traffic flow and number of occupants per vehicle are average values. In

the event of an incident the average occupancy is taken and sensitivity studies assessing higher

or lower occupancy loading has not been considered at this time.

4.1.1.1

Average number of people in the road tubes in case of an road accidents

The traffic data forms the basis of the estimated number of passengers within the road tunnel in

case of an accident. At first a representative average number of vehicles are estimated from the

day, night and peak hour traffic on Scandlines ferries between Rødby and Puttgarden. The

statistics from Scandlines (see Figure 4-1) show that there is peak hour traffic intensity for 5

hours a day, daytime traffic intensity for 12 hours and night time traffic intensity for 7 hours. The

distributions are presented in Table 4-2.

Traffic distribution over day

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0%

Hour

Figure 4-1 Traffic distribution over a day based on Scandlines data

2025

Traffic

Day time traffic

(excl. Peak hour)

6-9, 13-22

Peak hour traffic

10-15

Night time traffic

0-5, 23

Total

Percentage

Vehicles

Average

value per

hour

504

826

221

Vehicles

2045

Average

value per

hour

829

1359

364

52%

35%

13%

100%

5723

4129

1871

11723

9416

6793

3079

19288

Table 4-2 Traffic distribution on road

Choosing the middle of the tunnel as a representative location for accidents the number of cars

upstream of accident in the tunnel can be estimated. The estimate is based on the assumption of

an average speed of 90 km/h.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

12/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Furthermore it is assumed that the traffic into the tunnel will be stopped after 2 minutes. The

estimated time to have the traffic stopped is short, but is based on the presence of the traffic

management system and VAID system to be provided in the tunnels.

Assuming that accidents occur at the middle of the tunnel on average the number of vehicles in a

queue is calculated by the following formula:

�½







3600

: vehicles in a queue

: time to stop traffic in case of an accident (120 s)

: time to drive to the middle of the tunnel at average speed, (364 s)

: vehicles per hour per tube

If the stopping time is taken as 2 minutes and the traffic volume is taken as average daytime

traffic, the number of vehicles and persons in the queue is presented in Table 4-3.

Vehicles in

queue

Cars

Buses

Lorries

Passengers

per vehicle

2.4

35.0

1.0

Number of

vehicles

72.7

1.1

13.0

Total

People in the tunnel

–

Average of 2025 and 2045

173.9

39.7

13.0

226.5

Table 4-3 Average number of vehicles and occupants in a queue in 2 tubes in case of an accident

4.1.2

Rail

The rail tunnel population as defined by ref. [27] is shown in Table 4-4.

Rail Traffic

Average number of freight trains per day

Average number of passenger trains per day

Passengers per passenger train

Operators/workers on passenger train

Operators/workers on freight train

Average load per freight wagon (ton)

Number of wagons per freight train

2025

17.7

2045

132

Table 4-4 Rail tunnel forecast and number of passengers per train

These figures for daily traffic flow and number of occupants per train are average values. In the

event of an incident the average occupancy is taken and sensitivity studies assessing higher or

lower occupancy loading has not been considered at this time, as the acceptance criterion is

defined with the average number of trains and persons.

4.1.2.1

Circumstances given a large accident

Considering a large accident in the modelling, e.g., explosion, grounding ship and other events

that may lead to tunnel collapse, it is important to know the circumstances for the accident. In

order to estimate the number of fatalities it is important to know how many cars and trains (and

the corresponding number of passengers) are expected to be present in the tunnel at the time of

the accident.

Analysing the train schedule for 2025, which is described in ref. [21], it is possible to estimate

how many persons are present in a single railway tube at a given time, when the number of

persons per train from Table 4-4 is used. The result is shown in Table 4-5.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

13/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Trains present in a single tube

3 trains in tube

2 trains (Freight-Freight)

2 trains (Freight-Pass. or Pass.-Freight)

2 trains (Pass.-Pass.)

1 train (Freight)

1 train (Pass.)

Total time with trains in tube

Time without trains in tube

Number of

employees

Average number

of passengers

190

Fraction of time

1,78%

0,60%

0,05%

34,70%

11,44%

48,56%

51,44%

Table 4-5 Fraction of time with different train scenarios

If the accident is caused by an external factor (e.g. a grounding ship leading to tunnel

leakage/flooding) the number of persons (both passengers and employees) in the railway part

can be estimated using the table.

Assuming (conservatively) that in these “catastrophic” scenarios that 95% of the persons in the

tunnel will be fatalities, a distribution for the expected number of fatalities for passengers are

given in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7.

Passengers

Mean

21,83

87,92%

0,96%

100

5,91%

300

5,21%

Total

100,00%

Table 4-6 Distribution of 95% of the expected number of passengers on railway in both railway tubes

Mean

1,20

Employees

53,17%

20,14%

23,88%

2,81%

100

300

Total

100,00%

Table 4-7 Distribution of 95% of the expected number of employees on railway in both railway tubes

It is seen that on average over time 21.8 railway passengers are present at the same time in the

tunnel, while the corresponding number on average for employees is 1.2.

Whenever a specific train is involved in the accident, i.e., if an explosion is caused by a freight

train carrying dangerous goods then, this information is taken into account. Knowing that one

freight train is already present in the tunnel the conditional probabilities that one or more train is

present can be estimated on basis of Table 4-5. Furthermore, it is taken into account if the

accident is a derailment or a collision. Finally, the possible dangerous goods restriction is also

taken into account and the impact it has on the presence of passengers when there is a large

accident.

4.2

Fatalities on road and rail

The number of fatalities (and hence FWSIs using the relations in section 3.1) for a given event is

modelled based on a scale from zero through to the maximum number of occupants. The

majority of ordinary road accidents will lead to no fatalities. Conversely for a large toxic release

the probability of there being fatalities is higher. For all distributions for all the modelled events

see Appendix D.

As an example, ordinary accidents are assessed by means of the numbers presented in Table

4-8.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

14/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Individual risk

[fatalities]

Probability

95.68%

4.22%

0.10%

100

300

Table 4-8 Example scale used for assessing number of fatalities and the distribution

In general these assessments are carried out on the basis of statistics, whenever available, and

when no information has been available, best engineering judgements have been made. In the

example given in Table 4-8 there is

–

given an accident - 95.7% chance that there are no

fatalities, 4.2% of 1 fatality, 0.1% of 3 fatalities etc. This gives an average of 0.019 fatalities per

accident.

For each accident scenario the probabilities in Table 4-8 are assessed for both road and rail,

respectively. The reason for assessing the distribution, and not only using the average value, is

to be able to represent the results by means of FN-curves, see e.g. ref. [4].

4.2.1

Disruption road and rail

Disruption times on road and rail in the event of an incident are assessed in a similar way to

fatalities with an example shown in Table 4-9.

Disruption time

[days per year]

Probability

75%

20%

180

365

Table 4-9 Example scale used for assessing the distribution of disruption time

In the example given in Table 4-9 the average disruption time is about 0.6 days per year

corresponding to about 15 hours. The tables are assessed for both road and rail.

4.2.2

Repair costs

Besides assessing the disruption time, the costs of repairing the tunnel after an accident must be

assessed. This is measured on similar scales as fatalities and disruption; presented in Table 4-10.

Repair cost [Euro]

Probability

20%

70%

10%

Table 4-10 Example scale used for assessing the repair cost distribution

The distribution in Table 4-10 leads to an average cost of

1.72∙10

Euro.

4.3

Road

In the following sections the consequences of all events occurring in the road part of the tunnel

are presented, these are:



Ordinary traffic accidents

Ordinary accidents involving dangerous goods

Fire

For each of the accidents the following parameters are assessed (if applicable):



The distribution of fatalities

The distribution of disruption time

Road part alone

Simultaneously disruption of road and rail

Repair costs



It is underlined that these distributions are assessed based on statistics available and best

engineering judgements. All assumptions made, are presented in the suitable sections.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

15/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.3.1

Ordinary road accidents

Ordinary road accidents are for example colliding cars and normal traffic accidents. In the

modelling these accidents have been divided into accidents involving cars, buses and trucks

respectively. The latter leads to different consequences depending on if dangerous goods are

involved; this is dealt with in section 4.3.2.

In general it is assumed that ordinary accidents (not leading to fires, explosions or release of

dangerous goods) are relevant for the individual risk on road, disruption risk on road and on

repair costs. Hence, the accidents do neither lead to fatalities nor disruption of the railway part.

4.3.1.1

Individual risk road

Data for fatalities on motorways has been collected from 1998 to 2009 by the Danish Road

Directorate. However, the statistics include accidents that are not representative for the

Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link tunnel. By using the VIS-database a range of accidents have been

excluded, namely those including the following objects:



Accidents as an example include pedestrians, horses and mopeds



Turning accidents



Accidents in crossings



Accidents that occurs with opposite traffic



Accidents that occurs because of slippery roads caused by snow or ice

When these accidents were excluded from normal motorway accidents it resulted in a 12.6

percentage lower fatality rate per accident. The resulting fatality rates are shown in Table 4-11.

2025

0.029

2045

0.019

Average number of fatalities per accident

Table 4-11 Distribution of fatalities in ordinary road accidents on Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link Tunnel

The values have been distributed according to different types of accidents with assumptions

made for larger accidents which are typically not seen in the statistics.

It is underlined that statistics for accidents involving different vehicles types, such as cars, buses

and trucks were investigated in order to see if there was any difference in the average number of

fatalities in an accident. However, there was a small tendency that when a larger vehicle (bus or

truck) was involved the average number of fatalities was slightly and not significantly larger.

Hence, for simplicity the same fatality distribution has been used in the consequence modelling

for cars, buses and trucks.

4.3.1.2

Disruption risk and repair costs

In general there is not data available about for how long a time an ordinary accident will disrupt

the link and therefore engineering judgement has been made. Similarly values for the repair

costs are not readily available and have been assumed.

In general it is assumed that ordinary traffic accidents (not leading to fires, explosions or release

of dangerous goods) may lead to some downtime but do not lead to significant repair costs as

shown in Table 4-12.

Vehicle type

Car

Truck

Bus

Mean disruption

time [min]

120

Mean repair

costs [Euro]

2500

5000

Table 4-12 Average disruption time for a traffic accident

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

16/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

It is noted that the values are average values for all accidents; some accidents will only disrupt

the traffic for a few minutes taking the vehicle(s) to the emergency lanes while other accidents

will lead to longer disruption times.

4.3.2

Road accidents involving dangerous goods

A fraction of the traffic accidents involve vehicles transporting dangerous goods. This implies that

some of the accidents will lead to release of toxic, flammable or explosive materials. In order to

assess the consequences of a release of such materials, CFD-modelling has been carried out for

representative substances. This includes dispersion analyses of LPG, chlorine and ammonia. The

consequences of selected release sizes are computed by means of the air-concentrations at given

locations of the given substances in the tubes. The results of the modelling are presented in ref.

[3].

Comparing the release characteristics with the population at the accident time and location in the

tunnel estimation of the number of fatalities can be carried out.

The persons at risk when there is a release can be divided into three groups:



The truck driver

People downstream the release

People upstream the release

In general people downstream are supposed to drive out of the tunnel (with a significantly higher

speed than the release propagates).

People upstream of the release are in general safe as long as the ventilation system works

properly. For the ventilation system an uptime (availability) of 99% has been assumed. There will

be some back-layering of the gases, the extent of which depends on the initial velocity of the

wind speed in the tunnel (which again depends on the traffic amount) and the length of time it

will take for the ventilation system to reach the critical velocity.

The truck driver is in general very exposed, due to that he will be located downstream the

release. Conservatively it is assumed that the truck driver will be fatally injured in these

scenarios.

4.3.2.1

Release of ammonia

4.3.2.1.1

Human impact

The human impact has been assessed by using the probit function to establish the LC50 and ppm

value for ammonia as described in section 9.1.6.2. In the consequence assessment for road, it is

assumed that by the time the air in the car has an ammonia concentration on 5 ppm (odour

threshold), the air outside the car has reached the final concentration calculated by the CFD

modelling, see section 9.1.5.2.The final concentration is of 4.200 ppm given a small release and

a concentration of 40.000 ppm given a medium release.

The number of fatalities depends on the number of people in the tunnel. As presented in section

9.1.5.3, a medium release of ammonia gives a concentration of 40.000 ppm. Without ventilation

this gives the people in the road tunnel between a half and one minute to evacuate into the

central gallery. Similar to the evacuation study related to fire, see section 4.3.3.1.2, a pre-

movement time of 60 seconds has been assumed and a walking speed of 1.2 m/s. The time it

takes to evacuate the persons from the road tube depends on the number of passengers. There

are on average 61 passengers in the tube.

Based on the evacuation assessment for fire in the road part, see section 4.3.3.1.2, it will take 2

minute and 24 seconds to evacuate a total of 113 passengers (the passengers in a region of 200

m behind the accident). This is a larger number of passengers then what are expected to be in

the tunnel following a toxic release. However, the toxic gas may induce the passengers to move

less rapidly, it is assumed that it will on average take 2 minute and 24 seconds to evacuate the

61 passengers as well.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

17/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

The LC 50 calculations show that 50% of the passengers will die because of the ammonia gas if

they are exposed during more than 1 minute given the concentration of 40,000 ppm. It is

assessed that 50% of the passengers will be able to evacuate in one minute and that 50% of the

remaining 50% will be killed by the gas. This gives an additional 25% fatality probability from a

medium release of ammonia. It is assumed that a large release will give a higher concentration

and hence that it will give a 50% higher additional fatality probability; of total 38%. Taking

ventilation into account the fatalities are reduced by 99%. This is due to the ventilation system

blowing the gas release away from the queued traffic. In Table 4-13 the results distributed on

accident types are presented.

Consequence type

Ventilation failure

(1% probability)

Ammonia release

Ventilation ok

(99% probability)

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Average number of fatalities

0.03

56.66

84.97

0.0003

0.57

0.85

Table 4-13 Average fatalities as a consequence of dangerous goods accident resulting in release of

ammonia in road tunnel

4.3.2.1.2

Disruption and repair cost

described in section 9.1.5.3.1 the road tunnel will also need to be cleaned after a toxic release

washing the interior with water. The concrete, asphalt and different installations may need to

replaced. It is assessed that the repair costs is estimated to on average €5000.

The tunnel will be closed on between 2.5 to 4.5 hours given a release of ammonia, which is the

downtime during cleaning of the tunnel.

4.3.2.2

Chlorine release

4.3.2.2.1

Human impact

The human impact has been assessed by using the probit function to establish the LC50 and ppm

value for chlorine as described in section 9.1.6.2. In the consequence assessment for road it is

assumed that by the time the air in the car has a chlorine concentration of 0.2 ppm (odour

threshold), the air outside the car has reached the final concentration calculated by the CFD

modelling, see section 9.1.5.2. The modelling results in a concentration of 4,200 ppm given a

small release and a concentration of 40,000 ppm given a medium release.

The number of fatalities depends on the number of people in the tunnel. A concentration of

1,000 ppm can be fatal after a few deep breaths of the gas, it is assessed that very few

passengers will be able to evacuate into the adjacent road tube (or central gallery) before they

are affected by the gas. In section 4.4.3.1.1 it has been assumed that it will take a minimum of 1

minute to evacuate a car after the gas has been detected. It is assessed that this is also the case

after a release of chlorine, it is therefore assessed that there will be an additional fatality

probability of 50% caused by a medium chlorine release. It is assumed that a large release will

give a higher concentration and it is assumed that it will give a 50% higher additional fatality

probability of in total 75%. Taking ventilation into account the average number of fatalities are

reduced by 99%. In Table 4-14 the result distributed on accident types is presented.

Consequence type

Chlorine release

Ventilation

failure (1%)

Ventilation ok

(99%)

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Average number of fatalities

0.03

113.29

169.92

0.0003

1.13

1.70

Table 4-14 Average fatalities as a consequence of dangerous goods accident resulting in release of

chlorine in the road tunnel

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

18/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.3.2.2.2

Disruption and repair cost

The disruption time and repair costs are assumed to be the same as for ammonia, see section

4.3.2.1.

Hence, repair costs are estimated to cost on average €5000

and a disruption of 2.5 to

4.5 hours, which is the estimated down time for cleaning.

4.3.2.3

Corrosive release

In this section the assessment of consequences following a dangerous goods accident which could

lead to a release of corrosives in the road tube is presented.

4.3.2.3.1

Human impact

As described in section 9.1.4.1 it is assessed that there will not be any additional fatalities due to

a corrosive release, and the consequences are therefore estimated to be the same as for an

ordinary truck accidents.

4.3.2.3.2

Disruption and repair cost

The disruption time and repair costs are assumed to be the same as for ammonia and chlorine

see section 4.3.2.1.

Hence, repair costs are estimated to cost on average €5000

and a disruption

of 2.5 to 4.5 hours, which is the estimated down time for cleaning.

4.3.2.4

Explosions

4.3.2.4.1

Human impact

As described in section 9.2 explosions caused by solid explosions, vapour cloud explosions and

BLEVEs are assumed all to give the same consequences; namely collapse of a single tunnel

element. This is an assumption since an explosion may cause collapse of more than one element.

A collapse of one tunnel element due to an explosion in a road tube will affect vehicles and trains

in the adjacent tube as well as the other tubes. It is assumed that the accident occurs in the

middle of the road tunnel. Vehicles in both road tubes, which have just passed the collapsing

element, are assumed to be able to drive out of the tunnel, while all trains in the tunnel will be

affected. Conservatively assumed the accident leads to a 95% fatality rate inside in both road

tubes for vehicles approaching the element and 95% fatalities for all trains in the tunnel. See

section 4.1.2.1 for information on the presence of passengers during an accident.

The injuries and fatalities in the road part due to an explosion in the railway part is considered as

“others”. See section

2.8 for details.

4.3.2.4.2

Disruption and repair cost

Estimated repair time is assumed about one year, where the entire tunnel has to be closed for

traffic during the repairing period.

The repair cost

is estimated to €500 million.

4.3.3

Fire - road

Four event trees with a range of scenarios have been setup for the enclosed tunnel part and four

event trees covering the landsides; covering fire in cars, buses, HGVs and DGVs. For each of the

fire scenarios it has been estimated how often a fire is detected, if the suppression system works

and if ventilation works. For all four vehicle types this leads to a total of 44 fire scenarios in the

enclosed tunnel part, and in total 8 scenarios on the landsides. The reason for having fewer

scenarios on the landsides in the enclosed tunnel is simply due to the lack of mechanical

ventilation and automatic suppression on the landsides.

4.3.3.1

Safety to users

For each of the scenarios the population in the area of the fire is considered taken into account

the tenability criteria, described in the next section.

4.3.3.1.1

Tenability criteria

The tenability criteria describe the various parameters and at which levels people are expected to

die, regarding:

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

19/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES



Visibility

Thermal radiation

Convective temperature

CO concentration

The criteria have been chosen to be the following conservative values, ref. [16]:



Visibility = 5 m



Convective temperature = 100°C



Thermal radiation = 2.5 kW/m



CO Concentration = 1150 ppm

These criteria are used in the modelling in order to identify fatalities such that if a person is

located in a region where the visibility is less than 5 m or in a region with convective temperature

of 100

C, then that person will be considered a fatality.

4.3.3.1.2

Evacuation modelling

Detailed evacuation modelling has been carried out using the Legion software, ref. [7], which

takes into account:



geometry of the tunnel,

location of emergency exits,

walking speeds

how vehicles queue up upstream the fire

congestion and queuing of occupants

pre-movement characteristics (time before people starts to evacuate)

In general it is assumed that users are in safe areas in the non-incident tubes and in the central

gallery. In order to be conservative, it is assumed that vehicles queue up quickly after the fire

has started. In reality even with low volumes of traffic it will take a few minutes to fill up a

distance of, say, 200 m behind the incident. This implies that the results are independent of the

traffic volume, which again implies that the consequences following from a fire are the same in

2025 and 2045 (regardless that the traffic figures differ).

Important parameters used in the modelling are:



Distance between emergency exits: 100 m

Average walking speed of occupants: 1.2 m/s

The results of the evacuation modelling are that only 9 of the scenarios lead to fatalities see ref.

[16]. The scenarios are presented in Table 4-15 .

Description

Car

Bus

DGV

HGV

Fire Size (MW)

350

200

Detection

Suppression

Ventilation

Fatalities

Table 4-15 The nine fire scenarios in the road part leading to fatalities

It is seen that fatalities will occur if both the detection system as well as the ventilation system

must fail. In all scenarios a fire growth rate has been assumed which is identical regardless of the

maximum fire size. In this respect, during an evacuation, occupants are exposed to identical

conditions. It is only after the evacuation has been completed that the fire continues to grow to a

much large fire size. Hence where fatalities are expected the number of fatalities is taken to be

the same regardless of the maximum fire size.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

20/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.3.3.2

Disruption and repair costs due to fires, enclosed tunnel

All fire scenarios are assumed to have a maximum heat release rate, measured in MW

(Megawatts), and it is assumed that the consequences, in terms of disruption as well as repair

costs, are related to peak fire size.

In ref. [6] the length of disruption and the repair costs are assessed for a 50MW fire and a

200MW fire if the fire incident is in the enclosed tunnel. These figures for disruption lengths and

repair costs are primarily based on statistical data for fire incidents in tunnels where suppression

systems have not been installed. Hence these figures are conservative upper limits. The selected

figures for different fire sizes relevant for the fire modelling can be seen in Table 4-16.

Peak Fire size

[MW]

2.5

200

350

Mean repair cost

[Euro]

1,500

9,375

96,000

337,500

600,000

1,350,000

15,000,000

60,000,000

105,000,000

Mean disruption,

incident tube

[days]

0.2

0.4

0.6

Mean disruption,

non-incident tubes

[hours]

12 (0.5 day)

84 (3.5 day)

168 (7 days)

Table 4-16 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes in enclosed tunnel

4.3.3.3

Disruption and repair costs due to fires, land sides

For the landsides, fires are not expected to lead to fatalities, due to the possibility of escaping

from the fire. Fires on landsides will, however, lead to disruption and to repair costs.

In general the repair costs and the disruption time will be much smaller if the fire is located on

the landsides comparing with consequences of fire in the enclosed tunnel part. This is primarily

due to that the amount of equipment is much larger in the enclosed tunnel part and that the

tunnel structure is not damaged by a fire outside the tunnel areas.

Disruption lengths and repair costs are assessed for a range of selected fire sizes relevant for the

fire modelling on the land side; the result can be seen in Table 4-17. In general it is assumed

that the repair costs for fires on landsides are 1/10 of the repair costs for a similar fire in the

enclosed tunnel part. For the same reasons the disruption time is much lower for fires on the land

sides. A fire on e.g. the road part of a land side is assumed not to have any impact on disruption

of the rail part, and vice versa. This is conservative

Fire size

[MW]

2.5

200

350

Mean repair cost

[Euro]

150.00

937.50

33,750.00

135,000.00

6,000,000.00

10,500,000.00

Mean disruption,

incident "tube"

[days]

0.2

0.4

0.5

Table 4-17 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes on the land sides

4.4

Rail

The consequence estimation for rail accidents has been divided into:



Ordinary rail accidents (derailments, train collisions and train-object collisions)

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

21/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES



4.4.1

Accidents involving dangerous goods

Fire (on rolling stock)

Consequence reducing measures

Derailment containment provisions are meant to mitigate the consequences of an initial

derailment. They guide the derailed vehicle, preventing it from deviating further from the track,

hitting other objects and turning over.

Derailment provisions will be installed in the tunnel by means of the elevated walkways, which

will be designed to have adequate geometry (height and lateral position) and strength.

4.4.2

Ordinary rail accidents

The consequence estimation for rail accidents has been divided into derailments and collisions.

Derailments have been divided into severe derailments, resulting in fatalities, and not severe

derailments. Collisions have been divided into severe collisions and not severe collisions and into

front-front collisions and front-end collisions.

4.4.2.1

Fatalities and injuries (FWSI)

The accident frequencies for collisions and train derailments are presented in ref. [1].

The maximum number of fatalities caused by ordinary railway accidents on the Fehmarnbelt

Fixed Link is estimated on the basis of the number of people present on the trains. From Section

4.1.2 it can be seen that



Only one person is assumed to be inside a freight train, namely the driver.

On average 95 passengers and two employees (the driver and one other personnel) is

assumed to be on passenger train.

Based on accident information from accidents in Europe, the distribution of fatalities in accidents

with fatalities has been assessed. The number of fatalities has been divided into collision between

trains, train collision with objects and derailments.

On basis of the statistics in ref. [34] the expected fatality fraction of the passengers, drivers and

employees in Table 4-18 is established.

Fatality percentage

Passengers

Driver

Employees

Derailment

Trains collision (front

–

end)

Trains collision (front

–

front)

Collision with object

8.70%

2.70%

5.40%

2.90%

54.90%

29.60%

59.20%

44.40%

8.70%

2.70%

5.40%

2.90%

Table 4-18 Fatality percentages for train accidents with fatalities.

The figures are to be understood in the following way. The derailment scenario either leads to a

severe accident causing fatalities or to a non-severe accident/incident causing no fatalities. In

those cases where the derailment is severe, a fraction of 8.7% the passengers will be fatalities

and similarly will the train driver die with a probability of 54.9%. It is underlined that these

probabilities hold for accidents with severe consequences, on average including all accidents a

much lower fraction of the passengers will die in a derailment.

Based on these data the average number of fatalities and FWSI for derailments, collisions

between trains and train collision with objects has been estimated and presented in Table 4-19.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

22/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Accident

type

Train(s) involved

Severity of

accident

Estimated

average number

of employee

FWSI

Estimated

average number

of passenger

FWSI

Derailment without

fatalities

Freight train

Derailment with

fatalities

Derailment

Derailment without

fatalities

Passenger train

Derailment with

fatalities

Front

–

end

Freight trains

Front

–

front

Front

–

end

Front

–

front

Front

–

end

Passenger trains

Front

–

front

Collision with no

fatalities

0.55

0.64

0.59

1.00

0.62

1.24

0.65

1.29

8.27

5.13

10.26

5.13

10.26

Passenger train/

freight train

Collision

All combinations

Passenger train

Train object

collision

Freight train

0.62

0.66

3.86

Front-object

Collision with no

fatalities

All combinations

Table 4-19 Accident scenarios for rail accidents and corresponding estimated average number of FWSI for

passengers and employees

For comparison the data used in the risk assessment for the Øresund link ref. [13] shows that a

derailment on average leads to between 0 and 5 fatalities, while an average fatality of 6 for

front-front collisions involving a passenger train and an average fatality of 3 for front–end

collision involving a passenger train.

4.4.2.2

Disruption

The disruption time given a collision and a derailment has been assessed based on available

accident information. In the estimation it has been assumed that an accident leading to several

fatalities will have a longer disruption time than an accident without any fatalities. However, it is

assumed that an accident resulting in a fire or a toxic release will have a long disruption

regardless of the number of fatalities.

4.4.2.2.1

Derailments

Clearing up after a non-severe derailment of a single wagon is estimated to take 4 to 6 hours,

namely (ref. [14]):

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

23/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES



1 hour for discovering the character of the problem,

2 hours for getting organized,

1 to 3 hours for doing the job.

4.4.2.2.2

Collisions

Clearing up after a train collision with no fatalities is estimated to take 6 hours on average, see

ref. [14]. It is assumed to cover both collisions between trains and train collision with objects.

Rescuing and clearing up after railway accidents with fatalities are estimated to take 24 hours on

average, ref. [14].

4.4.2.2.3

Disruption on road

For ordinary rail accidents that lead to fatalities on the rail, it is assessed that there will be a

disruption on the road as well. This is due to the fact that the road tube will be used for

evacuating passengers. The duration of the disruption on road depends on the severity of the

accident; the assumed disruption lengths are presented in Table 4-20.

The disruptions are assessed in terms of six severity classes 1 to 6, where 1 corresponds to the

shortest disruption time and 6 to the longest.

Disruption

Class

Example

Derailment of freight train with no fatalities

Derailment of passenger train with no fatalities

Front- end collision - freight trains

Front- end collision - passenger trains

Derailment/ Front-front collision passenger train with

fatalities

Front-front collision freight trains

Disruption

hours

Table 4-20 Road disruption consequences caused by ordinary rail accidents

4.4.2.3

Repair costs due to ordinary rail accidents

Based on estimated repair cost for fires on road, costs for ordinary rail accidents have been

estimated. It is assumed that a front- front collision with two passenger trains will damage the

rail tunnel to the same extent as a fire on road with fire size between 20MW and 30MW. The

other consequences have been assessed based on a comparison with the severity of front-front

collision with two passenger trains. The repair costs are presented in Table 4-21 again

represented with six consequence classes. It is underlined that the repair costs are only

considering damage to the tunnel, and not the rolling stock etc.

Tunnel damage class

Example

Derailment passenger train with no fatalities

Derailment freight trains with no fatalities

Front- end collision - no freight trains

Front- end collision - inv freight trains

Front-front collision passenger trains

Derailment/ Front-front collision with fatalities

involving freight train

Explosion

million €

0.01

0.05

0.1

0.5

500

Table 4-21 Consequences of repair costs for ordinary road and rail

4.4.3

Rail accidents involving dangerous goods

Similar to the modelling for the road a range of scenarios involving dangerous goods have been

modelled on the railway part. These include:

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

24/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES



Ammonia release

Chlorine release

Flammable liquids

LPG

Release of chlorine or ammonia in the rail tubes could be the result of an accident with a freight

train.

When estimating the consequences of an accident leading to e.g. a toxic release, fatalities due to

the “mechanical” accident (e.g. a collision) will not count as a fatality caused by dangerous

goods. Only the additional fatalities, due to the actual presence of dangerous goods will be

accounted as such.

4.4.3.1

Ammonia release

4.4.3.1.1

Human impact

The human impact due to an ammonia release on railway is similar to release on road, see

section 4.3.2.

The number of fatalities depends on the number of people in the tunnel. As presented in section

9.1.3 medium release of ammonia gives a concentration of 40.000 ppm and the average odour

threshold for ammonia is 5 ppm. This gives the train passengers between a half and one minute

to evacuate to the adjacent rail tube or the road tube.

Based on the evacuation assessment made for fire where a pre-movement distribution of

between 15 and 30 seconds (90% of occupants have 30 seconds pre-movement) and walking

speed is 1.2m/s. The time it takes to evacuate the rail tube depends on the number of

passengers. There are on average 95 passengers on a passenger train and based on the

evacuation assessment for fire on rail it will take 1 minute and 50 seconds for 95 passengers to

evacuate into the adjacent rail tube. It is assumed that after a collision or a derailment there

might be additional difficulties because of already injured passengers and doors that do not open.

It is therefore assessed that it will take 2 minutes to evacuate after a collision or a derailment.

The LC 50 (see appendix A in section 9) calculations show that 50% of the passengers will die

because of the ammonia gas if they are exposed during more than 1 minute given the

concentration of 40.000 ppm. It is assessed that 50% of the passengers will be able to evacuate

in one minute and that 50% of the remaining 50% will be killed by the gas. This gives an

additional 25% fatality probability from a medium release of ammonia. It is assumed that the

additional fatality probability is 50% higher for a large release then for a medium release which

gives a total 38% additional probability for fatalities after a large ammonia release. In Table 4-22

the result distributed on accident types is presented.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

25/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Accident type -

Train(s) involved

Severity of

accident

Estimated average

number of

employee FWSI

0.35

0.53

0.70

1.05

0.70

1.05

1.58

1.05

1.58

0.35

0.91

Estimated average

number of

passenger FWSI

33.25

49.88

33.25

49.88

Severe derailment -

freight train carrying

ammonia

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Front -

Medium

front

Large

Small

Front -

Medium

end

Large

Small

Front -

Medium

front

Large

Small release

Medium release

Large release

Front -

end

Collision - Two freight

trains one carrying

ammonia

Collision - Passenger

train/ freight trains one

carrying ammonia

Train-object collision with

freight train

Table 4-22 Estimated FWSI as a consequence of a freight train accident resulting in release of ammonia

in the railway tunnel

As presented in section 9.1.5.3 a small release gives no additional (to the fatalities due to the

“mechanical” accident)

fatalities, the number of fatalities in case of a small release is the same as

an ordinary rail accident.

4.4.3.1.2

Disruption and Repair Cost

The disruption time and repair costs are assumed to be the same as for ordinary collisions. It is

assumed that the cost for cleaning up after a toxic release is negligible compared to the repair

cost after a collision, see Table 4-21. Disruption on rail is also estimated to be the same as for

ordinary rail accidents, see Table 4-20.

4.4.3.2

Chlorine release

4.4.3.2.1

Human impact

The human impact due to an ammonia release on railway is similar to release on road, see

section 4.3.2.

The number of fatalities depends on the number of people in the tunnel. As presented in section

9.1.3 medium release of chlorine gives a concentration of 40.000 ppm and the average odour

threshold for chlorine is 0.2 ppm. This gives the train passengers between a half and one minute

to evacuate to the adjacent rail tube or to the central gallery.

Since a concentration of 1.000 ppm can be fatal after a few deep breaths (se section 9.1.6.2) of

the gas it is assessed that very few passengers will be able to evacuate into the adjacent rail

tube before they are affected by the gas. In section 4.4.3.1.1 it was assumed that it will take a

minimum of 1 minute to evacuate the train after the gas is detected. It is assessed that this is

also the case after a release of chlorine it is therefore assessed that there will be an additional

fatality rate of 50% which caused by medium chlorine release. In Table 4-23 the result

distributed on accident types is presented. It is assumed that the additional fatality probability is

50% higher for a large release then for a medium release which gives a total 75% additional

probability for fatalities after a large chlorine release.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

26/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Accident type -

Train(s) involved

Severity of

accident

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Front -

Medium

front

Large

Small

Front -

Medium

end

Large

Small

Front -

Medium

front

Large

Small release

Medium release

Large release

Front -

end

Estimated average

number of

employee FWSI

0.00

0.70

1.05

0.00

1.40

2.31

0.00

1.40

2.10

0.00

2.10

3.15

0.00

2.10

3.15

0.00

0.70

1.21

Estimated average

number of

passenger FWSI

0.00

66.50

99.75

0.00

66.50

99.75

Severe derailmant -

freight train carrying

chlorine

Collision - Two freight

trains one carrying

chlorine

Collision - Passenger

train/ freight trains one

carrying chlorine

Train-object collision with

freight train

Table 4-23 Estimated FWSI as a consequence of a freight train accident resulting in release of chlorine in

the railway tunnel

As presented in section 9.1.5.3, a small release gives no additional fatalities; the number of

fatalities in case of a small release is the same as an ordinary rail accident.

4.4.3.2.2

Disruption and repair cost

The disruption time and repair costs are assumed to be the same as for ordinary collisions. It is

assumed that the cost for cleaning up after a toxic release is negligible compared to the repair

cost after a collision, see Table 4-21. Disruption on rail is also estimated to be the same as for

ordinary rail accidents, see Table 4-20.

4.4.3.3

Corrosive release

4.4.3.3.1

Human impact

As described in section 9.1.4.1 it is assessed that there will not be any additional fatalities due to

an accident with corrosive release is therefore estimated to be the same as for ordinary rail

accidents involving freight trains.

4.4.3.3.2

Disruption and repair cost

The disruption time and repair costs are assumed to be the same as for ordinary collisions. It is

assumed that the cost for cleaning up after a toxic release is negligible compared to the repair

cost after a collision, see Table 4-21. Disruption on rail is also estimated to be the same as for

ordinary rail accidents, see Table 4-20.

4.4.3.4

Explosions

As described in section 9.2 explosions caused by solid explosions, vapour cloud explosions and

BLEVE are assumed to all give the same consequences; namely collapse of a single tunnel

element. This is an assumption since an explosion may cause collapse of more than one element.

A collapse of one tunnel element due to an explosion in one tube will affect trains and vehicles in

the accident tube as well as the other tubes. It is assumed that the accident occurs in the middle

of the tunnel. All trains in the tube with the explosion and the adjacent rail tube are assumed to

be affected as it is assumed, that the electrical systems will break down which means that the

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

27/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

trains cannot drive out of the tunnel. It is conservatively assumed that the accident leads to a

95% fatality rate for both tunnel tubes.

In Section 4.1.2.1 is described the estimated distribution of number of persons in the railway

tunnel.

Estimated repair time is assumed about one year. The entire tunnel has to be closed for traffic for

the repair time. The repair cost

is estimated to €500 million.

4.4.4

Modelling of dangerous goods restrictions

As described in ref. [1], the following restrictions will apply for dangerous goods transported on

railway:



Freight trains with RID-classified goods are only allowed in the tunnel, if there are no

passenger trains at the same track.

Freight trains with dangerous goods classified as RID class 1 or RID class 1.5 or 1.6 are

only allowed in the tunnel, when no other trains are in the tunnel, irrespective of tunnel

tube.

Freight wagons with dangerous goods classified as RID class 1 are only allowed to

transport 1000 kg explosive goods per train wagon.



The following general events will be affected by at least one of the restrictions:



Freight trains with RID-classified goods are only allowed in the tunnel, if there are no

passenger trains at the same track.

Collisions between passenger trains and freight trains carryings dangerous goods

will have their frequency set to 0.

No passengers will be present in the same tube

Freight trains with dangerous goods classified as RID class 1 or RID class 1.5 or 1.6 are

only allowed in the tunnel, when no other trains are in the tunnel, irrespective of tunnel

tube.

All train-train collision scenarios involving freight trains carrying explosives will

have their frequency set to 0.

The consequences of derailment and train-object collision scenarios involving

freight trains carrying explosives will be modified such that only fatalities among

employees on the freight train and road users are possible.

Freight wagons with dangerous goods classified as RID class 1 are only allowed to

transport 1000 kg explosive goods per train wagon.

This will not significantly affect the model in its current form, because it is

assessed that even 1000 kg of explosives will have a very large impact on the

tunnel structure and the persons inside the tunnel.



4.4.5

Fire

–

Rail

Detailed fire modelling has been carried out in order to establish the fire strategy, see ref. [16].

The fire modelling provides consequence inputs to the event trees for fire on:



Passenger trains



Freight trains



Fire in trains carrying dangerous goods

For the



passenger train and freight trains four different locations of the fire have been assumed:

Interior of train wagon

Under wagon

In engine

In roof

A probability for each of the fire locations has been assessed, namely interior (5%), engine

(40%), roof (40%) and under train wagon (15%).

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

28/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Evacuation analyses have been carried out for all the fire scenarios, see ref. [16]. The tenability

criteria chosen are similar as those for the road analyses, as described in section 4.3.3.1.1.

In general these analyses show that when there is average number of passengers on the train

(95 persons) the evacuation is efficient with little queuing. The same holds if there are 200

passengers on the train. If the maximum capacity is used (here assumed to be 588 passengers)

passengers will queue up at the exits and this will lead to a number of FWSI. A distribution for

the number of passenger has been proposed in appendix in C in section11; however, using the

distribution (a lognormal) the probability of having more than e.g. 350 passengers or more on a

train is less than 10

-7

. In order to ensure conservative estimates, the following assumptions are

made:



The number of fatalities on a train with 350 passengers is assumed to be the same as the

number of fatalities calculated on basis on a full train with 320 passengers.

The probability of having 350 passengers or more is assumed to be 0.1%

4.4.5.1

Disruption and repair costs due to fires, enclosed tunnel

All fire scenarios lead to a fire of a certain peak fire size, measured in MW (Megawatt). In the

consequence modelling, it assessed that for each peak fire size there are certain consequences in

terms of disruption as well as repair costs. Two factors are important when comparing

consequences of fires in the road and rail part:



Due to the fact that the train tube is smaller than the road tube, fires are expected to be

more intense and damage a longer section of tunnel.

Compared to road, restoring the rail tunnel after a fire will probably be more costly and

time consuming, due to strict validation and verification procedures in railway projects,

and because it is a more difficult and restricted working environment.

Due to these facts it is assumed that disruption time as well as repair costs are 50% higher than

for a similar fire in the road tube part. The results, i.e., assumed disruption time and repair costs

in the railway tube, are shown in Table 4-24.

Mean

disruption,

incident tube

[days]

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.5

10.5

135

Mean disruption,

other tubes

(non-incident tubes)

[hours]

18 (0.75 day)

126 (5.25 day)

252 (10.5 days)

Fire size

[MW]

2.5

200

350

Mean repair cost

[Euro]

2.250,00

14.062,50

144.000,00

506.250,00

900.000,00

2.025.000,00

22.500.000,00

90.000.000,00

157.500.000,00

Table 4-24 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes in enclosed tunnel

4.4.5.2

Disruption and repair costs due to fires, land sides

On landsides, fires are assessed not to lead to fatalities due to the possibility for escaping from

the fire. Fires on landsides will, however, lead to disruption and to repair costs.

In general the repair costs and the disruption time will be much smaller if the fire is located on

the landsides comparing with consequences of fire in the enclosed tunnel part. This is primarily

due to that the amount of equipment is much larger in the enclosed tunnel part and that the

tunnel structure is not damaged by a fire on the land sides.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

29/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Based on Table 4-24 disruption lengths and repair costs are assessed for a range of selected fire

sizes relevant for the fire modelling on the land side; the result can be seen in Table 4-25. In

general it is assumed that the repair costs for fires on landsides are 1/10 of the repair costs for a

similar fire in the enclosed tunnel part. For the same reasons the disruption time is much lower

for fires on the land sides. A fire on e.g. the rail part of a land side is assumed not to have any

impact on disruption of the road part, and vice versa.

Fire size

[MW]

2.5

200

350

Mean repair cost

[Euro]

225

1406

50625

202500

9000000

15750000

Mean disruption,

incident "tube"

[days]

0.3

0.6

0.75

2.25

Table 4-25 Assessed repair cost and disruption length for a range of fire sizes on the land sides

4.5

External events

The consequences of the external events are presented in the following sections.

4.5.1

Flooding

Due to predictions and forecasts flooding is very unlikely to cause any fatalities. The tunnel will

simply in these cases be shut down, causing a disruption.

4.5.1.1

Heavy rainfall

The tunnel has been designed for heavy rainfall, but not for extreme rain events, which are

expected to occur on average every 50 years. In these cases it is assumed that:



It will take a long time to fill the drainage system; the pumps will continuously try to

empty the drain during the rainfall.

Only in cases where the pumping capacity is too small or is not properly functioning, the

drainage system can be filled.

Also an alarm shall appear in the tunnel SCADA if the drainage system is in a position

which implies a risk for water on the rail tracks.

In those cases water can start to fill the tunnel.

However, the water level should be very high before it has consequences in terms of

repair costs

–

such a rainfall is assessed not to occur in reality.

Hence, it is assessed that every 50 years the complete tunnel will be disrupted during such a

rainfall event

–

conservatively, this disruption is estimated at 6 hours.

4.5.1.2

High water level

The tunnel has been designed to resist a very high water level - see ref. [15]. Taking into

account that flood protection will be installed whenever the water level is too high, water is

prevented from entering the tunnel. In the very rare event of a mean water level higher than

4.6m above normal water level together with a worst case rainstorm event and global warming,

water will begin to flow into the tunnel. In this very unlikely event Lolland will be completely

flooded, and it will not be possible to get to the link from the Lolland side.

Again, as with heavy rainfall, the consequences are a disruption of the complete link. The event

is estimated to occur with a frequency of 3.0∙10

-5

in 2025 (and similarly with a frequency in 2045

of about 5.0∙10

-5

). In ref. [22] the consequence of flooding the substation is estimated to be a

disruption up to 12 month.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

30/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.5.2

Sunken ship on tunnel

A sinking ship hitting the tunnel roof will cause a dynamic load during impact and subsequently a

static load originating from the weight of the ship. The Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link design load is 150

KN/m

. The impact force

on the tunnel roof from a sinking ship is determined as

F=m



where

is the ship displacement and

is the gravitation.

It is assumed that the sinking ships will affect the tunnel in the same way regardless of how the

ship hits the tunnel roof, and that any ship with a load higher than the design load will cause the

tunnel to collapse.

The data that has been used to establish the frequency for sinking ships includes ship

displacement, length and ship width ref. [9].

It has been assumed that the ships loads are distributed on 10% of the ships’ area when it hits

the tunnel. This is likely a conservative assumption.

Calculations based on evaluation of impact forces and tunnel capacity results in that 0.4% of all

impact on the tunnel from sinking ships lead to a collapse of the tunnel, i.e. the collapse

frequency is 1.610

-7

in 2025 and 2.710

-7

in 2045.

It is assumed that a collapse of the tunnel due to a sunken ship affects the people in the tunnel

in the same way as an explosion, which implies that the following assumptions are made:



A sunken ship beyond design load cause collapse of one element

A collapse of one tunnel element will affect vehicles in all tubes

The ship hits the middle of the tunnel

Vehicles which just have passed the collapsing element are assumed to be able to drive

out of the tunnel

All train in the tunnel will be affected by the collapse

Calculations for explosion show that a collapse of the tunnel will lead to 215 fatalities on average

on road and 17.4 fatalities or 19.4 FWSI on rail.

Estimated repair time is assumed to be about one year, where the entire tunnel has to be closed

for traffic during the repairing period. The repair cost given such an accident is estimated to 500

million Euros.

4.5.3

Fire in transformer room

There are 10 transformer rooms in connection to the road tunnel and 10 transformer rooms in

connection to the rail tunnel. In each transformer room there are 2 transformers.

Substations will be placed in the tunnel at the location of each special element containing

transformers, switchgear and distribution boards. Each of the substations will be equipped with

redundant switchgear and transformers. There is a gaseous suppression fire fighting system in

each of the substations. Each room will be separated by firewalls and escape doors.

Since the transformer rooms will be separated by fire walls it is assumed that fire in a

transformer room will not cause any fatalities.

The following assumptions have been used:



The fire suppression system does not affect the transformers in a way that could lead to

a longer disruption time.

One functioning transformer per transformer room is assumed sufficient to stay in

operation.

Since there are redundant transformers and switchgear, there will be no disruption

caused be power failure due to fire in a transformer room.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

31/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES



The gaseous suppression will suppress the fire before the other transformer in the room

is affected.

In case of a fire in a transformer room there will be an average disruption of 1 hour in

the tube where the transformer room is located in order to inspect the consequences of

the fire.

The estimated cost for fire in transformer room is assumed to be €1.500 if suppression works

(90%) and €150.000 if the suppression system does not work

(10%).

It is assumed that there will be one metre between every vehicle. The calculations show that

there will be on average 26 people trapped between the two fires and it is conservatively

assumed that they will be fatally injured.

4.5.4

Dragged and dropped anchor

In this section the consequences in terms of fatalities and disruption of the tunnel due to dragged

and dropped anchors are presented.

In the frequency assessment the initial event frequency is to be calculated in the nearest future,

and the results of the calculations are expected to be included in the Operational Risk Analysis

within the autumn 2014 revision.

The frequencies cover all types of accidents related to dragged and dropped anchors. The

following two types of cases are considered:



No damage or minor anchor damage to the tunnel and the protection layer

Critical damage to the protection layer and the tunnel roof

The people that have just passed the accident location will drive out of the tunnel and the people

approaching the accident location will be fatally injured. Based on calculations made for

explosions it is assessed that there will be 215 fatalities on road and 17.4 fatalities or 19.4 FWSI

on rail.

These calculations have also been used for sunken ship on tunnel. There will be 365 disruption

days on both road and rail and it will cost €500 million to repair the tunnel.

4.5.5

Grounding ships

The ship grounding frequencies covers all types of groundings. In the following two types of

groundings are considered:



Groundings leading to no damage or minor damage to the tunnel and the protection layer

Serious grounding leading to critical damage to the protection layer and the tunnel roof

For groundings giving minor damages the grounding ship will simply slide on the seabed and will

not penetrate the seabed and the protection layer. Hence, there will be no fatalities amongst the

tunnel users. However, the grounding in itself will lead to a stop in the tunnel operation during a

period while it is investigated whether or not the grounding ship has damaged the tunnel roof

after all. It is assumed that the disruption period will be approximately one day.

Ship size 1 to 5 is not assumed to cause any greater damage to the tunnel in case of grounding.

Only ship size 6 - 9 is assumed to provide serious damage by grounding.

For critical damage, the draught of the grounding ship must significantly exceed the water depth

leading to a penetration of the protection layer and leading to serious tunnel roof damages and

water ingress into the tunnel. It is assumed that the structural damage solely affects one tunnel

tube.

It is assumed that the grounding will take place in coastal areas and that the water inflow into

the tunnel tube will affect all persons in the tunnel tube. Further, it is conservatively assumed

that the disruption is a total disruption covering all tunnel tubes.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

32/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

It is conservatively assessed that a grounding leading to a tunnel collapse will affect the people in

the tunnel in the same way as an explosion in the end or beginning of the tunnel, see section

4.3.2.4.

In the explosions calculations it is assumed that vehicles in the road tubes that have just passed

the accident location will drive out of the tunnel and the vehicles approaching the accident

location will be affected by the accident. All trains in the tunnel will be affected by the accident.

In Section 4.1.2.1 is described the estimated distribution of number of persons in the railway

tunnel.

It is assessed that there will be 365 days of

disruption on both road and rail and it will cost €500

million to repair the tunnel.

4.6

Multiple simultaneous events

As no simultaneous events for rail are subject to detailed frequency calculation, no consequences

are found for multiple simultaneous events for rail.

It is assessed that disruption and repair costs is included in the assessment of fire and toxic

release on road and this section only include a consequence assessment in regard to fatalities.

The consequence that is assessed in this section is the consequences of multiple simultaneous

events that could lead to persons being trapped in an area with smoke or toxic gas. In this

context a toxic release has the same properties as smoke from a fire, but will not be covered in

this analysis since a combination of these events is highly unlikely. It is assessed that it will

contribute very little to the total number of fatalities per year on The Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link.

In the assessment it is assumed that the only scenario that is not included in the fire assessment

is the scenario where two fires occur within 100 meters from each other where the emergency

exits will be blocked. The fire frequencies for the entire fixed link have been scaled to the 100

meters in this assessment and are presented in Table 4-26.

Yearly frequency

2025

2045

Table 4-26 Scaled yearly fire frequency

8.18∙10

-8

1.90∙10

-7

In order to estimate the number of persons exposed, the number of vehicles within 100 m must

be assessed. The estimated vehicle lengths are presented in Table 4-27.

Vehicles in a queue

Cars

Buses

Lorries

Table 4-27 Vehicle length

Vehicle length [m]

4.75

16.5

13.7

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

33/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

RISK

In this section the risk is presented for all scenarios. The risk is calculated by multiplying the

frequencies and the consequences:

Risk = frequency

∙ consequence

The risk is calculated and presented in terms of annual expected fatalities on road and rail,

annual expected disruption days on road and rail and annual expected repair costs.

5.1

Ordinary road

The risk of ordinary road accidents in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are presented

in Table 5-1.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

1.6∙10

-1

1.3∙10

-1

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

2.5∙10

-1

2.9∙10

-1

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.6∙10

1.9∙10

Table 5-1 Risk of ordinary road accidents in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

From Table 5-1 it is seen that there will be no fatalities or disruption on rail caused by ordinary

road accidents. Note that dangerous goods accidents are not included here.

5.2

Road accidents involving dangerous goods

In Table 5-2 the results for accidents involving dangerous goods are presented (ordinary road

accidents not including dangerous goods are excluded).

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

1.1∙10

-4

1.1∙10

-4

Employees

5.8∙10

-6

5.8∙10

-6

Disruption [days]

Road [alone]

1.0∙10

-3

1.2∙10

-3

Rail [alone]

Simultaneous

1.7∙10

-3

2.0∙10

-3

Repair cost

[euro]

1.8∙10

2.1∙10

2025

2045

2.3∙10

-3

3.5∙10

-3

Table 5-2 Risk from accidents involving dangerous goods on road in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption

and repair costs

5.3

All road accidents

In Table 5-3 the results for road accidents - ordinary road accidents and road accident involving

dangerous goods are presented.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

Employees

Road

[alone]

2.5∙10

-1

2.9∙10

-1

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneous

1.7∙10

-3

2.0∙10

-3

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.8∙10

-4

2.1∙10

-4

2025

2045

1.7∙10

-1

1.3∙10

-1

Table 5-3 Risk from all road accidents in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

34/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

5.4

5.4.1

Fire (road)

Results for fire in road part, enclosed tunnel

The risk of fires in the tunnel road part in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are

presented in Table 5-4.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pas

Employee

Road

[alone]

2.7∙10

-1

5.1∙10

-1

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

5.0∙10

-2

9.1∙10

-2

Repair

cost

[euro]

5.0∙10

1.1∙10

2025

2045

9.6∙10

-5

2.1∙10

-4

Table 5-4 Risk of fires in the enclosed tunnel road part in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

From Table 5-4 it is seen that the disruption on the rail is caused by the fire on road and

therefore determines a simultaneous disruption of road and rail of 0.04 days in 2025 and 0.07

days in 2045.

5.4.2

Results for fire in road part, landsides

The results of fires on landsides are presented in Table 5-5.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

8.6∙10

-2

1.5∙10

-1

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

Repair

cost

[euro]

5.1∙10

1.1∙10

Table 5-5 Risk of fires in the road part of the land sides in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

It is seen that fires on the road part of the landsides are neither expected to lead to fatalities, nor

disruption of the railway part.

5.5

Results

–

landsides and enclosed tunnel

The summarized results for the landsides and the enclosed tunnel are presented in Table 5-6.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

3.5∙10

-1

6.6∙10

-1

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

5.0∙10

-2

9.1∙10

-2

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.0∙10

2.2∙10

2025

2045

9.6∙10

-5

2.1∙10

-4

Table 5-6 Risk of fire in the road part of the total scope (landsides and enclosed tunnel) in terms of

fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

It is seen that fires in the road part leads to about 0.3 days disruption of the road part (in 2025).

Here it is conservatively not taken into account that it probably will be possible to use the other

road for traffic in both directions, not by means of bi-directional traffic, but by shifting the traffic

direction e.g. every hour.

Looking at the disruption time for the different fire sizes, by joining the results in Table 4-16 and

Table 5-4 for the enclosed tunnel part, and Table 4-17 and Table 5-5 for the landsides part, the

results per fire size can be obtained. From this it is seen that about 20% of the disruption time

originates from fires with a size of 50 MW or more, i.e., very large fires that results in a long

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

35/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

disruption time. Subtracting the disruption time originating from very large fires, the average

disruption time for road in 2025 is considerably less than 0.4 days per year.

5.6

Ordinary rail

The results from ordinary rail accidents, i.e. derailments and collision are presented in the next

section.

5.6.1

Results ordinary rail

The consequences of ordinary rail in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are presented

in this section, not including accidents involving dangerous goods (these are presented in the

following sections). In Table 5-7 the risk of derailments are presented.

Rail - FWSI

Road

- fat

Pass

1.8∙10

-4

1.8∙10

-4

Employee

1.6∙10

-4

2.4∙10

-4

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

6.6∙10

-4

1.0∙10

-3

Simultaneou

8.6∙10

-4

1.3∙10

-3

Repair

cost

[euro]

2.0∙10

2.9∙10

2025

2045

Table 5-7 Risk of derailments in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

In Table 5-8 the risk of collisions between trains are presented.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

Pass

1.3∙10

-3

1.3∙10

-3

Employee

2.9∙10

-4

3.9∙10

-4

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

4.2∙10

-4

5.1∙10

-4

Simultaneou

2.5∙10

-4

3.4∙10

-4

Repair

cost

[euro]

3.7∙10

5.2∙10

Table 5-8 Risk of collisions between trains in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

In Table 5-9 the risk of train-object collisions are presented.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

1.7∙10

-6

2.7∙10

-6

Pass

5.1∙10

-4

5.1∙10

-4

Employe

2.6∙10

-4

3.6∙10

-4

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

3.4∙10

-4

4.7∙10

-4

Simultaneou

3.3∙10

-4

4.4∙10

-4

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.9∙10

2.8∙10

Table 5-9 Risk of train-object collisions in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

From Table 5-7, Table 5-8 and Table 5-9 it is seen that there will be no fatalities or disruption of

the road part alone caused by ordinary rail accidents.

5.6.2

Rail accidents involving dangerous goods

In Table 5-10 the results from the consequence assessment for rail are presented.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

36/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

7.4∙10

-6

1.1∙10

-5

Pass

1.4∙10

-6

1.7∙10

-6

Employe

1.4∙10

-7

2.0∙10

-7

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

2.2∙10

-4

3.1∙10

-4

Simultaneou

7.0∙10

-5

1.0∙10

-4

Repair

cost

[euro]

4.6∙10

6.8∙10

Table 5-10 Risk from collisions and derailments involving dangerous goods on rail in terms of fatalities,

FWSI, disruption and repair costs

The injuries and fatalities in the road part caused by dangerous goods events in the railway part

are considered as “others”.

5.7

5.7.1

Fire (rail)

Results for fire in railway part, enclosed tunnel

The risk of fires in the enclosed tunnel rail part in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs

are presented in Table 5-11.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

5.2∙10

-5

5.2∙10

-5

Employe

1.1∙10

-6

1.1∙10

-6

Road

[alone]

8.6∙10

-4

9.8∙10

-4

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

8.4∙10

-3

9.8∙10

-3

Simultaneou

8.6∙10

-4

9.8∙10

-4

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.6∙10

1.8∙10

2025

2045

Table 5-11 Risk of fires in the enclosed tunnel rail part in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

From Table 5-11 it is seen that disruption on the road part can be caused by a fire on rail and

therefore determines a simultaneous disruption of road and rail of 0.015 days in 2025 and 0.028

days in 2045.

5.7.2

Results for fire in railway part, landsides

The risks of fires on landsides are presented in Table 5-12.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

9.2∙10

-2

9.6∙10

-2

Simultaneou

Repair

cost

[euro]

3.0∙10

8.4∙10

Table 5-12 Risk of fires in the landsides rail part in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

It is seen that fires on the rail part of the landsides are neither expected to lead to fatalities, nor

disruption of the road part. It is seen to lead to a yearly average disruption of the railway of

about 3.8 days per year in 2045.

5.7.3

Results for fire in railway part, landsides and enclosed tunnel

The summarized results for the landsides and the enclosed tunnel are presented in Table 5-13.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

37/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

Pass

5.2∙10

-5

5.2∙10

-5

Employe

1.1∙10

-6

1.1∙10

-6

Road

[alone]

8.6∙10

-4

9.8∙10

-4

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

1.0∙10

-1

1.1∙10

-1

Simultaneou

8.6∙10

-4

9.8∙10

-4

Repair

cost

[euro]

3.2∙10

1.0∙10

Table 5-13 Risk of fire in the road part of the total scope (landsides and enclosed tunnel) in terms of

fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

5.8

External events

In the following sections the risk for the external events are presented.

5.8.1

Flooding

The risk of flooding in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are presented in Table 5-14.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

3.4∙10

-1

3.4∙10

-1

Repair

cost

[euro]

2025

2045

Table 5-14 Risk of flooding in terms of yearly average fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

5.8.2

Sunken ship on tunnel

The risk of sunken ship on tunnel in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are presented

in Table 5-15.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

5.9∙10

-5

1.0∙10

-4

Repair

cost

[euro]

8.1∙10

1.4∙10

2025

2045

3.5∙10

-5

5.9∙10

-5

Table 5-15 Risk of sunken ship on tunnel in terms of yearly average fatalities, FWSI, disruption and

repair costs

5.8.3

Dragged and dropped anchor

The risk of dragged and dropped anchor in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are

presented in Table 5-16.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

5.0∙10

-8

8.3∙10

-8

Employe

2.7∙10

-9

4.6∙10

-9

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

4.3∙10

-7

7.1∙10

-7

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.5∙10

2.5∙10

2025

2045

3.5∙10

-7

5.9∙10

-7

Table 5-16 Yearly average risk due to dropped and dragged anchor in terms of fatalities, FWSI,

disruption and repair costs

5.8.4

Grounding ship

The risk of grounding ships in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are presented in

Table 5-17.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

38/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

4.4∙10

-6

7.3∙10

-6

Pass

6.2∙10

-7

1.0∙10

-6

Employe

3.4∙10

-8

5.7∙10

-8

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

7.4∙10

-6

1.2∙10

-5

Repair

cost

[euro]

1.0∙10

1.7∙10

Table 5-17 Risk due to ship groundings on tunnel roof in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair

costs

5.8.5

Fire in transformer room

The risk of fire in transformer room in terms of fatalities, disruption and repair costs are

presented in Table 5-18. From Table 5-18 it is seen that there will be no fatalities on rail or road

caused by fire in transformer room.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

2025

2045

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

1.7∙10

-3

1.7∙10

-3

Repair

cost

[euro]

2.1∙10

Table 5-18 Risk of fire in transformer room in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

5.8.6

Multiple simultaneous events

In the multiple event scenarios it has been assessed that only the scenario with two fires very

close to each other could lead to fatalities.

Rail - FWSI

Road -

fat

Pass

Employee

Road

[alone]

Disruption [days]

Rail

[alone]

Simultaneou

Repair

cost

[euro]

2025

2045

2.0∙10

-6

4.6∙10

-6

Table 5-19 Risk of two fires in terms of fatalities, FWSI, disruption and repair costs

*Disruption and repair costs are assessed under fire, toxic releases and traffic accident

respectively.

5.8.7

Qualitative assessments of maintenance operations

In general there has been focus on developing a tunnel design that ensures optimal conditions for

workers and maintenance personnel.

The whole maintenance strategy and philosophy has been described in detail in ref. [20]. Some

main points regarding safety are:



A significantly part of the maintenance work is located in the special elements

Maintenance workers may park the car in separate lay-by in the special elements - hence

no parking is done in e.g. emergency lane.

The worker can go directly to the service rooms from the lay-by

In order to get controlled access to the other side of the tubes, the worker can use a

channel located under the road

–

hence the worker does not have to pass the road with

traffic.

All installation rooms have two separate doors to ensure the possibility for safe escape



Hence, no maintenance workers are expected to be harmed due to maintenance work in the

tunnel and landsides.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

39/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

6.1

RESULTS

Acceptance criteria

The calculated risk acceptance criteria are presented in Table 6-1.

Risk Acceptance Criteria

Risk to road users (FAT/year)

Risk to rail passengers (FWSI/year)

Risk to rail employees (FWSI/year)

Risk to level crossing users (FWSI/year)

Risk to others (FWSI/year)

Risk to unauthorized persons on premises (FWSI/year)

Third party risk (FWSI/year)

Societal risk (FAT/year)

Risk of disruption to road (days/year)

Risk of disruption to rail (days/year)

Risk of simultaneous disruption (days/year)

Environmental risk (Euro/year)

Table 6-1 Risk acceptance criteria

2025

2045

0.223

0.174

-3

3.09·10

-3

1.09·10

-2

1.49·10

-2

-3

3.67·10

4.98·10

-3

0.136

0.185

To be updated autumn 2014

6.5

0.6

The simultaneous disruption for road and rail is bounded by the acceptance criterion on the

disruption of the railway, which is estimated to 0.6 days.

6.2

Individual risk

The overall risk for the individual risk on road and rail is presented in Table 6-2.

Fatalities/FWSI

Fatalities road

FWSI rail passengers

FWSI rail employees

Table 6-2 Individual risk

2025

Per year

0.165

2.60·10

-3

8.81·10

-4

2045

Per year

0.131

2.78·10

-3

1.22·10

-3

Comparing the acceptance criteria presented in Table 6-1 with the estimated risk Table 6-2, it is

seen that the individual risk is acceptable for both road and rail.

Percentage of acceptance criteria

2025

2045

74.0%

84.2%

8.0%

75.1%

90.0%

8.2%

Year

Fatalities road

FWSI rail passengers

FWSI rail employees

Table 6-3 Calculated risk in percentages of the acceptance criteria

In Table 6-4

the calculated risk for “others” and the percentages of the acceptance criteria is

shown. It is seen that the risk

for “others” is acceptable.

“Other” FWSI

2025

2045

1.15∙10

1.72∙10

-5

Percentage of acceptance criteria

0.31%

0.35%

Table 6-4 Calculated risk

for “others”

(fatalities per year) and percentages of the acceptance criteria

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

40/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

The contributors to fatalities on road for 2025 are shown in Table 6-5.

Fatalities on road

Ordinary road

Fire

Dangerous goods - road

Dangerous goods - rail

External events

Total

Fatalities per year in 2025

1.63∙10

-1

9.58∙10

-5

2.25∙10

-3

7.42∙10

-6

4.15∙10

-5

1.65∙10

-1

Percentage

98.55%

0.06%

1.36%

0.004%

0.03%

100%

Table 6-5 Contributors to fatalities per year on road in 2025

It is seen that ordinary road accidents constitute the most significant risk of fatalities on the road

with a minor contribution from dangerous goods. Fire and external events contribute very little to

the total number of fatalities.

The contributors to passenger fatalities on rail for 2025 are shown in Table 6-6.

Fatalities on rail

Ordinary rail

Fire

Dangerous goods - rail

Dangerous goods - road

External events

Total

Fatalities per year in 2025

1.74E∙10

-3

Percentage

93.70%

1.99%

0.05%

4.04%

0.22%

100%

3.69∙10

-5

9.82∙10

-7

7.51∙10

-5

4.01∙10

-6

1.86∙10

-3

Table 6-6 Contributors to passenger fatalities per year on rail in 2025

The contributors to employee fatalities on rail for 2025 are shown in Table 6-7.

Fatalities on rail

Ordinary rail

Fire

Dangerous goods - rail

Dangerous goods - road

External events

Total

Fatalities per year in 2025

6.24∙10

-4

-7

Percentage

99.09%

0.12%

0.02%

0.65%

0.12%

100%

7.76∙10

9.51∙10

-8

4.12∙10

-6

7.63∙10

-7

6.30∙10

-4

Table 6-7 Contributors to employee fatalities per year on rail in 2025

It is seen that ordinary rail accidents constitutes the most significant risk of fatalities on the rail,

with a smaller contribution from dangerous goods. Fire contributes about 1.99% of the fatalities.

Dangerous goods contribute about 4% in total, with the large part originating from dangerous

goods accidents in the road part.

In Table 6-8 it is shown how collisions, derailments and train-object collisions contribute to the

total risk on rail for ordinary rail accidents.

Fatalities on rail

Derailments

Trains collisions

Collision with objects

Ordinary rail

Fatalities per year in 2025

1.28∙10

-4

1.25∙10

-3

3.62∙10

-4

1.74∙10

-3

Percentage

7.34%

71.84%

20.82%

100%

Table 6-8 Contributors to fatalities per year on rail in 2025 for ordinary rail accidents

It is seen that 71.8% of the fatalities on rail are due to train collisions.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

41/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

6.3

Societal risk

Section to be updated during autumn 2014.

6.4

Disruption risk

In the following section the disruption risk for road, rail and simultaneous disruption is presented.

6.4.1

Disruption road

The total number of disruption days per year for road and the contributing factors for 2025 are

seen in Table 6-9. It is seen that fire (road and rail) contributes most (40.4%), while external

events and ordinary road accidents also give significant contributions with 34% and 25.2%

respectively.

Disruption road

Ordinary road

Ordinary rail

Fire, road

Fire, rail

Dangerous goods

–

road

Dangerous goods

–

rail

External events

Total

Contribution

2.51∙10

-1

1.43∙10

-3

4.01∙10

-1

5.33∙10

-4

2.72∙10

-3

7.30∙10

-5

3.39∙10

-1

9.96∙10

-1

Percentage

25.20%

0.14%

40.30%

0.05%

0.27%

0.007%

34.03%

100%

Table 6-9 Total number of disruption days for road and the contributing factors (2025)

An FN-curve for the disruption of the road part for 2025 is shown in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1 FN-curve for the disruption of the road part (one tube only) (2025)

It is seen that there is no violation of the upper-limit, and hence the calculated risk of disruption

of the road part is considered acceptable.

It is highlighted that for most of the time where the road is disrupted, only one of the two road

tubes are disrupted. The time where both road tubes are disrupted constitutes about 20% of the

total disruption time.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

42/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

6.4.2

Disruption rail

The total number of disruption days for rail in 2025 and the contributing factors are seen in Table

6-10. It is seen that the railway part is expected to be closed for about 0.495 days a year and

that fire contribute with 52.7% and that external events (due to flooding of substations)

contribute with 40.7%.

Disruption rail

Ordinary road

Ordinary rail

Fire, road

Fire, rail

Dangerous goods

–

road

Dangerous goods

–

rail

External events

Total

Contribution

2.78∙10

-3

5.04∙10

-2

1.01∙10

-1

1.71∙10

-3

3.03∙10

-4

3.39∙10

-1

4.95∙10

-1

Percentage

0.56%

10.18%

20.40%

0.35%

0.06%

68.45%

100%

Table 6-10 Total number of disruption days for the rail and the contributing factors (2025)

An FN-curve for the disruption of the rail part in 2025 is shown in Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-2: FN-curve for the disruption of the rail part (only one rail tube)

It is seen that there is violations of the upper-limit. This clearly follows that the mean value (for

disrupting the railway) is larger than the acceptance criterion.

6.4.3

Simultaneous disruption of road and rail

Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 presented the disruption of the road and rail respectively. Some of

these disruptions will happen simultaneously, such that both the road and rail part are closed at

the same time.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

43/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Disruption

Disruption, road alone [days

per year]

Disruption, rail alone [days per

year]

Disruption, simultaneous [days

per year]

Table 6-11 Simultaneous disruption times

2025

0.60

0.10

0.39

2045

0.96

0.11

Acceptance Criteria

6.5

0.6

0.44

In Table 6-9 and Table 6-10 it is seen that the individual road and rail parts are disrupted about

0.996 and 0.495 days respectively days in 2025, and about 0.40 of a day simultaneously, in

2025.

An FN-curve for the simultaneous disruption is shown in Figure 6-3.

Figure 6-3: FN-curve for the simultaneous disruption of road and rail

It is seen that there is violations of the upper-limit. This clearly follows that the mean value (for

disrupting the railway) is larger than the acceptance criterion.

6.5

Total risk cost

In this section the total cost of all risk contributions are summarized.

Million Euros

Fatalities

Societal loss

Disruption, road alone

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Owner loss

Disruption, road alone

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

2025

0.521

0.991

0.061

0.922

0.338

0.013

0.260

0.152

3.258

2045

0.575

2.963

0.128

1.891

0.096

0.022

0.462

0.286

6.422

2025

16.0%

30.4%

1.9%

28.3%

10.4%

0.4%

8.0%

4.7%

100.0%

2045

9.0%

46.1%

2.0%

29.4%

1.5%

0.3%

7.2%

4.5%

100.0%

44/178

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Table 6-12 Total risk cost in million Euros

From Table 6-12 it is seen that the total risk cost is about

€3.26

million Euros in 2025

and €6.42

millions in 2045.

In Table 6-13

the societal cost and owners’ loss are amalgamated, and are graphically

represented in Figure 6-4.

Euro

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Table 6-13 Total costs in million Euros

2025

0.521

1.329

0.074

1.182

0.152

3.258

2045

0.575

3.058

0.150

2.352

0.286

6.422

2025

16.0%

40.8%

2.3%

36.3%

4.7%

100.0%

2045

9.0%

47.6%

2.3%

36.6%

4.5%

100.0%

Figure 6-4 Total risk cost distribution

From Figure 6-4 it is seen that most of the risk costs

–

about 80% - originate from disruption,

while repair costs and cost of fatalities costs are about 5% and 16% respectively.

Again it is underlined that the cost for disruption for road has been based on disruption of a

single road tube only. This is very conservative because a single road tube is still available in

most of the cases.

6.6

Impact of the dangerous goods restrictions on railway

The results presented in the previous sections do not take the restrictions in relation to

dangerous goods into account (see section 4.4.4.).

In order to clarify the impact of the DG restrictions the results with and without DG restrictions

are presented in Table 6-14.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

45/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Fatalities on road

Ordinary road

Fire

Dangerous goods - road

Dangerous goods - rail

External events

Total

Fatalities on rail passengers

Ordinary rail

Collisions

Derailment

Collision with object

Fire

Dangerous goods - rail

Dangerous goods - road

External events

Total

Fatalities on rail employees

Ordinary rail

Collisions

Derailment

Collision with object

Fire

Dangerous goods - rail

Dangerous goods - road

External events

Total

Contribution

1.63∙10

-1

9.58∙10

-5

2.25∙10

-3

7.42∙10

-6

4.15∙10

-5

1.65∙10

-1

Contribution

1.74∙10

-3

1.25∙10

-3

1.28∙10

-4

3.62∙10

-4

3.69∙10

-5

7.05∙10

-7

7.51∙10

-5

4.01∙10

-6

1.86∙10

-3

Contribution

6.24∙10

-4

2.76∙10

-4

1.60∙10

-4

1.89∙10

-4

7.76∙10

-7

8.09∙10

-8

4.12∙10

-6

2.20∙10

-7

6.29∙10

-4

Contribution

1.63∙10

-1

9.58∙10

-5

2.25∙10

-3

5.13∙10

-6

4.15∙10

-5

1.65∙10

-1

Contribution

1.45∙10

-3

9.57∙10

-4

1.28∙10

-4

3.62∙10

-4

3.69∙10

-5

7.51∙10

-5

4.01∙10

-6

1.56∙10

-3

Contribution

5.53∙10

-4

2.05∙10

-4

1.60∙10

-4

1.89∙10

-4

7.76∙10

-7

3.83∙10

-8

4.12∙10

-6

2.20∙10

-7

5.58∙10

-4

Difference

2.29∙10

-6

2.29∙10

-6

Difference

2.93∙10

-4

2.93∙10

-4

7.05∙10

-7

2.94∙10

-4

Difference

7.10∙10

-5

7.10∙10

-5

4.25∙10

-8

7.10∙10

-5

Reduction

30.9%

0.001%

Reduction

16.8%

23.4%

100.0%

15.8%

Reduction

11.4%

25.8%

52.6%

11.3%

Table 6-14 Impact of dangerous goods restriction on road users, rail passengers and employees

The following can be concluded:



Impact from DG on rail on the road passengers is reduced with about 31%, however the

-6

reduction corresponds to only

2.29∙10

fatality per year

With the restriction no impact on railway passengers can be detected, which is a reduction of

7.05∙10

-7

. However, it is interesting that DG on road contribute with two orders of

magnitude more.

Due to the restrictions some collisions are avoided between DG trains and other trains. This

-4

reduces the FWSI-figure on railway passengers with

2.93∙10

and the FWSI-figure for

-5

railway employees with

7.10∙10

The absolute reduction directly related to the dangerous goods on rail for railway passengers

-7

7.05∙10

, corresponding to 0.04% of the total risk for this safety target

The absolute reduction directly related to the dangerous goods on rail for railway employees

-8

4.25∙10

, corresponding to 0.007% of the total risk for this safety target



The relative low impact on the railway passengers and railway employees indicates that

restriction to dangerous goods transportation in the railway tunnel do not have a significant

impact on the safety.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

46/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

REVISIONS

This issue (revision 6) of the Operational Risk Analysis (ORA) delivered in June 2014 is an update

of the earlier ORA report delivered in August 2013 (revision 5).

The previous versions are:



Revision

October 2012

January 2011

October 2010

June 2010

The revisions are described in detail in the following sections.

7.1

Revision 6

This update of the ORA contains the following larger changes:



The lengths for the enclosed tunnel and landsides for both road and rail are updated.

The traffic forecast is updated.

The dangerous goods forecast is updated.

The risk and acceptance criteria for the railway part are described for each common safety

target in accordance with CSM including dividing the individual risk for rail into passenger risk

and risk for employees, and all topics from TSI are covered in the ORA.

The risk model is updated with a model for how often a dangerous goods wagon on a freight

train will be involved in an accident.

Instead of having one number for fatalities on rail for the catastrophic scenarios a distribution

is made including the probability of having different combinations of train in the same tube as

the accident and different combinations of train in the other tube.

The risk model is setup with the restrictions for dangerous goods on the railway. The

restrictions can be turned on/off separately to see the effect of each of the restrictions.

Collisions with objects are included in the risk model.

Fire detection is no longer part of the risk model in the railway part.

The mechanical effects of the accidents on rail are included in the dangerous goods accidents.



Individual risk

The above changes (and more minor changes) lead to changes in the individual risk on road and

rail as shown in Table 7-2 and Table 7-2.

2025

Fraction

acceptab

le risk

74.0%

84.2%

8.0%

0.3%

2045

Fraction

accep-

table

risk

75.1%

90.0%

8.2%

0.5%

Road fatalities

Rail - FWSI

–

passengers

Rail - FWSI

–

employees

Individual

Risk

0.17

2.60∙10

-3

8.81∙10

-4

1.15∙10

-5

Acceptable

Risk

0.22

0.0031

0.0109

0.0035

Individu

al Risk

0.13

2.78∙10

-3

1.22∙10

-3

1.72∙10

-5

Accepta

ble Risk

0.17

0.00309

0.01486

0.00346

Rail - FWSI –

Others

Table 7-1 Individual risk in revision 6.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

47/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

2025

Result

fatalities

per billion

person

passages

5.0

3.5

2045

Result

fatalities per

billion

person

passages

2.6

3.5

Acceptance criteria

Revision 5

Road

Rail

20.92

7.54

10.46

8.35

Table 7-2 Risk to individual life safety revision 5

The numbers in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 are not directly comparable due to several things. First

of all it is decided to communicate the risk in FWSI per year (instead of per passage) and the risk

is furthermore split into different safety targets (passengers, employees and others).

Total cost

The changes lead to changes in the total costs for road and rail as shown in Table 7-3.

2025

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 6

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 5

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

0.521

1.329

0.074

1.182

0.152

3.258

0.162

0.881

0.319

1.191

0.187

2.740

2045

0.575

3.058

0.150

2.352

0.286

6.422

0.189

2.801

0.684

2.358

0.324

6.356

Table 7-3 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for revision 6 and 5

Disruption

Table 7-4 presents a comparison of the disruption risk for the years 2018/2025 and 2038/2045

for revision 5 and 4.

2025

Accepta

nce

criteria

Disruption

days per

year

Accepta

nce

criteria

2045

Disruption

days per

year

0.96

0.11

0.44

1.00

0.52

0.44

Disruption, road alone

6.50

0.60

6.50

[days per year]

Disruption, rail alone

Revision 6

0.10

[days per year]

0.6

Disruption, simultaneous

0.39

[days per year]

Disruption, road alone

6.50

0.63

6.50

[days per year]

Disruption, rail alone

Revision 5

0.44

[days per year]

0.6

Disruption, simultaneous

0.40

[days per year]

Table 7-4 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for revision 6 and 5

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

48/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

7.2

Revision 5

This update of the ORA contains the following changes:



The reference years are changed to 2025 and 2045 on request from Femern A/S to ensure

better alignment with design reports.

The risk acceptance criterion for rail is based on the common safety targets (CST) which

contains national reference values (NRV). The NRV for passengers is added a contribution

from freight train drivers to include these in the analysis.

The suppression system is no longer a part of the railway design, and this is now reflected

the calculations.

In all tables with fatalities in the railway part, an extra column has been inserted with the

corresponding FWSI results.

New data material from the European Railway Accident Information Links is used as basis for

the derailment and collision frequencies.

The forecast for dangerous goods on railway is updated to contain a small amount of

explosives.

Changes due to the CSM-RA assessment Phase I of RINA S.P.A./SINTEF Added general

sections for improving the readability in relation to the railway part.

An appendix is added to the accident frequencies report ref. [28] containing description of

safety related functions and probability of failure on demand.



The data for the traffic forecast used in ORA revision 5 and revision 4 is presented in Table 7-5.

Revision 4

2018

2038

9856

8325

2497

5828

1395

136

2.39

1.2

2.9

15.5

Revision 4

2018

2038

49.0

40.0

17.7

113

16113

12865

3859

9006

3057

191

Revision 5

2025

2045

11723

9819

2946

6873

1751

153

2.4

1.2

2.9

1.0

35.0

15.5

Revision 5

2025

2045

17.7

19288

15221

4566

10655

3851

215

Road Traffic

Annual average daily traffic

(AADT) [veh/day]

Cars

Cars (prof. activities) 30%

Cars (private use) 70%

Lorries

Coaches

Average person per vehicle

Cars (prof. activities)

Cars (private use)

Lorries

Coaches

Average load per lorry in tons

Rail Traffic

Average number of freight

trains per day

Average number of passenger

trains per day

Passengers per passenger train

Operators/workers per trains

Average load per freight wagon

(ton)

Number of wagons per freight

train

Table 7-5 Traffic data for ORA revision 5 and revision 4

The change in traffic volume affects all results since the number of accidents per year is

calculated based on number of vehicle or rolling stock kilometres in the tunnel per year.

Individual risk

The above changes lead to changes in the individual risk on road and rail as shown in Table 7-6.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

49/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

2018/2025

Result

Acceptance

fatalities per

criteria

billion person

passages

Revision 5

(2025 and

2045)

Revision 4

(2018 and

2038)

Road

Rail

Road

Rail

20.92

7.54

26.67

1.95

5.0

3.5

18.8

2.4

2038/2045

Result

Acceptance

fatalities per

criteria

billion person

passages

10.46

8.35

13.34

1.95

2.6

3.5

5.0

2.8

Table 7-6 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in revision 5 and 4

Total cost

The changes lead to changes in the total costs for road and rail as shown in Table 7-7.

2018/2025

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 5

(2025 and 2045)

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 4

(2018 and 2038)

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

0.162

0.881

0.319

1.191

0.187

2.740

0.564

1.196

0.223

1.163

0.143

3.290

2038/2045

0.189

2.801

0.684

2.358

0.324

6.356

0.332

2.648

0.795

2.267

0.292

6.333

Table 7-7 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for revision 5 and 4

Disruption

Table 7-8 presents a comparison of the disruption risk for the years 2018/2025 and 2038/2045

for revision 5 and 4.

2018/2025

Accepta

nce

criteria

Revision 5

(2025 and

2045)

Disruption, road alone

[days per year]

Disruption, rail alone

[days per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

Disruption, road alone

[days per year]

Disruption, rail alone

[days per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

6.50

Disruption

days per

year

0.63

0.44

0.6

0.40

6.50

0.54

0.31

0.6

0.39

0.6

0.42

6.50

0.6

0.44

0.70

0.6

2038/2045

Accepta

nce

criteria

6.50

Disruption

days per

year

1.00

0.52

Revision 4

(2018 and

2038)

Table 7-8 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for revision 5 and 4

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

50/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

7.3

Revision 4

This update of the ORA is based on a request from Femern A/S to ensure that the Operational

Risk Analysis incorporates the changes made in the design since revision 3 of the ORA was made

in February 2011. These changes include changes in the length of the tunnel. The changes have

affected basically all the results; on road in relation to individual risk (and subsequently societal

risk), on individual risk on railway and also the risk of disruption.

The railway update concerns a new acceptance criteria based on National Reference Values see

ref. [22], and update of a range of datasets. The latter include newer accidents data for ordinary

rail accidents, time schedules for the train traffic and actual distribution of passengers on

passenger trains. Furthermore, statistics on fires for different types of trains have been carried

out. Finally, the traffic work of trains has been updated.

In the two previous revisions of the ORA, there was a high focus on aligning the risk analyses for

the bridge and the tunnel solutions, and as a result of this, the landsides where excluded from

the scope. The cross-overs on the landsides are taken into account in the present revision.

New acceptance criteria for disruption on the railway have been adopted from RAM work, ref.

[24].

The location of substations and control-center have changed from on top of the tunnel portal to

besides the tunnel, this has implied that the risk of flooding of substations and control-center has

increased. This is analysed in the present revision.

A new hazard has been taken into account, namely damage to persons due to train in motion.

Furthermore, updates have been carried out regarding sunken ships on runnel roof, grounding

ships on tunnel roof and dropped and dragged anchor.

The change in frequency and consequences for road accidents leads to changes in the individual

risk on road as shown in Table 7-9.

2018

Acceptance

criteria

Revision 4

Revision 3

Road

Rail

Road

Rail

26.67

1.95

18.14

3.06

Result

fatalities per

billion person

passages

18.8

2.4

13.30

2.26

Acceptance

criteria

13.34

1.95

9.07

3.06

2038

Result

fatalities per

billion person

passages

5.0

2.8

7.01

2.84

Table 7-9 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in revision 4 and 3

The change in frequency for road accidents leads to changes in the total costs for road as shown

in Table 7-10.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

51/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

2018

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 4

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 3

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

0.564

1.196

0.223

1.163

0.143

3.290

0.324

0.74

0.067

0.198

0.082

1.411

2038

0.332

2.648

0.795

2.267

0.292

6.333

0.374

1.847

0.24

0.606

0.161

3.228

Table 7-10 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for revision 4 and 3

Table 7-11 presents a comparison of the disruption risk for the years 2018 and 2038 for revision

4 and 3.

2018

Acceptance

criteria

Disruption, road alone

[days per year]

Disruption, rail alone

[days per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

Disruption, road alone

[days per year]

Disruption, rail alone

[days per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

6.50

Disruption

days per

year

0.54

0.31

0.6

0.39

6.5

1.3

0.33

0.09

0.06

6.5

1.3

0.6

0.42

0.54

0.18

0.11

2038

Acceptance

criteria

6.50

Disruption

days per

year

0.70

0.6

Revision

Table 7-11 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for revision 4 and 3

7.4

Revision 3

This update of the ORA is based on a request from Femern A/S to ensure as much as possible a

consistent approach between the bridge and tunnel solutions. The changes have affected the

results on road in relation to individual risk (and subsequently societal risk) and also the risk of

disruption.

The update concerns the calculations based on statistical data from the Danish Road Directorate

(VIS-database). The VIS-database has been used to calculate the percentage of the accidents on

Danish motorways is relevant for the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link. The same method has previously

been used in revision 2, however in revision 3 a more conservative approach has been used, and

the accidents in the database has been studied more in detail.

The change in frequency and consequences for road accidents leads to changes in the individual

risk on road as shown in Table 7-12.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

52/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

2018

Acceptance

criteria

Revision 3

Revision 2

Road

Rail

Road

Rail

18.14

3.06

18.14

3.06

Result

fatalities per

billion person

passages

13.30

2.26

10.7

2.26

Acceptance

criteria

9.07

3.06

9.07

3.06

2038

Result

fatalities per

billion person

passages

7.01

2.84

5.6

2.84

Table 7-12 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in revision 3 and 2

The change in frequency for road accidents leads to changes in the total costs for road as shown

in Table 7-13.

2018

2038

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 3

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 2

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

0.402

0.731

0.067

0.198

0.082

1.479

0.324

0.74

0.067

0.198

0.082

1.411

0.463

1.832

0.240

0.605

0.161

3.301

0.374

1.847

0.24

0.606

0.161

3.228

Table 7-13 Comparison of total costs in million Euros for Revision 3 and 2

Table 7-14 presents a comparison of the disruption risk for the years 2018 and 2038 for revision

3 and 2.

2018

Disrupt

ion

days

per

year

0.33

0.09

0.06

0.34

0.09

0.06

2038

Disrupt

ion

days

per

year

0.54

0.18

0.11

0.55

0.18

0.11

Acceptance

criteria

Disruption, road alone [days

per year]

Disruption, rail alone [days

per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

Disruption, road alone [days

per year]

Disruption, rail alone [days

per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

6.5

1.3

6.5

1.3

Acceptance

criteria

6.5

1.3

6.5

1.3

Revisio

Table 7-14 Comparison of the disruption risk measured in days for Revision 3 and 2

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

53/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

7.5

Revision 2

This update of the ORA is based on a request from Femern A/S to ensure as much as possible a

consistent approach between the bridge and tunnel solutions. The changes have affected the

results both for road and rail in relation to individual risk (and subsequently societal risk) and

also the risk of disruption. The update consists of two parts:



Update of the fatalities per accident for road accidents

Update of the tunnel length

The fatality per accident has been updated based on a benchmark suggested by Femern A/S,

which have affected the results for fatalities on road, see Table 7-15. In revision 1 the number of

fatalities per kilometre in 2018 and 2038 was calculated, based on a decreasing statistical trend.

In revision 1 the half-life period was estimated to be 9.5 years. Femern A/S has requested that a

more conservative approach is used and that the half-life period should be 20 years. Because of

the more conservative approach the acceptance criteria between rev 1 and 2 have been

increased, as shown in Table 7-15.

The tunnel length has changed between revisions 1 and 2 of the ORA from 25.4 km to 18.14 km.

The scope is now identical in both the bridge and tunnel risk analyses enabling a more direct

comparison to be made. The new scope includes the tunnel structure only. However, it should be

noted that the risk figures should now only be used comparatively as they no longer represent

the absolute risk. The absolute risk would incorporate the entire tunnel structure in addition to

the landside road and railway to the hinterland connections. The change in length leads to

changes in the acceptance criteria for individual risk on road and rail as shown in Table 7-15.

2018

Acceptance

criteria

Revision 2

Revision 1

Road

Rail

Road

Rail

18.14

3.82

9.70

4.40

Result

fatalities per

billion person

passages

10.7

2.26

7.90

3.70

Acceptance

criteria

9.07

3.89

2.30

4.40

2038

Result

fatalities per

billion person

passages

5.6

2.84

1.90

4.00

Table 7-15 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in revision 2 and 1

Table 7-16 present a comparison of the results for the total costs for years 2018 and 2038 for

both revisions 1 and revision 2.

2018

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 2

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Revision 1

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

0.324

0.740

0.067

0.198

0.082

1.411

0.248

1.051

1.459

0.199

0.396

3.354

2038

0.374

1.847

0.240

0.606

0.161

3.227

0.146

5.373

5.202

0.601

0.828

12.151

Table 7-16 Comparison of total costs in million Euros between results in Revision 2 and 1

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

54/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Table 7-17 present a comparison of the disruption risk for years 2018 and 2038 for both revision

1 and revision 2.

2018

Disrupt

ion

days

per

year

0.34

0.09

0.06

0.48

2.00

0.06

2038

Disrupt

ion

days

per

year

0.55

0.18

0.11

0.67

3.96

0.11

Acceptance

criteria

Disruption, road alone [days

per year]

Disruption, rail alone [days

per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

Disruption, road alone [days

per year]

Disruption, rail alone [days

per year]

Disruption, simultaneous

[days per year]

6.5

1.3

6.5

1.3

Acceptance

criteria

6.5

1.3

6.5

1.3

Revisio

Table 7-17 Comparison of disruption risk between results in Revision 1 and 2

The numbers from revision 1 is used if not updated in revision 2.

7.6

Revision 1

The first update of the ORA was necessary as a result of changes in design parameters and to

ensure as much as possible a consistent approach between the bridge and tunnel solutions.

The following inputs to the calculations have been changed between revisions 0 and 1 of this

report:



Road accident frequency



Road accident fatalities



Road fire frequency



Road fire fatalities



Tunnel length



Traffic data

The changes have affected the results both for road and rail in relation to individual risk (and

subsequently societal risk) and also the risk of disruption. Table 7-18 present a comparison of the

results for years 2018 and 2038 for both revision 0 and revision 1.

2018

Fatalities per

Acceptance

billion

criteria

passages

9.7

7.9

4.4

3.7

26.5

19.9

3.8

2.76

2038

Fatalities per

Acceptance

billion

criteria

passages

2.3

1.9

4.4

4.0

26.5

20.7

3.8

3.2

Revision 1

Revision 0

Road

Rail

Road

Rail

Table 7-18 Comparison of risk to individual life safety between results in Revision 1 and 0

Note that in regard to individual risk to life safety, in the year 2038 it is shown to be safer to

travel by car than by train. Typically this is not the case however the reason is that in revision 1

new statistical data from the Danish Road Directorate is used for accident frequency and number

of fatalities on the road (see section 7.6.1 and section 7.6.2). The frequency of accidents and

fatalities is considered to decrease over time while the accident frequency on rail is assumed to

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

55/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

be constant. It is likely that train safety will also improve over time, however, no statistical

trends have been found in the available data for rail and cannot therefore be included in this

report.

Table 7-19 presents a comparison of the results for the total costs for years 2018 and 2038 for

both revision 0 and revision 1.

2018

0.248

1.051

1.459

0.199

0.396

3.354

0.588

3.011

1.226

0.562

0.648

6.035

2038

0.146

5.373

5.202

0.601

0.828

12.15

1.168

9.478

3.810

1.651

1.177

17.284

Revision 1

Revision 0

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Fatalities

Disruption, road alone

Disruption, rail alone

Disruption, simultaneous

Repair cost

Total

Table 7-19 Comparison of total costs in million Euros between results in Revision 1 and 0

Table 7-20 present a comparison of the disruption risk for years 2018 and 2038 for both revision

0 and revision 1.

2018

Acceptance

Disruption

criteria

days

Disruption, road

alone [days]

Disruption, rail alone

[days]

Disruption,

simultaneous [days]

Disruption, road

alone [days]

Disruption, rail alone

[days]

Disruption,

simultaneous [days]

6.5

1.3

6.5

1.3

0.48

2.00

0.06

1.38

1.681

0.183

2038

Acceptance

Disruption

criteria

days

6.5

1.3

6.5

1.3

0.67

3.96

0.11

2.30

2.899

0.300

Revision 1

Revision 0

Table 7-20 Comparison of disruption risk between results in Revision 1 and 0

7.6.1

Road accident frequency

In the revision 0 of the Conceptual Design Operational Risk Analysis (ORA) the traffic accident

frequency and the traffic accident fatalities were assessed based on statistical data from 2001 to

2007. It was assumed that there would be the same frequency of traffic accidents per driven km

in 2018 and 2038 as there was on average between 2001 and 2007. It was also assumed that

the number of fatalities per accident would be the same in 2018 and 2038 as on average

between 2001 and 2007.

These assumptions are however considered to be conservative given that there are strong

indicators in the statistics that point to a decrease both in accident frequencies and in fatalities

on road. In revision 1 of the ORA the development of traffic accident frequencies and

consequences for the year 2018 and 2038 are estimated based on statistical trends.

The statistics indicate, contrary to the assumption of the accident frequency and fatalities per

accident remaining constant, that there will be a decrease in accident frequencies and

consequences between 2018 and 2038. In Table 7-21 the values from ORA revision 0 are

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

56/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

presented together with extrapolated values for motorways based on the statistical data from the

Danish Road Directorate as used in revision 1.

Total number of accidents per year

Revision 1

Revision 0

2018

3.116

4.270

2038

2.199

6.140

Table 7-21 Accident frequency per year for ORA revision 1 and 0 for the Fehmarnbelt Fixed link

This change in input affects a number of the results including individual risk to life safety,

disruption and societal risk.

7.6.2

Road accident fatalities

In a similar manner to which the accident frequency is extrapolated the average number of

fatalities per year is also expected to decrease again based on the statistical data from the

Danish Road Directorate. Table 7-22 presents the average number of fatalities used in revision 0

and the revised number of fatalities per accident, based on statistical trends, which have been

used in revision 1.

Average number of fatalities per accident

Revision 1

Revision 0

Table 7-22 Fatalities per accident in revision 1 and 0

2018

0.025

0.0451

2038

0.013

This change in input affects individual risk to life safety for road users.

7.6.3

Road fire frequency

The fire frequencies used for the road in the ORA have been updated in light of more recent

statistics. The fire frequencies used in revision 0 were based on data from PIARC. PIARC data for

the frequency of fires in road tunnels is based on statistics from years 1968 to 1992 and is

therefore considered to be conservative. In revision 1, Danish statistics for road fires have been

used and are considered to be more appropriate in this situation. Firstly, as a result of

representing the vehicles typically expected to use the tunnel and secondly since they are

considered to be more up to date.

Revision 1

Car fire frequency

HGV fire frequency

Bus fire frequency

DGV fire frequency

6.75∙10

-9

1.39∙10

-8

1.39∙10

-8

1.03∙10

-8

Revision 0

1.50∙10

-8

3.08∙10

-8

3.08∙10

-8

2.30∙10

-8

Table 7-23 Fire frequency per year and vehicle km for ORA revision 1 and 0 for the Fehmarnbelt Fixed

link

This change in input affects the individual risk to life safety in addition to the disruption for both

the road and rail tunnels.

7.6.4

Road fire fatalities

In line with revised modelling of the fire scenarios in the road tunnel the fatalities expected given

specific scenarios have been made more conservative. The number of fire scenarios in which

fatalities are expected has increased from four to nine. These scenarios are all considered high

challenge fires and extreme events in that they have very long return period. Thus, although the

increase to life safety increases, the overall number of fatalities per year does not increase

significantly due to the low likelihood of these scenarios occurring.

7.6.5

Tunnel length

The tunnel length has been changed during the conceptual design phase. The lengths of road and

rail ramps on the landside areas have also changed.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

57/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

In revision 0 of the ORA the road link was taken as 18,690m while the rail link was taken as

19,529m

In revision 1 of the ORA the road link is 25,430m and the rail link is 26,055m.

As the accident frequency is per km this increased length leads to increased accidents on both

road and rail and therefore impacts on all aspects of the ORA.

7.6.6

Traffic data

The traffic data has been changed on request from Femern A/S. The data used in ORA revision 0

and revision 1 is presented in Table 7-24.

Revision 0

2018

2038

9,639

8,152

2,446

5,707

1,352

134

13,856

11,190

3,357

7,833

2,492

173

Revision 1

2018

2038

9,856

8,325

2,497

5,828

1,395

136

16,113

1,2865

3,859

9,006

3,057

191

Road Traffic

Annual average daily traffic

(AADT) [veh/day]

Cars

Cars (prof. activities) 30%

Cars (private use) 70%

Lorries

Coaches

Average person per vehicle

Cars (prof. activities)

Cars (private use)

Lorries

Coaches

Average load per lorry in tons

Rail Traffic

Average number of freight

trains per day

Average number of passenger

trains per day

Passengers per passenger train

Average number of

operators/workers on trains

Average load per freight wagon

Number of wagons per freight

train

2.4

1.2

2.9

1.0

15.9

Revision 0

2018

2038

17.0

2.4

1.2

2.9

1.0

35.0

15.9

Revision 1

2018

2038

49.0

40.0

17.7

113

Table 7-24 Traffic data for ORA revision 0 and revision 1

The change in traffic volume affects all results since the number of accidents per year is

calculated based on number of vehicle or rolling stock kilometres in the tunnel per year.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

58/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

FUTURE WORK

In the next revision ORA 2014 (Autumn) updates will at least be made on the following topics:



Dragged and dropped anchor; at the time detailed studies are made for dragged and dropped

anchor. These studies will be included in the ORA.



Grounding ships; at the time detailed studies are made for grounding ships. These studies will

be included in the ORA.



A more detailed study of the disruption of the road and rail, focus on updates in design

regarding location of control centre and substation.



The evacuation model on road and rail relative to the fire consequence calculations will be

looked over and updated if it is found necessarily.



A more detailed study at the consequences at the landsides (especially at Lolland as the safety

zone is shorter than the Femern side). This study will include a more thorough description of

the landsides with focus on safety.



The costs of fatalities etc. will be updated to 2014 prices (instead of the present 2009 prices)



Include new data from DHI for wave heights and sea level.



Include results from the risk study of laybys.



Update of the Operational Risk Management Plan



Possible cost benefit analysis of FFFS (fixed fire fighting system)

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

59/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

APPENDIX A

–

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS GOODS

–

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

In order to access the consequences in accidents where dangerous goods are involved, some

assumptions have been made, e.g., regarding size of releases, and toxicity limits for the selected

substances.

The assumptions are all related to the chosen scenarios involving dangerous goods, which are the

following:



Ammonia release

Chlorine release

Flammable liquids

LPG

Explosives

Acids and bases (corrosives)

9.1

Assumptions

General assumptions made:

•

The upper limit for the longitudinal tunnel ventilation is an air velocity of 10 m/s.

The critical velocity in terms of smoke ventilation is set to 3.2 m/s

for a 200 MW fire scenario, ref. [16].

The CFD-model includes: 2 groups of jet fans with each 4 parallel jet fans

•

Internal diameter 1250 mm

•

Jet velocity: 35 m/s (max)

•

Thrust pressure: 1600 N

•

Length of jet fan: 6 meter

•

Start up time: 60 sec.

Figure 9-1: Location of jet fans used in the CFD-modelling of releases in road part

9.1.1

Release sizes

In the consequence modelling different sizes of release have been modelled; namely small,

medium and large. In this section is described how “small”, “medium” and “large” have been

interpreted. The flow rates are calculated using QRA Pro, ref. [17].

The flow rates for ammonia/chlorine are presented in Table 9-1, and for LPG in Table 9-2.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

60/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Release size

Small

Medium

Large

Storage pressure

80 bar

100 bar

80 bar

100 bar

80 bar

100 bar

Hole size

(diameter)

0.1”

1”

10”

Calculated mass flow rate

0.308 kg/s

0.345 kg/s

30.8 kg/s

34.5 kg/s

3080 kg/s

3450 kg/s

Table 9-1 Representative release sizes of ammonia and chlorine and calculated mass flow rates

Release size

Small

Medium

Large

Storage pressure

80 bar

100 bar

80 bar

100 bar

80 bar

100 bar

Hole size

(diameter)

0.1”

1”

10”

Calculated mass flow rate

0.288 kg/s

0.322 kg/s

28.8 kg/s

32.2 kg/s

2880 kg/s

3220 kg/s

Table 9-2 Representative release sizes of LPG and calculated mass flow rates

From Table 9-1 and Table 9-2 it is seen that the difference in mass flow rates between ammonia,

chlorine and LPG do not differ significantly, hence for all three substances the values presented in

Table 9-3 have been used in modelling.

Release size

Small

Medium

Large

Storage pressure

80 bar

Hole size

(diameter)

0.1”

1”

10”

Calculated mass flow rate

0.288 kg/s

28.8 kg/s

2880 kg/s

Table 9-3 Mass flow rates of ammonia, chlorine and LPG used in the CFD-modelling

9.1.2

Location of source of release

Some assumptions regarding the source to the release, namely:

•

Release source is the back-end of truck and cover the whole area of the back face of the

truck, see Figure 9-2.

Only diffusive leaks have been analysed

Jet release is assumed to be converted into diffusive leak due to blockage

Figure 9-2: Location of the source to the release of dangerous goods

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

61/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

9.1.3

Assessment of impact from toxic release

A number of toxic materials will be transported on the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link. Following an

accident with a truck or a freight train transporting dangerous goods, there is a possibility for a

release of toxic materials. In this assessment ammonia and chlorine have been selected as

representative materials, why these two materials have been investigated. The release of toxic

materials will have no influence on the structure, but could have serious consequences for the

users. A typical accident in the road tube would be a truck accident where the truck will block the

traffic and traffic will queue up behind the truck. The vehicles in front of the accident are in these

circumstances assumed to drive out of the tunnel.

9.1.3.1

Individual risk

The consequence assessment for toxic releases used in this assessment is based on dispersion

calculations in combination with computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD)-modelling and probit

functions. The probit function predicts human impact in terms of the probability of fatalities

given a certain concentration and a certain time of exposure.

9.1.3.2

Dispersion calculations and CFD modelling

CFD-modelling has been carried out for representative substances. This includes dispersion

analyses of chlorine and ammonia. The consequences of selected release sizes (see section

9.1.1) are based on the results from dispersion calculations. The dispersion calculations are

computed by means of the air-concentrations at given locations of the given substances in the

tubes.

The results of the modelling are presented in ref. [3].

9.1.3.3

Probit and LC50

The individual risk in terms of a probability of fatalities is modelled with a probit function,

reflecting the toxic dose, i.e. exposed concentration and time. The dispersion modelling is linked

to the probit function by determining the size of a cloud giving a 50% probability of fatality at the

exposure time given by the size of the cloud or the release duration, or both. The probits used

are those recommended by DNV Technica, ref. [18]. A probit function is material/substance

dependent and it is expressed as:

�½



ln(

)

Where

is the probit value for death

is the concentration of toxic material ppm

a, b

and

are material constants

is the time of exposure, minutes

The probit value is transferred to a probability of fatalities through a normal distribution. If the

concentration varies during the time of exposure, the concentration should be expressed as an

integral of time. In this assessment it is assumed that the concentration of exposure is

approximately time independent. The human impact is described in terms of a 50% fatality,

which is a common means to determine the number of people affected by a given incident within

a uniform population, e.g. a car queue in the tunnel. The 50% limit is used as it is a measure of

the average fatal dose. Weaker individuals being beyond the envelope may be among the

casualties while stronger individuals within will survive, i.e. the 50% fatality criterion is used to

predict a 100% fatality level.

The deadly concentrations can be calculated by means of the formula below:

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

62/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

LC50 after t min. exposure =









exp



























9.1.4

t: time in minutes

p = Pr(50%) =5

Corrosive release

A corrosive substance is one that will destroy or irreversibly damage another substance with

which it comes into contact. The main hazards to people include damage to the eyes, the skin,

and the tissue under the skin; inhalation or ingestion of a corrosive substance can damage the

respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. Exposure results in chemical burn. The most common

strong acids are sulfuric acid, nitric acid and hydrochloric acid (H

, HNO

and HCl,

respectively).

9.1.4.1

Individual risk

The human impact of a corrosive release inside the tunnel will be dependent of the released

material and the time for exposure although people may be seriously injured by the liquid itself

or fumes due to reactions. The likelihood of fatalities is low. The percentage of fatalities due to an

accident with corrosive release is therefore assumed to be the same as for ordinary rail accidents

involving freight trains, described in section 4.1.2.1.

9.1.4.2

Disruption

Corrosive releases may be releases of typically acids or bases. Corrosive materials are normally

transported in thin walled tanks on trucks or on railway. The capacity of the drainage system will

affect the impact of a release. Two sub sumps in the road tubes will have sufficient volume to

collect the contents of a tank truck (30 m

). Two sub sumps in the rail tubes will have sufficient

volume to collect the contents of one tank wagon (80 m

). The sumps will be emptied with a

tanker. Assuming that an available tanker is one hour away and it will take 15 minutes to empty

the sumps and another 15 minutes to make the dissention to open the tunnel again.

9.1.5

Ammonia release

Ammonia is a colourless gas with a characteristic pungent smell. It is lighter than air, its density

being 0.589 times that of air. It is easily liquefied due to the strong hydrogen bonding between

molecules. Ammonia does not burn readily or sustain combustion, except under narrow fuel-to-

air mixtures of 15-25% air. Anhydrous ammonia is classified as toxic and inhalation of

concentrated gas can be lethal.

9.1.5.1.1

Individual risk

The consequence for individuals is assessed for release of ammonia based on CFD-modelling and

probit functions. The result is presented in the following section.

9.1.5.2

CFD calculations

CFD-modelling has been carried out for two scenarios for ammonia:



Small release

Medium release

The release sizes used in the modelling are defined in Table 9-3. The small release gives a

concentration below 4.200 ppm. The small release scenario does not lead to a critical situation,

not even for the driver. Hence, no fatalities are expected in this scenario.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

63/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Figure 9-3 Result from CFD calculations for small release of ammonia

The medium release scenario leads to a concentration of 40.000 ppm which is a critical situation

for the people in the tunnel. The number of fatalities depends on the number of people in the

tunnel following a release.

Figure 9-4 Result from CFD calculations for medium release of ammonia

Since the medium release gives a concentration high enough to create a critical situation, CFD

–

modelling has not been performed for large releases. Assumptions of the concentrations for a

large release have been made based on the medium release.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

64/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

9.1.5.3

Probit and LC50

The most severe consequences from an ammonia release will origin from ammonias toxicity; the

deadly concentrations are given below:



a: -15.8

b: 1

n: 2.0

An example is LC50 with an exposure time of 10 minutes given Pr(50%) = 5 and an ammonia

gas intensity of 0.69 kg/m

LC50 after 30 min. exposure:





15.8

 



exp













6000



8700

ppm













In Table 9-4 LC50 for different exposure time is presented. Exposure times below 5 minutes

contain large uncertainties.

LC50

Exposure time (minutes)

�½

mg/m

46471

32860

14695

8484

5999

4242

Ppm

64542

45638

20410

11784

8332

5892

Table 9-4 LC50 for ammonia - Lethal concentration as a function of probability of fatality at different

exposure times

In the risk assessment it is assumed that a concentration above 8695 ppm in more than 5

minutes will be lethal. And for exposure time less than 5 minutes a concentration above 21.295

ppm is assumed to be lethal.

Ammonia vapour has a sharp, irritating, pungent odour that acts as a warning of potentially

dangerous exposure. The average odour threshold is 5 ppm, well below any danger or damage.

Exposure to very high concentrations of gaseous ammonia can result in lung damage and death.

9.1.5.3.1

Consequences to the structure and the installations

The consequences to the structure and the tunnel installations due to a toxic release of ammonia

may be similar to those of a corrosive release; e.g. released gases may react with water in the

drainage system and with concrete moisture. The tunnel will need to be cleaned from the toxic

release by washing the interior with water. The concrete, asphalt and different installations may

need to be replaced, but the restoration of the tunnel must not necessary include closure of both

of the road or railway tubes.

9.1.5.3.2

Disruption

The capacity of the drainage system will affect the impact of a release in the same way as for

corrosive release see section 9.1.4.2.

9.1.6

Chlorine release

Chlorine is a toxic gas that irritates the respiratory system. Because it is heavier than air, it tends

to accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces. Chlorine gas is a strong oxidizer, which

may react with flammable materials. Chlorine is detectable in concentrations of as low as 0.2

ppm. Coughing and vomiting may occur at 30 ppm and lung damage at 60 ppm. About 1000 ppm

can be fatal after a few deep breaths of the gas.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

65/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

9.1.6.1.1

Individual risk

The consequence for individuals is assessed for release of chlorine based on CFD-modelling and

probit functions. The result is presented in the following section.

9.1.6.1.2

CFD calculations

The same CFD–modelling as for ammonia is used to determine the concentration of chlorine in

the tunnel after an accident which leads to a release. A small release gives a concentration of

4200 ppm and a medium release gives a concentration of 40 000 ppm. It is assumed that a large

release gives the same consequence as a medium release.

9.1.6.2

Probit and LC50

The most severe consequences from a chlorine release will origin from chlorines toxicity; the

deadly concentrations are given below:



a: -14.8

b: 1

n: 2.3

An example is LC50 with an exposure time of 10 minutes given Pr(50%) = 5 and a chlorine gas

intensity of 0.10 kg/m

LC50 after 30 min. exposure:





14.3

 



exp













1005



335

ppm













In Table 9-4 LC50 for different exposure time is presented. Exposure times below 5 minutes

contain large insecurities.

LC50

Exposure time (minutes)

�½

mg/m

5959

4409

2190

1358

1005

743

ppm

1986

1470

730

453

335

248

Table 9-5 LC50 for chlorine - Lethal concentration as a function of probability of fatality at different

exposure times

9.1.6.3

Consequences to the structure and the installations

The consequences to the structure and the tunnel installations due to a toxic release of chlorine

are assumed to be the same as for ammonia, see section 9.1.5.3.1 .

9.1.6.3.1

Disruption

The capacity of the drainage system will affect the impact of a release in the same way as for

corrosive release see section 9.1.4.2.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

66/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

9.1.7

Detection of release

There are installed a few (five) gas detectors in the tunnel in order to measure the NO

concentration. No detectors are installed with the specific purpose of identifying releases of

dangerous goods.

The tunnel is designed with a VAID (Vehicle Accident and Incident Detection)-system that

automatically detects if a vehicle is stopped in the tunnel. In the analysis it has been assumed

that all significant releases of dangerous goods are related to traffic accidents, hence the vehicle

releasing the dangerous goods will be stopped. The VAID system is designed such that it

automatically starts up ventilation in order to avoid back-layering of smoke (in possible fire

scenarios) and gasses (from dangerous goods releases).

It the analyses it has been assumed that it will take 1 minute to detect the release/accident (by

means of a stopped vehicle) and start the ventilation up.

9.2

Assessment of impact from explosions

Explosions in terms of deflagration or detonation may be a result of ignition of solid explosives or

releases of LPG or similar materials. The following section presents the estimate of fatalities in

detonation of solid explosives, and the results of ignition of gas clouds leading to deflagration.

The effects of a detonation of solid explosives are only presented as an estimate of the number of

fatalities.

9.2.1

Solid explosives

Solid explosives are likely to be transported to some extent through the tunnel. If such goods

should detonate the consequences will probably be severe. Explosives are normally transported

in bulk packages and the amounts up to 1000 kg on road. In risk assessment for the Øresund

link ref. [13] calculations regarding explosions were made.

The assessment for Øresund showed that the consequences of an accident involving explosion of

solid explosives will be severe, and considering the overpressures possible in case of a

detonation, a collapse of several tunnel elements is possible. A collapse of one tunnel element

due to an explosion in one tube will affect vehicles in the accident tube as well as in the other

tubes. An explosion might cause collapse of more than one element. Vehicles which just have

passed the collapsing element are assumed to be able to drive out of the tunnel.

9.2.2

Vapour cloud explosion

A vapour cloud explosion is a deflagration creating an overpressure pulse as the flame front

burns from the point of ignition. The velocity of the flame front, which determines the

overpressure, is dependent on the size of the gas cloud in the tunnel. The length of the gas cloud

from typical release scenarios (se section 9.1.1) are determined by dispersion calculations

previously described.

The consequences of an explosion of a continuous release of LPG in terms of fatalities due to an

explosion in the tunnel are estimated by assuming that people inside the exploding gas cloud will

be fatally injured. People outside the cloud are assumed not to be harmed. The CFD modelling for

the road tube showed that a medium release of LPG will give a gas cloud larger than 200 m

within 150 seconds. It also indicates that a small release will not be sufficient to get an explosion.

For the medium release the whole tunnel might be affected by a gas cloud and gas clouds longer

than 200 m will most likely detonate causing fatalities in the whole tunnel..

9.2.3

BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion)

For outdoor BLEVE accidents, the consequences to people are normally assessed as the extent

and duration of the fireball, hence overpressure effects are normally not considered. The fireball

is normally modelled as a spherical fireball, assumed to be resting on the ground. The parameter

affecting the size of the fireball is the mass of the flammable liquid exploding in a BLEVE. A

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

67/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

BLEVE occurring inside a tunnel will be formed by the tunnel instead of forming a spherical

fireball.

In the risk assessment for the Øresund Link ref. [13] the radius of a BLEVE fireball and the

consequences of a BLEVE inside the tunnel have been calculated. The model used for the

Øresund link is conservative and gives indications of that an accident leading to a BLEVE inside

the tunnel, will affect the whole tunnel. It is assumed that a BLEVE in the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link

also will affect the whole tunnel. Based the fact that the Øresund Tunnel is 3.5 km and the

Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link Tunnel is 18.4 km this assumption is conservative.

The consequences from a BLEVE are assumed to be the same as for explosion with solid

explosives.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

68/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

10. APPENDIX B

–

TRAIN DISTRIBUTION IN TUNNEL FROM

TIME SCHEDULE

Based on the time schedule for 2025, which is described in ref. [21], an analysis about the train

distribution in the tunnel has been carried out.

The timetable data is diverging from the data used in Table 4-4, because of an increased number

of trains, see Table 10-1.

Rail Traffic

Average number of freight trains per day

Average number of passenger trains per day

2025

Table 10-1: Expected number of trains per day used in scheduling for the year 2025

Based on the time scheduled it is assessed how often different train scenarios are expected to

occur. From the analysis it is seen that there are two trains as a maximum - the combinations

are:



Two freight trains, (freight train followed by a passenger train and passenger train

followed by a freight train),

A single passenger train,

A single freight train.

The fraction of time spent in each scenario is estimated for each travel direction, and the result is

presented in Table 10-2.

Scenario

Freight / Freight

Freight / Passenger

Passenger / Freight

Freight

Passenger

Total

Fehmarn direction

1.6%

0.0%

0.1%

36.5%

11.9%

50.1%

Lolland direction

1.9%

1.1%

0.0%

32.9%

10.9%

46.9%

Table 10-2: Fraction of different train scenarios

From Table 10-2 it is seen that there are trains in a tunnel in direction of Fehmarn about 50% of

the time and about 47% in the direction of Lolland.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

69/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

11. APPENDIX C

–

DISTRIBUTIONS OF TRAIN CAPACITY

11.1.1.1

Passenger trains

The average number of passengers on passenger trains is estimated to 95 persons, and the

number of workers on each train is conservatively set to 3 (Train driver, Train manager and one

other), ref.[3]. This gives a total of 98 persons on passengers on trains on average. Based on

traffic data from the present travel connection, i.e., passengers on trains driving on board of the

ferry between Rødby and Puttgarten, an analysis has been carried out. Data covers a one year

period from October 2011 to September 2012.

In Figure 11-1 the distribution of the present train capacities can be seen. Due to the fact that it

is expected that the same type and number of trains will be needed in the future, this distribution

is assumed to estimate the future distribution very well. It is e.g. seen that 82% of the trains can

have 195 passengers on board and a minor fraction (about 0.3%) can have up to 390

passengers.

90%

82%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

13%

10%

147

195

294

390

Figure 11-1 Distribution of train capacities

In Figure 11-2 the actual distribution of passengers can be seen. It is seen that it is most likely

that there are between 40 and 200 passengers on a train

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

70/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12%

10%

Figure 11-2 Actual distribution of passengers

It is seen that there is only a few number of registrations with trains with more than 260-270

passengers. The maximum number of passengers seen in data is 320. The distribution has been

shown in Figure 11-3 together with a fitted distribution.

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Number of passengers (including workers/operators)

Figure 11-3 Assumed distribution

From the data and the distribution it is seen that it is very unlikely that the number of passengers

in a train is larger than 320.

The numbers are presented in Table 11-1.

Operational Risk Analysis

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

Distribution of persons on passenger trains

Work in Progress

71/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Intervals (number of passengers)

100

150

275

100

150

275

350

Cumulative

4.8%

42.3%

61%

87%

99.2%

99.9%

Distribution

4.8%

37.5%

18.6%

26.2%

12.0%

0.76%

Table 11-1 Persons on passenger trains

11.1.1.2

Freight trains

It is assumed; see ref. [3], that the locomotive driver is the only person on the freight train.

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

72/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12. APPENDIX D

–

CONSEQUENCE TABLES

12.1

Road accidents resulting in no fire

1.1 - Car accident resulting in no fire

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

95,92%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

4,00%

4,00E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,08%

5,91E-03

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0417

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

2,50E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.3 - Buss accident resulting in no fire

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

92,00%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

7,67%

7,67E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,33%

2,30E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0833

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

73/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.5 - Truck accident resulting in no fire

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

74/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.2

Road accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia

1.1.1 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.1.2 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in small release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

90,11%

1,00E+03

9,49E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

9,39%

9,39E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

4,94E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,51%

3,54E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1042

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,31E-03

9,17E-03

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,052

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

75/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.1.3 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in medium release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

56,6912

88,25%

1,00E+03

9,39E-01

1,00E+00

11,03%

1,10E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

5,87E-02

0,72%

5,03E-02

0,01%

100

99,99%

300

0,00%

2,24E-03 1,00E+02 2,16E-05

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1250

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,87E-03

1,31E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,063

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.1.4 - Traffic accident involving Dangerous goods vehicle carrying Ammonia resulting in Large release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

85,0225

82,90%

1,00E+03

9,11E-01

1,00E+00

15,54%

1,55E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

8,54E-02

1,55%

1,09E-01

100

95,04%

300

4,96%

9,50E+01 1,49E+01

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1875

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

4,13E-03

2,89E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,094

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

76/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.3

Road accidents involving dangerous good vehicle carrying chlorine

1.2.1 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying chlorine resulting in no release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.2.2 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying chlorine resulting in small release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

90,11%

1,00E+03

9,49E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

9,39%

9,39E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

4,94E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,51%

3,54E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1042

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,31E-03

9,17E-03

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,052

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

77/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.2.3 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying chlorine resulting in medium release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

113,3538

88,25%

1,00E+03

9,39E-01

1,00E+00

11,03%

1,10E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

5,87E-02

0,72%

5,03E-02

100

11,21%

300

88,79%

1,12E+01 2,66E+02

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1250

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,87E-03

1,31E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,063

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.2.4 - Traffic accident involving Dangerous goods vehicle carrying Chlorine resulting in Large release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

170,0164

82,90%

1,00E+03

9,11E-01

1,00E+00

15,54%

1,55E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

8,54E-02

1,55%

1,09E-01

100

0,00%

300

100,00%

4,16E-07 3,00E+02

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1875

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

4,13E-03

2,89E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,094

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

78/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.4

Road accidents involving dangerous good vehicle carrying lpg

1.3.1 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in no release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.3.2 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in small release no ignition

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

90,11%

1,00E+03

9,49E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

9,39%

9,39E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

4,94E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,51%

3,54E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1042

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,31E-03

9,17E-03

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,052

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

79/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.3.3 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in small release, delayed

ignition leading to a explosion

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

180

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

1.3.5 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in small release, immediate

ignition leading to a bleve

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

180

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

80/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.3.7 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in medium release, no

immediate ignition leading to a no ignition

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

88,25%

1,00E+03

9,39E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

11,03%

1,10E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

5,87E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,72%

5,03E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1250

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,87E-03

1,31E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,063

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.3.8 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in medium release, delayed

ignition leading to a explosion

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

180

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

81/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.3.10 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in medium release,

immediate ignition leading to a bleve

Fatalities road

100

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

180

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

1.3.12 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in large release, no

immediate ignition leading to a no ignition

Fatalities road

100

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

82,90%

1,00E+03

9,11E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

15,54%

1,55E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

8,54E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

1,55%

1,09E-01

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1875

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

4,13E-03

2,89E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,094

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

82/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.3.15 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in large release, leading to

a immediate ignition - explosion

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

180

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

83/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.5

Road accidents involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids

1.4.1 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquidsresulting in no release

of heptane

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.4.2 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in small

heptane release no ignition

100

300

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

90,11%

1,00E+03

9,49E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

9,39%

9,39E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

4,94E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,51%

3,54E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1042

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,31E-03

9,17E-03

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,052

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

84/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.4.3 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in heptane

release, ignition leading to a bleve

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

1,00E+04

180

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

43,473

1,13E-09 2,00E-02 9,80E-01

1,13E-08 6,01E-01 9,80E+01

100

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

43,473

1,13E-09 2,00E-02 9,80E-01

1,13E-08 6,01E-01 9,80E+01

1.4.5 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in heptane

release, medium release leading to a no ignition

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

88,25%

1,00E+03

9,39E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

11,03%

1,10E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

5,87E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,72%

5,03E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1250

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,87E-03

1,31E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,063

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

85/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.4.6 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in heptane

release, medium release leading to a bleve

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

180

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

1.4.8 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in heptane

release, large release leading to no ignition

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

82,90%

1,00E+03

9,11E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

15,54%

1,55E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

8,54E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

1,55%

1,09E-01

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1875

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

4,13E-03

2,89E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,094

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

86/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.4.9 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in heptane

release, large release, leading to a ignition

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson ered in DGV-fire event tree

0,0000

100,00%

1,00E+03

100,00%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

1,00E+04

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,00E+00

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

87/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.6

Road accidents involving vehicles carrying explosives

1.5.1 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying exposives resulting in detonation

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

215,3177

1,00E+03

2,13E-01

1,00E+04

3,29E-01

100

180

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,0000

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

3,86E-01

1,16E+00

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

5,14E-01

1,88E+02

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

365,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,547

7,17E-02 7,43E-07

7,17E-01 2,23E-05

1.5.2 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying exposives resulting in no detonation

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

88/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.7

Road accidents involving vehicles carrying acids and bases

1.6.1 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids and bases resulting in large release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

82,90%

1,00E+03

9,11E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

15,54%

1,55E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

8,54E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

1,55%

1,09E-01

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1875

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

4,13E-03

2,89E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,094

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.6.2 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids and bases resulting in medium

release

Fatalities road

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

88,25%

1,00E+03

9,39E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

11,03%

1,10E-01

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

5,87E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,72%

5,03E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

180

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1250

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,87E-03

1,31E-02

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,063

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

89/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

1.6.3 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids and bases resulting in small release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

90,11%

1,00E+03

9,49E-01

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

9,39%

9,39E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

4,94E-02

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,51%

3,54E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,1042

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

1,31E-03

9,17E-03

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,052

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

1.6.4 - traffic accident involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids and bases resulting in no release

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0287

97,17%

93,94%

1,00E+03

1,00E+00

2,79%

2,79E-02

5,87%

5,87E-02

1,00E+04

100,00%

1,00E+04

0,04%

1,21E-03

0,19%

1,31E-02

0,00%

2,76E-07

100

180

300

365

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,0625

Repair costs

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+03

1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

365

300

Disruption rail

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Fatalities rail employees

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

0,000

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

90/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.8

Fire Road

Scenario

2.1.2

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

2.1.6

2.1.7

2.1.8

2.1.9

2.2.2

2.2.3

2.2.4

2.2.5

2.2.6

2.2.7

2.2.8

2.2.9

2.3.2

2.3.3

2.3.4

2.3.5

2.3.6

2.3.7

2.3.8

2.3.9

2.3.10

2.3.11

2.3.12

2.3.13

2.3.14

2.3.15

2.3.16

2.3.17

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.4.4

2.4.5

2.4.6

2.4.7

2.4.8

2.4.9

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.3.1

2.4.1

2.5.1

2.6.1

2.7.1

2.8.1

1,00

0,43

1,00

0,43

1,00

0,40

0,43

1,00

0,43

1,00

0,43

1,00

0,09

0,02

0,09

0,27

0,13

0,27

0,21

0,43

0,21

0,00

0,01

0,00

100

300

Mean

3,00

5,00

3,00

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

91/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Repair costs

Fire size

2,5

200

350

Repair costs [Euro] - fire inside enclosed tunnel

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06

1,00E+07

1,00E+08

9,44E-01 5,56E-02

7,26E-02 9,27E-01 3,16E-04

5,05E-02 9,49E-01 6,09E-04

1,10E-05 7,36E-01 2,64E-01

1,84E-08

2,66E-07 4,44E-01 5,56E-01

1,10E-06

9,30E-04 9,60E-01

3,90E-02

5,16E-04

9,44E-01

5,56E-02

2,66E-07

4,44E-01

5,56E-01

8,53E-03

9,85E-01

1,00E+09

1,10E-06

6,41E-03

Mean

1.500

9.375

96.000

337.500

600.000

1.350.000

15.000.000

60.000.000

105.000.000

Repair costs [Euro] - fire on landsides

Fire size 1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06

1,00E+07

1,00E+08

1,00E+00

2,5

1,00E+00

1,10E-05 7,36E-01 2,64E-01 1,84E-08

9,30E-04 9,60E-01 3,90E-02

200

2,66E-07 4,44E-01

5,56E-01

1,10E-06

350

8,53E-03

9,85E-01

6,41E-03

Disruption

Fire size

2,5

200

350

Fire size

2,5

200

350

8,73E-01

8,11E-01

7,71E-01

7,15E-01

4,22E-01

2,90E-01

6,93E-01

5,00E-01

Disruption [days] - fire inside enclosed tunnel

1,14E-01 1,22E-02

1,53E-01 3,52E-02 6,52E-09

1,67E-01 6,18E-02 1,24E-07

1,66E-01 1,19E-01 4,62E-06

4,32E-02 5,05E-01 3,01E-02

1,17E-05

4,53E-03 4,20E-01 2,81E-01

4,06E-03

1,61E-07 2,82E-04

1,68E-01

Disruption [days] - fire

3,63E-02 7,67E-04

6,41E-02 2,75E-03

8,58E-02 5,60E-03

1,28E-01 1,74E-02

1,44E-01 2,70E-02

1,62E-01 4,83E-02

5,83E-02 4,62E-01

4,53E-03 4,20E-01

- Incident tube

180

1,39E-01

5,00E-01

1,00E+09

Mean

1.000

33.750

135.000

6.000.000

10.500.000

365

Mean

0,20

0,40

0,60

1,00

4,00

7,00

30,00

90,00

9,63E-01

9,33E-01

9,09E-01

8,55E-01

8,29E-01

7,90E-01

4,65E-01

2,90E-01

inside enclosed tunnel - Non

1,70E-09

3,33E-08

1,48E-02

2,35E-06

2,81E-01

4,06E-03

2,81E-01

4,06E-03

incident tube

180

365

Mean

0,04

0,08

0,13

0,25

0,33

0,50

3,50

7,00

Fire size

2,5

200

350

8,73E-01

8,11E-01

7,90E-01

6,60E-01

6,10E-01

1,14E-01

1,53E-01

1,62E-01

1,46E-01

1,22E-01

Disruption [days] - fire on landsides

180

1,22E-02

3,52E-02 6,52E-09

4,83E-02 3,33E-08

1,93E-01 7,41E-05

2,67E-01 4,94E-04

1,75E-09

2,67E-01 4,94E-04

1,75E-09

365

Mean

0,20

0,40

0,50

1,50

2,00

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

92/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.9

Train Collision

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

93/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.0 - No severe collision

Fatalities passengers

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

92,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

8,33E-02

Repair costs

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

92,00%

7,67%

100,00%

1,00E+05

0,33%

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+04

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

8,33E-02

Fatalities road

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1 - Front- Front - Train collision with one passenger train and one freight train not carrying

dangerous goods

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

10,26

Fatalities employees

0,00%

29,00%

0,04%

0,81%

54,20%

44,95%

0,00%

300

365

3,59E-04 2,44E-02 5,42E+00 1,35E+01 1,38E-05

35,90%

31,39%

3,72%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,238

Disruption

3,59E-01 9,42E-01 3,72E-01 2,54E-06

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

94/178

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3 - Front- Front - Train collision with two freight trains not carrying dangerous goods

Fatalities passengers

36,79%

24,53%

1,90%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

Disruption

3,68E-01 7,36E-01 1,90E-01 3,01E-07

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.5 - Front- Front - Train collision with two passenger trains

Fatalities passengers

0,00%

27,47%

4,98%

0,04%

0,81%

54,20%

44,95%

100

0,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

10,26

Fatalities employees

3,59E-04 2,44E-02 5,42E+00 1,35E+01 1,38E-05

35,49%

32,80%

4,23%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,292

Disruption

3,55E-01 9,84E-01 4,23E-01 3,87E-06

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

50,03%

49,97%

180

100

365

300

95/178

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,00E+06

Disruption road

5,00E+05 5,00E+06

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.6 - Front- End - Train collision with one passenger train and one freight train not carrying

dangerous goods

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

5,13

Average

Fatalities employees

0,59%

53,85%

3,04%

21,10%

73,65%

1,62%

100

180

300

365

3,04E-02 6,33E-01 7,37E+00 4,86E-01

33,33%

12,44%

0,37%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

0,619

Disruption

3,33E-01 3,73E-01 3,75E-02 2,18E-09

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.7 - Front- End- Train collision with two freight trains not carrying dangerous goods

Fatalities passengers

32,75%

11,61%

0,32%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

55,32%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

0,592

Disruption

3,28E-01 3,48E-01 3,20E-02 1,37E-09

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

96/178

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.9 - Front- End - Train collision with two passenger trains

Fatalities passengers

0,59%

52,41%

3,04%

21,10%

73,65%

1,62%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

5,13

Average

Fatalities employees

3,04E-02 6,33E-01 7,37E+00 4,86E-01

33,86%

13,29%

0,44%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

0,646

Disruption

3,39E-01 3,99E-01 4,35E-02 3,40E-09

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

50,08%

49,92%

180

100

365

300

5,01E+04 4,99E+05

2,65%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

97/178

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.1 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.2 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving ammonia resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

98/178

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.3 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving ammonia resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

23,75

Fatalities employees

47,24%

4,98%

0,00%

0,13%

91,17%

8,71%

1,15E-09 3,66E-07 1,26E-02 2,74E+01 8,71E+00

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

14,94%

44,81%

35,25%

0,03%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 1,34E+00 3,52E+00 8,77E-03

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,42%

0,04%

100,00%

1,00E+07

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 1,33E-01 3,95E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.4 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving ammonia resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

35,625

Fatalities employees

32,47%

4,98%

36,52%

28,25%

0,00%

19,72%

80,28%

4,20E-06 5,91E+00 8,03E+01

2,76%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,125

Disruption

3,65E-01 8,47E-01 2,76E-01 9,83E-07

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

99/178

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.5 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving chlorine resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

45,11%

14,29%

0,00%

100

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 1,35E+00 1,43E+00 2,49E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,42%

0,04%

100,00%

1,00E+07

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 1,33E-01 3,95E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.6 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving chlorine resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100/178

100

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.7 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving chlorine resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

23,75

Fatalities employees

47,24%

4,98%

0,00%

0,13%

91,17%

8,71%

1,15E-09 3,66E-07 1,26E-02 2,74E+01 8,71E+00

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.8 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving chlorine resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

35,625

Fatalities employees

32,47%

4,98%

36,52%

28,25%

0,00%

19,72%

80,28%

4,20E-06 5,91E+00 8,03E+01

2,76%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,125

Disruption

3,65E-01 8,47E-01 2,76E-01 9,83E-07

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

101/178

101

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.9 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving flammable resulting in no release of heptane

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.10 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving flammable resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

102/178

102

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.11 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving flammable resulting in small release, ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

3,00E+02

3.1.13 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving flammable resulting in medium release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

103/178

103

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.14 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good resulting in train accident involving flammable liquids and medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

3,00E+02

3.1.16 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous goods involving flammable liquids resulting in large release leading to no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

104/178

104

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.18 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.19 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

105/178

105

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.20 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg,small release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

3,00E+02

3.1.22 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg,small release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

106/178

106

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.24 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg,medium release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.25 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg,medium release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

107/178

107

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.27 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg,medium release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

3,00E+02

3.1.29 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg, large release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

108/178

108

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.30 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving lpg,large release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

3,00E+02

3.1.33 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous g involving acid and resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

109/178

109

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.34 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous goods involving acid and resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.1.35 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous goods involving acid and resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

4,98%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

110/178

110

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.1.36 - front- front - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous goods involving acid and resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

4,98%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,00E+00

Repair costs

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,33E-01

Fatalities road

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

111/178

111

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.10 Train collision involving dangerous goods

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

112/178

112

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.1 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.2 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

113/178

113

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.3 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

60,65%

30,33%

8,85%

0,18%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,5

Average

Disruption

3,03E-01 2,65E-01 1,75E-02

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.4 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

47,24%

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

0,00%

0,36%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

114/178

114

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.5 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.6 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

115/178

115

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.7 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

60,65%

30,33%

8,85%

0,18%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,5

Average

Disruption

3,03E-01 2,65E-01 1,75E-02

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.8 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

47,24%

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

0,00%

0,36%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

116/178

116

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.9 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in no release of heptane

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.10 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

117/178

117

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.11 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in small release, ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

3,00E+02

3.2.13 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in medium release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

118/178

118

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.14 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goodsheptane

release resulting in medium release ignition leading tobleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

3,00E+02

3.2.16 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in large release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

119/178

119

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.18 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving lpg

resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.19 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving lpg

resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

120/178

120

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.20 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,small release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

3,00E+02

3.2.22 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,small release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

121/178

121

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.24 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,medium release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.25 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,medium release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

122/178

122

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.27 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,medium release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

3,00E+02

3.2.29 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg, large release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

123/178

123

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.30 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,large release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

3,00E+02

3.2.33 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

124/178

124

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.34 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.2.35 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

125/178

125

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.2.36 - front- front - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,17E-01

Fatalities road

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

126/178

126

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

127/178

127

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.1 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.2 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving ammonia resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

128/178

128

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.3 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving ammonia resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

23,75

Fatalities employees

47,24%

0,00%

0,13%

91,17%

8,71%

1,15E-09 3,66E-07 1,26E-02 2,74E+01 8,71E+00

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.4 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving ammonia resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

35,625

Fatalities employees

32,47%

36,52%

28,25%

0,00%

19,72%

80,28%

4,20E-06 5,91E+00 8,03E+01

2,76%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,125

Disruption

3,65E-01 8,47E-01 2,76E-01 9,83E-07

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

129/178

129

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.5 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving chlorine resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.6 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving chlorine resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

130/178

130

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.7 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving chlorine resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

23,75

Fatalities employees

47,24%

0,00%

0,13%

91,17%

8,71%

1,15E-09 3,66E-07 1,26E-02 2,74E+01 8,71E+00

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.8 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving chlorine resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

35,625

Fatalities employees

32,47%

36,52%

28,25%

0,00%

19,72%

80,28%

4,20E-06 5,91E+00 8,03E+01

2,76%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,125

Disruption

3,65E-01 8,47E-01 2,76E-01 9,83E-07

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

131/178

131

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.9 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving flammable resulting in no release of heptane

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.10 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving flammable resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

132/178

132

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.11 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving flammable resulting in small release, ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

14,08%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

3,00E+02

3.3.13 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving flammable resulting in medium release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

133/178

133

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.14 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good resulting in train accident involving flammable liquids and medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

3,00E+02

3.3.16 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving flammable resulting in large release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

134/178

134

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.18 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.19 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

135/178

135

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.20 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg,small release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

14,08%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

3,00E+02

3.3.22 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg,small release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

136/178

136

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.24 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg,medium release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.25 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg,medium release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

14,08%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

137/178

137

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.27 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg,medium release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

14,08%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

3,00E+02

3.3.29 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg, large release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

100

180

100,00%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

7,20E+01

Repair costs

5,39E-07 1,80E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

138/178

138

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.30 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving lpg,large release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

14,08%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

90,25

Fatalities employees

5,78%

16,49%

45,81%

31,90%

0,02%

85,92%

8,59E+01 4,22E+01

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

2,85

Average

Disruption

1,65E-01 1,37E+00 3,19E+00 5,71E-03

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

3.3.33 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving acid and resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

139/178

139

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.34 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving acid and resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.3.35 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving acid and resulting in 0.32967

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

27,07%

59,29%

0,11%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

13,53%

Average

2,00E+00

Repair costs

2,71E-01 4,15E+00 1,54E-02 1,16E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

140/178

140

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.3.36 - front- end - train collision with one passenger train and one freight train carrying

dangerous good involving acid and resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

77,88%

19,47%

2,65%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,50E-01

Fatalities road

1,95E-01 1,85E-01 4,24E-09

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

141/178

141

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.1 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.2 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

142/178

142

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.3 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

60,65%

30,33%

8,85%

0,18%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,5

Average

Disruption

3,03E-01 2,65E-01 1,75E-02

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.4 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

ammonia resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

47,24%

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

143/178

143

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

144/178

144

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.5 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.6 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

145/178

145

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.7 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

60,65%

30,33%

8,85%

0,18%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,5

Average

Disruption

3,03E-01 2,65E-01 1,75E-02

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.8 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

chlorine resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

47,24%

35,43%

16,61%

0,73%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

0,75

Average

Disruption

3,54E-01 4,98E-01 7,29E-02 1,60E-08

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

146/178

146

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.9 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in no release of heptane

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.10 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

1,98%

88,43%

100

180

9,58%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,40E+01

Repair costs

3,32E-04 2,77E-01 2,65E+01 1,73E+01

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

147/178

147

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.11 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in small release, ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

3,00E+02

3.4.13 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in medium release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

1,98%

88,43%

100

180

9,58%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,40E+01

Repair costs

3,32E-04 2,77E-01 2,65E+01 1,73E+01

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

148/178

148

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.14 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods resulting in

train accident involving flammable liquids and medium release ignition leading tobleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

3,00E+02

3.4.16 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

flammable resulting in large release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

1,98%

88,43%

100

180

9,58%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,40E+01

Repair costs

3,32E-04 2,77E-01 2,65E+01 1,73E+01

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

149/178

149

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

150/178

150

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.18 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving lpg

resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

24,53%

1,90%

0,00%

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 7,36E-01 1,90E-01 3,01E-07

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

0,00%

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 3,72E-02 2,81E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.19 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving lpg

resulting in small release and no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

1,98%

88,43%

100

180

9,58%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,40E+01

Repair costs

3,32E-04 2,77E-01 2,65E+01 1,73E+01

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

151/178

151

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.20 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,small release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

3,00E+02

3.4.22 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,small release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

152/178

152

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.24 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,medium release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.25 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,medium release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

300

0,03%

7,67E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

0,00%

100

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

153/178

153

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 3,72E-02 2,81E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.27 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,medium release resulting in immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

3,00E+02

3.4.29 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving lpg,

large release resulting in no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

0,00%

0,36%

100

180

99,64%

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

4,80E+01

Repair costs

1,10E-07 1,09E-01 1,79E+02

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

154/178

154

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.30 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

lpg,large release resulting in delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

14,96%

28,42%

44,10%

12,53%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

1,9

Average

Disruption

2,84E-01 1,32E+00 1,25E+00 1,55E-04

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

100,00%

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

3,00E+02

3.4.33 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

2,15E+02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

155/178

155

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.34 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

3.4.35 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in medium release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

156/178

156

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

3.4.36 - front- end - train collision with two freight trains carrying dangerous goods involving

acid and resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Fatalities employees

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Disruption

Distribution-type Poisson

36,79%

Average

1,00E+00

Repair costs

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

84,65%

14,11%

1,24%

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type Poisson

Average

1,67E-01

Fatalities road

1,41E-01 8,71E-02

Distribution-type Poisson

100,00%

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

157/178

157

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.11 Train derailment

4.1 - train derailment involving passenger train resulting in no severe derailment

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

92,00%

100,00%

50,27%

49,73%

180

100

365

300

5,03E+03 4,97E+04

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E+04

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.2 - train derailment involving passenger train resulting in severe derailment and no fire

Fatalities passengers

0,03%

52,94%

0,21%

3,30%

75,33%

21,13%

100

0,00%

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,265

2,13E-03 9,90E-02 7,53E+00 6,34E+00 1,14E-07

33,67%

12,98%

0,41%

100

180

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,636

3,37E-01 3,89E-01 4,12E-02 2,89E-09

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

158/178

158

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Operational Risk Analysis

Poisson

Work in Progress

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.4 - train derailment involving freight train resulting in not severe derailment

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

95,92%

100,00%

50,27%

49,73%

180

100

365

300

5,03E+03 4,97E+04

4,00%

0,08%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E+04

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-02

4,00E-02 5,91E-03

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.5 - train derailment involving freight train resulting in severe derailment, no dangerous goods

invloved and no fire

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

57,75%

31,71%

10,30%

0,24%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,549

3,17E-01 3,09E-01 2,45E-02

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

159/178

159

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.1.1 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.1.2 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in small release no

ignition

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

160/178

160

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.1.3 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in small

releasedelayed ignition leading to a explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

180

100

100,00%

1,00E+09

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+08

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

2,15E+02

3,00E+02

4.1.5 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg small release resulting in

immediate ignition leading to bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

100,00%

1,00E+06

180

100

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+05

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

161/178

161

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.1.7 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in medium release,

no immediate ignition leading to no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.1.8 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in medium release

no immediate ignition leading to delayed ignition and explosion

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

100,00%

1,00E+03

180

100

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E-02

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

162/178

162

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.1.10 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in medium

release, immediate ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

100,00%

1,00E+03

180

100

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E-01

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

2,15E+02

3,00E+02

4.1.12 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting in large release

leading to no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

163/178

163

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.1.13 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying lpg resulting inlarge release,

no immediate ignition leading to delayed ignition and explosion

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

100,00%

1,00E+03

180

100

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

3,00E+02

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+00

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

2,15E+02

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

164/178

164

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.2.1 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.2.2 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in small

release

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

165/178

165

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.2.3 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in medium

release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

77,88%

19,47%

2,64%

0,01%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,25

1,95E-01 7,91E-02 1,33E-03

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.2.4 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in large

release

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

68,73%

25,77%

5,44%

0,06%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,375

2,58E-01 1,63E-01 6,12E-03

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

166/178

166

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.3.1 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.3.2 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in small

release

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

167/178

167

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.3.3 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in medium

release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

77,88%

19,47%

2,64%

0,01%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,25

1,95E-01 7,91E-02 1,33E-03

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.3.4 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying ammonia resulting in large

release

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

68,73%

25,77%

5,44%

0,06%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,375

2,58E-01 1,63E-01 6,12E-03

7,67%

0,33%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

168/178

168

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.4.1 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids resulting in no release

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E+00

36,79%

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.4.2 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids resulting in small release

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

169/178

169

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.4.3 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids resulting in medium

release

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

7,67%

0,33%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

8,33E-02

92,00%

7,67E-02 2,30E-02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.4.4 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying acids resulting in large release

Fatalities passengers

100,00%

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E+00

36,79%

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

170/178

170

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.5.1 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in no

release of heptane

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

71,65%

100,00%

23,88%

4,46%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,33E-01

2,39E-01 3,12E-01 3,94E-08

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4.5.2 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in

small release no ignition

100

300

Fatalities passengers

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E+00

36,79%

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

171/178

171

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.5.3 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in

small release ignition leading to a bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

36,79%

26,42%

0,00%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

1,00E+00

36,79%

3,68E-01 1,85E+00 1,43E-04

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

100,00%

1,00E+03

180

100

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

2,15E+02

3,00E+02

4.5.5 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in

medium release leading to no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

172/178

172

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

4.5.6 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in

medium release leading to ignition and bleve

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

38,67%

36,74%

22,98%

1,61%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

0,95

3,67E-01 6,89E-01 1,61E-01 1,79E-07

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

100,00%

1,00E+03

180

100

365

51,39%

1,88E+02

300

100,00%

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,65E+02

Fatalities road

2,15E+02

3,00E+02

4.5.8 - train derailment involving dangerous goods vehicle carrying flammable liquids resulting in

large release leading to no ignition

Fatalities passengers

100

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

100,00%

14,94%

78,89%

1,19%

0,00%

100

180

300

365

Fatalities employees

Distribution-type

Average

Disruption

Poisson

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

3,00E+00

4,98%

1,49E-01 5,52E+00 1,67E-01 2,01E-05

Repair costs

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,00E+08 1,00E+09

65,92%

100,00%

27,47%

6,61%

0,00%

100,00%

1,00E+07

180

100

365

300

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

5,00E+06

Disruption road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

4,17E-01

2,75E-01 4,63E-01 2,18E-07

Fatalities road

Distribution-type

Average

Poisson

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

173/178

173

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

12.12 Fire rail

Fatalities passengers

Scenario

5.1.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

5.1.5

5.1.6

5.1.7

5.1.8

5.1.9

5.1.10

5.1.11

5.1.12

5.2.1

5.2.2

5.2.3

5.3.1

5.3.2

5.3.3

5.3.4

5.4.1

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.5.1

5.5.2

5.5.3

5.5.4

5.6.1

5.6.2

5.6.3

1,00E+00

9,63E-01

1,00E+00

9,98E-01

1,00E+00

3,59E-02

1,00E-04

1,99E-03

6,91E-04

5,00E-09

2,00E-06

8,28E-08

100

300

Mean

3,80E-02

1,00E-04

2,00E-03

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

174/178

174

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Fatalities employees

Scenario

5.1.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

5.1.5

5.1.6

5.1.7

5.1.8

5.1.9

5.1.10

5.1.11

5.1.12

5.2.1

5.2.2

5.2.3

5.3.1

5.3.2

5.3.3

5.3.4

5.4.1

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.5.1

5.5.2

5.5.3

5.5.4

5.6.1

5.6.2

5.6.3

1,00000

0,99923

1,00000

0,99996

1,00000

0,00000

0,00076

0,00000

0,00004

0,00000

0,00001

0,00000

100

0,00000

300

0,00000

Mean

8,00E-04

2,11E-06

4,21E-05

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

175/178

175

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

Repair costs

Fire size

2,5

200

350

Repair costs [Euro] - fire inside enclosed tunnel

1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06

1,00E+07

1,00E+08

8,61E-01 1,39E-01 1,26E-09

7,33E-04 9,54E-01 4,52E-02

6,42E-04 9,50E-01 4,90E-02

1,01E-06 5,49E-01 4,51E-01

2,92E-07

1,12E-01 8,88E-01

1,26E-04

1,22E-04 8,86E-01

1,14E-01

7,56E-05

8,61E-01

1,39E-01

1,12E-01

8,88E-01

4,01E-04

9,36E-01

1,00E+09

1,26E-09

1,26E-04

6,39E-02

Mean

2.250

14.062

144.000

506.250

900.001

2.024.998

22.499.986

90.000.053

157.500.132

Fire size 1,00E+03 1,00E+04

1,00E+00

2,5

9,55E-01 4,51E-02

1,01E-06 5,49E-01

1,22E-04

200

350

Disruption

Fire size

2,5

200

350

Fire size

2,5

200

350

8,38E-01

7,71E-01

7,27E-01

6,60E-01

3,13E-01

2,78E-01

7,48E-01

2,50E-01

Repair costs [Euro] - fire on landsides

1,00E+05 1,00E+06

1,00E+07

1,00E+08

4,51E-01 2,92E-07

8,86E-01 1,14E-01

1,12E-01

8,88E-01

1,26E-04

4,01E-04

9,36E-01

6,39E-02

Mean

1,00E+09

1.000

1.406

50.625

202.500

9.000.005

15.750.013

Disruption [days] - fire inside enclosed tunnel

1,39E-01 2,30E-02

1,67E-01 6,18E-02 1,24E-07

1,68E-01 1,05E-01 2,21E-06

1,46E-01 1,93E-01 7,41E-05

1,02E-02 5,01E-01 1,75E-01

9,65E-04

2,09E-04 1,29E-01 5,12E-01

8,09E-02

1,66E-08

2,93E-03

Disruption [days] - fire

3,63E-02 7,67E-04

8,58E-02 5,60E-03

1,28E-01 1,74E-02

1,50E-01 3,21E-02

1,62E-01 4,83E-02

1,69E-01 8,29E-02

1,82E-02 5,34E-01

2,09E-04 1,29E-01

- Incident tube

180

365

1,62E-07

2,50E-01

7,50E-01

7,02E-05

7,50E-01

7,02E-05

Mean

0,3

0,6

0,9

1,5

6,0

10,5

45,0

135,0

9,63E-01

9,09E-01

8,55E-01

8,18E-01

7,90E-01

7,48E-01

3,41E-01

2,78E-01

inside enclosed tunnel - Non incident tube

180

365

4,06E-09

3,33E-08

6,12E-07

1,06E-01

2,48E-04

5,12E-01

8,09E-02

1,62E-07

5,12E-01

8,09E-02

1,62E-07

Mean

0,04

0,13

0,25

0,38

0,50

0,75

5,25

10,50

Fire size

2,5

8,38E-01

7,71E-01

7,48E-01

1,39E-01

1,67E-01

1,69E-01

Disruption [days] - fire on landsides

180

2,30E-02

6,18E-02 1,24E-07

8,29E-02 6,12E-07

365

Mean

0,30

0,60

0,75

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

176/178

176

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

13. REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

RAT 64233-001-6 ORA, ORA

–

Accident Frequencies, June 2014

RAT 64232-002-0 ORA Hazard Identification, October 2009

RAT 64235-001-1 ORA - Design Report, November 2010

RAT 64231-001-2 ORA Risk Management Plan, January 2010

Interactive Traffic Statistics, Statistics from Danish Road Directorate (VIS)

RAT 532-055-0 The case for suppression, December 2009

Pedestrian Simulation Software, www.legion.com

Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link. Conditions in the Fehmarnbelt. Risk Assessment. Femern Bælt A/S

September 2010

Fehmarn Vessel Traffic Prognosis, Rogge Marine Consulting G.M.B.H., RMC 720801, July 2008

[9]

[10]

Risk Evaluation Criteria,

SAFEDOR 2005. Revision 3, 2007

[11]

Transportøkonomiske Enhedspriser - til brug for samfundsøkonomiske analyser,

version 1,

2. August 2009. Institut for Transport, DTU.

http://www.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/dtu%20transport/modelcenter/transportoekonomiske%20enhedspriser/transpo

rtoekonomiske%20enhedspriser%20vers%201%202%20aug09.xls

[12]

Finansiel Analyse, Fast Forbindelse over Femern Bælt,

Udarbejdet af Femern Bælt A/S for

Transportministeriet, September 2008.

[13] 931100-ST085.0114-001,”

The Øresund Link

- Operational Risk Analysis

ORA-2008”,

December 2008

[14] 931100-ST084.0101-001,”

Risk Assessment of Ordinary Road and Railway Accidents”.

[15] RAT-1311-010-2, Conceptual Design Technical Report, November 2010

[16] RAT 6724-001-1 Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link Conceptual Fire safety Strategy for the Tunnel,

September 2013

[17] QRA Pro, Taylor Associates ApS, 2011.

[18] DNV Technica, Technical Note on Human Impact Criteria, 2001.

[19] RAT 6721-001-0 Safety and Rescue Plan, March 2010

[20] RAT 537-001-0 Maintenance Analysis, March 2010

[21] RAV 511-007-1 Timetable Technical Note

[22] Commission Decision of 23 April 2012 on the second set of common safety targets as regards

the rail system, (2012/226/EU)

[23] RAT 542-027 1 Design Water Levels, 2009/10/29

[24] ATKINS; RAM requirements

–

Tunnel, Railway Infrastructure in Tunnel, May 2012

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

177/178

177

FEHMARNBELT FIXED LINK

–

TUNNEL DESIGN SERVICES

[25] COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 352/2009 of 24 April 2009 on the adoption of a common

safety method on risk evaluation and assessment as referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Directive

2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

[26] Guide for the application of the Commission Regulation on CSM on risk assessment

[27] Reference year for the traffic forecast, Femern Memo, SSI, 19 oct 2011

[28] RAT 64238-001-5 Risk Acceptance Criteria, June 2014

[29] Fatalities versus FWSI, LSC, 5 March 2014

[30] Commission Decision of 5 June 2012 on the adoption of a common safety method for

assessment of achievement of safety targets, (2009/460/EU)

[31] Fehmarn Fixed Link, Management of Railway Hazards, Appendix B

–

Risk Evaluation

Criteria, rev. 0 2012.07.03

[32] European Union Rail System

– TSI “Safety In Railway Tunnels”, version 4, 18/12/2012

[33] Railway Hazard Identification Workshops:

Workshop 1, considering normal operation, February 2010.

ii.

Workshop 2, considering operation under fall-back procedures 9 March 2010,

(responsible for 1 & 2: ATKINS)

iii.

Workshop 3, considering Operation and Human Factor-issue, 7 November 2013,

(responsible: LSC and Railway Dept.)

[34] European Railway Accident Information Links, http://erail.era.europa.eu/investigations.aspx,

2013-08-01

[35] Railway Tunnel Safety

–

Risk Analysis of Emergency Scenarios, Conclusive Report RAT 6729-

321-3

[36]

RAT 64236-001-2 Dangerous Goods forecast, June 2014

Operational Risk Analysis

Work in Progress

178/178

178