Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: 20 metres depth
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Choosing between an open cut and a tunnel depends on cost, environmental impact, stability, and aesthetics. In mountainous terrain, deep open cuts can trigger excessive excavation volumes, slope stabilization expenses, and visual impacts. Hence, beyond a certain depth, tunnelling becomes more economical and environmentally prudent for highways.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Open cuts involve large excavation prisms that grow rapidly with depth due to stable slope requirements and benching. Support, drainage, and protection works escalate with depth. A practical threshold often adopted in planning guides is around 20 metres, beyond which the economics and impacts generally tip in favor of a tunnel. Exact numbers vary with geology and land constraints, but this benchmark aids preliminary decisions before detailed design.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Estimate open-cut volume and slope stabilization measures for candidate depths.Compare life-cycle costs (construction + maintenance) and risks (landslides, erosion).Apply the benchmark: for depths exceeding about 20 m, prefer a tunnel in preliminary evaluation.Verification / Alternative check:
Case studies frequently show that beyond ~20 m, excavation and stabilization costs overshadow tunnel boring/drill-and-blast costs, especially when right-of-way and environmental mitigation are considered.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
10–15 m: many cuts are still feasible and economical below this range.25–30 m: thresholds this high miss opportunities where tunnelling already becomes cheaper and safer earlier.Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring geologic variability; the 20 m threshold is a planning guideline, not a rigid code requirement.Overlooking environmental, social, and visual impacts that further support tunnelling at lesser depths in sensitive areas.Final Answer:
20 metres depth
Discussion & Comments