r-s

ne
Site Investigation, Design & Construction

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
of Hydro & Transport Tunnels

e
sp e
re itz
Kathmandu, Nepal 19 - 20 December 2013

ir w
he - S
Link between Site Investigations,

ft n
O tio
Design and Construction – Part I
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F

Søren Degn Eskesen – Harvey Parker

st T
llu E

ITA President – Past ITA President

lI C

COWI A/S Denmark – Parker & Associates, Seattle, USA

Al ITA
©
 Content of Presentation

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
Site Investigations

e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
Design

ft n
O tio
Construction © a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Site investigation, Design & Construction of Hydro & Transport Tunnels | Kathmandu, Nepal – 19-20 December 2013
 Site Investigations

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
Site investigations will form the basis for

sp e
• selection of safe construction methods with low inherent risks

re itz
ir w
• assess impact on the environment and existing structures

he - S
• design of the tunnel and underground structures

ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Site investigation, Design & Construction of Hydro & Transport Tunnels | Kathmandu, Nepal – 19-20 December 2013
 Purposes of Site Investigations

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Owner owns the ground so must define physical characteristics of the soil,

ec rla
e
sp e
rock, and groundwater govern the behavior of the tunnel

re itz
• To minimize uncertainties of physical conditions for the bidder and to

ir w
improve safety

he - S
• Provide specific data needed to evaluate

ft n
O tio
o constructability
o cost
© a
n nd
tio ou

o productivity
ra F

o schedule
st T

• To document as-built conditions of the completed project

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Importance of Geology

r-s
ne
• Paramount in every tunnel

tiv nd
ow
decision

ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Geology dominates

ir w
o Feasibility

he - S
o Alignment

ft n
O tio
o Constructability
© a o Cost
n nd
tio ou

o Usefulness, behaviour and

ra F

maintenance of the
st T

completed structure
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Geotechnology & Planning

r-s
ne
• Everyone in planning and design of tunnels must give engineering geology

tiv nd
ow
and geotechnical engineering serious consideration

ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Therefore, use Geology and Geotechnology as early as possible and

ir w
throughout the project even during the conceptual stage

he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Challenges of the Underground
Rapid Excavation, Investigation & Risk

r-s
“Rapid Excavation also means you can get into trouble

ne
tiv nd
ow
faster (Al Matthews, Early ‘70s)”

ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA

Recognition of need to manage risk in early ’70s

©

Reduce Risk by Site Investigation

 Selected Challenges of the
Underground

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• Your Predictions will be EXPOSED

e
sp e
– Actual Vs Predicted

re itz
ir w
• Stratigraphy

he - S
• Groundwater Flow

ft n
O tio
• Gas Encountered
• Behavior
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F

• Comparison is guaranteed!
st T
llu E

– In detail!
lI C
Al ITA
©
Strange, Unique Functions of the Ground

r-s
ne
• The ground and groundwater is the load

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
• The ground is the medium that transfers this load to the tunnel lining

sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
• The ground is the structural material that actually carries most of the load
– Tunnel linings only have to carry part of total load

ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
• We call it “Arching”
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground: Variability

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Geology can be Subtle and Illusive

ir w
• Variability is Guaranteed & Often Abrupt

he - S
• Magnitude of Properties Varies Significantly

ft n
O tio
– Time, Seasons, Sample Size, Rate of Loading
© a
n nd
• Properties of Geologic Materials have an enormous range of values
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Potential Variations in
Geotechnical Data

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Different SCALE between Lab and the Field

ec rla
e
– Time or Rate of Loading

sp e
re itz
– Size of Excavation

ir w
he - S
• Variation Depends on:
– Disturbance to sample

ft n
O tio
– Rate of loading in lab test
© a
n nd
– Anisotropy
tio ou

– Deterioration with time

ra F
st T

– Seasonal fluctuations of Groundwater levels

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Range of Permeability

r-s
ne
• Greater than any other engineering parameter

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
o Roughly 10-7 to 10+3 cm/sec

e
sp e
o Factor of 10,000,000,000

re itz
ir w
he - S
• For Comparison: Strength

ft n
o Much Smaller Range

O tio
o Soft Clay to Concrete ~ 1,000
© a
n nd
o Soft Clay to Steel/Rock ~ 100,000
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• Investigations Recover Extremely Small Amount of Material Compared to

e
sp e
Project Volume

re itz
ir w
he - S
• Use Engineering Geology to Extrapolate Prediction

ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Geotechnical Explorations
Comparative Sampling Frequency

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
• Concrete Structure

re itz
– Every 20 to 50 m3

ir w
he - S
• ~ 0.1%

ft n
– See 100% off Truck

O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou

• Geotechnical Exploration
ra F

– Borings: 6 to 8 cm diameter core @

st T
llu E

90 m spacing =
lI C

– ~ 0.0005%
Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
0.0005 % is like

e
ow
ne
r-s
Thimble to ~50 Oil Drums
 Selected Important
Geotechnical Issues

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Geology

ec rla
•

e
Groundwater

sp e
re itz
• Groundwater

ir w
• Groundwater

he - S
• Obstructions

ft n
O tio
• Contaminated Soil or Groundwater
• © a
Gas & Other Safety Issues
n nd
• Ground and Groundwater Properties
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Challenges of the Underground

r-s
ne
• Geologic investigations are more difficult

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
• Use Well-Qualified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer with

re itz
ir w
Tunnel Experience

he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground

r-s
ne
tiv nd
• Vast Uncertainty

ow
ec rla
• Never See What is Ahead

e
sp e
•

re itz
Yet Fortunately –

ir w
• Owners, Designers & Contractors do a remarkable job

he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Site Investigation in Project Phases

r-s
ne
tiv nd
Investigations for preliminary studies

ow
ec rla
• Preliminary studies, which include pre-feasibility studies, feasibility studies

e
sp e
re itz
shall be carried out:

ir w
• to assess the general suitability of the site/tunnel alignment

he - S
• to compare alternative alignments

ft n
O tio
• to estimate the changes that may be caused by the proposed tunnel
project
© a
n nd
tio ou

• to plan the design and control investigations, including identification of

ra F

the extent of ground, which may have a significant influence on the

st T

behaviour of the tunnel

llu E
lI C

• to provide information for the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment),

Al ITA

depending on the legal conditions

©
Site Investigation in Project Phases

r-s
ne
tiv nd
Investigations for design phases

ow
ec rla
• Design investigations shall be carried out:

e
sp e
re itz
• to provide the information required for an adequate (detailed) design of

ir w
the temporary and permanent works

he - S
• to provide the information required to plan the method of construction

ft n
O tio
• to identify any difficulties that may arise during construction, including
existing infrastructure
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Site Investigation in Project Phases

r-s
ne
tiv nd
Investigations during the construction phase

ow
ec rla
• Investigations during the construction phase should be carried out for the

e
sp e
re itz
following purposes:

ir w
• to monitor the ground and groundwater behaviour and adjust the design

he - S
accordingly

ft n
O tio
• to validate the geological model using face mapping
© a
• to improve knowledge of the ground conditions using investigation from
n nd
tio ou

the face (e.g. drilling, geophysics…)

ra F

• to analyze the excavated material and TBM data

st T

• predict the subsequent ground type and behaviour on the following face
llu E
lI C

excavations
Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
Knowledge versus Investigation Costs
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Site Investigation in Project Phases
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
METHODS & PRINCIPLES

ow
ne
r-s
Site Investigations
 r-s
NO LONGER SUFFICIENT TO

ne
tiv nd
ow
DESCRIBE STRATIGRAPHY &

ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
GROUNDWATER TABLE

ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
MUST PREDICT BEHAVIOR
© a
n nd
tio ou

MUST ESTABLISH A BASELINE

ra F
st T
llu E
lI C

So "changed condition" (if encountered) can be

Al ITA

administered fairly
©
 Consult Geologic Maps & Resources

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

From [Link]
Especially Check Surfical Geology Maps
 Rock versus Soil

r-s
ne
• Rock behavior dictated by discontinuities

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• In Rock, Discontinuities (joints) govern behavior

e
sp e
– Movements always along joints

re itz
ir w
– Water flows only through joints

he - S
– Properties of joints needed

ft n
O tio
– Relationship of joint spacing to opening size
© a
• Mass physical properties important
n nd
tio ou

• Dictates choice of investigative methods

ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Intact vs. Mass Physical Properties

r-s
ne
• Intact properties are the properties of the rock or soil on a small (core

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
sample size) scale

e
sp e
• Mass physical intact properties govern

re itz
– Includes the fundamental intact properties

ir w
he - S
– Modified by the effects of the ground at the scale of the tunnel

ft n
• Effect is particularly important in rock

O tio
© a
– takes into account the effects of the joints
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Auger Rig for Shallower Borings
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
Rotary Wash Coring Rig

r-s
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
Not Always Easy

ow
ne
r-s
Mobilization for Exploration is
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Field Inspection & Logging of Core
 Evaluation of Core Borings

r-s
ne
• Larger core diameter is better

tiv nd
ow
– See more “Fabric”

ec rla
e
– Less disturbance

sp e
re itz
• Lab Test Properties from core are lower than insitu

ir w
he - S
– Yet there is always some disturbance

ft n
– Disturbance reduces Engineering Properties

O tio
• Fear what you do not see © a
n nd
– Could be poor quality coring
tio ou

– Most likely bad ground

ra F
st T

• Or worse, a void
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Rock Mass Permeability

r-s
ne
• Permeability of Joint System is important

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
– Not the permeability of intact rock

e
sp e
• Measured by pumping water in to borehole (Packers)

re itz
ir w
• The “Lugeon” is a measure of permeability =

he - S
– 1 litre of flow per minute

ft n
O tio
– Into one meter length of borehole
– At 10 bars pressure
© a
n nd
tio ou

• 1 Lugeon is approximately equivalent to:

ra F

– Permeability of 10-5 cm/sec

st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Soil Mass Permeability

r-s
• Slug Tests (inexpensive but mostly an index)

ne
tiv nd
ow
– Empty an existing exploration borehole of water

ec rla
– Measure rate of recovery

e
sp e
re itz
ir w
• Pump Tests (Expensive but generally good results)

he - S
– Drill and prepare a special well for pumping

ft n
O tio
– Drill several monitoring wells radially from test well
© a
n nd
– Pump water from the test well
tio ou

• Sometimes done in steps

ra F

– Measure drawdown in well and monitoring wells

st T
llu E

– Calculate (horizontal) permeability

lI C
Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Intact physical properties
Laboratory testing to determine
Correlate to other Projects (Precedents)

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• Geology

e
sp e
re itz
• Case Histories

ir w
he - S
• Site Investigation

ft n
– Parameters O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou

– Soil & Rock Classification

ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Tunnel Behavior is Complex =
Extra demands for Site Investigation

r-s
ne
• Behavior of the Ground During Tunnelling is Determined by MANY factors

tiv nd
ow
including:

ec rla
• Geology

e
sp e
• Engineering Properties of Materials

re itz
ir w
• Means and Methods

he - S
– Excavation Method

ft n
– Ground Support & Lining Method

O tio
– Ground Modification Method, if any
© a
n nd
• Generally:
tio ou

– Owner “Owns the Ground”

ra F

– Contractor “Owns the effects of Means & Methods”

st T
llu E

• But these are always interdependent and never so clear

lI C
Al ITA
©
 Past Practices

r-s
ne
 No accepted standard

tiv nd
ow
 # Borings

ec rla
e
 Spacing

sp e
re itz
 Depth

ir w
he - S
 [Link] Cost

ft n
O tio
 1/2 to 3+ Percent of Construction Cost
© a
 Some up to 8++ % have been reported.
n nd
tio ou

 Special Class over these guidelines

ra F

 Nuclear Waste
st T

 Hazardous Waste
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Terzaghi’s Tunnelman’s Ground Classification

r-s
Firm Can advance heading without initial

ne
support

tiv nd
ow
Raveling Chunks or flakes of material begin to drop

ec rla
out of arch or walls…

e
sp e
Slow Raveling Fast = Raveling in a few minutes

re itz
ir w
Fast Raveling

he - S
Squeezing Overstressed ground squeezes or extrudes

ft n
plastically into tunnel

O tio
Running © a Granular materials that are unstable will
n nd
“run”. Cohesive running is slower because
tio ou

Cohesive Running of cohesive nature. Running occurs in

clean granular materials; goes to angle of
ra F

Running repose
st T
llu E
lI C

Flowing Mixture of soil and water flows into the

Al ITA

tunnel like a viscous fluid

Swelling Ground absorbs water and expands (in

©

volume) slowly in to tunnel

 Rock Mass Classifications

r-s
ne
•

tiv nd
Assess importance of each parameter

ow
ec rla
e
•

sp e
Correlate case histories

re itz
ir w
•

he - S
Predict behavior

ft n
•
O tio
Semi-empirical estimate of required support
© a
n nd
• Can be measured & confirmed in field to
tio ou
ra F

determine “as built” conditions

st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Rock Mass Classifications

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
• Many Classification Systems have been

sp e
re itz
ir w
proposed; three remain in popular use:

he - S
– Rock Quality Designation (RQD) by Deere

ft n
O tio
© a
• Now used as input to RMR and Q
n nd
tio ou

– Rock Mass Rating (RMR) by Bieniawski

ra F
st T

– Rock Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) by Barton

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Rock Quality Index (RQD)

r-s
Modified Core Recovery

ne
tiv nd
Count ONLY Sound Pieces that are 100 mm or greater

ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Bieniawski’s Rock Mass Rating, RMR

r-s
ne
tiv nd
Parameter Max Points

ow
ec rla
e
Uniaxial compressive strength 15

sp e
re itz
of intact rock

ir w
he - S
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) 20

ft n
O tio
© a
Spacing of discontinuities 20
n nd
tio ou

Condition of discontinuities 30
ra F
st T

Groundwater conditions 15
llu E
lI C

Adjustment for unfavorable Reduce RMR by 2 to 12 Points

Al ITA

orientation of joints
©
 Correlations with Bieniawski’s RMR

r-s
• Guidelines have been published for

ne
tiv nd
– ground support recommendations

ow
ec rla
– stand-up time

e
sp e
re itz
– correlations to other parameters such as rock mass

ir w
he - S
modulus, as a function of RMR (Bieniawski, 1989)

ft n
– Rate of Advance
O tio
© a
• System has been modified and adapted by others for
n nd
tio ou

the mining industry

ra F
st T

• Frequently done in conjunction with and correlated

llu E
lI C

with the Q-System (ie use both Q and RMR)

Al ITA
©
 Barton’s Q System
Q = (RQD/Jn) x (Jr/Ja) x (Jw/SRF)

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
Rock Mass Condition Q System Parameter

e
sp e
re itz
RQD RQD

ir w
he - S
Number of joint sets Jn

ft n
O tio
Joint roughness Jr
© a
n nd
Joint alteration Ja
tio ou

Joint water Jw
ra F
st T

Stress Reduction SRF

llu E
lI C

Factor
Al ITA
©
 Barton’s Q System
of Rock Classification

r-s
ne
• Rock Tunnelling Quality Index = Q

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
• Q = (RQD/Jn) x (Jr/Ja) x (Jw/SRF)

sp e
re itz
ir w
• Physical significance of components

he - S
ft n
– (RQD/Jn) is effect of block size
O tio
© a
n nd
– (Jr/Ja) is effect of inter-block strength
tio ou

– (Jw/SRF) is effect of external forces such as in-situ

ra F
st T
llu E

stress and groundwater effects

lI C
Al ITA
©
 Correlations with Barton’s Q System
Published by Barton (and others)

r-s
ne
•

tiv nd
Tables provide guidelines for ground support

ow
ec rla
e
• Charts illustrate guidelines for ground support

sp e
re itz
•

ir w
Correlations with other classification systems

he - S
• Correlations with maximum unsupported span

ft n
O tio
and estimated permanent roof pressure
© a
n nd
tio ou

• Correlations are constantly being updated

ra F

including application with TBM’s

st T
llu E
lI C

– Be sure to understand the development of the

Al ITA

system and to use latest version

©
Approximate Selection of Initial Support

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

See literature for recent revisions.

For Illustration only: Not for design
Estimated Support Categories

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA

For Illustration only.

©

See literature for recent revisions.

Not For Design.
 Guidelines for Site Investigation
(Local, National, International)

r-s
ne
Several guides exist to assist planning investigation .

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
Examples shown below:

e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
WHEN TO STOP?

ne
r-s
HOW MUCH TO DO?

Depends partly on Size & Complexity of Project

 Past Practices

r-s
 No accepted standard

ne
tiv nd
 # Borings

ow
ec rla
 Spacing

e
sp e
 Depth

re itz
ir w
he - S
 [Link] Cost

ft n
 1/2 to 3+ Percent of Construction Cost

O tio
 Some up to 8++ % have been reported.
© a
n nd
 Special Class way above these guidelines
tio ou

 Nuclear Waste
ra F
st T

 Hazardous Waste
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 USNC/TT Recommendations
Site Investigation

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
 Exploration = 3.0 percent of project cost

ec rla
 Study revealed Geotech-related claims:

e
sp e
re itz
 Average 12% Ranged to 50%+

ir w
he - S
 Cumulative Boring Length = 1.5 linear meters of borehole per route meter

ft n
of tunnel alignment

O tio
© a
 For typical urban tunnel at ~30 m depth
n nd
tio ou

 Improve Exploration Procedures

ra F
st T

 Groundwater
llu E
lI C

 Remote Sensing
Al ITA
©
 USNC/TT Recommendations
Site Investigation

r-s
ne
tiv nd
• Make Geotechnical Report a Contract

ow
ec rla
e
sp e
Document (Now Required by ITIG)

re itz
ir w
• No Disclaimers

he - S
ft n
• Establish a Baseline
O tio
© a
• This evolved into the Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) also
n nd
tio ou

known as Geotechnical Reference Conditions

ra F

• Compile As-Built Report

st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Investigation Scope
Increases with:

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Geologic Complexity

ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Size of Opening

ir w
he - S
• Method of Construction

ft n
• Project Size & Scope O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Guidelines for Determining Project Magnitude
Major or Complex Tunnel Projects

r-s
ne
•

tiv nd
Greater than 4 m in diameter

ow
ec rla
•

e
Length greater than 300 m

sp e
re itz
• Alternative Alignments Considered

ir w
he - S
• Multiple Phases

ft n
O tio
• Unusual, complex, or unproven construction
© a
n nd
procedures
tio ou
ra F

• Difficult or adverse geology

st T
llu E

• Considerable sharing of risk

lI C
Al ITA
©
 Example Range of
Investigation Scope

r-s
ne
tiv nd
Item Small Project Large/Complex Project

ow
ec rla
Strength Index Tests & a few Unconfined Tests Sophisticated lab tests &

e
sp e
InSitu Tests

re itz
ir w
Modulus Maybe not required Advanced lab tests;

he - S
Pressuremeter tests

ft n
Groundwater Static level in borings. Estimate inflow Full-Scale Pump Tests

O tio
Calculate range of inflow
© a
n nd
Grain Size Several Grain Size Tests to define range Abundant Grain Size Tests;
tio ou

Hydrometer
ra F

Abrasion & Full coverage if Closed Face TBM Full evaluation of abrasion &
st T
llu E

Stickiness stickiness
lI C
Al ITA

Obstructions Historical Review (Notify Owner of risk) Special exploration methods

Safety Hazards Geologic evaluation, Sniff Borings for gas Special exploration methods
©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

r-s
ne
• Emphasize Geology

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• Conduct at least two exploration phases

e
sp e
re itz
• Fund the initial phase well

ir w
he - S
• To confidently select the alignment

ft n
• To estimate of the likely construction methods, lining
O tio
and cost © a
n nd
tio ou

• Pre-approve contingency fund

ra F

• Answer technical questions resulting from initial

st T
llu E
lI C

boring program
Al ITA

• Use Contingency only if needed

©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• More information than needed for “design”

ec rla
e
• Explore several diameters deeper (will be needed)

sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
• Enough data to predict “Ground Behavior”, Equipment Selection &
Productivity

ft n
O tio
• Alternative construction methods
© a
n nd
• TBM or Traditional techniques
tio ou

• Special needs for Closed-Face TBMs

ra F
st T
llu E

• Enough data to minimize uncertainty

lI C
Al ITA
©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
• Don't do any exploration unless it specifically

sp e
re itz
ir w
fills a genuine need

he - S
ft n
• Often, reduction of uncertainty is a genuine
O tio
© a
need
n nd
tio ou

• Good Exploration reduces BID COST by:

ra F
st T
llu E

• 10 to 15 Times Exploration cost

lI C
Al ITA
©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• Conduct a “Supplementary Cost Exploration Phase”

e
sp e
re itz
• After alignment is fixed & after design

ir w
he - S
• Confirm the design

ft n
O tio
• Get information contractor needs to estimate
© a
n nd
• Productivity (rate of advance)
tio ou
ra F

• Wear & Tear on Equipment

st T
llu E

• Estimate the costs and to bid the job

lI C
Al ITA
©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
Smaller or Ordinary Projects

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Initial geotechnical costs ranging from 1.0 to 2.0

ec rla
e
sp e
percent of construction cost).

re itz
ir w
he - S
• Have an overall budget including contingencies of

ft n
O tio
© a
3.0 percent of overall cumulative cost.
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
Large or Major Projects

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Develop multi-phased program to fill actual needs

ec rla
e
• Phasing increases quality and reduces cost

sp e
re itz
• Use non-traditional techniques if they reduce uncertainty

ir w
he - S
• Geophysics

ft n
O tio
• In Situ Tests © a
n nd
• Pressuremeters
tio ou

• Pump tests, etc., as appropriate

ra F
st T

• Shafts, adits, pilot tunnels

llu E
lI C
Al ITA

• Exploration by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

©
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
Large or Major Projects

r-s
ne
tiv nd
• For initial phases of design, budget, and fund

ow
ec rla
e
• Boring length = 0.75 to 1.2 times route length

sp e
re itz
ir w
• Cost = 1.5 to 2.25 percent of construction cost

he - S
• (1/2 to 3/4 of the USNC/TT guidelines)

ft n
O tio
• Overall budget = 3.0 Percent of Construction
© a
n nd
tio ou

• Including contingencies
ra F

• Implementation of contingencies must be

st T
llu E
lI C

quick and easy

Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
Selected Site

tiv nd
e
Exploration Issues

ow
ne
r-s
 Selected Geotechnical Issues

r-s
ne
•

tiv nd
Sonic Drilling

ow
ec rla
e
•

sp e
Methane, H2S, & Ground Contamination

re itz
ir w
•

he - S
Muck Disposal

ft n
•
O tio
Closed-Face TBM Issues
© a
n nd
• Computer Analyses & Graphics
tio ou
ra F

• Geotechnical Issues for Contracting Practices

st T
llu E
lI C

• Special issues for Urban Areas

Al ITA
©
 Sonic Borehole Drilling & Sampling
Mini Vibratory Pile Driver

r-s
• Larger Diameter Core

ne
tiv nd
• Continuous Recovery

ow
ec rla
• Even in Boulders, Rock

e
sp e
• Better Definition of Stratigraphy

re itz
ir w
• Can see the “Fabric and texture” of the sample

he - S
• Recovery of Contaminated Soil

ft n
• Significant use in Hazardous Waste Investigations

O tio
• Some Disturbance of Soil/Rock
© a
n nd
• Greater than 100% Recovery
tio ou

• Area Ratio
ra F

• Relative Stratigraphy Remains Intact

st T
llu E

• Disturbance affects Engineering Properties

lI C
Al ITA

• Much Heat Generated

©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Sonic Borehole Samples in Plastic Liners
 Methane, Hydrogen Sulfide &
Ground Contamination

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
• More Prevalent in Tunnels & Mines than

re itz
ir w
Previously Thought

he - S
ft n
• Must Investigate for these Hazards
O tio
© a
n nd
• Important Decision Regarding Safety
tio ou

Measures and Cost

ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Muck Disposal- Major Issue for Site
Investigations (Often Neglected)

r-s
ne
• Muck is generated 24 hours/day

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
– Potential Public Disturbance

sp e
re itz
ir w
• Muck disposal sites are often far away

he - S
ft n
– Cost and Disturbance Issue
O tio
© a
• Muck is sometimes contaminated
n nd
tio ou

– Can go only to certain very expensive disposal

ra F
st T
llu E

sites
lI C
Al ITA

• EPB and Slurry Muck needs special treatment

©
 Special Investigation Needs for
Closed-Face TBMs

r-s
• Continuous Sampling (If possible)

ne
tiv nd
ow
– Greater sample volume for tests

ec rla
e
sp e
– Document nature of mixed-face conditions

re itz
ir w
he - S
• Abundant Grain Size Tests

ft n
O tio
– Silt-Sand-Gravel © a
n nd
– Hydrometer
tio ou
ra F

• Chemistry & Mineralogy for Conditioners

st T
llu E
lI C

• Special Strength & Stress-Strain Testing

Al ITA
©
 Special Investigation Needs for
Closed-Face TBMs

r-s
ne
tiv nd
• Abrasion Tests to predict wear & interventions

ow
ec rla
e
• Stickiness testing & evaluation for Clogging

sp e
re itz
• In Situ Soil & Groundwater Pressures needed for:

ir w
he - S
– Prediction of operating face pressures

ft n
O tio
– Determination of Maximum pressure to prevent blow
© a
n nd
• Potential Obstructions & Hazards
tio ou
ra F

– Boulder Size, distribution, & Frequency

st T
llu E

– Gas & Contaminated Soils

lI C
Al ITA

– Manmade Obstructions such as Tiebacks

©
 Computer Graphics Advantages & Pitfalls
• Advantages

r-s
ne
• Better Understanding of Task

tiv nd
ow
• Better communication (Internal

ec rla
e
& External)

sp e
re itz
• Professional Look

ir w
• But - Computer Graphics Can

he - S
Make Anything Look Accurate

ft n
O tio
and Credible
© a
• Scrutinize anything that Looks
n nd
tio ou

too good
ra F

• Geophysics
st T
llu E

• Computer Analyses
lI C
Al ITA

• FEM
• GIS
©
 Geotechnical Aspects of
Contracting Practices

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• No Disclaimers for ground conditions

ec rla
e
sp e
• Include a fair Changed Condition Clause

re itz
ir w
• Prepare Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR)

he - S
• GBR also called Ground Reference Conditions

ft n
O tio
• Cross-checked with plans & specifications
© a
• Make GBR part of contract documents
n nd
tio ou

• Share Risk and Share Fairly

ra F

• Provide for Disputes Review Board

st T
llu E

• Provide for Partnering

lI C
Al ITA
©
Special Challenges in Urban Areas

r-s
ne
• Very Few outcrops to actually see & touch soil

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• Difficult to find safe location for borings

e
sp e
re itz
– Because of Utilities or other obstructions

ir w
he - S
– May not get all borings on alignment or where wanted

ft n
• Borings may not be equally spaced or off line
O tio
• Likely will encounter:© a
n nd
tio ou

– Obstructions
ra F

• Tiebacks
st T
llu E
lI C

– Contaminated ground
Al ITA
©
Geotechnical Database for Urban Areas

r-s
• Summarizes all available Geotechnical data

ne
– All cities should create, maintain, & update such a database

tiv nd
ow
• Note the quality of the data entries; some are better than others

ec rla
e
• Should Include:

sp e
re itz
– Geotechnical Records

ir w
he - S
• Borings, Test Pits, Basement Excavations
• Existing Foundations including Pile Driving Records

ft n
O tio
– Water, Oil, and Geothermal Well Logs
© a
n nd
– Groundwater Information
tio ou

– Information on Contamination
ra F

– Archeological Information
st T
llu E

– Man-made Subsurface Features

lI C

• Obstructions such as Utilities, Old Sea Walls, Piers, Piles, Well

Al ITA

Casings, Tunnels, etc

©
Groundwater Info for Urban Areas

r-s
• Document all information on groundwater

ne
– Water Levels and Pressure Trends

tiv nd
ow
• Current (Include Artesian Conditions)

ec rla
e
• Future (Consider Global Warming)

sp e
re itz
– Groundwater Flow Directions

ir w
• For environmental purposes

he - S
• To evaluate flow of contaminated plumes

ft n
O tio
• To evaluate salt water intrusion, if applicable
© a
• Document Permeability of Ground
n nd
– Part of Geotechnical Database
tio ou
ra F

– Identify strata or features of High or Low Permeability

st T

• Impermeable layers
llu E
lI C

• Highly permeable zones

Al ITA

• Obstructions to water flow

©
Asset Management Program for Urban Areas

r-s
ne
• Database of Existing Utilities and Other

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
Subsurface Features (Great BIM application)

sp e
re itz
ir w
• Documents Location and Condition

he - S
ft n
• Very useful for managing potential
O tio
© a
replacement and upgrading costs during your
n nd
tio ou

project or in future
ra F
st T

• Valuable Input to Overall Planning of

llu E
lI C
Al ITA

Underground Space for your Urban Area

©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
Brief Case Histories

tiv nd
e
Site Investigation

ow
ne
r-s
Alaskan Way Tunnel, Seattle, USA

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• World’s Largest TBM

ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• ~ 17.6 m Outside Diameter

ir w
he - S
• No Precedents

ft n
O tio
• About 2.7 km long © a
n nd
• Design-Build TBM design currently (2012)
tio ou
ra F

underway for WSDOT

st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 Alaskan Way Tunnel, Seattle, USA
Selected Site Investigation Program

r-s
ne
•

tiv nd
Very Complex glacial sand, silt, & clay soils

ow
ec rla
e
•

sp e
Groundwater, Cobbles, & Boulders

re itz
ir w
•

he - S
Most borings up to about 100 m deep

ft n
•
O tio
Only part of investigation program below
© a
n nd
– Additional investigations have been conducted
tio ou
ra F

Approx Rotary Sonic Slug tests Pump Downhole Pressure

st T
llu E

Boring Borings Borings Tests Geophysics meter

lI C

Spacing Tests
Al ITA

Phase I 150-370 m 9 8 134 No 7 No

©

Phase 2 <100 m 33 23 Yes Yes 13 15

 Mt Baker Ridge Tunnel

r-s
ne
•

tiv nd
Early 1980’s

ow
ec rla
e
•

sp e
Innovative Design

re itz
ir w
•

he - S
Comprehensive Geo Investigation

ft n
•
O tio
Most USNC/TT Recommendations
© a
n nd
• Full Scale Test Shaft During Bidding
tio ou
ra F

• Bid Price $38.3 M

st T
llu E
lI C

• Final Price ~$36 M

Al ITA
©
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
 ©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
 Mt Baker Ridge Tunnel

r-s
ne
• Contractor made a profit

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
• Owner got a Good Project

sp e
re itz
ir w
• Industry Demonstrated New

he - S
ft n
• Contracting practices
O tio
© a
• New Technology
n nd
tio ou

• Everybody Won
ra F
st T
llu E

• True Win-Win Project

lI C
Al ITA
©
 Selected References

r-s
ne
• AFTES, 1994, The Choice of geotechnical Parameters and Tests Useful to the Design,

tiv nd
ow
Dimensioning and Construction of Underground Structures, Association Francaise de Travaux

ec rla
en Souterrain, Paris, France

e
•

sp e
AFTES, 2003, Guidelines for Caracterisation of Rock Masses Useful for the Design and the

re itz
Construction of Underground Structures, Association Francaise de Travaux en Souterrain,
Paris, France

ir w
•

he - S
Guglielmetti, Vittorio; Grasso, Piergiorgio;Mahtab, Ashraf; & Xu, Shuln; Editors, 2008,
Mechanized aTunnelling in Urban Areas, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 507 pp.

ft n
• Barton, N.R., R. Lien, and J. Lunde, 1974, Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the

O tio
Design of Tunnel Support, Rock Mechanics 6, pp 183-236
• © a
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Wiley & Sons, New York
n nd
• Hoek, 2005, Practical Rock Engineering, Rockscience, Inc., Toronto, Canada Available on-line
tio ou

at <[Link]>.
• Parker, Harvey W. 1996, Geotechnical Investigations, Chapter 4 of Tunnel Engineering
ra F

Handbook, 2nd Edition, edited by Kuesel & King, Chapman & Hall, New York
st T

•
llu E

USNC/TT (1984), Geotechnical Site Investigations for Underground Projects, U.S. National
lI C

Committee on Tunneling Technology, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Al ITA

• USACE, 1997. Engineering and Design - Tunnels and Shafts in Rock, Engineering Manual, EM
1110-2-2901, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s, Washington, D.C.
©
 Site Investigation: Conclusions

r-s
ne
• Geology Dominates Every Major Decision

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Allow Geo-Issues their Proper Role in Planning

ir w
he - S
• Challenges and Potential Benefits of the Underground are

ft n
Enormous
O tio
© a
• Exploration programs “see” only a very small % of volume
n nd
to be tunnelled. (0.0005%)
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E

• The Ground is the Load and it also Provides Support for Most
lI C
Al ITA

of the Load
©
 Site Investigation: Conclusions

r-s
• Start Geotechnical Work in Conceptual Stage & Continue

ne
tiv nd
ow
Geo Observations

ec rla
e
• During Construction

sp e
re itz
ir w
• As Built Report

he - S
• While in Service

ft n
O tio
• Use Best Practices Possible
© a
n nd

• Use Tunnelling Classification Systems Carefully

tio ou
ra F

• Use New Techniques

st T
llu E
lI C

• Use them properly

Al ITA
©
 Site Investigation:
Conclusions

r-s
ne
tiv nd
• Determine Mass Physical Properties

ow
ec rla
e
– Not just intact properties

sp e
re itz
– Distinguish between properties and behavior

ir w
he - S
• Behavior is Complex:

ft n
– Owner owns ground
O tio
© a
– Contractor owns means & methods
n nd
tio ou

– However it is Never that clear

ra F

• Prepare a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) also

st T
llu E
lI C

known as Geotechnical Reference Conditions Report

Al ITA

– Should be a Contract Document

©

– Distinguish between Fact and Interpretation

 Site Investigations: Conclusions

r-s
ne
• Many Challenges Exist in Big Cities

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
– Difficult to find safe boring locations

e
sp e
re itz
– Few outcrops

ir w
he - S
– Many Obstructions; Archeological Issues

ft n
– Contaminated Soil & Groundwater
O tio
© a
• Recommended Practices
n nd
tio ou

– Geotechnical Database
ra F

• Groundwater Trends
st T
llu E
lI C

– Asset Management Program

Al ITA

– Formal Planning of Underground Space

©
 Site Investigation: Conclusions

r-s
ne
• Budget 3% for Geotechnical Investigation

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Don't do any exploration unless it specifically fills a

ir w
he - S
genuine need

ft n
O tio
• However, often, reduction of uncertainty is a
© a
n nd
genuine need
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E

• Good Exploration reduces BID COST by:

lI C
Al ITA

• 10 to 15 Times the Cost of Exploration

©
 Overall Conclusion

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
Geology & Geotechnology are

re itz
ir w
he - S
Essential to Planning, Design &

ft n
O tio
Construction
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
 r-s
ne
Site Investigation, Design & Construction

tiv nd
ow
ec rla
of Hydro & Transport Tunnels

e
sp e
re itz
Kathmandu, Nepal 19 - 20 December 2013

ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
Disclaimer
© a
n nd
[Link] speakers are presenting their own personal views and are not expressing the
tio ou

view of the Foundation.

ra F
st T

[Link] and documents displayed or handed out during the Event are copyrighted.
llu E
lI C

The participants must observe and comply with all applicable law regulations
Al ITA

concerning the copyright.

©