NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the NationalResearch Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the NationalAcademy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the subcommittee responsible for the reportwere chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a ReportReview Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy ofEngineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate thebroad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising thefederal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under theauthority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governingmembership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy ofSciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, andthe scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively,under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences.

SPONSORS: This project was sponsored through Transportation Systems Center Contract DTRS-57-81-C-00129by the following agencies: Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, UrbanMass Transportation Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey.

A limited number of copies are available fromU.S. National Committee on Tunneling TechnologyNational Research Council2101 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20418

ii

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Preface

The high costs of underground construction are a major concern of both the general public and the agencies(federal, state, and local) that build or provide funds for a variety of projects. The U.S. National Committee onTunneling Technology (1974, 1978) has issued recommendations addressing certain aspects of undergroundconstruction that contribute to its high risk and high cost. However, underground construction continues to beexpensive, with project costs rising rapidly and often significantly exceeding the preconstruction estimate.

The escalation in costs is incompatible with the most advantageous use of the subsurface at a time when thedesirability of constructing underground rather than surface facilities is becoming increasingly apparent. The emphasison developing underground construction to suit a variety of purposes is expanding with our needs to conserve surfacespace as our population grows; conserve energy required for heating and cooling; provide refuge from, and mitigatethe effects of, both natural and man-made hazards; provide economical storage for food, water, and strategic goods;provide safe disposal of toxic and radioactive wastes; and provide for subsurface energy-production projects.Improvements in cost-effectiveness, however, will be required to spur the growth of underground construction.

Considering the advantages of using underground space, it is desirable to find ways to improve the economicfeasibility of underground construction. One promising avenue is examination of the geotechnical site investigationprocess for proposed construction sites. Of all large construction efforts, underground projects among the mostcomplicated and are particularly sensitive to geotechnical considerations because the construction environment bothaffects and responds to the design and construction processes, and ultimately the operation

PREFACE iii

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology. 1974. Better Contracting for Underground Construction. Washington, D.C.:National Academy of Sciences, 143 pp.

U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology. 1978. Better Management of Major Underground Construction Projects.Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 151 pp.

of the completed facility. Therefore, an adequate and reliable determination of subsurface conditions is essential toevery phase of the project and, as a consequence, is a significant factor in the final cost.

The basic objective of this study is to recommend ways of planning and conducting more effective geotechnicalsite investigation programs. In turn, the results of the study are expected to provide a fundamental contribution to aseries of wider objectives: advancements in underground construction technology, improvements in controlling ormoderating construction costs, and reductions in the incidence and degree of construction hazards or failures.

METHODOLOGY

The approach adopted for this study was to examine completed projects for which the results of thepreconstruction site investigation could be related to the construction history. The procedure was designed to permit in-depth study of a large number of these projects, their respective site investigation programs, and the constructionproblems and unanticipated costs, or lack thereof, as a means of determining the nature and signififance of therelationship between investigation programs and project problems and costs.

Basically, the study consisted of four main tasks, as follows:

• A list of underground projects completed in the last 20 years was developed, from which 100 projects wereselected as suitable for case history study.

• A case history data form was developed to relate the types and extent of the site investigations conductedprior to design and construction, as-built geological conditions, differing site conditions claims, costoverruns, and delays encountered during construction.

• The case history data and additional information from the personal experiences of subcommittee memberswere evaluated and conclusions drawn, keeping in mind the rapidly advancing state of the art in design and inconstruction equipment and methods.

• A computer program was developed to receive and store for future retrieval the pertinent site investigationand construction case history data.

As the study progressed, it became apparent that although there exist a large number of projects from which tochoose, obtaining complete data on any one project is extremely difficult. No one source contained all the data on anyproject and a surprising amount of information had been lost or thrown away. Also, much of the data was found to beproprietary or was simply not available due to unresolved claims litigation. Due to these constraints, 87 of the original100 case histories were deemed sufficiently complete to be included in the final compilation of data presented herein.

PREFACE iv

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

The subcommittee's method of collecting and compiling mined tunnel data, including the basic 15-page dataform, are explained in considerable detail in Volume 1, Appendix C. It should be recognized that the need for brevityin any printed form has the potential to produce distortion, as a short answer may not explain the shadings or nuancesof a particular situation. This problem was generally compensated for in the 15-page data forms by addingexplanations in parentheses and footnotes. This form became the primary record of all data collected for each projectstudied and provided the information extracted for the summary matrixes (Plates 1 and 2) in Volume 1 and the case-history abstracts and computer retrieval system presented in this volume.

The reader should understand that for general knowledge of the 87 projects reported as case histories, a study ofthe matrixes will suffice for quick correlation. For a more thorough understanding of particular projects, it will benecessary to research the abstracts, which are themselves more general than the original data forms.

PREFACE v

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PREFACE vi

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Contents

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 1 United States Projects Mass Transit 6 Railroad 62 Water Conveyance, Flood Control, Dam Diversion 64 Sewage/Wastewater 126 Storm Water Detention 144 Nuclear Plant Cooling 152 Hydropower 154 Canadian Projects Mass Transit 162 Water Conveyance 168 Sewage 170 Deep Shafts Hydropower 174 Radioactive Waste Storage 176 Mine Access 178

COMPUTER-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 181 File Definition Program 192 Format Program 196 Searching Session for Cases with Squeezing Ground 209 Searching Session for Cases in Mixed Face 226 Self-Help Guide 238

CONTENTS vii

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONTENTS viii

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Abstracts of Case Histories

The abstracts of the 87 case histories presented herein were prepared from the 15-page data form that was thesubcommittee's basic means of compiling and recording information on every project selected for study. Therefore, thereader may find it useful to refer to Appendix C (Volume 1), which discusses the data form in detail. Many of theexplanations in Appendix C apply to the abstracts and are not repeated here. Additional items requiring furtherclarification are listed below in the order in which they appear in the abstracts.

Tunnel Construction Costs

Refers only to the cost of excavating and permanently supporting the mined (or sunk or raised) opening understudy. Total project costs are given later.

“Changes” Awarded: refers only to cost overruns actually paid, rather than to all that were requested.

Tunnel Data

Type(s) and Length(s): as taken from final construction records, which may not always match original designdocuments.

Depth, crown to water table: a plus (+) sign indicates the water table is above the crown and a minus (−) sign thatit is below the crown.

Geology:Soil quality--described as cohesive or granular. If cohesive, whether very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff

or hard. If granular, whether cemented or uncemented and then whether very loose, loose, medium dense, dense, orvery dense. (Note: for a rock tunnel not particularly affected by the overlying soil, the soil units are not described.)

Rock quality--described as weathered or unweathered, massive/ thick bedded or foliated/thin bedded, jointing(close, moderate, wide spacing) or no jointing, shear zones or no shear zones, faulting or no faulting.

Site Exploration

Borehole tests: a dash preceding the name of a test means the actual number performed could not be determined.Lab tests: explanation applies as for borehole tests.

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 1

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Construction

Problems Encountered: listed according to six specific categories and then described with key words/phrases.Unstable ground--blocky or slabby, running, flowing, squeezing, swelling, spalling (bursts).Hazardous environmental factors--noxious fluids, existing utilities or structures, high temperature, gas.Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--hard or abrasive, mucking, soft bottom, face fall-out, gripper instability,

roof slabbing, pressure binding.Soft-ground methods--surface subsidence (minor = 0-3 in.; moderate = 3-6 in.; major = greater than 6 in.), face

instability, water inflow (operating nuisance, large quantity, high pressure), obstructions (boulders, piles, etc.), materialhardness, steering.

Compressed air--blowouts, fire.Other problems were sometimes added as a category because interviewers discovered a few that would not fit the

6 categories and 20 key words/phrases described above.

Subsurface-Related Extra Payments

Tabulates monies requested as opposed to monies awarded.Descriptions and Amounts: follows approximately the same categories and key words/phrases as in “Problems

Encountered,” above.

Remarks

Briefly describes the remainder of the items which make up the total project and the total costs involved. Inaddition, this section summarizes any other salient facts that do not fit into the rigid, abstract format yet are necessaryfor a true understanding of the project as a whole.

ORGANIZATION SCHEME

The order in which the abstracts are presented matches the arrangement used for Plate 1. The overall schemeseparates U.S. projects, Canadian projects, and deep shafts. Within those major units, the abstracts are organizedaccording to type (or purpose) of project and then grouped by owner. To assist the reader in researching the abstracts,the scheme is outlined below and lists the page numbers pertaining to the respective owners.

U.S. PROJECTS

Mass transit

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), pp. 6-11.Mission Line, Contract 1M0011Mission Line, Contract 1M0031Market Street Line, Contract 1S0022


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System (BRRTS), pp. 12-21.Bolton HillsLaurens StreetLexington MarketMondawmin Line NorthMondawmin Line SouthMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), pp. 22-27.Red Line, Contract 091-105Red Line, Contract 091-106Porter SquareMetropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), pp. 28-29.Peachtree CenterNiagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA), pp. 30-33.Buffalo Light Rail, Section C-11Buffalo Light Rail, Section C-31New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), pp. 34-49.Route 131-A, Section 1Route 131-A, Sections 2 and 3Route 131-A, Section 4Route 131-A, Section 5ARoute 131-A, Section 5BRoute 131-D, Section 5Route 131-D, Section 8Route 133, Section 2Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), pp. 50-61.Section A-9aSection A-11aSection A-11c, Medical Center StationSection C-4Section F-1bSection G-2

Railroad

Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR), pp. 62-63.Bonneville 2nd Powerhouse

Water Conveyance, Flood Control, Dam Diversion

Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec), pp. 64-99.Alpine Aqueduct, Section 1Bacon No. 2BousteadBuckskin MountainsBurnt Mountain and Agua FriaCarter and MormonCunninghamDoloresHades and RhodesHunter, Completion ContractNavajo Route 44Navajo No. 5Pacheco, Reach 2


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Santa ClaraSouth Fork and ChapmanStillwater, Initial ContractStillwater, Completion ContractSugar Pine DiversionCalifornia Department of Water Resources (CWR), pp. 100-109.AngelesCarley V. PorterCastaic Dam DiversionSan BernardinoTehachapi 1, 2, and 3Corps of Engineers (COE), pp. 110-115.North Fork OutletPark River AuxiliarySkiatook OutletMetropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), pp. 116-121.Newhall and Balboa InletsSan FernandoTonner 1 and 2Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), pp. 122-125.Bi-County, East MainBi-County, West Main

Sewage/Wastewater

San Francisco Clean Water Program (SFCWP), pp. 126-129.North Shores Outfalls, N-1North Shores Outfalls, N-2Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMBD), pp. 130-137.Hampton AvenueNortheast Relief, Contract 287Northeast Relief, Contract 288Northeast Relief, Contract 289New York City, Department of Environmental Protection (NYDEP), pp. 138-139.Red Hook InterceptorRochester Pure Waters District (RPWD), pp. 140-143.Cross Irondequoit InterceptorGenesee Valley Interceptor

Storm Water Detention

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC), pp. 144-151.Contract 72-049-2HContract 73-160-2HContract 73-162-2H (Part 3)Contract 75-123-2H

Nuclear Plant Cooling

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCNH), pp. 152-153.Seabrook Station


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Hydropower

California Department of Water Resources (CWR), pp. 154-155.Edward Hyatt PowerhouseNortheast Utilities (NU), pp. 156-157.Northfield MountainPacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), pp. 158-159.Kerckhoff No. 2Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), pp. 160-161.Loon Lake Powerhouse

CANADIAN PROJECTS

Mass Transit

Bureau de Transport Metropolitain (BTM), pp. 162-163.Montreal Metro Line No. 5Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), pp. 164-167.Spadina SubwayYonge Subway

Water Conveyance

Toronto Metropolitan Works Department (TMW), pp. 168-169.Easterly Filtration Intake

Sewage

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME), pp. 170-173.York-Durham Sewage, Contract 85York-Durham Sewage, Contract 86

DEEP SHAFTS

Hydropower

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), pp. 174-175.Look Lake Penstock

Radioactive Waste Storage

Department of Energy (DOE), pp. 176-177.Exploratory Shaft, WIPP

Mine Access

Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corp., Ltd. (BMS), pp.. 178-179.Brunswick Shaft No. 3


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BART MISSION LINE, CONTRACT 1MOO11

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 23rd Street to 16th Street, San Francisco, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Running lines for subway systemOWNER: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictDESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel (JV)CONTRACTOR: Kiewit-Traylor (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: February 19, 1968CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 20, 1969CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $8,043,356“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 125,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $8,168,356 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 7,756 lin ft Total length = 7,756 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin parallel tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 18 ft 0 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 254 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 32 lin ftminimum = 22 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +20 lin ftminimum = +10 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sand and silty sandQuality: granularuncementeddense to very dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: clayey sandQuality: granularuncementedmedium dense to dense3rd UnitIdentification/Type: silty clayQuality: cohesivehardRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: pinnacles of severely weathered clayey sandstone, shale and chertQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing (no information)shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 9Total length = 515 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests- Advance rates recordedLAB TESTS: 17 Unconfined compression tests on soil samples6 Sieve analyses2 Atterberg limits tests3 Mechanical analyses2 Specific gravity tests2 Consolidation tests11 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

1 Drained triaxial test- Natural moisture tests- Dry density testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Caldwell) with compressed airPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. widePERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wideADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 105 lin ftAverage = 56 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--mucking (muckbound; lost 3 hrs/wk average)Soft ground methods--surface subsidence (degree not known)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNo descriptions available

TOTAL = $253,692

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a concrete box crossover structure, 2

ventilation structures, 4 tunnel cross passages, relocation and construction of utilities, surface improvements, and otherrelated work. The total contract price as estimated was $14,165,856; the low bid was $12,734,618 and the final totalcontract cost was $12,876,916. These figures are affected by the fact that the owner supplied the tunnel liner segments.Some information is missing because of the difficulty with follow-up interviews. Contact with the contractor wasnever made. Although contact was made with the owner, he had trouble providing some data because no one was leftwith personal knowledge of the project, and records were extremely difficult to obtain from inactive files.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BART MISSION LINE, CONTRACT 1MOO31

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 24th Street to Randell Street, San Francisco, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Running lines for subway systemOWNER: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictDESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel (JV)CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, Perini, Brown & Root (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 8, 1968CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 30, 1969CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit priced per lin ft of completed tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $9,376,130“CHANGES” AWARDED: No information (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 8,754 lin ftMixed face = 271 lin ft Total length = 9,025 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin parallel tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 18 ft 1-1/2 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 258 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 36 lin ftminimum = 21 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +15 lin ftminimum = +10 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sandy clay alluvium with interbedded sand layersQuality: cohesivestiff to hardRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: soft metasandstoneQuality: weatheredbeddedjointing (no information)shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 25Total length = 1,596 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests- Water observation wells (in half of the borings)LAB TESTS: 18 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression tests11 Unconfined compression tests on soil samples2 Unconfined compression tests on rock core3 Permeability tests77 Unit weights14 Consolidation tests1 Drained triaxial test77 Natural moisture content tests- Specific gravity tests- Shrink/swell potential tests- Moisture-density relations tests- Sieve analyses- Atterberg limits testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Memco), with 33% under 10 psi compressed airPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Left line tunnel--maximum = 102.5 lin ftaverage = 34 lin ftRight line tunnel--maximum = 75 lin ftaverage = 35 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--operating nuisance (only a minor problem)Soft ground methods--pressure bindingCompressed air--no blowouts--no fireSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a vent shaft, pumping station, 4 cross

passages, underpinning of structures, utility work, paving of tunnel invert, and other related work. The total contractprice as estimated was $14,594,050 and as bid was $11,679,460. These figures are affected by the fact that the ownersupplied the tunnel liner segments. The as completed final costs and detailed information on overruns were notavailable because of difficulties with follow-up interviews. Although contact was made with the owner, he had troublein providing some data because no one was left with personal knowledge of the project, and records were extremelydifficult to obtain from inactive files. However, contact was also made with the contractor and feedback from himindicates there were no significant claims and that all disputes were resolved at job level. This would seem to indicateat least some minor cost overruns due to unexpected subsurface conditions.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BART MARKET STREET LINE, CONTRACT 1S0022

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 8th Street to 15th Street, San Francisco, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Running lines for subway systemOWNER: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictDESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel (JV)CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, Perini (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: August 13, 1967CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 13, 1968CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit priced per lin ft of completed tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $14,961,220“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 10,200 lin ft Total length = 10,200 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin parallel tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 18 ft 1-1/2 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 258 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 70 lin ftminimum = 30 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +42 lin ftminimum = +22 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sand with interbedded silty sand, clayey sand, and sandy clayQuality: granularcemented (slightly in places)dense to very denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 14Total length = 1,253 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests- Water observation wells in a few boringsLAB TESTS: 9 Unconfined compression tests on soil4 Sieve analyses6 Atterberg limits tests4 Specific gravity tests4 Consolidation tests2 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests3 Drained triaxial tests- Natural mositure tests- Dry density testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Memco), mostly in compressed airPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Left tunnel line--maximum = 72.5 lin ftaverage = 26 lin ftRight tunnel line--maximum = 82.5 lin ftaverage = 40 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running ground (required dewatering until compressed air system was installed to control running)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisance (caused running condition until compressed air was installed)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--face fallout (95 cu yd cave-in)Soft ground methods--face instability (until compressed air installed)--water inflow (even under compressed air, water leaked into tunnel around shield, at the invert, and through

cracks in the liner)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included ventilation and pump shaft structures,

cross passages, mechanical and electrical work, and other related items. The total contract price as estimated was$20,341,517 and as bid was $17,763,825. These figures are affected by the fact that the owner supplied the tunnel linersegments. The as completed final costs and detailed information on overruns were not available because of difficultieswith followup interviews. Although contact was made with the owner, he had trouble in providing some data becauseno one was left with personal knowledge of the project and records were extremely difficult to obtain from inactivefiles. However, contact was also made with the contractor and feedback from him indicates there were no significantclaims. It is still possible there were some minor cost overruns due to unexpected subsurface conditions.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BOLTON HILL TUNNELS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Baltimore, MarylandPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System, Maryland Department of TransportationDESIGNER: Bechtel Inc.CONTRACTOR: Fruin-Colnon CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: August 22, 1977CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 9, 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $35,183,497BID TOTAL: $29,112,730“CHANGES” AWARDED: In litigation (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 10,030 lin ftMixed face = 1,200 lin ft Total length = 11,230 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 1 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 287 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 76 lin ftminimum = 48 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +22 lin ftminimum = −5 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to coarse sand, trace siltQuality: granularuncementedvery compact2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silty clay and clay pocketsQuality: cohesivehard3rd UnitIdentification/Type: residual silty sand and sandy silt (saprolite)Quality: granularuncementedvery denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: biotite hornblende gneiss with pegmatite intrusionQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 60Total length = 5,111 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in cased boreholes1 Constant head test in cased borehole2 Pumping tests in 2 pump test wellsLAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression tests- Triaxial tests- Consolidation tests- Sieve analysis tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Atterberg limits tests- Natural moisture contents tests- Specific gravity tests- Slaking tests on a “unit block” of soil

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A shaft at station entrance, approximately 7 ft by 7 ft by 27 ft deepSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield driven under compressed air (12 psi max)Mixed face--drill-and-blast (rock in invert)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--metallic liner platesPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--metallic liner platesADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Shield--maximum = 48 lin ftOverall--average = 17.6 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Soft ground methods--obstructions (hard rock in invert requiring drill-and-blast)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTS

Obstructions = $3,200,000TOTAL = $3,200,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included 5 mined cross passages, 8 tunnel

interface structures, above ground work, restoration, compaction grouting, and an instrumentation program. The totalcontract price as estimated was $44,715,777, and as bid was $41,658,000. Claims for encountering hard rock in thesoft ground tunnels are unsettled as of this writing. Borings were too far from the claim area to detect the high rockcondition.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LAURENS STREET TUNNELS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Baltimore, MarylandPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System, Maryland Department of TransportationDESIGNER: Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-StrattonCONTRACTOR: Granite Construction CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: March 29, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: March 26, 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $14,757,0000BID TOTAL: $13,617,000“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $14,823,670 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 340 lin ftMixed face = 140 lin ftRock = 4,726 lin ft Total length = 5,206 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): Soft ground--horseshoeMixed face--horseshoeRock--horseshoeSIZE(S): Soft ground--22 ft 4-1/2 in. high by 18 ft 8 in. wideMixed face--19 ft 2-3/4 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wideRock--19 ft 2-3/4 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--390 sq ftMixed face--264 sq ftRock--264 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 98 lin ftminimum = 52 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +72 lin ftminimum = +9 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: residual silty sands and sandy silt (saprolite)Quality: granularuncementedvery denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite gneissQuality: weatheredmassivejointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: foliated gneissQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 47Total length = 4,396 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in cased boreholes- Water pressure tests using packers


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LAB TESTS: 15 Unconfined compression tests on rock core- Triaxial compression tests on soil- Consolidation tests on soil-Aggregate hardness tests (weighted average of the hardness of the various mineral components of the rock)- Unit weight of rock cores- Grain size analysis on soil- Atterberg limits tests on soil- Natural moisture contents tests on soil- X-ray analysis of clay minerals in gouge material- Modal analysis (thin sections cut from core specimens)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--heading and bench and hand miningMixed face--drill-and-blast and hand miningRock--drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs, liner plates, and spilingMixed face--ribs, liner plates, and spilingRock--ribs, rock bolts, and crown barsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 20 in. thickMixed face--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 20 in. thickRock--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Rock--maximum = 32 lin ftOverall--average = 6.3 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running ground (2 runs in mixed face)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--excessive overbreak (in rock and mixed face)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Excessive overbreak in mixed face = $ 80,000Excessive overbreak in rock = $1,000,000

TOTAL = $1,080,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a cut-and-cover station, shafts, cross

passages, and restoration. The total contract price as estaimted was $37,401,000; as bid was $36,283,000 and ascompleted was $39,040,000. Claims for overbreak were not pursued further by the contractor after denial by the owner.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LEXINGTON MARKET TUNNELS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Baltimore, MarylandPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System, Maryland Department of TransportationDESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.CONTRACTOR: Traylor Bros., Morrison-Knudsen, Grow Tunneling (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: September 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: April 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $16,648,752BID TOTAL: $11,568,130“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 250,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $11,818,130 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 3,080 lin ftMixed face = 40 lin ft Total length = 3,120 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 1 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 287 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 54 lin ftminimum = 44 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +12 lin ftminimum = +2 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to coarse sand, trace siltQuality: granularuncementedvery compact2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silt and clay layers (generally less than 3 ft thick)Quality: cohesivehard3rd UnitIdentification/Type: residual silty sands and sandy silts (saprolite)Quality: granularuncementedvery denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: biotite-hornblende gneissQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 22Total length = 1,894 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in cased boreholesLAB TESTS: - One-dimensional swell tests- Unconfined compression tests- Atterberg limits tests- Grain size analysis


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Natural moisture content tests- Specific gravity tests- Grout injection tests (laboratory)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield (Robbins) with compressed air (6 psi average; 12 psi maximum)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--NonePERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel liner plate in one tube; precast concrete liner panels in the other tubeADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Shield--maximum = 54 lin ftaverage = 24 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (one 12 cu yd run at face)Soft ground methods--obstructions (hard rock in invert)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Obstructions = $250,000TOTAL = $250,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a large construction shaft,

dewatering, compaction grouting, building demolition, and 2 mined cross passages. The total contract price asestimated was $21,900,485; as bid was $17,514,970 and as completed was $18,114,534. Precast concrete linersegments were used experimentally in 1,500 lin ft of tunnel.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

MONDAWMIN LINE NORTH

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Baltimore, MarylandPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System, Maryland Department of TransportationDESIGNER: Singstad, Kehart, November & HurkaCONTRACTOR: Clevecon, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: November 1977CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: April 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including the final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $13,402,915BID TOTAL: $10,313,225“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 36,741 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $10,349,966 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 6,316 lin ft Total length = 6,316 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 17 ft 9 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 260 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 100 lin ftminimum = 58 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +60 lin ftminimum = +30 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: amphiboliteQuality: weatheredmassivejointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: quartz plagioclase gneissQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: tremolite gneissQuality: weatheredmassivejointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 32Total length = 3,441 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests- Rising head tests- Water pressure testsLAB TESTS: 21 Unconfined compression tests on rock core- Aggregate hardness tests- Unit weight of rock cores- Slaking tests on rock- Modal analysis (thin sections for rock identification)- Atterberg limits tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Grain size analysis- Natural moisture content tests- Unconfined compression tests on soilEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs with blocking and lagging, and rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 20 lin ftAverage = 12 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky (occasional rockfalls)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--excessive overbreakSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Excessive overbreak = $408,693TOTAL = $408,693

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a shaft and a section of cut-and-cover

tunnel. The total contract price as estimated was $21,480,808; as bid was $22,646,035 and as completed was$23,629,569. There were 5 outstanding claims at settlement that were settled with a lump sum; only one of theseclaims was geology related. The settlement amount for this claim was apportioned, based on a percentage of theoriginal asking amount of this claim and the original asking amount of all claims.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

MONDAWMIN LINE SOUTH

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Baltimore, MarylandPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System, Maryland Department of TransportationDESIGNER: Singstad, Kehart, November & HurkaCONTRACTOR: Clevecon, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: July 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $15,150,330BID TOTAL: $11,877,810“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 125,058 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $12,024,803 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 6,600 lin ft Total length = 6,600 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 17 ft 9 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 260 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 96 lin ftminimum = 48 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +75 lin ftminimum = +30 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: amphiboliteQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: quartz plagioclase gneiss and schistQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 44Total length = 4,354 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in cased borings- Rising head tests- Water pressure testsLAB TESTS: 23 Unconfined compression tests on rock core- Aggregate hardness of rock- Unit weight of rock cores- Slaking tests on rock- Modal analysis (thin sections for rock identification)- Unconfined compression tests on soil- Atterberg limits tests- Grain size analysis- Natural moisture content testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs and blocking with lagging, and rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Drill-and-blast--maximum = 30 lin ftOverall--average = 20 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky (occasional rock falls)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--excessive overbreakSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Excessive overbreak = $493,413TOTAL = $493,413

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a vent shaft, mined cross passages,

relocation and support of utilities, and other above-ground work. The total contract price as estimated was$19,279,031; as bid was $19,518,746 and as completed was $18,659,141. There were 4 outstanding claims atsettlement that were settled with a lump sum. Only one of these claims was geology related. The settlement amount forthis claim was apportioned, based on a percentage of the original asking amount of this claim and the original askingamount of all claims.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

RED LINE EXTENSION, CONTRACT 091-105

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Between Porter and Harvard Squares, Cambridge, Massachusetts,PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityDESIGNER: Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc.CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, J.F. White and Mergentime (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: September 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 4, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of excavation and per unit of lining componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $37,303,000BID TOTAL: $25,046,700“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not available (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 2,630 lin ftMixed face = 1,720 lin ftRock = 4,300 lin ft Total length = 8,650 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): Soft ground--circularMixed face and rock--horseshoeSIZE(S): Soft ground--23 ft 6 in. diameterMixed face and rock--21 ft 2 in. high by 21 ft 10 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--434 sq ftMixed face and rock--352 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 105 lin ftminimum = 28 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +93 lin ftminimum = +10 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: glacial till (mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay)Quality: granularuncementedvery denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: bedded silty argilliteQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minor2nd UnitIdentification/Type: igneous dikes and sills (with diabase and andesite)Quality: weatheredmassivejointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 59Total length = 5,571 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 46 Water pressure tests in rock with packers57 Field permeability tests in soil2 Test wells with pump tests- Oriented coring runsLAB TESTS: 24 Unconfined compression tests on rock16 Shore hardness tests15 Schmidt hardness tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

14 Tabor abrasion tests10 Total hardness tests32 Rock density tests- Wet-dry durability (slake) tests on rock- Petrographic examinations on rock7 Density tests on soil- Unconfined compression/Torvane/vane shear tests on soil- Moisture/Atterberg limits/sieve analysis tests- Consolidation tests- Quality (chemical concentration) tests on waterEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for rock depthGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--Shields (2 Elgood Mayo)Mixed face--Shields (2) and drill-and-blast and backhoeRock--drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs and laggingMixed face--ribs and laggingRock--steel ribs and rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thickMixed face--cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thickRock--cast-in-place concrete, 17 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground--maximum = 48 lin ftaverage = 13.4 lin ftRock--average = 5.5 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby--running--flowingGroundwater inflow--operating nuisanceSoft ground methods--minor surface subsidence--face instability--water inflow (operating nuisance)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Blocky, slabby, unstable ground = $ 3,800,000Running, flowing unstable ground; groundwater inflow; face instability; surface subsidence = $14,700,000

TOTAL = $18,500,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included five mined cross passages,

two vent shafts, muck hauling by rail, and remedial work at an abandoned city dump to receive muck. The totalcontract was estimated at $55,395,920 and the low bid was $47,478,600. Actual final costs cannot yet be reported. Theowner does not wish to prejudice litigation in adjacent sections by revealing amounts settled in Contract 091-105. Theclaims were settled through negotiation rather than litigation.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

RED LINE EXTENSION, CONTRACT 091-106

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Between Porter and Davis Squares, Cambridge, MassachusettsPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityDESIGNER: Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc.CONTRACTOR: Perini CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: April 4, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 9, 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of excavation and per unit of lining componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $18,607,300BID TOTAL: $14,182,800“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $13,601,912 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Mixed face = 484 lin ftRock = 4,616 lin ft Total length = 5,100 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): Mixed face--circularRock--horseshoeSIZE(S): Mixed face--23 ft 6 in. diameterRock--21 ft 1-1/2 in. high by 21 ft 6 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Mixed face--434 sq ftRock--352 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 100 lin ftminimum = 32 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +84 lin ftminimum = +20 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: glacial till (mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay)Quality: granularuncementedvery dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: marine silty clay (Boston blue clay)Quality: cohesivemedium stiff to very stiffRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: bedded silty argilliteQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minor2nd UnitIdentification/Type: igneous dikes (with diabase and felsite)Quality: weatheredmassivejointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 37Total length = 3,315 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 45 Water pressure tests with packers9 Borehole permeability tests in soil1 Pumping test in test well


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LAB TESTS: 43 Unconfined compression tests on rock26 Shore hardness tests20 Schmidt hardness tests18 Tabor abrasion tests16 Total hardness tests39 Rock density tests- Wet-dry durability (slake) tests on rock- Petrographic examinations on rock33 Density tests on soil- Unconfined compression/Torvane/vane shear tests on soil- Moisture/Atterberg limits/sieve analysis tests- Consolidation tests on clay- Quality (chemical concentration) tests on waterEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for rock depthGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Mixed face--backhoe and drill-and-blastRock--drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Mixed face--ribs and cribbing plus crown bars and spilingRock--ribs and rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Mixed face--cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thickRock--cast-in-place concrete, 17 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Mixed face--maximum = 4 lin ftaverage = 2.5 lin ftRock--maximum = 36 lin ftaverage = 10.3 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing groundSoft ground methods--face instabilitySUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included four mined cross passages

and two shafts. The total contract was estimated at $30,304,160; the low bid was $24,384,050 and the actual final costwas $23,546,070. Cost underruns were mostly due to use of less ground support than anticipated in bidding documents.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

RED LINE EXTENSION, PORTER SQUARE STATION, CONTRACT 091-303

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Porter Square in Cambridge, MassachusettsPURPOSE: Passenger station for subway systemOWNER: Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityDESIGNER: Cambridge Seven Associates Inc.CONTRACTOR: Slattery-MacLean (joint venture)CONSTRUCTION START: March 11, 1980CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 30, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation and per unit of lining componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $13,035,444BID TOTAL: $21,045,650“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $20,344,052 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 490 lin ft Total length = 490 lin ftLAYOUT: Large underground chamberSHAPE(S): Split level horseshoeSIZE(S): 45 ft 7 in. high by 70 ft 6 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 2,360 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 82 lin ftminimum = 64 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +60 lin ftminimum = +48 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: bedded silty argeiliteQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minor2nd UnitIdentification/Type: igneous dikes (with andesite and basalt)Quality: unweatheredmassivejointing, wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 48Total length = 4,034 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 3 Boreholes where oriented coring performed47 Borehole permeability tests6 Pumping tests (in conjunction with inspection shaft)- Overcoring tests (in pilot tunnel)LAB TESTS: 22 Unconfined compression tests on rock16 Rebound hardness tests16 Abrasion hardness tests22 Rock density tests- Atterberg limits tests- Gradation tests on soil- Quality (chemical concentration) tests on waterEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One inspection shaft, 36 in. diameter, 111.5 ft deepOne pilot tunnel, 12 ft by 12 ft (length of station)SURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: One blast vibration test in conjunction with inspection shaftGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (3-stage excavation)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts, and 3 stages of shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Shotcrete above and 4th stage (minimum total thickness, 15 in.)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 12 lin ft (per day per stage)Average = 5 lin ft (per day per stage)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of major consequenceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined station vault and crossover tunnel described above, the total contract included

miscellaneous surface work, an open-cut mezzanine structure, entrance ways, and architectural, electrical, andmechanical work. The total contract was estimated at $36,969,138; the low bid was $43,887,900; and the actual finalcost was $44,877,854. The site investigation was unusually thorough and probably cost in the neighborhood of$2,000,000 in 1976-78 dollars. This undoubtedly accounts for the fact that there were so few problems withunexpected subsurface conditions.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PEACHTREE CENTER STATION AND SUBWAY TUNNELS (CONTRACT CN-120)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Marietta Street to Mills Street, Atlanta, GeorgiaPURPOSE: Running tunnels and station structure for subway systemOWNER: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Singstad, Kehart, November & Hurka; PB/T; Parsons Brinckerhoff; DeLeuw CatherCONTRACTOR: Horn-Fruin Colnon (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: January 19, 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 17, 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit prices for excavation and support items for the tunnels and stationTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $28,119,948BID TOTAL: $23,621,507“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 290,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $22,641,610 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 626 lin ftMixed face = 1,291 lin ftRock--tunnel = 2,490 lin ftstation chamber = 770 lin ft Total length = 5,177 lin ftLAYOUT: Parallel single-track tunnels with stationSHAPE(S): Soft ground and mixed face--circularRock--horseshoeStation--horseshoeSIZE(S): Soft ground and mixed face--20 ft diameterRock--18 ft 9 in. high by 18 ft 9 in. wideStation--42 ft high by 60 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground and mixed face--314 sq ftRock--356 sq ftStation--2,450 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 98 lin ftminimum = 36 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +55 lin ftminimum = +35 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: residual-micaceous silty sandsQuality: granularuncementedmedium dense to denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: decomposed metamorphic rockQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: interbedded biotite, amphibole, and granitic gneissesQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 88Total length = 8,225 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 5 Oriented integral coring tests- Standard penetration tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Single and double packer tests- Variable head permeability testsLAB TESTS: 37 Unconfined compression tests on rock core20 Triaxial tests on soil samples19 Rebound and abrasion hardness tests- Petrographic examination of rock core- Rock resistivity tests- Soil classification tests- Moisture content of soil samples- Direct shear tests on rock joints- X-ray difraction of joint filling materials- Chemical testing of groundwaterEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 900-ft long (5 ft high and 9 ft to 14 ft wide) pilot tunnel

through crown of station; overcoring, flatjack testing, and MPBXs in pilot tunnelSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield with compressed airMixed face--shield with compressed airRock--drill-and-blast with specified multiple heading and bench sequence in stationPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--noneMixed face--noneRock--rock bolts in tunnels and stationPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--liner platesMixed face--liner platesRock--cast-in-place concrete (12 in. thick) or shotcrete (4 in. thick)Station arch--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2 ft 11 in. to 3 ft 6 in. thickStation walls--none or reinforced cast-in-place concrete (9 in. thick) or shotcrete (4 in. thick)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground or mixed face--maximum = 12.5 lin ftRock (tunnels)--maximum = 7 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (overbreak requiring additional support)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Blocky, slabby (overbreak requiring additional support) = $1,000,000TOTAL = $1,000,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels and station described above, the total contract also included cut-and-cover

portions, vents, shafts, entrance ways, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at$43,764,000 and the low bid was $42,500,000. Total final costs were not available.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BUFFALO LIGHT RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SECTION C-11 (Contract 1C0011)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Ferry to Amherst Streets, Buffalo, New YorkPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Niagara Frontier Transportation AuthorityDESIGNER: Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.CONTRACTOR: Fruin-Colnon, Traylor Bros. and Onyx Construction (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: March 12, 1980CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 6, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation, separate unit price per unit of lining componentTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $38,922,752BID TOTAL: $28,650,062“CHANGES” AWARDED: In litigation (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 20,416 lin ft Total length = 20,416 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 18 ft 6 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 268.8 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 72 lin ftminimum = 18 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +54 lin ftminimum = +12 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: solutioned dolostone and dolomitic limestone (Bertie formation)Quality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 48Total length = 4,027 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer tests on rock1 Pump test with observation wells- Methane gas testsLAB TESTS: 48 Unconfined compression tests on rock core262 Point load tests- Total hardness and fracture toughness studies (by Cornell University)- X-ray diffraction of rock samples- Groundwater tests for pH and coliform bacteria- Clay/shale content, acidity and iron sulfide tests on rock samplesEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One inspection shaft, 36 in. diameter, 62 ft deepSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Robbins 186-206 and 186-207)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts (8 ft long), with ribs in limited areasPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Robbins 186-207--average = 77.9 lin ftRobbins 186-206--average = 68.5 lin ftCombined TBMs--average = 74.8 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--slabby (rock fallout at quarter arch points)Groundwater inflow--large quantityMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--mucking (mud from solution cavities clogged mucking system)--hard rockSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSMucking (solution cavities, delays)

Hard rock = ±$8,000,000TOTAL = ±$8,000,000

REMARKSIn addition to the TBM mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included three subway stations, a

water discharge pipeline, and a TBM recovery shaft. The total contract was estimated at $46,427,160 and the low bidwas $38,949,800. Final cost was not available, because claims were in litigation at the time of this study.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BUFFALO LIGHT RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SECTION C-31 (Contract 1C0031)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Amherst Street to South Campus Station, Buffalo, New YorkPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Niagara Frontier Transportation AuthorityDESIGNER: Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.CONTRACTOR: S&M Constructors, McHugh Construction, Kenny Construction Company (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: January 16, 1980CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 1, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation, separate unit price per unit of lining componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: $17,741,935 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)“CHANGES” AWARDED: In litigationAS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 14,897 lin ft Total length = 14,897 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): Inbound--18 ft 6 in. diameter (7,600 lin ft)Outbound--18 ft 7 in. diameter (7,297 lin ft)EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Inbound--268.8 sq ftOutbound--271.1 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 49 lin ftminimum = 22 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +14 lin ftminimum = −6 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: solutioned dolostone and dolomitic limestone (Bertie formation)Quality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 42Total length = 3,154 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer tests on rock1 Pump test in exploration shaft (with observation wells)LAB TESTS: 14 Unconfined compression tests on rock core207 Point load tests on rock core- Groundwater tests for pH and coliform bacteria- X-ray diffraction of rock samples- Acidity, clay/shale content and iron sulfide tests on rock samplesEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One inspection shaft, 36 in. diameter, 62 ft deepSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 185-178-1 and 181-182)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts (8 ft long), with ribs in some areasPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Robbins 185-178--average = 52.4 lin ftRobbins 181-182--average = 56.0 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--slabby (rock fallout at quarter arch points)Groundwater inflow--large quantityMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--mucking (mud from solution cavities clogged mucking system)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Mucking (muck filled solution cavities) = ±$6,000,000TOTAL = ±$6,000,000

REMARKSIn addition to the TBM mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included two subway stations,

installation of dewatering pipelines, three shafts, and a TBM recovery shaft. No engineer's estimate was available forthe contract, but the low bid for the total contract was $35,381,213. The final contract cost was not available due tolitigation concerning claims.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 1

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: East 63rd and York (Manhattan) to 41st and Vernon (Queens)PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway and railroadOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: New York City Transit AuthorityCONTRACTOR: Peter Kiewit & Sons, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Slattery Associates (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 24, 1969CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 27, 1974CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $26,025,500BID TOTAL: $17,231,500“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $17,274,006 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock--running tunnel = 882 lin ftstation = 596 lin ft Total length = 1,478 lin ft (includes transition through backfill concrete)LAYOUT: Single four-track tunnelSHAPE(S): Running tunnel--horseshoeStation--large chamberSIZE(S): Running tunnel--44 ft high by 40 ft wideStation--43 to 75 ft high by 42 to 60 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Running tunnel--±1,580 sq ftStation--1,660 to 3,540 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 63 lin ftminimum = 47 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +62 lin ftminimum = +43 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granodiorite gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing (no information)shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 16Total length = 1,110 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: Not availableEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast, top heading and benchPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2.5 ft thick (minimum)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Running tunnel--maximum = 22 lin ftaverage = 3.0 lin ftStation tunnel--average = 2.4 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisance


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,ETC.)

DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included sunken tube construction below the

East River, 2 ventilation/emergency shafts, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was$80,985,266; as bid was $69,480,920 and as completed was $75,742,756. There were no geology related claims in thetunnels for this project. There were claims in a shaft excavation on Welfare Island where rock moved inward up to 10in. on the east wall of the shaft due to high in-situ stresses.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTIONS 2 and 3

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: E. 63rd Street and 5th Avenue to W. 58th Street at 7th and 6th, ManhattanPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subwayOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: New York City Transit AuthorityCONTRACTOR: Central Park Constructors (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: May 7, 1971CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 1976CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate prices per unit of lining componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $16,157,330BID TOTAL: $13,787,800“CHANGES” AWARDED: Claims pending (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,516 lin ft Total length = 2,516 lin ftLAYOUT: Single two- and four-track tunnelsSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): Two tracks--16 ft high by 36 ft wideFour tracks--40 ft high by 96 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 544 to 3,648 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 71 lin ftminimum = 26 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +61 lin ftminimum = +24 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: mica schistQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: hornblende schistQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 16Total length = 609 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast, top heading and benchPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts, timber support, and liner platesPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 16 to 24 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading (tunnel width by 19 to 21 ft high)--maximum = 14 lin ftaverage = 6 lin ftTop heading (junction area)--average = 0.5 lin ftLow rock profile (claim area)--average = 1 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (cave-in)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--mucking--face fall-outSoft, weathered or decomposed rockSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Decomposed rock in rock tunnel = $9,200,000TOTAL = $9,200,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included cut-and-cover construction, a

substation, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was $37,321,454 and as bid was $33,873,696.Claims for $9,200,000 are pending so completed costs are not available. The total contract price not including theseclaims was $40,961,800. The claim area is in New York's Central Park, where access to obtain borings had beendenied. The claim might have been avoided if borings had been made in the area.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 4

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 5th Avenue to Park Avenue along E. 63rd Street, ManhattanPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subwayOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: New York City Transit AuthorityCONTRACTOR: McLean, Grove & Company; Grove, Shepard, Wilson, Kruge, Inc.; Grow Tunneling

Corporation (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: July 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 1977CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $25,505,700BID TOTAL: $40,897,590“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $43,044,400 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 1,170 lin ft Total length = 1,170 lin ftLAYOUT: Single four-track tube (with crossover lines)SHAPE(S): Horseshoe and double archSIZE(S): 37 ft high by 41 to 68 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Horseshoe--±1,400 sq ftDouble arch--±2,350 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 77 lin ftminimum = 46 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +60 lin ftminimum = +39 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: mica schist with pegmatite intrusionsQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 39Total length = 2,819 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 1 Double packer test in fault zoneLAB TESTS: 3 Unconfined compression tests3 Shore hardness tests3 Schmidt rebound tests3 Modified Taber abrasion tests2 Impact toughness tests29 Total hardness tests (by TBM manufacturer)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, up to 5 ft thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 8 lin ft (3 shifts)Average = 2.5 lin ft (3 shifts)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak and extra support in fault zone)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisance


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a ventilation shaft, emergency

passageways, an equipment room, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was $34,186,470; asbid was $54,252,215 and as completed was $55,893,000. This contract was advertised twice and had only two bidders.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 5A

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Park Avenue to 3rd Avenue, along E. 63rd Street, ManhattanPURPOSE: Running tunnel for subwayOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: New York City Transit AuthorityCONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Impresit Girola Lodiani, Inc., Thomas Crimmins

Contracting Company (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: March 17, 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 17, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $67,930,600BID TOTAL: $67,545,200“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 1,300,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $73,155,800 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 1,240 lin ft Total length = 1,240 lin ftLAYOUT: Single four-track tunnelSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 38 to 46 ft high by 43 to 56 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 1,672 sq ft to 2,464 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 76 lin ftminimum = 69 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +72 lin ftminimum = +34 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: mica schist with intruded pegmatite dikesQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 30Total length = 2,233 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: 1 Unconfined compression test1 Density test1 Shore sclerscope hardness test1 Schmidt hardness test1 Modified Taber abrasion test1 Rock abrasiveness testEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face, except for multiple drifts in fault zones)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2 to 5 ft thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 7 lin ft (2 shifts)Average = 2 lin ft (not including fault zones)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (rock falls and extra support at two fault zones)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTS

Blocky, slabby (fault zones) $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnel described above, the total contract included a station, entrance ways,

shafts, underpinning of structures, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was $149,025,596, andas bid was $154,286,300. Claims on this project (other than for tunnels) have not been settled as of this writing. Theestimated total completion cost is $160,500,000. Additional exploration might have detected fault zones which causedthe major claim.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 5B

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Third Avenue to FDR Drive, along E. 63rd Street, ManhattanPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway and railroad systemOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: New York City Transit AuthorityCONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Impresit Girola Lodiani, Inc., Thomas Crimmins

Contracting Company (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 3, 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $175,088,250BID TOTAL: $119,370,250“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $113,840,300 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,420 lin ft alignment (tunnel length not possible to determine due to

complex configuration)Total length = 2,420 lin ftLAYOUT: Four parallel tubes; five-track large chamber and various combinationsSHAPE(S): Circular (TBM bores), horseshoe, and flared sectionsSIZE(S): Circular--20 ft 2 in. to 22 ft 0 in. diameterHorseshoe--40 to 80 ft high by 27 to 79 ft wideFlared section--21 ft high by 21 to 58 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 319 to 6,930 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 89 lin ftminimum = 61 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +73 lin ftminimum = +50 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: mica schist with pegmatite intrusionsQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: blocky, decomposed schist and fault gougeQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 76Total length = 8,733 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: 9 Unconfined compression tests9 Density tests1 Shore scleroscope hardness test1 Schmidt rebound hardness test1 Modified Taber abrasions test1 Rock abrasiveness test2 Impact toughness test- Petrographic analyses of rock coresEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: No


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 200-220) supplemented by drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts, shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2 to 5 ft thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 87 lin ft (3 shifts)average = 23 lin ft (3 shifts)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Localized soft ground--highly weathered fault zones (required extra support)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSThis contract involved a total of 6 subway and 2 railroad tracks converging and diverging along the alignment.

The project consists of extremely complex tunnel sections, constructed mainly as 4 parallel TBM bores (2 upper and 2lower). Using drill-and-blast methods, the TBM bores were enlarged in places into flared sections and large chambers.In addition to the mined tunnels discussed here, the contract also included 2 shafts and other related work. The totalcontract cost as estimated was $250,847,873, and as bid was $185,825,022. The estimated total completion cost is$186,745,000; project completion is expected in May 1984.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-D, SECTION 5

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Borough of Queens, New York, New YorkPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Corddry Carpenter Dietz & ZackCONTRACTOR: MacLean-Grove and Company, IncCONSTRUCTION START: November 10, 1975CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 24, 1976CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $2,128,000BID TOTAL: $4,386,520“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $4,429,980 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 327 lin ft Total length = 327 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 8 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 303 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 27 lin ftminimum = 23 lin ftCrown to water table--water table below invertGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sand and gravel with occasional bouldersQuality: granularuncementedmedium dense to denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 10Total length = 744 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shield (make and model unknown)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Cast iron liner platesPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 13-1/2 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 161 lin ftAverage = 71 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running groundSoft ground methods--face instability


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included cut-and-cover box construction,

support structures for existing facilities, underpinning, and other related work. The total contract price as estimatedwas $20,724,286; as bid was $24,810,955 and as completed was $24,792,447.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-D, SECTION 8

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Borough of Queens, New York, New YorkPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Singstad, Kehart, November & HurkaCONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: September 21, 1981CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 8, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation and per ton of precast concrete linerTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $30,716,300BID TOTAL: $22,578,750“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not settled (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 2,410 lin ft Total length = 2,410 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 5 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 296 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 42 lin ftminimum = 15 lin ftCrown to water table--unknownGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to coarse sand and gravel, with occasional boulders and some siltQuality: granularuncementedmedium dense to very denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 19Total length - 1,321 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetrationLAB TESTS: - UnknownEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shield (make and model unknown)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Precast concrete panelsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Precast, segmented, reinforced concrete liner panels, 9 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 17.5 lin ftAverage = 14.0 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--flowing groundSoft ground methods--face instability


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



Unknown $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a cut-and-cover fan room and

ventilation structure, a pump room, and underpinning and support of existing structures and utilites. The total contractprice as estimated was $40,495,407, and as bid was $35,278,627. Claims on this project have not been settled. Thetotal as completed contract price, not including outstanding claims, was $35,280,000. One claim for cracks in theconcrete liner for about $1,000,000 was submitted, but no details on this claim are available.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 133, SECTION 2

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Borough of Queens, New York, New YorkPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: New York City Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Singstand, Kehart, November & HurkaCONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: March 1977CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 3, 1978CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $21,482,716BID TOTAL: $21,053,000“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 485,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: 21,025,800 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 2,220 lin ft Total length = 2,220 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 5 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 296 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 46 lin ftminimum = 24 lin ftCrown to water table--unknownGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to coarse sand and gravel, with occasional bouldersQuality: granularuncementedmedium dense to very denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 8Total length = 400 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shields (2, makes and models unknown)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Liner platesPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 13 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 37.5 lin ftAverage = 14.0 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--large quantity (required deep dewatering wells)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSGroundwater inflow

--deep dewatering wells $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a 150-ft long fan chamber and

ventilation superstructure (all of which is cut-and-cover), a chemical grouting program, and underpinning and supportof existing structures. The total contract price as estimated was $30,010,424; as bid was $27,358,688 and as completedwas $27,098,000.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

WASHINGTON METRO SECTION A-9a

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Northwest quadrant, Washington, D.C.PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Parsons Associates (The Ralph M. Parsons Company)CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen & AssociatesCONSTRUCTION START: September 19, 1975CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 8, 1976CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of single-track tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $25,362,500BID TOTAL: $24,993,500“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 1,975,350 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $27,164,746 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 15,240 lin ft Total length = 15,240 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 1 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 286 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 132 lin ftminimum = 82 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +103 lin ftminimum = +70 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: decomposed rock (saprolite), fine sandy silt to medium sandQuality: cohesive to granularhard or very compactRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: quartz-diorite gneissQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zones, occasionalno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: gabbro gneissQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zones, occasionalno faulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: quartz-mica schist-to-gneissQuality: weathered (badly in one area)foliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 49Total length = 6,122 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 45 Water pressure tests with packers75 Falling head tests in observation wells and boreholes2 Borehole photography runsLAB TESTS: 75 Unconfined compression tests on rock- Corrosion potential tests of groundwater (pH, resistivity, concentrations of SO4, Cl, CO3)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 191-161) plus drill-and blast in a short section of bad groundPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts in 63% of tunnels, with ribs in local bad ground areasPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 125 lin ftaverage = 60 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running ground (1 chimney to surface)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--face falloutSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Face fallout and running ground = $7,000,000TOTAL = $7,000,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included 6 fan and vent shafts, a

tiebreaker station, and a pilot tunnel for a future passenger station. The total contract was estimated at $33,293,520 andthe low bid was $34,931,600. The actual final cost was $36,950,201, with almost 98 percent of the overrun stemmingfrom the tunnel changed condition claim. The claim resulted in litigation, but settlement was achieved before itactually came to trial.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

WASHINGTON METRO SECTION A-11a

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland (Rockville Route)PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Mathews-Chatelain-BeallCONTRACTOR: J.F. Shea Company, Arlington, VirginiaCONSTRUCTION START: March 25, 1977CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 10, 1978CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit priced per lin ft of tunnel excavation including supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $36,172,900BID TOTAL: $23,331,580“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 907,374 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $21,988,208 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 22,928 lin ft Total length = 22,928 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 19 ft 1 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 286.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 130 lin ftminimum = 40 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +100 lin ftminimum = +15 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: quartz diorite gneissQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zones, occasionalno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: quartz mica schist to gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, commonno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 93Total length = 12,768 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packers- Falling head tests5 Borehole photography runsLAB TESTS: 76 Unconfined compression tests on rock core- TBM drillability tests (abrasion testing by P.J. Tarkoy and E.J. Cording)- Specific gravity of rock cores- Direct shears on clay gouge, rock in shear zones- Corrosion testing of water (pH, CO3, SO4, CL)- ResistivityEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES : NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 191-161)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts for 75% of length, ribs for 25%


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 100 lin ftAverage = 47 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky/slabby (2 cave-ins)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--material hardnessSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Hard rock and groundwater slowing TBM = $3,412,000Cave-ins = $1,460,000

TOTAL = $4,872,100

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included 7 fan and vent shafts, a pilot

tunnel for a future passenger sation, a portal structure, some cut-and-cover, and miscellaneous surface work. The totalcontract was estimated at $55,526,175; the low bid was $52,296,583 and the actual final cost was $50,987,139. Theunderruns were due to liquidated damages and back charges, and the elimination of 1,434 lin ft of mined tunnel. Onthe tunnel claims, papers were filed for litigation but settlement was reached prior to hearing.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

WASHINGTON METRO, MEDICAL CENTER STATION (SECTION A-11c)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland (Rockville Route)PURPOSE: Station structure for subway systemOWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Mathews-Chatelain-BealCONTRACTOR: Peter Kiewit & Sons CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: April 26, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of station excavation including final supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $14,134,400BID TOTAL: $11,571,500“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $11,595,052 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 744 lin ft Total length = 744 lin ftLAYOUT: Large underground chamberSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 43 ft high by 59 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 2,127 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 85 lin ftminimum = 80 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +70 lin ftminimum = +55 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: quartz diorite gneissQuality: unweatheredweakly foliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zones, occasionalno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 25Total length = 3,712 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests using packers- Falling head tests2 Borehole photography runsLAB TESTS: 45 Unconfined compression tests on rock cores- Specific gravity of rock cores- Detailed petrographic examinations of thin sections taken from rock coresEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One 774-ft long pilot tunnel through crownTwo 20-ft diameter running tunnels prebored by TBM through station lengthSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and ribs, plus 2 stages of shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Rock bolts and ribs, plus 3rd stage of shotcrete (8 in. total thickness)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 2.5 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequence


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SUBSURFACE-RELATED PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS, ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined station vault and mined portion of entrance described above, the total contract included 2

shafts, the cut-and-cover portion of the entrance, miscellaneous surface work, and some internal structures. The totalcontract was estimated at $22,675,810; the low bid was $21,474,003 and the actual final cost was $22,046,558. Prior tobid, the rock was mapped in a pilot tunnel and 2 running tunnels pre-excavated through the station length. MedicalCenter bedrock was the soundest of Metro's 11 rock station locations, and the tunnels did not warn of any hazardousareas because there were none. Although the presence of the pilot and pre-excavated tunnels may have helped elicitresponsible bids, it was ultimately the soundness of the rock that contributed most to avoidance of claims and overruns.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

WASHINGTON METRO SECTION C-4

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Under Potomac River and Northwest Quadrant, Washington, D.C.PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & DouglasCONTRACTOR: Shea, Ball, S&M (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: November 1972 (shield tunnels)CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 1973 (shield tunnels)CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for excavation and support itemsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $18,230,267BID TOTAL: $15,649,372“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 9,217,999 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $24,967,159 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 2,740 lin ftMixed face = 1,069 lin ftRock = 8,303 lin ft Total length = 12,112 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): Soft ground--circularMixed face--horseshoe and circularRock--horseshoeSIZE(S): Soft ground--20 ft 6 in. diameterMixed face--19 ft 8 in. diamaterRock--19 ft 8 in. high by 19 ft 8 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--330 sq ftMixed face--304 sq ftRock--322 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 80 lin ftminimum = 12 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +65 lin fminimum = −8 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to coarse sand with bouldersQuality: granularuncementedmedium dense to dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: clayey silt (silty clay layers)Quality: cohesive medium stiff to stiffRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: quartz-mica schist-to-gneissQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close to wide spacingshear zones, commonno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 30Total length = 2,532 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests using packers- Falling head testsLAB TESTS: 72 Unconfined compression tests on rock cores6 TBM drillability tests (sonic pulse velocity, abrasion hardness, rebound and Shore hardness) on rock cores6 Moh's hardness tests on rock- Atterberg limits tests on soil- Sieve analysis tests on soil


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Natural moisture tests on soil- Unconfined compression tests on soil- Triaxial tests on soil- Consolidation tests on soil- Direct shear tests on soilCorrosion testing of water (SO4, CL, CO3, pH, and electrical resistivity)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--Shield (Elgood Mayo)Mixed face--drill-and-blast, hand and mechanical miningRock--drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs and laggingMixed face--ribs and lagging, spilingRock--ribs and blocking, crown barsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickMixed face--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickRock--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Shield--maximum = 36 lin ftaverage = 13 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (earth tunnel)Groundwater inflow--large quantity (2 floods)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--excessive overbreakSoft ground methods--minor surface subsidence--obstruction (high rock in soft ground tunnel invert)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


High rock (in soft ground tunnel) = $ 1,187,200Overrun in ribs (rock and mixed face) = $ 2,503,815Shotcrete deletion = $ 2,362,891Rock bolt deletion = $ 116,200Change to reinforced cast-in-place concrete liner = $ 6,150,000Miscellaneous steel overrun (rock and mixed face) = $ 448,268

TOTAL = $12,768,374

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included 3 shafts, a mid-Potomac

River pumping station, and a substation. The total contract was estimated at $26,930,647; the low bid was $23,397,053and the actual final cost was $32,009,752. The tunnel claim situation was extremely complex, entailing a total of morethan 30 claims filed, many of them related directly or indirectly to geological conditions. At the time of construction,U.S. contractors had only limited experience with the mostly shotcrete and rock bolt support design shown. The C-4contractor installed large numbers of steel ribs on 2-ft centers, for which he asked payment. The extra ribs vastlycomplicated the use of rock bolts, shotcrete and miscellaneous steel, and made necessary an unanticipated switch to areinforced cast-in-place concrete liner. Many of the claims were filed for litigation, but all were settled prior to hearing.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

WASHINGTON METRO SECTION F-1b

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Northwest quadrant, Washington, D.C.PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Corddry Carpenter Dietz & ZackCONTRACTOR: Dravo CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: March 15, 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 13, 1975CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including support itemsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 7,504,600BID TOTAL: $ 9,943,150“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 400,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $10,778,300 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 5,305 lin ft Total length = 5,305 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 20.7 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 336.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 53 lin ftminimum = 33 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +10 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to medium sandQuality: granularuncementeddense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silty clayQuality: cohesivemedium stiff3rd UnitIdentification/Type: plastic clayQuality: cohesivehardSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 14Total length = 865 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in observation wellsLAB TESTS: - Consolidation tests- U.U. triaxial tests- Unconfined compression tests- Atterburg limits tests- Natural moisture tests- Sieve analysis tests- Corrosion testing of water (includes pH, resistivity, CL, SO4, CO3)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shields (Milwaukee Boiler and Elgood Mayo)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs and laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 15 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 50 lin ftAverage = 15 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--runing--squeezingGroundwater inflow--large quantitySoft ground methods--material hardness (very hard cretaceous soils slowed progress)--moderate to minor surface subsidenceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


North tunnel claim (squeezing and running ground) = $1,740,275South tunnel claim (hard ground in invert) = $2,222,523

TOTAL = $3,962,798

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included several shafts, a cut-and-

cover passenger station, some cut-and-cover running tunnel, extensive underpinning, and miscellaneous surface work.The total contract was estimated at $26,610,528; the low bid was $28,566,317 and the actual final cost was$34,938,261. The owner paid no money on the south tunnel claim because the courts decided against the contractor.The north tunnel claim was primarily an offshoot of extensive settlement damage to streets, utilities and buildings, andthe contractor recovered 23 percent of the amount asked. In addition, $4,429,000 was paid by the owner's wrap-upinsurance for repair work.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

WASHINGTON METRO SECTION G-2

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Northeast quadrant of Washington, D.C.PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDESIGNER: Corddry, Carpenter, Dietz & ZackCONTRACTOR: Healy-Ball-Greenfield (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 5, 1975CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 15, 1978CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of earth tunnel and liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $31,831,000BID TOTAL: $18,226,940“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 4,718,311 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $23,031,455 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 13,700 lin ft Total length = 13,700 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin single-track tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 20 ft 11 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 344 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 96 lin ftminimum = 27 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +45 lin ftminimum = +15 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to medium sand, some siltQuality: granularuncementeddense to very dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: plastic clayQuality: cohesivehard3rd UnitIdentification/Type: silty fine-to-medium sand lensesQuality: granularcementedSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 31Total length = 2,784 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 32 Falling head tests in cased boreholes and observation wellsLAB TESTS: 32 Unconfined compression tests12 Triaxial compression tests1 Direct shear test- Water content tests- Atterberg limits tests- Grain size analysis- Consolidation tests- Corrosion potential of soil and water (pH, resistivity, concentrations of SO4, Cl, CO3)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shields (1 Memco, 1 Zokor)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs and lagging


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 15 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 100 lin ft (fastest shield)Average = 18 lin ft (both shields)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Soft ground methods--face instability--water inflow (large quantity)--flowing ground--obstructions (hard cemented sand lenses)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Face instability/water/flowing ground = $22,188,566Obstructions = $ 940,848

TOTAL = $23,129,414

REMARKSIn addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included a cut-and-cover passenger

station, 3 shafts, and other miscellaneous features. The total contract was estimated at $49,587,227; the low bid was$42,266,620 and the actual final cost was $48,555,357. For the tunnels, the obstructions claim was not seriouslychallenged by the owner, and extras were paid as sandstone lenses were encountered. The larger claim was challengedand litigation begun, but settlement was achieved before a final decision was handed down. The figure settled on was$3,777,463, and it was part of a three-contract closeout settlement in which this contractor recovered ±$7,000,000from claims totaling ±$50,000,000.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BONNEVILLE SECOND POWERHOUSE RAILROAD TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Portland, OregonPURPOSE: Transportation, railroad relocationOWNER: Burlington Northern RailroadDESIGNER: Portland District, Corps of EngineersCONTRACTOR: Granite Construction CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: June 1, 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 20, 1977CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation, plus units of support materialsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $5,834,261 (see notation under Remarks, below)BID TOTAL: $7,246,650“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $8,526,324 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Mixed face = 1,338 lin ft Total length - 1,338 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S) : Horseshoe with straight sidesSIZE(S): 35.9 ft high by 24.3 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 810.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 190 lin ftminimum = 28 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +22 lin ftminimum = −12 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: slide debris--silty sand with gravel and large blocks of sandstone, siltstone and basaltQuality: granularuncementedloose to denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 57Total length = 10,005 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 1 Pump testLAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression tests- Permeability (laboratory) tests- Dry density testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Pilot tunnel in crown for entire 1,338-ft length (served as drain

during construction)SURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depths to rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Heading and bench, drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts, and shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 21 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading--average = 14.8 lin ftBench--average = 21.4 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing (minor)--running (minor)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisance


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 2 portal excavations and retaining

structures at the portals. The total contract was estimated at $8,636,558; the low bid was $10,410,610 and the actualfinal cost was $12,172,226. It should be noted that the engineer's estimate did not include profit. Extra costs in the finalamounts were related primarily to furnishing additional support for various portions of the tunnel. In spite of adversetunneling conditions through a large landslide deposit, the project was completed with few problems, a circumstanceapparently attributable to (a) a thorough site investigation, including a full-length pilot tunnel, and (b) favorabledrought conditions at the time of work, which minimized groundwater problems.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ALPINE AQUEDUCT, SECTION 1

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: North central UtahPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: W.J. Lewis CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: September 11, 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 30, 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $1,052,040BID TOTAL: $1,343,865“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 82 lin ftRock = 1,743 lin ft Total length = 1,825LAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified)SIZE(S): 10 ft 4 in. to 10 ft 10 in. high by 10 ft 4 in. to 10 ft 10 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 79.5 to 90.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 350 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +14 lin ftminimum = −48 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: silty sand and gravel (talus)Quality: granularuncementedloose to denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: limestoneQuality: unweathheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 7Total length = 756 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water observation wellsLAB TESTS: None indicated in data receivedEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: 21 resistivity linesGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--hand miningRock--drill-and-blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel ribs and liner plateRock--steel ribs, rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 14 to 18 in. thickRock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 14 to 18 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Rock--maximum = 50 lin ftEntire tunnel--average = ±34 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any significanceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included about 3,660 ft of water pipeline, 2

portal structures, and several access roads. The total contract was estimated at $3,099,995 and the low bid was$2,861,157. Final contract costs were not available for this study, but there were no significant construction problemsand no claims.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BACON TUNNEL NO. 2, SPEC. NO. DC-7206

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: South of Coulee City, WashingtonPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Guy F. Atkinson CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: October 19, 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: March 23, 1978CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $27,587,200BID TOTAL: $21,769,460“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $24,274,603 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 9,950 lin ft Total length = 9,950 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circular)SIZE(S): 30.5 ft high by 30.5 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 926 sq ft (average)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 238 lin ftminimum = 116 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +144 lin ftminimum = −16 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: basalt (highly vesicular in places)Quality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesno faulting2nd UnitIdentifiation/Type: sandstone and claystone (weak and soil-like in places)Quality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacaingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 9Total length = 1,702 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 32 Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: 20 Unconfined compression on rock20 Specific gravity14 Porosity- Expansion testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but Bacon No. 1 about 400 ft away on parallel alignmentSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (top heading)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with rock bolts and some shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading--maximum = 73 lin ftaverage = 49.2 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Support failure (wallplate ledge slid into tunnel, failing 118-ft section of rib-supported tunnel)

Soil-like zones within hard rock (required additional supports)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included a 1,030 ft long siphon and

modifications to an existing canal. The total contract was estimated at $38,046,980; the low bid was $32,401,243 andthe actual final cost was $37,369,776. Most of the tunnel-related cost overruns were for additional support items. Thistunnel was parallel to and about 400 ft away from Tunnel No. 1 and conditions were well known and well documented.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BOUSTEAD TUNNEL, SPEC. DC-6277

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Leadville, ColoradoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Smith-Quad (JV), subcontractor to DBA (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 2, 1967CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 15, 1969CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

components.TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $6,487,101BID TOTAL: $8,737,165“CHANGES” AWARDED: $5,053,909 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 28,511 lin ft Total length = 28,511 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S) : HorseshoeSIZE(S) : 12 ft 1 in. high by 12 ft 1 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 115 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,050 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +70 lin ft (approximately)minimum = −8 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite and granite gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: phyllite and biotite schistQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: granodiorite and dioriteQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 4Total length = 262 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depth to rock and to help locate faultsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: No


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: None, generally; some steel sets and/or rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 5-1/2 in. thick (minimum)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = not availableAverage = 20.9 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing (in shear zone caused support collapse)Groundwater inflow--large quantity and high pressureSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Groundwater inflow (large quantity) and squeezing $12,204,985TOTAL $12,204,985

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included construction of the Chapman and

South Fork tunnels (studied as separate projects), 2 siphons, several stream diversions, road improvements, tunnelaccess roads, and other appurtenant structures. The total contract was estimated at $14,328,074; the low bid was$17,556,167 and the final total cost was $25,288,523. The tunnel was constructed above El. 10,000, which severelyaffected both exploration and construction work. It is believed to be one of the first U.S. tunnels to encounter asignificant “groundwater dam,” caused by a 150-ft thick (about) impervious fault gouge. Most of the overrun in totalcontract costs is believed to be for additional steel supports. The tunnel subcontractor had just completed the adjacentHomestake tunnel, which went smoothly; he may have assumed Boustead would be similar. However, Homestake wasoriented north-south, while Boustead was east-west, across the strike of regional faulting.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BUCKSKIN MOUNTAINS TUNNEL, SPEC. NO. DC-7096

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Parker, ArizonaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: J.F. Shea Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: April 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for furnishing and

installing liner segmentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $49,627,190BID TOTAL: $47,268,690“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 5,441,077 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $53,710,134 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 35,915 lin ft Total length = 35,915 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 23 ft 5 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S) : 430.7 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 750 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +18 lin ftminimum = below invertGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: andesite (vesicular in places) flows and intrusive dikes (columnar jointing in places)Quality: weatheredmassivejointing, moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: poorly to well cemented agglomerate and tuff (inflow deposits interbedded with andesite

flows)Quality: unweatheredthick beddedno jointingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 29Total length = 6,087 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression- Specific gravity- Porosity- Percent water absorption- Triaxial shear- Petrographic analysis- Modulus of elasticity- Poisson's ratioEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Gravity survey to locate intrusive bodiesGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 233-172)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Precast concrete segmentsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Precast concrete segmentsADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Entire tunnel--maximum = 150 lin ftminimum = 51 lin ft1,300 ft long blocky rock/overbreak (claim) area--average = 7.4 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky (large blocks with no standup time)--running (raveling caused chimney near fault)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--mucking (large blocks of face fallout blocked conveyor)--soft bottom--face falloutSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Blocky rock, face fallout, soft bottom = $6,919,401Running (raveling at faults) = $ 848,853

TOTAL = $7,767,802

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included a 17 mile access road, a 4,200 ft

open channel aqueduct, two portal excavations, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at$53,804,499; the low bid was $58,256,638 and the final cost was $65,613,963. The final cost amount ignores apending dispute over interest on the claim settlement. The major claim resulted from a failure to recognize open,smooth joints in “crudely columnar jointed” andesite which resulted in immediate fallout of large joint blocks onto theTBM in one 1,300 ft reach. This condition caused about 8 months of greatly reduced progress and necessitatedmodification of the TBM and the precast concrete segments.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BURNT MOUNTAIN AND AGUA FRIA TUNNELS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Phoenix, ArizonaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Shank-Artukovich (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: February 10, 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 15, 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation and unit price for materials used.TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $11,874,350BID TOTAL: $10,230,835“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $11,027,608 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,730 lin ft (Burnt Mt.)3,686 ft (Agua Fria) Total length = 6,416 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circular)SIZE(S): 22 ft 10 in. to 23 ft 4 in. (both height and width)EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 430 to 468 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 570 lin ftminimum = 100 1in ftCrown to water table--dryGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: interlayered andesite, basalt, volcanic breccia, and tuff (Burnt Mt.)Quality: weathered, in a few placesthin to thick beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: slakey, poorly cemented sandstone and conglomerate (east end of Agua Fria)Quality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: precambrian granite (west end of Agua Fria)Quality: weatheredmassivejointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 19Total length = 6,252 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: 30 Unconfined compression tests- Modulus of elasticity- Porosity- Sonic pulse veolocityEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but horizontal borings madeSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: None


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and blast (top heading and bench)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs (W6 by 20) at maximum 6 ft centersPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 10 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Agua Fria tunnel--maximum = 72 lin ftminimum = 50 lin ftBurnt Mt. tunnel--average = 35 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: NoneSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSThis project consists of 2 tunnels (about 30 miles apart) with identical design but in different geologic terrains. In

addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a rockfill embankment, the portalexcavations, miscellaneous surface work, and some electrical and mechanical work. The total contract was estimated at$14,913,160; the low bid was $14,469,295 and the actual final cost was $15,350,368. The contract was considered an“ideal job” by the contractor. Long horizontal borings were used to explore the Burnt Mt. tunnel alignment.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CARTER AND MORMON TUNNELS, SPEC NO. DC–7224

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 30 miles east of Basalt, ColoradoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: EBY and Company (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: November 15, 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 5, 1978CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $6,307,065BID TOTAL: $4,201,536“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $4,452,206 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,832 lin ft (Carter)7,374 ft (Mormon) Total length = 10,206 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 9 ft 10 in. high by 9 ft 10 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 89 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,470 lin ftminimum = 10 lin ftCrown to water table--insufficient dataGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite and biotite gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 7Total length = 379 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 1 Water pressure test with packersLAB TESTS: 5 Unconfined compression tests5 Specific gravity tests- Petrographic analysisEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Sesimic refraction, for depth to rock near portalsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: None, generally; (in selected areas, rock bolts and shotcrete and/or steel ribs)PERMANENT SUPPORT: None, generally (cast-in-place concrete at portals and where ribs used)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Carter--maximum = 47 lin ftminimum = 21 lin ftMormon--average = 35 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (a few rock falls)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSThis project included 2 separate tunnel segments separated by a creek valley crossing. In addition to the 2 mined

tunnels described, the total contract also included 6 diversion structures, 3 conduits, access road construction, and anoperations building. The total contract was estimated at $10,427,239; the low bid was $8,491,918 and the actual finalcost was $9,550,381. The overrun in total cost was not related to the tunnels.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CUNNINGHAM TUNNEL, SPEC NO. DC-7024

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 30 miles east of Basalt, ColoradoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Harrison-Western CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: June 26, 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 16, 1976CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $7,127,145BID TOTAL: $5,771,360“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $5,468,959 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock--15,082 lin ft Total length = 15,082 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circular)SIZE(S): 10 ft 5 in. high by 10 ft 5 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 89.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,960 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--not availableGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite porphyryQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, wide spacingshear zonesno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: biotite gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 3Total length = 1,040 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: 28 Unconfined compression- Porosity28 Specific gravity- Modulus of elasticity- Poisson's ratio- Percent water absorption- Petrographic analysis of rock samplesEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction for depth to rock near portalGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: None (80%); steel sets, rock bolts and/or shotcrete (20%)PERMANENT SUPPORT: None (76%); shotcrete (24%)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 31.6 lin ft (3 shifts)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--spalling (3 minor roof fallouts due to stress relief)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included an embankment and culvert for a

creek crossing, two portal excavations, and a 1/2-mile access road. The total contract was bid at $8,015,894; the lowbid was $6,823,062 and the actual final cost was $6,859,357. The project was good hard-rock tunneling with minimalwater problems.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

DOLORES TUNNEL, SPEC. NO. 4D-C7498

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Cortez, ColoradoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Ohbayashi-Gumi, Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: July 1982CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: March 16, 1983CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $10,137,100BID TOTAL: $ 5,229,172“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not complete (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 6,526 lin ft Total length = 6,526 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 11 ft 9 in. to 12 ft 7 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 127 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 210 lin ftminimum = 20 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +33 lin ftminimum = +8 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: variably cemented, quartzose sandstone with interbeds of shale, conglomerate, impure coal

and bentonite (Dakota formation)Quality: weatheredthick beddedjointing, wide spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silty sandstone with interbeds of siltstone and slakey carbonaceous shale (Morrison formation)Quality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 12Total length = 1,484 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 12 Water observation wells6 Gas samplesLAB TESTS: 28 Unconfined compressions tests15 Triaxial shear tests10 Free swell (shale) tests2 Organic content (carbonaceous shale) tests12 Wetting tests- Specific gravity tests- Petrographic analysis of core samplesEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Resistivity profile along alignmentGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: 60% Roadheader (Mitsui-Miike) with 40% drill-and-blast in harder rockPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets with crown lagging, rock bolts and shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 16 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 70 lin ftAverage = 35 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing (some in sheared shale)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--roof slabbing (some overbreak in shale)Miscellaneous--air slaking of shaleSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a 2,100 ft-long canal section,

construction of 4,500 lin ft of access road, a gate chamber, a stilling basin, a gate shaft, and miscellaneous surfacework. The total contract was estimated at $17,437,975 and the low bid was $11,686,890. The mined tunnel is currentlyexcavated and lined, but consolidation grouting remains to be done. Various other contract items not directly related tothe tunnel also remain to be completed. So far, there are no major geology related claims and few problems have beenexperienced, probably due to lack of significant groundwater inflow.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

HADES AND RHODES TUNNELS, SPEC. NO. DC-7421

1.GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Duchesne, UtahPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Harrison-Western CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: September 1980CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of finished tunnel with separate unit prices for pressure groutingTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $32,951,695BID TOTAL: $27,908,413“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 1,380,086 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $27,551,074 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 22,149 lin ft (Hades)4,110 lin ft (Rhodes) Total length = 26,259 lin ftLAYOUT: Two single tubes (separated by a valley)SHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 10 ft 8 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 89.4 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,200 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +200 lin ftminimum = −40 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: solutioned, crystalline limestone interbedded with hard sandstone and limey shaleQuality: unweatheredthin bedded to massivejointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: weak calcareous shale with interbedded siltstone and sandstoneQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesfaulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: swelling black shaleQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, close spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 10Total length = 2,116 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests with packers- Water observation wellsLAB TESTS: 36 Unconfined compression tests36 Porosity tests36 Specific gravity tests33 Elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

2 Expansion and uplift tests (shale)36 Water absorption tests36 Ultrasonic velocity testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface resistivityGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 1011-98)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 16 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 86 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby--flowing (mud flows from solution channels)--running (one 50-ft reach in sandstone)--squeezingGroundwater inflow--large quantity (6,000 to 8,000 gpm total)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Groundwater inflow (large quantity) = $1,380,086TOTAL CLAIMS PAID = $1,380,086

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included a stream diversion, portal

excavations, intake structures, access roads and other surface work. The total contract was estimated at $35,494,430;the low bid was $34,681,703. Final contract cost, estimated at 99% completion stage, is $34,611,894. Five areas ofmud-filled solution cavities were encountered which yielded large flows of groundwater for extended periods. Achange was negotiated which awarded the above claim amount to the contractor while deleting all pressure grouting.This agreemenet actually resulted in a net decrease in tunnel cost. It is also noted that the contractor's bid appeard to be“front loaded,” as many of the unit prices for surface work were 2 to 10 times the engineer's estimate.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

HUNTER TUNNEL, COMPLETION (SPEC. NO. DC-7134)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Aspen, ColoradoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Perini CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: January 9, 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 23, 1977CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd for excavation plus separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $10,554,115BID TOTAL: $10,016,330“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 1,190,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $12,506,370 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 16,074 lin ft Total length = 16,074 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 10 ft 2 in. wide by 10 ft 5 in. highEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 94.8 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 650 lin ftminimum = 20 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = unknownminimum = +7 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite gneissQuality: unweatheredmassive to weakly foliatedjointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 6Total length = 422 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 8 Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: - Moh's hardnessOther tests performed but information not availableEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, except data avilable from adjacent Hunter ISURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refractionGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts, shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete (none in some areas)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 38 lin ft (estimated for entire tunnel)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (one cave-in and several rock falls also necessitated additional steel support)Groundwater inflow---large quantity


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



Blocky, slabby--extra support = $3,332,005TOTAL = $3,332,005

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included rehabilitation of 4.5 miles of

existing tunnel, two access shafts, three diversion dams, and other surface work. The total contract was estimated at$13,636,856; the low bid was $14,791,162 and total final contract cost was $19,701,492. Much of the cost overrun wasdue to additional steel support.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NAVAJO ROUTE 44 ROAD CROSSING

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Farmington, New MexicoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Vinnell CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: 1972CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: 1972CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $570,675BID TOTAL: $696,114“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $670,187 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 500 lin ft Total length = 500 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 21 ft 6 in. high by 21 ft 6 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 363 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 87 lin ftminimum = 3 lin ftCrown to water table--water table below invertGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: Interbedded, weakly cemented sandstone, shale and siltstoneQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing (no information)no shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 3Total length = 211 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Not knownPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concreteADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Not knownPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequenceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNone


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a substantial length of concrete lined

canal, several siphons, and other surface work. The total contract was estimated at $16,059,003; the low bid was$14,753,240 and the final contract cost was $15,563,261. The tunnel was a relatively minor part of the total project andapparently went smoothly, although few records are available to document this assertion.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NAVAJO TUNNEL NO. 5

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Farmington, New MexicoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Gates & Fox Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: April 15, 1976CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 31, 1976CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $4,385,315BID TOTAL: $3,843,880“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $3,697,380 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 7,437 lin ft Total length = 7,437 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 13 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 132.7 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 160 lin ftminimum = 57 lin ftCrown to water table--water table below tunnel invertGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: flat bedded, poorly cemented sandstoneQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: flat bedded, weakly cemented clayey siltstoneQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 9Total length = 577 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Gamma-ray logs in 5 boreholesGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM, soft rock type (Scott wheel excavator)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Celtite resin rock bolts with few steel ribs and some shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 8 in. thick (minimum)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 167 lin ft (in two shifts)Average = 84.5 lin ft (in two shifts)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (shale roof fallout)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--hard, abrasive (gravel broke cutter teeth)--roof slabbing


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included about 13 miles of canal, several

pumping stations, two portal excavations, and various other surface work. The total contract was estimated at$11,550,995; the low bid was $11,982,253 and the actual final cost was $12,362,173. Shales were potentially swellingtypes, but dry heading prevented such problems.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PACHECO TUNNEL, REACH 2 (SPEC. NO. DC-7355)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Gilroy, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Guy F. Atkinson CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: April 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 28, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $44,506,110BID TOTAL: $49,753,520“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not settled (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Mixed face and rock = 27,585 lin ft Total length = 27,585 lin ft (undifferentiated)LAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 12 ft 8 in. wide by 12 ft 8 in. highEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 126 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,300 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +830 lin ftminimum = +30 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: melange of metagraywacke, metashale and phylloniteQuality: weatheredtwin beddedjointing, close spacingshear zones (highly sheared)faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 22Total length = 8,687 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 35 Water pressure tests with packers1 Falling head test3 Bailing tests2 Pumping testsLAB TESTS: 16 Unconfined compression16 Specific gravity16 Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio16 Percent absorption16 Porosity- Petrographic examination of rock coresEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but Pacheco Reach 1 adjacent to projectSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: 28 electrical resistivity linesGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, spiling with precast concrete subinvertPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 53 lin ft (for entire tunnel)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak and several cave-ins)--running (one occasion)--squeezing, swellingHazardous environmental factors--gasSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Gas (reclassification by California OSHA) = $1,329,955Swelling ground = $1,445,061

TOTAL = $2,775,016

REMARKSThis contract included only the underground portion of the work; all other work including protals was included in

other contracts. Therefore, costs presented herein represent total contract costs. The claim involving gas resulted fromreclassifiation of the tunnel from “potentially gassy” to “gassy” by California OSHA, and the merits of the claim werenot disputed by the owner. The merits of the swelling ground claim were initially disputed, because the owner believedsqueezing was occurring, not swelling, and the contractor had been forewarned of squeezing ground conditions. Theclaims were not fully resolved at the time of this study.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SANTA CLARA TUNNEL, SPEC NO. 2D-C7462

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Southeast of San Jose, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Shank-Artukovich (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: January 1, 1982CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: Not availableCONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu m for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $9,153,590BID TOTAL: $7,658,897“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not available (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 5,066 lin ft Total length = 5,066 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 13 ft 4 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 139.6 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 490 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +410 lin ftminimum = −50 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: interbedded shales, siltstones, and sandstonesQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, close spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 11Total length = 2,796 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer water pressure testsLAB TESTS: 12 Unconfined compression tests3 Direct shear tests10 Porosity tests13 Specific gravity tests10 Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio tests12 Wetting tests for slaking characteristics- Uplift expansion tests- Petrographic examination of rock cores14 Ultrasonic velocity tests- Soluble sulfate content determination testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Exploratory trenches near portalsSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey near portals for rock depthsGamma-gamma, natural gamma, and neutron logs in 3 boreholesAcoustic log in 1 boreholeGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Caldwell)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with spilingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick (minimum)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Not available


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby--squeezing--runningGroundwater inflow--operating nuisanceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC. )DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTS

Running ground = $ Not available

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 2 portal excavations, a box

culvert, and access road construction. The total contract was estimated at $11,187,894 and the low bid was $9,233,432.Final costs were not available because claims are still under negotiation. The section of tunnel where a claim resultedconsisted of sheared rock where water caused running, squeezing, and caving.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SOUTH FORK AND CHAPMAN TUNNELS, SPEC. DC-6277

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Leadville, ColoradoPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: DBA joint venture (Winston Bros., Foley Bros., et al.)CONSTRUCTION START: September 15, 1965CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 2, 1967CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation plus separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $5,730,954BID TOTAL: $5,982,255“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 16,250 lin ft (South Fork)14,600 lin ft (Chapman) Total length = 30,850 lin ftLAYOUT: Two single tubes (separated by a valley)SHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): South Fork--9 ft 3 in. high by 9 ft 3 in. wideChapman--8 ft 2 in. high by 8 ft 2 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): South Fork--67.9 sq ftChapman--52.8 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,150 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +105 lin ftminimum = +40 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite and granite gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: phyllite and biotite schistQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: granodiorite and dioriteQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 6Total length = 337 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 2 Falling head permeability tests- Water pressure tests with packers in 1 boreholeLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction for depth to rock and to help locate faultsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: No


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts (unsupported in some areas)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 3-1/2 to 4-1/2 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Chapman tunnel--maximum = 52 lin ftaverage = 26.9 lin ftSouth Fork tunnel--average = 23.2 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing (fault gouge)--blocky, slabby (9 to 17% overbreak)--spalling (rock bursts)Groundwater inflow--large quantitySUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Squeezing, blocky, spalling, large quantity groundwater inflow = $3,248,711TOTAL = $3,248,711

REMARKSIn addition to the 2 mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included construction of the Boustead

tunnel (studied as a separate project), 2 siphons, several stream diversions, road improvements, tunnel access roads,and other appurtenant structures. The total contract was estimated at $14,328,074; the low bid was $17,556,167 and thefinal total cost was $25,288,523. Much of the cost overrun was for additional steel supports. The above listed claimwas dropped as part of a negotiated settlement of $5,053,909 for the Boustead (Divide) tunnel.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

STILLWATER TUNNEL, INITIAL CONTRACT (SPEC. NO. DC-7246)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Duchesne, UtahPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Harrison-Western/Cowper (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: May 23, 1977CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 1979 (terminated by government)CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation plus separate units for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $30,663,890*BID TOTAL: $26,418,540* *Based on complete 42,398 lin ft of planned tunnel“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not available (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 487 lin ftRock = 13,332 lin ft Total length (completed) = 13,819 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Soft ground--horseshoe (modified circular)Rock--horseshoe (drill-and-blast)circular (TBM)SIZE(S): Soft ground--10 ft 8 in. high by 10 ft 8 in. wideRock--10 ft 4 in. high by 10 ft 4 in. wide (drill-and-blast)9 ft 7 in. diameter (TBM)EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--93.6 sq ftRock--93.6 sq ft (drill-and-blast)72.0 sq ft (TBM)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,700 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +1,000 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: boulders and cobbles with silty sand (frozen talus)Quality: granularcemented (ice)loose to denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: slakey, swelling argilliteQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: slakey and swelling shale (red pine)Quality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 18 (borings concentrated near portals; about 32,000 ft of alignment unexplored)Total length = 4,098 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head permeability tests in talus only


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LAB TESTS: 10 Unconfined compression tests on shale6 Triaxial shear tests8 Direct shear tests15 Specific gravity tests- Scratch hardness tests6 Tensile strength tests- Wetting and free swell tests- Petrographic analysesEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--machine excavation and hand mining (487 ft)Rock--drill-and-blast (6,104 ft)--1 Robbins 92-192 TBM (7,228 ft)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel ribs and steel liner plateRock--steel ribs (drill-and-blast)precast concrete segments, 5 in. thick (TBM)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--unreinforced cast-in-place concreteRock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete (drill-and-blast)precast concrete segments (TBM)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground--average = 9.6 lin ftRock--average = 27.4 lin ft (drill-and-blast)maximum = 115 lin ft (TBM)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak)--squeezing (near fault zone caused repeated TBM binding)groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Squeezing and TBM pressure binding = $ not available

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 2 portal excavations, a portal

structure, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract, which included 42,398 ft planned tunnel length, wasestimated at $31,006,566, and the low bid was $27,825,678. The project was designed with several options, includingall drill-and-blast with conventional cast-in-place concrete lining, TBM mined with precast concrete segments, andvarious combinations of the 2 methods. Most bidders, including the low bidder, chose an option which included about6,100 ft of drill-and-blast, with the remainder to be mined with a TBM using precast liner segments. On approachingan unrecognized major fault, the TBM was stopped at least 14 times by heavy squeezing ground. The project wasterminated for the convenience of the government after less than one third of the project was completed, to allow timefor additional exploration and reevaluation of the tunnel design and construction methods. The completion contract isdescribed separately. Final contract costs were not available at the time of this study, but termination expensesincluded purchase of the stalled TBM and all lining and support materials and equipment stored at the site.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

STILLWATER TUNNEL, COMPLETION CONTRACT

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Duchesne, UtahPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Traylor Bros., Inc./Fruin-Colnon (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 6, 1982CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 14, 1983CONTRACT FORMAT: Fixed price incentive, firm target contractTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: See Remarks, below“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: See Remarks, below (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 28,579 lin ft Total length = 28,579LAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 10 ft 0 in. to 10 ft 6 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 79 sq ft to 87 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,700 lin ftminimum = 1,000 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +1,000 lin ftminimum = unknownGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: slakey and swelling shale (red pine)Quality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 12Total length = 1,319 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: 11 Unconfined compression tests6 Triaxial compression tests7 Direct shear tests16 Point load (strength index, Is) tests6 Tensile strength tests15 Specific gravity tests6 Uplift (expansion) tests- Free swell tests4 Pulse velocity tests18 Modulus of elasticity determinations4 Poisson's ratio determinations- Petrographic analysesEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Initial contractor excavated an additional 151-ft long, 13-ft

diameter reach of tunnel for mapping, instrumentation, and horizontal borings.SURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Robbins 93-203 and a modified 92-192)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Mostly steel ribs (some friction rock stabilizers with roof pans)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Mostly precast concrete segments, 13-1/2 in. thick; some unreinforced cast-in-place

concrete, 15 in. thick


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM 93-203--maximum = 227 lin ftminimum = 135 lin ft (excluding a 9-week shutdown)TBM 92-192 (modified)--maximum = 103 lin ftminimum = 30 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing and ravelingSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNone (specifically prohibited by the terms of this special contract)REMARKSThis contract is a follow-on to the Stillwater Initial Contract (described separately) which was terminated when

the TBM became stuck in faulted, squeezing ground after only 13,819 ft of the planned 42,398-ft tunnel had beenexcavated. In addition to the mined tunnel described, the Still-water Completion Contract included instrumentation,remining of the initial tunnel invert near the inlet portal, and maintenance and cleanup work in previously minedportions. Stillwater Completion was a negotiated contract, with the successful offeror inheriting the originalcontractor's stockpiled materials and the TBM, which had to be modified. The prices negotiated between the ownerand new contractor were as follows:

MINED TUNNEL TOTAL CONTRACT(a) Contractor's Target Cost 100% $26,393,634 $30,540,800(b) Target Profit 13.1 % of (a) $ 3,457,491 $ 4,000,800(c) Target Price sum of (a) + (b) $29,851,125 $34,541,600(d) Price Ceiling 118.7% of (c) $35,433,285 $41,000,900

The tunnel holed through on September 14, 1983, and as of December 15, 1983, $26,391,016 of the total contracthad been billed. It will be another year before all of the actual final costs are known. The Completion Contract appearsto have gone smoothly, thanks in large part to a knowledge of the Initial Contract construction experiences and theadditional geotechnical information developed after that failed venture.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SUGAR PINE DAM DIVERSION TUNNEL, SPEC. NO. DC-7360

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Forest Hill, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of ReclamationCONTRACTOR: Auburn Constructors (G. H. Ball and G. F. Atkinson, JV)CONSTRUCTION START: March 12, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 10, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu m for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $1,314,760BID TOTAL: $2,438,760“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $2,150,767 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 1,000 lin ft Total length = 1,000 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 12 ft 9 in. to 13 ft 5 in. wide by 12 ft 9 in. to 13 ft 5 in. highEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 118 sq ft (typical)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 197 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +110 lin ftminimum = +10 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: amphibolite intruded by diorite dikesQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 4 lin ftTotal length = 429 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packers- Falling head permeability testsLAB TESTS: None indicatedEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depth to rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill and blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and/or rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 to 15 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 1.31 lin ft (2 shifts)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any significance


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a rockfill dam and appurtenant

structures, surface roadway work including a bridge, and the tunnel portal structures. The total contract was estimatedat $14,999,710 and the low bid was $19,104,480. The final contract cost was not available.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ANGELES TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Los Angeles County, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: California Department of Water ResourcesDESIGNER: California Department of Water ResourcesCONTRACTOR: Shea, Kaiser, Lockheed and Healy, (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: February 15, 1967CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 15, 1968CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $77,089,850BID TOTAL: $75,363,320“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $81,981,783 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 37,775 lin ft Total length = 37,775 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Circular (modified at springline)SIZE(S): 37 ft 6 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 1,105 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,050 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +500 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: Interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shaleQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 11Total length = 3,615 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 4 Analysis of gas samples for methaneLAB TESTS: 36 Unconfined compression tests on rock- Moh's hardness tests- Modulus of elasticity tests- Tensile strength testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 750-ft long test aditSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey in one areaE-logs of 5 boreholesGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (top heading)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs above springline, gunite in invertPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 15 in. thick; steel liner near portalsADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Total of five headings--maximum = 176 lin ftPer heading in entire tunnel--average = 27.5 lin ftin sandstone--average = 28.5 lin ftin siltstone--average = 24.5 lin ftin fault gouge--average = 17.0 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (overbreak near fault zones and 1 cave-in)--squeezing (minor in fault gouge and some invert heave)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceHazardous environmental factors--gasSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSUnstable ground

--blocky, slabby (cave-in) = $317,022Groundwater inflow (after heavy rain) = $275,966

TOTAL = $592,988

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a deep surge chamber, a cast-in-place

concrete pipe section, 3 access adits, road work, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at$97,624,370; the low bid was $95,039,650 and the final contract cost was $105,565,117. Cost overruns were dueprimarily to additional support steel required and extension of steel liner at portals due to poorer quality rock thananticipated.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CARLEY V. PORTER TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Kern and Los Angeles Counties, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: California Department of Water ResourcesDESIGNER: California Department of Water ResourcesCONTRACTOR: Dravo Coproration, G.F. Atkinson Company, and S.J. Groves (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: April 11, 1966CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 23, 1969CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $41,341,900BID TOTAL: $32,848,600“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 2,500,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $46,717,856 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 25,075 lin ft Total length = 25,075 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 24 ft 4 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 465 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,800 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +1,520 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: altered granite (severely crushed)Quality: weatheredmassivejointing, close spacingshear zones (severely sheared)faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: poorly indurated siltstone and claystoneQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 20Total length = 7,930 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Rock core onlyLAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression tests on rock- Natural density tests- Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio- Slaking tests- Swelling potential testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 600-ft test adit and a 3,688-ft pilot tunnelSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction surveyE-logs of 4 boringsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shields (2 Memco) with drill-and-blast as neededPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner plate with steel sets and gunite as neededPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 10 in. thick


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 39 lin ft (one heading)Average = 19.5 lin ft (both headings)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (major collapse took 5 months to remine)--running--squeezingGroundwater inflow--large quantityMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--pressure binding (squeezing ground caused stuck shield, resulting in its structural collapse)Soft ground methods--steering (failed to maintain specified alignment)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Pressure binding (shield collapse) = $3,039,868Running and squeezing = $4,830,233Steering, alignment problems (owner) = $ (300,000)

TOTAL = $7,570,101 (net)

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included one portal excavation, construction of

access roadways, and some pipeline work. The total contract was estimated at $42,321,830; the low bid was$33,788,800 and the actual cost was $48,316,215. Most of the cost overrun was additional steel support due to achange from steel ribs to heavy continuous liner plate. This project had very difficult ground conditions not well suitedto current tunneling technology. As-built geologic mapping of the tunnel indicated faults at an average spacing of 11 ftalong the entire tunnel length.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CASTAIC DAM DIVERSION TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Los Angeles, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: California Department of Water ResourcesDESIGNER: California Department of Water ResourcesCONTRACTOR: Peter Kiewit Sons CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: July 7, 1966CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 6, 1967CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support itemsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $5,877,405BID TOTAL: $5,778,350“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 432,079 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $9,246,555 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 3,600 lin ft Total length = 3,600 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Circular (modified)SIZE(S): 23 ft 9-1/2 in. diameter for 1,650 lin ft33 ft 0 in. diameter for 1,950 lin ftEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 535 sq ft (for 1,650-ft length)877 sq ft (for 1,950-ft length)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 250 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +200 lin ftminimum = +40 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sandstoneQuality: unweatheredthick bedded (massive)jointing, moderate spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: slakey, compaction shale with thin interbeds of sandstoneQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 14Total length = 2,665 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 4 Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: Not availableEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One 243-ft long test adit, 7 ft wide by 8-1/2 ft high (nearby for

dam abutment)SURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depth to rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Top heading and bench (top heading by drill-and-blast; bench by ripping)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with liner plate laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 21 to 28 in. thick


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading--maximum = 28 lin ftaverage = 16 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (caused 1 cave-in, excessive overbreak)--squeezingSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


--blocky, slabby (remining of cave-in) = $749,377TOTAL = $749,377

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included an inlet portal structure, a

concrete lined channel, and a stilling basin. The total contract was estimated at $9,151,949; the low bid was $8,580,940and actual final cost was $12,896,281. Most of the cost overrun was for additional steel support. The cause of the cave-in was never determined, but may have been related to open joints in an anticline causing rapid roof fallout.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SAN BERNARDINO TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near San Bernardino, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: California Department of Water ResourcesDESIGNER: California Departmenet of Water ResourcesCONTRACTOR: J.F. Shea Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: January 5, 1968CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 16, 1970CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $11,208,580BID TOTAL: $12,873,655“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $15,362,703 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 20,122 lin ft Total length = 20,122 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 16 ft 6 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 211 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,200 lin ftminimum = 100 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +2,200 lin ftminimum = unknownGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granodiorite and granite gneissQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: marbleQuality: unweatheredfoliated (in places)jointing, moderate spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 15Total length = 5,640 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Joint continuity tests between boreholesLAB TESTS: 33 Unconfined compression tests on rock- Direct shear tests44 Specific gravity tests on soil- Sieve analyses- Atterberg limits tests- Moisture content tests- Modulus of elasticity tests- Poisson's ratio tests14 Tensile strength tests on rock44 Water absorption testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction surveyE-logs in 2 holesGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with spiling and invert struts in placesPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 7 in. thick (minimum)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 22.6 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (up to 200% overbreak)Groundwater inflow--large quantitySUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 600 lin ft of open approach channel,

an intake tower, a surge chamber, access road construction, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract wasestimated at $18,783,744; the low bid was $21,205,956 and the actual final contract cost was $24,902,072. Costoverruns were due primarily to extra steel support required.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TEHACHAPI TUNNELS 1, 2, and 3

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Lebec (Kern County), CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: California Department of Water ResourcesDESIGNER: California Department of Water ResourcesCONTRACTOR: Granite-Gates & Fox-Gordon H. Ball (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: February 16, 1967CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 19, 1968CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $21,974,700BID TOTAL: $21,853,950“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 885,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $22,580,534 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 16,452 lin ft Total length = 16,452 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubesSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circular)SIZE(S): 30 ft 8 in. high by 30 ft 8 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 665 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 660 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +600 lin ftminimum = unknownGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: schistQuality: weatheredfoliatedjointing, close spacingshear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: diorite gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, close to moderate spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 17Total length = 4,717 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 19 Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: UnknownEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 350-ft long adit at Tunnel No. 3 portalSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction surveyGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face, top heading, and heading-and-bench)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with timber lagging, rock bolts and shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Tunnel No. 1--average = 26.6 lin ftTunnel No. 2--average = 25.6 lin ftTunnel No. 3--average = 12.9 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (Tunnel No. 3)--squeezing (clay gouge in fault zones in Tunnel No. 3)--blocky, slabby (cave-in in Tunnel No. 1)Groundwater inflow--large quantity (Tunnel No. 3)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


--running and squeezing (Tunnel No. 3) = $2,364,040TOTAL = $2,364,040

REMARKSThis project consisted of 3 separate tunnels connected by valley crossings. In addition to the mined tunnels

described above, the total contract included several siphon structures, embankment fills, roadway construction, and theportal excavations. The total contract was estimated at $30,820,789; the low bid was $29,394,648 and the final contractcost was $30,433,674. The major claim resulted from a “bad ground” condition in the vicinity of a fault zone. The faultzone was anticipated, but apparently the severity of the ground conditions was not.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTH FORK LAKE OUTLET WORKS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: On the San Gabriel River, 3-1/2 miles west of Georgetown, TexasPURPOSE: Water conveyance, outlet works for damOWNER: Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDESIGNER: Freese, Nichols and EndressCONTRACTOR: H.B. Zachery CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: March 13, 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: February 14, 1975CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 700,905BID TOTAL: $1,066,958“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not available (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 1,199 lin ft Total length = 1,199 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 14 ft 0 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 154 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 155 lin ftminimum = 60 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +58 lin ftminimum = +6 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: flat lying cretaceous limestone with shale interbeds (moderately hard to hard)Quality: unweatheredjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 6Total length = 463 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: 12 Unconfined compression tests on rock core- Natural dry density tests- Moisture content of rock coresEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: E-logs in 4 boringsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: None except near portals where ribs and rock bolts were usedPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No informationPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any significance


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



No information = $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included a control room, a stilling basin,

an intake structure, and approach walls. The total contract price was estimated at $2,202,240; the low bid was$2,876,951 and the actual final cost was $2,981,301. There was no interview conducted for this tunnel project, but nosignificant problems were indicated in a final foundation report.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PARK RIVER AUXILIARY TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Hartford, ConnecticutPURPOSE: Water conveyance (flood control)OWNER: New England Division, Corps of EngineersDESIGNER: Corps of EngineersCONTRACTOR: Roger J. Au & Son, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: February 1, 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: July 2, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnel including liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $22,350,605BID TOTAL: $17,022,400“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 530,196 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $17,248,597 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 9,040 lin ft Total length = 9,040 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 24 ft 3 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 462 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 188 lin ftminimum = 76 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +166 lin ftminimum = +131 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: interbedded shale, siltsone, and sandstoneQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, moderate to closefaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: diabase and aphanite dikesQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, closeno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 32Total length = 5,038 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 32 Borehole photography- Water pressure tests with packers- Pumping testsLAB TESTS: 39 Unconfined compression tests on rock48 Rock density tests- Sonic pulse velocity tests- Direct shear tests on rock joints- Slaking tests- Swelling testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey (entire route)GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 240)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Precast concrete segmentsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Precast concrete segments


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 90 lin ftAverage = 29 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing (fault gouge)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceMechanical problems, rock and TBMs--pressure binding (minor)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Pressure binding (fault zone) = $530,196TOTAL = $530,196

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included intake and outlet structures, utility

relocations, instrumentation, exploration during construction, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract wasestimated at $24,759,815; the low bid was $23,248,185 and the actual final cost was $24,457,493. The two faults wereidentified by pre-bid investigations, but squeezing and pressure binding were more severe in one zone than wasanticipated.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SKIATOOK LAKE OUTLET WORKS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Hominy Creek, OklahomaPURPOSE: Water conveyance, outlet works for damOWNER: Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDESIGNER: Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACTOR: Granite Construction CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: No informationCONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No informationCONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $2,633,779BID TOTAL: $4,771,710“CHANGES” AWARDED: No information (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 1,004 lin ft Total length = 1,004 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (with invert pipe channel)SIZE(S): 18 ft 6 in. to 19 ft 4 in. high by 13 ft 10 in. to 14 ft 10 in. wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 207.5 sq ft (average B-line)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 208 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +44 lin ftminimum = −6 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: moderately hard shale and hard limestone with coal seamsQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 9Total length = 1,133 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: None indicatedEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts in crown, shotcrete from crown to springline, ribs at ends of tunnelPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 to 16 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No informationPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: No information


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNo informationREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included an outlet works, dam spillway and

embankment, an intake structure, transition monolith, stilling basin, and 2 portals. The total contract price wasestimated at $21,985,610 and the low bid was $22,632,101. Neither actual final costs, claim information, norconstruction history were obtained for this project. No interviews were conducted and information contained hereinwas derived mainly from pre-bid contract documents and available geotechnical data.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NEWHALL AND BALBOA INLET TUNNELS, CONTRACT NO. 730

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Los Angeles County, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaDESIGNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaCONTRACTOR: L.E. Dixon Company, Arundel Corporation, MacDonald & Kruse, Peter Kiewit Sons (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: 1967CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No informationCONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for excavation and support; excavation priced per cu ydTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $29,383,690“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 192,500 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: ±$25,920,370 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 23,230 lin ft Total length = 23,230 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubesSHAPE(S): Newhall--circularBalboa--horseshoeSIZE(S): No informationEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): No informationDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 630 lin ftminimum = 20 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +239 lin ftminimum = −16 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: poorly cemented sandstone and conglomerate (Saugus formation)Quality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: well cemented sandstone and conglomerate with thin interbeds of siltstone and mudstone

(Pico formation)Quality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: soft to moderately hard mudstone, siltstone, and silty sandstone (Towsley formation)Quality: unweatheredthin to thick beddedjointing (no information)no shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 34Total length = 5,577 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 3 Pump tests in 3 different test wellsLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Two 7-ft by 9-ft shafts, 150 ft deep with 4-ft by 6-ft, 150-ft-long

bottom driftsThree plate load tests conducted in drifts


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: E-logs in 3 test wellsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: No informationPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel supports, timber, gunite, and liner platesPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete with steel cylinder inner liner in low overburden areaADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No informationPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Hazardous environmental factors--gasSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


No information $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included 2 shafts, 2 portals, and miscellaneous

surface work. The total contract price as estimated was unavailable for this study. The total contract price as bid was$30,773,630 and as completed was $30,306,109. No interviews were conducted for this project; the data were obtainedstrictly from the prebid documents, the geotechnical reports, and the final payment voucher. There were some claimson the project which were settled for a compromise amount of $192,500, but the nature of the claims is not known.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SAN FERNANDO TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Los Angeles, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaDESIGNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaCONTRACTOR: Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: 1969CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 1975CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices per lin ft for tunnel excavation and for supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $17,611,674“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 9,215,796 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $25,446,494 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 26,732 Total length = 26,732 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 22 ft 0 in. excavated diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 380 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 600 lin ftminimum = 35 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +103 lin ftminimum = −30 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: recent alluvial sands and clays with occasional bouldersQuality: granularcemented in placesvery denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: interbedded sandstone and shales, poorly cementedQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, wide spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 33Total length = 4,453 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Pump tests performed in 4 test wellsLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Three 140-ft-deep vertical shafts from 54 in. in diameter to 9 ft 4

in. by 6 ft 10 in.One shaft had a 29-ft-long horizontal adit at bottomSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: 2-1/2 miles of seismic refraction surveyE-logs in 8 boringsGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Digger shield (Robbins); soft ground excavation methods used throughout the soft ground

and soft rock tunnelPRIMARY SUPPORT: Precast concrete segmentsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Mostly unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 1 ft 6 in. to 1 ft 10 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 277 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (only minor problem)Groundwater inflow--large quantity (expected)Hazardous environmental factors--gas (explosion killed 17 men and caused a 2-year delay)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Gas, (explosion and delay) = $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a gate shaft and structure, portal

excavations, transition tunnel sections, and minor surface work. The total contract price as estimated wasapproximately $25,000,000 and as bid was $19,346,800. The total as completed contract price was $27,251,799. Amajor gas explosion occurred in this tunnel after about 77 percent completion which killed 17 of the heading crew;only one survived. The explosion delayed the project for 27 months and resulted in litigation, which found thecontractor negligent in his safety procedures. The potential for gassy conditions was well-documented by the siteinvestigation reports.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TONNER TUNNELS NO. 1 and NO. 2

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Brea, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaDESIGNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaCONTRACTOR: J.F. Shea Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: No informationCONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No informationCONTRACT FORMAT: Lump sum per each tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $10,149,365“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 495,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $10,895,955 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 22,950 lin ft Total length = 22,950 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 10 ft 3 in. (A-line diameter)EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): UnknownDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 590 lin ftminimum = 5 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +263 lin ftminimum = −67 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: moderately hard to hard sandstone with softer siltstone and shaleQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, wide spacing (except near faults)no shear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: siltstone and shale with bentonite beds and concretionsQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, wide spacing (except near faults)no shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 17Total length = 4,790 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Exploratory trench excavated near south portal to explore for

recent faultingSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: No informationPRIMARY SUPPORT: No informationPERMANENT SUPPORT: Prestressed concrete pipe (6-1/2 in. thick), backfilled with concreteADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No informationPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Hazardous environmental factors--gas (expected)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



No information $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included 3 portal excavations and

miscellaneous surface work. The total contract price as estimated was not avilable for this study. The total contractprice as bid was $15,034,331 and as completed was $15,798,392. No interviews were conducted for this project; thedata presented were derived strictly from the prebid documents, the geotechnical reports, and the final paymentvoucher. There were major claims on the project, but the nature of the problems that caused the claims is not known.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BI-COUNTY WATER TUNNEL, EAST MAIN

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, MarylandPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: Washington Suburban Sanitary CommissionDESIGNER: A.A. Mathews Division, CRS Group EngineersCONTRACTOR: Armco, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: July 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 4, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $21,446,500BID TOTAL: $20,291,500“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $20,291,500 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 18,050 lin ft Total length = 18,050 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 12 ft 6 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 122.7 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 120 lin ftminimum = 10 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +110 lin ftminimum = +10 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: Quartz-mica schist-to-gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, generally moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 16Total length = 2,535 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure testsLAB TESTS: 7 Total drillability hardness tests (includes unconfined compression, rebound and abrasion hardness)- Rock density tests- Corrosion potential of groundwater (includes pH, specific conductance, concentrations of SO4 and Cl.)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for top of rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Jarva Mark 12), with drill-and-blast for tail and starter tunnelsPRIMARY SUPPORT: Generally none (only local rock bolts and partial ribs)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Drill-and-blast--average = 10.13 lin ft (for 385 ft)TBM--maximum = 145 lin ft (for 17,665 ft)average = 50 lin ft (for 17,665 ft)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequence


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTION AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included six shafts, miscellaneous surface

work, and installation of 60-in.-diameter and 90-in.-diameter water mains in open trenches. The total contract wasestimated at $24,299,400; the low bid was $22,241,300 and the actual final cost was $22,334,341.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BI-COUNTY WATER TUNNEL, WEST MAIN

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Montgomery County, MarylandPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: Washington Suburban Sanitary CommissionDESIGNER: A.A. Mathews Division, CRS Group EngineersCONTRACTOR: Clevecon, Inc. (open shop subsidiary of S&M)CONSTRUCTION START: June 8, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 10, 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and per lin ft of final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $20,886,650BID TOTAL: $14,321,800“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $14,294,246 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 15,079 lin ft Total length = 15,079 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 12 ft 6 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 122.7 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 250 lin ftminimum = 80 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +240 lin ftminimum = +50 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: quartz-mica schist-to-gneissQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, generally moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 15Total length = 3,069BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure testsLAB TESTS: 7 Total drillability hardness tests (includes unconfined compression, rebound, abrasion hardness)- Rock density tests- Corrosion potential of groundwater (includes pH, specific conductance, concentrations of SO4 and Cl)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for top of rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Jarva Mark 12)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Generally none (only local rock bolts and steel straps)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 15 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 147 lin ftAverage = 78 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequence


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 4 shafts, miscellaneous surface work,

and 4,000 ft of water main installed in open trenches. The total contract was estimated at $24,504,972; the low bid was$21,223,040 and the actual final cost was $21,378,761.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTH SHORE OUTFALLS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, CONTRACT N-1

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: San Francisco (Ft. Mason area), CaliforniaPURPOSE: Wastewater conveyanceOWNER: San Francisco Clean Water Program, City and County of San FranciscoDESIGNER: Department of Public Works, City and County of San FranciscoCONTRACTOR: Ohbayashi-OAC (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: September 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices per lin ft of tunnel excavation and for supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $8,172,180BID TOTAL: $7,320,740“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $7,255,410 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft Ground = 700 lin ftMixed face = 300 lin ftRock = 3,352 lin ft Total length = 4,352 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 12 ft 0 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 113.1 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 113 lin ftminimum = 15 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +100 lin ftminimum = +40 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: uniform fine sand (dune sand)Quality: granularuncementedvery dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: sandy clay (residual)Quality: cohesivestiff to hardRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: shale melange with interbedded graywacke, siltstone, and shaleQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, close spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 16Total length = 1,490 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Torvane shear tests- Penetrometer tests- Standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: 2 Direct shear tests on soil58 Unconfined compression tests on rock3 Permeability tests on soil- Natural moisture content tests- Dry density tests- Atterberg limits tests- Consolidation tests- Sieve analyses


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield with road header (700 ft)Mixed face--shield with road header (300 ft)Rock--road header (3,352 ft); blasting in 10% of lengthPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs with wood laggingMixed face--ribs with wood laggingRock--ribs with wood laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 10 in. thickMixed face--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 10 in. thickRock--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 10 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Shale melange (without graywacke or sandstone)--maximum = 60 lin ftEntire project--average = 30 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running ground (in dune sand)--blocky rock (large overbreak where blasting was used)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceSoft ground methods--face instability with running groundSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included an open-cut section, a concrete

connection structure, a portal adit, and various utility and surface restoration work. The total contract was estimated at$11,473,396 and the low bid was $9,909,298. The actual total contract final cost was not provided, but it was morethan bid due to the addition of about 200 lin ft of tunnel to the contract. Although the ground conditions are describedprimarily as rock, soft rock methods were used for excavation.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTH SHORES OUTFALLS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, CONTRACT N-2

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: San Francisco (Fisherman's Wharf area), CaliforniaPURPOSE: Wasterwater conveyanceOWNER: San Francisco Clean Water Program, City and County of San FranciscoDESIGNER: Department of Public Works, City and County of San FranciscoCONTRACTOR: Ohbayashi-OAC (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: October 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: February 26, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft including excavation support and final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $14,558,215BID TOTAL: $ 9,167,110“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 22,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $ 9,008,000 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 3,069 lin ft Total length = 3,069 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 12 ft 1 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 114.8 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 38 lin ftminimum = 30 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +35 lin ftminimum = +15 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: bay mud (silts and clays)Quality: cohesivevery soft2nd UnitIdentification/Type: uniform fine sand (dune sand)Quality: granularuncementedmedium denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 37Total length = 2,069 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 17 Penetrometer tests3 Rising head pump tests- Standard penetration tests- Vane shear tests- Dames & Moore modified standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: 48 Direct shear tests10 Triaxial tests6 Lab shear tests (Vane)3 Unconfined rock compression tests2 Permeability tests- Sieve analyses- Atterberg limits tests- Moisture content tests5 Chemical analyses for heavy metals and oil/greaseEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES : NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Earth pressure balance shieldPRIMARY SUPPORT: Liner platePERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concreteADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 100 lin ftAverage = 30 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Soft ground methods--minor surface subsidence--obstructions (timber piles)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Obstructions (timber piles) = $50,000TOTAL = $50,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included a portal structure, a connection

structure, and various surface utility and pavement work. The total contract was estimated at $18,162,994 and the lowbid was $12,738,590. The actual total contract final cost was not available due to litigation unrelated to theconstruction of the tunnel. This project is believed to be the first use of an earth pressure balance (EPB) shield in theUnited States, which resulted in considerable cost savings to the owner over conventional tunneling methods.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

HAMPTON AVENUE SEWER, CONTRACT 939-3

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: North central Milwaukee County, WisconsinPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictDESIGNER: J.C. Zimmerman Engineering Corporation (for CH2M Hill, Inc.)CONTRACTOR: Walsh Construction Company (of Illinois)CONSTRUCTION START: June 27, 1980CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 10, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of unclassified tunnel excavation and initial support with separate

unit prices for liningsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: Not available“CHANGES” AWARDED: $164,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 4,680 lin ftMixed face = 1,550 lin ftRock = 300 lin ft Total length = 6,530 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Soft ground--circularMixed face and rock--horseshoeSIZE(S): Soft ground--8 ft 10 in. (excavated diameter)Mixed face and rock--unknownEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--62.5 sq ftMixed face and rock--69.0 sq ft (assumed)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 50 lin ftminimum = 33 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +33 lin ftminimum = +15 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: silty clay till with interbedded water bearing sand and silt layers, and random cobbles and

bouldersQuality: cohesivevery stiff to hardRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: vuggy limestoneQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 20Total length = 1,050 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests4 Piezometer testsLAB TESTS: 14 Point load tensile strenth tests on rock- Dry density tests- Atterberg limits tests- Sieve analyses- Natural moisture content tests on all soil samples5 Unconfined compression tests on soilEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (Lovat)Mixed face--drill-and-blast and hand mining under horseshoe-shaped shieldRock--drill-and-blast under horseshoe-shaped shieldPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel sets and wood laggingMixed face--steel sets and wood laggingRock--steel sets and wood laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground, mixed face, and rock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick

(for 3,730 lin ft) and precast concrete pipe grouted in place (for 2,800 lin ft)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 100 lin ft (in soft ground with TBM)Average = 26 lin ft (based on working days, 2 headings at times)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (3 locations in soil)--swelling or squeezing (caused support deflection)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceHazardous environmental factors--noxious fluid (gasoline)Soft ground methods--surface subsidence (major at 2 locations, and related to running ground)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Surface subsidence/running ground = $ Not knownNoxious fluid (gasoline) = $ 143,000

TOTAL = $ Not known

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 5 manholes, connections to

existing sewers, restoration and relocation of existing utilities, and other related work. The total contract was estimatedat $7,415,500; the low bid was $6,721,767 and the total completed contract cost was $6,987,169. The surfacesubsidence claim was stated to be related to fill around an existing sewer pipe, which allegedly ran and caused surfacesubsidence. It was not possible to break out the mined tunnel costs from the total project costs because no bidtabulations were made available.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTHEAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER, EAST BRANCH (CONTRACT 287)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Milwaukee County, WisconsinPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictDESIGNER: CH2M Hill, Jenny Engineering, Delon HamptonCONTRACTOR: Kenny Construction CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: September 1, 1981CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 15, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of soft ground, mixed face, or rock tunnel excavation with separate

unit price per lin ft for all necessary supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $13,168,000BID TOTAL: $ 9,320,405“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ −395,025 (credit to owner)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $ 8,354,976 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 8,808 lin ftMixed face = 1,346 lin ftRock = 595 lin ft Total length = 10,749 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe, modifiedCircularSIZE(S): Horseshoe--9 ft 2 in. high by 9 ft 2 in. wideCircular--9 ft 2 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Hoseshoe--74 sq ft (assumed)Circular--66.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 77 lin ftminimum = 25 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +25 lin ftminimum = +5 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: silty clay (glacial till) with sand and gravel layersQuality: cohesivevery stiff to hard2nd UnitIdentification/Type: sand and silt (glacial till) with boulders and cobblesQuality: granularuncementeddense to very denseRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: dolomitic limestone with porous and shaley layers (solutioned in places)Quality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 26Total length = 1,425 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests11 Menard pressuremeter testsLAB TESTS: 1 Unconfined compression test1 Undrained triaxial test1 Undrained consolidation test- Specific gravity tests- Natural moisture content tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

45 Grain size distribution tests23 Atterberg limits testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (Lovat)Mixed face--hand mined with some drill-and-blastRock--hand mined with drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs and wood laggingMixed face--ribs and wood laggingRock--ribs and wood laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 14 in. thick (minimum)Mixed face--reinforced cast-in-place concreteRock--reinforced cast-in-place concreteADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 165 lin ft (soft ground)Average = 40 lin ft for entire project (one 10-hr. shift/day, sometimes 2 headings at once)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (in water bearing sands in till)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceHazardous environmental factors--noxious fluid (gasoline from leaky tanks)Soft ground methods--surface subsidence (major in a few places)--obstructions (anticipated boulders)Compressed air--planned, but not usedSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Deletion of compressed air (owner credit) = $ Not known

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 100 lin ft of 72-in. jacked pipe,

647 lin ft of open-cut pipe installation, a 346-lin-ft river crossing, 15 shafts, and 19 manholes. The total contract wasestimated at $18,346,000; the low bid was $13,887,805 and the final total contract price was $12,913,984. The costreductions generally resulted from better than anticipated tunneling conditions and credits to the owner fromcontractorinitiated design changes, including deletion of compressed air and lighter initial tunnel support. The projectwas completed about 8 months ahead of schedule.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTHEAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER, EAST BRANCH (CONTRACT 288)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Northeast Milwaukee County, WisconsinPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictDESIGNER: CH2M Hill, Jenny Engineering, Delon HamptonCONTRACTOR: Michels Pipe Line Construction, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: January 13, 1982CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 14, 1983CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including initial support with separate unit

price per lin ft for final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $14,092,600BID TOTAL: $11,973,382“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 150,000 est. (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $11,852,977 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft groundMixed faceRock Total length = 12,921 lin ft (breakdown not available, but mostly soft ground)LAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 8 ft 9-1/2 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 60.8 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 83 lin ftminimum = 30 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +14 lin ftminimum = −16 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sand and silt (glacial till) with cobbles and bouldersQuality: granularuncementeddense to very dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silt and clay (glacial till) with sand and gravel lensesQuality: cohesivevery stiff to hardRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: vuggy dolomitic limestone with clay seamsQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 28Total length = 2,055 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests- Menard pressuremeter tests- Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: - Unconfined compressive strength on soil- Undrained triaxial shear tests on soil- Consolidation tests- Density tests- Natural moisture tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Sieve analyses- Atterberg limits tests- Pocket penetrometer tests on clay soilsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (modified MEMCO)Mixed face--digger shield (Zukor) with drill-and-blastRock--digger shield (Zukor) with drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--precast concrete segments or jacked pipe (±2,000 ft)Mixed face--precast concrete segmentsRock--precast concrete segmentsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 6 in. thick minimum (except 1,100 ft

precast concrete segments)Mixed face--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 6 in. thickRock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 6 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 91 lin ft (in one shift of three)Average = 35 lin ft (per day with some days more than 1 heading)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (one 200 cu yd run)Soft ground methods--obstructions (boulders)--steeringRock in invertSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Rock in invert = $250,000+TOTAL = $250,000+

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 5 shafts, 12 manholes, a flow

monitoring system, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at $15,951,000; the low bid was$14,022,157 and the final total contract cost was $13,901,752. The final cost underrun, in spite of the claim, resultedfrom credits to the owner for allowing pipe jacking for 2,000 ft of alignment and an alignment change.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTHEAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER, NORTH BRANCH (CONTRACT 289)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Northeast Milwaukee County, WisconsinPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictDESIGNER: Howard, Needles, Tammen and BergendorffCONTRACTOR: W.J. Lazynski, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: June 22, 1981CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 25, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including initial support, with separate unit

price for final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $11,076,582BID TOTAL: $ 9,986,402“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $ 9,986,402 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 5,342 lin ftMixed face = 1,018 lin ftRock = 4,610 lin ft Total length = 10,970 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circularCircularSIZE(S): Horseshoe--unknownCircular--9 ft 5 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Horseshoe--72 sq ft (assumed)Circular--69.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 135 lin ftminimum = 27 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +60 lin ftminimum = +12 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: sand and silt (glacial till) with cobbles and bouldersQuality: granularuncementeddense to very dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silt and clayey silt (glacial till) with sand and gravel lensesQuality: cohesivevery stiff to hardRock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: vuggy dolomitic limestone with clay seamsQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to close spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 27Total length = 2,099 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests3 Double packer water pressure tests25 Piezometer tests- Menard pressuremeter testsLAB TESTS: 1 Triaxial compresseion test3 Consolidation tests4 Unconfined compression tests on soil- Density tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Sieve analyses- Atterberg limits tests- Natural moisture content tests- Pocket penetrometer tests (all cohesive soils)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES : NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (Decker) and 2 shieldsMixed face--TBM or shield, plus drill-and-blast as neededRock--drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel ribs and wood laggingMixed face--steel ribs and wood laggingRock--rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground, mixed face, and rock--precast concrete pipe concreted in placeADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground TBM--maximum = 64 lin ft (1 shift/day)Entire project--average = 32 lin ft (1 to 2 shifts/day)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--large quantitySoft ground methods--surface subsidence (major in one area)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 15 manholes, diversion and flow

monitoring systems, and relocation of some existing utilities. The total contract was estimated at $13,808,982; the lowbid was $10,974,402 and the final contract cost was $10,996,179. A large quantity of groundwater inflow resultedfrom a buried stream deposit and stalled the soft ground TBM. The TBM was removed and work continued with ashield and hand mining. The surface subsidence was claimed to be due to water infiltration from boreholes drilled forinstrumentation.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

RED HOOK INTERCEPTOR SEWER

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Brooklyn, New YorkPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Department of Environmental Protection, City of New YorkDESIGNER: Department of Environmental Protection, City of New YorkCONTRACTOR: Grow Tunneling, MacLean-Grove, Morrison-Knudsen, Peter Kiewit, & Catapano (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: April 1978CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 8, 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (see notation under Remarks, below)ESTIMATED TOTAL: $50,242,060BID TOTAL: $52,283,285“CHANGES” AWARDED: 935,999 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $53,139,116 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 8,600 lin ft Total length = 8,600 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 10 ft 5 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 85 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 70 lin ftminimum = 12 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +10 lin ftminimum = +2 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: fine to medium sand with gravel (outwash sand)Quality: granularuncementedmedium dense to dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: fill (predominantly clean sands)Quality: granularuncementedloose to dense3rd UnitIdentification/Type: bouldery sand and gravel (pockets of glacial till)Quality: granularuncementeddense to very denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 77Total length = 3,447 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Excavator shield (Robbins 1095-160Z) with <18 psi compressed air


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PRIMARY SUPPORT: Heavy steel liner platePERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concreteADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 70 lin ftAverage = 25.4 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Harzardous environmental factors--noxious fluid (hazardous waste in soils and groundwater)--existing utilities--gasSoft ground methods--face instability (required full face breasting)--obstructions (boulders, piles, and timber cribs)--steering (many tight radius curves)Compressed air--blowoutsSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Noxious fluids = $ 477,000Obstructions--boulders = $ 640,000Obstructions--timber cribs = $ 297,000Obstructions--timber piles = $ 89,000

TOTAL = $1,503,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 8 manhole structures, 9 regulator

structures, 4 diversion and tide gate structures, about 2,500 lin ft of open-cut pipeline, and underpinning of 43 existingstructures along the route. The total contract was estimated at $55,733,229 and the low bid was $61,862,009. Finaltotal contract cost was not provided. All claims were resolved during construction as change orders, whichundoubtedly kept these costs to a minimum. The tabulated “tunnel construction costs” actually include about $3.5million for a shaft excavation, various manholes, miscellaneous concrete, backfill, and restoration that were notseparable with documentation available.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CROSS IRONDEQUOIT INTERCEPTOR, CONTRACT NO. II-C-1A

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Irondequoit, New YorkPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Rochester Pure Waters District, Monroe County, New YorkDESIGNER: Teetor-DobbinsCONTRACTOR: Greenfield, Ferrera, and Healy (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: No informationCONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No informationCONTRACT FORMAT: One unit price per lin ft for tunnel excavation and supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $28,760,000“CHANGES” AWARDED: No information (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 30,093 lin ft Total length = 30,093 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 18 ft 4 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 264 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 200 lin ftminimum = 35 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +160 lin ftminimum = +40 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: friable calcareous sandstone, siltstone, shale, and limestone sequenceQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 38Total length = 6,297 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packersLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Refraction seismic survey for top of bedrockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (no information on machine type)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 10 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No informationPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: No information


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNo informationREMARKSIn addition to the TBM mined rock tunnel described above, the total contract included a 600 lin ft section of 12 ft

(I.D.) rock, mixed face, and soft ground tunnel, cut-and-cover construction, 6 shafts, drop connections, and otherrelated work. The total contract price as estimated was $33,818,350 and as bid was $37,385,000. Damage to theconcrete liner due to sulfate attack has delayed operation of the tunnel. A program of monitoring the condition of theliner and of reconstructed or repaired test sections was recommended in 1977. All information included for this tunnelwas obtained from prebid documents; no interview was conducted with either the owner or contractor.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

GENESEE VALLEY INTERCEPTOR SOUTHWEST, CONTRACT C-36-715

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Rochester, New YorkPURPOSE: Sanitary sewer and storm water sewerOWNER: Rochester Pure Waters District, Monroe County, New YorkDESIGNER: Erdman Anthony AssociatesCONTRACTOR: Clevecon, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: No informationCONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No InformationCONTRACT FORMAT: One unit price per lin ft for tunnel excavation and supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $12,496,250BID TOTAL: $10,081,200“CHANGES” AWARDED: Unknown (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Unknown (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 8,172 lin ft Total length = 8,172 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 18 ft 7 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 271 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 58 lin ftminimum = 21 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +25 lin ftminimum = +4 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: moderately hard to hard dolomite with occasional shale partings and mineralized solution

cavitiesQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 37Total length = 2,113 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packers- In-situ stress tests by overcoringLAB TESTS: 30 Unconfined compression tests on rock core30 Confined compression tests on rock core2 Flexural strength tests on rock core- Rock hardness testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NOGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Refraction seismic investigation for rock depthGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 181-122), with two 100-ft-long drill-and-blast starter tunnelsPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs or rock bolts with wire mesh and steel strappingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No informationPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (rock fallout in crown and along joints and seams believed to be due in part to high horizontal in-

situ stresses)--spalling


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNo informationREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 3 shafts, 7 drop connections, 1 side

flow weir chamber, and 13,000 lin ft of 18- to 84-in. diameter gravity interceptor installed in open cut. The totalcontract price as estimated was $23,276,451 and as bid was $19,699,719. No final cost or claims information isreported because no interview was conducted with either owner or contractor.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PLAN, CONTRACT 72-049-2H

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Chicago and Wilmette, IllinoisPURPOSE: Storm water detention and conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater ChicagoDESIGNER: Harza Engineering CompanyCONTRACTOR: Kenny, Paschen, S&M (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: January 10, 1977CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 3, 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $51,573,242BID TOTAL: $34,590,480“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 1,359,315 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $36,030,373 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 51,740 lin ft Total length = 51,740 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 30 ft 0 in. diameter for 27,762 lin ft22 ft 0 in. diameter for 23,862 lin ftEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 707 sq ft (27,762-ft length)380 sq ft (23,862-ft length)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 220 lin ftminimum = 180 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +220 lin ftminimum = +180 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: dolomite, with chert and shale partingsQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 53Total length = 10,844 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 56 Borehole pressure testsLAB TESTS: 110 Unconfined compression tests on rock56 Tensile strength tests on rock16 Abrasion tests on rock122 Porosity determinations on rock9 Permeability tests on rock2 Dynamic modulus determination tests on rock27 Static modulus determination tests on rock20 Wetting and drying tests on rock113 Moisture content and specific gravity tests on rock10 Petrographic analyses5 Chemical analyses on rock to determine reaction with sewage

(Note: Tests from 34 soil borings at drop shaft locations are not tabulated)

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic for top of rock, specific formations, aquifersBorehole seismic for modulus, porosity, and specific gravityGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Jarva; one 30-ft 1-in. diameter for 27,762 lin ft and one 22-ft 1-in. diameter for

23,862 lin ft)Drill-and-blast (116 lin ft)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Some unreinforced cast-in-place concrete (in scattered zones of bad ground)ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: 30-ft diameter tunnel--maximum = 167 lin ftaverage = 55 lin ft22-ft diameter tunnel--maximum = 173 lin ftaverage = 68 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--squeezing (soft clay seams)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Squeezing ground (soft clay seams) = $1,359,315TOTAL = $1,359,315

REMARKSIn addition to the two lengths of mined tunnel described above, the total contract included two 32-ft diameter

main shafts, 32 drop shafts with diameters ranging between 6 ft and 8 ft, and assorted shaft drifts. The total contractwas estimated at $65,529,302; the low bid was $63,140,480 and the actual final cost as of September 1983 appears tobe $63,077,429. However, this “final” figure includes an apparent $1,422,362 underrun which really is money theowner is presently holding back for uncompleted work and may change by the time of final contract signoff. Thedispute is over additional concrete to compensate for overshooting the rock in some shaft adits.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: 59th Street to Central Avenue, Chicago, IllinoisPURPOSE: Storm water detention and conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater ChicagoDESIGNER: Harza Engineering CompanyCONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, Kenny, Paschen, S&M (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: July 2, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: July 19, 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $60,715,000BID TOTAL: $46,028,275“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $43,222,181 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 18,804 lin ft Total length = 18,804 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 35 ft 4 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 980 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 240 lin ftminimum = 220 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +220 lin ftminimum = +200 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: dolomite, with chert and shale partingsQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 15Total length = 3,839 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 43 Borehole pressure testsLAB TESTS: 41 Unconfined compression tests on rock9 Tensile strength tests on rock6 Abrasion tests on rock14 Static modulus determination tests on rock1 Wetting and drying test on rock18 Moisutre content and specific gravity tests on rock2 Chemical analyses on rock to determine reaction with sewage


EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic for top of rock, specific formations, and aquifersBorehole seismic for modulus, porosity, and specific gravityGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 353-197 for 17,744 lin ft)Drill-and-blast (for 1,060 lin ft)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and friction rock stabilizersPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 118 lin ftaverage = 61 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequence


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included gate equipment, a 27-ft diameter

construction shaft, and 8 drop shafts with diameters ranging between 4 ft and 17 ft. The total contract was estimated at$81,000,000; the low bid was $86,493,975 and the actual final cost was $83,530,628. The underruns representelimination of stubs for future tunnels and also contract unit cost items, mostly grout and rock bolts, not used becausethe ground was too competent to need them.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PLAN, CONTRACT 73-162-2H (PART 3)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Chicago, IllinoisPURPOSE: Storm water detention and conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater ChicagoDESIGNER: Harza Engineering CompanyCONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen & Paschen (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: November 26, 1980CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 24, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $18,460,416BID TOTAL: $ 9,322,400“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $7,384,942 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 7,464 lin ft Total length = 7,464 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 35 ft 4 in. diameter; 18 ft 0 in. diameter; 15 ft 0 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 980 sq ft; 255 sq ft; 177 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 300 lin ftminimum = 230 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +280 lin ftminimum = +210 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: dolomite, with chert and shale partingsQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 9Total length = 2,189 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Borehole pressure testsLAB TESTS: 14 Unconfined compression tests on rock10 Split cylinder tests on rock14 Young's modulus determinations on rock14 Poisson's ratio determinations onrock2 Atterberg limit determinations on soil15 Moisture content determinations on soilEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic for top of rock, specific formations, and aquifersBorehole seismic for modulus, porosity, and specific gravityGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 353-191, 35 ft 4 in. diameter, for 17,750 lin ft)Drill-and-blast (for 4,714 lin ft)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and friction rock stabilizersPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 104 lin ftaverage = 62 lin ftDrill-and-blast--average = 42 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequenceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the 3 lengths of mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 5 shafts, 2 underground

chambers, and 5 intersections and crossovers with existing tunnels. The total contract was estimated at $32,480,416;low bid was $28,012,400 and the actual final cost was $25,834,931. The underruns represent contract unit cost items,mostly grout and rock bolts, not used because the ground was too competent to need them.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Ogden Avenue to Addison Street, Chicago, Illinois,PURPOSE: Storm water detention and conveyanceOWNER: Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater ChicagoDESIGNER: Harza Engineering CompanyCONTRACTOR: Ball, Healy, Horn (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: November 5, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: February 13, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and final liningTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $63,029,800BID TOTAL: $51,324,410“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $51,324,410 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 22,607 lin ft Total length = 22,607 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 32 ft 4 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 821 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 220 lin ftminimum = 210 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +220 lin ftminimum = +210 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: dolomite, with chert and shale partingsQuality: unweatheredthick beddedjointing, close to wide spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 27Total length = 5,789 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: 49 Borehole pressure testsLAB TESTS: 60 Unconfined compression tests on rock24 Tensile strength tests on rock11 Abrasion tests on rock51 Porosity determination tests on rock17 Static modulus determination tests on rock4 Wetting and drying tests on rock51 Moisture content and specific gravity tests on rock


EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic for top of rock, specific formations, and aquifersBorehole seismic for modulus, porosity, and specific gravityGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 324)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts installed randomlyPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 136 lin ftAverage = 65 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--operating nuisance


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a 25-ft diameter construction shaft and

18 drop shafts with diameters ranging between 4 ft and 13 ft. The total contract was estimated at $90,000,000; the lowbid was $85,205,910 and the actual final cost was $85,151,605. The underrun represents a minor percentage ofcontract unit cost items not used.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SEABROOK STATION CIRCULATING WATER TUNNELS

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Seabrook, New HampshirePURPOSE: Cooling water system for nuclear power plantOWNER: Public Service Company of New HampshireDESIGNER: United EngineersCONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: April 12, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 6, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Cost plus with incentive fee for meeting target date (with owner supplying materials and

much of the heavy equipment)TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $49,526,000 (contractor fee only)“CHANGES” AWARDED: In litigation (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 33,656 lin ft Total length = 33,656 lin ftLAYOUT: Parallel tubes (90-ft centers) for 9,000 ft then bifurcating to 2,800 ft separationSHAPE(S): Circular (primarily)SIZE(S): 22 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 380 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 250 lin ftminimum = 160 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +265 lin ftminimum = +155 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: metasedimentary impure quartziteQuality: unweatheredmassive, fairlyjointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: plutonic diorite intrusionsQuality: unweatheredmassive (very)jointing, very wide spacingno shear zonesfaulting, minor3rd UnitIdentification/Type: diabase dikesQuality: weathered (minor hydrothermal alteration)blocky structure (joints parallel to contacts)jointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesfaulting4th UnitIdentification/Type: mixed diorite and metasedimentariesQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, wide spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 58Total length = 14,313 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Stress relief tests by overcoring- Water pressure tests with packers1 Pumping testLAB TESTS: - Salinity determinations on water sampled in pumping test8 Unconfined compression tests on rock core- University of Illinois hardness tests for TBM penetration rate estimates- Dry unit weight of rock coresEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction and reflection surveysGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Robbins 212-173 and -174) except for ±900 lin ft of drill-and-blast development

tunnel in each heading)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Intake tunnel (TBM)--maximum = 106 lin ftaverage = 36.7 lin ftDischarge tunnel (TBM)--average = 30.3 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceHazardous environmental factors--noxious fluid (highly saline water)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Highly saline water inflow = $ No information

REMARKSThe bid total for the mined tunnels described above is given in 1977 dollars, contractor fee only, with materials

and much of the heavy equipment supplied by the owner. Much of the cooling water tunnels were constructed beneaththe Atlantic Ocean. In addition to the mined tunnels, the total contract included vertical intake and discharge structuresand a number of shafts, some on land and some in the ocean. The engineer's estimate for the total contract is unknownbecause the owner has not released the information. The total contract low bid was $66,034,000 (given on the samebasis as the tunnels). Actual final costs are not yet available because litigation over a changed condition claim is still inprogress.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

EDWARD HYATT POWERHOUSE

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Oroville (Butte County), CaliforniaPURPOSE: PowerOWNER: California Department of Water ResourcesDESIGNER: California Department of Water ResourcesCONTRACTOR: McNamara-Fuller (JV)CONSTRUCTION START: March 20, 1964CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 24, 1966CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 7,166,097BID TOTAL: $ 5,990,163“CHANGES” AWARDED: $16,300,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $23,289,140 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 550 lin ft Total length = 550 lin ftLAYOUT: Large chamberSHAPE(S): Straignt sides with arched roofSIZE(S): 139 ft high by 71 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 8,200 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 300 lin ftminimum = 300 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +188 lin ftminimum = +163 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: amphiboliteQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 33Total length = 5,360 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - In-situ stress by overcoring- Water pressure tests with packers- Diametrical jacking tests in adit- Flatjack tests in aditsLAB TESTS: - Modulus of elasticityEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Two exploratory drifts and a number of cross drifts totaling

about 780 lin ftSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey in general area to determine top of rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and shotcrete with wire meshPERMANENT SUPPORT: NoneADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 0.67 lin ft for 203 cu yd/day for entire chamber)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (resulting in excessive overbreak from blasting)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSUnstable ground

--blocky, slabby = $14,073,427TOTAL = $14,073,427

REMARKSIn addition to the mined powerhouse chamber described above, the total contract included penstock tunnels, a

diversion tunnel, a tailrace tunnel, an access tunnel, an intake structure, and various structural and mechanical work.The engineer's estimate for the entire contract was $20,592,461; the low bid was $18,366,780 and the final cost was$42,414,628. Although the accuracy or adequacy of the geologic site investigations was not questioned, theinterpretation resulted in a design which was claimed to be impossible to construct. Nine years of litigation in courtresulted in a $16,300,000 award to the contractor, which was essentially the amount claimed plus some interest.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

NORTHFIELD MOUNTAIN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Northfield, MassachusettsPURPOSE: Electric power generationOWNER: Northeast UtilitiesDESIGNER: Stone & Webster Engineering CorporationCONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: May 24, 1968CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 1972CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit prices for excavation and various support itemsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $23,500,000BID TOTAL: $27,730,000“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 4,000,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $41,600,000 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 12,842 lin ft Total length = 12,842 lin ftLAYOUT: Large chamber and multiple tunnelsSHAPE(S): Circular and horseshoeSIZE(S): Circular--15 to 34 ft diameterHorseshoe--17 ft 4 in. high by 16 ft 8 in. wide to 143 ft high by 70 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 177 to 8,815 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 628 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--too variable to summarizeGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: intermixed granite gneiss and biotite schist, with quartzite and pegmatite layersQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zones, minorfaulting, minorSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 26Total length = 5,445 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: 9 Unconfined compression tests on rock- Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction for top of rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts, shotcrete, and occasional steel ribsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete and steel liners in some water passagesADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 48 lin ftAverage = 29 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--spalling, rock bursts


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



Rock bursts from high in-situ stress = $6,660,000TOTAL = $6,660,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels and chamber described above, the total contract included a vent shaft, a pressure

shaft, 4 surge shafts, a tailrace canal, a reservoir, and other miscellaneous items. The costs reported are supposed to befor mining only, but they may not have been adjusted to exclude all non-mining costs, such as shafts that were sunk orraised. (This point could not be clarified by a follow-up interview with the owner due to lack of time remaining forstudy completion.) Cost overruns were due to rock bursts and excessive overbreak stemming from high in-situ stressesheretofore unexpected in this area. Had they been expected, prebid testing might have defined the problem in advanceto result in better construction planning.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

KERCKHOFF NO. 2 POWER TUNNEL

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Fresno, CaliforniaPURPOSE: Power (pumped storage)OWNER: Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyDESIGNER: Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCONTRACTOR: Auburn Constructors (Ball & Atkinson, JV)CONSTRUCTION START: June 17, 1981CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 1, 1982CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnelTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: No information“CHANGES” AWARDED: No information (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 22,049 lin ft Total length = 22,049 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 24 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 452 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,250 lin ftminimum = 200 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +470 lin ftminimum = +140 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granodioriteQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 9Total length = 3,099 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packers- Hydrofracturing stress testsLAB TESTS: 32 Unconfined compression tests- Moh's hardness tests- Natural density tests- Pulse veolocity tests- Modulus of elasticity testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but existing parallel tunnel (Kerckhoff #1) inspectedSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic refraction for depth to rockGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 243 for 21,615 lin ft)Drill-and-blast (for 434 lin ft)PRIMARY SUPPORT: NonePERMANENT SUPPORT: NoneADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 124 lin ftaverage = 65 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow--large quantity (at times)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--hard, abrasive rock


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,ETC. )


No description available = $ Unknown

REMARKSIn addition to the mined power tunnel described above, the total contract included the powerhouse chamber,

penstock, access adits, surge chamber, intake structure, and various site, electrical, and mechanical work. The low bidfor the total contract was approximately $65,000,000; no information was available on the engineer's estimate or actualfinal costs or on any costs or estimates associated with the mined power tunnel. A subsurface-related changedcondition claim was filed for the power tunnel, but nothing is known about disputes in the rest of the contract.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LOON LAKE HYDROPOWER PROJECT (INVITATION 2247)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: E1 Dorado County, CaliforniaPURPOSE: PowerOWNER: Sacramento Municipal Utility DistrictDESIGNER: Bechtel CorporationCONTRACTOR: Walsh Construction CompanyCONSTRUCTION START: November 1966CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 1, 1969CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft or per cu yd for excavation with separate unit prices for support

componentsTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $9,323,260“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $8,561,067 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 23,017 lin ft Total length = 23,017 lin ftLAYOUT: Large chamber with penstock, access tunnel, and tailraceSHAPE(S): Penstock (transition and horizontal)--circular and horseshoeAccess shaft--modified horseshoeMachine hall--arched roof chamberTailrace tunnel--modified horseshoeSIZE(S): Penstock--13 to 14 ft diameterAccess shaft--17 ft high by 17 ft wideMachine hall--110 ft high by 75 ft wideTailrace tunnel--18 ft high by 18 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Penstock--133 to 175 sq ftAccess shaft--258 sq ftMachine hall--8,146 sq ftTailrace tunnel--289 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 1,400 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +1,000 lin ftminimum = no dataGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granite, diorite, and granodioriteQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: basalt dikesQuality: weatheredmassivejointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 20Total length = 2,529 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - NX core- Groundwater flows observedLAB TESTS: 27 Unconfined compression tests31 Specific gravity tests- Elastic modulus tests- Poisson's ratio testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: 9-ft-diameter shaft at penstock with 8 ft by 8 ft exploratory adit

into machine hall


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: None, or rock boltsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Machine hall and tailrace--nonePenstock--concrete and steelADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Access shaft--average = 4.7 lin ft (est.)Machine hall--average = 0.4 lin ft (or 121 cu yd/day, est.)Tailrace tunnel--average = 55.7 lin ft (est.)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky (in a few areas)Groundwater inflow--operating nuisanceAlignment problems (in inclined access shaft)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSThis contract included all necessary excavation and initial support for the Loon Lake machine hall, tailrace tunnel,

access shaft, and penstock. The vertical penstock shaft is described as a separate project for this study. The totalcontract also included a power line, 4 miles of access road, and various portal excavations. The total contract was bidat $10,372,410 and the actual final cost was $11,210,027. No engineer's estimate is available. The overrun on the totalcontract was from extra work not associated with underground construction. The underrun on undergroundconstruction was from various support and contingency items not used.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

MONTREAL METRO LINE NO. 5, CONTRACT NO. 210

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Montreal, Quebec, CanadaPURPOSE: Running tunnel for subway systemOWNER: Montreal Urban Corporation, Metropolitan Bureau of TransportationDESIGNER: Metropolitan Bureau of TransportationCONTRACTOR: Walsh and Brais, Inc.CONSTRUCTION START: November 9, 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: March 3, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: One unit price for each section of tunnel which includes excavation, primary and

secondary supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: $10,958,581“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 6,754 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $10,505,865 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 7,094 lin ft Total length = 7,094 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): HorseshoeSIZE(S): 23.6 ft to 24.3 ft high by 26.6 ft wideEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Varies from 455.6 to 468.5 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 75 lin ftminimum = 15 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +60 lin ftminimum = +15 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: horizontally bedded limestone with thin beds of shaleQuality: weatheredthin beddedjointing, moderate to wide spacingno shear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 53Total length = 3,568 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: - Groundwater tested for sulfate- Groundwater tested for pHEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts, with shotcrete and ribs in limited areasPERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 13.7 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 70 lin ft (two headings)Average = 17 lin ft (total length ÷ total working days)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak)--blocky, slabby (fault zones required extra primary support)Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--face fallout/roof slabbing (2 cave-ins, fault zones required extra primary support)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



Roof slabbing (use of ribs instead of rock bolts) = $6,754TOTAL = $6,754

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, this contract also included 3 stations and 4 ventilation shafts.

There was no formal engineer's estimate prepared. The total contract price as bid was $16,920,643.60 and ascompleted was $17,885,643.60. (Note that all costs are in 1979-81 Canadian dollars.) Overbreak was rather large onthis project, due partly to the flat lying and thinly bedded rock and to the length of rounds used by the contractor whenblasting. The owner felt that methods to contol overbreak would result in much slower progress. Overbreak averaged 1ft in the tunnel walls and up to about 5 ft in the haunches. The estimated excavation volume including overbreak was160,000 cu yd.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SPADINA SUBWAY, CONTRACT NO. A6-1

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway systemOWNER: Toronto Transit CommissionDESIGNER: Toronto Transit Commission and Hatch & AssociatesCONTRACTOR: Robert McAlpine Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: September 4, 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 22, 1975CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for support and per lin ft of tunnel excavationTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $4,796,730BID TOTAL: $4,091,164“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $4,274,408 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 3,879 lin ft Total length = 3,879 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin parallel tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 17 ft 8 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 245 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 50 lin ftminimum = 25 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +13 lin ftminimum = + 3 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type:Quality: cohesivehard2nd UnitIdentification/Type: clay tillQuality: cohesivehard3rd UnitIdentification/Type: sand tillQuality: granularuncementedvery denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 26Total length = 2,489 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests13 Water observation wells3 Bi-level water observation wellsLAB TESTS: 68 Unconfined compression tests69 Natural density tests66 Atterberg limits tests158 Gradation tests627 Moisture content testsinterglacial varved clayEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Inspection shaft, 36 to 48 in. diameterSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shields (2 McAlpine) with 4 to 14 psi compressed air (for 200 to 300 ft)PRIMARY SUPPORT: Cast iron and precast concrete segmentsPERMANENT SUPPORT: Mixture of cast iron and precast concrete panels


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 12 lin ftAverage = 12 lin ft (overall, per shield)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running groundGroundwater inflow--operating nuisanceSoft ground methods--groundwater inflow (operating nuisance)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, this contract also included 172 lin ft of cutand-cover box

construction and 1 mined cross passage. The engineer's estimate for the total contract was $6,500,000; the low bid was$5,569,194 and the actual final cost was $7,194,000. (Note that all costs are in Canadian dollars.) Progress was limitedto 12 ft/day by union policies, which apparently restricted the contractor in scheduling work and in productioncapabilities.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

YONGE SUBWAY, NORTH EXTENSION (CONTRACT NO. Y-6)

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPURPOSE: Running tunnels for subwaysOWNER: Toronto Transit CommissionDESIGNER: Hatch & AssociatesCONTRACTOR: S. McNally and Sons, Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: May 7, 1970CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: March 26, 1973CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for support and per lin ft of excavationTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: $6,191,412“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 85,391 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $6,287,543 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 10,566 lin ft Total length = 10,566 lin ftLAYOUT: Twin parallel tubesSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 17 ft 6 in. diameter for 10,252 lin ft21 ft 0 in. diameter for 314 lin ftEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 240 sq ft (10,252 ft length)346 sq ft (314 ft length)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 71 lin ftminimum = 29 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +35 lin ftminimum = −34 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: interglacial sandy siltQuality: granularuncementedvery dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: silt tillQuality: granularuncementedvery dense3rd UnitIdentification/Type: interglacial sandQuality: granularuncementedvery denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 32Total length = 2,540 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests- Sniffer (gas monitoring) tests in some boringsLAB TESTS: - Natural density tests- Atterberg limits tests- Gradation tests- Hydrometer tests- Moisture content testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Shields (2) with 60% in compressed air (10 psi average, 20 psi maximum) and 40% in free

airPRIMARY SUPPORT: None in main tunnels; timber in access tunnelPERMANENT SUPPORT: Mixture of cast iron and precast concrete liner panelsADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 12 lin ftAverage = 12 lin ft (per shield, per day, not including access shaft)PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running sandGroundwater inflow--large quantityHazardous environmental factors--noxious fluid (gasoline from abandoned service station)Soft ground methods--water inflow (large quantity)--face instability (increased compressed air usage)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Face instability (compressed air usage) = $423,224TOTAL = $423,224

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, this contract also included two 24-ft diameter access shafts and

support and restoration of existing facilities. The total contract price as estimated was not available for this study. Thetotal contract price as bid was $6,983,028 and as completed was $7,104,824. (Note that all costs are in 1970-73Canadian dollars.) Groundwater control and running sand were the only real geological problems on the project.Progress was limited to 12 ft/day by union policies, which apparently restricted the contractor in scheduling work andin production capabilities.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

EASTERLY FILTRATION PLANT INTAKE TUNNEL, CONTRACT W-13-73

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Lake Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPURPOSE: Water conveyanceOWNER: Department of Works, Municipality of Metropolitan TorontoDESIGNER: Albery, Pullerits, Dickson and AssociatesCONTRACTOR: Schwenger Construction, Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: Early 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 26, 1979CONTRACT FORMAT: Lump sum with unit prices for changes in the workTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $3,837,200BID TOTAL: $3,605,115“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $3,605,115 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 10,536 lin ft Total length = 10,536 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 13 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 132.7 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 230 lin ftminimum = 60 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +125 lin ftminimum = +125 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: horizontally bedded, calcite cemented fissle shale with interbedded limestoneQuality: unweatheredthin beddedjointing, close to moderate spacingno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 13Total length = 1,763 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer tests- Gas tests (in borehole above water level)LAB TESTS: - None for rock samples- Groundwater tested for gas- Air drawn from boreholes tested in lab for gasEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: TBM, and at least 800 ft drill-and-blastPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts, wire mesh, and shotcretePERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete (with wire mesh in arch), 9 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: UnknownPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (overbreak at quarter arch points)--spalling


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



Blocky, slabby, spalling (high in-situ stresses) = $500,000TOTAL = $500,000

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnels described above, this project also included a pumphouse, 22-ft and 14-ft diameter

shafts, and other site work. The total contract price was estimated at $6,213,020; the low bid was $6,144,172 and theactual final cost was $5,839,649. (Note that all costs are in 1974-79 Canadian dollars.) Schwenger Construction Ltd.went bankrupt during construction and was replaced by another contractor, who completed the work under theperformance bond.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

YORK-DURHAM SEWAGE SYSTEM, CONTRACT NO. 85

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Toronto, CanadaPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentDESIGNER: M.M. Dillon Ltd.CONTRACTOR: S. McNally & Sons Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: July 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: July 1980CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin m of tunnel including temporary and final supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: $3,888,213“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 5,595 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $3,734,696 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 8,703 lin ft Total length = 8,703 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 96 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 50.3 sq ftDEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 85 lin ftminimum = 20 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +50 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: clayey silt (till)Quality: cohesivehard2nd UnitIdentification/Type: interglacial sandQuality: granularuncementedvery dense3rd UnitIdentification/Type: interglacial siltQuality: granularuncementedvery denseSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 20Total length = 1,897 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Vane shear tests- Standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: 8 Undrained triaxial compression tests91 Grain size distribution curves- Natural moisture content testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Lovat) with one 200-ft length requiring 6 psi compressed airPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and timber laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 140 lin ftAverage = 68 lin ft


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (silt)Groundwater inflow--high pressureSoft ground methods--obstructions (boulders)--steeringSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Obstructions (boulders in invert) = $5,595TOTAL = $5,595

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included about 300 ft of open-cut excavation, a

flume chamber, 3 vent shafts, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at $4,300,000; the lowbid was $4,266,379 and the actual final cost was $4,153,076. (Note that all costs are in 1979-80 Canadian dollars.) Theunderrun was due to not using all contingency items included in the bid schedule.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

YORK-DURHAM SEWAGE SYSTEM, CONTRACT NO. 86

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPURPOSE: Sewage conveyanceOWNER: Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentDESIGNER: M.M. Dillon Ltd.CONTRACTOR: S. McNally & Sons Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: November 1979CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin m of tunnel including temporary and final supportTUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: $4,145,400“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 9,228 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $4,000,958 (includes all claims and modifications)TUNNEL DATATYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 10,170 lin ft Total length = 10,170 lin ftLAYOUT: Single tubeSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 96 in. diameter for 10,072 lin ft154 in. diameter for 98 lin ftEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 50.3 sq ft (10,072 ft length)133 sq ft (98 ft length)DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 65 lin ftminimum = 40 lin ftCrown to water table--maximum = +35 lin ftminimum = 0 lin ftGEOLOGY: Soil--1st UnitIdentification/Type: interglacial sand and siltQuality: granularuncementedvery dense2nd UnitIdentification/Type: interglacial silty sand and gravelQuality: granularuncementedvery dense3rd UnitIdentification/Type: clayey silt tillQuality: cohesivehardSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 21Total length = 1,600 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Vane shear tests- Standard penetration testsLAB TESTS: 3 Undrained triaxial compression tests89 Grain size distribution tests- Natural moisture content tests- Natural density testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoSURFACE MAPPING: NoGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Lovat) in 96-in. diameter tunnel; hand mining in 154-in. diameter sectionPRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and wood laggingPERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--average = 82 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running groundGroundwater inflow--operating nuisance to large quantitySoft ground methods--minor surface subsidence--obstructions (boulders)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,


Obstructions (boulders in invert) = $9,228TOTAL = $9,228

REMARKSIn addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 359 ft of open-cut excavation and 5

manholes. The total contract was estimated at $5,400,000; the low bid was $4,630,700 and the final contract cost was$4,480,729. (Note that all costs are in 1979-80 Canadian dollars.) The underrun was due to not using variouscontingency bid items.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LOON LAKE PENSTOCK SHAFT

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: El Dorado County, CaliforniaPURPOSE: PowerOWNER: Sacramento Municipal Utility DistrictDESIGNER: Bechtel CorporationCONTRACTOR: Pilot shaft--Gates & Fox, Inc.Enlargement--Walsh Construction CompanyLining--Dravo CorporationCONSTRUCTION START: August 1965CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 1968CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft for initial excavation and enlargement with separate unit prices for

support and lining componentsSHAFT CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: Not availableBID TOTAL: $1,934,714“CHANGES” AWARDED : $ 86,127 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $1,958,348 (includes all claims and modifications)SHAFT DATATYPE(S) AND DEPTH(S): Rock = 1,225 lin ft Total depth = 1,225 lin ftLAYOUT: Single vertical shaftSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 9 ft 4 in. to 14 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 68 to 154 sq ftDEPTHS: Bottom to surface--maximum = 1,225 lin ftBottom to water table--maximum = +1,200 lin ft (approximately)GEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: granodioriteQuality: unweatheredfoliated, faintlyjointing, moderate to wide spacingshear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 2Total length = 1,320 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: NoneEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Shaft was initiated as a 9-ft-diameter exploratory shaftSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes (but not prior to construction)CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast for pilot shaft, then enlargement by slashingPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and wire meshPERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 to 24 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Not availablePROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--blocky, slabby (in a few places)Groundwater inflow--large quantity--high pressure


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.



Groundwater inflow (extra work for grouting) = $86,127TOTAL = $86,127

REMARKSThe Loon Lake Penstock shaft is part of a large hydropower project and was constructed as a part of three

separate contracts. The shaft was initially driven as a 9-ft-diameter exploratory shaft, using drill-and-blast methods, asa part of the exploration program for the total project. The exploratory shaft was later slashed to its final size byanother contractor and then lined by a third contractor. The remainder of the overall project is described in a separateabstract of the Loon Lake Hydropower Project.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

EXPLORATORY SHAFT, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Near Carlsbad, New MexicoPURPOSE: Nuclear waste storageOWNER: U.S. Department of EnergyDESIGNER: Bechtel National, Inc.CONTRACTOR: Challenger Drilling (subcontractor)CONSTRUCTION START: July 4, 1981CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 20, 1981CONTRACT FORMAT: Cost-plusSHAFT CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: $6,977,207BID TOTAL: $7,419,705“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $7,248,317 (includes all claims and modifications)SHAFT DATATYPE(S) AND DEPTH(S): Rock = 2,272 lin ft Total depth = 2,272 lin ftLAYOUT: Single vertical shaftSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 11 ft 10 in. diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 110 sq ftDEPTHS: Bottom to surface--maximum = 2,272 lin ftBottom to water table--not applicableGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: siltstone interbedded with sandstone and mudstone (Dewey Lake formation)Quality: unweatheredthin to thick beddedjointing, wide spacingshear zones, minorno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: anhydrite interbedded with dolomite and mudstone (Rustler formation)Quality: unweatheredmassivejointing, moderate to close spacing (healed)no shear zonesno faulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: halite and polyhalite with interbeds of anhydrite (Salado formation)Quality: unweatheredmassivejointing, noneno shear zonesno faultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 2Total length = 3,767 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: - Permeability tests (type not known)LAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression tests- Triaxial shear tests- Tensile strength tests- Percent porosity tests- Permeability (laboratory)- Specific gravity tests- Secant modulus of elasticity tests


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

- Resistivity tests- Thermal conductivity tests- Creep tests (salt)EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: NoneSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic reflection (shallow and deep)ResistivityMagnetic surveyGravity surveyGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: YesCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Down-hole drillingPRIMARY SUPPORT: None (brine filled during drilling)PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner for top 850 ft onlyADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Sandstone and siltstone--maximum = 25 lin ftSalt--maximum = 65 lin ftEntire shaft--average = 18.5 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any significanceSUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSIn addition to the drilled shaft described above, the total contract also included a 6-ft-diameter ventilation shaft,

surface development work, and geophysical logging of both shafts. Fenix & Scisson performed this contract on a cost-plus basis as an extension of an existing contract with the Department of Energy. (The firm had already been involvedin the exploration work at the site and was quite familiar with the geology.) Fenix & Scisson served in the role ofgeneral contractor and subcontracted most of the work. They estimated the total contract at $10,207,109. The sum ofthe subcontracts (generally obtained by competitive bid, plus overhead and markup) was $10,361,071 and the finalcontract cost was $10,113,904.

Due to the purpose of this project, the site and surrounding region were extensively investigated for nearly 10years, using both traditional drilling methods and nearly every applicable geophysical method. Although only 2borings are indicated on the abstract as applicable to this shaft, a total of 84 boreholes were available within 5 miles ofthe site. The number of borings on the actual site was deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid damaging the integrityof the potential repository. The exploratory shaft was constructed as planned, with no significant surprises.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

BRUNSWICK SHAFT NO. 3

GENERAL INFORMATIONLOCATION: Bathurst, New Brunswick, CanadaPURPOSE: Metal mine shaftOWNER: Brunswick Mining & Smelting Corporation LtdDESIGNER: V.B. Cook Company Ltd.CONTRACTOR: J.S. Redpath Ltd.CONSTRUCTION START: June 25, 1974CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 1978CONTRACT FORMAT: Target cost plus fixed fee with bonus/penalty incentiveSHAFT CONSTRUCTION COSTSESTIMATED TOTAL: No informationBID TOTAL: $8,647,285 (see notation under Remarks, below)“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $9,112,357 (includes all claims and modifications)SHAFT DATATYPE(S) AND DEPTH(S): Rock = 3,700 lin ft Total depth = 3,700 lin ftLAYOUT: Single vertical shaftSHAPE(S): CircularSIZE(S): 28 ft diameterEXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 616 sq ftDEPTHS: Bottom to surface--maximum = 3,700 lin ftBottom to water table--maximum = +3,680 lin ftGEOLOGY: Rock--1st UnitIdentification/Type: quartz eye schistQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, wide spacingno shear zonesno faulting2nd UnitIdentification/Type: crystal tuffQuality: unweatheredmassivejointing, wide spacaingno shear zonesno faulting3rd UnitIdentification/Type: graphite schistQuality: unweatheredfoliatedjointing, close spacingshear zonesfaultingSITE EXPLORATIONBORINGS: Total number = 12 (drilled horizontally or inclined from mine workings)Total length = 15,127 lin ftBOREHOLE TESTS: NoneLAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression testsEXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Adjacent underground mine workings available for observation

(no cost to shaft contract); no other site exploration information made available to biddersSURFACE MAPPING: YesGEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: NoneGEOTECHNICAL REPORT: NoCONSTRUCTIONMETHOD(S) USED: Raise bore and slashPRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and wire mesh mostly, with immediate cast-in-place concrete in graphite schist


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thickADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 15 lin ftAverage overall = 5.7 lin ftAverage in graphite schist = 3.5 lin ftPROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground--running (in graphite schist)SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,

ETC.)DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTSNoneREMARKSThe builder of this project was expected to work out most of the design/construction details, and financial

arrangements were negotiated from a winning proposal rather than a low bid. In addition to the raise bored and slashedshaft decribed above, the total contract included a separate 7-ft-diameter 3,300-ft-deep “borehole” shaft, 6 minedevelopemnt laterals, and a 13-ft-high by 18-ft-wide ramp excavated from the 2,880-ft level to the 4,300-ft level. Thetotal contract cost plus fee was negotiated at $18,038,062, but finally came in at $20,753,546 (Canadian dollars). Allcosts are affected by the fact that the owner provided the head frame, shaft steel, pipe, rock bolts, wire mesh, waterrings, compressed air, water, power, sewerage, surface preparation, and concrete. Due to deteriorating metal markets,the shaft was stopped at the 3,700-ft level rather than the 4,525-ft design depth. This 825-ft curtailment resulted in asavings of perhaps $400,000 in the cost of the shaft itself. The increase in overall actual costs over the original target isattributable to escalation and some post-bid increases in scope of work. Almost 99 percent of the shaft excavation wentsmoothly in sound rock, with severe construction problems arising (as expected) only in the 43-ft exposure of very softgraphite schist between the 3,510-ft and 3,553-ft depths.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Computer-Based Data Management System

It was apparent at the outset of the effort to collect tunnel case history data that the amount of information likelyto be compiled would reach substantial proportions. This posed several problems:

• How could one sort through the masses of data to distinguish relationships between the key variables?• How could the data be stored in an efficient format so that future records could be added easily?• What system could be used so that key items from the case histories would be transportable?

To respond to these issues it was decided to develop a computer file version of the data and to link this with aprogram which could be used to sort the information based on a set of key words. This report describes how theseproblems were solved and provides illustrations of the use of the final computer-based data management system for thetunnel case history data.

There were three elements to the task at hand. First, a format had to be developed for the case history data whichwas suitable for the computer. Second, each case history had to be condensed into the computer style format andentered into the computer data file. Finally, a system had to be located which could easily manipulate the data fileusing a maximum number of possible key words.

COMPUTER FORMAT FOR CASE HISTORY DATA

The format for the case history data was worked out between personnel at Virginia Tech (Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University) and key members of the team working at the subcommittee level for the U.S. NationalCommittee on Tunneling Technology. The objectives of the format are in some ways contradictory. On the one hand itis desirable to have as much information as possible stored on each case history. On the other hand, too large a database defeats the purpose of the computer file because it becomes unwieldy. Thus, it was necessary to compromise andinclude, in as succinct a fashion as possible, the information believed to characterize most completely the key

COMPUTER-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 181

Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

parameters for each case history. Further, the format had to be designed to be compatible with the data managementprogram described later herein.

Table 1 lists all of the elements of the computer case history format (termed a “file definition”). A completelisting comprises 67 elements, although only rarely would all of them be used for any one case history. However, it isimportant to note that multiple sets of elements can be used for certain key items, such as the descriptions for geology.Thus, if the tunnel encountered five rock types, then data for all five conditions are entered. Similarly for tunnelingconditions and execution parameters, multiple listings may be used because in any given tunnel it is possible that avariety of conditions are encountered and methods of execution vary accordingly.

The descriptors for the format are generally very brief. Where appropriate, a single number is used; for example,tunnel length or advance rates are parameters handled nicely by a single number. Other cases are characterized by asingle word, often in the form of a “yes” or “no” answer. Where more than two alternatives exist for text descriptions,there is typically a prescribed set of words from which one must be chosen. For example, if a tunnel is in sand, thesand is alternatively described as one of the following: very loose, loose, medium, dense, very dense. As will be seensubsequently, when entering data into the system, the control program provides interactive instructions to the userwhich specifically define the alternatives one can apply for the descriptors.

An example of a computer data file is given in Table 2, with the data representing the Laurens Street tunnels ofthe Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System (BRRTS). This is an instructive case because several types of ground wereencountered and tunneling conditions varied from soft ground to mixed face to hard rock. After the basic physicalcharacteristics of the tunnel are defined, the specifics concerning the work in each type of tunnel environment aredocumented. In this instance, the descriptors for tunnel environment are filled out for three different conditions,providing a reasonably complete (albeit condensed) picture of the tunneling project. In a similar manner, the geologicconditions often require multiple listings. Three units are described for the Laurens Street tunnels, but there is no limiton the number one can use. Separate sets of descriptors are also employed for the execution category, providing furtherdefinition of the work in the three tunnel environments. This allows an accounting of alternative forms of tunnelingmethods and support schemes.

Following the entries for the execution category, a series of categories of problems are considered. These includepossible problems with the nature of the soil or rock, water, hazardous elements, and tunneling methods. Finally, thecost data for the project is summarized by a series of numerical entries including estimated, bid, and total cost; percentof overrun; cost of exploration; and claims data.

It should be noted that the final form of the case history format was arrived at only after a series of iterations.Many individuals contributed to this effort. Initially, the format was formulated based on guidelines developed as anoutgrowth of efforts of the


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TABLE 1 Elements Composing the File DefinitionSTRUCTURE ELEMENT NAME ELEMENT TYPE

Project number IntegerProject name Text

Physical-Characteristics: Number-of-TubesTunnel-LengthMax-OverburdenMin-OverburdenMax-Groundwater-LevelMin-Groundwater-Level

IntegerDecimalDecimalDecimalDecimalDecimal

Tunnel-Condition: Type-of-GroundLengthTunnel-ShapeTunnel-HeightTunnel-WidthFace-Area

Word selectionDecimalWord selectionDecimalDecimalDecimal

Exploration: Number-of-BoreholesBorehole-Length

IntegerDecimal

Geology: Unit-NumberIdentificationWeatheredMassive-ThickbeddedFoliated-ThinbeddedJointednessShear-ZonesFaultingMax-StrengthMin-StrengthRelative-DensityConsistency

IntegerTextYes/NoYes/NoYes/NoWord selectionYes/NoYes/NoDecimalDecimalWord selectionWord selection

Execution: ExcavationConstruction-MethodMax-Advance-RateAv-Advance-RatePrimary-Supports

Word selectionTextDecimalDecimalText

Soil/Rock Problems: Blocky-SlabbyRunningFlowingSqueezingSwellingSpalling

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/NoYes/NoYes/NoYes/No

Hazard-Environmental Problems: Noxious-FluidExisting-UtilitiesHigh-TemperatureGas

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/NoYes/No

Excavation-Problems: Hard-AbrasiveMucking-Problems

Yes/NoYes/No

TBM-Problems Soft-BottomFace-Fall-OutGripper-InstabilityRoof-InstabilityPress-Binding

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/NoYes/NoYes/No

Shield-Problems Boulders Yes/NoCompressed-Air-Problems: Blow-Outs

Surface-SettlementsFire

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/No

Costs: Estimated-CostBid-CostTotal-CostPercent-overrunExploration-Cost

TextDecimalDecimalDecimalDecimal

Unit-Quantities: ClaimClaim-SettledTunnel-PriceExplorationUnit-BoreholeUnit-ClaimsUnit-Settled-Claims

TextDecimalDecimalDecimalDecimalDecimalDecimal


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

USNC/TT's Subcommittee on Research. Members of the case history project team then modified this base to bemore consistent with the type of data being obtained in this study. This version was computerized and used for anumber of the first data sets that were available. After a review of results by the project team, further improvementswere suggested and implemented. Following several additional rounds of this process, the final format was derived asis described herein.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CASE HISTORY FORMATS

The first step in the implementation process involved condensing each case history file down to the computerformat. This effort was facilitated by adopting the abstract form of the case history documentation. The abstract formwas patterned to approximately match the computer file. Once the case histories were reduced to abstract form, it wasa relatively easy matter to extract the needed data for the computer format.

To enter the data into the computer, it was necessary to develop a file definition and a format program. Theseprograms are designed to be an integral part of the larger data management program described later herein. The filedefinition program is interactive and is designed for a user to sit at a terminal to enter the case history data. Theprogram, presented in Section 1, basically consists of a set of instructions for the user, explicitly stating how the casehistory data are to be entered. For example, the first statement asks the user to enter the number to be assigned to theproject as well as a text description of the project name or identification. Referring to the Laurens Street sample projectin Table 2, examples of entries of this type are seen.

Subsequent to the project identification, the program sequentially leads the user through the data entries for theentire format. At each stage a specific entry is requested by means of a direct statement. Any special characteristicsrequired for the entry are described in the data request to the user. Thus, the user is told if the entry should benumerical, yes/no, a choice from a specific set of descriptors, or an open text description. In the case of numbers, theuser is told which types of units are appropriate.

Following the entire process of data entry results in a completed case history. Note that the program is unfailinglypolite. After each request it will wait as long as the user desires for a response; also, it consistently says “please”before each request.

The second program written specifically for implementation of the tunnel case history data file is listed inSection 2. This is the format program, and it is used to display the case history information back to the user after it hasall been entered. The format program also serves as the listing tool following searches using the data managementprogram. An example of the output of the format program is provided in Table 2 for the Laurens Street tunnels.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

CASE HISTORY DATA FILE

Using the file definition program, 87 case histories have been entered into the computer file. The data arecomplete insofar as the information available would allow. In some instances, specific items were not obtained duringthe course of the data collection process. Should an item not be available, a listing of the data file will simply not showanything for that particular line.

The original data file is being kept at Virginia Tech on several duplicate computer tapes. It is readily transportablein tape form or as a paper listing. Should future case history data be provided, it can easily be added as needed. Also,the data file can be manipulated so as to adjust project numbers in an alternative fashion if desired. At present, theproject numbers in the computer file are consistent with the order in which the abstracts are presented in this volume.

DATA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

One of the principal tasks of this research effort was to develop a data management tool to allow the user to selectonly a certain subset of the case histories which are pertinent to a specific task. Further, it was considered desirable tohave this operation capable of ranking the subset according to some key parameter. Thus, one might choose to seek outthe case histories involving mixed-face tunnel conditions and rank them in the listing according to percent of costoverrun.

To review the options to accomplish this goal, a study was made of how similar problems are handled in the areaof information science. It rapidly became obvious that the tunnel data subset presented a unique situation. First, eachtunnel case history is characterized by a large quantity of information whereas in library science, where computersearches are common, a book is characterized by a title, author, publisher, and date. However, each tunnel case historyhas 67 elements, and some of these are listed in multiple fashion. Second, as to key words, it is possible that any one ofthe 67 elements stored for the case history could conceivably be useful as a search parameter. Thus, potentially a verylarge number of key words would be required.

The unique aspects of the tunnel case history situation posed a need for a particularly powerful data managementsystem. Discussions with experts in the field led to consideration of a copyrighted program known as SPIRES(Stanford Public Information Retrieval System). Developed at Stanford University in the 1970s, SPIRES is usedextensively (nationally and internationally) for a multitude of purposes. It has been purchased by most majoruniversities and is made available to the university community at large. SPIRES was brought to Virginia Tech in 1981,and regular courses are held to acquaint users with the operation procedures.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

DESCRIPTION OF SPIRES

SPIRES is a large program, requiring approximately 2 megabytes of computer memory. It is designed to handleall types of data efficiently, from numerical values found in administrative and scientific data to lengthy, textual valuessuch as bibliographic data. SPIRES is available in three different modes:

• the online mode, which is optimized for searching and data updating;• the batch mode, which is used normally during non-prime shifts for large searches and reports;• the host language interface mode, through which batch programs in PL/I, COBOL, or other languages may

directly access to SPIRES files.

In SPIRES each collection of data, called a data base, is described by a file definition program. With the filedefinition program in hand, SPIRES can be used to:

• select case histories specified by the users as meeting certain criteria, e.g., having mixed-face conditions,longer than “x” feet, greater than “y” percent cost overrun;

• list all, or part, of a data subset;• rank a data subset according to any identified parameter. Printing information from SPIRES is done via the

format program described previously.

USE OF SPIRES IN THE PROJECT

The primary value of SPIRES was achieved during the course of the project. In a number of cases thesubcommittee requested listings of the projects according to certain formats. With the system in hand and running onthe computer, these requests could be accommodated quickly. Listings were provided ranked by project number,percent cost overrun, and projects with water problems.

EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF SPIRES

To illustrate the use of the data management system, the following descriptions are provided for two differentcases. The data file for the examples consists of the 87 case histories for the project (84 tunnels and 3 shafts).

In the first example, it is assumed that the user desires to isolate the case histories in which problems withsqueezing ground were indicated. The actual set of instructions and computer responses that the user sees on theterminal as the searching session is carried out are shown in Table 3. From these transactions it can be seen thatworking with the SPIRES system requires very little to activate and complete the desired process.

The following is an explanation for each step shown in Table 3.

• Entering SPIRES from the ready mode of CMS is done by typing the command “SPIRES.”


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

• In SPIRES, the command “select tunnel4” gives access to the subfile that contains the data file on 87 projects.• The command “show subfile size” displays the total number of records (tunnel or shaft projects) stored in the

computer (87).• The command “cms 3270” eliminates the assignation of the character (@), which is the delete character under

CMS. (This character will be used in the searching process.)• The command “for subfile where (rock-p@squeez=yes) or (soil-p@squeez=yes)” selects all the projects that

had a problem of squeezing rock or squeezing soil.• The command “sho keys all” displays the project numbers of the 16 cases selected.• The command “sequence project-number (a)” ranks the 16 cases selected according to the project number in

ascending order.

(Note: any numerical parameter in the data file can be used for this ranking.)

• The last commands allow to display and print the active file which contains the results of the searching session.

A printout of the results of the SPIRES session is given in Section 3. As required, all of the projects selected hadeither soil or rock squeezing problems.

The second example is designed to select the tunnel projects that have a length of excavation in mixed-faceconditions of more than 200 ft. The session goes through the steps shown in Table 4 and can be described as follows:

• Enter SPIRES from CMS as in the first example.• Select the subfile “tunnel4” as in the first example.• Search for the tunnel projects which have a mixed-face excavation for a length greater than 200 ft by typing

the command “for subfile where type-ground=mixed-face and @length>200.”• The command “sho keys all” allows the project numbers selected to be displayed on the screen.

The last part of this session is similar to the last part of the first session. The results are displayed and thenprinted, again arbitrarily using project numbers as a ranking parameter. A printout of the results of this SPIRES sessionis given in Section 4.

GENERAL USE OF SPIRES

A self-help guide is given in Section 5 to guide a user through the basic procedure of initiating use of the SPIRESsystem with the tunnel case history information. After SPIRES is called into the computer memory, the two satelliteprograms for file definition and formatting must be compiled within SPIRES. If the user has been working frequentlywith SPIRES, the satellite programs already would have been stored within SPIRES and simply activated through thecommands shown in Section 5. Instructions are also given in Section 5 as to how to add the complete case history datafile, or add to the data file.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TABLE 3 SPIRES Session No. 1R;spires-WELCOME TO SPIRES-3 . . . IF IN TROUBLE, TRY ‘HELP'−>select tunnel4−>show subfile size-The subfile has 87 Records−>cms 3270−>for subfile where (rock-p@squeez=yes) or (soil-p@squeez=yes)+>sho keys all102729323742434445464850525471+>stack all-STACK : 16 RECORDS+>sequence project-number (a)-STACK: 16 RECORDS+>set format display+>in active clear type+>cms browse active file+>print active file

Notes: Lines starting by −, − >, and + > are generated by the computer. A printout of this session is given in Section 3.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TABLE 4 SPIRES Session No. 2R;spires-WELCOME TO SPIRES-3 . . . IF IN TROUBLE, TRY ‘HELP'−>select tunnel4−>cms 3270−>for subfile where type-ground=mixed face and @length 200+>sho keys all249101226296164+>stack all-STACK: 9 RECORDS+>set format display+>sequence project-number (a)-STACK: 9 RECORDS+>in active clear type+>cms browse active file+>print active file

Notes: Lines starting by −, − >, and + > are generated by the computer. A printout of this session is given in Section 4.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

Any computer center which leases SPIRES also has a number of detailed user's manuals on file. These manualsshould be consulted before using the system.

The SPIRES system is leased from Stanford University currently (1984) for $5,000 per year for academicinstitutions and $50,000 per year for others. As noted earlier, SPIRES is already available at many universities, andusually personnel have been trained in its use.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of this subtask of the case history study were to develop a computerized version of the case historyand to provide a means of searching the data on as general a basis as possible. The work in volved several phases.First, a succinct format had to be created which could completely describe the case histories. The format had tocharacterize key variables in terms of single numbers or short, concise text. After a series of iterations with othermembers of the research team, a final format was selected which uses 67 items to define each case history. Some of the67 items allow for multiple entries to account for multiple ground conditions and tunneling procedures.

Next, the basic interview results for each case history had to be taken and condensed to fit the computer casehistory format. This was facilitated when the abstract versions of the case histories were prepared, because the abstractitself used a form similar to that of the computer format.

With the data in hand, the computer system had to be formulated to systematize the massive amount ofinformation at hand and manipulate it as needed for the project. The requirements of the project presented a challengebecause each case history was characterized by such a large number of parameters (67), and it was desirable to be ableto search the file using any one as a key word. The widely used data management program SPIRES was selected basedon the recommendations of authorities in the information science area. In addition to its ideal characteristics to performthe required work, SPIRES was available to the researchers through the Virginia Tech Computing Center at no cost tothe project.

To implement SPIRES for the project, two satellite programs had to be written. The first is designed to define thefiles or provide an interactive means to input the data for the case histories. The second program serves to provide anoutput format for the data.

The SPIRES and satellite programs functioned well. Using them, a computerized data file following the desiredformat was created for all 87 case histories collected for the project. Also, manipulative searches of the data file wereperformed using a variety of key words, and the data was ranked according to a range of parameters.

The system proved to be readily usable and holds considerable potential for further study of the data. Moreover,case history data can easily be added as it becomes available.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SECTION 1 FILE DEFINITION PROGRAM

SUBFILE TUNNEL4REQUIREDKEY PROJECT-NUMBER,PRO-NUM/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE AS + AN INTEGER

NUMBER'/INDEXELEMENT PROJECT-NAME,PRO-NAME/TEXT/OCCURRENCE=1OPTIONALELEMENT PHYSICAL-CHARACT,PH-CH/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=1ELEMENT NUMBER-OF-TUBES,NUM-TUBES/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY ONE + INTEGER'/

SINGLEELEMENT TUNNEL-LENGTH,TUN-LGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY + ONE DECIMAL

NUMBER IN FOOT'/SINGLEELEMENT OVERBURD-MAX,O-MAX/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MAXIMUM +

OVERBURDEN IN FOOT'/SINGLEELEMENT OVERBURD-MIN,O-MIN/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MINIMUM +

OVERBURDEN IN FOOT'/SINGLEELEMENT GROUNDW-MAX,G-MA/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MAXIMUM +

GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN FOOT .USING SIGN PLUS FOR ABOVE THE + CROWN AND SIGN MINUSFOR BELOW'/SINGLE

ELEMENT GROUNDW-MIN,G-MI/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MINIMUM +GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN FOOT .USING SIGN PLUS FOR ABOVE THE + CROWN AND SIGN MINUSFOR BELOW'/SINGLE

ENDELEMENT TUNNEL-CONDITION,T-COND/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=3ELEMENT TYPE-GROUND,T-GD/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE ROCK,SOFT-GROUND, MIXED+ FACE/MSG

‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER ROCK,SOFT-GROUND OR MIXED+ FACE'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT LENGTH,LGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY ONE DECIMAL + NUMBER IN

FOOT'/SINGLEELEMENT TUNNEL-SHAPE,TUN-SHAPE/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE CIRCULAR,HORSESHOE, +

RECTANGULAR,SQUARE,OTHER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER CIRCULAR,OR + HORSESHOE,ORRECTANGULAR,OR SQUARE,OR OTHER'/SINGLE

ELEMENT TUNNEL-HEIGHT,TUN-HEIGHT/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY + ONE DECIMALNUMBER IN FOOT'/SINGLE

ELEMENT TUNNEL-WIDTH,TUN-WIDTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY + ONE DECIMALNUMBER IN FOOT'/SINGLE

ELEMENT FACE-AREA,F-A/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY ONE DECIMAL + NUMBER INSQ. FOOT'/SINGLE

ENDELEMENT EXPLORATION,EXPLO/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=1ELEMENT BOREHOLE-NUMBER,BORE-NUM/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE + INTEGER ONLY'/

SINGLEELEMENT BOREHOLE-LENGTH,BORE-LGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE + DECIMAL

VALUE IN FOOT'/SINGLEEND


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ELEMENT GEOLOGY,GEO/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=4ELEMENT UNIT-NUMBER,UT-NUM/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE INTEGER ONLY + '/SINGLEELEMENT IDENTIFICATION,ID/TEXT/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT WEATHERED,WTD/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/SINGLEELEMENT MASSIVE-THICKBED, M-THICK-BEDDED/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES + OR NO'/SINGLEELEMENT FOLIATED-THINBED,F-THIN-BEDDED/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR + NO'/SINGLEELEMENT JOINTEDNESS,JOINT/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE CLOSE,MODERATE,WIDE/MSG +

‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER CLOSE,MODERATE,OR WIDE'/OCCURRENCE=2ELEMENT SHEAR-ZONES,S-Z/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/SINGLEELEMENT FAULTING,FAU/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/SINGLEELEMENT MAX-STRENGTH,MA-SGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + MAXIMUM VALUE

OF THE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH MEASURED + ON THE INTACT ROCK ANDEXPRESSED IN PSI'/OCCURRENCE =1

ELEMENT MIN-STRENGTH,MI-SGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + MINIMUM VALUE OFTHE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH MEASURED + ON THE INTACT ROCK ANDEXPRESSED IN PSI'/OCCURRENCE=1

ELEMENT RELATIVE DENSITY,REL-DENS/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE VERY-LOOSE, +LOOSE,MEDIUM,DENSE,VERY-DENSE/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER VERY+LOOSE,LOOSE,MEDIUM,DENSE,VERY-DENSE'/OCCURRENCE=2

ELEMENT CONSISTENCY,CONS/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE VERY-SOFT,SOFT,FIRM,STIFF + VERY-STIFF,HARD/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER VERY-SOFT,SOFT,FIRM + STIFF,VERY-STIFF OR HARD'/OCCURRENCE=2

ENDELEMENT EXECUTION,EXEC/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=4ELEMENT EXCAVATION,EX/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE ROCK,SOFT-GROUND,MIXED-FACE/ + MSG

‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER ROCK,SOFT-GROUND, OR MIXED-FACE'/ + SINGLEELEMENT CONSTRUC-METH,CONS-METH/TEXT/INDEX/OCCURRENCE=2ELEMENT MAX-ADV-RATE,MA-A-R/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + MAXIMUM ADVANCE

RATE IN FOOT PER DAY'/SINGLEELEMENT AVE-ADV-RATE,AV-A-R-/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + AVERAGE ADVANCE

RATE IN FOOT PER DAY'/SINGLEELEMENT PRIMARY-SUPPORTS,P-S/TEXT/OCCURRENCE=4ENDELEMENT SOIL-PROBLEMS,SOIL-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT BLOCKY-SLABBY,BLOC-SLAB/YESNO/MSG/ ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT RUNNING,RUN/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT FLOWING,FLOW/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT SQUEEZING,SQUEEZ/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLEELEMENT SWELLING,SWELL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT SPALLING,SPALL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEEND


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ELEMENT ROCK-PROBLEMS,ROCK-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT BLOCKY-SLABBY,BLOC-SLAB/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT RUNNING,RUN/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT FLOWING,FLOW/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT SQUEEZING,SQUEEZ/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLEELEMENT SWELLING,SWELL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT SPALLING,SPALL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT WATER-PROBLEMS,W-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT WATER-INFLOW,W-INFL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT OPERAT-NUISANCE,OP-NUIS/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM,H-E-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT NOXIOUS-FLUID,NOX-F/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT EXISTING-UTILITY,EX-UT/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT HIGH-TEMPERATURE,HIGH-TEMP/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO + '/INDEX/

SINGLEELEMENT GAS,G/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT CLEAN-PROBLEMS,C-PROB/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT HARD-ABRASIVE,H-AB/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLEELEMENT MUCKING,MUCK/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT TBM-PROBLEMS,T-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT SOFT-BOTTOM,S-BOT/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLEELEMENT FACE-FALL-OUT,F-F-OUT/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT GRIPPER-INSTAB,GRIP-INS/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT ROOF-INSTAB,R-INS/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLEELEMENT PRESS-BINDING,P-BIND/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/+ INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT SHIELD-PROBLEMS,S-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT BOULDER,BOU/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEEND


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

ELEMENT COMP-AIR-PROBLEM,C-A-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT BLOW-OUTS,B-O/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT SURFACE-SETTLEM, S-SET/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT FIRE,F/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT COSTS,CO/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT ESTIMATED-COST,EST-COST/TEXT/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM

OR NA IF NOT AVAILABLE'/SINGLEELEMENT BID-COST,B-COST/DECIMAL 12.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM'/

INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT TOTAL-COST,T-COST/DECIMAL 12.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL

FORM'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT PERCENT-OVERRUN,P-OVERRUN/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + VALUE IN

DECIMAL FORM'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT EXPLORATION-COST,EXPLO-COST/DECIMAL 12.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER + THE VALUE IN

DECIMAL FORM'/INDEX/SINGLEENDELEMENT UNIT-QUANTITIES,U-Q/STRUCTURE/SINGLEELEMENT CLAIM,CL/TEXT/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN DECIMAL FORM OR + NA IF NOT

AVAILABLE'/SINGLEELEMENT CLAIM-SETTLED,CL-SET/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE + IN DECIMAL

FORM'/SINGLEELEMENT TUNNEL,TUN/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM'/INDEX/

SINGLEELEMENT EXPLORATION,EXPLO/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL

FORM'/SINGLEELEMENT UNIT-BOREHOLE,U-BORE/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE + DECIMAL VALUE IN

FOOT PER FOOT'/SINGLEELEMENT UNIT-CLAIMS,U-CL/DECIMAL/10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM'/

INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT UNIT-SETT-CLAIMS,U-SET-CL/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + VALUE IN

DECIMAL FORM'/INDEX/SINGLEELEMENT UNIT-SETT-CLAIM2,U-SET-C2/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER + PERCENTAGE AS THE

RATIO OF SETTLED CLAIMS PER TUNNEL BID'/ + INDEX/SINGLEENDEND


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SECTION 2 FORMAT PROGRAM

ID=TUNEL:FORMATFILE=TUNEL:TUNNEL4RECORD-NAME=RECO1FRAME-ID=GOAL;DIRECTION=OUTPUTFRAME-DIM=200,100;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=PROJECT-NUMBER:GETELEM;TITLE=‘PROJECT NUMBER:';TSTART =X+1,1;START =*,31;PUTDATA:LABEL=PROJECT-NAME;GETELEM:TITLE=‘PROJECT NAME';TSTART=X+1,1;MARGINS=31,70;MAXROWS=3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;IND-STRUCTURE=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;IND-FRAME=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘PHYSICAL CHARACT:';TSTART=10,1;LABEL=TUNNEL-CONDITION;IND-STRUCTURE=TUNNEL-CONDITION;IND-FRAME=TUNNEL-CONDITION;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘TUNNEL CONDITION:';TSTART=X=1,1;LOOP=2;LABEL=EXPLORATION;IND-STRUCTURE=EXPLORATION;IND-FRAME=EXPLORATION;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘GROUND EXPLORATION:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=GEOLOGY;IND-STRUCTURE=GEOLOGY;IND-FRAME=GEOLOGY;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘GEOLOGY:';TSTART=X+1,1;LOOP=3;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LABEL=EXECUTION;IND-STRUCTURE=EXECUTION;IND-FRAME=EXECUTION;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘EXECUTION:';TSTART=X=1,1;LOOP=3;LABEL=SOIL-PROBLEMS;IND-STRUCTURE=SOIL-PROBLEMS;IND-FRAME=SOIL-PROBLEMS;DEFAULT-‘ ';TITLE=‘UNSTAB. SOIL PROB.:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=ROCK PROBLEMS;IND-STRUCTURE=ROCK-PROBLEMS;IND-FRAME=ROCK-PROBLEMS;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘UNSTAB. ROCK PROB.:';TSTART=X=1,1;LABEL=WATER-PRBLEMS;IND-STRUCTURE=WATER-PRBLEMS;IND-FRAME=WATER-PRBLEMS';DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘WATER PROBLEMS:';TSTART=X=1,1;LABEL=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;IND-STRUCTURE=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;IND-FRAME=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘HAZARD. ENVIR. PROBLEMS:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;IND-STRUCTURE=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;IND-FRAME=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘COMMON PROBLEMS:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=TBM-PROBLEMS;IND-STRUCTURE=TBM-PROBLEMS;IND-FRAME=TBM-PROBLEMS;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘TBM-PROBLEMS:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;IND-STRUCTURE=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;IND-FRAME=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;DEFAULT=‘ ';


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TITLE=“SHIELD-PROBLEMS:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;IND-STRUCTURE=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;IND-FRAME=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘COMP AIR PROBLEMS:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=COSTS;IND-STRUCTURE=COSTS;IND-FRAME=COSTS;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘COSTS:';TSTART=X+1,1;LABEL=UNIT-QUANTITIES;IND-STRUCTURE=UNIT-QUANTITIES;IND-FRAME=UNIT-QUANTITIES;DEFAULT=‘ ';TITLE=‘UNIT QUANTITIES:';TSTART=X+1,1;FRAME-ID=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=NUMBER-OF-TUBES;GETELEM;TITLE=‘NUMBER OF TUBES:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=TUNNEL LENGTH;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TUNNEL LENGTH:'; FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=OVERBURD-MAX:GETELEM;TITLE=‘MINIMUM OVERBURDEN: FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;

LABEL=OVERBURD-MIN;GETELEM;TITLE=‘MINIMUM OVERBURDEN: FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31,;PUTDATA;LABEL=GROUNDW-MAX;GETELEM;TITLE=‘MAX. GROUNDWATER POS.:FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LABEL=GROUNDW-MIN;GETELEM;TITLE=‘MIN. GROUNDWATER POS.:FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=TUNNEL-CONDITION;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=TUNNEL-CONDITION;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=TYPE-GROUND;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TYPE OF GROUND:';TSTART=X=1,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=LENGTH;GETELEM;TITLE=‘LENGTH, FT:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=TUNNEL-SHAPE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TUNNEL SHAPE:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=TUNNEL-HEIGHT;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TUNNEL HEIGHT: FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=TUNNEL-WIDTH;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TUNNEL WIDTH: FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=FACE-AREA;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FACE AREA: SQUARE FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA:LABEL=FRAME-ID=EXPLORATION;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SUBTREE=EXPLORATION;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=BOREHOLE-NUMBER;GETELEM;TITLE=‘BOREHOLE NUMBER:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=BOREHOLE-LENGTH;GETELEM;TITLE=‘BOREHOLE LENGTH: FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=GEOLOGY;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=GEOLOGY;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=UNIT-NUMBER;GETELEM;TITLE=‘UNIT NUMBER:';TSTART=X+1,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=IDENTIFICATION:GETELEM;TITLE==‘IDENTIFICATION:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=WEATHERED;GETELEM;TITLE=‘WEATHERED ROCK:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA:LABEL=MASSIVE-THICKBED;GETELEM;TITLE=‘MASSIVE,THICK BED.:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;

LABEL=FOLIATED-THINBED;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FOLIATED,THIN BED.:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=JOINTEDNESS;GETELEM;TITLE=‘JOINTEDNESS:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

PUTDATA;LOOP=1;LABEL=SHEAR-ZONES;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SHEAR ZONES:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=FAULTING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FAULTING:';TSTART-X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=MAX-STRENGTH;GETELEM:TITLE=MAXIMUM STRENGTH: PSI';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=MIN-STRENGTH;GETELEM;TITLE=‘MINIMUM STRENGTH: PSI';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=RELATIVE-DENSITY;GETELEM;TITLE=‘RELATIVE DENSITY:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LOOP=1;LABEL=CONSISTENCY;GETELEM;TITLE=‘CONSISTENCY:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LOOP=1;FRAME-ID=EXECUTION;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=EXECUTION;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=EXCAVATION;GETELEM;TITLE=‘EXCAVATION COND.:';


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TSTART=X+1,3START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=CONSTRUC-METH.;GETELEM;TITLE=‘CONSTRUCTION METHOD:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LOOP=1;LABEL=MAX-ADV-RATEGETELEM;TITLE=‘MAX. ADV. RATE: FT/DAY';TSTART=X,6;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=AVE-ADV-RATE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘AV. ADV. RATE: FT/DAY';TSTART=X,6;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=PRIMARY-SUPPORTS;GETELEM;TITLE=‘PRIMARY SUPPORTS:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LOOP=3;FRAME-ID=SOIL-PROBLEMS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=SOIL-PROBLEMS;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=BLOCKY-SLABBY;GETELEM;TITLE=‘BLOCKY SLABBY:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=RUNNING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘RUNNING SOIL:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;

PUTDATA;LABEL=FLOWING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FLOWING SOIL:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SQUEEZING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SQUEEZING SOIL:';


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SWELLING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SWELLING SOIL:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SPALLING;GETELEM:TITLE=‘SPALLING SOIL:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA:FRAME-ID=ROCK-PROBLEMS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=ROCK-PROBLEMS;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=BLOCKY-SLABBY;GETELEM;TITLE=‘BLOCKY SLABBY:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=RUNNING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘RUNNING ROCK:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=FLOWING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FLOWING ROCK:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SQUEEZING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SQUEEZING ROCK:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SWELLING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SWELLING ROCK:';TSTART=X,3;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SPALLING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SPALLING ROCK:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=WATER-PRBLEMS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=WATER-PRBLEMS;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=WATER-INFLOW;GETELEM;TITLE=‘WATER INFLOW:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=OPERAT-NUISANCE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘NUISANCE:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=NOXIOUS-FLUID;GETELEM;TITLE=‘NOXIOUS FLUID:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=EXISTING-UTILITY;GETELEM;TITLE=‘EXISTING UTILITY:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=HIGH-TEMPERATURE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘HIGH TEMPERATURE:';

TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=GAS;GETELEM;TITLE=‘GAS:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;USAGE=DISPLAY;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LABEL=HARD-ABRASIVE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘HARD ABRASIVE:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=MUCKING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘MUCKING:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA:FRAME-ID=TBM-PROBLEMS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=TBM-PROBLEMS;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=SOFT-BOTTOM;GETELEM:TITLE=‘SOFT BOTTOM:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=FACE-FALL-OUT;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FACE FALL OUT:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=GRIPPER-INSTAB;GETELEM;TITLE=GRIPPER:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=ROOF-INSTAB;GETELEM:TITLE=‘ROOF INSTABILITY:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=PRESS-BINDING;GETELEM;TITLE=‘PRESS BINDING:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SUBTREE=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=BOULDER;GETELEM;TITLE=‘OBSTRUCTIONS:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=BLOW-OUTS;GETELEM;TITLE=‘BLOW-OUT:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=SURFACE-SETTLEM;GETELEM;TITLE=‘SURFACE SETTLEMENT:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=FIRE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘FIRE:';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=COSTS;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=COSTS;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=ESTIMATED-COST;GETELEM;TITLE=‘ESTIMATED COST: $';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=BID-COST;GETELEM;TITLE=‘BID COST: $';TSTART=X,3;

START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=TOTAL-COST;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TOTAL COST: $';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

LABEL=PERCENT-OVERRUN;GETELEM;TITLE=‘PERCENT OVERRUN: %';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=EXPLORATION-COST;GETELEM;TITLE=‘EXPLORATION COST: $';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FRAME-ID=UNIT-QUANTITIES;DIRECTION=OUTPUT;SUBTREE=UNIT-QUANTITIES;USAGE=DISPLAY;LABEL=CLAIM;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TOTAL CLAIMS: $';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=CLAIM-SETTLED;GETELEM;TITLE=‘CLAIM SETTLEMENT: $';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=TUNNEL;GETELEM;TITLE=‘TUNNEL PRICE: $/CU.YD';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=EXPLORATION;GETELEM;TITLE=‘EXPLOR. PRICE: $/CU.YD';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=UNIT-BOREHOLE;GETELEM;TITLE=‘UNIT BOREHOLE: FT/FT';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=UNIT-CLAIMS;GETELEM;TITLE=‘CLAIM: $/CU.YD';


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=UNIT-SETT-CLAIMS;GETELEM;TITLE=‘UNIT SET. CLAIMS:$/CU.YD';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;LABEL=UNIT-SETT-CLAIM2;GETELEM;TITLE=‘UNIT SET. CLAIMS: %';TSTART=X,3;START=*,31;PUTDATA;FORMAT-ID=DISPLAY;FRAME=UNIT-QUANTITIES;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=COSTS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=TBM-PROBLEMS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=WATER-PRBLEMS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=ROCK-PROBLEMS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=SOIL-PROBLEMS;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=EXECUTION;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=GEOLOGY;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=EXPLORATION;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT:FRAME=TUNNEL-CONDITIONS:FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;FRAME=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT:FRAME=GOAL;FRAME-TYPE=DATA


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SECTION 3 RESULTS OF SEARCHING SESSION FOR CASES WITH SQUEEZING GROUND


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SECTION 4


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

RESULTS OF SEARCHING SESSION FOR CASES IN MIXED FACE


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SECTION 5

This section goes through some of the basic procedures of initiating use of the SPIRES system with the projectcase history information. The first session allows to enter in SPIRES while in CMS. The subsequent sessions, 2through 7, are generated while in SPIRES.

The lines starting with −, −>, +>, :−>, *, and ? are generated by the computer. The remarks in parentheses andthe notes accompanying each session are not generated during the computer sessions. They are comments added toexplain or clarify the sessions.

1. To get into SPIRES from CMSR;spires-WELCOME TO SPIRES-3 . . . IF IN TROUBLE, TRY ‘HELP'−>

2. To compile or recompile the File Definition Program−>copy tunnel4 file a input file a−>enter file definer*ENTERING FILE DEFINER:−>set active input file a:−>input active quiet:−>set active output file a:−>generate-OK to CLEAR ?yes:−>select filedef:−>add (program added for the first time)oraddupd (program has been added previously but has been subjected to changes and needs to be updated):−>spicomp-WELCOME TO SPICOMP?compile tunel:tunnel4 (program compiled for the first time)orrecompile tunel:tunnel4 (program already compiled but needs to be recompiled because it has been

subjected to changes)


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

SELF-HELP GUIDE

-File Definition Compiledspires (allows to go back to SPIRES)−>

Note: “tunnel4 file a” is a CMS file which contains the File Definition Program, the listing for which is given in Section 1;“tunel:tunnel4” is the user identification of the File Definition Program.

A SPIRES user wishing to compile the File Definition Program received on a tape would follow exactly the sameprocedure as given above. The user would first create a CMS file named “tunnel4 file a” in the session containing theFile Definition Program and would follow step by step the session to have the File Definition Program compiled.

Every time a change is made to the File Definition Program through that CMS file, the File Definition Programmust be recompiled according to the preceding procedure.

3. To add the Format Program to the existing SPIRES formats−>copy from file a input file a−>set active input file a−>select formats−>add (program added for the first time)oraddupd (program has been added previously but has been subjected to changes and needs to be updated)−>call spicomp-WELCOME TO SPICOMP?format tunel:format-Format compiledspires (allows to return to SPIRES)−>

Note: “form file a” is a CMS file which contains the Format Program, the listing of which is given in Section 2;“tunel;format” is the user identification of the Format Program.

A SPIRES user wishing to compile the Format Program received on a tape would follow exactly the sameprocedure given above. The user would first create a CMS file named “form file a” in the session containing theFormat Program and would follow step by step the session to have the Format Program compiled.

Every time a change is made to the Format Program through that CMS file, the Format Program must berecompiled according to the preceding procedure.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

4. To add or merge a record using the format $prompt−>select tunnel4−>set format $prompt−>add (if a record is to be added)ormerge (if a record is to be merged)

Note: “tunnel4” is the name of the subfile which contains the tunnel records. As mentioned previously, 87 records have beenstored in the computer. These records have been added or merged according to the procedure given above. To get out of$prompt format during the process of adding or merging a record and to disregard at the same time the data entered for thatparticular record, type /x” and hit return.

Any record which has been added or merged according to the procedure given above must be processed followingthe procedure under 5, below.

5. To process records entered with the $prompt format−>spibild-WELCOME TO SPIBILD?process tunnel4

Note: “tunnel4” is the subfile name.

6. To process records which are in a CMS file−>call spibild?use tunnel4 alldata a?batch tunnel4

Note: “tunnel4 alldata a” is the file name, file type, and file mode of the CMS file which contains the records to process. Thisprocedure allows to process large series of records which have been generally merged in the CMs file “tunnel4 alldata a.”

A SPIRES user wishing to add a series of records received on a tape would follow the same procedure as givenabove. The user would first create a CMS file named “tunnel4 alldata a” in the session containing all the records to beadded and would follow step by step the session to have the series of records added and processed at the same time.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

7. To remove a record which has been processed−>select tunnel4−>remove 36−>

Note: “tunnel4” is the name of the subfile which contains the tunnel records. The preceding session will erase the project-number 36 with all the data it contains from the file where all the records have been stored.


Abou

t thi

s PD

F fil

e: T

his

new

dig

ital r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

orig

inal

wor

k ha

s be

en re

com

pose

d fro

m X

ML

files

cre

ated

from

the

orig

inal

pap

er b

ook,

not

from

the

orig

inal

type

setti

ng fi

les.

Pag

e br

eaks

are

true

to th

e or

igin

al; l

ine

leng

ths,

wor

d br

eaks

, hea

ding

sty

les,

and

oth

er ty

pese

tting

-spe

cific

form

attin

g, h

owev

er, c

anno

t be

reta

ined

, and

som

e ty

pogr

aphi

c er

rors

may

hav

e be

en a

ccid

enta

lly in

serte

d. P

leas

eus

e th

e pr

int v

ersi

on o

f thi

s pu

blic

atio

n as

the

auth

orita

tive

vers

ion

for a

ttrib

utio

n.

geotechnical site investigations for underground projects2

Documents