Geotechnical Investigations for Tunneling and Underground

Construction Projects, Recommended Considerations Based

on Recent Case Histories

Jamal Rostami, PhD, PE

Hadden / Alacer Gold Endowed Chair
Director of Earth Mechanics Institute
Department of Mining Engineering

rostami@[Link]
1. Introduction

2. Difference between Tunnel Gotech and

Other applications

3. Tunneling applications,
Methods / Machines

4. Some Case Histories

5. Site Investigation for Tunneling

6. Summary
 Tunneling and Underground Space
3

• The use of Tunneling is on the rise on a worldwide

basis due to
– Urbanization,
• Mass transits i.e. Subway, road tunnels
• Water and sewer
• Utility corridors
• Living space, Parking, etc.
– Water management
– Road, Rail, high speed rail
– Storage, oil/gas/water, Other
– Defense and Misc.
 Will we move to denser
4
sustainable urban use?
1. Denser urban use more typical of urban
areas developed prior to the car
2. Sprawling, less dense cities, more typical
of urban areas developed with cars
3. Does sustainability suggests this will
change?

surface

Source: Priscilla Nelson

 Recent Development in Urbanized life

• When density, climate, or topography induce use

People go underground when uses they desire

fit best underground, when severe climate
makes the underground desirable, and when
earth form (hillsides) create easily exploited
opportunities. Most uses have been
transportation, parking, shopping

Source: Priscilla Nelson

 Underground Master Plan
6

• Helsinki
 In the UK
7

Organizations are mandated (and funded) to use

geographic information to improve knowledge of their
assets in order to
• reduce costs
• ensure regulatory and legislative compliance
• increase customers’ satisfaction
• deliver better services
• communicate more effectively

Source: Priscilla Nelson

 Applications

• Underground Parking
• Austria
 Utilidor
9

• Amsterdam under the Mahlerlaan

 APPLICATIONS

• Underground Stadium
Caverns
 Stormwater management and road
11
tunnel (Smart) Kuala lampur
 APPLICATIONS

• Railroad Tunnels
 APPLICATIONS

• Underground
Oil Storage
 Difference between Tunneling and
14
other Construction Works
• In typical construction the structure is ON the
ground,
– Mostly dealing with foundations on soil or rock
• In tunneling, the structure is IN the ground for the
entire length
– Dealing with variations in geology/lithology
– Variability is given, but alignment is mostly unknown
except for locations where borings are available, often at
high intervals
• Critical to educate owners/public about this issue
 Selection of tunneling method
15

• Based on stability of the ground

– Roof and walls
• Stable ground, standing on its own or for sufficient time
to install suitable support
• Unstable ground  shielded tunneling
– Face
• Stable face,  Open face
• Unstable face,  Shielded
– Groundwater conditions  Pressurized face
Roof
Walls Face Direction of advance
Machine Selection
General classification scheme for tunnelling machines (AITES / ITA, Working Group No.14).

TBMs
Shields
Closed
Face
Conventional Tunneling by
Drill and Blast

Atlas Copco Face Drilling Manual

Drilling Equipment

Atlas Copco Face Drilling Manual

Ground Control, Roof Bolting
Equipment
• Jackleg / Jumbo Drills

Atlas Copco Face Drilling Manual

 Ground Support

• This goes along with Rock Mass Classification

systems RMR or Q

Atlas Copco Face Drilling Manual4

Shotcrete
 Ground Support
• Final Lining, Cast In Place (CIP) concrete

Atlas Copco Face Drilling Manual

Partial Face Machine, Roadheader
TBM Selection

2.5-14.4

2.5-15.8
 Machine selection as a function of rock mass

• Function of Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Two Pass

One Pass Systems

Tunneling by a Main Beam TBM
Main Beam TBM, single grippers
Double-Shield TBM
Shielded TBMs
Single Shield, Open Type
Tunneling by a Shielded TBM
 Closed Face Shield, Face Support

Pressure Exceed
Match

Compressed
Air

Earth
Slurry
Pressure

Pressure
Pressure Match
Match
Pressure Match
Closed Face Shield Selection
Function of Soil Type

Slurry
EPB EPB
Slurry TBM
EPB Machine
Case Histories
Sequential Excavation Method (SEM)

5 1 5

3 6 2 6 3

7 8 8 7
4
 Challenges
38

• Crossing of Metro line and station, within 3 ft of the

crown
• Close proximity to buildings and active traffic above
• Small footprint for shafts and portals
• Highly variable ground with cobles and boulders
• Shallow depth and changing slopes
• Existence of ancient water conduits (Qanats) and
possibility of flash floods at the face
• Leaky old water lines along the tunnel
 Crossing of Subway Station

Intersecting Station in
• North

• Middle

• South
 Twin Peaks Tunnel, Colorado Spring, CO
40

• Constructed in early 1990’s, Morrison Knudsen

• Small 12 ft (3.5 m) diameter tunnel constructed by
TBM, ~4-5 miles
• Rock type, Granite /Pegmatite,
• Low penetration and advance rate
• High cutting forces, in pegmatite
• Claim for differing site conditions (DSC) for rock
being harder than indicated in geotec.
 Boston Outfall Tunnel
41

• 10 mile of 26.5 ft diameter tunnel, lined with segmental lining

• Double Shield TBM was used by Kiewit-Atkinson-Kenny JV
• Geology, mainly argillite, at depth of ~200 ft under the
Atlantic Ocean, staring from a shaft in Deer Island
• DSC claim for penetration (got 9 ft/hr instead of expected 15
fr/hr), low penetration attributed to rock anisotropy
• DSC for excessive grouting
 Queens Tunnel, New York City
42

• 5 mile long, 23 2 ́ ̋ wide, and ~700 ́ deep

tunnel through igneous/granitic rock.
• Contactor was Kiewiet-Shea
• Low penetration rates claim (~6 /́ hr [actual]
vs. ~9 /́ hr [anticipated]) attributed to
changed rock mass conditions, high-grade
metamorphism of the rocks
• In other words, harder than expected rock but
broken ground with frequent shear zones.

• Earlier tunnel in
Queens by Shiavone –
Shea had a claim for
excessive cutter cost
Merguerian, Charles (primary); Ozdemir, Levent
RETC-2003
 Symour Capilano Twin Tunnels in
Vancouver, BC
43

• Twin tunnel for Raw and Treated Water from

the dam to treatment plant and back
• 7 km each, 3.8 m (~13ft) dia. ~300-600 m deep
• Mainly granite and igneous rocks, some areas
with weathered granite
• Spalling and rock falls due to stress
concentrations at 5 & 11 O’clock position
• High in situ horizontal stresses of about 2-3.5
time vertical/gravitational stress
• Work was interrupted by rock burst!
• 1st Contractor stopped due to safety concerns
and was terminated,
• 2nd contactor completed the job.
• Over ~$100 in Claims

Source: Tunnel Talk

 The St Gotthard Base Tunnel in the Alps
44

• Total Tunnel Length

– Nominal length 57.1 km
– System length 151.8 km
– TBM 98.1 km
– Conventional 53.7 km
• Boring diameter
– 8.8 / 9.4 / 9.5 / 11
• Overburden(min-max)
– 100 – 2’350 m
• Characterization scheme
– 2 single track tubes, connected with crosslinks every 312.5
– 2 multifunction stations
– 3 acceess galleries
– 2 vertical shafts (800 m)
– 1 bypass gallery
– 1 inclined ventilation shaft
 The St Gotthard Base Tunnel in the Alps
45

• Main issue in this project was the In-situ

stress and ground sqeezing
• Designed for up to 3 ft (~1m) of ground
convergence
• Open type TBMs used for excavation,
this allowed for convergence without
entrapment of the shielded machines
 GHOMRUD PROJECT, IRAN

• Overall Tunnel length: >50 km

• Broken into lots I-IV 9 km each + 14 km in
lot #V
• Lots IV, III, and part of II excavated by
Double Shield TBM for the length of
24+450 m
• TBM manufacturer: WIRTH Co.
• Diameter: 4.5 m (OD) 3.8 m (ID)
• Support: Hexagonal Segmental lining
• Start of excavation: Spring 2004
• End of excavation: Spring 2009
 Convergence & TBM jamming
Severe Squeezin
Squeezing
g
TBM Jamming due to Squeezing

New cutters 4,525 mm

Boring diameter Worn-out cutters 4,495 mm
With new cutters 65 mm
Over cut over cutter head
shield With worn-out 35 mm
cutters
Front shield diameter Outer diameter 4,460 mm
Tail shield diameter Outer diameter 4,380 mm

Max over cut measured at the tail shield 145 mm

 Zagros long tunnel
49

 The Zagros tunnel is the largest water transfer project in western Iran
situated within the Zagros mountain range
 The second lot of tunnel is approximately 26 km long and 6.73 m in
diameter, currently under construction using a double shield (DS) TBM
 The tunnel passes through a variety of sedimentary rock formations with
frequent changes in rock mass qualities from poor to very good
 The machine encountered many adverse geologic conditions, all of which
resulted in reduced TBM utilization
Machine diameter 6,730 mm
Number of cutters 42
Cutter diameter 432 mm (17”)
Average cutter spacing 90 mm
Cutterhead torque 4,747 kNm
Thrust force 29,038 kN
Rotational speed 0-9 rpm
 Geology
50
 Gas emission incident in Zagros long tunnel
51

 The toxic hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and explosive methane (CH4) are the
gases mainly encountered along the tunnel route
 The gas origin was existing sulfide minerals and in particular Pyrite and
also natural gas and oil bearing formations along the tunnel alignment which
are known as the typical host of oil reservoirs in western Iran
 Seepage of black tarry liquids into tunnel is an indicator of existing oil
(gas)-bearing formations
 The gas is highly soluble in water and is often brought into the tunnel by
seepage, where it is then released into the atmosphere
 Gas emission incident in Zagros long tunnel
52

320 900
300
H2S discharge
280 800
260
700
240
220
600
200
180 500

Water discharge (lit/S)

H2S(ppm)

160
140 400
120
300
100
80
200
60
40 100
20
0 0
87.07.01

87.07.11

87.07.21

87.08.01

87.08.11

87.08.21

87.09.1

87.09.11

87.09.21

87.10.1

87.10.11

87.10.21

87/11/01

87/11/11

87/11/21
Gas concentration changes with water inflow rate
 53
H2S (ppm)

0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
23-Jul-07
28-Jul-07
2-Aug-07
7-Aug-07
12-Aug-07
17-Aug-07
22-Aug-07
H2S gas (ppm)

27-Aug-07
1-Sep-07
6-Sep-07
11-Sep-07
16-Sep-07
Utilization (%)

21-Sep-07
26-Sep-07
1-Oct-07
6-Oct-07

Gas concentration vs TBM utilization

11-Oct-07
16-Oct-07
21-Oct-07
26-Oct-07
31-Oct-07
5-Nov-07
10-Nov-07
15-Nov-07
20-Nov-07
Difficult ground conditions and TBM utilization

25-Nov-07
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

Utilization (%)
 Gas emission related problems
54

• Health and Safety problems

and hazards
• Difficult working conditions for
tunnel crew
• 2 Fatalities due to negligence
by the crew
 Oma-Uya Project, Sri Lanka

• Components:
– 2 dams
– 4 km transfer tunnel
– 15 km Headrace Tunnel
– Surge Shaft,
– Drop Shaft
– Powerhouse
– Access tunnels
– 4 km Tailrace tunnel
– Misc. Access or
maintenance facilities
Uma Oya Multipurpose Project
 Powerhouse

• Underground Powerhouse/Transformer
- Excavation Finished:
January 4th, 2016
Headrace Tunnel - Outlet
 Headrace Tunnel
• Disc cutter wear in hard abrasive rocks
Headrace Tunnel,
• Flooding and Water Issues
 Escandida Project, Chile
61

• 3 Microtunnels, 2.5 m (~8 ft)diameter, with total length of

1750m, from shore to Pacific Ocean
• Complex geology, including fresh/weathered igneous rocks,
Diorite and Gabbro, lumped into competent and weathered
• Highly jointed rock, no joint set specified
• Penetration rate claim due to low penetration, attributed to
harder rock than reported,
 Seattle, Northgate tunnel project
62

• Typical Subway tunnel, ~20 ft Dia (6.3m),

twin bore, in soft ground,
• 4.2-mile extension adds to the recently
completed University Link tunnels running
3.2 miles
• Geology: various soils, sand, silty sand, clay. .
. Under groundwater table,  pressurized
face
• Two machines, one by Robbins one by
Hitachi Zosen
• Tunnels are completed,
• Wear on the tools and cutterhead
• Issues with ground freezing for cross
passages, and resulting heave
 Seattle, Univesity Link and
63
Northgate tunnel project
• Wear of cutterhead and tools due to soil abrasivity and
Boulders
 Seattle, SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct
64
Replacement
• Twin-deck highway with a world record-breaking
17.4-m (57.3-ft) bored tunnel, Nearly 3.2 km (2
miles)
• Largest EPB machine in the world
• Tunnel is lined with segmental lining
• Geology: mainly sandy/silt soil/fill plus cobles &
boulders, under water table
• Passing under the existing viaduct, high rises of
downtown Seattle, close to Seattle fish market,
aquarium, and the ferry terminal
 Seattle, SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct
65
Replacement

Source: TunnelTalk
 Seattle, SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct
66
Replacement

• Boring started in Sept. 2013,

• Machine advanced ~1000 ft encountered problems with
the main bearing, had to stop
• Difficult soil conditioning to regulate the flow due to high
water pressure and sandy soil
• A rescue shaft was constructed to remove the cutterhead
and head support
• Replaced the bearing/ head repair in 2014-15
• Restarted in Jan 2016, almost 3500 ft (1100 m) completed,
• Faster tunneling in clay and fine soil
Site Investigation
 CHALLENGES IN USE OF AVAILABLE
SPACE
68

Laying a Water Main in

Hampstead 1851

Underground New York

City – turn of the century
Composite Utility Plan
 Site Investigation
71

• Soil boring, delineation of soil/rock or Top of Rock

interface
• Trenches, sampling shafts (for boulders), . . .
• Core logging
• Lab Tests
– Soil, Rock, Groundwater
• In situ Testing
– Groundwater table monitoring, Slug/Pump tests. ..
– Borehole logging, Optical/Sonic televiewer
– Dilatometer, Pressure meter tests
– In-situ stress measurements
 Laboratory Soil Testing
• Sieve •Permeability
• Hydrometer •USCS
• Density /Specific •Compressive Strength UU
Gravity •Compressive Strength CIU
• Atterberg Limits •Organic Content
• Water Content •Salinity
• Compaction •Clay Minerals
• PH measurement •Shear Tests
•Soil Abrasion testing
 Soil Abrasion
73

• Typically a non-issue in geotech investigation

• Very critical to tunneling due to implications of tool change under
hyperbaric conditions, high cost, risk, and safety issues
• Relatively new, no standard testing, still under study.

Damp Soil
(7-10% WC)
Dry Soil

Saturated Soil
 Proposed Soil Abrasion Testing
System
Rostami, J., Alavi Gharahbagh, E., Palomino, A.M., Mosleh, M., 2012. Development of Soil Abrasivity Testing for Soft
74 Ground Tunneling Using Shield Machines, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology Journal, Volume 28, pp. 245-256.


The
A whole
unique testing
assembly deviceon was
is mounted a drill
designed
press with and built
a 5 hp specifically
drive for press
unit. The drill this
allows
study. for various rpm settings down to 60
rpm.
The chamber is constructed as a
The
pressurized chamber
proposed testhaving
devicetheconsists
capability 450 mm
of aperforming
of cylindricaltests under (14
chamber ambient
in
pressures and
of up 18
to 10
diameter inbar.
length, 350×450 350 mm
mm ) where the in-situ conditions of
the soil can be simulated.

The chamber dimensions were

selected to allow for soils potentially
containing large gravel size particles,
to simulate the in-situ conditions of
the soil as closely as possible and
avoid altering grain size distribution
as in some other tests
 Proposed Soil Abrasion Testing Method
Rostami, J., Alavi Gharahbagh, E., Palomino, A.M., Mosleh, M., 2012. Development of Soil Abrasivity Testing for Soft Ground
Tunneling Using Shield Machines, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology Journal, Volume 28, pp. 245-256.

75
In order to avoid severe wear on the blades and also allow for more
accurate measurement of the weight loss on the tools, the blades are
fitted with steel covers.
The propeller, which is intended
to create maximum contact forces 150 mm

with the soil, is attached to a

drive shaft and rotates inside the
cylindrical chamber.

The propeller has three blades

with the radius of 150 mm.
The covers weigh much less than the blades and can be easily
removed and weighed using a high-precision scale and provide
This leaves an annular space of
protection to the blade.
about 12 mm between the edge
of the propeller blades and the
walls of the chamber that allows
for limited material flow inside
the chamber.
 Study of the Effect of Soil Conditioning on Soil abrasion
Alavi Gharahbagh, E., Rostami, J., Talebi, K., Ibarra, J., 2013. Experimental and Practical Study of Impact of Soil Conditioning on
Soil Abrasion and Cutter Wear of EPB TBMs, RETC Conference, June 23-26, Washington, DC.
76
25
Soil Conditioning Tests on Silica sand
20 Silica sand, Dry
Weight Loss (g)

Moisture Solution controlled Valve Silica sand, 10% W

15 Testing Weight Silica sand, 15% W
Soil Content Conditioning Properties
Time (min) Loss (g) Silica sand, 15% W, Meyco SLF 47
(%) Inlet Air Supply SilicaValve
Air controlled sand, 15% W, ABR5
10
Silica sand, 15% W, AQF-2
Silica sand 0-Dry 30 12.9313 - Silica sand, 15% W, Quik Mud D-50
5 Outlet Conditioner Silica sand, 15% W, Quik Mud D-50+AQF-2
Silica sand 10 10 22.0670 -
0
Silica sand 15 0 10 10 10.4559
20 - 30 40
Foam
Time (min)
Silica sand 15 30 0.6453 3% Conc. Meyco SLF 47,FIR=25%, FER=17
Silica sand 15 30 Outlet Air Supply
3.9132 3% Conc. ABR5 ,FIR=25%, FER=17
Silica sand Mixing
15 soil 30
with 2.9787
1% Conc. AQF-2,FIR=30%,
W=15% W=15% FER=17W=15%
conditioner 0.125% Quik Mud 3%D-50 mixed with3%
Conc. water and mixed
Conc.
Silica sand 15 10 13.3139
with dry sand ABR5 Meyco SLF 47
0.125% Quik MudFIR=25%
D-50 mixed withFIR=25%
water and mixed
Silica sand 15 30 2.9530
with dry
 Soil conditioning tests on Silica sand +1% Conc. AQF-2,
sand FIR=28%, FER=14
FER=17 8 tests FER=17
 Soil conditioning tests on WSSC sample 3 tests
 Soil conditioning tests on IDR sample Meyco SLF 475 tests
ABR5
 Physical Property Testing for Rocks

• Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)

• Brazilian (Indirect) Tensile Strength (BTS)
• Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI)
• Punch Penetration Test
• Thin Section Petrographic Analysis
• Acoustic Velocities
• Point Load Index Test
• Triaxial Compression Test
• Static Elastic Modulus
Sample Logging
Sample Preparation
 Uniaxial Compressive Strength
(ASTM 7012)
Computer controlled MTS Machine (used
F
for compression and tensile tests)
c 
A
Where,

c  Compressive Strength of the Core Sample (MPa or psi)

F  Applied Force at Failure (N or lb.)
A  Initial Cross-sectional Area (mm2 or in2)

Non-structural Failure Structural Failure

before after before after

 Brazilian Tensile Strength
(ASTM D3967-95)

Normal Failure Structural Failure

2.F
T 
 .L.D
T  Tensile Strength (psi)
F  Failure Load (lbs.)
L  Thickness of the disk (in.)
D  Diameter of the disk (in.)
Effect of Foliation on Tensile Strength
Effect of Foliation/Bedding on Disc Cutting

Tunneling perpendicular to foliation Tunneling parallel to foliation

 Cerchar Abrasivity Test

Abrasivity Index (CAI) has proven to be fairly accurate and is commonly used for cutter life
estimation. A series of sharp 90 hardened pins of heat-treated alloy steel are pulled across a freshly
broken surface of the rock. The average dimensions of the resultant wear flats are related directly to
cutter life in field operation. The geometry of the planned excavation then allows calculation of the
expected cutter costs per unit volume of material.

10
CAI  0.0254  d i
i 1
 Cerchar Index
NTNU
Classification CSM Classification
CAI (pin hardness CAI (pin hardness
Category 43) 56)
Not very abrasive or 0.3 - 0.5 < 1.0
Non-Abrasive “ ”
Slightly abrasive 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0
Medium Abrasiveness 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0
to Abrasive “ “
Very abrasive 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 5.0
Extremely abrasive 4.0 - 6.0 5.0 - 6.0
Quartzitic 6.0 - 7.0

There has been much discrepancies in testing

procedures about the pin hardness, surface
conditions of the sample, measurement method,
etc. that has caused problems, be careful in
recording testing details
Thin-Section Petrographic Analysis
(Suggested method by ISRM)
• Plane Polarized Light 20x.
• Notice Garnet Wrapping
The thin section analysis of rocks for
engineering purposes includes the
determination of parameters, which
cannot be obtained from strength test of
rock samples, such as mineral content,
matrix characteristics grain size and
texture. This analysis also helps identify
any unusual rock microscopic features
(i.e. grain suturing/interlocking, grain
elongation), which may have an impact
on its boreability.
• Plane Polarized Light, 20x

• Notice Elongation
 Acoustic Velocity (ASTM D2845-95)

•The velocities of compressive and shear ultrasonic waves through the core sample
are measured and used to calculate the elastic modulus and Possion’s ratio. This
method indicates the compentecy of the rock.

E

VS2 3VP2  4VS2 
VP2  VS2
VP2  2VS2


2 VP2  VS2 
VS = Shear wave velocity (in./s or m/s)
VP = Compressive wave velocity (in./s or m/s)
E = Elastic modulus (psi or Pa)
Acoustic Velocity Test Set-up
 = Poisson’s ratio
 = Density (lb/in3 or kg/m3)
Point Load Index (ASTM D5731)

Where
F
IS  2 IS  Point load index (psi)
F  Failure load (lbs.)
De De  Distance between platen tips (in.)
De2 = D2  for diametrical test
= 4A/  for axial, block and lump test
A = W.D = minimum cross-sectional area of a
plane through the platen contact
points
 Punch Penetration Test

•In the Punch Penetration Index test, a standard indentor is pressed into a rock
sample that has been cast in a confining ring. The load and displacement of
the indentor are recorded with a computer system. The slope of the force-
penetration curve indicates the excavatibility of the rock, i.e., the energy
needed for efficient chipping.
 SINTEF / Norwegian Boreability
Test Procedures and Apparatus
1. Brittleness Test 2. The Sievers' Miniature Drill Test

S20 SJ

3. Abrasion Test

AV (or ASV)
 SINTEF / Norwegian Boreability

• The tests yield three indices

– Drilling Rate Index (DRI)
– Cutter Life Index (CLI)
– Bit Ware Index (BWI)
• Combined with joint info
(spacing, orientation), and
TBM specs and operational
info, can be used for
performance prediction
Core Scanning
Core Storage
Core logs
 In situ testing
94

• Logging boreholes to see voids/measurement of rock

properties/joint density/joint orientation
– Sonic/ acoustic /optical televiewers
• In-situ stresses measurement in rock, over-coring/fracing
• Pressure tests for in-situ Elastic property measurements
• Groundwater monitoring
• Groundwater table, Perched/artesian aquifers need multiple level
piezometers
• Monitoring for extended period of time to see seasonal
fluctuations,
• Measuring permeability is critical, slug / pump tests
• Check water salinity and flow rates for ground freezing
Geotech Cost, Reports and Risk
Management for Tunneling Projects
 Goetech Site Investigations
96

• Prospective and Interest Phases of Site

– Owner (private, public, quasi- Investigation
government) – Phase I – Feasibility
– Engineer / Designer – Phase II – Preliminary Design
– Contractor (single or joint) – Phase III – Final Design
– Construction Management – Phase IV – Construction
(CM)

96
 Geotechnical Reports

• Geotechnical Site Investigation Planning, typically at

early design stage, never published
• Geotech Data Report (GDR), Contract documents
• Geotechnical Intepretive Report (GIR), contract doc,
mostly for soil and shallow structures
• Geotechnical Data Summary Report (GDSR),
• Geotech Baseline Report (GBR), Contract document,
higher risk more expensive projects, a risk sharing
scheme, and a legal framework
 Risk Assessment

• Geotech site investigation should be based on

Risk Assessment and Risk Management
• This means being prepared for higher cost test where
the consequence of missing a feature is very
detrimental to the project
 Risk Management
• Can you or can you not live with your residual
risks? Use a Risk Profile/Matrix to decide.
• (Use as a starter kit e.g. ISO Guide 51:1999 / ISO TS
14’798:2000)
 Planning Site Investigation for Tunneling

• Spacing of Borings: General Rule of Thumb!

• For uniform and consistent grounds 0.7 ft/ft tunnel (m/m)
• For typical ground conditions 1-1.5 ft/ft tunnel (m/m)
• For very variable and changing grounds or for very sensitive structures
1.5-2 ft/ft tunnel (m/m)
– Shafts need one boring at the center line and at least one more at the
edge or preferably 2-3 on the periphery to identify transitions
– For example for a 20,000 ft tunnel 30 ft dia.
• If tunnel is shallow ~150 ft and in typical geology, go for 210 ft borings then we
need 90 borings meaning average of ~200 ft interval
• For a 500 ft deep tunnel in consistent geology, boring depth of 560 ft and we may
need 27 borings at 750 ft interval.
– Target to extend the borings 2D below invert
– However, if the proposed vertical alignment is subject to
modifications, it may be more economical to extend these depths to 3
times the tunnel diameter, for contingency purposes
– Use inclined boring as needed
 Cost of Geotech Investigation for Tunneling
10
1
• Reasonable range 3-7% total construction

Source: ITA work group #2 on Geotech Investigations

 Summary
10
2

• Geotech Investigation for Tunnel and Underground Construction is more

critical/sensitive than other construction projects
• Specialized tests are necessary, depending on construction method
• The lower the investment in Geotech investigations, the higher the
probability and magnitude of the Claim
• Owners: Do not pressure the Geotech to reduce the budget, Pay back is a
b…..
• Consultants/designers: Make sure to educate your clients, properly plan
the Geotech work with sufficient time for proper investigation ahead of
design
• Contractors: it is worthwhile to spend some money to identify the ground
condition issues beforehand
• Geotech Engineers, You are going to be blamed for all the construction
problems no matter what!! :o)
THANKS FOR YOUR
ATTENTION

&

QUESTIONS