Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
qxd:Feature
13/6/12
22:29
Page 21
Tunneling
north american
June/July 2012
journal
www.tunnellingjournal.com
STATE-OF-THE-ART AUTOMATED
SEGMENTAL TUNNEL LINER CAROUSEL
MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
and its proprietary molds to produce
over 100 segments each shift
SEE PAGE 5
SEE PAGE 17
MOLEYS BREAK
THROUGH
ARE WE
HAPPY YET?
CUTTING EDGE
ROUND UP
SPADINA PROGRESS
AND OTHER NEWS
FROM AROUND THE US
AND CANADA
HIGHLIGHTS FROM A
SUCCESSFUL
PRESSURIZED TBM
EVENT IN MIAMI
TJ_0612_OUTSIDE_FNT_COVER_PLUS_SPINE_001.qxd:cover
12/6/12
21:43
Page 1
Tunnelling
June/July 2012
www.tunnellingjournal.com
journal
SEE PAGE 6
SEE PAGE 26
SEE PAGE 43
TJ WORLD
NEWS
SFR LINING
DESIGN
ISSUES
PROBE
DRILLING
HIGHLIGHTS FROM
THE TJ WEBSITES
DAILY NEWS
SERVICE
MODERN DESIGN
CHALLENGES FOR
SFR SEGMENTAL
LININGS
SUCCESSFUL
TBM PROBE
DRILLING AND
PRE-GROUTING
EXPLAINED
TJ_0612_CONTENTS_003.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
21:53
Page 3
contentS
5
6
10
Above: Sparvo
segments (p10)
Right: Pre-cast
segmental linings
are seeing a
plethora of areas
where
modernisation
looks set to
radically change
methodology
(p18)
Above: Steel
cages could
become a thing
of the past (p32)
Right: Brisbanes
Airport Link
Tunnel is
currently the
largest diameter
steel fibre
re-inforced
segmental
lining (p26)
Editors comment
Snapshots of
www.tunnellingjournal.com news
Sparvo Giant worlds biggest TBM
The world's biggest TBM has been
getting into its stride in Italy's jumbled
Apennine mountains. Report and
pictures by Adrian Greeman
16
18
Letters
26
32
35
38
43
46
52
54
Product News
Contacts
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 3
h e r r e n k n e c h t A G | u t i l i t y t u n n e l l i n g | T r a f f i c t u n n e l l i n g U S A
CONT RACTOR
VSM10000, Vertical
Shaft Sinking Machine
Diameter: 9,000mm
Max. torque: 80kNm
Shaft depth: 45m
Geology: sand, gravel, clay
J.W. Fowler
Herrenknecht Tunnelling
Systems USA, Inc.
1613 132nd Ave E, Suite 200
Sumner, WA 98390
Phone +12534472300
Fax +12538639376
marketing@herrenknecht.com
www.herrenknecht.com
12-06-13_159_ID186_eAz_VSMSeattle_TunnellingJournalNA_210x297_03_bp.indd 1
13.06.12 14:29
TJ_0612_COMMENT_005.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:32
Page 5
editorScomment
Looking at the hard or
the soft option?
ITS FASCINATING how
tunnelling can be split into two
almost completely opposing
disciplines even mindsets, with
some people having a vast
working knowledge of one, and
virtually no idea about the other.
Im talking about what some
refer to as hard engineering,
things like massive TBMs and
segment manufacture, blowing
things up etc, and soft
engineering, GBRs, contract
forms, project insurance, the
legalities of claims and the like.
In this issue of TJ we can see
some cracking examples of hard
engineering, and encouragingly
within these some fair degree of
innovation either in practice or in
the pipeline. Take for example the
worlds largest TBM (only for
now) working at Sparvo, in Italy.
The 15.6m diameter EPBM really
is an impressive beast in its own
right, but also on this project we
can see some real ingenuity, for
example in the casing of the
conveyor to protect workers
against the dangers of methane,
and probably more unusual the
floating mechanism for turning
the TBM between drives. In our
look at the future of pre-cast
segmental linings theres some
great forward thinking and
analysis from those interviewed
on where we could, and indeed
are going, with lining design and
segment manufacture. The
Linkedin discussion is a good old
bash at the well trodden TBM v
D&B argument, some good
points made, although it
becomes clear that everyone is
pretty much of the same opinion
even if we go around the
houses somewhat to get there.
Most engineers
would rather watch a
fire go out than
spend time pouring
over a subject that
doesnt involve huge
machines and vast
quantities of ground
being moved
Tris Thomas
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 5
TJ_0612_NEWS_006_008.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
Page 6
6 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
22:53
flammable gas
hampered operations
later that night. The
four bodies were
finally discovered at
1.15am on Sunday
but high gas levels
made it impossible to
retrieve them until
after 6am.
The four, have
been identified as
Daisuke Kobayashi,
37, an employee of
Tokyo based
contractor Sato
The 6.28m diameter Caterpillar Tunneling Canada Corporation EPBM
Kogyo Co which was breaksthrough on Beijings Metro Line 9
building the tunnel,
and Kokichi Koshii, 57, Takafumi Toda, 40,
Beijing Line 9 breakthrough
and Masayuki Otani, 39, all working for a
May 8, 2012
subcontractor.
April 10, 2012, marked a milestone in the
Local press reports say police searched the
construction of the 16.45km long Metro
office of Sato Kogyos Hokuriku branch in
Line 9 in Beijing, when a 6.28m diameter
the city of Toyama in Toyama Prefecture on
CatEPBM made a major breakthrough in a
Sunday morning and two other places on
section with very difficult geological
suspicion of professional negligence
conditions.
resulting in injury.
The project owner, Beijing MTR
Further local reports say the deceased
Corporation, together with the contractor,
tunnellers were preparing to resume work
Beijing Urban Construction Group (BUCG),
on Thursday morning following a winter
held a celebration ceremony at the
break. The infrastructure ministry has said
construction site together with managers
the tunnel alignment had been changed to
from Caterpillar Tunneling Canada
avoid methane heavy geological strata.
Corporation (previously known as LOVAT).
Chinas official CCTV and other general and
Poor safety is likely blame for
trade media covered the ceremony.
The construction of Lot 6 of the Beijing
deadly Hunan tunnel blast
Metro Line 9 consists of two parallel tunnels
May 24, 2012
with a total length of 1.2km each that pass
Preliminary investigations have confirmed
underneath a lake in the western part of
that the truck suspected of causing a
the capital. It is believed to be the most
deadly blast in a highway tunnel under
difficult section that the alignment has to
construction in Hunan, Central China, was
run through due to the water-rich
in serious violation of safety regulations.
conglomerate containing big boulders
The blast which took place in the 2,355m
(1.2~1.5m), which are rarely seen in other
long Baimianshan tunnel at 8.20am, last
subway projects in China or anywhere else
Saturday (May 19) killed 20 of the 24
around the world.
people working in the tunnel at the time.
Four workers were rescued, one is in a
serious condition and another slightly
injured. Two more escaped injury,
according to provincial authorities. The
injured are being treated in hospital.
The blast occurred as twelve 24kg cases
of explosives were being unloaded from a
truck inside the tunnel. Most of the
workers in the tunnel were in close
proximity to the truck at the time of the
explosion.
Investigations found that the truck had
also been carrying detonators, despite
regulations stating that explosives and
detonators must be transported separately,
Fan Jinsheng, director of the State
First Crossrail TBM breaks
Administration of Work Safetys emergency
rescue center, told China Daily. How the
ground
detonator was ignited remains unknown,
May 4, 2012
he said, adding that a team of experts is
Crossrails first TBM, Phyllis, has broken
still analyzing the cause of the accident.
ground at Royal Oak to begin construction
TJ_0612_NEWS_006_008.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:54
Page 7
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 7
TJ_0612_NEWS_006_008.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:54
Page 8
8 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
Underground Construction
From Mapei UTT line: Reliable technology for underground
construction
Alkali-free set accelerators for shotcrete.
Products for mechanized tunneling: foaming agents for soil conditioning,
polymers, sealants, lubrificants.
Products for grouting and consolidation.
Products for concrete repairing, protection and coating.
Products for waterproofing: synthetic waterproofing membranes, waterproofing
accessories.
Discover the world of Mapei: www.utt-mapei.com, hq.utt@utt.mapei.com
For 75 years weve been helping to build large and small projects.
V7. TJ_0612_Sparvo_010_015.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:37
Page 10
V7. TJ_0612_Sparvo_010_015.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:37
Page 11
SITE REPORT
option. Like nearly a dozen tunnels on a new
alignment for part of the A1 autostrada, Italy's
spine motorway from Naples in the south to
Milan and Turin in the north, the 2.6km twin
bore Sparvo tunnel was planned as a
conventional excavation. A sister tunnel, the
Val di Sambro, which starts just to the north
across a 500m viaduct, is part of the same
contract package and proceeding with
conventional methods.
But contractor TOTO Costruzioni Generali
managed to convince the client, motorway
operator Autostrade per Italia, and its engineer
Rocksoil from Milan, that a TBM drive would
be a better option for the Sparvo tunnel.
"And we said that it could be done at no
additional cost to the client" says project
engineer Lorenzo Scolavino. The contract value
is US$426M with the Sparvo Tunnel
accounting for US$188M. The machine cost
with all the fittings is about US$75M.
The reasons are twofold. Firstly, the geology
of the ground in this section is as complex as
any on the 40km realignment to upgrade a
twisting and congested road section between
SPARVO GIANT
Worlds biggest TBM
The world's biggest TBM has been getting into its stride in Italy's
jumbled Apennine mountains. Report by Adrian Greeman
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 11
V7. TJ_0612_Sparvo_010_015.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:37
Page 12
CLEVER CONVEY
SITE REPORT
To Bologna
Flo
orence
Sparrvo
Sparvo
o tunnel
t
showing
h
g the To Florence
bore
e direction of the TBM
TB
AUSTRIA
SWITZERLAND
Moden
Modena
Bol
Bologna
FRANCEE
HUNGARYY
HUNGAR
CROATIA
CROA
ATTIA
SERBIA
SSLOVENIA
A
BOSNIA
Molina di Setta
viaduct
Florence
ITAL
Y
Sparvo
viaduct
Rome
Sparvo tunnel
12 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
0.31
13.60
15.62
0.70
0.70
0.31
Support fo
V7. TJ_0612_Sparvo_010_015.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:37
Page 13
15,55 m
2 x 2.750 m
2.000 t/h
3 x 355 kW
vertical
470 m
EPB
2011
V7. TJ_0612_Sparvo_010_015.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:38
Page 14
580
BOLOGNA
400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Km
3+000
3
275
s.l.m.
Km
2+000
2
300
Km
1+000
Metres
FLORENCE
500
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Weathered debris
Embedded Ophilite
Above: The
longitudinal section
of the Sparvo
Tunnel
Left: The EPBM has
impressive torque
statistics
Main Pic: Martina
the 15.6m
Herrenknecht EPB
readies to launch
900
V7. TJ_0612_Sparvo_010_015.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:38
Page 15
SITE REPORT
excavation chamber will hold any gas behind
the bulkhead. The screw conveyor itself is
sealed and then enters a sealed box enclosure
for the longitudinal conveyor line along the
machine.
"It is a double sandwich containing overpressurised air between two skins" explains
Scolavino. "That way if there is a puncture any
methane is pushed back into the interior."
Large volumes of fresh air are blown into the
box enclosure which dilute any methane as it
passes along. A maximum of 110m3/sec is
supplied to the tunnel from two Flkt Woods
fans, though normally they work at 45m3/sec.
This provides 67m3/sec in the TBM, 22m3/sec in
the conveyor and 6m3/sec for the work
chamber. By the time spoil reaches the cross
conveyor on the back of the machine, it is safe
to end the box enclosure.
"But there is a wide variety of gas detection
instrumentation on the machine systems, and
anti-spark installations" Scolavino says. One
man is assigned as safety monitor also.
Once exiting onto the cross conveyor the
spoil tips onto a 1.2m wide tunnel conveyor
supplied by Herrenknecht daughter company
H+E Logistik.
The tunnel conveyor is extended every 200m
of drive, which requires a stoppage says
Scolavino, during which time the cutterhead
tools are checked. To enter the emptied spoil
chamber means waiting
for gas to disperse,
usually between 4 hours
and two days. "Though
one stop we had to
allow four days before it
was clear."
The side conveyor
finishes at a large
conveyor tower just
outside the portal where
it discharges onto a
Giant segments
second conveyor from
being lifted at
Marti Technik. This is a
the production
1m width belt carrying
plant.
the spoil some 1.9km to
a special inspection area
Bottom: Testing
next to the segment
the air cushion
factory.
frame
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 15
TJ_0612_Letters_016_017.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:45
Page 16
LETTERS
GBR varying
opinions
Dear TJ,
Kristina Smiths excellent article on the use
of GBRs (GBR Bible or Bane of the
Industry?) in the February/March issue
certainly raised the debate on the Linked In
TJ Discussion website. It soon became clear
that there are a number of differing
opinions as well as interpretations, and
possibly misinterpretations, of GBRs in
current use around the
world.
I would like to
highlight a couple of
points which were
discussed in the article.
It seems to me to be
largely immaterial to
the function of the GBR
the extent of ground
investigations and
whether the
interpretation of the
resulting data is right or
wrong. The quality of
the GI data should be
made clear to the
Owner/Client by his
design consultant and
be considered in the
level of risk the client is willing to carry. By
definition a GBR is always wrong, any
number of boreholes, horizontal directional
drillholes, geophysical surveys and
laboratory tests will only lead to a more
informed interpretation of the ground
conditions to be encountered, not a correct
answer. The function of the GBR is to take
the important features of this
interpretation, consider them along with
the envisaged methods of construction and
corresponding risks and than make a series
of definitive contractual statements which
represent the Owner/Clients understanding,
and risk acceptance, of those ground
conditions. The Owner must be prepared to
pay for the unforeseen if his GI is
inadequate, the GBR should effectively
define at what point he is willing to pay for
the unforeseen and to what extent he
expects the Contractor to carry that risk.
This should be achieved by a series of well
defined unambiguous statements.
My personal test of a baseline statement
is this:
Each baseline statement must be clear in
16 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_Letters_016_017.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:46
Page 17
LETTERS
Statement of Foreseeability?
reasonably have foreseen through the maze of
legal hypothetical syllogisms.
So is this enough to avoid the conflicts that
we face ubiquitously today I dare
to say it only responds to half of
the problem as once we do know
that the Contractor does have an
entitlement the next layer of
dispute is the valuation of those
entitlements. Lets call this the
SoE (Statement of Evaluation)
for now. The SoE should ideally
give direction as to what
happens once the entitlement
is established and how this
entitlement is to be valued in
terms of time and cost.
The GBR should therefore be just these
two things: a statement of when liability
transfers and, once transferred, how it is to be
dealt with nothing more and nothing less.
I also put to the industry that the Contractor
can, within reason, price any GBR
(containing the above elements) that the
Employer gives him. I am further of the view
that he should also be able to pre-value the
time and cost variances for baseline variables
should they occur and finally put forward the
Dear TJ,
There is a lot of good information here (TJ
Feb/March - GBR Bible or Bane of the
Industry? TJ April/May - The GBR Linkedin
Discussion,) and most of it is useful to the
general contracting community but my take
on the GBR (sic) is as follows. Firstly lets not call
it a GBR as this is where most of the confusion
starts. Lets call it a SoF (Statement of
Foreseeability) instead for the time being.
Its main purpose is to inform the Contractor
of the precise point at which he will be entitled
to claim for additional expenses and time by
way of a clear and definitive line of transfer of
liability for compensation from the Contractor
to the Employer it is as simple as that.
It does not matter if the Contractor priced
the SoF when pricing the tender, it does not
matter that his programme is inconsistent with
the SoF and finally it does not matter that the
SoF does not reflect the anticipated sub
surface conditions at all.
I put it to the industry that such a Statement
of Foreseeability will do away with the all too
common position of hindsight where we
argue about this mythical competent
contractor and what he could or could not
Self-Drilling
- Dr illing System
S ys
stem S
Solutions
olu
utions
DYWI Drill
Drill Expansion
E x pa n s ion B
Bolt
olt
Combination
nation b
bolt:
olt: m
mechanicaly
echanicaly
anchored
red and
and fully
fully grouted
grouted
Quick sself-drilling
elf-drilling iinstallation
nstallation
Immediate
iate loa
load-bearing
ad-bearing c
capacity
apacit y
Subsequent
qu e nt g
grouting
routing feature
fe a t u r e
Conventional
ntional a
and
nd a
automated
utomated installation
i n s t a ll
Application
ti range: R32-210
R32 210 to
t R51-800
R51 8
North America, USA
www.dsiunderground.com
www.alwag.com
EMEA, Austria
www.alwag.com
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 17
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:04
Page 18
SEGMENTAL LININGS
18 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:04
Page 19
SEGMENTAL LININGS
interaction, the soil relaxation, all the variable
soil properties, and the whole construction
sequence more accurately.
King agrees that FE/FD is vital in such
situations but cautions against their use as a
matter of course. The garbage in garbage
out rule still has a very strong influence on
these designs, he says. We can put too
much faith in the multi-detailed answers that
come out of the black-box analysis, and
validation by other means is still a very
important aspect.
There are other issues which designers must
bear in mind when designing segments for
larger diameter tunnels. Handling of the
segments is more critical than for a small
segment, says King and secondary issues such
as creep and thermal movements deserve
greater consideration. Tolerances will take on
greater importance, he adds. And there is
the increasing challenge of meeting tight
tolerances with significantly larger units.
Perhaps the most important consideration
of all for a designer working on a project such
as the SR99 Bored Tunnel is that there is no
room to go beyond the tried-and-tested. The
implications for a tunnel liner without
precedent is that there is little opportunity to
risk new technology, says Johnson. From
HNTBs point of view, we have to stay with
what we know and what we can model when
we are expanding the limits of tunnel liner
design to accommodate the largest soft
ground tunnel in the world.
Above: A good distribution of the steel fibre reinforcement is vital. Top: The
future of gaskets looks cast-in (CBE Group)
boundary conditions.
The analytical approach may be different as
the lining is more likely to cross highly varying
strata, and simple closed form solutions may
not be sufficient due to their assumptions,
says King. Larger diameters are taking us into
more complex analysis, with less precedent and
more concern about validation.
Without the tools of Finite Element (FE) or
Finite Difference (FD) analysis, the design of the
SR99 Bored Tunnel would simply not have
been possible, located as it is in a high-seismic
zone says Rich Johnson, HNTBs vice president,
and design manager for the tunnel. Johnson
pinpoints the use of FE and FD in tunnel
engineering as the most significant design
advancement of the past five to 10 years. It
allows the designer to simulate the soil-liner
Understanding fibres
Though steel fibres have been used to reinforce
precast segments for nearly 20 years, many
designers believe that we have yet to
understand how they handle the forces inside
the tunnel rings. The area which causes
concern is close to the radial joints, a little
distance from where two segments meet.
Here, tensile stresses build up, perpendicular to
the line of thrust and must be resisted by the
reinforcement to prevent bursting.
We have got a good understanding of
what these stresses are and how to design for
them in reinforced concrete, says King. But
there is not the same level of understanding of
the theory of how fibre reinforced concrete
resists these forces. We do have a theoretical
approach that works and a certain amount of
testing thats been done, and we can back
analyse the tests against the theory, but there is
more work to be done there.
For segment manufacturers, fibre reinforced
segments for larger diameter tunnels cause
challenges because of their thickness. They
must prove that the fibres have been evenly
distributed throughout the section. On the 7m
i.d. Blue Plains wastewater tunnels this means
making samples twice a day to prove the fibres
are correctly spread out.
The largest diameter tunnel to date which
has been entirely steel fibre reinforced is the
12m diameter Brisbane Airport link tunnel.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 19
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:04
Page 20
SEGMENTAL LININGS
One of the advantages of steel fibres is that
the reinforcement extends to every corner of
the segment. If you have got reinforcement
right to the faces of the segment, there is far
less chance of severe damage, says Charles
Allen of CA Consult, who is a consultant to
CH2MHill, the Project Manager for the tunnel
and shaft linings on Thames Waters Lee Tunnel
project in East London. With a traditionally
reinforced segment, the corners may get
knocked off, the cover to the rebar is reduced
Factory philosophy
For a lesson in 21st century segment
casting, Herrenknecht Formworks casting
plant for six combined rail and road tunnels
in Sochi, Russia is a good place to start. Set
up in 2009, it was the largest segment plant
in the world, churning out 350 segments a
day at peak. The 10,000m2 production
facility had two reinforcement carousels
with machines to prefabricate the rebar
cages, and three carousels to carry
segments into a curing tunnel, allowing
operation on a 24-7 basis.
This type of facility is where the future
lies, according to Alain Praut, sales director
at CBE Group. In regions where there is
real potential, most precast companies are
now considering heavy investment in the
beginning to get the highest manufacturing
productivity, he says.
Projects are getting bigger larger
diameter, longer tunnels or bigger network
of tunnels. They have upgraded their
approach to manufacturing. When you
produce segments like a car production line,
it is very different to the artisan, craftsman
type approach.
The changes that manufacturers have
absorbed over the last two decades have
been considerable. Concrete strengths have
risen from 40MPa to 60MPa, steel fibre
reinforcement and polypropylene
microfibres for fire resistance have changed
the nature of the concrete mix. And in the
last five years, tighter tolerances have made
their mark on the casting process.
Above left: Herrenknecht Formworks Sochi segment factory in Russia. Above right: Buchan
Concrete Solution moulds
20 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
Good vibrations
Achieving and checking such tolerances
requires thought and analysis from the
earliest stages of mould design, says Praut.
You have to be very proactive in reaching
the tolerance goal, he says. You have to
consider it at the very beginning. If you
believe you can match the tolerance by
adjusting the mould during assembly, thats
the wrong approach.
Everything must be taken
into consideration. Segment
manufacturers are working with
very stiff mixes, due to the high
early strength requirements and
the additions of fibres. The
moulds vibrate to compact the
concrete, but if too much
vibration is required, your
tolerances could be under
threat. The segment mould is a
paradox, says Praut. It must
be strong enough to be reliable
but flexible enough to distribute
the vibration.
To assess all the contributing
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:04
Page 21
SEGMENTAL LININGS
would look at it on a project by project basis.
Looking ahead, King believes that a greater
understanding of how the two reinforcing
materials could work together will lead to
better efficiencies in design. Its probably likely
that the two materials will enhance and
compliment each others behaviour, but for the
time being the justification for use is likely to be
that one material undertakes one function and
the other something else. The understanding
of any composite action is not complete yet
Curing
Maschinen
Stahlbau
Dresden
Branch of Herrenknecht AG
www.msd-dresden.de
www.tunnellingjournal.com
. . . industry news as it happens!
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 21
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:04
Page 22
TUNNELLING INSTRUMENTATION
Technical Director
Regional Manager
Ref: PN4710 London
www.hunterpersonnel.com
Contact: David Kellett
T: +44 (0) 1202 298322
E: gt@hunterpersonnel.com
22 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
Piezometers
Strain
Extensometers
Rockbolts
www.geokon.com
Pressure Cells
Tiltmeters
Mr. Meters
Jan Verstricht
Crack
Inclinometers
EIG
EURIDICE | Belgium
Tape
Extensometers
www.euridice.be
Convergence Meters
1 603 448 1562
info@geokon.com
www.geokon.com
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:04
Page 23
SEGMENTAL LININGS
But the hurdle is that before fibres can be
used anywhere, there must be design
guidelines supported by independent tests.
The only way to be confident of the design is
to take all the elements and test them, says
Johnson. If you dont take that step, you
cannot be confident that your design works for
all loading conditions including transportation,
temperature, shrinkage, creep, etc.
Often, programme and budget restraints
may not allow testing as was the case for the
SR99 Bored Tunnel, says Johnson. With a
tunnel of that size, there could be an
opportunity for a hybrid of steel fibre with
conventional reinforcement but there is simply
not the time to conduct the tests, he says.
There is never time on design-build projects.
Even in the UK, where there are plenty of
reference projects, the lack of a design code
causes issues. There is a nervousness because
of the lack of codification, says Eddie. What
that meant in 94 when we used them for the
first time on the Heathrow Baggage Tunnel
and on pretty much every project since, is that
you have to have full scale testing to prove the
adequacy of design. Thats a perfectly
legitimate approach under Eurocodes and
British Standards.
Generally clients are happy to see that
testing, however because it takes out any
uncertainty about any particular detail.
Cast-in at last
Its something that the industry has been trying
to do for a decade. But now at last, it looks like
we are there. Following on from three smaller
projects in Japan, the Lee Tunnel project in
London is the first large-scale project where
segment manufacturers, in this case Morgan
Sindalls Ridham Precast Factory, are casting in
the EDPM gaskets (Tunnelling Journal
April/May 2011).
It took us two years to develop the system
to be reliable enough to match current tunnel
specifications, says Alain Praut, sales director
for mould manufacturer CBE Group which
supplied the job. We had to change our
approach for designing the moulds.
JV MVB, comprising Morgan Sindall, VINCI
Construction Grands Projects and Bachy
Soletanche, took the plunge on Lee Tunnel,
believing that the technology was ready and
that there would be cost and quality wins.
The major benefit is the quality of the fit,
says Eddie. For years there have been
problems with EDPM not fitting properly or not
remaining in tight contact with the segment
which leads to damage during handling and
erection. The cast-in gaskets also give better
seating at the corners, says Allen, which
improves the ring build.
Now the art has been mastered, we can
expect to see cast-in gaskets appearing on
other projects around the world. Look out for
them on the Central Subway in San Francisco,
the Tramway Velizy in France and Hinkley
nuclear power plant in the UK.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 23
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:05
Page 24
SEGMENTAL LININGS
sure something simpler is going to come
along, says Morgan. We have looked at it
but one of the challenges is cost. Traditional
steel bolts going into plastic sockets is a
relatively inexpensive solution.
To curve or not to curve
One question which wont get a straight
answer is whether the surfaces of the radial
joints should be curved or flat. Its an issue
that crops up a lot and its the subject of big
debate, says Hurt. A lot of it is down to
preference.
Tests show that where the radial joints open
up to form a birds mouth with an angle of less
than 0.6o flat joints work better, says Hurt.
Where there is the possibility of a larger birds
mouth the curved joint can be used to try and
24 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
The Future
The question for the future is what can bring
yet further reductions in build time and better
build quality?
I think we will see stronger, more resilient
segments with less thickness, says Praut.
Concrete is expensive. If they can reduce the
thickness, they save money. Thinner segments
also mean they can be wider. It takes the same
amount of time for a TBM to install a 1.5m
segment as it does a 1m segment.
King thinks the driver for thinner linings is to
cut down the cost of excavation and spoil
disposal. A relatively small reduction in lining
can have a big impact on the volume of
material excavated, he says.
Eddie believes that although plates will get
bigger, thicknesses wont reduce. There is a
TJ_0612_SEGMENTAL_018_025.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:05
Page 25
TJ_0612_HALCROW_026_031.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:00
Page 26
SEGMENTAL LININGS
TJ_0612_HALCROW_026_031.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:00
Page 27
SEGMENTAL LININGS
Steel fibres are batched directly into the concrete mix, thereby avoiding the
labour and manufacturing space required for the assembly of concrete cages.
The net savings are typically more pronounced in locations where labour costs
are high (such as Europe & USA), than where they are lower (such as South
East Asia).
Impact resistance
Steel fibres are generally close to edges and corners within the concrete matrix,
giving improved resistance to damage during handling. This in turn reduces
damage and rejection/repairs, providing a cost and programme saving to the
contractor and asset benefit to the client.
Waterproofing
It is also believed that this increased impact resistance reduces damage near the
gasket groove, reducing gasket failures and improving waterproofing.
Durability
Corrosion of steel fibres is typically limited within 10-30mm of the face of the
segment, and does not result in spalling, so the impact of corrosion on durability
is much less than with conventional reinforcement.
Fire resistance
Stray current
CHALLENGES OF SFRC
There is an abundance of literature on steel
fibres, but not a great deal relating to SFRC
segmental linings. For guidance, the authors
would recommend King and Alder (2001); and
the Concrete Societys Technical Report 63.
However, even accepting that the designer
has established methods at his disposal to
undertake the design calculations, there are still
a number of challenges the designer must
overcome in designing, specifying and
obtaining relevant approvals for a SFRC
segmental lining. The principal challenges are
outlined below.
Codes of practice - With the possible
exception of NZS 3101:2006 the authors are
not aware of any current codes of practice that
specifically provide for SFRC. This is usually a
concern to clients who want to assure
themselves that the lining is fit to meet their
long-term durability and structural
requirements. To address this issue the designer
must be prepared to educate the client in the
use of steel fibres. The client will often be very
well informed regarding the performance of
conventionally reinforced concrete and may
have many legitimate concerns concerning
how SFRC performs differently to bar
reinforced concrete in a number of regards,
including:
structural performance during
transportation, erection, and the permanent
condition especially with regard to bending
moments
durability
the additional quality controls required for
SFRC manufacture
Therefore as well as selling the benefits, the
designer must genuinely listen to understand
and then allay the clients concerns.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 27
TJ_0612_HALCROW_026_031.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:00
Page 28
NFM TE
SEGMENTAL LININGS
has to be completed almost at the outset of
the project to allow sizing and ordering of the
TBM, so such a detailed study is rarely
practicable. The decision on aspect ratios
therefore tends to be largely based on what
has worked in the past, and aspect ratios on
SFRC segments increase in small increments
from one project to the next. This trend is likely
to continue, and aspect ratios will approach
those of conventionally reinforced segments in
the near future as contractors become
accustomed to the stricter handling regimes
required.
Testing and mix design - The development
of the mix design is made more complex by the
introduction of the following additional testing
requirements:
fibre content tests on the fresh concrete to
ensure that the desired fibre content is
maintained
residual flexural strength (beam) tests, which
are required to demonstrate ductile flexural
resistance
tensile splitting (Brazilian) tests, to concrete
strength required to resist bursting stresses at
the joints
Furthermore, the splitting and residual flexural
strengths can vary with different aggregates
and cements, and the specification is initially
developed without knowing what aggregates
and cements will be used. It is often the case
that the first mix design will not quite meet the
requirements, particularly the flexural strength
requirements. Therefore some iteration is
required to obtain a satisfactory mix, and the
designer is a key player in this process if it is to
be successful. The authors usually recommend
that:
Left: Concrete
sample for
checking
Below left: Two
key and two
typical segments
in a bolted lining
OUR ME
WOR
NFM Technolog
of geology, ma
NFM Technolog
can propose in
a high level of
Whether for im
is available to
Creator of und
28 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_HALCROW_026_031.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:00
Page 29
NFM Technologies broad range of competences as an OEM in the cutting-edge mechanical sector means that it
can propose innovative technical solutions, integrating specific requirements for each project and guaranteeing
a high level of equipment reliability.
Whether for improving access to regions, developing infrastructures, or improving quality of life, our expertise
is available to meet with your needs.
Hard-rock TBM
www.nfm-technologies.com
TJ_0612_HALCROW_026_031.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:00
Page 30
SEGMENTAL LININGS
Therefore when tests failed the designers
reviewed all relevant production records,
including other strength testing and fibre
content data, to determine whether the test
was an outlier (possibly arising from damage
during transit) or whether there was reasonable
cause to believe that the RFS of the concrete
had deteriorated. The availability of a good
database with all test results was extremely
beneficial to this exercise.
This approach was necessitated by the low
number of beams collected (3 per week), but
was vindicated by the fact that not one
segment was damaged during transportation,
where it is exposed to the highest loads.
Concerns over a low residual flexural strength
in the installed rings was not a concern as the
insitu design loads were within the capacity of
an unreinforced segment of the same size and
compressive strength.
While this approach proved adequate for this
project the authors would recommend that
beams be cast more regularly, but only a
proportion tested. The additional beams are
then available to provide additional justification
should one beam test fail.
Key learning points were therefore:
Ask early questions to understand client and
contractors drivers, and identify solutions
Address durability concerns with the client
early to gain buy-in
A combination of careful specification of
testing and production in conjunction with
contact with the manufacturer, can when
properly managed provide a quality
product even when the manufacturer has no
SFRC experience
Ensure that the designer is involved in
manufacture and construction, particularly
when things do not go to plan
Consider casting more beams than the
testing regime requires to prevent rogue test
results resulting in the unnecessary rejection
of segments
CASE STUDY 2 SCL
Halcrow were engaged by MTRC for the
design of the Lion Rock Tunnels and the
Diamond Hill Approach Tunnels component of
the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project. This
included 2km of TBM tunnel.
The durability modelling that Halcrow
undertook for the Diamond Hill Approach TBM
tunnels component of the project showed a
risk of chloride build up in the segments due to
saline water on the extrados, which could
result in corrosion of the steel and spalling of
the segment intrados. SFRC would offer
significant durability benefits in this regard.
Further durability benefits could be realised
through the elimination of both stray current
corrosion and potential rebar exposure when
drilling and fixing drilling.
The client, who had been investigating the
use of SFRC segmental tunnel linings for some
time, saw the benefits of trying to use SFRC for
this project and was keen to obtain the
30 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
Geopolymer is an alumino-silicate
material using industrial by-products
such as fly ash and slag. When used
in place of Ordinary Portland Cement
in concrete the resulting material is
very like traditional concrete in
performance, but is associated with
much lower emissions of carbon
dioxide. For this reason it is
sometimes referred to as low-carbon
concrete.
A research project in Australia aims
to combine synthetic fibre
reinforcement and geopolymer
technologies, developing a new
generation of precast concrete
products with enhanced durability
and reduced carbon emissions. This
TJ_0612_HALCROW_026_031.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:00
Page 31
SEGMENTAL LININGS
breakage. Both the short and long term
bending requirements resulted in a high
requirement for RFS (3.4MPa), while the
segment design also called for a high concrete
compressive strength (55MPa). The first trial
mixes did not consider the loss of RFS that can
occur when concrete strengths exceed 60MPa,
and were focused on achieving the
compressive strength requirement. However,
the compressive strengths were too high and
the RFS results poor. After discussions involving
the designer and concrete specialists the
compressive strength was controlled to ensure
that RFS values were achieved. The process of
achieving an acceptable production mix took
around 6 months.
During production there were segments that
did not achieve the compressive strength
requirements. However, having the designers
available during the construction process
allowed the opportunity to identify areas where
the design would work with slightly lower
compressive strength requirements ensured
that segments were not rejected.
Key learning points were therefore:
SFRC can be used at high diameters and
designers should not reject the use of SFRC
solely based on the size of the tunnel
The designer should check achievable
concrete strengths from similar local projects
where available to reduce risk to the project
mix design process
The potential for brittle failure of standard
fibres must be taken into account when
specifying high concrete strengths
Designer involvement in the development of
the handling regime ensured negligible
rejections due to handling damage
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The selection of steel fibre reinforced concrete
segmental linings is fast becoming the
preferred solution for contractors and clients in
many parts of the world, due to the cost and
durability enhancements it offers over
conventionally reinforced linings. The authors
see this trend continuing, and see areas of
development highlighted in this section.
The diameters at which SFRC linings are
specified will continue to increase. Recent
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 31
TJ_0612_Synthetics_032_034_OK.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
23:05
Page 32
VIEWPOINT
32 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_Synthetics_032_034_OK.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
23:06
Page 33
VIEWPOINT
Steel cages
are not
considered
the
optimum
solution by
many
designers
BARCHIP
SYNTHETIC FIBRE
REPLACING STEEL
REINFORCEMENT IN CONCRETE
WWW.ELASTOPLASTIC.COM
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 33
TJ_0612_Synthetics_032_034_OK.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
23:06
Page 34
VIEWPOINT
FEA used in the design of segments
34 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_Benoit_035_037.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:26
Page 35
SPRAYED CONCRETE
Waterproofing
sprayed concrete
tunnels
MOST THINGS ARE a little more
complicated than they first appear. And
complicated things are interesting. If you
dont agree, best put this magazine down
now and go get a different job because you
clearly arent suited to tunnelling.
In the last issue of Tunnelling Journal,
Andy Pickett and Alun Thomas laid out a
smrgsbord of design philosophies for
sprayed concrete linings past, present and
possibly future. One thing all the
philosophies had in common was that
where there was a waterproof membrane,
either sprayed or sheet, the water pressure
was assumed to act on the back of the
membrane, and this pressure was assumed
to be transferred to the secondary concrete
lining, whether sprayed or cast in situ. This is
because the membrane is either considered
impermeable or at least a couple of orders
of magnitude less permeable than the
concrete, and therefore a water pressure
within the concrete will tend to be applied
to the membrane. There is nothing really
wrong with these assumptions, but it is
interesting to ask what might actually be
occurring, partly because it is complicated
(and hence interesting), and partly because
we can then question whether these design
assumptions and philosophies bear any
relation to what we think may be the reality.
Unpicking the design philosophies
It is clear that for a sheet waterproof
membrane system not bonded to the
primary lining and with a geotextile fleece
behind the PVC sheet, any leakage of water
through cracks in the primary lining will
eventually spread around the sheet
membrane and apply a hydrostatic pressure
to the secondary lining. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to design the secondary lining to
support all of the groundwater pressure. For
a sprayed waterproof membrane, it is not so
obvious that this is the case, because the
membrane is bonded to the primary lining.
Bond strengths quoted by suppliers are up
to 1.5MPa. Therefore, water passes through
So for a sprayed
waterproof
membrane, the
water would need
to penetrate
through the full
thickness of intact
sprayed concrete in
order to apply
pressure to the
whole membrane
and make the
secondary lining
earn its keep
Darren Page
cracks in the concrete and applies pressure
to the back of the membrane, but only over
the area of the crack plus a small distance
either side (due to local debonding to allow
crack bridging to occur). Therefore, the
forces exerted on a secondary lining due to
the groundwater pressure over these small
areas would be tiny, or to use a technical
term, ickle.
So for a sprayed waterproof membrane,
the water would need to penetrate through
the full thickness of intact sprayed concrete
in order to apply pressure to the whole
membrane and make the secondary lining
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 35
TJ_0612_Benoit_035_037.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:26
Page 36
SPRAYED CONCRETE
into the concrete, Valenta (1970) came up
with an equation to relate the uniaxial
penetration of water into concrete to time:
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Figure 1: Penetration of seawater into concrete under 70m pressure head, data from
Browne & Domone (1975)
40
35
Penetration (mm)
30
25
20
15
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time (days)
Penetration of groundwater
into sprayed concrete (mm)
1400
1200
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1000
K = 1e-12m/s, h = 20m
K = 1e-13m/s, h = 20m
800
K = 1e-14m/s, h = 20m
600
CORRECTION
400
200
0
0
100
200
300
Time (years)
36 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
400
500
600
www.lin
TJ_0612_Benoit_035_037.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:26
Page 37
www.linkedin.com/groups/Women-in-Tunneling-4470112/about
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 37
TJ_0612_LinkedIn_038_041.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:02
Page 38
INDUSTRY COMMENT
David Lees
It depends on many factors most specifically the length of the tunnel as it can take a long time to procure and establish a TBM. For a
short tunnel this is not economic. Also if poor geology and groundwater are expected, which may cause the face advance to be
stopped for long periods, the mobility of drill and blast equipment means that they can be utilised elsewhere.
Knut F. Garshol
Because the TBM system is very sensitive to rock conditions locally being outside of those thought before the start of excavation (which
happens quite frequently). Considering that the normal reasons for selecting TBM excavation mostly have to do with construction time
and that the actual cost primarily depends on the excavation time being as planned, the above mentioned sensitivity often causes both
time and cost to miss the target by a wide margin. Achieving short construction times also depends on a short length of tunnel to
compensate for the long delivery times and mobilization times associated with a TBM.
D&B offers a lot of advantages that are sometimes overlooked:
Equipment immediately available - no mobilization time
Variation of cross section is no problem, including niches etc
Probing ahead is easy and pre-excavation grouting can be efficiently executed
One jumbo can serve 2 opposing headings when circumstances allow it
Computer controlled units reduce overbreak and temporary support
Modern detonators can reduce vibration significantly
Modern explosives are safe, simple and fast to work with
Spiling bolts and other pre-stabilization equipment can be installed as needed
Easy and fast access to the face when needed in extremely poor zones
Any shape tunnel cross section possible (the circular TBM-shape is not always the best)
Much less cost-sensitive to massive, hard and abrasive rock
The list could be made longer, but even more excavation would be executed by D&B if more consultants and contractors actually had a full knowledge
and greater experience with D&B operations.
David Lees
I don't think Knut is correct - we are not reverting to drill and blast because TBMs cannot cope with unforeseen ground conditions - nor
because a round tunnel shape is not the best (a round tunnel is generally the most stable). It really is economics and program that
drives the decision. Mixed face TBMs can cope with a great variety of ground conditions. TBMs also allow immediate face support and
provide a safe area for workers. Drill and Blast is flexible and cheap for short tunnels with minimal establishment time.
Knut F. Garshol
To David: When we compare D&B and TBMs, it is typically for a hard rock case (otherwise D&B would not be in the picture at all) and NOT a
mixed face situation. Under such conditions, D&B allows basically any tunnel shape and there are plenty of cases where the shape is
important for the user and the project costs, while the stability aspect is completely marginal. I am not saying a TBM cannot cope with
unforeseen ground conditions, but it is clearly a MUCH more sensitive method than D&B. How many TBMs have been left in the hole to be
saved by a D&B bypass.... The immediate face support is also just a nice wish when operating hard rock TBMs. If you hit running ground and
a collapsing face, the problem zone cannot be brought back to the "safe area for workers". I have taken part in hand-digging to free a TBM more than once,
to finally do the rest of the tunnel with D&B with improved advance rate compared to the TBM.
38 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
& BL
DRILL
TJ_0612_LinkedIn_038_041.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:02
Page 39
INDUSTRY COMMENT
John Butchart
Hi David, you are not correct about the shape of tunnels. Circular tunnels are good for water races, utility tunnels and single track rail. Three lane highway tunnels
(even with ventilation duct channels overhead) are very oval in section, and a TBM drive at the moment would result in massive over-excavation with all the extra
cost. It will not always be thus: sooner or later, some propellor-head will invent an oval TBM. Until this happens, hard rock highway tunnels will be done by D & B.
Knut F. Garshol
Leo, of course you are right, but the whole subject was polarised a bit (which is OK) by the first posting asking why are we going back to D&B.
There is no going back. Both methods have their place and will continue to be successfully used when they are the right choice. The reasons for
the choice made will vary from project to project. My personal feeling is still that if there is significant doubt about the method to use, the
consequences of being wrong with a TBM are more serious.
M
Leo Troitski
I would have to agree Knut - most of the TBM models do not have a "reverse gear" ;-)
David Lees
I agree with Knut, it is difficult to give a distinct pure view when the subject under discussion is polarised. I think however this has been a
good discussion with many good points made. What it comes down to is a good geotechnical investigation and detailed planning to select
the right tool for the job. In conclusion I don't think we are moving back to drill and blast instead of TBMs - it might just be that the list of
projects you are looking at Mike are more suited to a drill and blast approach.
Leo Troitski
Concur, we are not moving back, we are developing new tools and techniques, frankly speaking none of the old excavation methods
become obsolete just because a new one is available. There are no grounds for "polarization" (And I do not see or feel it as such). An open
minded approach to any task is needed, along with thoroughly done home work (it is cheaper to run options on paper) and good advice
from friends and colleagues.
Bruce Matheson
Good points by all I think and for the most part everyone seems to be on the same page - However often times what seems to be the best
(most logical) solution technically (to those of us inside the industry) is not perceived as the best solution economically, or is seen as "risky"
by stakeholders (from outside the industry) who are not always technically as experienced as they might be.
M
Chas Dean
With reduced vibration counts through better management of advanced detonation methods and explosives, there should be more use
made of D & B in situations where they are warranted in inner city development.
There is nothing worse than changing red hot picks every cut, knowing full well you could remove the obstacle before you (and multiply
your metres) with a few well placed holes and some jelly. Maybe its time to update the Insurance Companies on our latest and more superior
abilities to move rock?
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 39
TJ_0612_LinkedIn_038_041.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:03
Page 40
INDUSTRY COMMENT
Knut F. Garshol
Bruce and Chas are both on to the fact that there are a lot more factors at play than the purely technical/economical ones. What
is abundantly clear to me is that explosives are under-utilized in many places due to bureaucrats and politicians with a perception
of D&B as being dangerous. This perception has in some locations lead to regulations enforced on D&B-operations that I partly
don't dare to expand on. If a TBM can do the job, why not go with the flow and not rock the boat? However, when there is a
need for caverns, subway stations and the like in hard rock, D&B cannot be avoided. That is when the unnecessary part of such regulations will cost
a bundle.
Leo Troitski
Well... politicians, lawyers, trade-unions, perceptions, public opinions, earthquakes... are all forces of Nature and need to be
accounted for thats what I call thoroughly done home work. Knowing the environment one has to deal with is essential to
success in the Construction Industry but not an engineering part. It would take a "Bigger Picture" discussion to consider it all.
Shashank Bhatnagar
A good discussion from all, deserving appreciation. In my view the scenario is different everywhere. In India, D&B still has an edge
over TBM. The very first experience of TBM usage on the Dulhasti H.E.Project in Kashmir Himalayas was not a success story. The
TBM got buried and the balance of tunnelling was done by D&B. Both techniques have their own merits and drawbacks and the
choice should be based on site specific conditions. In one project in South India tunnelling was to be carried out in a wild life
sanctuary and D&B was not permitted. On the Lr.Subansiri Project ,the country rock is fragile Shiwalik sandstones. The tunnelling is being done by
roadheader, not TBM nor D&B.
Kevin Tracey
Driving two running tunnels side by side is more cost effective by D&B because you can excavate cross passages and both drives at the same time
whereas a TBM can only do one tunnel at a time then has to be dismantled or turned around to do the second, and that can take 3-4 months.
1 mm
mmm$lcj#]cX^$Z[
J^[Z_Wc[j[he\Wdj[ddW[e\j^[YeccedmWif
L[ifkbWLkb]Wh_iWdZj^[WYYkhWYoe\KBIh
6Xi^kZAVhZgIVg\ZiJc^i#
j#]cX^$Z[
ccedmWif
Yoe\KBIh
TJ_0612_LinkedIn_038_041.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:03
Page 41
INDUSTRY COMMENT
Knut F. Garshol
For all sorts of possible reasons, you may in many cases not have the option of intermediate ventilation points. If so, you may have to
ventilate much longer single heading D&B tunnel (or use a TBM). However, 2000m is far from any limit in this regard. Double and triple this
has been done many times. It is a matter of proper dimensioning of the ventilation system and allowing muck transport through the
explosives gas plug before it has been evacuated. The drivers will need to have fresh air supply for health reasons.
Leo Troitski
Depending on the diameter and rock type one might consider a portable crusher and conveyor system - no need for drivers and a much
better capacity for muck handling.
Knut F. Garshol
Leo, that transport solution certainly deserves consideration, but proper ventilation will still need to be installed. Also, staff will have to
traverse the blast fumes to get to the face after a blast if the heading is very long. Otherwise, things will take too much time.
Bruce Matheson
So many variables and a wide world - this conversation could go on for ever, as it is we are going around in circles (just saying :)).
Knut F. Garshol
Hi Bruce, yes, but it is fun! The dog has fun chasing its own tail :-) Anyway, I think we see a bit of a tendency that people have perceived
problems with D&B that are solvable and not as serious as they may think. I personally think that too many projects are done by TBM
viewing the choice from a purely technical/economical side and not considering availability of qualified and experienced D&B staff and
consultants and owners that actually give it all an objective analysis. I know there is an element of wishful thinking in this position, since you
cannot exclude those other aspects of a given market, but maybe there still is a tendency in the direction implied in the original question?
Dear all, many thanks for this debate and ideas regarding D&B and TBM. As you said it all depends, but I agree with Knut that in many
cases D&B considerations are overlooked, therefore the temptation to go for TBM end up being the chosen option. It happened to us (we
were about to go for 2 TBMs !! now we are moving towards more headings and full D&B)
Leo Troitski
Knut, there is no doubt that proper ventilation/fresh air delivery and maintaining a sufficient fresh air pocket/zone at the heading is an
absolute must, but if sequence and pattern allows you to make more than one blast per shift, positively pressurized man-trip (with sufficient
back-up air supply on board for emergencies) will get your crew out and new crew in through the slowly moving blast fume zone. Of cause
you would have to stop blasting and ventilate the tunnel for periodical maintenance and extension of the conveyor belt e.t.c. but it all could
be pre-planned. We are not discussing any emergency situations either.
David Salisbury
A healthy debate. I would point out one thing. Several have commented on the relatively immediate availability of drill and blast plant etc.
However, for many of todays projects the tunnel horizon is not immediately available. On rail tunnel projects, especially in an urban
environment, it can take 12-24 months from award of contract to achieve the access to the tunnel horizon. While this is often achieved
using multiple methods including soft ground and drill and blast, the delivery time of a TBM can usually easily match or better the long leadin time required to clear sites, sink shafts and construction adits etc.
There is a healthy future for both methods if their selection is properly considered. If we keep getting it wrong the Clients will walk away from projects leaving
us all out of a job!
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 41
photo credits: MVB, VINCI and subsidiaries photo libraries, Andras Nemeth, Clarence Michel.
Constructing a
Sustainable future.
At VINCI Construction Grands Projets, we engineer solutions that are not only
financially competitive, but work sustainably for the planet. It starts with putting
Safety first, always, at all times, on every site. Health & Safety training, policies
and guidelines are all in place, but to generate the best possible results, we go
further with our innovative (A)live on Site programme. We understand that our
people are more reactive to what concerns them directly, we have a team who
visit the site, shoot a short movie and then broadcast it to the team. Each scene
is analysed with behaviour experts, underlining the good (and less good) actions.
(A)live on site has been successfully delivered to more than 2,000 people, in 12
languages, across 14 countries, including the UK.
To learn more please visit www.vinci-construction-projects.com/british-isles
TJ_0612_Robbins_043_045.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:02
Page 43
PROBE DRILLING
Right: Industry
opinions on probe
drilling and pregrouting vary
widely, and are
often based on
the variables of
time, cost, and
experience
Right: Selecting
the right machine
type is key, as the
design of shielded
machines limits
the angle at
which drilling can
be done
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 43
TJ_0612_Robbins_043_045.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:02
Page 44
PROBE DRILLING
is no way to seal the outer diameter of the
shield to the rock surface. This is because the
rock is too rough and has fissures, said Log.
Even with probing and grouting, the shield
design limits the angle at which the drilling can
be done, leaving the excavation face itself
untested.
If significant water is expected, the best
option may be a Main Beam TBM that does
not limit the use of probing and grouting. Any
waterproof lining and segments
needed could be set behind the
machine.
The All Conditions Tunneler (ACT) TBM developed by Robbins utilizes a retractable telescopic
In order to further optimize
shield to allow ground treatment in front of or close to the face
pre-treatment efficiency, Robbins
while providing the protection of a shield body
has also developed the All
Conditions Tunneller (ACT)
TBMa combination of a
Double Shield and Main Beam
TBM that removes the
conventional shielded machines
limitation regarding ground
treatment in front of, or close to
the face.
The ACT machine allows for
swift in-tunnel conversion
between an open and shielded
TBM via a retractable telescopic
shield. The design thus allows for
them from the critical path of the TBM
more rapid and comprehensive
process. Detailed planning should be done
probe drilling in an open
to coordinate the maintenance and cutter
configuration. The method can
changing stops to the probing intervals. As
also result in substantial cost
an example a daily maintenance shift could
savings, as the contractor can
be sufficient time to complete a grouting
choose between a full segmental
umbrella, with the correct TBM set up.
lining or a temporary lining with
Analyze drilling performance in detail:
shotcrete, rock bolts, and ring
To get the most out of probe drilling and
beams.
pre-grouting, detailed measurements of the
advance rates of the probe drilling and the
Number 3: It has been
grouting pressure should be done. These
Successful on Difficult TBM
measurements enable proper prediction of
the ground ahead of the TBM. The drilling
Projects
could be measured manually or
Though probe drilling and preautomatically with Measurement While
grouting have not yet been used
Drilling (MWD) systems, which are
extensively on TBM projects,
commonly used in D&B applications. The
successful examples can be
MWD system is used to analyze the rock in
found worldwide. Brox was
Probe drilling has
detail (hardness, water content, rock mass
involved at such a project, on
been done
properties, etc.) and can be used to generate
two Robbins Main Beam TBMs
successfully on
3D-models of the rock mass in order to
at Canadas Seymour Capilano
many TBMs,
decide on the rock support or for
Water Filtration Tunnels: 100%
including two
documentation purposes, said Log.
probe drilling (with minimum
Robbins Main
An adaptation of this type of system,
overlap) and pre-excavation
Beam machines at
called the DRIS system, was developed by
grouting were specified as part
Canadas Seymour
Nishimatsu Construction of Japan for use on
of the twin down drives of the
Capilano Water
three Robbins Main Beam TBMs in Malaysia.
Seymour Capilano tunnel
Filtration Tunnels
The 5.23m diameter machines, for the
project. This was due to the
Pahang Selangor Raw Water Tunnel, are
down gradient of the tunnel
water at the face. It is impossible to seal a
excavating high cover granitic rock using a
under high cover where there was a moderate
Double Shield - water will always flow in
successful program of continuous probe
risk of encountering significant inflows.
between the face and the location where you
drilling. The DRIS system calculates the rate
Fortunately the actual groundwater inflows
effectively grout behind the segments. If you
of advance using drill feed pressure, rotation,
were much less than originally anticipated and
have high inflows of water it is difficult, if not
and other variables, and also infers the rock
so very limited pre-excavation grouting was
impossible, to stop the water flow around the
quality based on the rate of penetration. All
required. Probe drilling was continuously
segments or effectively grout behind the
of the information is relayed via a wireless
carried out during TBM excavation, and while
segments. Whatever grout you pump in
connection for real-time viewing anywhere
it had an impact on progress in the early days,
behind the segments just washes out, as there
on the TBMs and at the surface.
once the crews became familiar with the
Plan and optimize the downtime for
maintenance and cutter changes to
minimize the downtime caused by
probing and grouting:
According to Log, proper scheduling may be
one of the easiest ways to reduce downtime
compared with current industry standards. To
efficiently perform probe drilling and
potentially pre-grouting in a TBM process, it is
essential to plan the interventions and remove
44 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_Robbins_043_045.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
22:02
Page 45
PROBE DRILLING
Left: An experienced work
force can greatly reduce
the negatives of probe
drilling and grouting, as
seen here at Malaysias
Pahang Selangor Raw
Water Tunnel
Below: Probe drilling and
pre-grouting offers many
benefits, and has been
proven, when used
continuously, to accurately
detect and treat poor
ground conditions such as
these, ahead of the TBM
REFERENCES
Fulcher, Brian and Bell, Mike. The Arrowhead
Tunnels Project. Tunnels & Tunnelling
International, August 2008.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 45
TJ_0612_046_050.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:41
Page 46
RMS CRITERION
Figure 1: Intact rock criterion for failure in triaxial compression for five rock
materials (Bieniawski 1974)
1
c
1
c
Norite
3 0.75
1
= 5.0 ( ) +1
c
c
3 0.75
1
= 3.0 ( ) +1
c
c
1
1
Siltstone
Mudstone
0
0
0.2
1
c
3
c
0.4
0.6
1
c
Quartzite
0.2
3
c
0.4
0.6
Sandstone
where
(1)
2
3 0.75
1
= 4.0 ( ) +1
c
c
3 0.75
1
= 4.5 ( ) +1
c
c
1
0
0
0.2
46 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
3
c
0.4
0.6
0.2
3
c
0.4
0.6
TJ_0612_046_050.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:41
Page 47
RMS CRITERION
(2)
where:
(3)
modelling, including the Generalised HoekBrown (GHB) criterion. The new criterion
depends on three parameters: intact
strength, B a material parameter, and
RMR, a rock-mass condition parameter. The
GHB criterion similarly depends on three
parameters, intact strength, mi a material
parameter, and GSI, a rock-mass condition
parameter. In order to compare the criteria
the tri-axial strength data used to derive the
B values were input into the Rocscience
program RocLab. This program was
developed around the GHB criterion and
uses a standardized statistical approach to
deriving mi values from laboratory data.
The input data and the corresponding intact
strengths according to the two criteria are
shown in Figure 3 in dimensionless form.
Using these derived mi values the
strength criteria were then plotted to allow
a direct comparison between them in terms
of strength at failure, as shown in Figure 4.
In the plots GSI has been adjusted to get
3
2
1/ c
2
1/ c
Norite
Siltstone
Mudstone
GHB Criterion: mi = 6.99
MYB Criterion: B = 3
Data
GHB Criterion: mi = 16.9
MYB Criterion: B = 5
0
0
0.2
c = 50MPa
Sandstone: B = 4
0.4
3 / c
0.6
0.8
0.05
0.1
3 / c
0.15
0.2
100
Quartzite
RMR=90
RMR=70
RMR=50
RMR=30
RMR=10
c-phi RMR=90
c-phi RMR=70
c-phi RMR=50
c-phi RMR=30
c-phi RMR=10
80
1 (MPa)
60
2
1/ c
1/ c
40
Sandstone
20
1
Data
GHB Criterion: mi = 15.36
MYB Criterion: B = 4
Data
GHB Criterion: mi = 15.46
MYB Criterion: B = 4.5
0
0
0
10
3 (MPa)
0
0
0.1
0.2
3 / c
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
3 / c
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 47
TJ_0612_046_050.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:41
Page 48
RMS CRITERION
Figure 4: Comparison of Modified Yudhbir-Bieniawski and Generalized HoekBrown Criteria
Siltstone & Mudstone: c = 40MPa
80
GHB: GSI=93
GHB: GSI=75
GHB: GSI=55
GHB: GSI=35
GHB: GSI=15
MYB: RMR=90
MYB: RMR=70
MYB: RMR=50
MYB: RMR=30
MYB: RMR=10
40
GHB: GSI=93
GHB: GSI=73
GHB: GSI=50
GHB: GSI=30
GHB: GSI=10
MYB: RMR=90
MYB: RMR=70
MYB: RMR=50
MYB: RMR=30
MYB: RMR=10
400
1 (MPa)
60
1 (MPa)
Norite: c = 250MPa
600
200
20
0
0
10
20
40
3 (MPa)
60
80
3 (MPa)
Quartzite: c = 200MPa
Sandstone: c = 50MPa
500
100
GHB: GSI=92
GHB: GSI=72
GHB: GSI=50
GHB: GSI=30
GHB: GSI=10
MYB: RMR=90
MYB: RMR=70
MYB: RMR=50
MYB: RMR=30
MYB: RMR=10
1 (MPa)
300
80
60
1 (MPa)
400
GHB: GSI=88
GHB: GSI=68
GHB: GSI=48
GHB: GSI=28
GHB: GSI=10
MYB: RMR=90
MYB: RMR=70
MYB: RMR=50
MYB: RMR=30
MYB: RMR=10
200
40
100
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
3 (MPa)
48 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
10
3 (MPa)
15
TJ_0612_046_050.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:41
Page 49
RMS CRITERION
from tests in exploratory tunnels and adits in
which wide ranging in situ rock mechanics
investigations were conducted. This involved
33 plate bearing tests accompanied by 39
Goodman jack tests, 13 large flat jack tests
and 13 state of stress measurements using the
CSIR triaxial cell. In addition, extensive
laboratory testing and geological mapping on
site were performed.
The original design featured a layout of
three underground caverns in a greywacke
rock mass located at 172m below surface.
Figure 5 presents modelling results of that
arrangement based on the new Modified
Yudhbir-Bieniawski criterion.
Note the contours of the factors of safety
FS in this figure, the significance of which is
that, based on the experience and practice in
designing underground mining openings and
pillars, the acceptable FS should be 1.5, while
for long-term use at least 2.0 and where
public access is contemplated the FS should
be over 2.5.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 49
TJ_0612_046_050.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
20:41
Page 50
RMS CRITERION
Figure 7: Distribution of Total Displacements around the re-designed caverns
Figure 8: Three stages of the excavation sequence for the construction of the re-designed cavern.
50 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
SUBSCRIBE T
ODAY...
SUBSCRIBE NOW!
TJ_0612_Products_052_053.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
21:57
Page 52
PRODUCT NEWS
52 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
Communications partnership in
Papua New Guinea
Leading Papua New Guinea radio
communications company, TE (PNG), has
partnered with Mine Radio Systems (MRS)
Pacific to develop a market leading
communications service for the mining and
tunnelling sectors.
With TE (PNG)s strong support, combined
with the global experience of Mine Radio
Systems (MRS), TE (PNG) provides Papua New
Guinea with world class products and
services for the mining and tunnelling
sectors, says Graeme Corbett, Managing
Director, MRS Pacific.
Partnering with TE (PNG) has given both
companies the opportunity to expand their
current operations, increasing the
manufacture and deployment of their
advanced safety and communications
systems worldwide.
Our partnership with MRS, with their
wealth of technical expertise in the mining
and tunnelling arena and their solid
reputation, will further establish TE (PNG) as
the foremost company in the radio
communication field within Papua New
Guinea, says Bob Taylor, General Manager
TE (PNG) Ltd.
MRS maintains a commitment to the
development of technologies that enhance
the value of existing communication
infrastructures for mining and tunnelling.
Through this development and
implementation, MRS leads the way in
establishing communication networks
through the use of proprietary innovations
including Voice, Video, Data and Safety
applications.
TE (PNG) Ltd. supplies specialist radio and
communication products, service and
support to the Papua New Guinea market.
They have a modern radio communications
workshop in Port Moresby, staffed with
trained support techs, as well as a branch
office in Lae.
TE (PNG) success stories include; supplying
communication needs to the mining,
commercial and government sectors and
recently won the tender to implement the
GMDSS Project for the National Maritime
Safety Authority; and installing over 1,200
HF radio installations at remote Health
Centers throughout the nation and a control
station located in Port Moresby for the
National Health Radio Network.
TE (PNG) attributes their continuing
success to a highly professional, systematic
approach to every project and a client driven
philosophy that includes comprehensive
support after the sale.
A long standing commitment to PNG gives
the companies a unique window into the
local environment, a real advantage when it
comes to delivering high level, customer
focused, communication and safety products
and services in Papua New Guinea.
TJ_0612_Products_052_053.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
21:57
Page 53
PRODUCT NEWS
Robbins progress in Nanjing
Cogemacoustic Fans
Over the last eighteen months specialist
ventilation product supplier for mines and
tunnels Cogemacoustic has delivered thirty
nine ventilation fans to Portugal ranging
from 22kW to 315kW and some 33km of
ducting from 700mm-2600mm diameter for
Hydro, Mine and Tunnel projects including:
1) The Venda Nova 3 Hydro plant awarded
by the power company EDP to the
consortium comprising MSF/Somague/MotaEngil/Spie Batignolles. It will be the largest
hydro electric power plant in Portugal in
terms of its installed capacity of 736MW.
Located in the municipality of Vieira do
Minho, the plant will be almost entirely
underground. Pictured is a triple stage 3 x
160kW supply fan, nominal diameter
1400mm with Variable Frequency Drives,
twin 1000mm diameter flexible ducting
tubes which are fed via a steel "Y" duct. For
this plant Cogemacoustic have delivered 16
supply and extraction fans of 22kW-250kW,
along with 20km of flexible ducting ranging
in diameters from 700mm-2200mm.
2) The Tnel do Maro, which is a 30 year
concession contract to design, construct,
widen, finance, operate and maintain the
32km long A4/IP4 road connection between
Amarante and Vila Real, which was awarded
to the consortium Autopista do Maro
comprising, Somague Engenharia and MSF.
The contract includes the 2 x 5.7km Maro
tunnel which when complete will be the
longest road tunnel on the Iberian Peninsula.
The winning consortia is driving the 102m2
section tunnel by drill and blast from the
west and has employed the contractor EPOS
to drive the tunnel from the east portal. For
this project Cogemacoustic has delivered
three 250kW fans with Variable frequency
Drive and 12km of ducting of
2500/2600mm diameter.
3) The Salamonde 2 207MW civil works
and construction contract for the
underground pumped storage plant on the
Cavado river which was awarded by power
company, EDP to the joint venture Texeira
Duarte/Epos/Seth. The project is one of
eleven in EDP's current waterpower plan.
The scheme consists of a central
underground cavern, a hydraulic tunnel and
several shafts and tunnels. For the 4.5km
tunnels with sections up to 110m2
Cogemacoustic are supplying six blowing
and extraction fans of 55kW-315kW,
together with flow and anti backdraft
dampers. Also included is 1000m of
2600mm diameter ducting.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 53
TJ_0612_CONTACTS_054.qxd:Feature
12/6/12
21:46
Page 54
contact US
Gary Tween
Tris Thomas
Managing Director
Tel: + 44 (0) 1622 720 631
Mobile: + 44 (0) 7973 205 638
gary@tunnellingjournal.com
Editorial Director
Tel: + 44 (0) 1622 720 631
Mobile: + 44 (0) 7812 011 139
tris@tunnellingjournal.com
contributorS
Kristina
Smith
Rory Harris
Steve Caming
Chairman
Mobile: + 1 (859) 321 3164
rory@tunnelingjournal.com
Publishing Director
Tel: + 1 (603) 447 1187
Mobile: + 1 (603) 662 6263
steve@tunnelingjournal.com
tunneling@roadrunner.com
Mark Piper
Peter Bell
Finance Director
Tel: + 44 (0) 1672 563 662
Mobile: + 44 (0) 7768 554 646
mark@tunnellingjournal.com
Director
Tel: + 44 (0) 1622 720 631
Mobile: + 44 (0) 7770 441 867
peter@tunnellingjournal.com
Adrian
Greeman
Adrian Greeman has been
writing about international
civil engineering projects (in
particular tunnels, bridges
and highways) for the past
16 years.
Tunnelling
journal
Amanda Foley
North American Editor
amanda@tunnellingjournal.com
mands.f@hotmail.com
Daniel LeeBillinghurst
Sales Consultant
Tel: +44 (0) 203 239 6754
Mobile: +44 (0) 7818 422712
daniel@tunnellingjournal.com
Pete Beach
Peter Lawrence
Illustrator
Art Editor
54 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0612_extra_pages.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
22:29
Page 20
Tunnelling
June/July 2012
www.tunnellingjournal.com
journal
SEE PAGE 6
SEE PAGE 26
SEE PAGE 43
TJ WORLD
NEWS
SFR LINING
DESIGN
ISSUES
PROBE
DRILLING
HIGHLIGHTS FROM
THE TJ WEBSITES
DAILY NEWS
SERVICE
MODERN DESIGN
CHALLENGES FOR
SFR SEGMENTAL
LININGS
SUCCESSFUL
TBM PROBE
DRILLING AND
PRE-GROUTING
EXPLAINED
NATJ_0612_NAFNTCOVER_001.qxd:cover
11/6/12
20:27
Page 1
Tunneling
north american
June/July 2012
journal
www.tunnellingjournal.com
STATE-OF-THE-ART AUTOMATED
SEGMENTAL TUNNEL LINER CAROUSEL
MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
and its proprietary molds to produce
over 100 segments each shift
SEE PAGE 5
SEE PAGE 17
MOLEYS BREAK
THROUGH
ARE WE
HAPPY YET?
CUTTING EDGE
ROUND UP
SPADINA PROGRESS
AND OTHER NEWS
FROM AROUND THE US
AND CANADA
HIGHLIGHTS FROM A
SUCCESSFUL
PRESSURIZED TBM
EVENT IN MIAMI
h e r r e n k n e c h t A G | u t i l i t y t u n n e l l i n g | T r a f f i c t u n n e l l i n gU S A
CONTRACTOR
S-560, S-561
2x EPB Shields
Diameter: 2x 6,560mm
Installed power: 608kW
Tunnel length: 2x 3,478m
Geology: Clay, silt
and sand
Herrenknecht Tunnelling
Systems USA, Inc.
1613 132nd Ave E, Suite 200
Sumner, WA 98390
Phone +12534472300
Fax +12538639376
marketing@herrenknecht.com
www.herrenknecht.com
12-05-23_150_ID003_eAz_Seattle_TunnellingJournalNA_210x297_02_RZ.indd 1
23.05.12 11:18
NATJ_0612_COMMENT_003.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
22:02
Page 3
comment
Communication
During a recent browse on LinkedIn,
I read an interesting discussion on
the Aldea Services Group page that
had been prompted by a poll asking
What is the biggest risk on your
tunnel or underground project?
Interestingly, the consensus seemed
to be that communication (or lack
thereof) posed the biggest risk.
One engineer pointed out that in
his 25-years of experience working in tunneling he was not aware of
a "failed project" where communication was well established and
working throughout the project. And vice versa, a successful project
where communication has failed. A supplementary comment, was
that other risks that tend to show up on a risk matrix (technical,
geological, contractual, time program etc) are frequently the trigger
of communication breakdown. With well established and maintained
communication, serious problems normally find a sensible solution.
And its not just communication within an organization or between
project participants that is crucial. As Bob Goodfellow points out in his
column this month (p11), the tunneling industry could be doing much
more to promote itself in terms of communication with the public. Its
easy to overlook (or underestimate) how much impact a negative
reputation can (and sometimes does) have on the industry. Projects
such as the Alaskan Way Tunnel, in Seattle, and the Westside Subway
Extension, in LA, have suffered especially from such attitudes.
As this edition of NATJ was going to print, the unfortunate news of
a tragic fatal accident at the Lake Mead Intake No 3 Tunnel came in.
Thankfully, such occurrences are becoming ever rarer in the industry,
possibly demonstrated by the fact that the accident is such big news.
But that in itself highlights part of the problem. In terms of publicity,
tunneling disasters will always gain much more exposure than the
successes. There remains a definite need for an industry database or
resource that records the successes, which can be made available to
the media to draw on when reporting on tunnel projects.
Amanda Foley
contentS
5
11
12
The Insider
Goodfellow highlights the risks of bathtubs
17
18
20
22
LA Metros Measure R
NATJ talks to LA Metro about three of its
major upcoming tunneling projects
Above:
Alaskan Way
ramps up (p8)
Right: First
two drives
now complete
on Spadina
(p7)
Front cover
CSI Tunnel Systems utilizes its
state-of-the-art automated
segmental tunnel liner carousel manufacturing system and its proprietary molds
to produce over 100 segments each shift, which comprise each six segment, 24ft
diameter tunnel ring for the Euclid Creek Tunnel, in Cleveland, Ohio. The
precision segmental liners, reinforced with steel fibers, are manufactured by CSIHanson ECT JV using mold tolerances to 0.018 inches and perfected processes
learned from producing over 50 miles of segmental tunnel liners throughout
North America. McNally/Kiewit ECT JV is the prime contractor for the tunnel.
Pictured: Sea of segmental liners; each with a unique identification number
and traceable to production and inspection records, await deployment to
their permanent home 200ft below the bed of Lake Erie.
For assistance with the design and supply of segmental liners for your
project, please contact Leonard Worden, CEO, CSI Tunnel Systems, Tel: 800342-3374.
EUCLID CREEK
TUNNEL
Cleveland, OH
Vancouver, BC
NATJ_0612_NEWS_005_008.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:43
Page 5
NEWS
Horodniceanu, President of
MTA Capital Construction.
We should never lose sight
of the first class work that
our contractors are
undertaking on this
extraordinarily complex
project.
NATJ_0612_NEWS_005_008.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:43
Page 6
CONCEPT TO COMPLETION
AUTOMATED GROUT & SLURRY SYSTEMS
Featuring high shear colloidal mills
with new Mk IV mechanical seals
Fully Automated
Self Cleaning
Containerized Plants
Lo-Prole Plants
Foam & Admix Systems
PROVEN
Offering new and used tunneling equipment
for more than 25 years.
##!#(*'
# " (#
##$(&!'
& )!#'
" #'('
( "'
"( (#"
%)$!"(
MINING
EQUIPMENT
#"
, +
, www.miningequipmentltd.com
NATJ_0612_NEWS_005_008.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:43
Page 7
NEWS
Contractor outreach
for Hanlan Feedermain
A non-mandatory contractor outreach meeting has been called by the Greater Toronto
Areas Region of Peel, to review the entire
Hanlan Feedermain project. The meeting will
be held on Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 9am.
The Hanlan Feedermain is a 2.4m (7.8ft) i.d.
pipeline running from the Lakeview Water
Treatment Plant on the shoreline of Lake Ontario in Mississauga, Ontario, approximately
14km (8.7-miles) northward to the Hanlan
Reservoir and Pumping Station. The project
is part of the Region of Peels 2007 Water
and Wastewater Master Plan.
The project is being designed by CH2M
HILL and MMM Group. The major tunnel
component is a 6km (3.7-mile) long, 3.6m
(11.8ft) diameter, TBM driven tunnel in shale
under major highways and rail bridges. In
addition, several additional shallower tunnels
of 2.4m (7.8ft) and 3.6m (11.8ft) diameter
are required for lengths up to 1.4km (0.8miles). The 6km (3.7-mile) tunnel segment
will be a separate contract from the opencut portions and shallower tunnel segments.
For more information email SouthHanlanWP@peelregion.ca or visit the project
website at www.hanlanwaterproject.ca.
Holey-Moley breakthroughs
On Friday, June 1st, Moley the second of two
owner-procured 6.134m (20ft) diameter
mixed face EPBMs built by Caterpillar
Tunneling Canada for the Toronto Transit
Commission (TTC) broke through on the first
northern heading for the Southern Tunnels
Contract of the 8.6km (5.3-mile) long
Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension
(TYSSE).
NATJ_0612_NEWS_005_008.qxd:Feature
NEWS
13/6/12
21:43
Page 8
of up to 13ft (3.9m).
As the finished tunnel will convey
wastewater by gravity flow, it will be
inclined throughout its length toward the
Kailua Regional WWTP starting at a
depth of approximately 40ft (12m) below
ground level at the Kaneohe WWPTF and
ending at a depth of 82ft (25m) below
ground level at the Kailua Regional
WWTP. A new influent pump station
(IPS) will lift the wastewater from the
vertical shaft to the surface for
treatment. Tunnel design is anticipated to
be complete by the end of this year, with
a pre-qualification bidding process due to
commence in the first quarter of 2013.
Next-generation productivity
Atlas Copco Boomer E-series
NATJ_0612_Insider_010_011.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
20:40
Page 10
Beyond Tunnels
Our expertise goes beyond bored tunnels.
JACOBS SF.COM
Mind
Muscle
SMART FROM THE START, STRONG TO THE
FINISH. When you work with Black & Veatch,
you tap best minds and resources in the water
business to skillfully tackle your challenges.
Were building a world of difference. Together.
Gaithersburg 301.921.2874
Kansas City 913.458.3493
weknowwater@BV.com
NATJ_0612_Insider_010_011.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
20:40
Page 11
THE INSIDER
the
insider
Bob Goodfellow, PE, CEng, Senior Vice
President, Aldea Services LLC
Driving Value by
Improving Safety
that impacts everybody, from the public agency
director to the tunnel laborer to a member of the
public is that planning, design, construction and
operation must be carried out with safety as the
highest priority.
Anybody will tell you that tunneling is risky.
The majority opinion of the general public is
unfortunately that tunneling is not safe and
carries inherent risks to life, health and property.
My own view is that, while this may have been
true in the past, this opinion is not now correct.
Developments in technology and a change in
culture toward safety among the major
tunneling contractors have benefited the
tunneling industry greatly. The old macho claim
that a tunnel should cost a man a mile is now
thankfully a relic of history and so it should be.
Everybody has the right to go home healthy at
the end of their shift. That safety has become
the tunnel construction industrys number one
priority should be applauded and promoted.
The accident rate in tunneling is now slightly
lower than the average accident rate for all
construction. Our business has moved from
being the most hazardous branch of
construction to having no more accidents than
residential construction. A review of 3,496
fatalities investigated by OSHA over a five-year
period shows that only seven were attributable
to tunnel construction. Considering the
conditions and tasks that tunneling personnel
encounter and carry out on a routine basis, this is
a phenomenal achievement.
Why then are people fearful of the safety of
NATJ_0612_LA_012_015.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:29
Page 12
LOS ANGELES
LA Metros Measure R
The Crenshaw/LAX project, the Regional Connector Transit Corridor and the
Westside Subway Extension are the three biggest mass transit projects
currently being progressed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro). NATJ correspondent, Kristina Smith,
recently caught up with Metro to find out a bit more about these projects
126
San
Fernando
Valley
Ventura County
118
210
170
Arroyo
Verdugo
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
101
134
405
Las Virgenes/Malibu
Central LA
210
C
Westside
Cities
10
710
10
San Gabriel
Valley
71
60
Pacif
H
57
ic
Oc
ea
105
110
K
Existing Metro Lines
Under Construction
30/10 Projects
San
Bernardino
County
91
L
Gateway
605
Cities
405
Orange County
South Bay
Cities
Artists impression of
one of the new Westside
Subway Extension stations
Amtrak/Metrolink
NATJ_0612_LA_012_015.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:29
Page 13
LA BREA
FAIRFAX
LOS ANGELES
N
BEVERLY
HANCOCK
PARK
PARK
LA BREA
6TH
Wilshere
Western
HAW
OLYMPIC
CRE
NS
WILSH
CENT
W
No
3RD
WILSHERE
FAIR
FAX
ROSSMORE
HIGHLAND
The Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor Project
KOREAT
PICO
LOS ANGELES
LA BREA
WESTERN
10
ARLINGTON
405
WESTERN
VAN NESS
8TH
CRENSHAW BLD
LA CIENEGA
AVIATION
AIRPORT
PRAIRIE
LA BREA
MARKET
405
LA
TIJ
ER
A
SEPULV
EDA
WEST
LA BREA
90
RAMONA
HAWTHORNE
INGLEWOOD
NASH
105
105
1%
4.8
Elevation (feet)
405
NATJ_0612_LA_012_015.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:29
Page 14
LOS ANGELES
A
ED
Regional Connector
Transit Corridor
110
ALIS
INO
FW
SAN
VEZ
Union Station
IAL
An
CESAR CHA
Los
ARD
N
BER
ERC
sR
gele
MM
CO
101
r
ive
101
AL
ALISO
AM
A
ED
TEMPLE
1ST
NT
AF
E
Little Tokyo/
Arts District
Civic Center
10
PLE
TEM
SA
TEMPLE
CIVIC
CENTER
MAIN
SPRING
BROADWAY
HILL
OLIVE
HOPE
HOPE
FLOWER
HOPE
FIQUEROA
Existing
Parking
Lot
Tf
Ground Surface
Existing
Building
Central Ave.
2nd St.
Elevation (feet)
af
Qalo
180
RA
NT
Existing
Parking
Garage
Prior Regional
Connector
Boring (Typ.)
320
300
280
260
Qal
R Track
Top of Rail
Geologic
Contact (Typ.)
Tunnel Crown
220
200
CE
Existing
Building
ED
Current Regional
Connector Boring (Typ.)
260
240
AM
280
AL
300
Prior Geotechnical
Boring (Typ.)
FLOWER
320
GRAND
1ST
ARTS
1ST
D
(177m) radius and then head west
2N
DISTRICT
towards the 2nd/Broadway station.
2ND
2ND
Just west of this station, the
LITTLE
TOKYO
3RD
alignment crosses beneath the Red
Line tunnels before curving round a
HISTORIC CORE
4TH
TOY DISTRICT
BUNKER
600ft (183m) radius, passing
Pershing
HILL
Square
through the 2nd/Hope station box
5TH
structure. Finally a straight run
CENTRAL CITY EAST
FINANCIAL
DISTRICT
down Flower Street ends at a
6TH
JEWELRY
reception pit in Flower Street, with
DISTRICT
7TH
the remainder of this leg into the
7th St/
H
7T
Metro Center
existing 7th/Metro station
8TH
FASHION
8TH
completed in cut-and-cover.
DISTRICT
N
BL
9TH
This first section of the tunnel
9TH
passes underneath the Japanese
Existing Metro Rail & Station
Village Plaza, one of only three
OLYMPIC
Transfers
historic Japanese communities in
Metro Silver Line & Station
11TH
the US. Here, the specification will
SOUTH
Exposition Transit Corridor
PARK
& Station Phase 1
call for ground treatment, which
12TH
(under construction)
could take the form of permeation
Amtrak/Metrolink
Pico
PICO
At-Grade Segment
grouting, jet grouting or
Refined LPA Underground LRT
compensation grouting. There will
Proposed Underground Stations
Original LPA
also be other places where ground
modification is required, says Crow.
These include an area where the
The designers also used Midas GTS when
tunnel passes very close beneath a large LA
considering the interaction between the new
county storm drain in mixed face conditions;
tunnels and the existing tunnels of the Red
where it passes beneath ducts and pipes for a
Line. That analysis revealed the RCTC tunnels
central chilling system; and anywhere else the
could be excavated with negligible impact on
contractor needs it to meet Metros design and
the Red Line tunnels. We arent expecting any
performance criteria.
unacceptable movements, says Crow, But this
Setting the vertical and horizontal
is an operational railroad, so we will require
alignments has required sophisticated
instrumentation and monitoring of the tunnels,
modeling using MIDAS GTS from Metros
using state of the art methods.
designer Connector Partnership (a joint venture
The monitoring of settlement along the
between AECOM and Parsons Brinkerhoff)
route has been carefully specified. The
where the tunnel passes under the 4th Street
Connector Partnership has written a Building
Ramp foundation and the Red Line.
Protection Report, which identifies buildings
The ramp is supported on 18in (450mm)
that may require mitigation measures to avoid
diameter drilled cast-in-place concrete piles,
damage. The consultants analyzed 60 buildings
which splay out into the ground, with the two
and structures, identifying the four which
tunnels squeezing through the middle, with
require consideration of protection measures.
two sets either side. The designers used the
The monitoring system will combine data from
Midas GTS finite element program to model
the TBM, subsurface and surface to give real
the piles, the ground and to simulate the
time information on the impact of tunneling on
progress and operations of the TBM. The
settlement. The monitoring and reporting
results told the Connector Partnership that the
frequencies required will vary depending on
tunnels can pass through the foundations
the situation, with frequencies stepped up if
without ground movements and without
trigger levels are approached.
causing problems for the highway.
The Federal Government has yet to approve
its 50% funding of the project, with Measure R
Figure 3: RCTC profile from 1st & Alameda to 2nd St, through Japanese Village
contributing the other 50%. Metro intends to
go out with an RFQ this summer with the
release of the RFP by the end of the year.
South Central
Arena Station
240
220
200
180
QUICK FACTS
Name: Regional Connector Transit Tunnel
Overall project cost: $1.34 billion
Procurement: Design-Build
Tunnels: 1.9-miles, 22ft diameter
TBMs: Pressurized Face
Status: RFQ this summer; RFP by end of year.
Consultant: Connector Partnership (AECOM
and Parsons Brinkerhoff JV)
NATJ_0612_LA_012_015.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:29
Page 15
LOS ANGELES
We have readily managed these ground
conditions, says Matthew Crow, Metros
Director, Project Engineering for tunnels.
Not only on the MGLEE, but the City of Los
Angeles undertook a $500 million sewer
tunnel program through both gassy and
potentially gassy ground with great ease.
MGLEE was not only a technical success.
Metro also introduced innovation in its
procurement and delivery methods for the
project.
The contract was a hybrid between
design-build and design-bid-build, with the
tunnels being 100% designed by the clients
designer. An Integrated Project Management
Office (IPMO) allowed more effective
communication between all the involved
parties, speeding up decision-making and
keeping the project on track and safe.
Transfers
Exposition Transit Corridor
& Station Phase 1
(under construction)
BE
SAN
NT
OD
BL
RE
BU
HE
ND
LS
WI
SANTA MONICA
CA
10
Expo/
Sepulveda SANTA MONICA FWY
WY
OF
L
EB
405
Colorado/
4th St
National/
Palms
Culver
City
La Cienega/
Jefferson
Expo/
La Brea Farmdale
EXPOSITION
LN
CO
LIN
Expo/
Olympic/ Bundy
26th St
Colorado/
17th St
VERMONT
WESTERN
KOREATOWN
PICO
VENICE BL
WASHINGTON
10
IEG
N
SA
PIC
OLYM
MID-CITY
ND
TA
BL
Wilshere/
Vermont
Wilshere/
Normandie
OLYM
PICO
SA
I
ON
Wilshere/
La Brea
PIC
Expo/
Westwood
WEST
LOS ANGELES
WILSHERE
CENTER
Wilshere/
Western
HAW
WO
ST
CENTURY
CITY
WINDSOR
SQUARE
WILSHERE
FAIR
FAX
WE
Westwood/
VA Hospital
OLYMPIC
MIRACLE
MILE
Wilshere/
La Cienega Wilshere/
Fairfax
LA CIENEGA
SUNSET
OF
UE S
EN AR
AV E ST
TH
Veterans
Administration
WILSHERE
Century
City
Westwood/
UCLA
BEVERLY DR
405
PARK
E
VIC
Wilshere/
Rodeo
CRE
NS
YD
RL
VE
WESTWOOD
UCLA
VINE
AM
NT
SA
ROSSMORE
FAIRFAX
ON
BEVERLY
HILLS
LA BREA
B
ICA
HIGHLAND
SET
SUN
NIC
VE
CULVER
CITY
Expo/
Crenshaw JEFFERSON
Expo/
Western
Expo/
Vermont
Expo Park/
USC
QUICK FACTS
Name: Westside Subway
Extension
Project Cost: $5.66 Billion
Procurement: Design-Bid-Build
+ opportunities for Design-Build
Tunnels: 9 miles, 22ft diameter
TBMS: EPBM and/or Slurry
Status: Awaiting FTA Record
Of Decision and Approval to
Enter Final Design
Consultant: Parsons
Brinckerhoff
NATJ_0612_viewpoint_016_017.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:40
Page 16
Geotechnical,
Mineral Exploration
and Horizontal Coring
Horizontal Coring for Tunnel Investigation
P.O. Box 267 2320 River Road,
Clark Fork, Idaho, USA 83811
Phone 208-266-1151
Fax 208-266-1379
RIFH#UXHQGULOOLQJFRP
USA
Modesto, California, Phone 209-988-4261
Bozeman, Montana, Phone 406-586-6266
www.ruendrilling.com
www.AmixSystems.com
DENNIS ARBOUR
NATHAN LAWRENCE
Dennis@AmixSystems.com
Nathan@AmixSystems.com
1-604-746-0555
1-303-351-2406
Innovative
colloidal
mixer
Water
Feed
PRODUCTS
SERVICES
Turnkey/Packaged
Systems
Custom Equipment
Containerized Systems
Automation and Controls
Cement
Feed
Vortex
Tank
Grout
Delivery rate
varies by
application
Rotor
Trap
NATJ_0612_viewpoint_016_017.qxd:Feature
13/6/12
21:40
Page 17
VIEWPOINT
IS EVERYONE
HAPPY YET?
Michael S. Schultz, P.E., Senior Vice President, CDM Smith
NATJ_0612_Arc_018_019.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:16
Page 18
GAO FINDINGS
Lin
Bergen Line/Pascack
Valley Line
1-4
95
Kearney Yard
K
Y d
Midday Rail
Storage
li
Pa
ARC
Frank R. Lautenburg
Frank
urg
S
Secaucus
Junction
on
S
Station
sa
de
s
Secaucus
Se
ecaucus
c
Loop
Lo
oop
1.0 miles
ew
Look
back on
Montclair-B
Boonton Line/
Montclair-Boonton
n Line/
Morristown
Gladstone Branch/
NorthEast Corridor/
Jersey Coast Line
North Jersey
195
SECAUCUS
0.5
Ri
ve
r
ain
Hu
ds
on
195
Ma
ain Line/Bergen
en Line/
Main
Pa
ascack Valley Line/
Pascack
Gl
adstone Branch/
Gladstone
Ra
aritan Valley Line/
Raritan
No
orthEast Corridor/
NorthEast
No
orth Jersey Coast Line
North
Tu
nn
els
Penn Station
New York
Hoboken
Hobok
ken
1-78
MANHATTAN
JERSEY CITY
NATJ_0612_Arc_018_019.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:16
Page 19
GAO FINDINGS
billion, or just over a third of the total budget.
The balance of $1.25 billion (14.4% of
budget) would be contributed by New Jersey
Turnpike Authority.
ARC runs aground
Cost estimates for ARC rose in the fall of
2010, during the process of final budget
negotiations and prior to the negotiation of
final federal funding agreements. In April the
$8.7 billion estimate was still in use by NJT.
However, by August, much higher estimates
ranging from 10.8 billion (low) to 13.7
billion (high) came from an updated FTA
risk assessment, which included a re-casting
of construction and other work costs, as well
as extra contingencies in regard to delay risks
in procurement, specifically contract awards.
Following feedback from NJT (who in turn
increased its own estimates to a range from
$8.7 billion to $10 billion), these FTA figures
were revised back down on October 4th,
resulting in an FTA estimate range of $9.7
billion (low) up to $12.4 billion (high).
Having heard concerns from NJT about
costs, Christie had called upon the ARC
Executive Steering Committee to investigate.
He received its report on October 7th and in a
press briefing the same day, said the
Committees best estimate was that the
total project cost would be no less than $11
billion and could exceed $14 billion.
The Committee recommended the project
be terminated, he said. The state cannot
afford to take on a liability that is at best an
additional $2 billion and at worst could
exceed $5 billion, Christie said.
Cost estimate growth
In reviewing the growth of the cost estimates
for the project, data compiled by GAO show
that the early, initial figures did not include all
project elements and produced cost estimates
in the $2.9 billion $3.6 billion range (2000
dollars), which it says is almost $3.7 billion to
$4.6 billion in 2011 dollars. As development
work advanced and number-crunching
became more comprehensive, the budget
accepted by FTA in August 2006 was $7.4
billion. The FTA acceptance of that figure let
the project pass into preliminary engineering.
NJT estimates up to late 2008, through the
environmental impact studies, kept to around
the same level, GAO reports. NJTs estimates
only lifted to US$8.7 billion in late 2009 and
into 2010 for the approach to the final design
stage. Federal numbers were always higher.
FTAs final risk assessment of 2008 delivered
an estimate of $9.1 billion for evaluation
under New Starts, although it had been
working in the $8.4 billion-$12 billion range.
By 2009, however, FTA had adopted the
same figure as NJT $8.7 billion as the
baseline, enabling ARCs entry into final
design. This figure did not include rail car
replacement costs, only cars needed in the
opening year.
Review
GAO was not charged with providing
recommendations from the audit. Neither
was it required to settle on a particular
budget number or range. It was just to
investigate and report. Therefore, there is still
a difference at the higher end of the cost
escalation estimates. In the end, the bigger
issue and what was clear in 2010, and
within the GAO report was the question of
covering the extra costs.
The GAO report states (based on interviews
with Port Authority officials) that although
NJT and the Port Authority had signed a
project agreement in 2009, as part of the
Total ($ million)
$4449
$3000
$1319
$130
%
51.1
34.5
15.2
1.5
LOCAL
- Port Authority
$3000
34.5
STATE
- New Jersey Turnpike Authority
$1250
14.4
[Source: GAO]
Left: ARCs
scrapped
station cavern
design
To view or
download the
GAO report,
visit:
www.gao.gov
NATJ_0602_CuttiingEdge_020_021.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:48
Page 20
session
briefing
e
d
A
:
th
day, 25
what a
Wednes
s home
g
in
r
b
,
is
r
T
g Edge
with
s Cuttin
s
e
c
all
c
u
s
ks go to
great
ur than
O
!
n
e
l
e
e
has b
irs, pan
sion cha enters
the ses
es
in
s and pr
member those who flew
y
r
ll
u
o
ia
c
,
)
e
orld
(esp
d the w
n
u
s!
r
o
r
o
a
it
from
exhib
e
h
t
d
n
sa
sponsor
o go to
anks als
h
t
e
l
ia
c
Spe
Lawrenc
t, Colin
a
v
o
L
k
o
Ric
rs wh
he othe
and all t
such a
ake this
o
m
d
e
lp
he
know wh
nt (you
e
v
e
t
e
a
w
e
gr
know
and we
you are
!)
a pint
owe you
CUTTING ED
The 2012 Pressurized TBM
Tunneling Conference, in
Miami, this April, was a
resounding success, here
are some of the highlights
r
nd: Afte
April 22
,
y
a
e
d
c
n
r
u
S
le fo
nd of ga
a weeke
rain, the
y
v
d hea
n
r
a
s
d
in
w
force fo
es out in
m
o
t
c
r
o
n
P
u
s
he
trip to t
a superb
roject.
P
l
e
n
i Tun
of Miam
chance
es had a
)
Attende
t (12.5m
the 42f
to tour
BM
necht T
Herrenk
citys
e
h
t
nder
boring u
al...
ping can
main ship
...big thanks go to
Bouygues Civil Works Florida, in particular
Louis Brais and Luz Weinberg for organizing
the trip and Pierre Pascual, Bernard Catalano
and Paul Trevisin for hosting the tour groups!
Monday, 23rd: Conference Chair, Rick Lovat,
gives a thought provoking Opening Address,
followed by Keynotes on Port of Miami (by
Louis Brais), Alaskan Way (by HNTBs Rich
Johnson & Dragados USAs Javier Varela)
and Slurry vs EPB (Markus Thewes).
sessions
Mondays
with some
continued
papers on
excellent
e
pport, fac
ground su
ing.
r
o
it
n
o
dm
control an
a
noon saw
The after
n
o
s
lk
ta
variety of
ditioning,
n
o
c
d
groun
isition and
data acqu
ck
ent of mu
measurem
ya
ollowed b
volumes; F
el
aired) pan
(deftly ch
n
&A sessio
debate Q
nd
a
n
io
t
a
r
pe
on TBM o
ntrol.
ground co
NATJ_0602_CuttiingEdge_020_021.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
21:48
Page 21
Tuesday,
24th: A g
reat sess
on Innova
ion
tions in T
BM techn
kicks the
o
logy
day off to
a fantast
start! Foll
ic
owing this
were four
highly int
eresting a
nd very tim
presentat
ely
ions on Hig
h Pressur
Compress
e
ed Air In
terventio
. and Hyp
ns
erbaric S
afety.
Thank
Goodf
s go
sessio
ns on T ellow for ch to Bob
airing
uesday
variet
two
a
y of op
inion p fternoon! An
Lining
resent
intere
System
ed wit
sting
s sess
debate
h
in
io
t
n; and
he Tun
Q&A s
a supe
nel
ession
level o
rb
, which
fp
saw an panel
some f articipation
ad
irst-ra
f
te disc rom the aud mirable
Confe
ience
rence
ussion
an
Chair,
from t
event,
Rick L
he pan d
giving
o
e
v
a
l!
due th
t, clos
anks t
e
o our S d out the
ponsor
s.
NG EDGE
Coffee breaks
(sponsored by
Arup), lunches
and Mondays
drinks reception
were all hosted in
the exhibit hall...
up of
rst-rate gro
...where a fi
tants,
ul
ns
ntractors, co
me
tunneling co
ca
rs
manufacture
da
an
owners and
o
tw
r a drink or
age
nt
together fo
va
ad
e taking
il
h
w
,
at
e
bite to
up with
ce to catch
of the chan
colleagues.
friends and
NORTH AMERICAN TUNNELING JOURNAL 21
NATJ_0612_COMPANY_NEWS_022.qxd:Feature
COMPANY NEWS
11/6/12
21:32
Page 22
Ganse specializes in
ground characterization
and design of rock and soil
tunnels in the water,
wastewater, and
transportation markets.
Ganse serves on the
Tunneling Committee of
the Association of
Engineering Geologists
(AEG) and is a founding
member of the Rocky
Mountain Chapter of the
North American Society for
Trenchless Technology
(NASTT).
Aldea announcement
Aldea Services recently
announced the addition of two
senior engineers to its staff.
Paul Headland, P.E., P.G., joins
the Maryland operation as the
Vice President of Geological
Services and offers over 20 years
of experience in tunneling and
mining. Paul is well known in the
North American tunnel industry
and has specialized expertise in
microtunneling and trenchless
design and construction as well
as ground behavior and
Paul Headland,
(left) and Mike
Nuhfer
responsive manner
for our clients,
said Bob
Goodfellow, Senior
Vice President.
Aldea offers
National and International
expertise in management of and
delivery of underground projects
of all types, including planning,
design, construction, and risk
management.
NATJ_0612_INSERT_p23.qxd:Feature
11/6/12
22:01
Page 23
Chicago, IL TARP
Kolkata metro
WMATA
Copenhagen Metro
Dubai metro