Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
NOTICEo The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the subcommittee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consist- ing of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Acad- emy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Coun- cil has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the sci- entific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sci- ences. SPONSORS: This project was sponsored through Transportation Systems Center Contract DTRS-57-81-C-00129 by the following agencies: Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geo- logical Survey. A limited number of copies are available from U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418

OCR for page R1
Preface The high costs of underground construction are a major concern of both the general public and the agencies (federal, state, and local) that build or provide funds for a variety of projects. The U.S. National Committee on Tunneling - A_A ~ A_ Technology (1974; 1978) has issued recommenua- t~ons addressing certain aspects of underground construction that con- tribute to its high risk and high cost. However, underground construc- tion continues to be expensive, With project costs rising rapidly and often significantly exceeding the preconstruction estimate. At a time when the desirability of constructing underground rather than surface facilities is becoming increasingly apparent, this escala- tion in costs detracts from the most advantageous use of the subsurface. The emphasis on underground construction for various purposes is growing in proportion to a variety of needs: to conserve surface space as our population grows; to conserve energy required for heating and cooling; to provide refuge from, and mitigate the effects of, both natural and man-made hazards; to permit economical storage of food, water, and stra- tegic goods; to provide for safe disposal of toxic and radioactive wastes; and to make possible subsurface energy-pronuction projects. Improvements in cost-effectiveness, however, will be required to spur the growth of underground construction. Considering the advantages of using underground space, it is desir- able to find ways to improve the economic feasibility of underground construction. One promising avenue is examination of the geotechnical site investigation process for proposed construction sites. Of all large construction efforts, underground projects are among the most com- plicated. They are particularly sensitive to geotechnical considerations U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology. tracting for Underground Construction. Academy of Sciences. U.S. National Committee on Tunneling ment of Major Underground Construction National Academy of Sciences. . . 1974. Better Con- Washington, D.C.: National Technology . Proj eats . 1978. Better Manage- Washington, D.C.:

OCR for page R1
because the construction environment both affects and responds to the design and construction processes as well as, ultimately, the operation of the completed facility. Therefore, an adequate and reliable determi- nation of subsurface conditions is essential to every phase of the proj- ect and, as a consequence, is a significant factor in the final cost. The basic objective of this study is to discover improvements in practice and procedures that will enable planning and conducting more effective geotechnical site investigation programs. In turn, the re- sults of the study are expected to contribute to a series of wider ob- jectives: advancements in underground construction technology, improve- ments in controlling or moderating construction costs, and reductions in the incidence and degree of construction hazards or failures. METHODOLOGY The approach adopted for this study was to examine completed projects for which the results of the preconstruction site investigation could be related to the construction history. The procedure was designed to per- mit in-depth study of a large number of these projects, their respective site investigation programs, and the construction problems and unantici- pated costs (or lack thereof), as a means of determining the nature and significance of the relationship between investigation programs and project problems and costs. The method for carrying out this study proved to be quite complex, requiring extensive input by members of the subcommittee and the under- ground construction community (see Appendixes A, B. and C). In addition to a three-day writing workshop, six meetings of the subcommittee or small working groups were held, and many specific tasks were assigned to individual subcommittee members. The subcommittee was assisted by a senior consultant and two subcontractors, one for engineering data and one for computer programming. Essentially the study consisted of four main tasks: A list of underground projects completed in the last 20 years was developed, from which 100 projects were selected as suitable for case history study. A case history data form was developed to permit correlation of the types and extent of the site investigations conducted prior to design and construction, as-built geological conditions, differing site conditions claims, cost overruns, and delays encountered during con- struction. The data therefrom and additional information derived from the personal experiences of subcommittee members were evaluated and con- clusions drawn, keeping in mind the rapidly advancing state-of-the-art in design and in construction equipment and methods. ~ A computer program was developed to receive and store for fu- ture retrieval the pertinent site investigation and construction case history data. 1V

OCR for page R1
The first meetings were spent outlining the study schedule, compil- ing a list of projects that appeared most desirable as sources of data, devising a detailed data recording document, and preparing letters of request to be sent to owners and contractors involved with the selected, completed projects. Charles W. Daugherty was engaged as the senior consultant for the project, to directly supervise the effort and coordi- nate incoming data, the field review, assignments subcontracted to Schnabel Engineering Associates (SEA), and the computer programming and processing undertaken by G. Wayne Clough at Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute and State University (VPI). As a first step, the selected project owners were requested to send in a complete set of bidding and construction documents. These docu- ments were then given to SEA, which extracted the bidding data for com- pilation onto the data form. Once the initial data compilation was accomplished, assignments were made to the consultants, members of the Schnabel staff, and members of the subcommittee to contact and interview owners, designers, and contractors in order to complete the data forms. This was the most difficult and time-consuming task. At the same time, a special working group devised a system of selecting, recording, and collating incoming data into a form suitable for computer programming and for subsequent overall analysis. The last few meetings of the subcommittee and working groups were devoted to a writing workshop, selecting projects for detailed discus- sion as case studies, preparing a format for abstracting the case histo- ries, reviewing and interpreting the data, revising the initial draft report prepared at the workshop, and developing conclusions and recom- mendations. As the study progressed, it became apparent that although there ex- ist a large number of projects from which to choose, obtaining complete data on any project is extremely difficult. No one source had available all the data on any project, and a surprising amount of information had been lost or thrown away. Also, much of the data was found to be pro- prietary or was simply not available due to unresolved claims litiga- tion. Due to these constraints, 87 of the original 100 case histories were deemed sufficiently complete to be included in the final compila- tion of data presented herein. The conclusions drawn, therefore, are based on the predominant data obtained and do not necessarily reflect every case history examined. DATA COLLECTION AND COMPII`ATION The subcommittee's methods of collecting and compiling mined tunnel data are covered in considerable detail in Appendix C. This information is included in the report for two reasons: the data presented are varied, complex, and subject to more than one interpretation; and the approach and methods may be of some interest to researchers contemplating similar studies. Briefly, the collection and compilation process incorporated the following steps: v

OCR for page R1
Obtaining data packages from the owner; these consisted of contract drawings, specifications, geotechnical reports, bid abstracts or tabulations, and other documents. Extracting information for transfer to the basic 15-page data form (compilation to approximately the 40 percent stage). Interviewing owners, contractors, and others affiliated with the project for answers to the remaining questions on the data form (compilation to approximately the 90 percent stage). Combining the information obtained from the data packages and the interviews to prepare a final version of the data form (compilation to 100 percent). . . Reviewing the final data form for consistency and clarifying any ambiguities through follow-up discussions with individuals who were original sources of information. Reducing the 15-page data form to a 2-page project. abstract of the It should be recognized that the brevity that is necessary in any printed form has the potential to produce distortion, in that a short answer may not explain the shadings or nuances of a particular situa- tion. This was generally compensated for in the 15-page data forms (see Appendix C) by adding explanations in parentheses and footnotes. This form became the basic record of all data collected for each project studied, and provided the information extracted for the data matrixes (provided separately as Plates 1 and 2), case history abstracts (see Volume 2), and computer retrieval system (Volume 2~. The reader should understand that for general knowledge of the 87 projects reported as case histories, a study of the data summary ma- trixes will standing of abstracts, forms. suffice for quick correlation. For a more thorough under- particular projects,- it will be necessary to research the which are themselves more general than the original data vi

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This study was conducted with the assistance of the underground con- struction community. Many individuals--owners, designers, contractors, construction managers, engineers, geologists, geotechnical engineers-- provided documents and information, expert opinion, suggestions, and constructive criticism. Without their contributions, a study of this complexity would have been impossible. Additionally, other individuals listed in Appendix A participated with the subcommittee in a three-day writing workshop. The owners listed in Appendix B supplied contract drawings, specifications, geotechnical reports, bid abstracts or tabula- tions, and construction history reports for numerous projects. The study was supported through the Transportation Systems Center by eight agencies: Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, and Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Their representatives provided en- couragement and suggestions throughout the study. The subcommittee was assisted by two consultants, Charles W. Daugh- erty and William Pease. Mr. Daugherty served as senior consultant and was responsible for putting into practice the methodology adopted for the study, supervising the work of the engineering and data processing subcontractors, scheduling interviews and assigning interviewers for case projects, reviewing all data forms for consistency and accuracy throughout various stages of completion, managing reduction of the data to abstract form, verifying tabulations of data prepared by the subcom- mittee, participating in the meetings and writing workshop, and attend- ing to countless details. Mr. Daugherty devoted many long, and often tedious, hours of effort to these responsibilities; his dedication, vigilance, and intense personal interest in every aspect of the study were vital to successful completion. Mr. Pease played an important role in the early stages of the project; during approximately the first year, he assisted the subcommittee in refining the study concept, developing procedures and plans, and initiating contacts with owners and con- tractors. Schnabel Engineering Associates (SEA), Bethesda, Maryland, served as the engineering subcontractor for data extraction. Brian W. Beard led the SEA effort with great competence; he was assisted by Thaddeus R. Bergling. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI), at Blacksburg, was the computer programming and processing subcontractor. vii

OCR for page R1
G. Wayne Clough directed the work at VPI and designed the computer format for managing the case history data. His combined knowledge of under- ground construction and computers was a substantial benefit throughout the lengthy process of data collection and compilation. Several individuals provided special assistance during the course of the study. James S. Redpath and Charles K. Presley contributed their considerable expertises on shafts, each graciously donating time and effort to participate actively in writing sessions conducted by the subcommittee. Ronald E. Smith, of Woodward-Clyde Consultants in Rock- ville, Maryland, attended to innumerable details and arranged for staff members Douglas T. Detman and Frederick W. Meyer to assist in reviewing and checking the information presented in the data summary matrix. Subcommittee members Don C. Rose and Howard J. Handewith undertook the arduous tasks of designing and compiling the data summary matrix and preparing charts and graphs illustrating various aspects of each proj- ect. Another subcommittee member, Edward L. Waddell, was instrumental in obtaining detailed information on the several projects needed to test the suitability of the data form. The subcommittee expresses contributors, participants and sponsors for their port of the study project. its sincere appreciation to all of the interest in and sup- ~ V111

OCR for page R1
Subcommittee on Geotechnical Site Investigations Chairman EUGENE B. WAGGONER, Consulting Engineering Geologist, San Jose, California DON U. DEERE, Consultant--Engineering Geology, Gainesville, Florida RICHARD HAMBURGER, Consultant, Germantown, Maryland HOWARD J. HANDEWITH, Consultant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania W. STANFIELD JOHNSON, Attorney, Crowell and Moring, Washington, D.C. DENNIS J. LACHEL, Executive Vice President, Lachel Hansen & Associates, Inc., Golden, Colorado DANIEL F. MEYER, Vice President--Heavy Group, Perini Corporation, Framingham, Massachusetts WALTER E. NEWCOMB, Project Management Division, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio WALTER H. PATERSON, Consulting Engineer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada DONALD C. ROSE, Tudor Engineering Company and Consultant, San Francisco, California REUBEN SAMUELS, Vice President and Chief Engineer, Thomas Crimmins Contracting Company, New York, New York LLOYD B. UNDERWOOD, Consultant, Omaha, Nebraska EDWARD L. WADDELL, JR., Director of Construction, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C. SHELDON P. WIMPFEN, Consulting Engineer, Luray, Virginia VICTOR L. WRIGHT, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Placerville, California Senior Consultant CHARLES W. DAUGHERTY, Chief--Geotechnical Section, DeLeuw Cather and Company, Washington, D.C. Construction Consultant* WILLIAM PEASE, Santa Rosa, California *December 1981 through March 1983. 1X

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology OFFICERS July 1, 1982--June 30, 1983 DON A. LINGER, Defense Nuclear Agency, Chairman DENNIS J. LACHEL, Lachel Hansen & Associates, Inc., Vice Chairman EDWARD J. CORDING, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Immediate Past Chairman July 1, 1983--June 30, 1984 DENNIS J. LACHEL, Lachel Hansen & Associates, Inc., Chairman Z.T. BIENIAWSKI, Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute, Pennsylvania State. University, Vice Chairman DON A. LINGER, Defense Nuclear Agency, Immediate Past Chairman DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES DAVID BARNA, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Federal Agencies LYNN A. BROWN, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Association of Engineering Geologists BRUNO DIETL, Valley Engineers, Inc., Associated General Contractors of America *HASSELL E. HUNTER, Conoco, Inc., Institute of Shaft Drilling Tech- nology +THoMAS J. O'NEIL, Amoco Minerals Company, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleums Engineers P.E. (JOE) SPERRY, Consultant, American Society of Civil Engineers LLOYD B. UNDERWOOD, Consultant, Geological Society of America J. GAVIN WARNOCK, Acres Consulting Services, Ltd., American Under- ground Space Association *JOHN W. WILSON, Smith International, Amer ican Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers *Term of membership began July 1, 1983. +Term of membership ended June 30, 1983. X1

OCR for page R1
INDUSTRY WILLIAM H. HANSMIRE, Parsons, Brinckerhoff JOHN W. LEONARD, Morrison-Knudsen Company GEORGE A.MEALEY, Freeport Mining Company OTA SPACEK, Dravo Engineers and Constructors GLEN R. TRAYLOR, Traylor Bros., Inc. GOVERNMENT , Quade & Douglas, Inc. WILLIAM D. ALEXANDER, Consultant *CHARLES A. BASKERVILLE, U.S. Geological Survey *LEON L. BERATAN, Nuclear Regulatory Commission +GORDON E. BUNKER, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health FRANK E. DALTON, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago +JAMES L. DRAKE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers *ROBERT J. EVANS, U.S. Bureau of Mines +R.M. (RAY) MONTI, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey *DONALD L. VIETH, Department of Energy *GEORGE J. ZIEGLER, New York City Transit Authority ACADEMIA AND RESEARCH _ HERBERT H. EINSTEIN, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology *ALLEN W. HATHhWAY, Department of Geological Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla WILLIAM A. HUSTRULID, Department of Mining Engineering, Colorado School of Mines +FRED H. KULHAWY, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University +RAYMOND E. LEVITT, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University MALCOLM J. McPHERSON, Department of Materials Science and Minerals Engi- neering, University of California at Berkeley *STANLEY L. PAUL, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois STAFF JOHN E. WAGNER, Executive Secretary (to February 1984) SUSAN V. HEISLER, Acting Executive Secretary (as of February 1984) VIRGINIA M. LYMAN, Administrative Assistant JANIE B. MARSHALL, Study Secretary, Geotechnical Site Investigations *Term +Term membership began July 1, 1983. membership ended June 30, 1983. xii

OCR for page R1
Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 GEOTECHNTCAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS Advantages, Risks, and Liabilities Phasing of Geotechnical Explorations Uses of Geotechnical Data Reports of Geotechnical Data Effect of Geologic Factors on Costs 3 LEGAL ASPECTS OF SITE TNVESTIGATTONS Risk Allocation Policy of Differing Site Conditions Clauses Owner's Duty to Conduct Investigations Owner's Duty to Disclose Liability for Subsurface Information Disclosed by Owner Disclaimers of Subsurface Investigation Data 4 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS AND CONSEQUENCES IN CONSTRUCTION Major Problems for Construction Cost Consequences 5 SPECIAL PURPOSE PROJECTS Deep Underground Chambers and Shafts Steep Inclines Underwater Taps 6 SELECTED CASE STUDIES Porter Square Station, Red Line Extension Section C-4 Metro Tunnels Section G-2 Metro Tunnels Bonneville 2nd Powerhouse Railroad Tunnel Buckskin Mountains Tunnel Hades and Rhodes Tunnels Carley V. Porter Tunnel Red Hook Interceptor Sewer Edward Hyatt Powerhouse Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Shaft x~' 1 5 6 7 8 11 14 16 17 18 ~8 20 21 22 24 33 35 35 40 43 46 48 53 59 65 68 72 75 79 83 87

OCR for page R1
7 INTERPRETATION OF CASE HISTORIES Charted and Plotted Data Interpretation of Results 8 CONCLUSIONS AND LIONS APPENDIX A Workshop Participants APPENDIX B Contributors to the Study APPENDIX C Data Collection and Compilation Procedures APPENDIX D Geotechnical Design Reports, Rook Tunnels and Earth Tunnels SELECTED BIBLIO HY S~ a 91 91 96 113 123 125 128 149 155 169. xiv