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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
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 R5
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 R6
· 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 R7
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 R8
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 R9
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 R10
OCR for page R11
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 R12
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 R13
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 R14
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
