INTERNATIONAL SEMINARLONG TUNNELS
17, 18 y 19 de Octubre 2012Santiago, Chile
Challenges for Design, Construction and Operation
PIARC CHILE
Martin Knights
HALCROW a CH2MHill company
& The International Tunnelling Association
11 November 201022 An introduction to Halcrow
Thank you
Sustaining and improving thequality of people’s lives
HalcrowA CH2MHill company
Perspective
Brazil,Chile,Argentina,Panama
International Tunnelling & UndergroundSpace Association
Our goals are :
To encourage new uses of underground space
To encourage studies of underground alternatives tosurface construction
To have resilient infrastructure ~
To encourage the development of guidelines.~
To better procurement and contracts ~To encourage & stimulate innovation .
To improve training
To arrange international exchange
To network
To be the global leader influencing use of
underground space
Thru our Exco,GA,WGs,Committees,WTC,Seminars,Foundation,training& education
In future our urban areas need to incorporate more sustainable underground solutions
ITA
Always Act Safely
All of you here today have a role to play in the managament and commitment to safety
• Client• Government• Designers• Coordinators for H&S• Contractors• TBM Manufacturers• Workforce• Professional Organisations• Regulators and Standards makers• Insurers
HALCROWA CH2MHill Company
The most vital contribution to safety in any tunnel is
………………………….. a trained and disciplined workforce
Safety is the responsibility of every person on site,the office,& off site supply chain
China—Taiwan
Hong Kong –Macau—China Link
Reality
Dream?
Dream?
Reality
Technology and Innovation are realising dreams
Moscow to New York bytrain?
Proposed tunnel between Siberia and AlaskaDream ?
LOCATIONS OF MAIN NORWEGIAN SUB SEATUNNELS
Grov
•@30 tunnels built /range= 1km>20km
CERN GENEVA
Brazils` High Speed Rail Project• 6 years to plan and constuct• +90km tunnels--@50km >1km long(4>7km long)• TBM and Conventional tunnelling• Logistics and planning challenge• Soft and Hard Ground• Tunnelling= >30% of total construction cost
Halcrow
London 2012 Olympics
2006>>2022Turin--Beijing-- Vancouver—London—Sochi—Rio—Moscow--Qatar/Doha
Its official--Tunnelling is now an Olympic and World Cup Sport!!>>“Synchronised tunnelling”
Qatar 2022 World Cup
S
Rio de Janeiro
Metro Line 4
Extension west from to(Olympics site) @16km
<Copacabana
<Ipanema
Ipanema/
Barra Tujuca
Ipanema
<Rio centro
<Sugar Loaf
<Leblon
Halcrow
Busan Geoje immersed tunnel, South Korea Halcrow
Foster + Partners / Halcrow www.thameshub.co.uk
The London Hub Dream?
Dubrovnik,Croatia
Innovation in Tunnelling
Innovation in Tunnelling,Hydro ,Water Supply& Dams
Global TunnellingMore powerful Hydro energy ,Rail and Road tunnel schemes in the Himalayas
The global challengesSustainable
development
Urbanisation
Energy
Water scarcity
Populationgrowth
Climate change
Transport
Civil Engineering infrastructure & use of underground space will provide solutions
Demographic Trend
source: SustainableUrban Infrastructure
– Siemens
21
February 2012
The Singapore URA SustainableUrban Living R&D Programme
1 Create more underground space and optimise theuse of underground space to expand Singapore`sland resources
2 Hong Kong Strategic Cavern StorageProgramme >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ITACUS Committee for use ofunderground space
• Formed @ 5 years ago• Promotes use of underground space• Leading the debate at ITA WTC`s• Networking with global non governmental
agencies eg UN,• Working with local and national
government planners• Meeting in Singapore November this year
New technical committee 2011
ITA will be more Industry driven in future
Innovation in tunnelling technology
Halcrow and Cambridge University
BAM VINCI
Sprayed Concrete
Hindhead-A3 Road Tunnel, England
Immediate flash coatapplication of SprayedConcreteOn the newly excavated faceand profileSprayed waterproofmembrane
<<<<
<
Startdate Country Project TBM
manufacturer Diameter
1994 Japan Trans Tokyo BayHighway Tunnel
8 machines3 Kawasaki, 3Mitsubishi, 1Hitachi, 1 IHI
14.14m
1997 GermanyHamburg 4th
Elbe RiverHighway Tunnel
1 HerrenknechtMixshield 14.2m
2000 The NetherlandsGroenehartdouble-track railtunnel
1 NFMTechnologies 14.87m
2001 RussiaMoscowLefortovoHighway Tunnel
1 HerrenknechtMixshieldEx-Elbe projectmachine
14.2m
2004 Japan Tokyo Metro 1 IHI EPBM 14.18m
2004 China
ShangzhongRoadSubacqueousTunnel,Shanghai
1 NFMTechnologiesEx-Groenehartmachine
14.87m
2004 RussiaMoscowSilberwaldHighway Tunnel
1 HerrenknechtMixshieldEx-Elbe projectmachine
14.2m
2005 Spain Madrid Calle 30Highway Tunnels
2 machines1Herrenknecht,1 Mitsubishi
15.2m15.0m
2006 CanadaNiagara WaterDiversionTunnel*
1 Robbins hardrock gripperTBMRebuiltManapouritailrace tunnelmachine
14.4m
2006 ChinaShanghaiYangtze RiverTunnel
2 HerrenknechtMixshields 15.43m
2006 China
Jungong RoadSubaqueousTunnel,Shanghai
1 NFM slurryshield Ex-Groenehartmachine
14.87m
Bund Tunnel, 1 Mitsubishi
2008 China Nanjing YangtzeRiver Tunnel*
2 HerrenknechtMixshields 14.93m
2009 ChinaYingbinsan RoadTunnel,Shanghai
1 MitsubishiEPBM Ex-BundTunnel machine
14.27m
2010 China
QianjiangSubaqueousTunnel,HangzhouSecond tubecurrently underconstruction
1 HerrenknechtMixshield Ex-ShanghaiYangtze RiverTunnel machine
15.43m
2010 SpainSeville SE-40HighwayTunnels*
2 NFMTechnologiesEPBMs
14.00m
2011 Italy A1 highwaytunnel*
1 HerrenknechtEPBM 15.55m
2011 China Hong Mei Road,Shanghai
1 HerrenknechtMixshield 14.9m
2011 China Weisan RoadTunnel, Nanjing*
2IHI/Mitsubishi/CCCC slurryTBMs
14.93m
2011 USA
Alaskan Wayelevatedhighwayreplacementtunnel*
1 HitachiZosen EPBM(Letter ofintent)
Approx 17.6m(58ft)
2011 RussiaOrlovskyTunnel, SaintPetersburg*
1HerrenknechtMixshieldEngineeringstarted 2009,orderconfirmed2011
19.25m
2011 New Zealand
Waterviewmotorwayconnectiontunnel,Auckland*
1 EPBM to beordered Approx 14m
Masters of the Universe?
Size of TBMs
Tunnel talk
?
Traditional Delivery
The traditional TBM factory assembly
JIN PING II – CHINAOPEN, HARD ROCK HP-TBM
JinPing Mountain (4420m) viewed towards the west
Yalong River ValleyDeep & narrow canyons with very steepwalls
• Job Site
• Shipmentsfrom Shanghai
• Shipmentsfrom Dalian
• Shipmentsfrom Chengdu
• Imported parts
JIN PING IIINTERNATIONAL SOURCES
USA
Oth
erLo
catio
nEu
rope
JIN PING IION SITE, FIRST TIME ASSEMBLY (OFTA)
Cutterhead WeldingCutterhead must be welded at site.This is required even for factoryassembled machines
Presentation to World Bank 13th June 2012, Washington DCWorld Bank Group Hydropower Community of Practice - Working Group on Tunneling & Underground Works
Martin Knights
Procurement ,risks &contracts
12th june `12International Tunnelling Association
Halcrow GroupA CH2MH Company
Aims of the International Tunnelling &Underground Space Association
One of ITA goals include:
better procurement and contracts ~
In future our urban areas need to incorporate more sustainable underground solutions
Current Global HEP MarketHydro Schemes are unique in thatthey carry their own inherent risksby nature of the project.
These risks can be grouped into 4 mainheadings:-
Technical- Internal water pressure- External Water Pressure- Ground Conditions- Durability including quality ofmaterials- ground water migrationpermeation under dam- access to site normally remote- cfd analysis to avoid turbulence insystem- turbine(s) & turbine hall design- Associated tunnels & shafts
Commercial- return on investment-contract--programme-Conditions of contract\type
- Socio EconomicDiversion of water coursesDam water land take
Political
Market now growing again
Political interference slows progress
Procurement is slow & needs overhaul
Procurement typified by phases ofintermittment surge`s of activityfollowed by long interim phases of no action
Interim Gap being filled by thermal power
Procurement & Contracts need to be appropriate
Funders need to address,benchmark& influence….now.
Need to agree consistent approachto procurement of HEP underground works…now
Long term planning /less politics/ more enlightened
Intention of Seminar 1
• discuss issues of procurement incontracting and try to see how to resolvesome of the challenges in deliveringsustainable hydropower projects……….
Intention of Seminar 2
• …..collectively discuss issues of procurement incontracting and try to see how to resolve someof the challenges in delivering sustainablehydropower projects. risk management & risksharing mechanism, use of standard biddingdocuments, EPC versus traditional methods ofcontracting and capacity building, do theprocurement rules of the Banks provideflexibility? for efficient contracts.
•
World Bank SeminarThemes
• EPC v Traditional• Risk ownership and management• Competitive bidding v Strategic Partners• Eligibility & prequalification• Training and capacity building• Least cost v Value for money• What WB needs to do in future
Risk Management!!
Contractor
Client
Training Session in Vancouver on May 14-15, 2010
Managing Risk!!
Risk…….=
Lawyer?>>Consultant?>> The Contract
The Procurement vehicle>>
Structure Level ofGeologicalUncertainty
Dam
SurfaceSurface PowerHouse
Underground Cavern
Shafts
Long tunnels
Level of geological Risk
Hydro ProjectsPerceptions levels of Geological Risk?
Ghopal
So…..Is tunnelling `risky`?
Tunnelling is not risky!The risks just need to be removed, mitigated planned for &
managed….
….methodically by experienced and competent companies & peopleusing the right equipment AND PROCUREMENT .
Well not always!
Simple!?
No!
No construction project is risk free.Risk can be managed, minimised,shared, transferred or accepted.
It cannot be ignored
`Codes`
www.britishtunneling.org www.imia.com (Being updatednow by ITA & ITIG )
`?
Basic message of Risk Ownership
• The party who ‘owns’ a risk will pay for it if itmaterialises
• ‘Who Pays’ for risk is a contractual issue• Who Manages’ a risk is non-contractual – and is
determined by who is best to manage.• Risks should not be `dumped `onto party least
able to manage the risk• Usually - risks should be owned by party with
best ability to influence the outcome
• ‘
on potential for opportunity)
• The contract must define ‘riskownership’
Hydro SchemesAs geotechnical information can be sparse due to cost of drilling boreholes inmountainous terrain the Client can manage ground & other risks by 3 options.
1) Passing all ground risks over to contractor – this will increase cost of project &generate an adversarial approach & you get what you deserve!
2) Preparing a Geotechnical Baseline Report & asking the contractor to price withinpredefined limits. These need to be narrow. This will help to share risk through anEngineer’s design with alternatives allowed or a Design & Build approach to areference design
3) Engaging the contractor at an early stage & jointly manage the risks from theoutset of the project. This should lead to the most economical solution through atarget cost approach. This is not always appreciated by Clients.
Prof Evert Hoek:pragmatic observations
• Difficult to apply traditional Sl`s for long deep tunnels• Justified expenditure on sophisticated SI for Large
Underground Power Houses• Seldom can either party agree on interpretation of ground as
tunnelling proceeds .• Sees increased use of TBMs long tunnels• Success of an underground project is less to do with the
Contract and more to do with Client and Contractorrelationship and objective ,non confrontational & competentbehaviour of engineers.
• Flexible procurement needed• Baselining of ground condidtions
Athens Conference April `12
KISHANGANGAHYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Jammu & Kashmir,India
Risk Management Approach
Special Measures Criteria for Critical Conditions(Long TBM driven tunnel)
Summary information
Squeeze control !
PROJECT DETAILS•s
53
Started : January 2009Completion :January 2016Client :National Hydropower Commission NHPCGenerated Power 330MW
Contractor: HCCDesigner /Engineer : Halcrow
Location Map
Kishanganga HEP54 March 2011
TBM ADIT
March 2011 Kishanganga HEP59
PROJECT LAYOUT
60Headrace Tunnel @24km ( > 70% by Double Shield TBM)
General geological conditionsAdit 1 TBM
Portal
AndesiteHasthoji FmRazdhan Fm
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
GSI
Thinly bedded meta-siltstones
Meta-sandstones, withinterbedded siltstone
Folded siltstone with phyllite
Very thinly to thinly bedded shales withinterbeds of meta-sitlstone
faulting
Thinly bedded meta-siltstones
fault zone withPanjal Volcanics
HAFKHALAN FORMATION
HASTHOJI FORMATION
RAZDHAN FORMATION
Typical Fair conditions based on Ref 1,circle represent value used in TN
Poor to Very Poor conditions based on Ref 1
Hafkhalan Fm
The formations where squeezing may besignificant are:Tragbal and Hafkhalan FormationsHasthoji Formationparts of the Razdhan Formation.
Squeezing and critical conditions
The occurrence and extent of squeezing isrelated primarily to parameters to bemonitored:
• rock mass quality, GSI• unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of
intact rock pieces• in situ stress ratio (ko) in the plane of the
tunnel cross section• depth and rock density.
TBM for the Headrace tunnel
63
SELI Double Shield with Honeycomb pcc tunnel segments
What is squeezing?• significant time dependent deformations
resulting from tunnel excavation
St Martin Access Tunnel(Lyon-Turin Base Tunnel, Alps)
Nathpa Jhakri HEP(India, Himalayas)
Why is squeezing important tothe TBM tunnel?
• great depth (up to1400m)
• weak rock in places• stresses concentrate
around tunnel• rock is overstressed• rock fails – becomes
‘plastic’
Long term loads
• initial segment load increases withtime
• creep mechanisms superimpose onrock failure
• long-term loads may be 2 to 3 timesthe initial loads
What are critical conditions?TBM:• geological conditions – particularly squeezing - which
might impair or prevent forward progress of the TBMand/or compromise the structural capacity of thesegmental lining
Segmental lining:• geological conditions – particularly squeezing - which
might compromise the structural capacity of thesegmental lining
A risk management approach to design and construction is needed
What are ultimate contingencymeasures?
• measures that may have to be taken in the ultimate caseof critical conditions in which the TBM becomesentrappedand/or
• the lining becomes, or is predicted to become,overstressed
In these ultimate conditions, it may not be feasible to construct sections ofthe tunnel using the TBM - the method of tunnel construction may need tobe changed temporarily.
Contingency plans need to be made.
Halcrow wanted to provide guidance tosite personnel on:
• the severity of squeezing to be anticipated alongthe length of the TBM tunnel
• monitoring requirements• criteria to be followed during construction• special measures to be implemented
in order to allow the TBM to be used to construct as much of the plannedlength of the tunnel as possible - with minimum risk to the project
Risks to the TBM andsegmental lining
Risk to the TBM:• collapse of the rock face• significant groundwater inflow, possibly forming
mudflows• squeezing of the ground onto the TBM shield
with sufficient pressure to prevent TBM progresswithout special measures being taken
Risk to the segmental lining:• squeezing of the ground onto the segmental
lining with sufficient pressure to exceed thestructural capacity before special measures canbe taken
• particularly severe squeezing conditions in whichthe structural capacity of the segmental lining ispredicted to be exceeded even if the full range ofspecial measures was to be implemented
Special measures (risk to TBM)
• more cutterhead motors• 43MN thrust• conical shields with increasing clearances to rock• over-cutting• operational special measures• forward probing• pre-excavation grouting• access to outside of shield• external grout plant
Special measures (risk to segments)
• over-cutting• early consolidation grouting• pre-excavation grouting• instrumented segments
Ultimate contingency measures (1)
TBM cannot be used or becomes entrapped:• ‘park’ TBM and proceed with hand mining/drill-and-blast
methods• oversize tunnel with deformable temporary support• when conditions improve, move TBM through the mined
tunnel• re-start TBM
• permanent lining with segments backfilled with concreteor
• permanent cast concrete lining
Ultimate contingency measures (2)
Segmental lining cannot be used in these circumstances:• critical conditions are detected ahead of the TBM and indicate
that the segmental lining cannot be used through a section oftunnel without an unacceptably high risk of overstressing beforeother mitigating measures can be implemented, i.e. the liningmay become overstressed over the length of the back-up trainIn this case the TBM and segmental lining method should notbe used; change to drill-and-blast with deformable temporarysupport
• the critical conditions are not detected and the lining is used,but becomes, or is predicted to become, overstressed beforeother mitigating measures can be implemented at the rear ofthe back-up trainIn this case install instrumented segments to monitor loaddevelopment to ensure tunnel remains safe as TBM movesforward
Squeezing and criticalconditions
Results of the time dependent numerical modelling based on specialistlaboratory testing (Turin, Italy)
Some key conclusions from time dependent (visco-plastic) modelling:• effects of squeezing are greater at slower advance rates• over-cutting is an effective special measure, and most likely to be needed
to prevent squeezing of the TBM, but pre-excavation grouting may also berequired
• pre-excavation grouting will affect advance rates and therefore squeezing• consolidation grouting behind the back up train is generally too late to be
effective in preventing squeezing, but it limits further development ofsqueezing pressures
Ko = 1.5
Chainage 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500 17000 17500 18000 18500 19000 19500 20000 20500 21000 21500 22000 22500 23000Invert 2357 2356 2355 2353 2352 2351 2350 2348 2347 2346 2344 2343 2342 2341 2339 2338 2337 2335 2334 2333 2331 2330 2329 2328 2326 2325 2324 2322 2321 2320 2319 2317 2316GL 3200 3000 2800 2800 2900 3100 3350 3500 3400 3550 3550 3750 3650 3500 3400 3400 3200 3000 2800 3000 2850 2750 2950 3150 3300 3100 2850 2800 2700 2650 2800 2750 2500Depth 843 644 445 447 548 749 1000 1152 1053 1204 1206 1407 1308 1159 1061 1062 863 665 466 667 519 420 621 822 974 775 526 478 379 330 481 433 184
HAL04 / HAL05 Report 10m per dayUCS GSI40 40 N O O M M M Z Z Z Z M M M PO O N O O N O PO PO O O N N N N60 40 N N O PO PO PO M M M M M PO PO O O N O N N O O PO O N N N N N80 40 N N O O PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO O N N N N N N O O O N N N N N
40 50 N N O M M M Z Z Z Z M M M O O N O N N O O O O N N N N N60 50 N N N O O O M M M M M O O O N N N N N N O O N N N N N N80 50 N N N N N N O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
40 60 N N N O O O M or Z M or Z Z Z O O O O N N N N N N N O N N N N N N60 60 N N N N N N N N O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N80 60 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
HAL04 / HAL05 Report 1m per day40 40 O O PO M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M PO O PO O O O PO M PO O O N N O - -60 40 N O O M M M M M M M M M M PO O N O O N O PO PO PO O O N N N - -80 40 N N O PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO O O N O N N O O PO O N N N N N - -
40 50 N O O M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M O N O N N O O M O N N N N N - -60 50 N N O M M M M M M M M M M O N N N N N N O O O N N N N N - -80 50 N N N O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N - -
40 60 N N N O M M M M M M M M M O N N N N N N O O N N N N N N - -60 60 N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N - -80 60 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N - -
N Over-cutting not requiredO Over-cutting required
PO Pre-excavation grouting and over-cutting requiredM TBM may be stuck based on sliding friction co-efficient of 0.25 and/or the segmental lining is overloaded in the long term - pre-excavation grouting and over-cutting may not resolve the problem, monitoring of the lining requiredZ TBM may be stuck based on sliding friction co-efficient of 0.25 and/or the segmental lining is overloaded in the long term - pre-excavation grouting and over-cutting are unlikely to resolve the problem
Drill And Blast TBMRazdhan Formation
85% meta-sandstone, 10% thinly bedded meta-siltstone, 5% siltstone with phylliteRazdhan Formation
70% meta-sandstone, 20% thinly bedded meta-siltstone, 10% siltstone with phylliteHasthoji Formation Panjal VolcanicsHafkhalan and Tragbal Formation
D & B
Special Measures
P+O / D & B
noneO
P+O
20002200240026002800300032003400360038004000
7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000Chainage
Ele
vatio
n
GL Tunnel
Behaviour of the rock mass and special measures required
Consolidation grouting requirements
Ko = 1.5
Chainage 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500 17000 17500 18000 18500 19000 19500 20000 20500 21000 21500 22000 22500 23000Invert 2357 2356 2355 2353 2352 2351 2350 2348 2347 2346 2344 2343 2342 2341 2339 2338 2337 2335 2334 2333 2331 2330 2329 2328 2326 2325 2324 2322 2321 2320 2319 2317 2316GL 3200 3000 2800 2800 2900 3100 3350 3500 3400 3550 3550 3750 3650 3500 3400 3400 3200 3000 2800 3000 2850 2750 2950 3150 3300 3100 2850 2800 2700 2650 2800 2750 2500Depth 843 644 445 447 548 749 1000 1152 1053 1204 1206 1407 1308 1159 1061 1062 863 665 466 667 519 420 621 822 974 775 526 478 379 330 481 433 184
Consolidation Grouting40 40 R R E E E E E E E E E E E E R R R R R R E E E R R R R R R R60 40 R R E E E E E E E E E E E E R R R R R R E E E R R R R R R R80 40 R R E E E E E E E E E E E E R R R R R R E E E R R R R R R R
40 50 - - E E E E E E E E E E E E - - - - - - E E E - - - - - - -60 50 - - E E E E E E E E E E E E - - - - - - E E E - - - - - - -80 50 - - E E E E E E E E E E E E - - - - - - E E E - - - - - - -
40 60 - - E E E E E E E E E E E E - - - - - - E E E - - - - - - -60 60 - - E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* - - - - - - E* E* E* - - - - - - -80 60 - - E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* E* - - - - - - E* E* E* - - - - - - -
- Consolidation grouting not requiredR Routine consolidation grouting (i.e. location to suit the Contractor's operations and programme)E Early consolidation grouting required (i.e. grouting to be undertaken at the rear of the TBM back-up train)E* Early consolidation grouting required, but requirement may be reviewed on referral to Halcrow
Consolidation Grouting
Drill And Blast TBMRazdhan Formation
85% meta-sandstone, 10% thinly bedded meta-siltstone, 5% siltstone with phylliteRazdhan Formation
70% meta-sandstone, 20% thinly bedded meta-siltstone, 10% siltstone with phylliteHasthoji Formation Panjal VolcanicsHafkhalan and Tragbal Formation
20002200240026002800300032003400360038004000
7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000Chainage
Ele
vatio
n
GL Tunnel
Halcrow & ITAtechGovt Clients:NHPC/CBIP/JKSPDC
March April September 2012
3 Workshops
Colourful meetings!
Finally some overall summary thoughts
• Get procurement strategy sorted out early ie what arethe owners key requirements?
• Consider the appropriate Contract Document• Manage the interfaces• Do not over specify ie allow market to `add value`.• Management of Risk , Quality and Safety are key
considerations in deciding procurement route.• Procurement is the weakest link in Global HEP• Got to change.
Thank you
Thank you from Halcrow and ITA!