PAPER 7 UNDERPINNING FOR TRANSPORTATION TUNNELS by ROBERT E. WHITE, P.E. Senior Vice President Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. New York, New York INTRODUCTION Underpinning is an ancient building art. In early times it was mostly remedial; i.e., its purpose was to provide adequate support for settling structures. Being so recognized as an art, for many years design and construction of underpinning work was mainly done as the sole responsibility of specialist foundation contractors. Especially was this true in building construction (as opposed to transportation tunnels) but even on New York City subi work - by far the greatest amount done - the contractor required to "maintain, protect and if necessary, underpin" the buildings along the route. Arguments sometimes arose over the "if necessary" clause, but in the main, the entire responsibility was on the contractor. In recent years, that is, since the proliferation of geo- technical consultants, design standards and construction specifications have become much more codified. Much of this has taken the form engineering rationalizations of procedures that contractors have empirically found to work well. This is especially so beginning with the great San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) project. This trend has been continued on subway work now going on (Washington, D.C. and New York) and work just getting underway (Atlanta and Balti- more). "To underpin or not to underpin?" that is the question that has been answered in quite some detail by the New York City Transit Authority. (NYCTA) (15). NEED FOR UNDERPINNING "It is impossible to carry out any excavation, including a tunnel excavation, without causing some subsidence and deformation of ground (21)." The purpose of underpinning is to minimize the damage that may be caused by such subsidence and deformation (5). 113in this context, "Underpinning is the permanent supporting o Ztructure designed to transmit foundation loads to the lower structrt wveis necessary to securely maintain the steuctor bearing derpinned." (23) To the above definition, ¢he NYCTA being ad their following long-standing requirement that the Rajacent structure loads be "permanently ‘transmitted to ..+ aciecpropriate lower soil level that will prevent foundation an appa Pressures from being transmitted to the final rail- road structure." (15) CATEGORIES OF STRUCTURES FOR WHICH UNDERPINNING MAY BE NECESSARY the concept of two categories was formalized by BART and this principal has been followed in most subsequent transit specifications. For example, it is stated: “structure Categorie: a. Category 1 structures are structures for which GBéespinning is necessary and has been designed by the Engineer. 7 b. Category 2 structures are structures which the Contsactor has the option to support temporarily, (Sderpin, or both, or not to support or underpin because they are likely to be affected by this operation. The decision rests solely with the Gontractor who is entirely responsible for the results." (23) the advantages of such an arrangement are several: First, on important buildings where damage might in absolute terme oe eer a conservative plan can be drawn up by the Engineers Pecnnd, in the bidding stage all bidders know where they second, iB nat public project requirements for equal competition stereuigilled. The disadvantages are: First, the owner igps no advantage in an economical price which the Contractor's reePE is underpinning subcontractor's) know-how, experience 5 NGenuity may offer; second, there is less incentive oF possibility of the underpinning being done by an experienced, Eompetent specialist and, consequently, there is nore burden| flaced on the Owner for Close inspection and policing of the Peek, Third, in the event of unforeseen circumstances “CGuiring changes in the Engineer's plans there wit be dere @izficulty in negotiating change orders. By. placing buildings” fa category 2, the Owner can forge ahead in the ways cited saree Recent practice has been to place small, unimportant 2eUlaings in Category 2. To this must be added buildings put tdted beyond some influence line from the bottom of the Sajacent excavation, and also buildings with foundations eign are deep relative to influence lines. (15) | In the which jon of subway contracts in recent years it has generally exerta out that no underpinning of Category 2 buildings has eon done by the Contractors. This is not to say that ) & 4Case I ~ No Underpinning or Maint- enance Required. Influence line joes not intersect building line elow the ground surface. Building Line: Roadway Inflxence Line determine from Cases III to VII) case IT” No Underpinning but Maintenance may be required. In- fluence line intersects building line below ground surface but a~ bove the subgrade of the founda- tion. Case TI - Average Soil Cond- itions. No water (or.below sul grade of excavation). Building line more that 6'-0" Distant. Building Line Dist.>6" wo min. le ‘Underpinning a Influence Line Water Present Case IVA Poor Soil Conditions No Water Present F\Watering technique approved by the u: Inderpinning Criterix, Tis ~ Distance > 6 Pistance -— >6 ft. tr building Line +4 (case me = g | L aig De T = min. Aa walerpinning | | At oe . me {fat Ze et Influence Line 3 ain foe nderpinning a} t Case IY Average Soils Conditions —}— | Sxtnfluence Line & steeper influence line (1:1 in Case Im - 1:1 Case ¥) may be used if the ground-water level outside the excavation is either maintained at pre- construction levels by the use of a water-tight earth retaining structure or effectively controlled by a de- NYCTA Field Design Standards, Ref.(15) Case ¥ - Poor Soil Conditions Water Present Engineer. FIGURE 1